Logic in Fantasy Action Movies (Spoilers!)

Theres a difference between movies that are set in a fantasy setting and ones that are meant to be real world. Alot of action movies try to appear authentic but with exploding cars and people surviving being repeatedly shot they always end up looking incredibly fake.
One of my most hated movies is charlies angels 2 mostly because of this reason. Starts with Lucy lu able to open a crate from the inside while ass up, then changes to the other two angels talking to a bunch of mercenaries (but aren't instantly beaten and/or raped) then riding the motorised bull (which every barracks needs). Finally to end the scene they steal a truck, drive it off a dam, get from the truck into the helicopter on the back and get it started all before hitting the ground.
I was very annoyed by the share amount of unbelieveable things, and that was only the first 5 mins!
We had exploding cars, exploding motorbikes, Demi Moore flying using only a gauzy dress, and gaping timeline errors.
You really had to switch your brain off to get anything from the movie at all.

Born2Preach responds to me:

quote:

---

Keep this up and you'll earn a belittling nickname

---

And this is supposed to affect me how?You seem to think that I care what you think of me.But tell me, what does it say of a person who cannot respond to an argument except to call his interlocutor names?

quote:

---

If they're changing what's considered normal then they can do whatever they want

---

Except break their own rules. That's why you have to be even more careful when you invent the universe from scratch. The logical implications of what you have done might run counter to the point you're trying to make and your storyline becomes farcical and unbelievable.

quote:

---

sometimes it's funny when you notcie a flaw. Doesn't make the movie any less enjoyable.

---

Depends upon the flaw. Some are so egregious that you are snapped out of the storyline and left staring at the man behind the curtain.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rrhain, I'm not trying to debate with you because there's nothing to debate: I don't care about internal logic and you do so we agree that we disagree. So if you want to keep this going I'd be happy to exchange insults because that's funny, but this is nothing I want to formally debate over. I don't think less of you, it's all in good fun so please don't take me seriously when I say stupid things. You do like to have fun, don't you? They can do whatever they want with their own rules whether anybody likes it or not. Might not sell well if nobody likes it, but they CAN do what they want.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

Rrhain writes:

quote:

---

Some (flaws) are so egregious that you are snapped out of the storyline and left staring at the man behind the curtain.

---

Yes, but even then we wouldn't always say that such a work is worthless. You gave some examples upthread from Shakespeare. The endless ending of R&J is not enough to keep us from enjoying the play and recognizing its status as one of the greatest tragedies ever written.To my mind, one of the most egregious flaws in all of Shakespeare occurs in Cymbeline when Posthumus, banished from Britian in the 1st century, travels to Renaissance Rome. This unexplained 1400 year leap is repeated, back and forth, throughout the play. Would you say that this flaw ruins the play?This message has been edited by berberry, 05-27-2004 01:42 AM

That's a good one, but it's not really the "traditional" Castlevania... I was thinking more along the lines of the one out for PS2 or something.If you really liked Symphony of the Night, and you have a Gameboy Advance, you should really do yourself a favor and play Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow. You'd love it. The Japanese have a word for such people - "bishonen." (Literally, "pretty boy.")

Rrhain,you are just all fired up over this issue, aren't you? I don't get quite as passionate as you do about this subject, but bad movie physics is irritating to no end - especially when 99% of the time there is no reason not to follow the actual laws of physics.Even flicks like Van Helsing, which I know are going to be lame in this regard, irritate me with needless Anime physics - it actually ruins my suspension of disbelief. I can take vampires and werewolves, but I agree with you about the carriage.Even Hellboy, which I knew would be as bad as Van Helsing, didn't bother me with its replicating undead larnean space demons until I that stupid Nazi ninja zombie started up with his Japanese-style weapons. What the hell was that? Did he get those during some Axis diplomatic mission? About the same time he was taught the ancient arts of the ninja? Or is there some lost Aryan National Socialist martial art, besides Krystalnacht, that I'm not aware of?And don't even get me started about the Matrix. I couldn't make it out of the theater without bitching about how stupid the human battery concept was. That one concept ruined the entire movie for me. I'm glad I didn't know how optic nerves worked when I saw it or I would have been even more upset.For you other anal physics types, you might find this site entertaining: insultingly stupid movie physics.This message has been edited by custard, 05-27-2004 02:45 AM

I have this feeling that the battery idea wasn't the original spec - that originally, the script said that the purpose of the Matrix was to be a massive distributed computer, running on human brains.But I bet some exec figured folks were too dumb to understand (or else he was) and made them change it.But here again you physics nazis show your inconsistency. Did you bitch and moan when they jump to lightspeed in Star Wars? Yes or no? After all, that's physically impossible, right? And they never ever explain the hyperdrive or how it works. And worst of all, it's well into the movie before they use it at all - a little later in the movie and it would have approached a Deux Ex Machina.But somehow breaking the most famous physics theory in the 20th century is ok, but lord forbid 6 horses be allowed to jump a gap that might not be as wide as the movie makes it look...

After I posted the link to the movie physics site, I went there for a lark and read their review of the worst physics movie ever: The Core.It struck me, as I read this this rant against physics ignorance, that it sounded very similar to the rants that I see in this forum between the YECs who seem utterly ignorant of science not posted on AIG, and the evos who try to explain why they should be offended by the pseudoscience and fables that have been foisted upon them in lieu of reality.It also struck me that I can save my $4 and NOT rent The Core.

No, but I was ten years old at the time. I do remember bitching about the Ewok/Muppet party at the end of Jedi though.In any case, who the heck knows what 'hyper drive' is? Like most science fiction, or magic in a fantasy movie, you don't need to know 'how'it works, only that it works in some fantastic, yet undiscovered way.I'm obviously not going to go to Spider-man and complain about how unrealistic his transformation from a radioactive spider bite was. Same with the Hulk. Neither will I complain about how unrealistic zombies are during a screening of Dawn of the Dead.It's the crap that is passed off as 'real' physics that bothers me.This message has been edited by custard, 05-27-2004 03:05 AM

But action movies are fantasy movies. Nobody expects them to follow real-world physics, and for the most part, they never claim to. Everybody who goes to see them - except you and Rrhain, apparently - knows that they're not going to be presented with real-world physics.But for some reason, behaviors that illicit no response in high fantasy or science-fiction, like strange powers and impossible deeds, are deemed inappropriate by folks like you when they happen in Die Hard instead. I don't get it. Where are the funny internet lists about "Impossible Fantasy Physics", where we make fun of Gandalf for having a staff that glows with impossibly bright light? It's not being passed off that way, though. Everybody but you and Rrhain understands that action movies use action physics, much like fantasy movies use fantasy physics.

The Core is sci-fi, though. You just said that you didn't fault sci-fi movies for using sci-fi physics, so what's up?Note that a movie doesn't have to have rocket ships and be in the future to be science-fiction.

Obviously two people on this forum do, as well as the folks who started the insulting movie physic site. Do you honestly think that comparing Middle Earth to reality is going to bolster your argument? It's FANTASY.And despite your claim that action movies are 'fantasy' movies, and I don't dispute that most all movies could be classified as 'fantasies,'there are very clear definitions of the different genres.In most fantasy and horror films no one expects to believe anything they see will adhere to natural laws.In science fiction one expects to encounter somewhat believable or fantastic scientific advances that our natural laws may or may not explain. Obviously the closer it is to reality, the better the 'science' part of the fiction.All other film genres should generally adhere to our natural laws, especially if there is no reason for them not to do so (which is usually why sci-fi, fantasy, and horror violate these laws - their stories won't work without it).You can argue that Van Helsing is a fantasy movie, fine it has werewolves, vampires, all that fare. But action movies as a genre are not fantasy films. Certainly not as the genres are defined.This message has been edited by custard, 05-27-2004 03:24 AM

crashfrog posits:

quote:

---

Everybody but you and Rrhain understands that action movies use action physics, much like fantasy movies use fantasy physics.

---

Not everybody. I've never heard of 'action physics' until now, but whatever it is it really should be logically consistent. You can play games with the laws of physics so long as you spell out the rules of the game and adhere to them. If you don't, it's perfectly legitimate for critics to point out the logical flaws. The question, as I said earlier, then becomes whether the book / play / movie / whatever has other qualities that allow it to rise above its flaws.

Read the Core review. It's appallingly bad, especially for a sci-fi flick.(You're just baiting me now, aren't you? Don't you have a teenage YEC to pick on?)I think it's absolutely wonderful you are able to derive enjoyment from crap movie physics, I even envy you since you are able to enjoy more films than I am. But it does bother me, whether it appears rational or not (like the Hugh Jackman Wolverine-Leopold phenomenon).And, in general, I'm surprised it doesn't bother you since it serves to perpetuate, and even promote ignorance of our natural laws. Sure, most educated people probably don't have a problem separating fantasy from reality, but as you have seen from the posts on this forum, a little more realism in most films wouldn't hurt at all. In fact it would be desireable.This message has been edited by custard, 05-27-2004 04:16 AM

Spelling them out and adhering to them are two different things, though.If the opening scene has Nick Stonychin jumping his Camaro over a raising bridge, that's enough exposition to clue people in that we're using "action physics." You don't need Morpheus to show up at the beginning to exposit that Nick can do these amazing feats because he's actually a disembodied mind in the Matrix, or something.All you have to do is adhere to the physics you display at the beginning. You don't need a wonk in a lab coat to explain why the physics are that way - showing us that they are is enough.