TheAlbaniac on 7/8/2006 at 20:58
Die Hard 3 had Samuel L. Jackson
Paz on 7/8/2006 at 21:20
I'm much more interested in this "realism" debate than in Die Hard, so that's what I'm going to waffle about.
I can't make my mind up, really. It's not surprising when films get shit about guns incorrect (I'm not going to pretend I'm likely to notice anything beyond "hang on, shouldn't he have run out of ammo by now?" in this respect) - and by extension, it's rarely surprising when films get ANYTHING incorrect. Have we not lowered our standards a bit here though? It's almost as if it's fine to write-off pretty crappy errors because "oh it's that kind of film and it's just trying to entertain us". Yeah, ok, that's fine - but I think we should at least demand that these presentations stay accurate within their own little worlds.
Clearly there are necessary liberties which need to be taken at times; massively ridiculous explosions, cars spinning 180 degrees and landing perfectly - whatever. However, the suspension of disbelief is an extremely brittle thing. For the gun nuts it's techno gun data. For me it might be stuff about albums or football, or something.
Running with the second example - In the context of a film, it's just about ok to have SUPERSTAR STRIKER MAN blast a last minute free kick into the net from 70 yards. It's not ok to get the name of a stadium wrong, or get the structure of the F.A. Cup incorrect, or anything of that nature. Those aren't about bending reality to fit an exciting narrative, they're just FUCK UPS. Those are mistakes we should not put up with. The cinematic industry already treats the majority of punters like slobbering morons, it doesn't need further encouragement to slack off on basic research.
Agent Monkeysee on 7/8/2006 at 22:55
Quote Posted by Paz
I'm much more interested in this "realism" debate than in Die Hard, so that's what I'm going to waffle about.
I agree and there's a lot to be said regarding "internal consistency"; what that means, how you define it, and why it seems to be so ethereal and yet so easy to point out when it goes wrong.
Quote Posted by Paz
Have we not lowered our standards a bit here though? It's almost as if it's fine to write-off pretty crappy errors because "oh it's that kind of film and it's just trying to entertain us". Yeah, ok, that's fine - but I think we should at least demand that these presentations stay accurate within their own little worlds.
Here I think you're mixing the two though. There's a difference between lowered expectations and expecting internal consistency. Die Hard 2 never made any contention to have super accurate firearms and it's simply a fact of the industry that Big BlockBuster Action Movies simply aren't realistic in that department. There's also a story-telling factor here. No one but the most die hard (lol) nerds are going to even notice there's anything amiss about firearms. To draw attention to the fact that HEY we're going out of our way to make this realistic would, more often than not, detract from the story and distract the audience making them go "wu-huh" because now they're wondering why the movie is making such a big deal about its attention to gun detail and thinking ah jeez what else did I miss what is this movie trying to do here. In short it's a waste of time.
Quote Posted by Paz
Clearly there are necessary liberties which need to be taken at times; massively ridiculous explosions, cars spinning 180 degrees and landing perfectly - whatever. However, the suspension of disbelief is an extremely brittle thing. For the gun nuts it's techno gun data. For me it might be stuff about albums or football, or something.
Here's where I think the nerds go wrong. Suspension of disbelief isn't about avoiding any nerd rage alarm bells at getting minutae wrong *unless* the movie has made it clear it's intending to get the minutae right. For example we take "Hackers". The movie is about a bunch of (sexy) computer nerds that get together and hack into systems and talk about hardware and build computers and fight evil security systems. The target demographic is obvious and it's critical to get those details right. They didn't, by and large, and the movie comes off as hilariously bad; it's the cinematic equivalent of a blowhard going on about a subject they know nothing about.
As opposed to the "i know this its unix lol" in Jurassic Park. Sure it was silly to everyone who actually knows Unix systems (yes I know it's a real OS) but it's not a legitimate criticism of the movie because Jurassic Park didn't go out of its way to state "hey we're going to depict realistic computer systems". It wasn't an important detail and 99% of the audience doesn't care and, more importantly, the movie doesn't give them a reason to care. Same with the guns in Die Hard 2.
Basically what I'm saying is your suspension of disbelief should be based on what the movie is trying to achieve, not on the metric volume of dorky trivia you've managed to build in your little skull over the years. Yes I know a Glock 7 doesn't exist. Yes I know porcelain guns don't exist. But Die Hard 2 isn't even attempting to treat guns realistically and it's quite easy to accept this fictional world where that happened. As opposed to, say, Heat or Way of the Gun which did go out of its way to have realistic firearms. There a mention of a Glock 7 would be jarring, out of place, and rightly break the suspension of disbelief.
Scots Taffer on 7/8/2006 at 23:09
Quote Posted by Stitch
Did you see me protesting the fact that velociraptors are presented (and popularized) as smarted-up Deinonychus? Of course not, I was too busy watching them rip the shit out of that game warden.
Anyway, on the realism discussion, I'm of the opinion that a film clearly sets out its tone early on and from there in I can expect the level of realism as set by the director. Monkeysee said it best with a comparison between Heat and Die Hard, two totally different beasts but both fall under the genre of Action (for better or worse). I don't think the existence of two totally different breeds of action film is a bad thing, if it was then most of the Arnie movies of my youth was evaporate in a puff of realism and then where would we be? WHERE WOULD I BE WITHOUT MY QUIPS FROM COMMANDO, EH??
In all seriousness though, it is just plain fucking laffo that people look at films that are obviously popcorn entertainment and analyse them for realism.
