Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]






Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!
Make a forum zoo!

Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
What annoys you most?; Rant here if you need to!
Topic Started: Mar 3 2013, 08:45 AM (309,580 Views)
Posted Image Drax
Member Avatar


People who watch an action movie and then complain about how it isn't realistic enough.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

people who make dumb unrealistic movies that aren't meant as comedies

action-comedy is one thing, but if they are going to try and make it serious they should at least try and make it vaguely realistic
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Drax
Member Avatar


Why?



This isn't spam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

because I'm a huge nerd, and we are a picky crowd
we like to research these sorts of things we see in movies that seem odd, and when we realize that the people who actually are making money of it are to lazy to do as much as we do, its really enraging
Edited by stargatedalek, Aug 3 2014, 05:23 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Drax
Member Avatar


I don't see a big deal with unrealistic action movies. Action movies aren't supposed to be realistic, the whole purpose of them is to be larger than life, more entertaining than the norm. If movies were realistic, honestly think about it, they would suck.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

because there totally aren't plenty of ways to make a movie relatively realistic and have it "not suck" :/

I'm not asking for documentaries, but things like not breaking laws of physics, not turning every main character into a mary-sue, coming up with some sort of logical reasoning of why things happen, are things that really should be taken into consideration
Edited by stargatedalek, Aug 3 2014, 05:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zebrasorus
Member Avatar


When inspiration and laziness coincide. I want to work on a project, but at the same I really don't. xD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Drax
Member Avatar


Give me some examples of ways to make, say 300, realistic without making it a documentary and keeping to the theme of it being an action packed movie.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

I've never seen 300, not my sort of movie

but please explain to how movies that (while not documentaries or anything) can maintain "relative realism" are bad?

there are plenty of "action movies" that don't reach the point of "mah bullet can do anytin" and are very good movies, better than any sort of Michael Bay slop
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Murdock129
No Avatar


I get that you want things to be realistic, but a very large portion of viewers view action films and other such media as escapist fiction.

Somewhere you can escape to get away from everything in real life, where the boundries of 'realism' don't always have to apply and where the medium can create it's own rules to work by.

Personally I hate movies that will go so far into trying to be realistic that they become uninteresting, that's one of the biggest problems with The Dark Knight Rises, it tries so hard to be realistic it's just no longer entertaining.

Same goes for a lot of monster movies. And while not trying to snipe at you Stargatedalek because you're entitled to your opinion and I respect that it's your opinion, I always find it a bit annoying when people will start bashing something because it's unrealistic, just as I'm sure you probably find it annoying when people like me will state the exact opposite and always say 'stop being so serious' about it and such.

I do think it's more when something is going for realistic but throws realism out the window for one bit that's more apt for such criticism and perhaps that's what you meant, but I disagree with expecting realism from anything and everything serious if that's not what they're aiming for

Is there something that brought this about in particular, like a certain film you saw to make you feel this way?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Drax
Member Avatar


I personally am not a fan of Micheal Bay, but his movies sell tickets, which is what the action and explosions are designed to do. The average kid nowadays loves explosions and action, so that's what he puts in the movies, it makes him money and there's a target group that enjoys it. I'm not saying movies with realism are bad, but if you made 300 (Which by the way was based on a book [The movie anyways]) an actual representation of what happened at Thermopylae, it doesn't please crowds as much as it could. A realistic 300 leaves you with:

-No war elephants or rhinos, which were a large part in the action of the movie
-Queen Gorgo isn't as badass as the movie portrays here, since she didn't kill the council member Theron
-The whole movie is in Ancient Greek
-Spartans wear full battle armor, not loincloths, which makes them look cool, just not as cool. This takes away from the action
-All soldiers get plumed helmets, making it harder to focus on Leonidas in battle
-Instead of killing a wolf to pass his training, Leonidas has to murder a slave at night without getting caught :/ Not good for reviews, even if it is realistic
-Xerxes is not a 9 foot tall, bald, deep voiced monster. This makes him less of a threatening villian, something that the target audience wouldn't enjoy.
Edited by Drax, Aug 3 2014, 06:00 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

not big things, its the little things that bug me, the things that are not related to plot, but are just there, being stupid and glaring just to drive people who notice them insane

if something is major to the plot it can slide, because its necessary, but its annoying little details,
IE
-how the nuke in godzilla 2014 would have destroyed the city at that distance
-but I'll let the existence of giant physically impossible monsters slide because its necessary to the plot

they could have easily come up with some other thing to fix that whole nuke plot hole, but no, couldn't be bothered...

also, I fail to see how at the very least, having ACTUAL ARMOR would make the movie worse x_x
Edited by stargatedalek, Aug 3 2014, 06:13 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Murdock129
No Avatar


Ah I understand what you're saying now, thanks for explaining.

