Why must reality go out the window in movies unnecessarily?

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

A man dressed up like a giant bat fighting crime or Uma Thurman taking out 88 people with a sword are still more grounded in reality than the women Woody Allen gets in his films.

you'd be surprised what money can get you

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

A man dressed up like a giant bat fighting crime or Uma Thurman taking out 88 people with a sword are still more grounded in reality than the women Woody Allen gets in his films.

Because it's so unrealistic that a weird old guy has his ways of getting attractive women.

[Kaiju]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

A man dressed up like a giant bat fighting crime or Uma Thurman taking out 88 people with a sword are still more grounded in reality than the women Woody Allen gets in his films.

Pretty much. Nobody talks that witty in real life.

...Or do they?

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by Frostmeister

I know 'it's just a movie', but c'mon.
Was watching Iron man the other day to prep for Iron Man 3. Iron man falls from thousands of feet, the antagonist too, and every one walks away? Stark gets splattered to a wall, and nothing. Also he struggles to reach his original fake heart and can barely lift it, then when he gets it, he smashes the case with all his strength.

I don't really understand this...nothing else in that film is realistic, why would this part be an issue over all the rest?

I don't think it makes sense to complain about a fantasy/sci-fi/action film lacking reality...if they weren't lacking in it, they wouldn't be a fantasy/sci-fi/action film

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

I don't really understand this...nothing else in that film is realistic, why would this part be an issue over all the rest?

I don't think it makes sense to complain about a fantasy/sci-fi/action film lacking reality...if they weren't lacking in it, they wouldn't be a fantasy/sci-fi/action film

I Think you're dead on. Let's narrow it down a bit, please. The conversation is way too generalized. The OP was specifically talking about Superhero films (yes, Die Hard 5 counts as one).

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I Think you're dead on. Let's narrow it down a bit, please. The conversation is way too generalized. The OP was specifically talking about Superhero films (yes, Die Hard 5 counts as one).

If that's the case, he's probably one of the only people looking for a completely realistic film about a superhero..

Although, I wouldn't mind seeing one, myself. I can't think of any.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Frostmeister

I know 'it's just a movie', but c'mon.
Was watching Iron man the other day to prep for Iron Man 3. Iron man falls from thousands of feet, the antagonist too, and every one walks away? Stark gets splattered to a wall, and nothing. Also he struggles to reach his original fake heart and can barely lift it, then when he gets it, he smashes the case with all his strength.

Why does the Hulk still have pants after he changes? So you can't see his Jolly Green Junk. Sometimes the answers are as simple as that and that's fine.

Originally Posted by Frostmeister

Also watched die Hard 4 the other day. is John McClain a Super hero now. How do you get the crap beat out of you and come back full strength?
Is it really necessary to have scenes like this? I know you have to suspend reality sometimes, but when it is that blatant, it really takes away from the movie. Just seems unnecessary to me

Your thoughts?

Here's the problem with the way the Die Hard movies progressed.

There's nothing inherently wrong with effectively super-human action heroes. The poet/professor who's a retired black-ops special forces operative might be a silly character but it's not a deal breaker. Ridiculous action sequences and unrealistically rugged, durable heroes are genre staples. And a lot of times they work very well.

The problem here is that 99% of the appeal of Die Hard was that John McClane wasn't that kind of action hero. Die Hard's hook was that the hero was a more or less regular guy stepping up in extreme circumstances.

The later Die Hard movies don't suck because unrealistic action movies all suck, they sucked because they refused to dance with the girl what brung 'em.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

If that's the case, he's probably one of the only people looking for a completely realistic film about a superhero..

Although, I wouldn't mind seeing one, myself. I can't think of any.

Chronicle. Sort of.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I Think you're dead on. Let's narrow it down a bit, please. The conversation is way too generalized. The OP was specifically talking about Superhero films (yes, Die Hard 5 counts as one).

Well, they are SUPER HERO films, which generally throw reality out the window when you have guys who turn into giant green monsters, a serum that makes gives someone superhuman abilities, a man creates a device to help keep him alive that is lodged in his chest, a boy from another planet gets powers because of our yellow son, a guy gets his skeleton graphed with a crazy indestructible material, etc, etc. The list goes on and on. I think you need suspension of disbelief at all times in movies like that. I'm not saying they shouldn't be logical, but they aren't exactly going for realism.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

So you missed the opening where a defense contractor is in the Middle East during some military strife and suffers a life-threatening injury? Because that's fairly realistic these days and part of the reason the movie didn't open with a scene set in Vietnam instead. Because we're meant to relate it to our reality.

I get what you mean, but as a whole, Iron Man isn't a realistic film. We're not talking badly about these films, just claiming that we wouldn't have an Iron Man in real life. No real life Iron Man = not realistic

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

Buy it establishes its relationship to our reality and then goes in that "alternative" direction. Even so, I don't recall mention being made of some sort of padding or material that's so damage-resistant and whatever that the armor and man can survive a fall from incredible heights without even a concussion or a few broken bones. Maybe they mention it but I don't think so. And so, by building the armor and going off in its own direction, that's fine. It establishes that for us reasonably early on. But then to throw these wrenches in later with no explanation? That's not only then breaking from our reality but also the film's which heretofore didn't establish this possibility as the norm or realistic for this world (in comparison to ours) and how/why. And that's "unnecessarily unrealistic" because how are we meant to invest in the life and death stakes if the stakes aren't clear?

