Realism in Movies

Serenity595

Serenity595

Active Member
Should a movie mimic life? How much realism is too much? Where is the line drawn between reality and fiction?

They sound like simple questions, but they are pretty hard to truly figure out. When you watch a movie, do you tend to want them to be realistic or unrealistic? Even if you consider them "unrealistic", do you notice any realistic conventions that are put in there for the audience's pleasure with familiarity?

How about reality TV shows? Do you enjoy them when they are truly "reality" or when they're more entertaining by being scripted?

What about when you watch an action movie? How much should you suspend your belief from what's happening on screen?

Or how about the deal with super hero movie remakes? Have you noticed that they tend to be more "gritty", "dark", and "realistic" in comparison to their predecessors? Do you think this may change in the future?

bg.jpg


Discuss.
 
Serenity595 said:
Should a movie mimic life? How much realism is too much? Where is the line drawn between reality and fiction?

They sound like simple questions, but they are pretty hard to truly figure out. When you watch a movie, do you tend to want them to be realistic or unrealistic? Even if you consider them "unrealistic", do you notice any realistic conventions that are put in there for the audience's pleasure with familiarity?

How about reality TV shows? Do you enjoy them when they are truly "reality" or when they're more entertaining by being scripted?

What about when you watch an action movie? How much should you suspend your belief from what's happening on screen?

Or how about the deal with super hero movie remakes? Have you noticed that they tend to be more "gritty", "dark", and "realistic" in comparison to their predecessors? Do you think this may change in the future?

bg.jpg


Discuss.
Click to expand...

Well, firstly, you must think, what purpose to movies serve? Well, they are like the epics and elegies told and passed down through oral tradition in centuries past; they provide an escape from our real lives and entertain us, showus others go through what we do/hav/are currently etc. As far as "reality" there truly is no "reality" tv, whether or not it is scripted; the cameras are always there, and you'd probably act differently on camera than off.
 
thejackofalltrades said:
Well, firstly, you must think, what purpose to movies serve? Well, they are like the epics and elegies told and passed down through oral tradition in centuries past; they provide an escape from our real lives and entertain us, showus others go through what we do/hav/are currently etc. As far as "reality" there truly is no "reality" tv, whether or not it is scripted; the cameras are always there, and you'd probably act differently on camera than off.
Click to expand...
Question is, what tends to be more entertaining: more realism or less realism, and realism in which aspects? For example, the movie "Avatar" is incredibly unrealistic in the fact that there is a bunch of alien blue people on another planet, but it's still "realistic" in the way that laws govern the universe and how the people are still limited by technology and their own emotional natures. See what I mean?

As for what you said about reality TV, I don't think there's any way to get around that unless we got a real life example of "The Truman Show". But still, some reality shows have better depictions of "reality" than others. Do you think it's better to be more realistic in that sense?
 
This is why you should never major in physics. To the normal person, a hollywood stunt might be plausible, but to a physics major, the stunt is spoiled because you know that it's impossible.
 
DaGamer12345 said:
This is why you should never major in physics. To the normal person, a hollywood stunt might be plausible, but to a physics major, the stunt is spoiled because you know that it's impossible.
Click to expand...

But Engineering majors have the money required to see the movies, after college of-course (Movie piracy does not count).
 
Serenity595 said:
Question is, what tends to be more entertaining: more realism or less realism, and realism in which aspects? For example, the movie "Avatar" is incredibly unrealistic in the fact that there is a bunch of alien blue people on another planet, but it's still "realistic" in the way that laws govern the universe and how the people are still limited by technology and their own emotional natures. See what I mean?

As for what you said about reality TV, I don't think there's any way to get around that unless we got a real life example of "The Truman Show". But still, some reality shows have better depictions of "reality" than others. Do you think it's better to be more realistic in that sense?
Click to expand...

