NationStates Jolt Archive


Realism in film.

The Parkus Empire
18-01-2009, 21:32
What is the threshold of your willful suspension of disbelief? Does over-the-top acting irk you? Are you not bothered by tampering with history? Was there any time you were watching a film when your suspension suddenly broke?

Here are some films that--words fail me:

My Darling Clementine: American gunfighters, especially Wyatt Earp, are of a slight interest to me; anyone can see why this did not quite meet expectations....

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:3c74SWt0dC873M:http://knowledgepublications.com/homeland/images/Effects_of_Nuclear_Weapons_afterwinds.gif + http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:NBj8f7Cmwdi4GM:http://www.antiquevintageappliances.com/101_2121.JPG = :$

300:
http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:lOMl3yNKQ3DQBM:http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll206/Inertpiccoloballs/lol20wut20jew.jpg "Experience history at swordpoint." -From the back of the DVD case.

Pirates of the Caribbean (especially the third): Yellow Submarine, much?
Ashmoria
18-01-2009, 21:37
i dont like stupidity in film. i dont find it funny and i dont find it a good plot mover.

i also hate it when they screw up the time frame in movies. sometimes when they have 2 plot lines going they stay in sync even though one time line would take far longer than the other to get to the end of the story.
Ashmoria
18-01-2009, 21:39
fuck ups in historical detail or straying from the plot of the book the movie was taken from doesnt usually bother me at all. storytelling after all.

but i was watching "the immortal voyages of captain drake" on scifi last night and it was unconscionable the way they treated a historical figure as if he were sinbad or odysseus.
No Names Left Damn It
18-01-2009, 21:43
To be fair to Indiana Jones, the bomb doesn't land on top of the fridge.
Anti-Social Darwinism
18-01-2009, 21:44
The Other Boleyn Girl - a complete rewrite of the history Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. The costuming was ok (this was apparently a time when it was fashionable for women to wear small houses on their heads), but the history was so off that even poetic license couldn't cover it.

In the Name of the King: a Dungeon Siege Tale - couldn't even stay true to the game. Uwe Bole - 'nuff said.

Elizabeth and Elizabeth: the Golden Age - Actually pretty decent. They were rich enough and splendid enough that I could overlook the discrepancies in history (some of which were pretty major).
The Parkus Empire
18-01-2009, 21:44
To be fair to Indiana Jones, the bomb doesn't land on top of the fridge.

That does not make it right.
No Names Left Damn It
18-01-2009, 21:46
That does not make it right.

But it changes the scenario from the fridge being destroyed to him being pulverised inside of it, which is closer to what the film portrays.
Trostia
18-01-2009, 21:47
I was watching The Patriot and my suspension of historical disbelief broke when I first saw Mel Gibson.
Saige Dragon
18-01-2009, 21:50
I don't mind over the top acting, as long as it is contained in films that require it (Dr. Strangelove, Starship Troopers, etc...).
Anti-Social Darwinism
18-01-2009, 21:51
I was watching The Patriot and my suspension of historical disbelief broke when I first saw Mel Gibson.

I used to be able to watch Mel Gibson films and enjoy them. Now every time I see his name I see a drunk religious fanatic - I can't get into his work anymore. He's placed himself on a level slightly below Kevin Costner (whose only good movie was Dances With Wolves - and it was only worth watching once).
Skallvia
18-01-2009, 21:52
Well...300 was a comic book, not a Documentary, as people seem to want it to be...I thought it was a good Movie anyway, it at least got the Geopolitical scene right, which is my main requirement anyway...


The rest, cant argue with you there...although the first Pirates was fricken Awesome...

The Narnia series bothers the crap outta me..."The lion's here, well, we have to give up"...Makes no sense...at least Lord of the Rings delivered after i sat through 4 hours of walking around a mountain for no reason...
The Romulan Republic
18-01-2009, 21:55
I think that realizim in films is important. To me, it has to be beleivable if its going to have any emotional impact on the audience. This holds true for science fiction and fantasy films as well, where its so easy to slip into the rediculous. Of course, in those films you will often see things that could never happen in the real world, but its important that such films be well-written, well-acted, visually life-like, and above all, that the events portrayed make sense within the context of the fictional universe.

Lack of realism also seems particularily offensive in historical films or "documentaries" which are supposed to be factual, due to the ethical implications of rewriting history, for example.
No Names Left Damn It
18-01-2009, 22:03
it at least got the Geopolitical scene right

No it didn't.
Call to power
18-01-2009, 22:04
I have never seen a guy in a romance film. ever.

watching the Holiday got me in trouble dammit :mad:
Tagmatium
18-01-2009, 22:04
Two words:

Brave Heart

Actually, five more:

A load of fucking wank.
The Parkus Empire
18-01-2009, 22:05
Well...300 was a comic book, not a Documentary, as people seem to want it to be...I thought it was a good Movie anyway, it at least got the Geopolitical scene right, which is my main requirement anyway.

I was waiting for Martians to come down to help the Persians; even when "the story" is over, the story-teller is preparing for battle with thousands of men not wearing any armor.
The Parkus Empire
18-01-2009, 22:07
Two words:

Brave Heart

Actually, five more:

A load of fucking wank.

Tell me about it; I am related to Robbert the Bruce.
Wuldani
18-01-2009, 22:08
But it changes the scenario from the fridge being destroyed to him being pulverised inside of it, which is closer to what the film portrays.

I'm not going to bother seeing the film, so I would appreciate knowing how far away the device was detonated and what rating in kilotons or megatons it was rated at, if they bothered to specify. We did a special on this in our 12th grade physics class.

I'm guessing from prior comments that the fridge was in visual distance of the epicenter, which at the very least opens the door for flash burns but probably the shockwave would do one in.

Within X amount of meters, depending on the size, vaporization.

While we are vaguely on the subject I would like to boo (the movie) The Sum of All Fears for it's changing of locale, hacking the plot up, and generally using bad science. The book was fine as usual. That is all.
Tagmatium
18-01-2009, 22:08
Tell me about it; I am related to Robbert the Bruce.
I watched just to see if it lived up to all the anti-hype about it, and it did.
The Parkus Empire
18-01-2009, 22:09
No it didn't.

But...is not Sparta making a stand for "freedom" and "justice", as it's government is a true democracy?
The Parkus Empire
18-01-2009, 22:10
I'm not going to bother seeing the film, so I would appreciate knowing how far away the device was detonated and what rating in kilotons or megatons it was rated at, if they bothered to specify. We did a special on this in our 12th grade physics class.

I'm guessing from prior comments that the fridge was in visual distance of the epicenter, which at the very least opens the door for flash burns but probably the shockwave would do one in.

Within X amount of meters, depending on the size, vaporization.

While we are vaguely on the subject I would like to boo (the movie) The Sum of All Fears for it's changing of locale, hacking the plot up, and generally using bad science. The book was fine as usual. That is all.

The only thing I know is that ol' Indy would not have any more structural integrity than mashed-potatoes if that really happened.
Skallvia
18-01-2009, 22:13
No it didn't.

When didnt it...It was the same Geographic Area...and the Persian King was threatening Greece with Subjugation, and the Spartans and Athenians went to try and stop him at Thermopylae....

as well, Leonidas really did have problems with the Spartan council not wanting to send troops, so he only had 300 soldiers...

What more do you want, as previously stated, its not a Documentary...


You want full realism, watch the History Channel....
Call to power
18-01-2009, 22:15
SNIP

don't you know anything about history?!

Catholic = good
Everybody else = bad

now if you will excuse me I am late for my doing British things to freedom loving virgins
Tagmatium
18-01-2009, 22:18
don't you know anything about history?!

Catholic = good
Everybody else = bad

*does British things to freedom loving virgins*
I wonder if anyone pointed out to Mr Gibson that virtually everyone in Western Europe at that point was Catholic?

As for 300, I quite liked it. I successfully switched off my brain for it and came at it not under the illusion that it was anything more than the film adaptation of a comic book with little to no historic accuracy whatsoever. It amused me for long enough, and I'm happy I watched it. I'm not going to watch it again, but it was quite a good film.
No Names Left Damn It
18-01-2009, 22:24
When didnt it...It was the same Geographic Area...and the Persian King was threatening Greece with Subjugation, and the Spartans and Athenians went to try and stop him at Thermopylae....

as well, Leonidas really did have problems with the Spartan council not wanting to send troops, so he only had 300 soldiers...

What more do you want, as previously stated, its not a Documentary...


You want full realism, watch the History Channel....
No, but it could at least be semi-realistic, ie no rhinos, 50 foot elephants (wtf?), black people, Chinese, giant kings, giant warriors, giants with CLAWS FOR BLOODY HANDS! FFS! etc.
Tagmatium
18-01-2009, 22:27
No, but it could at least be semi-realistic, ie no rhinos, 50 foot elephants (wtf?), black people, Chinese, giant kings, giant warriors, giants with CLAWS FOR BLOODY HANDS! FFS! etc.
To be fair, it never pretended to be anything but a film with virtually random shit happening in it. Although, admittedly, there probably was more reason to make it into a generic fantasy based on Thermopylae rather than say it was the battle.
Skallvia
18-01-2009, 22:31
No, but it could at least be semi-realistic, ie no rhinos, 50 foot elephants (wtf?), black people, Chinese, giant kings, giant warriors, giants with CLAWS FOR BLOODY HANDS! FFS! etc.

To be fair, it never pretended to be anything but a film with virtually random shit happening in it. Although, admittedly, there probably was more reason to make it into a generic fantasy based on Thermopylae rather than say it was the battle.

This^^^
No Names Left Damn It
18-01-2009, 22:32
This^^^

It calls itself a historical film based on real events. It's really not.
Tagmatium
18-01-2009, 22:35
It calls itself a historical film based on real events. It's really not.
I suppose it can get away with it because the majority of people are just plain ignorant about history. They've only heard the word "spartan" a few times, and those that haven't have probably only heard it in the context of Halo.
No Names Left Damn It
18-01-2009, 22:37
I suppose it can get away with it because the majority of people are just plain ignorant about history. They've only heard the word "spartan" a few times, and those that haven't have probably only heard it in the context of Halo.

Yeah, but giants with claws for hands? 50 foot elephants? Come on.
Sirmomo1
18-01-2009, 22:38
I have a friend who is a vegan and it truly hurts him to think of animals being harmed.

A walk down the street or a commercial break in a tv show can almost be an ordeal in itself because society simply does not see that in the way he does.

Luckily I have no breaks with mainstream society that are as upsetting to me as that.

However, I do have a couple of painful breaks with the film community. Two things will jerk me out of the experience of a movie faster than you can say disbelief.

1) Referencing films in films, showing characters at the cinema. This one mildly annoys me but I can get back into it.

2) SONGS WITH LYRICS. STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT! Arghhhh. In the credits MAYBE.

As far as general "it couldn't happen" stuff it depends on the internal story logic. A man finds and then raises the hidden anchor to Ireland and then sails the island across the world? Fine if we have reason to believe it could happen in this story world, bit of a killer if it happens in Malcolm X.

One of the worst "cheats" in terms of story is when one character makes a really dumb decision just to allow the story to progress. No one buys it and it just takes all the wind out of the sails of that movie.
The Parkus Empire
18-01-2009, 22:39
To be fair, it never pretended to be anything but a film with virtually random shit happening in it. Although, admittedly, there probably was more reason to make it into a generic fantasy based on Thermopylae rather than say it was the battle.

It claimed that the audience will "Experience history at swordpoint", which is an utter lie, because the film has no history in it; we did not see Troy claiming historical authenticity.

300 was a fantasy film in the tradition of Lord of the Rings.
Muravyets
18-01-2009, 22:41
Imagine you are really in the sceanrio of the movie, that it's actually happening all around you. And something happens that, if it actually happened right in front of you, would cause you -- in the midst of whatever the crisis is -- to pull up and say, "Whoa-whoa-whoa, hold on just a minute there, chief. What the fuck?"

So, anything that violates the laws of physics in a scene where violating the laws of physics is not supposed to be the point of the scene. Example: In Lord of the Rings (there was a lot of this, but here's just one for now), at the start of the battle with the warg riders, Legolas is standing there, pitching arrows pointlessly the way he does, as the Dancers of Rohan -- sorry, the Riders of Rohan, come galloping up behind him, and he turns to grab onto one of the horses and swing himself up to ride into battle.

Now, I have seen this trick actually done by Russian and Mongolian horsemen. It is very possible and, when successful, a rather impressive move. But they CGI'd it in LOTR in such a way that it completely defied physics. The move in the movie was so physically impossible -- just so wrong -- that it interrupted the whole action sequence. Knocked me right out of the movie.

So, if you're going to do impossible things, that's fine, but do not do POSSIBLE things in an impossible way. Do some research and get it right.

Needlessly ignoring physics is way too common in movies since the advent of CGI, but there are lots of other things that can de-suspend my disbelief, too. I think they can all be summed up thus:

If your movie really, really, really sucks, my awareness of that is going to make it hard for me to keep up my suspension of disbelief.
Geniasis
18-01-2009, 22:44
That does not make it right.

Indiana Jones has always been a little silly like that. Really, if you're going to take it at that level of realism then... well, you're doing it wrong.

I used to be able to watch Mel Gibson films and enjoy them. Now every time I see his name I see a drunk religious fanatic - I can't get into his work anymore. He's placed himself on a level slightly below Kevin Costner (whose only good movie was Dances With Wolves - and it was only worth watching once).

Pssh. Costner's done a lot of good movies. No Way Out was a great movie, for instance.
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
18-01-2009, 22:55
Tell me about it; I am related to Brave Heart.
Changed, because I'm hateful.
In case you don't get it, a certain class of idiot seems to be of the impression that Brave Heart was the name of Mel Gibson's character. Not only that, but an example of this class of idiot was on the editorial staff of my High School newspaper, and once delivered a caption that read "X is seen here dressed as Brave Heart." It got published. No, I'm not making this up.
The Parkus Empire
18-01-2009, 22:55
Indiana Jones has always been a little silly like that. Really, if you're going to take it at that level of realism then... well, you're doing it wrong.

I know: a spinning fan is not strong enough to support a hanging man. But nuking the fridge is like jumping the shark (I have even read a magazine article which compares the two).
Tagmatium
18-01-2009, 22:56
Changed, because I'm hateful.
In case you don't get it, a certain class of idiot seems to be of the impression that Brave Heart was the name of Mel Gibson's character. Not only that, but an example of this class of idiot was on the editorial staff of my High School newspaper, and once delivered a caption that read "X is seen here dressed as Brave Heart." It got published. No, I'm not making this up.
There's also a statute somewhere in Scotland in tribute to William Wallace that the idiot of a sculpter did as Mel Gobson in Brave Heart, much to the puzzlement of anyone with half a brain.

At least I think it's still there, although it may well have been a hoax.
Kamsaki-Myu
18-01-2009, 22:57
To some extent, using popular actors itself detracts from the realism of the film. For instance, no Tom Cruise film will ever seem real, simply by virtue of the fact that it has Tom Cruise, almost certainly playing a stereotypically heroic male lead, in it.

I don't think people watch Tom Cruise films for the realism, though.
Tagmatium
18-01-2009, 22:58
To some extent, using popular actors itself detracts from the realism of the film. For instance, no Tom Cruise film will ever seem real, simply by virtue of the fact that it has Tom Cruise, almost certainly playing a stereotypically heroic male lead, in it.

I don't think people watch Tom Cruise films for the realism, though.
Fucking excellent in Collateral, I must say. Probably my favourite film with him in it, as he doesn't play a role he'd usually be cast in. He's a deranged hit man, and he plays it very, very well. Menacing as hell.
Katganistan
18-01-2009, 22:59
Independence Day. I was willing to believe everything -- even that the Alien computers could be killed with a virus... but that shot of the Empire State Building at the end of a boulevard being blown up....

IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF A BLOCK, FERCRISSAKES, THERE IS NO WAY THAT CAMERA ANGLE COULD WORK!

Ahem. Such is the problem when you live in the city in which a major landmark is blown up. Now if they'd done it at the proper camera angle, no problem. ;)
Geniasis
18-01-2009, 23:04
I know: a spinning fan is not strong enough to support a hanging man. But nuking the fridge is like jumping the shark (I have even read a magazine article which compares the two).

I really think that term gets thrown around too much.
Kamsaki-Myu
18-01-2009, 23:06
Fucking excellent in Collateral, I must say. Probably my favourite film with him in it, as he doesn't play a role he'd usually be cast in. He's a deranged hit man, and he plays it very, very well. Menacing as hell.
Not necessarily saying that he's not a good actor. Just noting that every time you see Tom Cruise, you think "Tom Cruise", not "Ethan Hunt" or whatever character he happens to be playing at the time.
The Romulan Republic
18-01-2009, 23:07
To some extent, using popular actors itself detracts from the realism of the film. For instance, no Tom Cruise film will ever seem real, simply by virtue of the fact that it has Tom Cruise, almost certainly playing a stereotypically heroic male lead, in it.

I don't think people watch Tom Cruise films for the realism, though.

How big an issue this is depends on the actor. A really good one should be able to make you forget, at least temporarily, who you're watching (Angelina Joli comes to mind, as does Johny Depp).
Call to power
18-01-2009, 23:13
Ahem. Such is the problem when you live in the city in which a major landmark is blown up. Now if they'd done it at the proper camera angle, no problem. ;)

try watching Kinky Boots when you have lived in Northampton your whole life.

Spoiler: where the fuck was this bit filmed? why are these people so homophobic and backward!
Tagmatium
18-01-2009, 23:14
try watching Kinky Boots when you have lived in Northampton your whole life.

Spoiler: where the fuck was this bit filmed? why are these people so homophobic and backward!
Civilisation stops north of Gloucester, that's why.
Fartsniffage
18-01-2009, 23:16
try watching Kinky Boots when you have lived in Northampton your whole life.

Spoiler: where the fuck was this bit filmed? why are these people so homophobic and backward!

24 Hour Party People annoyed me. How hard is it to film a conversation in a car so it looks like the same road instead of the driver going down Oxford Road and the passenger going up Portland Sreet?
The Parkus Empire
18-01-2009, 23:18
I really think that term gets thrown around too much.

It happens too much. I still finished the film, and it was not terrible, as far as Indiana Jones adventure goes; still, I think a better job could have been done with the writing, as it suffered from Pirates of the Caribbean 2-pace, even involving a sword-fight while moving through a jungle.
Extreme Ironing
18-01-2009, 23:18
I think films should have a lot more awkward silences and other things like 'umm's and 'err's, as, unlike in films, most people do not speak in one-liners nor have immediate responses to everything.
Cannot think of a name
18-01-2009, 23:20
Some expectations seem a little off base.

Holding a movie to a standard set by a blurb on the back of a box? Kind of stupid. The cover of the movie Smoke is entirely misleading (Ashley Judd is well dressed and smiling, leaning against Stockard Channing and Harvey Kietel, in the movie those two are a subplot and Judd is a foul mouthed crack addict in a single scene who mocks the other two). Does this suddenly make Smoke a bad movie because the person designing the box misled? No.

As has been mentioned, a film is only responsible to its own internal logic. Leonidis gets his advice from a floating naked woman, I am at that point prepared for a sword handed giant and a Xerxes that sounds like a character out of Stargate. I do not look to Frank Miller for my historical information. I do not watch any historical piece for accuracy. What really happened is not always dramatically relevant. Essentially 'what really happened' is a mere backdrop to the story.

The role of realism in film is a discussion as old as film itself, starting with comparisons of Edison films and the Lumiere brothers*. Each new technology was decried by someone as making movies too beholden to reality. Sound, color, each time they thought that it would lock film into the confines of absolute realism.

I would think that 'reality shows' would have weened people off of this arbitrary demand. A film is not real life, life is hardly ever dramatically appropriate. People are not poignantly articulate. A narrative film is not a documentary.

A Templar knight isn't likely to have been kept alive for 2000 years by drinking from a cup, Indian cultists are not likely to be able to take a still beating heart from sacrifices, Nazis probably didn't get their faces melted from the Ark of the Covenant, Indiana Jones is a pulp hero and works on a pulp hero logic, not a real one (not that I'm saying Crystal Skull was a good movie).

Really, films only need to follow one rule-WWBC, What Would Be Cool. If it makes sense in the context of the movie, then game on.

*[edit] What dummy (me) meant is Melies, Edison and Lumiere Brothers had largely similar movies.
Call to power
18-01-2009, 23:24
Civilisation stops north of Gloucester, that's why.

nu-uh in the film a gang of London thugs tried to erm...well I don't know what they where planning on doing to a 6ft tall black ex-boxer transvestite but either way it was up to the brave Northantonian to save the day!

*shags my (probabaly) underage factory employee*
Amor Pulchritudo
19-01-2009, 00:13
i dont like stupidity in film. i dont find it funny and i dont find it a good plot mover.

i also hate it when they screw up the time frame in movies. sometimes when they have 2 plot lines going they stay in sync even though one time line would take far longer than the other to get to the end of the story.

This has to do with realism how, exactly?

It's called a non-linear narrative. It's not the conventional Hollywood Realism style, but it's not necessarily unrealistic.

I think that realizim in films is important. To me, it has to be beleivable if its going to have any emotional impact on the audience. This holds true for science fiction and fantasy films as well, where its so easy to slip into the rediculous. Of course, in those films you will often see things that could never happen in the real world, but its important that such films be well-written, well-acted, visually life-like, and above all, that the events portrayed make sense within the context of the fictional universe.

Ooh, out of interest you might like to know that this is called "perceived realism". I wish I had a book on it handy, but this is a topic that comes up when discussing special effects and CGI. King Kong is a good example of perceived realism: even though the idea of a giant ape is ludicrous, in that particular realm it is believable.

Lack of realism also seems particularily offensive in historical films or "documentaries" which are supposed to be factual, due to the ethical implications of rewriting history, for example.

It's a difficult thing, because where do we draw the line between fact and fiction? I think JFK is a good example of a film that upset people in that regard. The acting is naturalistic, the information provided is essentially correct although elaborated on and chosen carefully, and there is a lot of footage that is from the actual era and shooting. However, the inclusion of scripted footage shot well after the incident and the filmic techniques used blur the line between reality of fiction. The editing and the soundtrack enhance the feeling of conspiracy, which obviously influences the way the audience looks at death (and surrounding issues) of JFK. But, Oliver Stone never claimed it was a documentary, did he?

I have a friend who is a vegan and it truly hurts him to think of animals being harmed.

...I'm not a vegan and it hurts me to see animals get harmed (even though in films they usually try to avoid that). Again, how is this about realism?

However, I do have a couple of painful breaks with the film community. Two things will jerk me out of the experience of a movie faster than you can say disbelief.

1) Referencing films in films, showing characters at the cinema. This one mildly annoys me but I can get back into it.

I can't understand how intertexuality is unrealistic. We reference texts in everyday life.

I think films should have a lot more awkward silences and other things like 'umm's and 'err's, as, unlike in films, most people do not speak in one-liners nor have immediate responses to everything.

Some films are scripted in a more naturalistic manner, and some are even improvised. There's an Australian film called Beneath Clouds and it has lots of wonderful awkward silences. It's more about what isn't said than what is.

S
The role of realism in film is a discussion as old as film itself, starting with comparisons of Edison films and the Lumiere brothers. Each new technology was decried by someone as making movies too beholden to reality. Sound, color, each time they thought that it would lock film into the confines of absolute realism.

Source?

I would think that 'reality shows' would have weened people off of this arbitrary demand. A film is not real life, life is hardly ever dramatically appropriate. People are not poignantly articulate. A narrative film is not a documentary.

If anything, reality TV shows have made the lines even blurrier.
Cannot think of a name
19-01-2009, 00:22
Source?


Really? Can I just be the source of this as someone with a degree in Film and Digital Media and works in the industry? Do I really have to drag out the essays that I was already too lazy to do for an off hand post? This didn't seem like something I would have to 'prove.'

[edit]Except Mr. I-have-a-degree-in-film confused Melies with the Lumiere Brothers.
Vetalia
19-01-2009, 00:29
I like realism when it comes to things that are plausible. Beyond that, suspension of disbelief applies; for example, I've got no problem with giant monsters or technobabble, but I can't help but laugh when cars explode for no reason or people can jump through windows without a scratch. Now, if those errors are over-the-top or meant to be funny, that's a whole other story. I can definitely appreciate that.
Ashmoria
19-01-2009, 00:35
This has to do with realism how, exactly?

It's called a non-linear narrative. It's not the conventional Hollywood Realism style, but it's not necessarily unrealistic.



or sometimes it IS unrealistic and i dont like it.
Dylsexic Untied
19-01-2009, 00:36
Really? Can I just be the source of this as someone with a degree in Film and Digital Media and works in the industry? Do I really have to drag out the essays that I was already too lazy to do for an off hand post? This didn't seem like something I would have to 'prove.'
agreed.

I like realism when it comes to things that are plausible. Beyond that, suspension of disbelief applies; for example, I've got no problem with giant monsters or technobabble, but I can't help but laugh when cars explode for no reason or people can jump through windows without a scratch. Now, if those errors are over-the-top or meant to be funny, that's a whole other story. I can definitely appreciate that.
Can't stand that sometimes, depending on the movie, I can swing either way. If the movie presents itself as a general "fluff" movie, then yeah, I'll let that slide, otherwise, no. My big problem is again with the butchering of history or books. There aren't many historical movies I'm happy with (We Were Soldiers and any of Spielburgh's movies are about it) but books I can't stand. I still refuse to see Starship Troopers because they took one of the best science fiction books out there and turned it into...that abomination of soap opera and cheap action... Lord of the Rings pissed me off too...
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
19-01-2009, 01:36
I still refuse to see Starship Troopers because they took one of the best science fiction books out there and turned it into...that abomination of soap opera and cheap action... Lord of the Rings pissed me off too...
They didn't take the novel. A B-Movie about Casper Van Dien shooting giant cockroaches in space was made that had certain similarities to Heinlen's novel. So, rather than risk accusations of plagiarism, they bought the name from whoever owned it.
Anyway, it was deliciously over the top and silly. The sequels (especially 2) were quit terrible, but at least amusingly so.
SaintB
19-01-2009, 01:43
I watch movies for fun, I don't care about accuracies, I don't care about how realistic the explosion sequence involving a fridge is, and I sure as hell couldn't be bothered to care whether or not what I am seeing is actually possible. What I care about is "Is it fun?"
If the movie has a lame plot, bad acting, horrible music, and is otherwise dull thats when I don't like it. When I want realism I watch real things, when I want something fantastic and amusing I watch movies.

That being said, over the top films like Wanted, Cut Throat Island, and every single Indiana Jones flick appeal to me.
Amor Pulchritudo
19-01-2009, 01:47
Really? Can I just be the source of this as someone with a degree in Film and Digital Media and works in the industry? Do I really have to drag out the essays that I was already too lazy to do for an off hand post? This didn't seem like something I would have to 'prove.'

