Do you prefer Realism?

[The Sum of Awe]

I have noticed how modern day movies have been remade to have some sense of realism, although while obviously not being 100% accurate, it seems to me that they are a lot more scientific than their past premise. Examples would include: Friday the 13th, Batman, Superman, and by the looks of it Robocop will be introducing realism as a feat.

What do you think? Is realism necessary to get along with the movies?

 

[Me Myself]

Its not necessary.

I can añpreciate different degrees of realism be enjoyable in different movies.

I certainly dont want James Bond's suit to be realistically untiddy after an action scene

 

[Boyd]

Personally, I think realism in many movies destroys the experience. I've been a fan of comics for many years. Marvel has been some of my favorite, and their movies, at least for me, are much more enjoyable than those from DC. I believe this is because DC is working too much with realism. Again, that's just my opinion.

 

[nilsz]

Neglecting realism gives writers a lot of freedom, but if the story is set apart from anything the audience can relate to, it tends to feel less meaningful to them.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I prefer stories which are "reality, unless noted".

 

[Riverwolf]

Movies nowadays are no more "real" than they've ever been. They've just expanded their vocabulary of technical terms to completely misuse and sound semi-believable to those not familiar with them. (Skyfall, I'm lookin' at you.)

The sonar-vision-thingy from Dark Knight may be pretty cool, but it's not any more realistic than Bat-Shark-Repellant. (Even if it's theoretically possible, just like the shark repellent, if it's anything like in the movie, it's completely useless in real-world situations.)

HOWEVER, when you have excellent writing and excellent performances, even the most ludicrous premises sound absolutely believable. Seriously, if you think that's a new thing, go watch The Haunting from 1963. A haunted house story with excellent writing and excellent performances.

 

[Uberpod]

It really depends on the movie. If the movie is a drama set in our culture, realism is a must. I actually enjoy an unrealistic movie more. I seek an escape afeterall. In a fantasy or science fiction, internal consistency tales place of realism. Set the rules and stay within them.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Movies nowadays are no more "real" than they've ever been. They've just expanded their vocabulary of technical terms to completely misuse and sound semi-believable to those not familiar with them. (Skyfall, I'm lookin' at you.)

The sonar-vision-thingy from Dark Knight may be pretty cool, but it's not any more realistic than Bat-Shark-Repellant. (Even if it's theoretically possible, just like the shark repellent, if it's anything like in the movie, it's completely useless in real-world situations.)

HOWEVER, when you have excellent writing and excellent performances, even the most ludicrous premises sound absolutely believable. Seriously, if you think that's a new thing, go watch The Haunting from 1963. A haunted house story with excellent writing and excellent performances.

Maybe I stated it wrong. By becoming more realistic, I basically meant that it was becoming more in detail with how the things work - e.g. such as how they explain how the cape lets him fall at his own speed in the Dark Knight series.

 

[Riverwolf]

Maybe I stated it wrong. By becoming more realistic, I basically meant that it was becoming more in detail with how the things work - e.g. such as how they explain how the cape lets him fall at his own speed in the Dark Knight series.

Not sure I'd call that "more realistic".

I think I see what you're trying to say though: especially in the realm of superhero movies, they've been trying to address real-world issues lately, as well as not holding back what the villains would do to achieve their goals (things that, by the way, the animated DCU has been doing since the early 90s, and the comics have been doing since the Bronze Age). You'll NEVER see Adam West fighting a Joker who

Spoiler: The Killing Joke (READ THAT IF YOU HAVEN'T)

shoots a teenage girl in the stomach, forever paralyzing her from the waste down, then takes naked pictures of her just for the sake of tormenting her father.

But I'd say that this sort of trend has been in movies since... well, since movies first came about. I think the difference is that it's now showing up in the summer blockbuster rather than being relegated to indie films or dramas.

 

[satyaroop]

and regarding martial art movies

I think it was a bessing in disguise when special-effects capabilities were limited or didn't exist
bruce lee's movies for example, the action is believable
in most modern martial art movies, one kick on your opponent makes him flip 2- 3 times in mid-air before he lands on the floor

 

[Riverwolf]

and regarding martial art movies

I think it was a bessing in disguise when special-effects capabilities were limited or didn't exist
bruce lee's movies for example, the action is believable
in most modern martial art movies, one kick on your opponent makes him flip 2- 3 times in mid-air before he lands on the floor

I love wire-fu! ^_^ Sure, it's not even remotely realistic, but it's sure gorgeous to look at. (...that is, when it's actually supposed to be wire-fu, and not Matrix-fu. Then it just looks AWESOME! :jam

But, yeah, nobody can beat the Dragon.

 

[Dingbat]

Ugh hardly especially when it comes to Digital Triage, digital snooping, and digital forensics. The very basics they get wrong with movies is absurd and shows they haven't a clue what they are talking about. Though the Matrix series did have occasionally correct commands being used especially by Trinity when looking for security exploits via Linux.

 

[Revoltingest]

Realism is just one of the tools one might use in movies.
If it helps tell a story, then great.
Consider:
- How much fun would Groundhog Day be if Bill died the first time & didn't wake up again to Cher's droning on the radio?
- The movie gravity would've been better if she wore NASA correct underwear (longies & a diaper) in her space suit instead of her ridiculously impractical (but stylish) dainties.

 

[Willamena]

Do you prefer realism?

No. I prefer a good story, any day.

 

[Dingbat]

Realism is just one of the tools one might use in movies.
If it helps tell a story, then great.
But how much fun would Groundhog Day be if Bill died the first time & didn't wake up again to Cher's droning?

It would definitely lack that Nietzschean eternal recurrence that is for sure. Though it would protect us from Cher...hmmm.

 

[Revoltingest]

It would definitely lack that Nietzschean eternal recurrence that is for sure. Though it would protect us from Cher...hmmm.

Sometimes Cher is useful. Bill would perish every day, but then he'd be abruptly
thrust back into his life by that jarring monotonous blaring from the clock radio.
An ugly truth should be portrayed as ugly.

 

[Iti oj]

Movies nowadays are no more "real" than they've ever been. They've just expanded their vocabulary of technical terms to completely misuse and sound semi-believable to those not familiar with them. (Skyfall, I'm lookin' at you.)

The sonar-vision-thingy from Dark Knight may be pretty cool, but it's not any more realistic than Bat-Shark-Repellant. (Even if it's theoretically possible, just like the shark repellent, if it's anything like in the movie, it's completely useless in real-world situations.)

HOWEVER, when you have excellent writing and excellent performances, even the most ludicrous premises sound absolutely believable. Seriously, if you think that's a new thing, go watch The Haunting from 1963. A haunted house story with excellent writing and excellent performances.

I <3 that is one of my favorite movies!

 

[Penumbra]

I have noticed how modern day movies have been remade to have some sense of realism, although while obviously not being 100% accurate, it seems to me that they are a lot more scientific than their past premise. Examples would include: Friday the 13th, Batman, Superman, and by the looks of it Robocop will be introducing realism as a feat.

What do you think? Is realism necessary to get along with the movies?

I care less about realism than I do about internal consistency. And I like gritty stuff over campy stuff, so I like the newer, supposedly "realistic" direction of things.

If the movie tells me that Clark Kent is a Kryptonian that, under the influence of a yellow sun, is capable of flying and destroying skyscrapers, then I'll accept that. But since the rest of the Earth is supposed to be normal, then I want to see some realistic attempts about how humanity responds to something like that, how he tries to find his place, how him and Lois interact with each other, and the kind of collateral damage that would occur from two people of his power level fighting each other, a believable plot, and so forth.

I don't want to see something this stupid in any of his movies:

[youtube]XiN0Lwvi7CA[/youtube]
Throwing the S! In Superman 2, Superman throws his 'S' Emblem!? - YouTube

If the movie tells me that Batman has a human body like everyone else, then I want the writers to not veer too far away from the laws of physics. Straying from physics is okay to an extent, but I like the tank rather than the car (it makes a bit more sense), I like the fact that Batman isn't portrayed as a genius and instead gets most of his tech fully made by his company (he simply wouldn't have time to build that stuff and fight crime), and so forth.

If James Bond is human, then if he gets beat up and thrown through a window, then I want him to look like he got beat up and thrown through a window. I like the newer Bond movies, not because they are realistic, but because they at least get him bloody and dirty and he messes things up more often and has some dark emotional moments.

If they make a Wonder Woman movie or bring her into a Justice League movie, I'll accept that she's the daughter of Zeus and Hippolyta and therefore a demigod Amazon with nearly the physical stats of Superman, but it would be nice to see a more relevant outfit at least.

I like the comic book genre so I accept things that won't happen. Like, Tony Stark in the Iron Man movie is a genius, which is okay, but then he builds an enormously complex Iron Man suit, plus a ridiculously complex automated system of putting it on himself, with the precision of the most advanced facilities on Earth, mostly just by himself. Jarvis helps too. Even for a genius, and even if I accept that an Iron Man suit that works like that is somehow possible, the amount of design and construction and testing for that level of engineering would be unbelievable, not something you can whip together in a few months. Whatever, I'll go with it for the movie though.

 

[Penumbra]

Movies nowadays are no more "real" than they've ever been. They've just expanded their vocabulary of technical terms to completely misuse and sound semi-believable to those not familiar with them. (Skyfall, I'm lookin' at you.)