I'm not saying it's a bad film or bad writing. I quite enjoyed it. But I can see where the issue lies for me and, from what they said, I'm assuming the OP.

there has to be SOME leeway or you can't have a movie at all. that's like saying EVERY ACTION MOVIE ever made is flawed, because they don't break their hands on punches and fights don't last 3-5 blows (the actual amount of punches thrown in fist fight before someone is down).

[octagon]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

But it establishes its relationship to our reality and then goes in that "alternative" direction. Even so, I don't recall mention being made of some sort of padding or material that's so damage-resistant and whatever that the armor and man can survive a fall from incredible heights without even a concussion or a few broken bones (or mostly-trashed" armor/suit). Maybe they mention or allude to it but I don't think so.

To be fair the suit did survive a collision with an F-22 that took one of the Raptor's wings off.

They set their particular reality bar pretty early on, I would say.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

Alright then. That's my oversight if that occurred (haven't seen it in awhile). But if it was glossed over or the like as "exciting" maybe but no big deal (or didn't seem worthy of acknowledging how close of a call it was and why he still survived)...I can still understand the OP's frustration.

Otherwise - if it was made clear how important that moment was to establishing the suit's durability and level of protection in relation to Stark, I'll concede that example but not the general point.

Iron Man vs F-22 Raptors - YouTube

[Britnasty]

I agree with a lot of people that film is basically an escape from reality and there is stuff you don't want to see because it brings it back to reality.

Though I will admit I was watching Taken 2 the other day and got so frustrated when Maggie Grace was driving the stolen Taxi and they literally hit 4 walls, 12 cars and then got to the embassy and barely had a dent on it. I was like WTF THAT'S NOT EVEN A SMIDGE REALISTIC.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by Britnasty

Though I will admit I was watching Taken 2 the other day and got so frustrated when Maggie Smith was driving the stolen Taxi and they literally hit 4 walls, 12 cars and then got to the embassy and barely had a dent on it.

That's something I'd watch.

[Frostmeister]

This is the OP back to explain further about my post.

I dont mean only super hero films. Obviosly Aliens, Mutant Spiders (and turtles), etc are fantasy. And Iron man, like batman, does not have any "super powers", just lots of money and fancy gadgetry (and in batman's case, training). My point is....

If they are going to have someone fall 20,000 feet and survive, at least give us a last second parachute, or turbo thrusters, or something to break the fall.

If the main character is an action hero, let him be strong with a high tollerance for pain, but keep him human! If he gets the crap beat out of him, let him battle back with broken bones and wit. I hate seeing the hero get 20 consecutive punches to the face, spitting blood, and struggling to stand, then finish the other guy off with one punch.

Also this is a let down. When the audience is at the edge of their seat wondering how our protagonist is going to get out of this, it is an insult to the viewers when they survive in a totally illogical manner. Example: How are Indy, Short round and Whiney ***** going to survive free falling from a plane...Oh they will use a rubber raft, but still fall on a mostly flat surface before going down hill. If anything they should have had the raft land on a portion of the mountain with a steep slope (not that this would be realistic either, but somewhat more believable than a flat out impact with the ground.)

It reminds me of in the Naked Gun, when Nordburg gets shot 30+ time and "luckily it missed every vital organ".

Yes movies are movies, and not always meant to follow reality 100%, and I can turn off my brain for 2 hours, just a pet peeve of mine.

[James78]

It sounds like you would enjoy some Dogme films. Here is their manifesto:

The goal of the Dogme collective is to purify filmmaking by refusing expensive and spectacular special effects, post-production modifications and other technical gimmicks. The filmmakers concentrate on the story and the actors' performances. They believe this approach may better engage the audience, as they are not alienated or distracted by overproduction. To this end, Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg produced ten rules to which any Dogme film must conform. These rules, referred to as the "Vow of Chastity," are as follows:

Filming must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in. If a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found.

The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. Music must not be used unless it occurs within the scene being filmed, i.e., diegetic.

The camera must be a hand-held camera. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. The film must not take place where the camera is standing; filming must take place where the action takes place.

The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not acceptable (if there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera).

Optical work and filters are forbidden.

The film must not contain superficial action (murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)

Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden (that is to say that the film takes place here and now).

Genre movies are not acceptable.

The film format must be Academy 35 mm.

The director must not be credited.

[spanky87]

Anyone know that Hitchcock quote about movie reality?

[Britnasty]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

That's something I'd watch.

That's what I get for watching Quartet while on the forum.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by spanky87

Anyone know that Hitchcock quote about movie reality?

IMO Hitchcock's best quote was - perhaps unsurprisingly - about suspense:

Alfred Hitchcock On Mastering Cinematic Tension - YouTube

But I know that doesn't answer your question, sorry