Of course, i can't speak for everyone, only myself. Personally, i prefer movies with less realism, while tv i like a bit of realism, such as in "The andy griffith show". As for Avatar, how does one know it is totallu unrealistic? I'm sure you have heard the multi-verse theory, but i'll explain it anyway. It states there are an inifinite number of universes, with each reality different than our own, along with every concievable outcome and unconcievable outcome as their reality. So, Avatar could well possibly be reality. As for tv, i feel as though if i wanted reality, i'd turn off the tv and go outside for 3 hours.
 
People watch movies and TV for the entertainment and escapism from the real world. Whether someone wants to see a movie that is "more real" or "less real" is more of a preference. All movies have elements of fiction or drama put into them to make them more entertaining than if you were to watch the real thing. It's called suspended reality, and it is a realm which movies love to reside in and that is where their magic comes from.
 
thejackofalltrades said:
Of course, i can't speak for everyone, only myself. Personally, i prefer movies with less realism, while tv i like a bit of realism, such as in "The andy griffith show". As for Avatar, how does one know it is totallu unrealistic? I'm sure you have heard the multi-verse theory, but i'll explain it anyway. It states there are an inifinite number of universes, with each reality different than our own, along with every concievable outcome and unconcievable outcome as their reality. So, Avatar could well possibly be reality. As for tv, i feel as though if i wanted reality, i'd turn off the tv and go outside for 3 hours.
Click to expand...
Well, if we were under the foundation of the multi-universe theory, you could justify anything as realistic. :p What I mean by realistic is things we know as fact. Yeah, I tend to not like reality TV shows much myself because it's too much like real life.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, there is a term called the "well-made play" which means that a story is constructed so well in complex ways - that it is so tightly "knit" - that it comes off as being unrealistic in a sense because life isn't perfectly structured. An example of a convention in a well-made play is the concept of foreshadowing as shown in this quote by Anton Chekhov: "If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired..."

I like when movies are well structured. But when things fall into place just right the movie itself seems off.
 
This is sort of like graphics and video games, if the game play is compelling enough you wont even notice the graphics. If a movie has compelling characters, plot, etc. that are developed and we care about then we wont care too much about realism as long as it doesn't require too much suspension of disbelief. It's a fine line to be honest, I'll elaborate more when I get time.

If you have time
and then watch the reviews for episode I and II.

DaGamer12345 said:
This is why you should never major in physics. To the normal person, a hollywood stunt might be plausible, but to a physics major, the stunt is spoiled because you know that it's impossible.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of the imdb top review for the 3rd transformers movie, here's an excerpt:

5 / 10.

Physics. Oh god, the physics. Dear Michael Bay, please realize the following: a) Moon sand is a highly corrosive and metal-unfriendly substance. Any kind of moving metalpart coming in that much contact with it would self destruct by the time it made 3 steps. b) One plane was enough to collapse a Twin Tower into dust. A seventy million billion ton robot shooting and crashing into a building will not make it "tilt slightly" and when that building falls, it will not get stuck between two others like a bridge, ever, regardless what it's made of, especially if that same robot is still crawling through it and destroying chunks. c) When stuff explodes near people, people tend to be stunned, burned and / or get shrapnel shot into their spines. They do not sit idly by and contemplate the situation. So if a grenade explodes in an office cubicle next to the one where the protagonist is standing, he will most probably DIE. d) You cannot grab a SHARP, MAD, DANGEROUS robot by the neck and keep it in control. You will LOSE YOUR FINGERS. e) Do you have any idea how much extra it costs to send an extra kilogram into space in a shuttle? Now imagine how much fuel and money you would need to send 10 million-ton robots into space with a regular human space shuttle launcher. f) When people fly through glass, they ALWAYS get cut. When they fly through 10 panes of glass, they DIE. When they fly through 20, they DON'T, because they got impaled on the 12th or 13th.
 
Personally, I like my action movies to be realistic. It makes me respect the director for putting in the effort and research to make things believable. Do you guys know of any realistic action movies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top