It's like The Blues Brothers, granted it's a comedy, but for the most part it is utterly grounded in the real world until halfway through the last car chase when physics, gravity and perception go clear out the window as a reversing car not only inexplicably tips back, but the force of it tipping back propels it into the air in a multiple flip and somehow amid all that, it reverses direction so that it flies over the car behind it in the opposite direction. But I don't give a fuck about realism, I'm just choking on my laughter and waiting for the inevitable
I've always loved you line.
WATE I FORGOT ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS!
Paz on 7/8/2006 at 23:36
The Glock 7 thing I don't really mind at all. Partly because I just don't care, but also because it was mentioned that there IS no Glock 7 in real life. As far as I'm concerned that means the people in Bizarro Die Hard World are free to make up properties for this mythical weapon as much as they want. It would be worse, I think, if they pretended an existing model of gun was something it wasn't.
AM - you're quite right, I have mixed up expectations of quality with expectations of realism; but I think there is a point of crossover. Hilariously, I'm struggling for examples (in truth, I'm not a big film-viewer) - but you know there are occasionally bits when you just think it would have been easier to get something RIGHT, rather than fudge over it with technobabble or ... just blatant wrongness. Often something which should obviously take bloody ages is accomplished in seconds, even when it doesn't need to be - it might be ok to factor a bit of time passing into the script/editing without losing any kind of narrative flow.
Actually, I guess what I'm talking about there isn't so much getting details right as pulling out things which are just insulting to the audience. Even when you're making a cheesy popcorn fluff-fest, I think certain quality levels should be stuck to.
Ok, here's my hypothetical lighthearted teen movie about a PUNK BAND trying to make it BIG. In one of the opening scenes, where the band are discussing which direction to go in, my lead character will be winning over the rest of the guys by extolling the virtues of punk rock. It's not supposed to be a musical documentary or anything, but I still want to make sure the lead guy doesn't fuck his facts up (unless it's intentional for comic effect, blah blah). Something like that, anyway.
I think I'm pretty inconsistent with justifying this stuff to myself though, really :D
This is straying into a different point, but I suspect a lot of it may stem from my subconscious, snobbish distaste that the genre of BIG ACTION FLICK WHERE SHIT JUST HAPPENS still gathers enough of an audience to even exist at all.
Scots Taffer on 7/8/2006 at 23:39
Quote Posted by Sgt_BFG
I think I'll take my chances and trust IMDB on this one, thank you very much :rolleyes:
And if AICN isn't good enough, here's (
http://comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=15824) yet another source using the LIVE FRE AND DIE HARD title.
Agent Monkeysee on 8/8/2006 at 00:57
Quote Posted by Paz
I think I'm pretty inconsistent with justifying this stuff to myself though, really :D
I dunno, there's no hard and fast rules. It depends on the film. In a movie about an upstart punk rocker the movie should have a fairly deep understanding of punk. It should not have a deep understanding of, say, the NY subway system.
Vigil on 8/8/2006 at 05:48
Though at the same time, if they manage to completely fuck up the layout of the New York subway system by not doing a single ounce of research, rather than in the service of any plot device, are you going to call the New Yorkers who get irritated at their lazy fact-checking a bunch of prissy nerds?
The core of your argument still seems to be "it's dumb to get annoyed at things the movie isn't trying to do right" when the core of Paz's (and, I think, Phydeaux's) argument is that movies should be trying to get these things right anyway unless they have a good reason not to, in the interests of not insulting the intelligence of their audience.
Arguably in Die Hard's case they did have a reason not to, inasmuch as major scenes hinged upon it, but this is an isolated example and you seem to be applying a blanket statement despite saying it depends on the film.
Scots Taffer on 8/8/2006 at 05:55
I think you're taking Monkeysee's comment the wrong way. Obviously if they had the subway going from station C to B to D and lastly A when the obvious order is A->B->C->D then yes, the NYer's complaint would be valid, however if there was dispute over a maintenance tunnel leading to a track or a vital control panel for a subway train being in the wrong place, it's academic nonsense to start bitching about it.
Malygris on 8/8/2006 at 06:38
Jesus, boys. How did you get from Die Hard: Reset (lol scots freakout) to this?
There are two kinds of movies. There are engaging, stimulating movies that draw the viewer into the story and wraps them in a rich and detailed narrative, and there are movies where shit gets blowed up real good. AM has made the point pretty clearly already, and I don't think it has anything to do with lowered standards or audience indifference toward half-assed efforts. It's simply a matter of what the audience can reasonably expect from any given movie. A movie that strives for realism, or purports to be a "real-world story," has a greater obligation to get the facts straight, even the mundane background bits; a blowed-up shit movie, on the other hand, it doesn't matter quite so much, and it shouldn't.
Watch Hard Boiled sometime. Guys are getting gut-shot left, right and centre in that movie, and it hardly slows them down; if you don't empty at least half a clip into a guy, all you do is piss him off. Does this detract from the fact that it's the Greatest God-Damned Action Movie of All Time? Absolutely not, because we're not here to find out what would really happen to someone who took a shotgun blast in the back at nearly point-blank range, we're here to watch a whole lotta guys get the shit whomped out of them in different and cool ways. If this kind of shit went down in Saving Private Ryan, it'd be a problem, because there are much greater demands on a movie like that, and rightfully so. But surely it's not that difficult to understand the willingness of the audience to put up with a lot more fast-and-loose horseshit in one movie than the other, and why so many people are willing to smile and ignore the "THAT'S NOT RIGHT!" -shouting crowd.
