Anyone else ever get annoyed by laymen (or even some aficionados, at times) dismissing some minor unrealistic (‘less grounded’) aspects of a film as ‘Well, it’s [just] a movie.’ I find that bizarre, especially coming from film lovers.
Naturally, some bloopers are ridiculous and they impact suspension of disbelief. I’m often guilty of calling out bloopers. But I’m talking about high-quality cinema, and what I find odd about the ‘It’s just a movie’ argument is the assumption that a film is expected to be unrealistic/not fully grounded. IMO, when things are grounded perfectly, it’s so insidious you don’t think about it and it does happen.
When I wonder about something watching a film, it’s more often than not not so as to find a plot hole but to explore how something was grounded.
Naturally, some bloopers are ridiculous and they impact suspension of disbelief. I’m often guilty of calling out bloopers. But I’m talking about high-quality cinema, and what I find odd about the ‘It’s just a movie’ argument is the assumption that a film is expected to be unrealistic/not fully grounded. IMO, when things are grounded perfectly, it’s so insidious you don’t think about it and it does happen.
When I wonder about something watching a film, it’s more often than not not so as to find a plot hole but to explore how something was grounded.
Last edited by AgrippinaX; 05-07-21 at 11:37 AM.