The End of Reality (Good Riddance!)

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

The End of Reality (Good Riddance!)

Movie critics' desire for realism is, well, unrealistic.

Read Full Article

I agree with it 90%. But I think it depends what the moviemaker is trying to sell you. If the story is total fiction or has any fantastic background from the start whats the point in looking for realism? If there are no superheroes in the real world so you cant expect any of the rest of the plot to try to be faithful to reality. If James Bond or Lara Croft do not exist, you cant expect much realism either. As long as within the plot it makes sense and is not ridiculous (and you like to see it there).
But if a director is proposing a story that either pretends to reproduce a past or present situation of reality, or predict one for the very near future (not counting exactly as sci-fi) you expect him to be accurate, on the concepts he work, on the events (specially historical ones), on the visual effects (Although in this last case you can lookover some flaws on details that are hard to reproduce). Thats were I demand the story to be realistic.

Bob, you're point is well taken. I do, however, have to argue on the position of realism.

What realism gives us who enjoy it is a level of earnestness and immersion that the unrealistic and fantastic can't give us. This is why the Bourne movies were so popular, as the self-parody stagnation of the Bond series had opened a void for another espionage thriller series to fill it in. Thus the Bourne series came into being. It gave us fast, fluid, bone-crushing action all realistic and all really kick-ass. We could belive this kind of thing could and would happen in today's post 9/11 government surveillance world. This provided us a level of immersion that few other films could.

I could go on about how my realism taste also spills over in sci-fi. Sci-fi likes to be realistic because it in effect is speculative fiction, and is thus making a bold prediction of the future. Cyberpunk was and still is wildly popular because that future wasn't too far off back in the 80's and now Japan is looking more and more like Gibson's Chiba City from Neuromancer.

Hell, this kind of thing spills over into anime as well. Cowboy Bebop, my favorite anime series of all-time, is grounded enough in reality so that my level of disbelief can take the absurdity of space bounty hunters. Ghost in the Shell is a straight-up love letter to Gibson and the rest of the Cyberpunk pioneers with the twist that the heroes are working for the man as opposed to against them. BECK: Mongolian Chop Squad is an earnest, true-to-life look at a wimpy kid with serious rock talents juggling the band and school with all the charm and relate-ability of The Wonder Years.

Heck even the Batman Animated series was a breath of fresh air as it didn't play down to us as kids: it was dramatic, gritty, and realistic. They knew we were smarter than other series let on and we loved it for it.

I guess my point is that it's all a matter of how willing our suspension of disbelief is. Some of us just have a lower tolerance than others, like me and my fellow realism lovers. You just have a greater tolerance for the absurd.

That' not to say that I'm completly all for total realism: there's a reason why I play Team Fortres 2 as opposed to Modern Warfare and it's ilk. Too much realism can suck the fun out of any good story. Give me a sniper who chucks pee in a jar any day: it's a lot more fun than waiting in not-Afghanistan for my health to regen while trading bullets with other brown and grey troops.

Ah. The Escapist. What a goldmine for great articles. Thanks MovieBob.

Interesting article.I,for one,would like to know exactly what are these action movies that "lived by the realism creed".Action movies by their very nature are generally unrealistic.A hero(or heroes)taking on insurmountable odds and pulling off stunts that would kill most humans could hardly ever be considered realistic

Bring on the unreal I say

The 70's had their day.
Being born in 73 I've only just got into the old realism gerne Bob was refering to.'Bullit' and 'Point Blank' being some I've recently discovered.
Growing up around that period I think you'll find most kids my age took to Star Wars and the increase in Sci Fi and Fantasy like Ducks to water.

Completely agree Bob.

Actually, games these days seem to be utterly fixated on "realism." And its stupid. Games try to be realistic and yet after taking a sniper rifle shot to the chest all you have to do is duck behind a wall for 5 seconds and BAM, fully healed. Realism =/= fun. For both games and movies. I'm not saying it should be gotten rid of completely, I have no problem having a few games and movies try to be realistic. After all, some people like that kind of stuff. But for everything to try and shoot towards "realism" is just pointless. Plus, its also boring. I don't want to be restricted to realism when playing a game. If I did I'd just live life.

Man, I miss the days of DOOM when you could carry 5 giant weapons and murder every demon from Hell on Mars...

I find I agree with this article ... to a point. The point of movies or indeed any storytelling medium, is to tell a story. It has to be done in such a way that it is convincing. Not necessarily convincing as in realistic - though there will always be people that refuse to enjoy anything that doesn't strictly adhere to realism - but rather it should be immersive. The story and the various components and devices that further the story such as action scenes and exposition should all cohere to make a single enjoyable movie. This is in comparison to some movies where the action sequences seem spliced in as an afterthought - or other elements for that matter - breaking the narrative flow and reminding the viewer that they are, indeed, watching a movie.

I agree with you that "realism" is overrated, even in the very very few cases in which it is actually present (as opposed to the patronizing faux-realism favored by the Grim & Gritty crowd, which is my main problem with the grayish-brown trend in shooters), however, an Avengers movie that crosses over three film franchises with different rules gives me pause.

See, I can suspend my disbelief no problem. I'm a huge fan of Doctor Who, anime, Nintendo games, Star Trek, all that stuff. However: I'm worried about INTERNAL consistency. I don't mind "The Rules" being different, but I don't like seeing them changed whenever it's convenient. As much as I loved Buffy the Vampire Slayer (and believe me, I did, and I still do), there were times when I wanted to scream, "WILL YOU KEEP TRACK OF YOUR FUCKING RULES ALREADY?"

And that's what I'm worried about. When you mash up three franchises with different Rules, you run the risk of undermining the rules that each individual one follows, and you wind up with a clusterfuck, where each individual movie in the three separate franchises becomes ridiculous because one of the other franchise heroes' powers could save the day instantly. The audience asks, "Why doesn't Iron Man just call Thor for help right now?" when Iron Man is in some situation in his own movie that would only be able to create tension when his own movie's Rules were being followed, and so on.

Personally, some of the changes from comic to movie form (such as with XMen) always appealed to me. It struck me more as an attempt to appeal to the greater audience of mostly adults living in the 2000's than out of any desperate attempt to make them seem more 'real'. A lot of the stuff about the old comics...from their flamboyant costumes to the ridiculous monsters...come across as corny and childish to the average modern adult. Unfortunately I wasn't born into Geekdom until I was a teenager, so I never kept up with comics growing up. To me, the modern 'gritty realistic' approach to comic book heroes is more relate-able as I can easily picture myself as one of the characters or at least as someone in their world, thus granting me a feeling of greater interactivity with the film. Ordinary people becoming extraordinary in an ordinary, but dangerous world. The power to change what we wish we could change every day of our lives.

This is NOT to say that overly fantastic movies which reject reality cannot be done well. I recently saw Speed Racer...and have to admit it was one of the most surprising things I've ever seen. I've never watched the old show. I had no idea what it was about except racing. And going through the first 30 minutes I was convinced I was going to hate it. "This is ridiculous...his name is actually 'Speed Racer'? WTF Is up with all the crazy colors?"
By the end, I realized I had actually enjoyed it a great deal. It was outlandish and TOTALLY unrealistic, but that was something I really enjoyed about it. The art and design was fantastic, the filmography was wacky, the humor was...well, mostly too childish, but occasionally hilarious, and the story, though a bit predictable, had a few little twists and kept me entertained. As I said, I've never seen the old show, so I can't say how faithful to it, but my boyfriend commented on how they pulled so much from it and was pleased. It was pretty obviously made to pander mostly to 12 year old boys, but the insanity of it grew on me.

On the realism side, one of my favorite action movies is Taken. I absolutely love the direct, to-the-point nature of the father and the emotion of it really grabbed me. There was very little about it that struck me as far-fetched and completely unrealistic, and I loved that.

So, coming away from all this, I have to say I'm glad I have such an open mind for what I enjoy in movies...I'm happily entertained all the more. :D

Movie Bob:
And this is why The Avengers - at least, the idea of The Avengers - has me so cautiously hopeful. Maybe this will be the one that smashes down all the walls, tears up the book and declares that the New Rule is that movies and moviemakers get to make their own rules. No more artificial boundaries, no more "you can't do that," no more "wrong genre."

Imagine a world where the only explanation anyone would ever need for the most bizarre, out of left field thing to unfold onscreen in any given movie were the words: "Feature Presentation." That would be a reality I just might be able to stand.

Kudos, here's hoping you get your wish. It would make for more fantastic movies for all of us. The only argument I can make in realism's favor is that it gave us a cinematic codex that allowed us to become more fully immersed in a movie's universe. But now that those lessons are learned, isn't it time we apply them to fantasy worlds and see how far down the rabbit hole we can take an audience? I think most 'square' movie critics aren't impressed with fantasy films because they only see them as spectacle, and aren't willing to give themselves over to the experience whole-heartedly. Their loss.

nowadays more like "THANK GOD$"

I think most of us agree with Adam Savage of Mythbusters: "I reject your reality and substitute my own"
That's what most of us want from movies/comics/games/etc. Sure, it's nice to think that spies or such things live in our everyday lives, but honestly, seeing fantastic things from an Iron Man movie for example makes me extremely happy and, most of all, entertained.
Kudos to you Bob, you expressed what many of us (more or less) wanted.

The comments on that Geek Apocalypse post (to say nothing of the main article) are rather...extreme. I had no idea people out of highschool still used nerd, geek, and dork as insults. Most of us proudly display those labels these days. They seem to be very much against the idea of fun in a movie or any other hobby. Something is very wrong when you can't appreciate a work of entertainment just because its a cartoon or from a comic or has any other relation to geekdom.

YAY 3 PAGES!!!
Great article.

'Action films of the past have always had a grounding in reality.'

Either that other reviewer is smoking something i really want to get hold of or my daily life is a lot more dull than I thought. Is this man seriously saying that ACTION films, the realm of Stallone, Kilmer, Scwarzenegger etc, have had a grounding in reality?

Anyway, my stance as a writer is that all fiction is fantasy, and fiction trying to pass itself off as reality is usually more fantastical than anything with monsters and dragons. My sister likes 'reality' fiction, so I asked her what some of the plots were to her books, and if the amount of tragedy which befalls one person in the space of twenty four hours in those books has ever befallen a real person I will eat my left shoe.

Reality < Fiction when it comes to entertainment.

Personally while I can appericate realism, and so I can to absudity, I gag when a film maker goes to far unrealistic actions while anything that shoves realism down our throats every second makes me gag. I will fully accept any kind of magical, mysitcal, or impossible situation if its rules are explained and there are limits. For example, in Harry Potter one can't just point a stick at something and it will turn into a dragon, in the Matrix (the first one at least) one can only bend the Matrix so far, in God of War Kratos has to find a one time use God killing magic which is extremely hard to get to, Bioshock for Adam causing insanity.

Basically, I will accept anything as long as their is a "magic logic" that the author abides to. Why I didn't like the second and third Matrix for their "We can do anything" plot moving characters, or God of War's "he was born with it", and Bioshock 2's "Adam can do whatever the %^&* we want it to".

I think realism and fantasy each have their purpose.

RE: Iron Man versus Hulk versus Captain America versus Thor --> That little glowing ring that powers Iron Man and his ilk is technology sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic. That he can exist in the same universe as Norse deities and Super Soldiers is completely consistent, and not nearly as much of a crossover as you imply.

Action movies were realistic?
Has that guy ever saw the Die hard movies? You can't lite jet fuel so easily, you can't keep moving after you have been shot at a hundred times or more... etc.

pratically ever movie that bruce willis, arnold and sylvester stallone has starred in has so gosh darn unrealistic that it's fun. Action movies of the eighties, nineties and even now are all unrealistic.

Realism? Not important to me. I can take it or leave it. Suspension of disbelief? Very important. Keep your rules consistent. Things that happen should be justifiable within the story. I don't like plot twists that come out of nowhere and make absolutely no sense, which is one of the reasons why I didn't like MW2 very much. It was "realistic", but my suspension of disbelief was punctured at so many points that it just became ridiculous, and I didn't like it.

Agreed Bob, movies have too much of a 'realistic' base, and it just detracts from my enjoy ment. The number one movie I point to that is Troy. Hollywood actually made a movie about greek mythology.....with no gods. Not a one. Achilles isn't the greatest warrior because his skin is unpierceable, no, it's just skill. Paris and Helen become utter douches because it's no longer Aphrodite's love spell that makes them fall for each other. Nor do we see Ares cry out in pain from getting cut on the battlefield, or Poseidon cursing Odysseus at the end.

Stupid realism.

Same realism that's messing with videogames, like Bionic Commando. Oh wait, that was also shitty controls

I'll agree that I'm excited to see more and more of the fantastical elements of storytelling creeping into cinema, but I'd hardly say that this is a brand new resurgence.... I'd say there is nothing grounded in realtiy in Harry Potter, and that movie came out close to a decade ago.

The late, great Blake Snyder said that you're only allowed one piece of "magic" per film.

Any more than that and the audience loses connection to the film.

This was shown in Spiderman as how we could accept the radioactive spiderbite, but the explosion that created Green Goblin and Doc Ock? That was far-fetched.

The problem being, of course, that it was deemed to be more "realistic" for Peter Parker to produce web-fluid from his wrists, rather than him being a world-class chemist as well.

UH-UH. That was being stupid. See also Indiana Jones hiding in a fridge.

As long as the magic is there, we can believe it. Place Indiana Jones in a ancient Mayan food storage container, and not a problem with believing that. Drop Aliens into the plot and everyone throws up their popcorn in disgust.

What we need is realism within the world. If Stormtroopers can't shoot straight, then so be it; but ALL Stormtroopers need to be lousy then. This is something that the soaps/sitcoms ignore to their peril.

House M.D. survives as a doctor, despite the fact he should be lynched, because he's a Magnificent Bastard. (Tropes Warning) If you have him save a kitten, it NEEDS to be so that Cuddy can bend over. To do any differently would cause the old "Han Shot First" problem.

War of the Worlds is about Aliens, Transformers is about Giant Robots, The Day The Earth Stood Still is about Benevolent Alien Dictatorships - trying to force the human condition into these stories may give it opening night flashes, but ultimately it will collapse into ridicule.

Show the original of these three (or Clash of the Titans) and you'll get people watching today. Show the updates and people will want a sandwich.

What's "Real" is defined by the movie and the genre. And in that sense, the only movies that truly draw people in, time and time again, are those that are real to their own realism. Stick in a real life event and you crash and burn like The Lovely Bones.

Drawing on another Hero, Bill Hicks said that some people thought that the lesbian angle/leg-crossing in Basic Instinct wasn't necessary. To most of it's fans, it's essential.

Propane tanks explode when you shoot them, Dynamite blows out jail walls, The Nazis were all evil. It's the Movies.

If you want the real truth, watch Mythbusters.

Moviebob is right (again), screw realism. Is there anything more that should be said?

Wait, i also have to quote one post here and agree with it, too.

Sylocat:
I agree with you that "realism" is overrated, even in the very very few cases in which it is actually present (as opposed to the patronizing faux-realism favored by the Grim & Gritty crowd, which is my main problem with the grayish-brown trend in shooters), however, an Avengers movie that crosses over three film franchises with different rules gives me pause.

See, I can suspend my disbelief no problem. I'm a huge fan of Doctor Who, anime, Nintendo games, Star Trek, all that stuff. However: I'm worried about INTERNAL consistency. I don't mind "The Rules" being different, but I don't like seeing them changed whenever it's convenient. As much as I loved Buffy the Vampire Slayer (and believe me, I did, and I still do), there were times when I wanted to scream, "WILL YOU KEEP TRACK OF YOUR FUCKING RULES ALREADY?"

This. Oh-so-very much. I detest everything realistic in fiction, and quadruply detest everything "realistic" (as in, brownish and GRIMDARK). Only thing i'd like to see is internal consistency (or if author decides so, complete lack of it - "shit happens, don't think too much" sort of thing) being maintained. With everything else, writers are able - and indeed, supposed to - go completely nuts. We're not coming in the movie theatres for more of reality, we're coming there to escape reality. To taste something different (and most times, better).

This reminds me of a section in Austin Grossman's book "Soon I Will Be Invincible!". It revolves around a supervillain named Doctor Impossible and a cyborg named Fatale who has just joined up with the big superhero league of the day. One of the scenes is a confrontation between Doctor Impossible, who's a intelligent villain in the vein of Doctor Doom or Lex Luthor, and Mister Mystic, the resident magician of the aforementioned superteam. Impossible has this internal monologue about their two differing styles:

I don't like magic. I think I've said that. it goes against the whole premise of my-well, my whole thing. That we live in an ordered universe. That the stars and planets swing around each other according to laws. if Mister Mystic thinks he lives in a different world to that one I have to prove that he's wrong and I'm right.

There does always seem to be that clash of "No, we can't have that here, it doesn't fit in that genre" whis is especially galling when you've got people running around in spandex throwing lasers or cars at each other

Amen, Bob. Amen. A film should be judged on its merits - not on its choice in aesthetics. The "Realism" which these people idolise is just as much a construct as the fantastic workings of any soft sci-fi epic, and their irrational fetishism is equal to that of any of the geeks they show contempt for - perhaps greater. Because while a "geek" such as myself maybe able to recognise the virtues of say a film like Festen or Saturday Night, Sunday Morning these snobs will never stoop to admitting that they may have enjoyed The Dark Knight or Hero.

Its a kind of elitism Ive only really encountered in the world of film. I did a degree in Creative Writing and one of the modules I took in the first year was scriptwriting. I have a big appetite for the absurd, the surreal and the bizarre and I put a lot of that into the stuff I write - the only time I ever encountered a problem with this was in that god-damn scriptwriting module.

The module booklet even read, "No guns, zombies, ninjas or any other Hollywood preoccupations. Only draw inspiration from your own life experience otherwise your scripts will be cliche ridden and terrible."

What. The. Hell.

I was tempted to write a kitchen sink drama about a family of Zombies working in a munitions factory just to piss them off.

Cant a fantastic story about dinosaurs playing kazoos on Venus also draw inspiration from the writers troubled relationship with their father and be a subtle and insightful critique of capitalism?

Cant a "realistic" story all about the writers tedious job at a factory be nothing more than an awkward and messy rehash of crappy indie movies the writers seen?

If you turned to any well read literature nut and told him that Franz Kafkas The Metamorphosis was an invalid work because, "men dont just turn into giant cockroaches in real life" he would bitch-slap you into next week.

All fictions have their own internal logic that is invented by the writer and as long as he doesnt just go and randomly throw that logic out of the window when he feels like it you cant really cry foul.

Complaining about dinosaurs in a dinosaur movie is moronic.

This article seems to make the question of realism a universal either-or proposition, and I don't quite agree with that stance. In my opinion, context, intent, and premise are key factors in determining the fantasy to reality ratio that is acceptable. There are movies(typically any fantasy film) for which it is so obvious that reality must be thrown away that I have no expectations whatsoever regarding any realism. My only requirement in such a case is that the film establish a self-consistent fantasy reality and not violate that fantasy, i.e. don't make your own rules and then break them.

But, then there are other films for which reality must be front-and-center and not deviated. One may have situations with extremely low probability of occurrence or even seemingly improbable events(for example, a movie about someone who actually does find that their body has quantum tunneled to the other side of the galaxy); however, these are not necessarily violations of reality as they simply require more knowledge and calculation of the statistical flexibility of the universe to see that such events can, indeed, occur. In fact, with a little digging into some of the deeper areas of quantum mechanics, statistical physics, and relativity, one can find all kinds of weird things that do actually happen, but for the lay-person, many such things would seem unrealistic only because they lack the knowledge and experience of such things(i.e. it's something that's non-intuitive). Also, remember, in many ways, today's science is yesterday's magic. This would not just apply to sci-fi, fantasy, and action films; it could apply to other film genres.

In my opinion, to really be able to meld known reality with notions of fantasy really requires a broad knowledge-base and keen understanding of concepts. This may be where film-makers are failing; they just don't understand enough themselves to create a convincing conjecture of possibilities spawning from our current reality. As a result, a more knowledgeable audience has difficulty suspending disbelief, and this may be from where some of Movie Bob's quandary is coming. (Of course, I admit, I could just be totally off-base on this prospect.)

For games, I'm generally more strict about not wanting reality shoved in all the time as a means of making a game "good" or "immersive". My position with games is usually if I want reality, I wake-up in the morning, not pay some game developer $50-60 to make a failed attempt at recreating it. However, this is because my own personal intent with games is purely to escape this reality for a time and try some other reality. For purposes of immersion, I only require that the game establish a self-consistent set of rules and not violate those rules.

I give my thumbs up to MovieBob on several points here, but I want to remark on one specifically: the one where he said that realism is an aesthetic choice. There are times when realism is good and enjoyable (I loved "Touch of Evil" and "Citizen Kane," both realistic films). It's not what you have, it's what you do with it.
On the other hand, I would agree with people who say that Bond shouldn't have laser wielding cyborgs or battles in space. The style of James Bond when he was at his best was a sort of 1920's playboy attitude. The gadgets and stunts were fun, but they were represented in a particular way, with a very stylized motif (at least in the really good ones, by which I mean the Sean Connery films, minus Diamonds Are Forever). The lack of that stylization is specifically what I find wrong with the last four bond films. The last two Bond films went so far into realism that it completely disregarded the ballroom-dance music flavor that made Bond what it was (and Quantum of Solace fucked the series royally by disregarding every other element that made Bond what it was, essentially turning our buddy James into that guy from Die Hard (I didn't despise Die Hard, but Die Hard is NOT James Bond)).
So, yeah, realism or fantasy are just aesthetic choices. As a writer, I sometimes mix the two in the same story, writing a gritty-realistic style of story in a world that has wizards and elves. It's not which side of the coin you pick, it's how you present them.

While I would totally love the description that you apply in your final paragraph, I find myself saying "Absolutely, but not always." There is still something to be said for that which specializes, knows exactly what it is, and does that to a golden-roasted perfection. And then, of course, there is the matter of Believable magic. Telekinesis, Pyrokinesis, Telepathy, and many other thousands of combinations of Latin prefixes and suffixes that we name as superpowers, these are for the most part believable, but only to a certain extent. Lifting a pencil or a cup? Sure. Lifting a bus? Well, obviously, they're very powerful and have focused their power through elaborate, probably painful dedication and practice. Moving a whole building? The mind then puts up a flash, saying "Whoa whoa whoa, hold up!", and makes you not want to see it as magic as much as it could be seen as. And then there's proportion and combination. I'm reminded of a scene in the third X-men movie, where Magneto is gathering his army in a church, and finds some little squawky bitch who is both a speedster and a telepath--to which I similarly call bullshit, since those are two very different powers. Heroes had that, but they had a decent explanation for it--Peter was a mimic, Sylar could make his own brain perform the functions that his victims could perform after examining how they used theirs. Both of those are acceptable explanations for how they could combine their powers into never-before seen new abilities--but they often couldn't do two at once.

Do I want to see Captain America fight aliens? Absolutely. Do I want to see the Norse God of Thunder get his ass kicked God of War Style? You bet. How about Tony Stark and his suit pitting science against magic? I'm right there with you. In this regard, I say--fuck reality, give me my willing suspension of disbelief. But in saying that, I say as conditional aside--whatever arises has to be somewhat believable. Aliens? Fine. Magic? Fine. Aliens with magic against Humans without who use science instead? I want a giant heaping helping. Put bounds in place, and make sure everything is kept within fair conception.

RJ Dalton:

On the other hand, I would agree with people who say that Bond shouldn't have laser wielding cyborgs or battles in space. The style of James Bond when he was at his best was a sort of 1920's playboy attitude. The gadgets and stunts were fun, but they were represented in a particular way, with a very stylized motif (at least in the really good ones, by which I mean the Sean Connery films, minus Diamonds Are Forever). The lack of that stylization is specifically what I find wrong with the last four bond films. The last two Bond films went so far into realism that it completely disregarded the ballroom-dance music flavor that made Bond what it was (and Quantum of Solace fucked the series royally by disregarding every other element that made Bond what it was, essentially turning our buddy James into that guy from Die Hard (I didn't despise Die Hard, but Die Hard is NOT James Bond)).
So, yeah, realism or fantasy are just aesthetic choices. As a writer, I sometimes mix the two in the same story, writing a gritty-realistic style of story in a world that has wizards and elves. It's not which side of the coin you pick, it's how you present them.

There was once a serious Bond in the 70s who conformed to our contemporary "realism and grit" angle - yet it was done in such an awesome way no one complained. It was called Day of the Jackal.

Alright yes, it wasn't actually a Bond film. But the main character is basically James Bond right out of the novels. That is what makes it awesome; Day of the Jackal shows how such an impossibly sauve and badass, yet cold and brutal character could possibly live in a realistic environment - The thrill was that a larger-than-life fictional character could go out and murder a real-life political leader using only what he could get his hands on in the real world. Or at least a plausably real world anyway. Jackal Is basically what the modern Bond movies should have aspired to be like.

But it

maninahat:

There was once a serious Bond in the 70s who conformed to our contemporary "realism and grit" angle - yet it was done in such an awesome way no one complained. It was called Day of the Jackal.

Alright yes, it wasn't actually a Bond film. But the main character is basically James Bond right out of the novels. That is what makes it awesome; Day of the Jackal shows how such an impossibly sauve and badass, yet cold and brutal character could possibly live in a realistic environment - The thrill was that a larger-than-life fictional character could go out and murder a real-life political leader using only what he could get his hands on in the real world. Or at least a plausably real world anyway. Jackal Is basically what the modern Bond movies should have aspired to be like.

But see, it wasn't Bond. I don't mind taking an idea or a character concept and toying around with it in different settings. But if you're going to call it Bond, do what makes Bond Bond. If you're going to do something completely different, call it something else. Just trying to capitalize on a franchise only screws it up.
Honestly, though, I think Bond should be put to bed. There's really nothing more you can do with the idea that hasn't already been done and still remain faithful to what Bond is. The franchise has exhausted itself. My only real disappointment is that we never got a satisfying conclusion to the SPECTRE sub-plot running through most of the Sean Connery films (Diamonds Are Forever was NOT satisfying, even if it was a conclusion).

eels05:
The 70's had their day.
Being born in 73 I've only just got into the old realism gerne Bob was refering to.'Bullit' and 'Point Blank' being some I've recently discovered.
Growing up around that period I think you'll find most kids my age took to Star Wars and the increase in Sci Fi and Fantasy like Ducks to water.

Yeah, but Bullit was especially noteworthy because it gave us one of the greatest chase scenes ever: Steve McQueen barreling down the hills of San Fran in a Green '68 Mustang chasing a tuxedo black Charger. The kicker? It was done LIVE! The production team didn't have the money to put up a barricade so they said "Fuck it!" and did it in full traffic!

I'd rather have that then the over-stylized bullshit that the Fast and the Furious series could ever give us.

wildcard9:

eels05:
The 70's had their day.
Being born in 73 I've only just got into the old realism gerne Bob was refering to.'Bullit' and 'Point Blank' being some I've recently discovered.
Growing up around that period I think you'll find most kids my age took to Star Wars and the increase in Sci Fi and Fantasy like Ducks to water.

Yeah, but Bullit was especially noteworthy because it gave us one of the greatest chase scenes ever: Steve McQueen barreling down the hills of San Fran in a Green '68 Mustang chasing a tuxedo black Charger. The kicker? It was done LIVE! The production team didn't have the money to put up a barricade so they said "Fuck it!" and did it in full traffic!

I'd rather have that then the over-stylized bullshit that the Fast and the Furious series could ever give us.

That Charger is my dream car.One day I WILL have one.

But yeah even in movies like Mad Max 1 and 2,all those stunts were real.It definatley gives you a feel that CGI and greenscreen lacks.

wildcard9:

eels05:
The 70's had their day.
Being born in 73 I've only just got into the old realism gerne Bob was refering to.'Bullit' and 'Point Blank' being some I've recently discovered.
Growing up around that period I think you'll find most kids my age took to Star Wars and the increase in Sci Fi and Fantasy like Ducks to water.

Yeah, but Bullit was especially noteworthy because it gave us one of the greatest chase scenes ever: Steve McQueen barreling down the hills of San Fran in a Green '68 Mustang chasing a tuxedo black Charger. The kicker? It was done LIVE! The production team didn't have the money to put up a barricade so they said "Fuck it!" and did it in full traffic!

I'd rather have that then the over-stylized bullshit that the Fast and the Furious series could ever give us.

I think a better example would be the original Italian Job versus the new remake. The original to me is infinitely better because of the stunts actually being real.

Anyways, I do agree with Bob, realism has it's place, but it doesn't need to be shoehorned in. I like to watch movies to escape reality, not be encased by it.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here