Logic in Fantasy Action Movies (Spoilers!)

I saw it. It was a piece of shit. It was trite and boring.But the fact that it had flimsy characterization, poor pacing, crappy CGI, bad dialogue, and was just plain bad cinema is more than sufficient reason to conclude it's bad. You don't need to drag in the fact that it doesn't follow rules that it never claimed to in the first place.Moreover, I suspect criticizing movies on their realism is just a front to disguise the fact that some folks don't know how to judge things like characterization, pacing, and dialogue.People like you are like my fencing friend - he hates The Princess Bride because the fencing at the beginning isn't realistic. That's not really how people fight each other with rapiers.Well, I fence too, and so I know that. But I also know that Rob Reiner shot that scene not as a documentary on how to fight with swords, but to amuse an audience and build tension, and to show us the character of the Dread Pirate Roberts. And he accomplished that. Realistic fighting wouldn't have accomplished those goals.To write off a movie because the people who made it had a different set of goals in mind than you is elitist and stupid. The Core wasn't a geology documentary. It's an adventure about saving the Earth. It's not a good one, by any means, but it's goodness or badness has literally nothing to do with how well the filmmakers adhered to rules they didn't claim to be adhering to in the first place. Says you, but I don't think anybody's tried to tunnel into the center of the Earth. Moreover I think ignorance of natural law is quickly remedied - running headlong into those laws is a pretty quick education. If you wanted to bet who had the greater, intuitive understanding of basic physical laws, my money would be on Tony Hawk over Stephen Hawking. Tony Hawk is going to have a much more intuitive grasp on what feats are and aren't physically possible for a human.

crash, either you misunderstood or I misstated my case. I agree with you that works of fiction do not have to adhere to the laws of physics. However, when the laws of physics are abandoned some explanation must be given and the new rules of physics must be adhered to consistently else the work is flawed. The explanation does not have to come by way of Morpheus or anyone in a labcoat. Did you honestly believe I was saying that it does?Acknowledging that a work is flawed is not the same as damning it. I gave an example earlier from Shakespeare's Cymbeline. There is no explanation for the 1400 year leap in time between the two main settings of the play. Characters travel from ancient Britian to Renaissance Italy and back without so much as a time machine. No explanation for the time leap is offered at all and in fact the characters behave as if the two settings co-exist. This is a major flaw in the play and critics recognize it as such. Most critics still value the play, however. If Christopher Marlowe had written a play with such a gaping flaw it would probably have been all but forgotten by today. But this is Shakespeare, the language and characterizations are still superb as is typical of Shakespeare and the play is therefore still considered to be great my most people.

Thanks for the newsflash. Irrelevant to my point. Is that so? So do you think the average film goer who say sees Armageddon, Dante's Peak, or the Abyss walks away from those films better informed of our natural laws, or full of nonsense? But I guess that doesn't matter right? They'll just run headlong into those laws when they try driving over some lava or swimming from a 1 atm submarine to a 60 atm ocean.More likely they'll just have more needless garbage about how the world around them does, and doesn't, work floating around in their heads. That's right. I think a lot of people are like that if they see something they understand misrepresented when it doesn't have to be. I'm sure that pilots, military personnel, doctors, and shoe salesmen are all disappointed by needless misrepresentation of the reality they understand. I know some of them are because they actually complain about it.You've stated that action movies, from your standpoint of 'action physics', don't bother you if they don't hold to strict interpretations of natural laws. I'm curious to know where you personally draw the line. Should reality based, non-action movies be held to any sort of standard here? Or does all cinema get a free pass? If all cinema, does this hold true for television as well? Print media? All entertainment?At what point does misrepresentation of fact begin to bother you?This message has been edited by custard, 05-27-2004 03:38 PM

I know that's what you're saying, and you're wrong.You don't have to give any explanation for breaking the laws of physics. You just have to be consistent with your physics with what you've shown early in the movie. It sounds to me like you're saying that, if I make a movie, and Nick Stonychin can run faster and jump farther and fight better than any human ever could, I have to explain why.I'm saying I don't have to. I just have to show that he can do those things early in the movie, or else I've committed deux ex machina. No explanation other than "this is an action movie, and Nick is the hero" is required.

I think the average filmgoer isn't such a dumbass that he expects that watching a volcano movie makes him an expert in geology. Apparently you disagree. But you missed my point by a mile. Sometimes those things are misrepresented because they had to be. Realistic fencing would make The Princess Bride a worse movie, by far. Realistic physics would make a lot of action movies rather boring and unimpressive. When it's actually presented as fact, not as fiction. If Dante's Peak advertised itself as a documentary, I'd be pissed off. But it doesn't, so why hold it to that standard?If I'm watching fiction, I hold it to the standards of fiction. I don't hold it to standards it never claimed to meet.

No what I wrote what I thought. Since you appeared to have missed it, here it is again:

quote:

---

More likely they'll just have more needless garbage about how the world around them does, and doesn't, work floating around in their heads.

