Is the new buzzword in Hollywood: Realism?

[Thespeckledkiwi]

So are movies like Pineapple Express realism or fantasy?

I think we are seeing a major blend in that medium.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Comedy is hard because it almost always depends on some exaggeration to be funny. Therefore, 9 to 5 is realistic to a large degree - until you get to the part about the protagonists holding their boss prisoner for 6 weeks and no one notices. Is there something blatantly impossible in Pineapple Express? Because that's kinda what you have to have for fantasy.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

Errr, most of the ending for Pineapple Express.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

While they might be fantasy, the directors, producers, and such have taken a more realistic approach to movies like the Dark Knight. Again instead of the chemical bath that the Joker was created from, they dismissed that. No acid in Harvey's Face. Instead it's burned away. They took what they had and created a realistic approach to that.

It's so realistic to recover quickly from burns on 50% of the body and for eyes to continue to function with no apparent eyelids to keep them moistureized.

 

[Trent Roman]

As Temis rightly points out, realism has to do with actual events that could happen in the real world. Taxi Driver has realism, Juno has realism. Both of those even have a certain level of artistic invention that of course makes them unrealistic - because all art is unrealistic in the final analysis, since it is an invention. What everyone is praising in science fiction/fantasy might better be termed naturalism - which is a stylistic choice to make fantasy worlds that line up plausibly with the real world (or a real world), i.e. to create soemthing that happen naturally or scientifically.

This is a good distinction. Also, I'd say we're looking for a certain degree of internal coherency; the fantastical premises can be allowed as with any sci-fi/fantasy piece, but afterwards the audience looks whether events logically follow. Bizarre things coming out of nowhere in the fictional world (Venom) are less well received than those that stem from a genuine set-up and in-world explanation.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[stj]

Whether you call it realism or naturalism, it should be painfully obvious that making plausibility part of the definition puts in such an enormous loophole as to make the proposed definition entirely useless. To use the hottest current example of such supposed realism, Dark Knight, the alleged ability to use cell phones as sonar ignores the fact that cell phones are not equipped to emit or receive ultrasonic frequencies! Or, that the frequencies the information acquired is communicated with are exactly those monitored by cell phone companies for regular phone calls, meaning that use of this miracle gadget would take down the network! Or, that in the action sequence ripped off from Daredevil, there is no reason to think that there are any cell phones present! (If the hostages had cell phones, it is even more miraculous that mob didn't escape their lone captor!) Plus the other examples in this thread. In practice, plausibility usually comes from the viewer's inattention to logic and fact.

The notion that a realistic (i.e., natural, logical, honest) development of internal premises is more attractive. But I don't think that applies either. Dark Knight has a major premise that Harvey Dent's personal reputation is key to successful prosecution of the Mob. But the kidnapping of Lau is an essential part of that prosecution. Really is it realistic (or naturalistic if you insist on pointless distinctions) to think that all prisoners received from Batman might not be freed from unlawful imprisonment? That use of Batman obtained evidence wouldn't be ruled a subterfuge to evade the law and hence inadmissible?

Batman is a non-murderous vigilante with an infinite supply of missiles on his motorcycle for blasting walls. Ignoring the plausibility problems of the vehicle being unable to move for the weight of the explosives, the lack of space left for a rider, and the incredible safety hazard of driving like a maniac in an unshielded arsenal, why doesn't Batman have the incredible Lucius Fox whip up stun guns, net guns, sleeping gas, etc.? That would be a natural development of Batman's reluctance to kill. But that wouldn't be cool.

So I must still disagree---when someone says a movie or TV show is being realistic, they usually mean it's cool. Spaceships are for nerds, so contemporary backgrounds are cool. Cruelty is the vogue, so mean heroes are cool. Calling all this realistic is just a trendy way to sound more sophisticated.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

As Temis rightly points out, realism has to do with actual events that could happen in the real world. Taxi Driver has realism, Juno has realism. Both of those even have a certain level of artistic invention that of course makes them unrealistic - because all art is unrealistic in the final analysis, since it is an invention. What everyone is praising in science fiction/fantasy might better be termed naturalism - which is a stylistic choice to make fantasy worlds that line up plausibly with the real world (or a real world), i.e. to create soemthing that happen naturally or scientifically.

This is a good distinction. Also, I'd say we're looking for a certain degree of internal coherency; the fantastical premises can be allowed as with any sci-fi/fantasy piece, but afterwards the audience looks whether events logically follow. Bizarre things coming out of nowhere in the fictional world (Venom) are less well received than those that stem from a genuine set-up and in-world explanation.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

But all stories have to have internal consistency, or they're just not good stories. Fantasy stories have to create all sorts of original rules for the fictional world, whereas realistic stories can assume that readers/ viewers know the rules that world follows. That's why plausibility comes into play. You can create a fantasy world where everyone's fingers turn into lollipops whenever the characters want. That might make a fine background for a story. But if it's naturalistic, then it's got to be something like everyone has had nanotechnology implants imbedded in their hands which are activated by hormones sent out when you think about lollipops.

 

[Trent Roman]

But all stories have to have internal consistency, or they're just not good stories.

Well, I'm inclined to agree, but that hasn't stopped people from producing films that lacked it with the excuse of 'it's fantasy/sci-fi, we can do whatever we want, don't think about it too hard, etc.'

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman