Does a lack of realism bother you in movies?

Maybe I'm expecting too much, but I like at least a measured dose of authenticity and realism from movies. I know many people say that that would make many movies less fun and entertaining. I disagree in the sense that I would at like to see at least some movies to be a reflection of life and give you an idea that it might as well be real, especially from genres that are notorious for having many unrealistic and unauthentic elements. It at the very least would show that a much stronger effort went into making the movie and it would likely seem a lot more original too.

For instance, many of you might know the website Intuitor (http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/). I love how they skillfully take movies apart not only in terms of the unrealistic scientific factors and cliches (or complete lack thereof), but also factors where logic cannot explain what happens half the time. It really puts many things into perspective that you don't even notice or think about half the time in movies. Sure, like I said, I know many movies are supposed to be approached with the suspension of disbelief mentality, but to me that's just a cheap way to lose yourself in an alternate reality that is equally as cheap. Hey, I think with all the movie making technology and the massive budgets many mainstream films get, I think they can at least make a more conscious effort to be more authentic and realistic. Not that I think they would, as they might think it would lead to more effort and less money in the end. That said, maybe what I'm looking for is more in the line of independent films.

But that's just my two cents. What do you all think?

Unrealistic motivation and actions bother me more...

no it doesn't, because films are supposed to be an alternate reality of sorts, something you will never have the experience to live but can witness, through movies.

of course, realistic movies, when done well and portray with much accuracy real life, such as Precious, which, with accuracy, possibly even more so than the book, portrayed the life of a young woman

Some of my favorite films are very surreal, though I do like it to have some sort of grounded of realism...Jazz_Fan

I don't mind surrealism, especially if one of the central points or themes of the given movie is the fact that it is surreal. I'm more talking about movies that seem to disguise themselves as realistic, but just end up being ridiculous in how unrealistic they end up being.

The last time I can remember being bothered by something like this was the ending of Zombieland. How in the world did those girls get on that carnival ride, and then start it up whilst strapped in? It didn't ruin the movie... But it did bother me.

It depends on the story, if it's a story which is based on real life or real events then I feel it needs to be as realistic as possible. However if your watching something like which isn't based on those two factors then I couldn't care less.

[QUOTE="Jazz_Fan"]Some of my favorite films are very surreal, though I do like it to have some sort of grounded of realism...jetpower3

I don't mind surrealism, especially if one of the central points or themes of the given movie is the fact that it is surreal. I'm more talking about movies that seem to disguise themselves as realistic, but just end up being ridiculous in how unrealistic they end up being.

Unless the movie is meant to be nonfiction...No. Movies are fiction, so they have the liberty to be unrealistic, despite how realistic they are making it seem.spazzx625

Hey, I didn't say it was all bad. Much of the best fiction would be impossible in any practical sense in RL anyway. Poetic license and romanticism are both very powerful tools, perhaps ones that I believe in way too much. All I am saying on behalf of my opinions is that certain movies should just try that extra push to add on more realism to the whole product. I don't see how it has to be done at the expense of the style and overall pacing of the movie. It may just even open up a few doors in terms of how any given genre or mix of genre is constructed.

It doesn't bother me unless it is a documentary or something. I go to the movies to be entertained so it doesn't matter to me if Bruce Willis just drove a car off a ramp into a helicopter or someone flipped their car over in mid air next to a crane hook to get the bomb off the bottom.

I can usually suspend my disbelief in movies. However, it's nice when the film/writers make some effort to explain why fantasy things happen. Take for instance star wars or star trek - they at least explain some of the faster than light travel, etc.

I can usually suspend my disbelief in movies. However, it's nice when the film/writers make some effort to explain why fantasy things happen. Take for instance star wars or star trek - they at least explain some of the faster than light travel, etc.

sonicare

I can stand things like Star Wars or Star Trek. Taken together, they are some of the most unrealistic mainstream movies out there that are still generally well made. But I can stand that, not just because both universes are very in depth and attempt to explain so much of their respective universes behind the scenes, but because they are purely fantasy science fiction. I see them more similar to that of movies like The Lord of the Rings than I do to movies like 2001. I see that as something different than a movie that seems realistic but does things that are unrealistic or illogical just because "it looks cool".

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

I can usually suspend my disbelief in movies. However, it's nice when the film/writers make some effort to explain why fantasy things happen. Take for instance star wars or star trek - they at least explain some of the faster than light travel, etc.

I can stand things like Star Wars or Star Trek. Taken together, they are some of the most unrealistic mainstream movies out there that are still generally well made. But I can stand that, not just because both universes are very in depth and attempt to explain so much of their respective universes behind the scenes, but because they are purely fantasy science fiction. I see them more similar to that of movies like The Lord of the Rings than I do to movies like 2001. I see that as something different than a movie that seems realistic but does things that are unrealistic or illogical just because "it looks cool".

Nope i don't mind it at all.

I like structure. However, realism isn't necessary.. as movies are often works of fiction and in fiction you're allowed to make your own physics and rules in the world you create. It's called imagination. And if you can't appreciate that in a movie.. then I'm not sure why you'd even watch movies to begin with... Unless you' like boring and predictable things.

I don't mind it at all, after all is it mostly imagination that fuels the movie.

It really depends on what the film is aiming for. One shouldn't be bothered by something in a film like Aliens if something that's not physically occurs. Afterall, it's a film. Besides, like Jazz_Fan said before, there are tons of films that are realistic that way. It sounds like you're looking for it in a place where you'll mostly see unrealistic things occur.

I like it when someone is shot and there's a realistic flow of blood.. I hate it when someone is stabbed through the gut and there's no blood on the sword. *cough* Yes Narnia, I'm looking at you. th3warr1or

The latest movie that ticked me off with it's complete lack of realism was Paranormal Activity. Those people were DUMBER THAN HELL. The guy's fiance gets pulled out of bed and dragged down the hall by some unknown force, and they didn't leave the house spend the night in a church for safety or anything? WTF is wrong with them?

no, it's a movie, it's not supposed to be real.

no, it's a movie, it's not supposed to be real.

needled24-7

no, it's a movie, it's not supposed to be real.

needled24-7

It's a called suspension of disbelief. We all know it's not real, it's entertainment. But if something happens in a movie that's basically impossible, that kills the experience.

No, the whole point of movies is to be an escape from reality. As long as it's entertaining I don't care.

If realism is gravity then film flies, so no a lack of realism does not bother me in film.

Well maybe in documentaries...

If movies were like real life, they'd be boring.

If movies were like real life, they'd be boring.

metroidfood

YES..i hate movies that have improbable outcomes and such..

I like structure. However, realism isn't necessary.. as movies are often works of fiction and in fiction you're allowed to make your own physics and rules in the world you create. It's called imagination. And if you can't appreciate that in a movie.. then I'm not sure why you'd even watch movies to begin with... Unless you' like boring and predictable things.

EMOEVOLUTION

There's a difference between intentional fantasy and fantasy that is a byproduct of its failure to bring any sort of realism or consistency to the table. I didn't say all movies had to be entirely realistic. I'm just looking for what sites like Intuitor want out of movies: some decency in terms of how it presents factors like science, logic, and progression. Bad physics for instance can lead to movie cliches, which can lead to bad and sloppy film making. And why do realistic films have to be "boring and predictable" anyway? It's not even life in general is like that all the time, and realism with some style and flash of its own would at the very least be a very good start.

This also does not refer to science in movies specifically, but also how plausible a particular plot is. If there are certain rules within that plot, causes and effect, and they progress in ways that are logical and abiding by those rules in a particular universe, then I would be fine with that. Nothing bothers me more if it is apparent to me that the outcome or plot of a particular movie doesn't make any sense or have any consistency even in its own universe. I feel there's just too many movies like that.

Only in the movies where the hero in no way should be getting up from the beating he sustain. (I.E. Training Day when Denzel (Alonzo) beat the living crap out of Hawke (Jake). Not only did he get beat up, he got whipped by a steel chair, fell from a 2 story building, and still manage to have the energy to beat the crap out of Denzel and take the money back....)

Yeah, if the movie claims to be realistic and well, it isn't. IT bothers me to a certain extent. If it's a movie like...Rambo or something then realism isn't really an issue :P

depends.

So long as its not "hey look random explosions with no source", ala transformers I am usually good.

No.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QinQAhMxHtg That explains my point well enough methinks. >_>

For the most part I think it is stupid to expect total realism for movies. They are meant to entertain. Some movies like Shoot em up would suck if they were realistic. Some movies are meant to be fun. Realism is not important unless it is really important I could do without it most of the time.

For the most part I think it is stupid to expect total realism for movies. They are meant to entertain. Some movies like Shoot em up would suck if they were realistic. Some movies are meant to be fun. Realism is not important unless it is really important I could do without it most of the time.

Film-Guy

Notice I didn't say that total realism should be the goal for all movies. What I'm really singling out here, at least to me, is the idea that some movies have such stupid, illogical, implausible, and simply impossible points in them that is enough to ruin the movie going experience and completely penetrate the veil of suspension of disbelief. All I wanted to know is if that bothered anyone, and if some measured (not total) dose of authenticity and realism should be sought in those cases.

[QUOTE="Film-Guy"]

For the most part I think it is stupid to expect total realism for movies. They are meant to entertain. Some movies like Shoot em up would suck if they were realistic. Some movies are meant to be fun. Realism is not important unless it is really important I could do without it most of the time.

jetpower3

Notice I didn't say that total realism should be the goal for all movies. What I'm really singling out here, at least to me, is the idea that some movies have such stupid, illogical, implausible, and simply impossible points in them that is enough to ruin the movie going experience and completely penetrate the veil of suspension of disbelief. All I wanted to know is if that bothered anyone, and if some measured (not total) dose of authenticity and realism should be sought in those cases.

Yeah sometimes a lack of realism can bother me, but only if it is very apparent an takes away from the plot. People have told me that The Hurt locker isn't very realistic, but to me it isn't noticeable enough to take away from the film. However in some cases a complete lack of logic like the end of the film High Tension can ruin a film. However that was more a stupid plot than realism.

Maybe I'm expecting too much, but I like at least a measured dose of authenticity and realism from movies. I know many people say that that would make many movies less fun and entertaining. I disagree in the sense that I would at like to see at least some movies to be a reflection of life and give you an idea that it might as well be real, especially from genres that are notorious for having many unrealistic and unauthentic elements. It at the very least would show that a much stronger effort went into making the movie and it would likely seem a lot more original too.

For instance, many of you might know the website Intuitor (http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/). I love how they skillfully take movies apart not only in terms of the unrealistic scientific factors and cliches (or complete lack thereof), but also factors where logic cannot explain what happens half the time. It really puts many things into perspective that you don't even notice or think about half the time in movies. Sure, like I said, I know many movies are supposed to be approached with the suspension of disbelief mentality, but to me that's just a cheap way to lose yourself in an alternate reality that is equally as cheap. Hey, I think with all the movie making technology and the massive budgets many mainstream films get, I think they can at least make a more conscious effort to be more authentic and realistic. Not that I think they would, as they might think it would lead to more effort and less money in the end. That said, maybe what I'm looking for is more in the line of independent films.

But that's just my two cents. What do you all think?

jetpower3

Depends on the movie. If it's a movie that tries to paint itself as being more realistic, then a lack of realism is going to hurt the movie more than a movie that just gave up all pretense of being remotely realistic.

For example, it's like talking about Armageddon vs Flash Gordon. Armageddon pretended to be based in realism, but Flash Gordon just had the balls to be stupid-as-hell and entertaining as a result.

Take a look at the ratings that that website gives. They judge comic book/superhero movies to pretty much be "un-rateable" since they take place in a fantasy universe in which the laws of physics obviously don't apply. That's giving those movies the benefit of the doubt. They may be unrealistic as hell, but that's not necessarily a bad point since the movies presented themselves as sort of ridiculous and unrealistic from the start. You run with it and enjoy the movie, or you don't. But the lack of realism is not a big issue, since those movies never tried to present themselves as being remotely realistic in the first place.

On the contrary, when a movie places itself in a sort of "realistic" universe and then dumb **** happens, that absolutely may bother me. Though that depends on how much of the stupid and unrealistic stuff was critical to the plot, vs stupid and unrealistic stuff that turns out to be a minor detail that doesn't really affect the plot significantly.

Basically all I can say is that sometimes it bothers me, sometimes it doesn't. I just have to judge this stuff on a case-by-case basis.