To be real, or not to be real...

Jon Starr

Jon Starr

Veteran
I've always been curious about something, about what one might call 'film reality.' It is that reality that hollywood has shaped into people's minds as to what the norm is.

Now the big issue for filmmakers is to keep things as 'real' as possible to not throw off the audience, to not pull them out of the moment/story. Obviously for certain films the reality set by the specific film may be something completely abnormal (think kill bill). However for the most part a lot of films are based around reality, our reality.

But then comes in the problem. Films for a long time have had their own reality. Every sword hums. Every gun has a massive gun flash. Or one of my favorites, when people find themselves in the vacuum of space without a spacesuit, they either explode or flash freeze.

Sometimes it's just a strange norm that's accepted, or it's based off the ignorance of the general public, and the filmmakers use it to their benefit.

But my question to you, is it okay, when trying to make a film based off of reality, to follow the true science of the world? To have someone going out into space and not freezing instantly or exploding because that's what's real (like the TV series Battlestar Galactica)?

Or is the general audience so certain that film reality is reality that this idea would pull them out of the story? Do we HAVE to have the person explode when they go out into space or a vacuum (like Total Recall) just because that's what people expect, and anything else would pull them out?

Thoughts?
 
If you feel like you need to present something inaccurately just because a bunch of other movies have done so, that's a problem which lies with you, not with the audience.

Now, if you feel you need to present something similarly to past movies for valid filmmaking reasons (like having sound in space), then that's another matter.
 
Every film creates its own reality and establishes its own rules. What matters to the audience is that those rules remain consistent throughout the story.
 
vcassel said:
Every film creates its own reality and establishes its own rules. What matters to the audience is that those rules remain consistent throughout the story.
Click to expand...

Absolutely....Once you have the "suspension of disbelief" don't throw it off.
Like- imagine if 2/3 of the way through The Bourne Identity, Jason Bourne all of a sudden begins flying. We'd be like WTF!!! We can accept that he can beat up 5 goons with a sheet of paper because that's the reality that was created. The same goes for any film - set up YOUR reality and stick with it, so will the audience.
The exceptions to this would be films where we're not quite sure what's real - Inception, Matrix, etc. even then though there are things that would take the audience from the story.
 
Interesting question... because obviously certain totally unrealistic things seem to happen in every movie. Every car that rolls off a cliff explodes. People who are shot with guns go flying backwards. Moonlight is "blue". The list is endless, and it's all inaccurate, but it's what we're used to. Heck, 24p isn't "real" either, it'd be more accurate to portray the motion with 60p, but people know that 24p is what movies look like, so we stick with it...

Go with what works for you. People adapt or change science, or history, or "known rules" (like sparkling vampires) when it suits the purpose of their story. If you want sound in space (like "Star Trek"), do it. If you want to be technically accurate and portray that sound cannot exist in space (like "Serenity"), go for it.

Just make something that entertains the audience. In narrative fiction, if you have to bend the rules a bit, hey, that's art (as in, short for "art"ificial). It is fiction, after all... it's your world and your slate to play with, and the rules of physics are yours to bend to serve the story however you see fit (see "Inception").
 
pulpfiction007 said:
Absolutely....Once you have the "suspension of disbelief" don't throw it off.
Like- imagine if 2/3 of the way through The Bourne Identity, Jason Bourne all of a sudden begins flying. We'd be like WTF!!! We can accept that he can beat up 5 goons with a sheet of paper because that's the reality that was created. The same goes for any film - set up YOUR reality and stick with it, so will the audience.
The exceptions to this would be films where we're not quite sure what's real - Inception, Matrix, etc. even then though there are things that would take the audience from the story.
Click to expand...

What if the film reality is meant to be 'real'? Then when one thing is a bit off, say something scientifically doesn't make sense and YOU know it, does it throw it off for you? Do you get pulled out of the film?

The reason why I brought up this discussion thread was the following:

I remember recently reading the 'The science of battlestar galactica' and it was mentioned that some fans were confused and frustrated with the episode where two crew members jumped out into space into a raptor, and didn't have anything happen to them (aside from extreme pressure differences). However in reality this is what would REALLY happen. It was in fact the 'reality of film' (and TV) that had obscured some of the fans ideas of what actually happens. They believed the movie fact to be real fact, and this seemed to pull some of them out of the show.
 
