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

[Nektonic]

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.

Come on Jon, we all know that Total Recall featured the most realistic cinematic depiction of what happens when a person is stupid enough to waltz out onto the surface of Mars without a space suit.

Also, did you know that Christopher Walken can fly?

And in space, no one can hear you scream... but if you fart inside your space suit, only you can smell it.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

IMO movies shouldn't strife towards being "realistic". They shoul just be "credible".

But there is one scene in the Stallone movie Daylight that always bothered me.

It's been years since I saw it, but the scene goes something like this:
A character is trapped behind a shallow puddle of water that's electrified by a cable that touches it. Another character says something like "Why is it safe to sit in a car during a lightning storm? Because the rubber in the wheels works as isolation and keeps the car from touching the ground. That's why it's not hit by lightning! Take off your sneakers, put them on your hands and use the cable to swing to saftey!"
...and then that's exactly what happens.

 

[Bill Clar]

Very interesting discussion.

I don't think it's possible to make a movie that almost 100% follows reality for one reason: dialogue.

In films and television, characters say their lines clearly and finish their thoughts. In reality people mumble, cut each other off, and talk over each other. Filming such banter would be difficult for actors and directors.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

Very interesting discussion.

I don't think it's possible to make a movie that almost 100% follows reality for one reason: dialogue.

In films and television, characters say their lines clearly and finish their thoughts. In reality people mumble, cut each other off, and talk over each other. Filming such banter would be difficult for actors and directors.

Rule no. 1 about dialogue is, Dialogue Is Not Conversation.

 

[Jon Starr]

Forgot which scriptwriting guru said this, but movies aren't real life, they simulate real life. This goes for dialogue as well.

Of course anything that's too real doesn't work. Dialogue, especially, goes all over the place and takes too long to get to the point.

 

[bwwd]

IF movie has some sort of magic or aliens or whatever that doesnt exist in our world then i dont care that much about realism but if its a spy movie /action genre then realism is a must for me ,all bond movies make me laugh.

 

[vcassel]

Forgot which scriptwriting guru said this, but movies aren't real life, they simulate real life.

Yeah, you never strive for realism; you strive for authenticity.

 

[Nektonic]

Yeah, you never strive for realism; you strive for authenticity.

This is true to a certain extent. If a movie has an interesting plot and enough heart and soul, but is very fantastical I don't care too much. Films like Hero or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon are awesome. They fly all over the place but I don't care because the story and characters are compelling and the fight sequences are exciting and beautiful.

I actually think that we need more surrealism and weird imagery in films these days. There is a lot of faux realism in films these days that is getting annoying (shaky cam with quick cuts to fool us into thinking a real fight is occurring before our eyes).

Obviously there are exceptions. A film like Apollo 13 needs to be realistic to work. They can't suddenly have aliens show up to rescue the crew and take them back to Earth.

Unless it is a science fiction film that sells itself as a realistic take on a topic, then I am not too worried about how plausible it is. In fact, I think lately a lot of filmmakers have been painting themselves into a corner trying to do the whole Nolan procedure of making fantastical, super hero, or science fictional stories and characters seem real when they are obviously not. As long as those types of stories aren't cheesy like the Joel Schumacher Batman films were, then I say why not embrace the more dream-like or fantastical imagery that a lot of stories have in their DNA?

 

[swoopie]

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)?

Science, like history, is constantly changing. At least theoretical science is. Theories come and go. It's wise to stay as close to real science if you can though. For instance, I think you place too much importance in those few movies that might show someone exploding in a vacuum. Most movies that have someone lost in outer space without a suit do not explode. I can only think of two that show this happening (and one was a bad recent TV show). Most simply show the person floating off in the horizon.

 

[pulpfiction007]

Very interesting discussion.

I don't think it's possible to make a movie that almost 100% follows reality for one reason: dialogue.

In films and television, characters say their lines clearly and finish their thoughts. In reality people mumble, cut each other off, and talk over each other. Filming such banter would be difficult for actors and directors.

I agree with this...you can't write how people really talk - some Robert Altman films are close to reality in that he manages to have multiple conversations going on at once and characters do cut each other off, but even that is very choreographed and "musical"- not like the anarchy that is normal conversation.

 

[swoopie]

Rule no. 1 about dialogue is, Dialogue Is Not Conversation.

You're making the same false assumption that very bad professors make in literary classes these days, which is that no two people are intelligent enough to have clever conversations where every word is meaningful. I would challenge them to go find some old Firing Line transcripts of Buckley talking with Malcolm Muggeridge.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

A film like Apollo 13 needs to be realistic to work. They can't suddenly have aliens show up to rescue the crew and take them back to Earth.

Nope. A film like Apollo 13 needs to FEEL realistic to work, and BE credible (not realistic). Major difference.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

You're making the same false assumption that very bad professors make in literary classes these days, which is that no two people are intelligent enough to have clever conversations where every word is meaningful. I would challenge them to go find some old Firing Line transcripts of Buckley talking with Malcolm Muggeridge.

I never said that. I said that dialoge is not conversation. Every word is meaningful, but it's not two people talking, because what they say is not meaningful to them, it's meaningful to the audience.

When Jules and Vincent talk about Amsterdam and hamburgers in Pulp Fiction, they're not talking to eachother, they're talking to us. That's the difference.

 

[swoopie]

I think you're making a rather silly distinction myself. If the two actors didn't write the dialog, then they're part of that writer's audience just as much as anyone sitting in the theater is, and the words are just as meaningful to everybody. An actor has to think deeply about what's being said if he's going to read recite a line convincingly. Do you honestly think that a priest's words have no meaning to him if he's reading from a prayer book (it's a written conversation between him and God) while the congregation listens?

 

[pulpfiction007]

I think you're making a rather silly distinction myself. If the two actors didn't write the dialog, then they're part of that writer's audience just as much as anyone sitting in the theater is, and the words are just as meaningful to everybody. An actor has to think deeply about what's being said if he's going to read recite a line convincingly. Do you honestly think that a priest's words have no meaning to him if he's reading from a prayer book (it's a written conversation between him and God) while the congregation listens?

Not all actors need to think deeply about their lines to be convincing. Method actors would have it no other way of course, but more classically trained actors can be given a line and use their particular set of conventions to deliver it 2 minutes later and be convincing. It's like the difference between Singer/Songwriters like Elliot Smith, Bob Dylan, Bruce, Etc....(they are the "method actors" of music and "feel" the emotion) and plain old SINGERS/SHOWPEOPLE who don't write their music and simply craft notes to evoke emotion. I know it's semantics, and I definitely see your point. Just throwing it out there for debate.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

I think you're making a rather silly distinction myself. If the two actors didn't write the dialog, then they're part of that writer's audience just as much as anyone sitting in the theater is, and the words are just as meaningful to everybody. An actor has to think deeply about what's being said if he's going to read recite a line convincingly. Do you honestly think that a priest's words have no meaning to him if he's reading from a prayer book (it's a written conversation between him and God) while the congregation listens?

I have no idea what you're saying. Dialogue is not conversation. I didn't get that from a bad professor, as far as I remember it's in McKee's book.
And the actors are not part of the audience.
What has this got to do with the bible?

 

[Mark Harris]

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.

Wait, these fans were bothered by a jump through space, but had no problem with faster than light travel? In a ship whose engine room looks like a WWII submarine? To me they got much bigger fish to fry.

In many cases, the story would be just as good if they used good science. There's a great story about Neil Degrasse Tyson complaining to Cameron about the wrong stars in the sky the night the Titanic sinks. Cameron blows him off at first, but of course being the obsessive artist and science-nerd he is, Cameron eventually did have the stars changed to be correct in the DVD release. Because that was just sloppy and there is no reason to have the wrong stars the night the Titanic sank.

Bad science bugs me quite a bit, but I still enjoy a lot of movies. Space is tough, because the realities of space flight are vastly different than what any movie portrays. I mean, good lord, how on Earth would Serenity even get off the ground, much less fly through the atmosphere with those stubby wings? And how exactly are people not smashed against the inside walls through momentum? But you pick your battles. I still love that show. I love BSG.

 

[swoopie]

I have no idea what you're saying. Dialogue is not conversation. I didn't get that from a bad professor, as far as I remember it's in McKee's book.
And the actors are not part of the audience.
What has this got to do with the bible?

I have no idea what you're saying. Diaolog is conversation. It can be nothing else. You did get it from a bad professor via a bad writer by the name of McKee. The actors are part of the writer's audience. They can be nothing else. And the bible has nothing to do with it obviuously.

Here's an idea. Construct an actual argument and get back to me.

 

[Batutta]

Wait, these fans were bothered by a jump through space, but had no problem with faster than light travel? In a ship whose engine room looks like a WWII submarine? To me they got much bigger fish to fry.

In many cases, the story would be just as good if they used good science. There's a great story about Neil Degrasse Tyson complaining to Cameron about the wrong stars in the sky the night the Titanic sinks. Cameron blows him off at first, but of course being the obsessive artist and science-nerd he is, Cameron eventually did have the stars changed to be correct in the DVD release. Because that was just sloppy and there is no reason to have the wrong stars the night the Titanic sank.

Bad science bugs me quite a bit, but I still enjoy a lot of movies. Space is tough, because the realities of space flight are vastly different than what any movie portrays. I mean, good lord, how on Earth would Serenity even get off the ground, much less fly through the atmosphere with those stubby wings? And how exactly are people not smashed against the inside walls through momentum? But you pick your battles. I still love that show. I love BSG.

I've been watching all 3 seasons of the original series, and it occurred to me why Star Trek is so popular with actual scientists. It isn't because of any real science, because most of it is made up nonsense. It's because in many episodes the crew work their way through a problem through application of the scientific method. They arrive at a new, alien situation, get in trouble, have to create a scientific hypothesis of what they are dealing with, test that hypothesis through different actions, and then overcome the problem when they arrive at the right solution. That the science is absurd most of the time is irrelevant. Not excusing it but I do understand why Science Fiction remains popular in spite of faulty science. After all, it's called science fiction, not science facts.

 

[Mark Harris]

I've been watching all 3 seasons of the original series, and it occurred to me why Star Trek is so popular with actual scientists. It isn't because of any real science, because most of it is made up nonsense. It's because in many episodes the crew work their way through a problem through application of the scientific method. They arrive at a new, alien situation, get in trouble, have to create a scientific hypothesis of what they are dealing with, test that hypothesis through different actions, and then overcome the problem when they arrive at the right solution. That the science is absurd most of the time is irrelevant. Not excusing it but I do understand why Science Fiction remains popular in spite of faulty science. After all, it's called science fiction, not science facts.

Yeah, agreed about the scientific method. And actually as bad as they are, it's the same reason I like the National Treasure franchise. Nick Cage's character uses his knowledge of history (real or fake history) to solve almost every problem he comes up against.

Though I do think Star Trek more than most, used real science as a jumping off point, rather than just making up nonsense. Even the WARP drive, matter/anti-matter, in TNG things like the computer being housed in a subspace field so that it could perform faster than light calculations while in WARP(okay, subspace is bulls**t, but...). There's actually a pretty good book written by a physicist called "The Science of Star Trek" or something. He uses a lot of elements of the show to lead people into learning about real physics.

But yeah, I agree with you 100% on that.