Suspension of disbelief

[dalekboy]

Films and tv shows usually rely on suspension of disbelief.

To me, if one is going to maintain the suspension of disbelief, you have to obey all the ordinary everyday rules that people know and understand. One can believe an massive alien invasion with giant biomechanoid floating death cannons, so long as the world rules beyond that are consistent. But if a human character, in avoiding one of these cannons, jumps off a ten storey building without any sort of aid, or interruptions to their fall, and land unharmed and run off - that's the deal breaker. One knows that's not possible, and suddenly one is left questioning that moment, and by default, the rest of the film.

I mentioned in a post yesterday that I hate it in films and tv when medics use the defibrillator paddles on a woman to try and restart her heart, and they are using them through material - bras, tank tops, etc. - rather than on bare skin. It pulls me right out of the moment, because I know it's not right.

I also mentioned hating when people can just break passwords when they have no information on the person, which has become really common in shows. Any computer whizz can break any password, within a relatively short time.

Another one I hate is when someone who is driving spends time looking at the their passenger rather than paying attention to the road. Quick glances are fine, but when they're maintaining eye contact for whole big chunks of conversation it annoys me. If you regularly did it in real life there's no way you wouldn't crash.

king_espresso mentioned that he hates when people don't wear ear protection on board military helicopters, which is a great one. Well, except now I'll be looking for it and getting annoyed by it.

kaths brought up the way people type madly on computer keyboards to do things that the rest of us would do with a mouse. We're in the internet age, everyone uses computers, we know they don't work this way.

kaths also mentioned the way they can zoom in on a small section of a photo, blow up that section, sharpen/clean it up, and suddenly have a incredibly clear and detailed picture. It's the equivalent of being able to blow up my icon for this post to read all the book titles.

So what about you? What regularly used, unrealistic film and tv conceits pull you out of the moment?

Comments

[dortamur.livejournal.com]

I'm very good at suspending disbelief, or at least accepting wacky things in the context of a film, but sometimes I get pushed way over the edge.

The first big thing that leaps to mind is The Mummy II with the dawn sunlight creeping across the ground as they outrun it and hope it won't reach the big crystal at the top of the pyramid. Basic geometry and physics please! Then again, if it was a Discworld film, it'd be more forgivable, because light is described as crawling over the land.

Oh, and cars on the ground outrunning the orbital laser closing in on them. Hmmm, another Geometry one.

There's scenes that make me wince in disbelief - Doc Oc in Spiderman 2 getting thrown about (he's still just a human with uber-arms), Iron Man slamming into the ground in suit #1, Indy (4) slamming into the ground in fridge #1, etc...

Then you take a film like Wanted, which I caught recently and thoroughly enjoyed, curving bullets and all. In my mind it was a silly action fantasy film, so bullets curving around things were just fine.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

The commentary on Mummy 2 has Sommers saying that the light is wrong, but he chose to do it that way so the audience would have a visual reference for the light approaching the building. I can accept that reasoning even if the physics are wrong, because it's an artistic choice. That said, having a big mountain behind the building with the sunlight creeping down it would give you the same reference.

I bloody hated the blimp with jet engines. Seriously hated it. Still do.

Still on Mummy 2, when characters go against everything they represent for no good reason. Anck Su Namun running away and leaving Imhotep to die betrays the core motivation for everything both characters go through over the two movies. If she had died trying to save him instead, you've stayed true to that, and him consigning himself to Hell still works.

Van Helsing has a number of scenes where normal humans take incredible hits only to get straight back up again. It was also a rubbish film.

[ariaflame.livejournal.com]

I didn't get the impression that went against her character. She hadn't before that point ever delibrately risked herself for him that I can remember.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

At the start of the first film, she tells Imhotep to save himself when the Magi are coming. When he tries to stay, she tells him that only he can resurrect her and when the guards come, she stabs herself.

Now you can argue that she knows Imhotep will save her and she feels she's at no risk, but that's still a hell of a thing to do for someone you don't love.

The voiceover at the start also says that they were willing to risk their lives for their love. So to me, it's pretty conclusive from a character standpoint.

[ariaflame.livejournal.com]

Well, she'd already died for him once. Maybe she really didn't like the experience and didn't want to do it again. (Not that she got out alive anyway). And I didn't say she didn't love him. But there are different degrees. Would you be willing to die for every person you love? Perhaps you would because you are a giving soul, but I'm not so sure about her.

Also I think it was there to contrast the strong bond that the heroes had. (guessing how the writers were thinking)

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, it was totally done to counterpoint the two relationships. But I think it's far more interesting if the bad guys obviously love each other just as much as the good guys. And that was the impression I'd been given by the films up until that point.

I actually think that, as he goes on, Stephen Sommers is becoming a lesser storyteller and film maker. Such a shame.

[pre-vet-girl.livejournal.com]

Or lasers that stop when they get to a certain depth ie: in AVP, they follow the laser-drilled tunnel down until they get to its end. Lasers don't work that way!

Light sabers I'll let you get away with, it is after all "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..."

[dortamur.livejournal.com]

In Star Wars canon, they're never actually "laser swords", and while there's mention of crystals in them, it doesn't say they're for focussing/controlling light.

The theory I like is that light sabres are a force field encompassing plasma of some sort, which is a much more reasonable explanation as to why they have a finite length and a physical presence.

[dalekboy.livejournal.com]

And even the first Star Wars described itself as space fantasy, which lets you get away with more.