It's not that I'm asking you to prove it. I'm just intrigued because what you're saying differs to what I have learnt.
Zombie PotatoHeads
19-01-2009, 01:52
I found 'Snatch' totally unbelievable and, franky, totally naff because of this. It was just a wankfest for ex-Mr Madonna and his mates, trying to show how cool and funny they are.
Several spring to mind:
1. The Russian guy who is 'impossible' to kill, then Vinnie Jones ends up shooting him several times with his Desert Eagle, at close range. And the Russian dude keeps groaning and not dying. ha ha. that's soooo hilarious. He can't die! oh my. ha. ha. ha. Ignoring the fact that at that close a range, being shot 1/2 dozen times with a Desert Eagle is going to make you more mincemeat than human. I know we're meant to suspend disbelief, but there are limits.
2. Vinnie Jones' soliloquy (or indeed, any of the other actors soliloquys) where he points out that he's got a real gun and the other two a fake gun: it's so long-winded and just shite. It's painfully obviously there just to show us how 'cool' and 'hard' Vinnie Jones' character is. Why didn't ex-Mr Madonna just pop his head in screen and tell us, "Vinnie is real tough and cool, ok?" and save us the time and pain from watching that crap speech.
3. The fight between Brad Pitt and the big bruiser guy. The big guy was an ex-boxer whose only ability is to punch hard and take blows. So to see him pummel a scrawny Brad Pitt for 5 minutes without hurting him, then get knocked out in one punch is totally ludicrous. And totally unneccessary. It was obviously done just to really hammer home just how 'tough' and 'hard' and 'cool' Brad Pitt's character is. Again, ex-Mr Madonna could have saved us the hassle and inconvenience of watching such a turgid, unrealistic and contrived scene by popping his head round and telling us Brad Pitt is really cool. Or attempt to be a bit more realistic and have, say, a proper fight scene where Brad Pitt uses his speed to dodge Big Guy's punches, wears him down with a few blows then knocks him out with a well-aimed punch. That still would have put the message across about Pitt's character without it being so laboured and hammered home.

There were other parts in that movie I couldn't stand, but thankfully I've blotted them out. The ones above were so dreadful I unfortunately haven't been able to unremember them yet.
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
19-01-2009, 02:05
I found 'Snatch' totally unbelievable and, franky, totally naff because of this. It was just a wankfest for ex-Mr Madonna and his mates, trying to show how cool and funny they are.
Several spring to mind:
1. The Russian guy who is 'impossible' to kill, then Vinnie Jones ends up shooting him several times with his Desert Eagle, at close range. And the Russian dude keeps groaning and not dying. ha ha. that's soooo hilarious. He can't die! oh my. ha. ha. ha. Ignoring the fact that at that close a range, being shot 1/2 dozen times with a Desert Eagle is going to make you more mincemeat than human. I know we're meant to suspend disbelief, but there are limits.
Yup, that was the joke. It was funny because it strained and broke believability.
Hydesland
19-01-2009, 02:17
I found 'Snatch' totally unbelievable and, franky, totally naff because of this. It was just a wankfest for ex-Mr Madonna and his mates, trying to show how cool and funny they are.
Several spring to mind:
1. The Russian guy who is 'impossible' to kill, then Vinnie Jones ends up shooting him several times with his Desert Eagle, at close range. And the Russian dude keeps groaning and not dying. ha ha. that's soooo hilarious. He can't die! oh my. ha. ha. ha. Ignoring the fact that at that close a range, being shot 1/2 dozen times with a Desert Eagle is going to make you more mincemeat than human. I know we're meant to suspend disbelief, but there are limits.
2. Vinnie Jones' soliloquy (or indeed, any of the other actors soliloquys) where he points out that he's got a real gun and the other two a fake gun: it's so long-winded and just shite. It's painfully obviously there just to show us how 'cool' and 'hard' Vinnie Jones' character is. Why didn't ex-Mr Madonna just pop his head in screen and tell us, "Vinnie is real tough and cool, ok?" and save us the time and pain from watching that crap speech.
3. The fight between Brad Pitt and the big bruiser guy. The big guy was an ex-boxer whose only ability is to punch hard and take blows. So to see him pummel a scrawny Brad Pitt for 5 minutes without hurting him, then get knocked out in one punch is totally ludicrous. And totally unneccessary. It was obviously done just to really hammer home just how 'tough' and 'hard' and 'cool' Brad Pitt's character is. Again, ex-Mr Madonna could have saved us the hassle and inconvenience of watching such a turgid, unrealistic and contrived scene by popping his head round and telling us Brad Pitt is really cool. Or attempt to be a bit more realistic and have, say, a proper fight scene where Brad Pitt uses his speed to dodge Big Guy's punches, wears him down with a few blows then knocks him out with a well-aimed punch. That still would have put the message across about Pitt's character without it being so laboured and hammered home.

There were other parts in that movie I couldn't stand, but thankfully I've blotted them out. The ones above were so dreadful I unfortunately haven't been able to unremember them yet.

I really don't understand why showing a character to be 'really cool' is a bad thing.
The Romulan Republic
19-01-2009, 02:17
Ooh, out of interest you might like to know that this is called "perceived realism". I wish I had a book on it handy, but this is a topic that comes up when discussing special effects and CGI. King Kong is a good example of perceived realism: even though the idea of a giant ape is ludicrous, in that particular realm it is believable.

It definitely interests me, since I'm majoring in film production.:)

King Kong though doesn't really work. The ape's behavior made no sense, and frankly, Kong probably couldn't exist in a world which, apparently, has the same strength of gravity as Earth. Thus, King Kong is impossible even within the laws of his own universe.;)

An example I would use for a movie that is impossible in the Universe as we know it, but maintains a high level of internal consistency and believability within its own setting is Terminator.

It's a difficult thing, because where do we draw the line between fact and fiction? I think JFK is a good example of a film that upset people in that regard. The acting is naturalistic, the information provided is essentially correct although elaborated on and chosen carefully, and there is a lot of footage that is from the actual era and shooting. However, the inclusion of scripted footage shot well after the incident and the filmic techniques used blur the line between reality of fiction. The editing and the soundtrack enhance the feeling of conspiracy, which obviously influences the way the audience looks at death (and surrounding issues) of JFK. But, Oliver Stone never claimed it was a documentary, did he?

The problem is that a lot of people are historically ignorent, and may confuse the events shown on-screen with actual history. At which point, you run into the ethical implications of reinforcing historical myths, which may in turn alter people's perceptions of the pressent in a propogandistic manner.

Oh, and I hate Oliver Stone. Never seen JFK, but World Trade Centre was so heavy-handed in its symbolism that it drained any emotion beyond contempt and boardom out of a movie about a terrible tragedy.

Ok, perhaps I exagerate somewhat, but it still sucked. For a good 911 movie, watch United 93.

If anything, reality TV shows have made the lines even blurrier.

You're quite nieve if you don't suspect a lot of "reality" TV to be heavily scripted/directed. At the very least, people will not behave normally precisely because they know they are on TV.
Ashmoria
19-01-2009, 02:20
I watch movies for fun, I don't care about accuracies, I don't care about how realistic the explosion sequence involving a fridge is, and I sure as hell couldn't be bothered to care whether or not what I am seeing is actually possible. What I care about is "Is it fun?"
If the movie has a lame plot, bad acting, horrible music, and is otherwise dull thats when I don't like it. When I want realism I watch real things, when I want something fantastic and amusing I watch movies.

That being said, over the top films like Wanted, Cut Throat Island, and every single Indiana Jones flick appeal to me.
my sister is that way. she loves to go see movies with big explosions no matter how they fit into the movie.

me? it annoys me every time someone outruns a fireball, slips into a niche to escape the fireball in the tunnel, or gets thrown 100 feet by the blast and gets up as if nothing major happened.

especially since its been done so many times that it is a lame cliche at this point.
Zombie PotatoHeads
19-01-2009, 02:24
I really don't understand why showing a character to be 'really cool' is a bad thing.

when they feel the need to hammer it home in a dreadfully contrived, unrealistic, over-the-top and turgid way it becomes a totally bad thing. Especially when said way is supposedly done for laughs.
SaintB
19-01-2009, 02:27
my sister is that way. she loves to go see movies with big explosions no matter how they fit into the movie.

me? it annoys me every time someone outruns a fireball, slips into a niche to escape the fireball in the tunnel, or gets thrown 100 feet by the blast and gets up as if nothing major happened.

especially since its been done so many times that it is a lame cliche at this point.

I watch rarely watch many movies (or TV in general if you don't count Discovery and History) so that its always a treat for me.
Hydesland
19-01-2009, 02:29
when they feel the need to hammer it home in a dreadfully contrived, unrealistic, over-the-top and turgid...

This is the thing with film (and arts in general) criticism, it always boils down to subjective rhetoric.
The Parkus Empire
19-01-2009, 02:34
Oh, and I hate Oliver Stone. Never seen JFK, but World Trade Centre was so heavy-handed in its symbolism that it drained any emotion beyond contempt and boardom out of a movie about a terrible tragedy.

Nixon was great, though, if a bit misleading in some spots.
Cannot think of a name
19-01-2009, 04:54
It definitely interests me, since I'm majoring in film production.:)

Get out while you can!!! Alright, that's not fair. It's fine. If you're going to do it, do it, though. A lot of the people I graduated with went on to do not film things because it wasn't as easy as it was in school. Also, go out and PA at every opportunity. Production is NOT like school production, it just isn't. I can always tell the people who went through college productions and never stepped out of that, you see them working micro budget productions complaining about how they can't get a full rate and trying to convince everyone how bonafide they are. They're a pain in the ass and never rise above that. PA. PA on everything you can, small productions, big ones, films, television, sports, even reality shows. Find out how sets really work when real money is being spent. Even if all you want to do is your own stuff, pay your dues. And do it early, like now. You don't need a degree to be a PA and if you wait until after you get one you're going to feel silly.


