View Single Post
  #817  
Old 08-31-2012, 11:00 AM
I suppose somebody should point out the discrepancy between the twentysomethings who qualify realism and the almost absurd expertise big budget movies employ these days to inform their science and pseudo science. Has anybody read about the lengths Marvel movies went to consult with theoretical whosits in order to inform fantastical movies like Thor and Avengers? Has anybody read into Cameron's research with Avatar? This could be another situation where fans are laughing about unobtainium before realizing it's a real term correctly employed (and I was one of the fans laughing about unobtainium). The Dark Knight Rises opening with Bane hinges on the airspace where they crash, the country where they picked up the terrorists, and the bureaucracy of the doctor's native country added to the airspace in order to plausibly conceive of Bane's cinematic kidnapping. When big budget movies choose to attack something in ways that are less than realistic, it's usually a choice, because consulting experts is chump change for a tent pole release. After reading about the lengths the studio went to consult on the science of Thor, I threw in my armchair towel, because I thought Thor was absolutely ridiculous and was dismayed at how informed the studio wanted to be. I have a different impression of big budget hollywood movies these days, especially tent pole comic book movies. They seem to be pretty savvy where they want to be savvy. And where they aren't, it's probably intentional--like a ticking time bomb. But when it's intentional, the criticisms probably change a little bit. If I criticized the ticking tomb bomb as unrealistic that might be a silly criticism, because of course it's unrealistic. Even the people who liked it thought it was unrealistic. Even the film makers thought it was unrealistic. So it must have been employed for a reason other than realism.
Reply With Quote