The sonar-vision-thingy from Dark Knight may be pretty cool, but it's not any more realistic than Bat-Shark-Repellant. (Even if it's theoretically possible, just like the shark repellent, if it's anything like in the movie, it's completely useless in real-world situations.)

HOWEVER, when you have excellent writing and excellent performances, even the most ludicrous premises sound absolutely believable. Seriously, if you think that's a new thing, go watch The Haunting from 1963. A haunted house story with excellent writing and excellent performances.

I think Skyfall and Dark Knight are not realistic, but are more realistic than earlier Bond movies and earlier Batman movies. They add little touches, at least.

For Bond, fight scenes are grittier, he physically looks intimidating, his gadgets are reduced in complexity, and he makes more mistakes in general. But, he still somehow unrealistically avoids machine gun fire and stuff like that.

For Batman, instead of portraying him as a world class genius that builds or modifies most of his own tech, and who is also a world class martial artist, detective, and strategist, that spends time building flying machines and advanced computers while working with the Justice League part time doing things like fighting Darkseid, going out at night in Gotham to use his tech and fight crime, and still managing to find time to date a woman and participate in his company once in a while, they dropped some of that. Nolan's Batman was a world class martial artist and ninja but wasn't a genius engineer, detective, or tactician, wasn't associated with any other superheroes, doesn't fight aliens on other worlds, and uses almost all pre-made tech from his company that has gone through billions of dollars of R&D through Lucius Fox to fight crime at night. A doctor comments on how badly he has messed up his cartilage, and it's clear his body is in general kind of ruined from so many injuries that went through his armor. But they still do stupid stuff like send three thousand police officers to get stuck underground, and realistically if a guy like Batman fought against Swat Teams and countless criminals, he'd get killed at some point, even if each encounter is portrayed in a way to be technically survivable, and they would have been able to trace the location of a tank or helicopter after a police chase eventually.

That's part of the reason they're re-casting him for the Superman sequel. Nolan's Batman was de-powered and isn't relevant on a global scale. If they're going to have Batman be relevant in Superman's world then they're going to have to amp him up so that he's more like the comics version of himself with stupid amounts of technology, planning, intellect, and fighting skill.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think Skyfall and Dark Knight are not realistic, but are more realistic than earlier Bond movies and earlier Batman movies. They add little touches, at least.

For Bond, fight scenes are grittier, he physically looks intimidating, his gadgets are reduced in complexity, and he makes more mistakes in general. But, he still somehow unrealistically avoids machine gun fire and stuff like that.

I directly called out Skyfall for depicting computer science HORRIBLY, despite being an otherwise good movie and great tribute to the series as a whole.

For Batman, instead of portraying him as a world class genius that builds or modifies most of his own tech, and who is also a world class martial artist, detective, and strategist, that spends time building flying machines and advanced computers while working with the Justice League part time doing things like fighting Darkseid, going out at night in Gotham to use his tech and fight crime, and still managing to find time to date a woman and participate in his company once in a while, they dropped some of that. Nolan's Batman was a world class martial artist and ninja but wasn't a genius engineer, detective, or tactician, wasn't associated with any other superheroes, doesn't fight aliens on other worlds, and uses almost all pre-made tech from his company that has gone through billions of dollars of R&D through Lucius Fox to fight crime at night. A doctor comments on how badly he has messed up his cartilage, and it's clear his body is in general kind of ruined from so many injuries that went through his armor. But they still do stupid stuff like send three thousand police officers to get stuck underground, and realistically if a guy like Batman fought against Swat Teams and countless criminals, he'd get killed at some point, even if each encounter is portrayed in a way to be technically survivable, and they would have been able to trace the location of a tank or helicopter after a police chase eventually.

That's part of the reason they're re-casting him for the Superman sequel. Nolan's Batman was de-powered and isn't relevant on a global scale. If they're going to have Batman be relevant in Superman's world then they're going to have to amp him up so that he's more like the comics version of himself with stupid amounts of technology, planning, intellect, and fighting skill.

To each their own. I do prefer the DCAU Batman, mostly because that kind of gritty camp (for lack of a better word) provides serious stories that don't treat kids like idiots and can generate discussions as well as the Nolan films, and also serve as great escapism. (Plus they actually pronounce Ra's Al-Ghul properly! IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE "REYSH" NOT RAZ! RAZ IS THE MAIN CHARACTER IN PSYCHONAUTS!!!)

Plus, they still manage to talk about pretty adult subjects. "You know... my father used to beat me pretty hard. ... Pops tended to favor the grape, you see." lies the Joker in his """""therapy"""""" with Harleen Quinzel.