You're quite nieve if you don't suspect a lot of "reality" TV to be heavily scripted/directed. At the very least, people will not behave normally precisely because they know they are on TV.
It's worse than that. Seriously, PA.
It's not that I'm asking you to prove it. I'm just intrigued because what you're saying differs to what I have learnt.
I made an honest effort to dig up my old book of essays and only turned up one on genre. Which is a bummer because that book had that Laura Mulvey's Visual Pleasures and Narrative Cinema which I understand that she won't license anymore because she's tired of that being her only contribution, or something like that.

So I don't have the essays at hand. Sorry. But read Rudolph Arnheim who discussed film's separation from reality as its basis for being an artform (I believe he's one of the major theorists that discussed the comparison between Edison and the Lumiere brothers). I seem to remember comparing Arnheim and Kracauer, but I can't be sure if either of them wrote the article about sound making film too realistic (I'm thinking it might be Arnheim, using a description of a gun shot in silent film depicted by a flock of birds taking off but the actual sound of the gun removing that artistic stroke. Again, been a while and I can't find my papers.)

Now, I have to admit at this point I'm using Wikipedia to remind me who is who, but Andre Bazin when he forms 'modern' criticism argues for realism in movies. I seriously can't remember who wrote the color essay, I think it might have been Arnheim or Kracauer again, I seem to remember joking around about it being the same guy.

So there that is. Edison used his camera to record the world around him, the Lumiere brothers* created essentially a world of fancy. Those are the first films, there was a discussion about which was 'better.' That's as old as film itself. Those are some of the major theorists who talked about it. Without the books to look up the essays that's the best I can do. Take it or leave it, I guess.

EDIT: here's (http://www.filmportal.de/df/cb/Artikel,,,,,,,,EF98F54418F0509CE03053D50B376EAF,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.html) an Arnheim article about the introduction of sound that includes a quote from Adolph Zucker, the head of Paramount at the time, saying "The so-called sound film shall never displace silent film. I believe as before that our future lies with silent film!"

*[edit]No, dummy, that's Melies. Lumiere Brothers just filmed what was around them like a factory at closing time and trains coming into stations.
Intangelon
19-01-2009, 06:51
You wouldn't think a film called Happiness (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0147612/) would be as engrossing a portrayal of humanity in its various (and sometimes extreme) guises. Some rivetingly unpleasant scenes that are directed and acted to well as to ingrain themselves on your mind.

Highly recommended.
Cannot think of a name
19-01-2009, 07:32
Here's something I wrote on realism and film (and 300 as it turns out).

Also-go me, I was confusing the Lumiere brothers, who like Edison took footage of things like a train pulling into a station (famous for the anecdote about people jumping out of their seats the first time, though it's not entirely clear that happened), and Melies. Melies is the one who filmed magical worlds. Lumiere, trains and such. Sorry. I'll note it in my stupid posts...

How "300" Helped Me Understand Musicals
That's right. The film version of Frank Miller's 300 led me to an understanding about musicals.

I'll say that even with my fresh understanding of them, I'm still not so much a fan. But the obstacle, the same thing that many people have with musicals now makes sense to me. And it came thanks to one of the least musical movies ever.

Or is it?

300 is a fantastic telling of a real story, to a degree. And it's in that degree that I found my understanding.

Miller or director Zack Snyder is not leading us to believe that the Persians had giant men chained up as a secret weapon, or that King Xerxes was 9' tall and sounded like the bad guys from Stargate. For comics it has been common for quite some time. Comic books, because of the medium, has always had a degree of impressionism to it. (Footnote on this to follow)

But one of the age old arguments for film was whether or not it represented 'reality,' or what was the real. "Seeing is believing" has guided the audiences expectation in film, or that has been the conventional wisdom of film theory, at least one side of it. The other, springing from the Melies films vs. Lumiere and Edison films that were more or less documentary.

The realism restriction, that expectation of audience, has pretty much dominated. But I think thats selling audience short by making excuses for when the audience doesn't seem to follow that need. All the way back to The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari there have been impressionistic films. Audiences are more than willing to accept fantastic setting, from the films of Tim Burton or Terry Gilliam or Jean-Pierre Jeunet. These are theatrical pieces, magical reality.

Theater has never really had a problem with this and since the inception of the musical has churned them out non-stop. But for film consetions like "it's a dream" in films like Chicago or The Wizard of Oz, or the "Backstage musical" (there's not even a Wiki page on that...weird), essentially a music set 'backstage' at a musical hall so people singing was proper. Never mind that Busby Berkeley's numbers couldn't take place on any stage. Or that musicals became popular as soon as films got sound. But the wisdom was that the audience still expected the film to be 'real.'

It doesn't even hold true if you look at the body of films made that a film has to be a story of what happened in the literal sense, that notion of 'reality.'

So if I can accept a 9' King Xerxes why can't I accept people breaking into song? My problem was trying to establish the 'reality' of setting. Trying to understand a 'world where people suddenly break into song.' That's not it, anymore than the family is supposed to be feasible in The Royal Tenenbaums. With all the fantastic things that we will allow in a film, song seems mild considering the other extravagances of film. The trick is not trying to relate it to what 'really' is happening. Nothing, it's a story. Even when it 'really happened' it's not a matter of what really happened.

Footnote On Comic Adaptations

300 had another discovery for me in it. That was with its obvious comparisons with the other comic book movie out at the time, Ghost Rider. One, as already discussed, abandoned the notion of reality almost all together, shot entirely on a set with the style and look of the film stamped on every frame. Ghost Rider instead took the chopper riding flaming skeleton demon and shoe horned him into 'our world.' It's actually a bit surprising that this mistake is still happening. The film that jump started this rather long run of comic book films, Tim Burton's Batman, created an art deco out of time Gotham, an impressionistic world in which a man in a bat costume could emerge and not be out of place. The mistake that happens in Ghost Rider type adaptations is trying to bend as few rules of realism as possible. However, they should be looking at once you've crossed a certain threshold all bets are off.

There are degrees. Spiderman has as part of his identity New York as his backdrop, and to that he is anchored to a degree of the 'real.' But really, they should be looking with the barest amount of real they need. After all, audiences seem to follow Wizard of Oz just fine. And I think more of the audience than to excuse it as, "It's just a dream."
Extreme Ironing
19-01-2009, 12:38
I found 'Snatch' totally unbelievable and, franky, totally naff because of this.

It wasn't supposed to be believable, and it was funny because of this. Same as Lock, Stock...

You wouldn't think a film called Happiness (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0147612/) would be as engrossing a portrayal of humanity in its various (and sometimes extreme) guises. Some rivetingly unpleasant scenes that are directed and acted to well as to ingrain themselves on your mind.

Highly recommended.

Agreed, it was very realistic, if a tad too much extreme in one place. The uncomfortable scenes were really enthralling somehow. I watched a TV drama that was similarly unpleasant in its subject (husband accused of downloading child porn and how the wife and children are changed in the months during trial and things) but made compulsive viewing.
Rambhutan
19-01-2009, 14:10
I enjoyed Hellboy, even though the Nazis never did carry out experiments that raised a demon. I would not even watch U-571 because of it twisting WWII history by showing the US capturing the Enigma machine.

So I have two standards and find it difficult to say where one applies and the other doesn't. But basically it is about whether something is meant to be an historical drama or a fantasy.
Eofaerwic
19-01-2009, 15:46
So I have two standards and find it difficult to say where one applies and the other doesn't. But basically it is about whether something is meant to be an historical drama or a fantasy.

^^This

It's about a mix of internal consistency and packaging. If a film is obviously an anachronism stew (see Knights Tale, Pirates of the Carribean) and is really about telling a fun story in a certain historical setting - or indeed as the case in 300 blatantly throwing all realism out the window and going for fantasy with a historical veneer, then generally I don't care about realism, as long as it's internally consistent and entertaining.

Something like PotC uses short-hand to set up a basic setting (17th/18th century, sailing ships, muskets, pirates oh my) and then uses this backdrop to tell a story. The historical details are important to the story, they're just short-hand to allow us to make certain assumptions about the setting.

However if a film paints itself as a serious take on a historical setting/tale, I will be a lot more unforgiving. Ok, a few details changed here and there to allow for better story flow is fine (this goes for book adaptations too - you need to make some allowances for the medium). But dramatic changes to history will piss me off and make me stop watching.

TV tropes has a good page on this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief?from=Main.SuspensionOfDisbelief
(warning, TV Tropes, even more than nationstates or wikipedia is the ultimate procastrination tool. Don't blame me if you don't get any work done after clicking on the link)
The Pictish Revival
19-01-2009, 17:32
Miller or director Zack Snyder is not leading us to believe that the Persians had giant men chained up as a secret weapon, or that King Xerxes was 9' tall and sounded like the bad guys from Stargate.


"The events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy. A lot of people are like, "You're debauching history!" I'm like, "Have you read it?" I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is."
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1554534/20070313/story.jhtml

I'll bet they can't. And reading about him describing 300 as '90 percent accurate' makes me feel ill.
I wouldn't care, but there are plenty of people out there who will take him - and other makers of 'based on a true story' films - seriously.
SaintB
19-01-2009, 17:48
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1554534/20070313/story.jhtml

I'll bet they can't. And reading about him describing 300 as '90 percent accurate' makes me feel ill.
I wouldn't care, but there are plenty of people out there who will take him - and other makers of 'based on a true story' films - seriously.

What if he meant 90% accurate to the comic?
Ashmoria
19-01-2009, 17:53
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1554534/20070313/story.jhtml

I'll bet they can't. And reading about him describing 300 as '90 percent accurate' makes me feel ill.
I wouldn't care, but there are plenty of people out there who will take him - and other makers of 'based on a true story' films - seriously.
so you are thinking that a person who sees this movie without first getting a degree in ancient history is going to believe that xerxes was 9 feet tall and had fighting rhinos?

more likely that they are going to end with the belief that there was this war between greeks and persians where the spartans held off a huge army with a few men--maybe about 300 men.

not completely accurate but then, who gives a fuck?
JuNii
19-01-2009, 17:58
What is the threshold of your willful suspension of disbelief?Pretty damned High.
Does over-the-top acting irk you? if the character is supposed to be over-the-top? no.
Are you not bothered by tampering with history?No. unless the film is pushing itself as a "Documentary"
Was there any time you were watching a film when your suspension suddenly broke? nope.

I go to movies to escape reality. same reason why I watch all non-news/non educational/non-documentaries on TV. so yes, in MOVIE/TV land, a Man can fly, crimes are solved within 24 hours and Animals do talk, and spraying someone's legs with liquid nitrogen will freeze their body within seconds.

hence why I use the term No-Brainer for movies that need a high level of suspension of belief.
Hotwife
19-01-2009, 18:29
What is the threshold of your willful suspension of disbelief? Does over-the-top acting irk you? Are you not bothered by tampering with history? Was there any time you were watching a film when your suspension suddenly broke?

Here are some films that--words fail me:

My Darling Clementine: American gunfighters, especially Wyatt Earp, are of a slight interest to me; anyone can see why this did not quite meet expectations....


With the exception of Tombstone (probably the most accurate depiction of the Earp story, but still not quite there), My Darling Clementine and all other Earp movie depictions are so far off base that they only have characters with some of the same names as the historical event.

The gunfight as depicted in the movie Tombstone follows very closely the depiction in the history book by Tefertiller - about as accurate as one can be.

My Darling Clementine, on the other hand, is a complete mess, and the storyline is also a complete mess.

It's one thing to play fast and loose with facts and history if you're telling me a complete story - say, the movie National Treasure. But if you're telling me a story about something that really happened in history, such as the tale of the Earps, then I'm going to be more demanding.
Cannot think of a name
19-01-2009, 18:30
so you are thinking that a person who sees this movie without first getting a degree in ancient history is going to believe that xerxes was 9 feet tall and had fighting rhinos?

more likely that they are going to end with the belief that there was this war between greeks and persians where the spartans held off a huge army with a few men--maybe about 300 men.

not completely accurate but then, who gives a fuck?

There you go.

I have yet to see anyone who took 300 at face value. Even if there was PT Barnum points to why that's inevitable regardless of what you do. If you went to that movie expecting a documentary the fault lies with your expectations, not with the film.
Ashmoria
19-01-2009, 18:38
There you go.

I have yet to see anyone who took 300 at face value. Even if there was PT Barnum points to why that's inevitable regardless of what you do. If you went to that movie expecting a documentary the fault lies with your expectations, not with the film.
yeah.

what happens when someone loves a movie like 300 (or lord of the rings) is that they look up the actual history behind it. (or read the book) something that they never would have done if they handnt seen the movie.

its a good thing not a bad thing that the movie is so very entertaining.
Hotwife
19-01-2009, 18:42
yeah.

what happens when someone loves a movie like 300 (or lord of the rings) is that they look up the actual history behind it. (or read the book) something that they never would have done if they handnt seen the movie.

its a good thing not a bad thing that the movie is so very entertaining.

Just think of how entertaining we all would have found it to see the Persians depicted as short, skinny unbathed unshaven sickly looking folk, fighting the Spartans (who, after a night of drinking putrid wine and buttfucking each other, are now ready for battle)...
Sirmomo1
19-01-2009, 19:08
...I'm not a vegan and it hurts me to see animals get harmed (even though in films they usually try to avoid that). Again, how is this about realism?

I mean he's really, really sensitive to it. For him to see milk is to be reminded of what he believes to be barbaric torture. But most people wandering around eating ice cream aren't going to think how that will come across to this one guy - and why should they? I mentioned that because I was setting up my hatred for songs with lyrics in movies. I react to them in a way that is all out of sync with general perception but fundamentally I still believe I'm right.

I can't understand how intertexuality is unrealistic. We reference texts in everyday life.

I believe the OP asked "What is the threshold of your willful suspension of disbelief? Does over-the-top acting irk you? Are you not bothered by tampering with history? Was there any time you were watching a film when your suspension suddenly broke?".

So I'm not accusing it of being unrealistic I just think that underjustified and self indulgent ways of dropping mentions of films into films is ill advised. Obviously it's fine if it is something like The Purple Rose of Cairo.

Some films are scripted in a more naturalistic manner, and some are even improvised. There's an Australian film called Beneath Clouds and it has lots of wonderful awkward silences. It's more about what isn't said than what is.

I normally find too much improvisation to have the effect of just being slight off key (cf CYE). You can pretty much write anything that you might want to achieve through improvisation.

For some reason audiences respond to the idea of improvisation more than they do the results. And it's because of this that things sometimes get made up during promotion - perhaps something attributed to an actor or the classic "real reaction because the director cut that bit from his script".

But generally I find it hard to imagine that snappy dialogue will drag you out of the experience. Maybe something that's a bit too cheesy or contrived (cf "You think that's painful? Try wearing a corset" from POTC) but generally witty banter and comebacks are to be enjoyed. It's embedded into the story world so you go along with it - much in the same way that movie stars might be good looking but we don't watch the whole film wondering why all the characters are so handsome.
The Pictish Revival
19-01-2009, 19:21
so you are thinking that a person who sees this movie without first getting a degree in ancient history is going to believe that xerxes was 9 feet tall and had fighting rhinos?

Several people (People with, like, careers and their own homes and stuff) have asked me whether it was accurate. Alarming but true.

[QUOTE=Ashmoria;14415313]
more likely that they are going to end with the belief that there was this war between greeks and persians where the spartans held off a huge army with a few men--maybe about 300 men.

And there we have it: 'about 300 men'. You've been taken in by the film's superficial resemblance to a true story.


not completely accurate but then, who gives a fuck?

Anyone who doesn't like the intellectual dishonesty of a film maker who isn't prepared to say: "I've made up a bit of mindless entertainment, hope you enjoy it." Rather than trying to make out that he's bringing history to the masses.
Intangelon
19-01-2009, 19:28
so you are thinking that a person who sees this movie without first getting a degree in ancient history is going to believe that xerxes was 9 feet tall and had fighting rhinos?

Several people (People with, like, careers and their own homes and stuff) have asked me whether it was accurate. Alarming but true.

Asking if it was true is better than taking it as gospel. Cut people who weren't enrolled in a Greek Civilization course some slack. It isn't like Thermopylae is part of the standard curriculum.

And there we have it: 'about 300 men'. You've been taken in by the film's superficial resemblance to a true story.

So what? It's not cinema verite, is it? Are you this picky about the accuracy of films like Clash of the Titans? 300 was never conceived to be a historically accurate piece to begin with, in either of its forms.

Anyone who doesn't like the intellectual dishonesty of a film maker who isn't prepared to say: "I've made up a bit of mindless entertainment, hope you enjoy it." Rather than trying to make out that he's bringing history to the masses.

I have not seen any evidence that the director of 300 or any other historical dramatization has claimed the corner on the absolute truth of what they've presented when there's no demonstrably reliable record of actual events.
The Pictish Revival
19-01-2009, 19:30
What if he meant 90% accurate to the comic?

Then it was a bit odd that he would try to support that by saying that 'world-class historians' had told him how accurate it was. Unless these anonymous historians are big fans of the comic book genre, of course.

There you go.

I have yet to see anyone who took 300 at face value. Even if there was PT Barnum points to why that's inevitable regardless of what you do. If you went to that movie expecting a documentary the fault lies with your expectations, not with the film.

I don't object to the film itself - I've no quibble with its value as an entertaining film. It's the film maker who got on my nerves by lying to his fans.
The Pictish Revival
19-01-2009, 19:35
Asking if it was true is better than taking it as gospel. Cut people who weren't enrolled in a Greek Civilization course some slack. It isn't like Thermopylae is part of the standard curriculum.

I'm not the one who implied that no-one with any sense would take it at all seriously.


So what? It's not cinema verite, is it? Are you this picky about the accuracy of films like Clash of the Titans?

No, because it didn't claim to be a true story.

300 was never conceived to be a historically accurate piece to begin with, in either of its forms.

Not conceived as one, no. But Snyder did try to pass the film off as accurate.


I have not seen any evidence that the director of 300 or any other historical dramatization has claimed the corner on the absolute truth of what they've presented when there's no demonstrably reliable record of actual events.

That's hardly an excuse for telling lies.
Anti-Social Darwinism
19-01-2009, 19:43
There you go.

I have yet to see anyone who took 300 at face value. Even if there was PT Barnum points to why that's inevitable regardless of what you do. If you went to that movie expecting a documentary the fault lies with your expectations, not with the film.