Jon Starr said:
I remember recently reading the 'The science of battlestar galactica' and it was mentioned that some fans were confused and frustrated with the episode where two crew members jumped out into space into a raptor, and didn't have anything happen to them (aside from extreme pressure differences). However in reality this is what would REALLY happen. It was in fact the 'reality of film' (and TV) that had obscured some of the fans ideas of what actually happens. They believed the movie fact to be real fact, and this seemed to pull some of them out of the show.
Click to expand...

Operative word here is "some". There will always be some people who will have a problem with the way anything is presented. It's not the same thing as the way something was presented failing.
 
Even Serenity gave way to sound in space, though Firefly didn't.

Yes, yes; the giant space battle was in an "ion cloud" and therefore "could" have sound, but who doesn't see that for the contrivance that it is just to get sound in there? How boring would the battle have been without it?
 
I think audiences are alot more forgiving of scientific implausibility than human implausibility. The minute a character does something that seems inconsistent with what people know about human behavior, they'll call bullsh*t. But they don't care about science as long as something looks and sounds cool.
 
Jon Starr said:
What if the film reality is meant to be 'real'? Then when one thing is a bit off, say something scientifically doesn't make sense and YOU know it, does it throw it off for you? Do you get pulled out of the film?

The reason why I brought up this discussion thread was the following:

I remember recently reading the 'The science of battlestar galactica' and it was mentioned that some fans were confused and frustrated with the episode where two crew members jumped out into space into a raptor, and didn't have anything happen to them (aside from extreme pressure differences). However in reality this is what would REALLY happen. It was in fact the 'reality of film' (and TV) that had obscured some of the fans ideas of what actually happens. They believed the movie fact to be real fact, and this seemed to pull some of them out of the show.
Click to expand...

I think sometimes we all get pulled out a bit from a film depending on our background. Me for instance - Music films where the guitar players hands are clearly not in the correct position for what is being played, or the drummer is hitting the high hat and it's clearly a ride cymbal in the song - I'm like "Who the hell supervised this?"
Most people don't notice. Also Mythbusters really ruined the whole "shooting a lock off of a door with a conventional handgun" thing for me. It happens in every crime drama known to man and now I'm always thinking - nope, you'd put a dent in it but the lock would still be intact!
It all depends on your background - I'm sure doctors and lawyers have to call B.S. a thousand times when watching films with their professions involved.
 
It's not "ignorance of the general public" when said public expects escapism, and is willing to accept certain established cinematic conventions to obtain it.
Not.
At.
All.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
I think sometimes we all get pulled out a bit from a film depending on our background. Me for instance - Music films where the guitar players hands are clearly not in the correct position for what is being played, or the drummer is hitting the high hat and it's clearly a ride cymbal in the song...
Click to expand...
I'm that way with cigars (almost never smoked "right" on screen...unless by a seasoned puro-smoker like Schwarzenegger.) But I overlook these moment(s), because I know to the public at large, it/they look just fine and dandy.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
I'm that way with cigars (almost never smoked "right" on screen...unless by a seasoned puro-smoker like Schwarzenegger.) But I overlook these moment(s), because I know to the public at large, it/they look just fine and dandy.
Click to expand...

You smoke cigars? I never would have guessed.
 
I've long said that I can always fall back on a career as a Film/TV "Stogie Consultant"...




Edit:
Kinda like that wave of "Poker Consultants" eight or ten years ago.
 
To me one of the most famous instances of sci-fi "I believed everything until..." was when Ripley opens that airlock in Aliens and then manages to not only hang on by a ladder, but then proceeds to actually...lol...climb up the ladder and close the airlock. That was some ultra extreme BS. I remember my dad literally bursting out laughing in the theatre. It made for a dramatic moment, but really damaged the integrity of the flick IMO (though it's still in my top 10 all time sci-fi).

What's funny is that Alien 4 sort of makes a jab at the premise when it has the hybrid baby alien get its entire body sucked out through a pinhole crack in the window.

Star Wars makes very, very, very little sense in any plausable factor of space and time, but I still dig it.

I think Indiana Jones jumping out of an airplane with nothing but a life raft is okay. Dinosaurs made from mosquitos? Why not.

But for some reason Tom Cruise getting blasted from an explosion to the front of a train and then managing to skid to safety bothers me as does a lot of wire work in film.

When it's all said and done, I think PHYSICS are probably the most important thing in film. Cause and reaction. If someone gets hit in a film, his entire face can explode if its sold that way. Do I care if they throw up a bright yellow "BAM!" sign when the guy is hit? Not really, so long as the physics about the hit are lined up correctly.

The one film that I gave the pass on with regards physics was The Matrix and a couple of fantasy Kung-Fu flicks. But overall I think falty physics is what really takes an audience out of a movie. Science (including fire and sound in space), I think there's leeway. You can either be true to life or go for dramatic impact. Director's choice.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
I think sometimes we all get pulled out a bit from a film depending on our background. Me for instance - Music films where the guitar players hands are clearly not in the correct position for what is being played, or the drummer is hitting the high hat and it's clearly a ride cymbal in the song - I'm like "Who the hell supervised this?"
Most people don't notice.
Click to expand...

Very true. I think that's key to the discussion. It's really about your background, and your prior knowledge.

But what if your only knowledge is what was given to you by films? Then what if a film follows something other than what's expected?

pulpfiction007 said:
Also Mythbusters really ruined the whole "shooting a lock off of a door with a conventional handgun" thing for me. It happens in every crime drama known to man and now I'm always thinking - nope, you'd put a dent in it but the lock would still be intact!
It all depends on your background - I'm sure doctors and lawyers have to call B.S. a thousand times when watching films with their professions involved.
Click to expand...

I know! Mythbusters has ruined a lot of it for me. Now I know:

You can't walk through air ducts - if you happen to find some that are big enough to fit through (which is unlikely), you'd make so much noise it would be pointless.

If you get hit by a bullet you never go flying.

If you go through a window you'd get at least a few cuts.

Shooting locks don't work. If you use a high enough caliber one, the shrapnel would be dangerous for you.

Brian_Rice said:
The one film that I gave the pass on with regards physics was The Matrix and a couple of fantasy Kung-Fu flicks. But overall I think falty physics is what really takes an audience out of a movie. Science (including fire and sound in space), I think there's leeway. You can either be true to life or go for dramatic impact. Director's choice.
Click to expand...

Right, but The Matrix established a reality that wasn't close to our own, same as kung-fu flicks. However some films do establish a reality close to ours, and that's when I think things get difficult.
 
Good topic, I personally think Cassel, Pulp, and Barry covered the basics... so, I'll ask...

What's the concern for you, Jon? Is it something you want to do that you feel wouldn't be acceptable, or, is it just a general thought/topic?

Only curious!

I think Cassel's statement is pretty on the mark. Create the world well, people will believe it. It's about the escapism, so long as the characters are believable enough, anything goes.

It's not THE best example, but, it jumps out at me immediately: Sin City.
 
Kholi said:
What's the concern for you, Jon? Is it something you want to do that you feel wouldn't be acceptable, or, is it just a general thought/topic?
Click to expand...

Just a general thought/topic.

Personally I'm all for realism in my films, if it asks for it. But I don't care if things are unrealistic, especially if, obviously, the film is not based around reality. Though sometimes it bothers me when I know, for example, a lock can't be shot off... then I see it in a film. Pulls me out for a second and I have to dive back in.

I found it interesting because of the book I was reading, where the science advisor for BSG mentioned several questions asked by fans, where they believed in what was given to them by terrestrial assumptions or what was taught to them by movies and TV. Such as the exploding or freezing once out in a vacuum.

I think when it comes down to it, it all depends on the audience and the creators. Some will complain to hell and high water when something they BELIEVE to be the truth is not depicted properly in a film. Others don't care. Amongst filmmakers though, no matter how concerned you are about making things real, drama seems to always takes precedence.
 
Can't argue with that. It's a great topic for discussion, again, was only curious if it was something that's been bothering you.

Good stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top