When do you suspend disbelief when watching a movie?

[Thx-1138]

Originally Posted by Blondebaerde

?

Who aims for "realism" in Hollywood? On what dimension?

Along the lines of gunplay, I assure you Keanu Reeves took lots of training to learn that 2 second draw to double-tap in John Wick 1-3 (w/Taran Tactical in greater Los Angeles area). Plus various forms of Taekwondo, Krav Maga, and god knows what other mixed arts: I can't answer to the latter, only the former. With the right guns, in his case largely 9mm from Glock, they do a decent job of stressing "marksmanship uber alles". They riffed on 1911 (Kimber) 45s a few times ...."is that all?" which I found funny, having a semi-custom 1911 myself. I'll give them this: if someone said, tomorrow, "BB, you need to march into a (faux) nightclub and try and shoot down 20 men to get to the Boss Lady!", assuming I had no other choice I'd pack a high-cap 9mm from HK plus one in backup, the 1911 would stay home, and I'd (try to ) handle it with as much grace and ACCURACY as he (the character) did. Oh, and with four spare 15 rnd mags on each hip plus one in each coat pocket. And a FN SLP combat shotgun, but that's another story. That, "John Wick" surely got right.

There are other specific *directors* who mostly insist on correct gunplay, most notably AFAIK Michael Mann: see "Heat" bank robbery scene (DeNiro, Val Kilmer etc) which is EXACTLY how you handle an M4 under fire. And or, Tom Cruise taking tons of training for "Collateral", notably shooting it out in 1.5 seconds for 3 rounds to two badguys in an alley scene, and the nightclub where he shoots down roughly eight people with 17 rounds from an HK USP, then does a deliberate reload and double-taps his target. Almost, though not quite, realistic (magazine capacity), unless it's a USP 45...never mind.

Then there are shows like "the Living Dead" that have NO sense of realistic gun play...it's a TV show and that's not a priority I suppose.

"Realism" is otherwise totally at the discretion of a director. Most of whom want to create entertaining fare, not "realistic" with some exceptions.

Um, I'm trying to figure out if you agree with my post or not...


Yes, as I said, in some ways they want "realism," even if it's a fictitious "monster" say, they want it to look "real."


The studio system used to send actors to their own studio "school," to learn to ride horses, handle swords, etc all for the sake of realism.


We have ALWAYS heard about actors studying and preparing for a part, consider Paul Muni.

But, as you say in your last sentence, and I said in my post, entertainment is the bottom line, it is no good to show an average day in an average life... people have to want to pay money to see it. They can see an average day at home living it.

At first, just the novelty of moving pictures, an illusion of something real was enough entertainment "value" of itself to carry it.

Thx

[TheArchitect]

Any fantasy theme involving supernatural, vampires, werewolves, superheros you know going in will violate not only law of physics and biology, but also rational human behavior. You don't expect to see either biological or behavioral realism.


Ex: an early post-industrial civilization vs a space faring civilization meeting on a battlefield to engage in close quarter, hand-to-hand combat (Infinity War, Endgame....and every superhero movie).




A non comedy movie that sets itself in the real, normal world but has people abruptly behave in highly abnormal ways or has coincidences and circumstances that seem too contrived will be more difficult to accept.

[metalmancpa]

I always suspend disbelief with movies, unless they are specifically termed a documentary.

[Jezku]

when a character suddenly bursts into song, and changes their usual personality all of a sudden. too much abruptness in action. exaggerated character traits.