Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: New Zealand
Re: The "realism" thread
Time for my 10 cents (we don't have 2 cent or even 5 cent pieces down here).
First, let's establish that I loved MOS, my fave comic book movie of 2013, maybe ever ( The Dark Knight and Iron Man being right up there, but I've been
a Superman fan since day one, so MOS wins).
Now my bias is out of the way, we can continue.
Okay, I was really digging the "realism" thing with BB, and the Nolan DK trilogy.
I thought, Superman, how can they do that and fit in with the realism trend ?
Anyway, I was pleasantly surprised (now in the natural progression of the Superman story, Krypton's destruction always comes first, but by doing so, Snyder sneakily gets us to suspend disbelief and buy into the premise).
Oh yeah, where was I ? Oh, I was surprised by how seamlessly the sci-fi elements of Superman fit within the mundane everyday world. It was those establishing shots, like the butterfly and the red wagon, when Clark returns to Smallville, and Cavill's performance (vastly underrated IMO), which gave the character a very grounded/earthy feel - he was just the guy next door....if the guy next door could literally move mountains.
I was in the group who thought the collateral damage in the film's climax was completely warranted. For those who didn't like it, it was like "You want a realistic Superman" (well as realistic as a flying alien can get) " but you don't want any casualties when he has super-powered fisticuffs ."
Can't have it both ways people.
If you think the end of MOS was carnage, check out MiracleMan 15, (an Alan Moore classic, from back in the late 80's). When the gods are angry, us mortals suffer.
Realistically, if creatures of godlike power had a scrap, downtown, then downtown would get ****ed up.
Personally, it worked for me, because the premise of the film was that Superman was just another guy ( a very good guy, in fact a great guy) but he wasn't infallible, in fact the Jesus imagery was effective, because Jesus too had moments of doubt.
Best of all, it was a bud-drinking-football-watching-helping-mom-with-the-dishes-wearing-old-jeans-doing-manual-labour-chest-hair-sporting-beard-growing-plato-reading-Superman. I loved Reeve, but this new Superman was a bit more down to earth, a bit more realistic (well as realistic as Superman can be).
Okay, that was an MOS rant, but I think it ties into the realism idea.
Tell you what though. What I hate is when a film establishes a premise, and then demolishes that premise, kind of breaks its own rules.
I've been fighting with plenty of IM 3 fans, that Tony Stark isn't stupid enough to pick a fight with a dangerous terrorist, invite the guy to come kill him at home, and then do nothing to prepare for it......unless maybe if he'd erased his own brain, like he did in the comics.
That to me, is not realistic. Sure I'll go for flying armour and nanotechnology, but when characters do unrealistic things, given their character, and it ain't explained in a believable way, then I get pissed off.
Like if Batman had pulled a glock out on Bane and busted a few caps in his bald-mumbling-ass, then I'd be like WTF ? Batarangs sure, run him over with the Batmobile, okay -but Batman doesn't use guns. It's not realistic or believable within the scope of the character. Fortunately, Nolan was smart enough to know this, which is why Catwoman puts out Bane's lights for good.
Now I know that's only peripheral to what this thread's about, but it raises the point that sometimes a film stretches the suspension of disbelief too far.
In that sense we might say "That character would never do that, it's not realistic."
So not realistic as in what's actually possible, but what's realistic in being consistent with an established character or premise.
I can hear the "yeah, but...." s already. But there you go, there's IMO.
Great thread, peace out !