|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Feb 3, 2020 18:15:38 GMT
So do you think that entertainment need to be realistic to be enjoyable?
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Feb 3, 2020 18:34:21 GMT
People get entertainment from pro wrestling and/or Skinemax movies and neither are real.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 3, 2020 18:42:48 GMT
No
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Feb 3, 2020 19:00:43 GMT
No. But the characters really need to have some credibility and some motivation, unless it's explained that a character or two is a sort of McGuffin, or something unexplained, like the Blob or the Thing (the attempts to explain them fall flat. The Blob in origin, the Thing in motivation, but that's okay, because they are more McGufflin than character, and no attempt is made to make them "characters".)
When writers, producers, directors, try to con us with vain attempts at motivation and character, that's when it can't be entertaining any more. It would be better to just show scenery with no characters than to do that nonsense.
But the events don't have to be realistic. Almost none of the entertaining science fiction has anything resembling realism. We know James Mason and Pat Boone and a big Norse guy with a duck can't just walk to the center of the Earth through caves, without encountering high pressure, molten metal, gas, and dense rock. But the characters have motivation and are credible.
And the Hollywood notion that if you're totally devoted to sadistic evil, you are immortal (all horror movie icons like Freddy, Jason, Hannibal, spaghetti Western leads, modern movie mobsters, etc.) can't be entertainment to anyone who isn't either a homicidal maniac or the most naive bubble boy. There, you lack realism and entertainment both.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Feb 3, 2020 19:01:33 GMT
No. A lot of the time the more realistic the less entertained i actually am.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Feb 3, 2020 19:10:34 GMT
No, not all of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Catman 猫的主人 on Feb 3, 2020 19:11:43 GMT
Nope.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Feb 3, 2020 19:15:18 GMT
No. One of the most entertaining movies I've ever seen is Plan 9 From Outer Space
But, if a movie tries to be factual then goes off on a tangent, then it will bother me. Braveheart leaps to mind
|
|
|
|
Post by sjg on Feb 3, 2020 19:16:24 GMT
No but it can be too unrealistic
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Feb 3, 2020 19:35:55 GMT
So do you think that entertainment need to be realistic to be enjoyable? Not necessarily. Depends on what it is. I love Tim Burton and Wes Anderson movies and neither are particularly realistic. Superheroes are not based on reality at all, and maybe that's why the very best ones are when they're done with some level of realism: Dark Knight, Joker, even Iron Man (1) to a certain degree. Then there's something like Guardians of the Galaxy which skirts both. It depends.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebayharborbutcher on Feb 3, 2020 21:24:36 GMT
So do you think that entertainment need to be realistic to be enjoyable? For my own personal taste, no. However, I feel like the characters emotions need to feel authentic or real. I can buy just about any plot or twist, but if the characters aren't developed enough or layered than the story tends to lose me.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Feb 3, 2020 23:20:24 GMT
No.
but certain subjects are just more interesting than others are. even when it comes to CGI... as a general rule I prefer to keep that minimal as if you rely on that too heavily, chances are the movie won't be nothing special.
with that said... without checking, I would imagine the bulk of movies I like are probably closer to realistic(or thereabouts) than not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Feb 3, 2020 23:25:17 GMT
Not so much that it has to be realistic, but more that it has to be possible to suspend disbelief. Like Superman for instance. We all know there's no such thing as people that can fly but if plausible things happen within the confines of the story then that is the main thing.
Fast and furious type of unrealistic is what turns me off.
|
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Feb 4, 2020 2:28:18 GMT
"Cinema Verite" is realistic cinema. And this is what I believe Martin Scorsese was referring to in his comparison of his films and super hero films. Animation and CGI have provided the masses with make believe baloney.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 4, 2020 2:33:51 GMT
Not always, no.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Feb 4, 2020 3:34:07 GMT
No, yet truthful plot points conveying real world historical ppl &/or events should be less 'creative'.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Feb 4, 2020 4:22:49 GMT
Certainly not.
|
|
|
|
Post by gw on Feb 4, 2020 5:06:15 GMT
Nearly every film exaggerates quite a bit. No road noise in cars, bad guys that can't shoot straight, impossibly concise and convenient conversations, ultra convenient password guesses, better looking actors then the real people in biographies and vehicular jumps that would wreck any real vehicle. Suspension of disbelief is the norm for movies even in ordinary seeming live action films.
In animation you have to suspend your disbelief even more. In hand drawn animation you have to watch a fully animated character with little detail, a detailed character with limited motion, or a character with neither. For television animation you have to accept limited motion in general but for it you get the chance to see a complex story that can't be shown in live action(Historically anyways but CG VFX have come a long way). I can understand why some people don't like animation but if at this point where you can practically perfectly recreate a real person they don't respect it as an artform, then I don't know what to tell them.
|
|