I watched 300 on HBO or Starz or whatever it was. I wasn't expecting history, I was expecting a live-action comic book. I wasn't disappointed. I actually rather enjoyed it.

I also enjoyed the Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull thing, too. Why, because it was Indiana Jones, which is, by definition, not real.

I start getting hypercritical when movies are misrepresented. Tora, Tora, Tora was excellent and about as accurate a movie as I have seen. Saving Private Ryan - the first few minutes, while bloody and violent, were realistic, the premise lost me. The Other Boleyn Girl - as stated previously, a complete hatchet job on the book which was, in turn, a complete hatchet job on history, good costumes, though (Scarlett Johansen's acting abilities don't seem to extend beyond marathon pouting, though).
The Pictish Revival
19-01-2009, 19:52
I watched 300 on HBO or Starz or whatever it was. I wasn't expecting history, I was expecting a live-action comic book. I wasn't disappointed. I actually rather enjoyed it.

Now that I can go along with - accepting the movie for what it is, not for what it poses as.
JuNii
19-01-2009, 19:58
er... 300 is a movie baised on a COMICBOOK fantasising about a bit of history.

I wonder how many people searched the atlas' for Basin City?
Rambhutan
19-01-2009, 20:10
I wonder how many people searched the atlas' for Basin City?

It's in Washington, in Franklin County.
JuNii
19-01-2009, 20:13
It's in Washington, in Franklin County.

my point. :p

bet it's nothing like the film. ;)
Rambhutan
19-01-2009, 20:16
bet it's nothing like the film. ;)

* Is disappointed * :(
The Pictish Revival
19-01-2009, 20:19
er... 300 is a movie baised on a COMICBOOK fantasising about a bit of history.

I think everyone on this thread has figured that out. The issue is whether it's okay for someone to try passing that fantasy off as true (or at least 90 percent true) history. Looks like I'm the only one who thinks it isn't, but I reckon I can live with that.

It's in Washington, in Franklin County.

Really? Maybe I've been there on my travels (checks map). Nah. Don't think I went that far inland.
The Parkus Empire
19-01-2009, 20:27
With the exception of Tombstone (probably the most accurate depiction of the Earp story, but still not quite there),


What the hell? Wyatt Earp (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111756/) was far more accurate--no fanning of guns. Though Kevin Costner is somewhat silly as a young Earp, he seems almost born to play the older Earp. And while Val Kilmer makes a very memorable "Doc" Holliday, Dennis Quaid plays an utterly accurate one.

Edit: Trailer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpded6yHtd4
Hotwife
19-01-2009, 20:28
What the hell? Wyatt Earp (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111756/) was far more accurate--no fanning of guns.

If you read the Tefertiller book (considered to be the most accurate history book), Wyatt Earp is not even close.
The Pictish Revival
19-01-2009, 20:29
What the hell? Wyatt Earp (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111756/) was far more accurate--no fanning of guns.

Is Tombstone the one that depicts Doc Holliday getting shot dead? Or am I confusing it with another one?
Hotwife
19-01-2009, 20:31
Is Tombstone the one that depicts Doc Holliday getting shot dead? Or am I confusing it with another one?

Doc Holliday dies of TB in a sanatorium in Denver in the movie Tombstone, just as he did in real life. They even got his last words right.
The Parkus Empire
19-01-2009, 20:39
And there we have it: 'about 300 men'. You've been taken in by the film's superficial resemblance to a true story.

Yes; try 10,000.
The Pictish Revival
19-01-2009, 20:40
Doc Holliday dies of TB in a sanatorium in Denver in the movie Tombstone, just as he did in real life. They even got his last words right.

Okay, I was thinking of a totally different one.
The Parkus Empire
19-01-2009, 20:40
And there we have it: 'about 300 men'. You've been taken in by the film's superficial resemblance to a true story.

Yes; try 10,000.
The Parkus Empire
19-01-2009, 20:41
Okay, I was thinking of a totally different one.

Clementine.
The Parkus Empire
19-01-2009, 20:43
Is Tombstone the one that depicts Doc Holliday getting shot dead? Or am I confusing it with another one?

No, but Tombstone is a little too "hip" for my taste; very stylistic, but it certainly comes in second as the best depiction of the 30-second-blaze known as the "O.K. corral".
The Parkus Empire
19-01-2009, 20:46
If you read the Tefertiller book (considered to be the most accurate history book), Wyatt Earp is not even close.

I have, actually: I just took it out from the shelf behind me and I am staring at it now; I still see Wyatt Earp as more accurate than Tombstone in it's depiction of gunfights and Holliday.
JuNii
19-01-2009, 21:06
I think everyone on this thread has figured that out. The issue is whether it's okay for someone to try passing that fantasy off as true (or at least 90 percent true) history. Looks like I'm the only one who thinks it isn't, but I reckon I can live with that. like say.. Micheal Moore? :D

and no, it's not right to try to pass a 10% accuracy as historically true.
The Parkus Empire
19-01-2009, 21:10
I have not seen any evidence that the director of 300 or any other historical dramatization has claimed the corner on the absolute truth of what they've presented when there's no demonstrably reliable record of actual events.

21. This stuff really happened! Well, most of it anyway.
"The events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy. A lot of people are like, "You're debauching history!" I'm like, "Have you read it?" I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is."

Lies!
JuNii
19-01-2009, 21:31
21. This stuff really happened! Well, most of it anyway.
"The events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy. A lot of people are like, "You're debauching history!" I'm like, "Have you read it?" I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is."

Lies!

errr.. (http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/weaponswar/p/blpwtherm.htm)

now the details... that's probably speculation.

22. Besides, it's an opera, not a documentary.
"My movie is more like an opera than a drama. That's what I say when people say it's historically inaccurate. You have to understand the convention I'm working in. Everything is at 11."
note, he's not denying it's historically inaccurate.
The Pictish Revival
19-01-2009, 21:47
errr.. (http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/weaponswar/p/blpwtherm.htm)

now the details... that's probably speculation.

Yeah. If only there was someone who, all those thousands of years ago, devoted loads of time to researching the details and recording his findings in a book or series of books. If only.
I guess that later generations would have called him 'The Father of History' or something like that.


22. Besides, it's an opera, not a documentary.
"My movie is more like an opera than a drama. That's what I say when people say it's historically inaccurate. You have to understand the convention I'm working in. Everything is at 11."
note, he's not denying it's historically inaccurate.

Fantastic. It seems that his world-class historians are keen fans of both comic books and opera. I like to see that - it's good for people to take an interest in a wide variety of artistic genres.
JuNii
19-01-2009, 22:22
Yeah. If only there was someone who, all those thousands of years ago, devoted loads of time to researching the details and recording his findings in a book or series of books. If only.
I guess that later generations would have called him 'The Father of History' or something like that.
agreed. we need more details. what did Leonidas have for breakfast the day he left? what was the exact sword stroke he used? damnit this is information we need?!?

Fantastic. It seems that his world-class historians are keen fans of both comic books and opera. I like to see that - it's good for people to take an interest in a wide variety of artistic genres. Just as long as they don't go into rap. *shudders*
The Pictish Revival
19-01-2009, 22:29
agreed. we need more details. what did Leonidas have for breakfast the day he left?

Not a lot, would be my guess.

[EDIT] Found something, referring to the aftermath of Plataea, the year after Thermopylae:
'[...]when Pausanias, therefore, saw the tent
with its adornments of gold and silver, and its hangings of divers
colours, he gave commandment to the bakers and the cooks to make him
ready a banquet in such fashion as was their wont for Mardonius.
Then they made ready as they were bidden; and Pausanius, beholding the
couches of gold and silver daintily decked out with their rich
covertures, and the tables of gold and silver laid, and the feast
itself prepared with all magnificence, was astonished at the good
things which were set before him, and, being in a pleasant mood,
gave commandment to his own followers to make ready a Spartan
supper. When the suppers were both served, and it was apparent how
vast a difference lay between the two, Pausanias laughed, and sent his
servants to call to him the Greek generals. On their coming, he
pointed to the two boards, and said:-
"I sent for you, O Greeks, to show you the folly of this Median
captain, who, when he enjoyed such fare as this, must needs come
here to rob us of our penury."' [Herodotus; Rawlinson's translation]

Sadly, as you say, he is not very forthcoming about the details. The Father of History was just not cut out to be a food writer.


what was the exact sword stroke he used? damnit this is information we need?!?

That's easy - it would have been one from the universal bestselling fencing textbook, a move known as the 'My Spear's Blunt and I'm About to Die' parry in quarte and riposte.
JuNii
19-01-2009, 23:56
Not a lot, would be my guess.

[EDIT] Found something, referring to the aftermath of Plataea, the year after Thermopylae:
'[...]when Pausanias, therefore, saw the tent
with its adornments of gold and silver, and its hangings of divers
colours, he gave commandment to the bakers and the cooks to make him
ready a banquet in such fashion as was their wont for Mardonius.
Then they made ready as they were bidden; and Pausanius, beholding the
couches of gold and silver daintily decked out with their rich
covertures, and the tables of gold and silver laid, and the feast
itself prepared with all magnificence, was astonished at the good
things which were set before him, and, being in a pleasant mood,
gave commandment to his own followers to make ready a Spartan
supper. When the suppers were both served, and it was apparent how
vast a difference lay between the two, Pausanias laughed, and sent his
servants to call to him the Greek generals. On their coming, he
pointed to the two boards, and said:-
"I sent for you, O Greeks, to show you the folly of this Median
captain, who, when he enjoyed such fare as this, must needs come
here to rob us of our penury."' [Herodotus; Rawlinson's translation]

Sadly, as you say, he is not very forthcoming about the details. The Father of History was just not cut out to be a food writer.



That's easy - it would have been one from the universal bestselling fencing textbook, a move known as the 'My Spear's Blunt and I'm About to Die' parry in quarte and riposte.
Damnit! they added that in the movie... Shit, now I won't believe anything hollywood puts out!
:mad:

wait... that move was in 'Meet the Spartans!" Parodies are more historically correct than the actual movies?!!!! no way!
Amor Pulchritudo
20-01-2009, 02:26
It definitely interests me, since I'm majoring in film production.:)

I major in film production too.

*snip* ignorent *snip* boardom *snip* exagerate *snip*
nieve *snip*

*Headesk*

Nixon was great, though, if a bit misleading in some spots.

Frost/Nixon was shockingly bad. It was trying too hard to be JFK. Both the acting and the dialogue were superficial, and it ended up casting Nixon in a relatively good light.


I made an honest effort to dig up my old book of essays and only turned up one on genre. Which is a bummer because that book had that Laura Mulvey's Visual Pleasures and Narrative Cinema which I understand that she won't license anymore because she's tired of that being her only contribution, or something like that.

So I don't have the essays at hand. Sorry. But read Rudolph Arnheim who discussed film's separation from reality as its basis for being an artform (I believe he's one of the major theorists that discussed the comparison between Edison and the Lumiere brothers). ? I seem to remember comparing Arnheim and Kracauer, but I can't be sure if either of them wrote the article about sound making film too realistic (I'm thinking it might be Arnheim, using a description of a gun shot in silent film depicted by a flock of birds taking off but the actual sound of the gun removing that artistic stroke. Again, been a while and I can't find my papers.)

Now, I have to admit at this point I'm using Wikipedia to remind me who is who, but Andre Bazin when he forms 'modern' criticism argues for realism in movies. I seriously can't remember who wrote the color essay, I think it might have been Arnheim or Kracauer again, I seem to remember joking around about it being the same guy.

So there that is. Edison used his camera to record the world around him, the Lumiere brothers* created essentially a world of fancy. Those are the first films, there was a discussion about which was 'better.' That's as old as film itself. Those are some of the major theorists who talked about it. Without the books to look up the essays that's the best I can do. Take it or leave it, I guess.

EDIT: here's (http://www.filmportal.de/df/cb/Artikel,,,,,,,,EF98F54418F0509CE03053D50B376EAF,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.html) an Arnheim article about the introduction of sound that includes a quote from Adolph Zucker, the head of Paramount at the time, saying "The so-called sound film shall never displace silent film. I believe as before that our future lies with silent film!"

*[edit]No, dummy, that's Melies. Lumiere Brothers just filmed what was around them like a factory at closing time and trains coming into stations.
(Oh)

Again, I don't have essays on hand, but the essays and books I've read regarding the switch to colour actually suggest that colour detracted from realism because it's more formalist than realist. That's why I was intrigued.

Also, I got into a discussion relatively recently regarding the film La Haine which is about a multi-ethnic trio living in the banlieues (ghettos) in France. It was shot in digital colour then changed to black and white in post production. Many argue that it is the black and white that heightens the film's naturalism, making it more realist, but in fact I believe (and had much evidence to substantiate this belief) that the choice of black and white actually was to detract from the realism. Greyscale heightened the beauty of the film, allowing the audience to enjoy it on an artistic level rather than just being shocked at true ugliness of the story.
Geniasis
20-01-2009, 08:13
Yes; try 10,000.

That's a little bit high, isn't it? There were about 300 Spartans, 700 Thespian, 400 Thebans and perhaps a few hundred others.

At most, I'd count around 2000 soldiers. Or are you talking about before Leonidas dismissed the bulk of the army?
Cannot think of a name
20-01-2009, 08:31
I major in film production too.
Get out! Ah...you've likely already read that rant...

(Oh)

Again, I don't have essays on hand, but the essays and books I've read regarding the switch to colour actually suggest that colour detracted from realism because it's more formalist than realist. That's why I was intrigued.

Also, I got into a discussion relatively recently regarding the film La Haine which is about a multi-ethnic trio living in the banlieues (ghettos) in France. It was shot in digital colour then changed to black and white in post production. Many argue that it is the black and white that heightens the film's naturalism, making it more realist, but in fact I believe (and had much evidence to substantiate this belief) that the choice of black and white actually was to detract from the realism. Greyscale heightened the beauty of the film, allowing the audience to enjoy it on an artistic level rather than just being shocked at true ugliness of the story.
Ultimately there was a lot of argument on all sides of the aisle. Remember that film theory as it exists today didn't really come into its own until the around the same time as true color film. So there wasn't any 'cannon' of opinions as much as, at least for a little bit, a bunch of French guys who wouldn't shut up about film.
The Pictish Revival
20-01-2009, 15:02
That's a little bit high, isn't it? There were about 300 Spartans, 700 Thespian, 400 Thebans and perhaps a few hundred others.

At most, I'd count around 2000 soldiers. Or are you talking about before Leonidas dismissed the bulk of the army?

I suspect he was, but I also suspect your figure of 2,000 is an underestimate. IIRC, the contemporary memorial at the site referred to 'four thousand men from the Peloponnese'.
The Romulan Republic
20-01-2009, 15:45
I major in film production too.



*Headesk*

:confused:
Rambhutan
20-01-2009, 15:54
... It was shot in digital colour then changed to black and white in post production. Many argue that it is the black and white that heightens the film's naturalism, making it more realist, but in fact I believe (and had much evidence to substantiate this belief) that the choice of black and white actually was to detract from the realism. Greyscale heightened the beauty of the film, allowing the audience to enjoy it on an artistic level rather than just being shocked at true ugliness of the story.

I would agree with you. Have you ever seen Soy Cuba - the scene with the family cutting sugar cane is the most beautiful black and white cinematography I have ever seen, to me it undercuts the serious point about poverty.
Khadgar
20-01-2009, 17:42
1) A movie has to be internally consistant.
2) Unless it's clearly operating on a different set of physics (Spider Man films for instance) it has to follow real world physics.

Let's take a couple of films by Roland Emmrich.

Independence Day, you've got alien space ships flying around, each city sized. Okay, then you've got a massive mother ship in orbit. Fair enough. There's going to be some effects long term, but through the course of the movie you don't need to detail things like tidal and gravitational effects, or the effect of those alien ships expending energy to stay aloft. However the impact of several dozen ships that size falling several hundred or thousand feet to impact the ground is insane. That's saying nothing of the explosion of their main weapon, which is probably anti-matter powered. Jeff Goldblum's character raised a stink about nuking a city to try to destroy just one of the ships. What the fuck is going to be the impact of several dozen dropping like stones?

The Day After Tomorrow, leaving aside the incredibly idiotic physics, the absurd character development, and the frankly impossible shit that happens in such a short timespan, you've got a dipshit walking from god knows where to New York. In temperatures low enough to flash freeze flesh he's got an apparently magical fucking tent. This tent is so awesome you can be at -100 degrees outside and inside it's perfectly safe to live in. Maybe it's got some of The Core's unobtanium. The best part is, he's walking there to rescue his son, and several others. Is the Tent like the Tardis? How's he planning to get them all out, where are his extra supplies? Maybe he's plotting to bring them along and slowly cannibalize their asses on the way back.
The Parkus Empire
20-01-2009, 18:27
Frost/Nixon was shockingly bad. It was trying too hard to be JFK. Both the acting and the dialogue were superficial, and it ended up casting Nixon in a relatively good light.

Frost/Nixon is not Nixon. Frost/Nixon is just about an interview, Nixon is a 3 1/2 hour film that deals with the actually terms of Tricky Dick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cCPzGRIHMM
The Parkus Empire
20-01-2009, 18:36
That's a little bit high, isn't it? There were about 300 Spartans, 700 Thespian, 400 Thebans and perhaps a few hundred others.

Yes, it was probably much too high.

At most, I'd count around 2000 soldiers. Or are you talking about before Leonidas dismissed the bulk of the army?

The Desk Encyclopedia of World History (published by Oxford) claims 6000.
Amor Pulchritudo
22-01-2009, 02:29
Frost/Nixon is not Nixon. Frost/Nixon is just about an interview, Nixon is a 3 1/2 hour film that deals with the actually terms of Tricky Dick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cCPzGRIHMM

I am resisting the urge to call you expletives.


I KNOW what NIXON is. I was ADDING A COMMENT about A DIFFERENT FILM. I'm a god damn film student.
The Parkus Empire
22-01-2009, 02:38
I am resisting the urge to call you expletives.

DELETED? :D


I KNOW what NIXON is. I was ADDING A COMMENT about A DIFFERENT FILM. I'm a god damn film student.

:hail: Excellent subject; maybe you are one of the few who share my love of Barry Lyndon?
The Parkus Empire
22-01-2009, 03:09
Question: when is Zack Snyder going to do a Waterloo film?