And to an extent I see what you're getting at. Personally those things don't bug me so much, I'm usually able to put inaccuracies behind me if the movie is enjoyable.

But if the movie's bad otherwise then plotholes will bug me. It's like Lord of the Rings has the biggest plothole ever, the eagles, why not use the eagles. No satisfactory explanation has ever been given to me, but I don't mind because the movie is good.

Dark Knight Rises, why did Bane/Talia wait so long if their plan was just to set off the bomb eventually? To prove some point about human nature that Talia seemed to have no interest in at all and was ultimately irrelevant since they'd be proving it to no one? That bugs me because most of the movie is awful (and just an awful and throat cancer version of Batman and an unintentionally hilarious Bane-in-name-only over what feels like a right wing propaganda movie)

And I do hate Michael Bay, I just fel I had to note my hatred since he was brought up
Edited by Murdock129, Aug 3 2014, 06:21 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jules
Member Avatar
Mihi est imperare orbi universo

The Eagles weren't explained in the film, but I can explain :
-1 : The Eagles obey to Manwë, and Manwë only. Manwë is the King of the Valar (AKA Gods), lives in Valinor and follows a no-intervention policy concerning Middle-Earth, which means the Eagles typically don't do much.
-2 : The Eagles are an independant faction, and are neutral. Gwaihir came only because Gandalf was his friend.
-3 : They were able to fly to Mordor only because it was full chaos. Otherwise it would be suicide even for them.

Another annoying plothole is in Game of Thrones, when the Ironborn are attacking the Dreadfort. Ramsay Snow fights shirtless and still gets an amazing number of kills without dying, which is extremely annoying because the show usually follows a realistic line, because it makes the Ironbon look like noobs and because it was made probably only to show Iwan Rheon shirtless.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Murdock129
No Avatar


Quote:
 
-1 : The Eagles obey to Manwë, and Manwë only. Manwë is the King of the Valar (AKA Gods), lives in Valinor and follows a no-intervention policy concerning Middle-Earth, which means the Eagles typically don't do much.
Ok I get this, it just seems weird they'd happily collect Frodo and Sam at the end, and more notably, fight the Nazgul at the final battle, but not be able to actually go and do the most important possible thing. They'll fight randomly at the end as part of a distraction, but not try and actually help at the very most important thing

Quote:
 
-2 : The Eagles are an independant faction, and are neutral. Gwaihir came only because Gandalf was his friend.
See above point about the fight at the Black Gate, and again in the Hobbit at the Battle of the Five Armies earlier in canon

Quote:
 
-3 : They were able to fly to Mordor only because it was full chaos. Otherwise it would be suicide even for them.
This is the best explanation given, but I fail to really see how they would be stopped. They were (rather easily mind you) destroying the Nazgul, and most of Sauron's forces weren't able to fly, so couldn't really threaten them. The only actual danger is magic, which is a little iffy as to how much actual usable magic power Sauron has. While I know he's meant to be ultra powerful we never see any actual use of his own power in the films, we always see others doing his bidding.

Now Saruman might have been a problem, but given the Eagles take such a short time to get around I doubt there's much he could have done to stop them (especially given how from what I have heard, the Eagles are pretty magically powerful themselves, and on the other side of the land. Plus Saruman's magic is kinda iffy since he loses any influence when the Ents attack, but is never shown to lose any of his magical power. It's pretty inconsistent actually since the ents show no reason to be able to stop his power, and yet in another scene earlier he's shown almost bringing a mountain down on the Fellowship

I dunno, I get what you're saying, it just seems iffy to me.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
7 users reading this topic (7 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply