Unneeded lack of realism in movies

Frank

Certified not a majority
Veteran
Why is it, that in movies they most of the time come up with completely unrealistic actions and explanations, while a scientifically sound one is readily avalable, that can have the desired effects as well?

Because people in movies care only about the presentation, and very few of the viewers know it's dumb?
 
If movies were realistic, we wouldn't need them at all. I have more than enough realism in real life.
 
Remember the alien guy who was on Earth for many years and then he started doing that stargate show (more like a parody to us)? He's now doing a movie version and the SG team is reviewing the script and giving input and the sort, making sure it's ok. And the whole time he's trying to do all the wrong and stupid things. Explosions! Explosions! or dealing with the loss of the main lead by trying to make him invisible, use extra crazy sounding science explanations, cutting out scenes that would explain how something fantastic occurs (e.g. 50 troops stand in between the heroes and the stargate and then the next scene they're back on earth or something safe). It's a really fun episode to watch. ;)
 
If movies possessed any more realism, they would be a series of everday events such as complaining over gas prices or waiting in line at the supermarket. It's within the outlandish plots that entertainment is derived. But that doesn't mean some movies don't surpass the bar for unrealistic events. Man, I remember the first time I saw the ending for "Commando," which to this day reigns supreme as the most unrealstic ending a movie could have possibly had. Ever. When Arnold threw that pipe through the sternum of that guy like 15 feet away, who was also wearing a chainmail vest.... I actually began laughing. Hysterically.
 
If movies possessed any more realism, they would be a series of everday events such as complaining over gas prices or waiting in line at the supermarket. It's within the outlandish plots that entertainment is derived. But that doesn't mean some movies don't surpass the bar for unrealistic events. Man, I remember the first time I saw the ending for "Commando," which to this day reigns supreme as the most unrealstic ending a movie could have possibly had. Ever. When Arnold threw that pipe through the sternum of that guy like 15 feet away, who was also wearing a chainmail vest.... I actually began laughing. Hysterically.

The plot can be the same, they could just stop doing the dumb inaccurate things:
  • Fuel-explosions
  • Bullet that cause sparkles(Games could take a hint too...)
  • Magical clips with endless ammo.
  • People jumping through glass and don't get cut.
  • Cars that explode violent when crashing.
  • Firing while running and still hitting he target (or worse the fire-from-hip shooting)

The page is a very good read on bad physics in movies:
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/
 
The plot can be the same, they could just stop doing the dumb inaccurate things:
  • Fuel-explosions
  • Bullet that cause sparkles(Games could take a hint too...)
  • Magical clips with endless ammo.
  • People jumping through glass and don't get cut.
  • Cars that explode violent when crashing.
  • Firing while running and still hitting he target (or worse the fire-from-hip shooting)

The page is a very good read on bad physics in movies:
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/

Blah, I could write a book about the flaws in movies regarding firearms. Apparently trajectory has never been taken into consideration ever in the known movie universe. People fire their weapon at will through virtually any surface, and the slug will penetrate it in a straight arrow path, losing virtually no velocity, including glass and water, heh. Or how about dual wielding handguns? Unless everyone is firing a pellet gun, the recoil alone would leave every round you fired's destination a mystery. I could go on forever.

That's an awesome read. Thank you.
 
Back
Top