Is it right to criticize scenes in movies for lack of realism?

While watching The Hobbit: Battle of Five Armies I made a mental list of the ridiculous physics defying stunts various characters did in the movie. And then the question popped into my mind: why do I criticize this movie for lack of realism when for example in the Matrix Reloaded, I love the Neo vs 1000 Smiths scene, despite it being utterly unrealistic. And I love the reservoir chase scene in T2 despite its various physics defying moments. And the conclusion of Die Hard 2 would be massive physics goof - but hey, I love that movie too!

In my opinion it all comes down to how well the scene itself is crafted - if the scene is meaningful, defines a character, has a message, etc. then lack of realism is not a problem. But if it is poorly crafted and has no significance at all, then it is right to nitpick and ridicule the filmmakers. Of course this has a fair dose of subjectivity to it: I can absolutely understand if someone criticizes the mentioned scenes from the mentioned movies. That only means that it did not have significance or meaning to them. And that is totally allright.

What do you think?

edited 15th Jan '15 7:57:33 AM by Sati1984

I think it has something to do with the inner logic of a movie. When the movie ignores something which was previously established, it is always grating.

Honestly, I would say it depends on how much it clashes with the "rules" set within the Universe. Although it didn't bother me, I can see why Legolas stunts rubbed people the wrong way considering how off the rails they ended up going.

It just depends on what the movie is going for. If it's trying to present itself as being realistic, even during absurdly unrealistic scenes, rather than artistic or what have you, I'd say criticisms are justified.

It's a combination of what you are willing to accept and what the established boundaries of the world are. The entire Middle-Earth saga as directed by Peter Jackson is filled with impossible stunts and near escapes, to say any one in particular breaks reality while you accept the others is willful ignorance. Even if you have a strong argument that the rules of the world have been broken, odds are the unrealistic scene establishes a new realistic boundary for the world.

And then there is being aware of something I call "Artistic Respect." The average audience member has no idea how to make a movie, and most people are oblivious to a lot of legitimate storytelling structure. Filmmakers are, more often than not, fully aware that they are breaking reality. Sometimes its a legitimate mistake that the production cannot fix (time or money) but often it is a purposeful decision for the purpose of telling the story. Audience members are welcome to their own opinion, but should not consider themselves clever for "knowing something they got wrong."

It perplexes me how people consistently point out how unrealistic the Matrix was and then point straight to the actions of what is basically a video game avatar set to god mode.

It's one thing to talk about why a fictional car would be incredibly inefficient in real life. It's another to complain about a character moving faster than a human can run and using the scenes where said character is driving in a car as your reference point.

It's like comparing an incorrect assumption (Noisy Guns), something that the very medium needs to be able to tell stories in (Yes, that's clearly a stun double/CGI ragdoll) to what is simply a hypothetical concept (a mountain taller than mount Everest above sea level). You can complain about why it's there, should the movie give a stupid explanation for the mountain's existence, but complaining about people climbing on it becomes silly because people climb mountains all the time.

It depends on the tone of the movie. I would expect realism more from a gritty drama then a lighthearted comedy or over-the-top action movie.

Same. Legolas using falling bricks as stepping stones is REALLY egregiously bullcrap, but everything else I found fairly reasonable.

Yes, honestly. Even talking / magical / intelligent animals in fiction can be criticized, especially since there are too many (dumb) humans who end up making things worse for real animals just because they want a pet owl like Harry Potter or end up really thinking that all toilets lead to the ocean.

I am aware that OP just talking about "action scenes" realism, but the question "Is it right to criticize scenes in movies for lack of realism?" is a bit too broad and though I generally like the Tolkien franchise, I have issues with how some animals are portrayed in it, particularly the some animals are allied with good and some with evil.

Even warm-hearted movies realistically showing off the pains and joys of pet ownership can be criticized though mainly due to the still so very much so inadequately regulated pet breeding industry.

If your intent is to do a historical movie, then historical accuracy is a pretty good idea.

That I find to be over-zealous.

Saying something like "Orcs mount giant wolves, therefore this movie demonizes wolves and contributes to their oppression" just seems like blowing things out of proportion.

Better to be overzealous in these cases.

Some animal shelters will even screen people who adopt black cats because too high a percentage of people who adopt black cats intend to torture them.

I suppose I should count it fortunate that wolves typically do no end up in animal shelters. Instead they're just nearly driven into extinction.

Is this an actual fact?

Most moviegoers are not stupid, folks; kids may be, but they get out of that stage soon enough. I don't think you should blame the movie that inspired the person so much as his stupidity that made him think it was a good idea.

People torturing black cats?

Or wolves almost extinct?

Black cats.

I don't doubt the wolves extinction one.

The torturing black cats thing is for real, but AFAIK it's only around certain seasons. Like, say, Halloween.

edited 15th Jan '15 7:08:10 PM by CorrTerek

(hisses angrily at anyone who tortures cats)

edited 15th Jan '15 7:10:18 PM by Quag15

Which is my point... It's only a thing when the kooks come out.

Just google black cats torture animal shelter.

Also try google Harry Potter owls or Finding Nemo flushing pet fish or Jaws sharks extinction.

Or google irresponsible pet breeders trying to cash in on movies with purebreed dog or cat stars. You do not want to know what happens to surplus kittens and puppies.

It's not just stupid people, it's also greedy people. Luckily, wolves managed to come back and the scientists have more or less succeeded into making sharks look cool, instead of "must be driven to extinction".

Welp, then I guess we just can't use any animals in movies that aren't pre-approved, common house pets.

I don't think it's lack of realism that should be criticized so much as lack of internal consistency.

Read my posts again.

Even using common pets can lead to problems. Golden Retrievers and Labradors (and many others) have overbreeding problems, because they're so popular and there are of course people who want to cash in on their popularity.

If all pet breeders were responsible, this wouldn't be a (big) problem, but there are many breeders who'll keep their breeding mothers (forever pregnant) in cages, pumping out kittens, puppies to meet the demand.

There is also the problem of media over-romanticizing pet ownership. You've any idea how many pets are abandoned once people realized it's a lot of hard work and cleaning up dog poop?

Again... Don't blame the movies for what can be explained by stupidity.

I guess no animals can ever be in any movies anymore. Not even CGI ones or fantasy ones that resemble real ones because apparently that's "a bad influence" too.

You're mainly focusing on stupid end consumers.

Now, how about the greedy middle men/women taking advantage of stupid end consumers' buying impulses? Where do you think those owls came from?

And animals, of course, can still be in media, but better care must be done on how they are represented.

Over here, even though Western purebreed animals are very expensive - they still end up on the streets. At least our local all mixed-up breeds is suited to the tropical climate, but Western purebreeds coats are very thick.

edited 15th Jan '15 7:33:59 PM by probablyinsane

If greedy people decide to take advantage of stupidity, then they will.