---

I think berberry has made that point several times, and I have not disputed it. I have been, and still am talking about 'needless' violations of natural laws. Maybe for you. Personally I would have enjoyed The Bourne Identity much more without some of its gross violations. I enjoy most James Bond action films because, for the most part, Bond doesn't do the impossible so much as the improbable. I have no problem with improbable, it's the utterly, ridiculously impossible when supposedly set in a realistic setting that annoys me. So you give all fictional films a free pass? Nothing you have ever seen in a fictional film misrepresenting fact has ever bothered you? So you thought the misrepresentations of fact in, say, a film like Passion of the Christ were fine then? Since filmgoers can distinguish reality from fiction. Is that right?This message has been edited by custard, 05-27-2004 04:14 PM

Who the fuck cares what they have floating around in their heads?I seriously couldn't care less if your average movie-goer has funny ideas about esoteric scientific models. Anything that matters, they'll know better. Anything that won't ever have any relevance to their lives, who cares? If your average American thinks of atoms as Everlasting Gobstoppers with electrons buzzing around like little fireflies, what fuckin' difference does it make? What possible relevance could the structure of the atom have to their lives?If at such time it becomes important, I honestly don't think it'll take them that long to be corrected. They're not realistic, though. That's the point. They're fantasy movies, not documentaries. From an expectation of adherence to arbitrary rules? Absolutely. From adherence to what makes good fiction? Never. Well, I didn't see it, but does it claim to be a documentary? Does it claim to be literally, Biblically true?Or does it simply claim to be one man's vision of the central event of his religion?

Somehow I missed this... So too with action films. We expect the hero to be able to fight better, lift more, and kick more ass than normal people.So why do your panties get all knotted up when they do exactly that? Why not? Simply because they don't have the fantasy tropes you're used to?Would it interest you to know that Star Wars isn't a science-fiction movie, btw?Look, you don't need chain-mail bikinis and elves to have a fantasy movie. Let's see, a movie where one hero takes on evil with abilities that surpass those of normal humans. Yup, sounds like a fantasy movie to me. I am, of course, talking about Die Hard.

They have movies with chicks in chain mail bikinis? Suh-weet! Know any good titles? That is too rich! If you belive that, why do you bother to spend so much of your time constantly refuting creationists? You don't care what the average-movie goer thinks but you have a vendetta against Christian beliefs? You don't see a conflict there? Please peruse the posts before typing away half-cocked. Scroll up, re-read, think, then respond. Of course it claims to be Biblically true. Even Minnesota should have caught some fall out from the Mel Gibson media barrage.

Right. Now go to your local video store and try to find it under the fantasy section. Not there? Huh, I wonder why?

CF,You are beginning to contradict yourself and your position on this matter is not consistent. Look here where you say

quote:

---

would react negatively, unless the opening scenes established that this was a movie where shit like that happens.

---

and here where you say

quote:

---

All you have to do is adhere to the physics you display at the beginning.

---

Which opening scenes, exactly, of DieHard establish your 'action physics?' If I recall correctly, it doesn't get too out of hand until after the first hour or so.But wait, you later claim that ALL action movies are fantasy movies. And then that all fictional movies aren't expected to adhere to real physics. Well, if you believe that, why make the first two statements? Here you state "I also had some concerns about barrel fouling." Why would you have ANY concerns if you never expected the movie to adhere to real physics in the first place? Interesting.You posited a question about movie logic and you got responses explaining why or why not people agreed with your position. Obviously everyone's likes and dislikes are entirely subjective, but you seem to take it personally that critics, and some people in this thread, thought Van Helsing (and movies like it) are disappointing because of unrealistic scenes such as the pathetically stupid carriage leap.In any case, your arguments are inconsistent; however, I think we have established one man's cinematic garbage is another man's blockbuster. And that's what keeps Hollywood rolling. This message has been edited by custard, 05-27-2004 07:28 PM

Have you seen Red Sonja? That's a good one. I'd recommend the Beastmaster movies as well, but since I don't remember anything about them, view at your own risk. Because it's fun?I wasn't aware I had to justify my internet activity with recourse to some deep, humanitarian concern for a popular understanding of science. Well, since I haven't seen it, I can't speak to that. I guess I had heard that it takes liberties with the Gospel accounts, but I don't know if it presents itself as the literal Gospel or not.

Hrm, when you said that the genres were "clearly defined", I had no idea you meant "by Blockbuster."Don't you think that "video rental shelving area" is a pretty immature and stupid way to identify genre? If you don't know anything about genre, why didn't you just say so?

Because the position "fantasy movies don't have to adhere to real-world physics" is not the same as "fantasy movies don't have to adhere to any internal consistency." Try not to equivocate again, ok?If you pretend to be a movie that adheres to a certain physics, but right at the climax, you reveal that the hero - unbeknownst to the viewers - actually has convinent levitation powers that he only uses once in the entire movie, but could have at any time, that's deux ex machina.The opening scenes set the physics of the movie, just as they set everything else - mood, setting, etc. Generally the setting, mood, and physics can be allowed to "evolve" in the movie, but outright departure from what's established in the beginning of the movie is deux ex machina. Because I was speculating - "exactly what physics from our world did they decide to include? Did they include real-world metallurgy? Or did they not bother? In our world, what would be the ramifications of a gun firing silver bullets?"You'll note that, unlike you and Rrhain, the fact that the movie didn't address real-world consequences of silver ammunition was not something I counted against the movie. It was just something I was thinking about. I'm sorry if I appear to be taking it personally. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But both you and Rrhain project an air of elitism - "our opinions, by virtue of our knowledge of physics, is superior to the average uneducated movie-going boob" - and it's to that tone that I object. I don't think it's coincidental that in this thread you've raised a number of concerns that the average movie-goer is such an idiot that they rely on movies to inform them about the laws of physics. Personally I think a little more highly of people than that.

Yes that would be; which is why I never claimed that. It's located where it is BECAUSE it is part of that genre. Pretty easy to understand. Fantasy films go in the fantasy section, DieHard in the action section.But tell you what, you show me where Die Hard is defined as a fantasy film, and I'll concede your claim.