Levels of Reality in Genre Fiction

Tools    





As for the idea that art is 'mostly' made for an audience, I think most of the time it explicitly is (most artists do want positive feedback and so many either completely or at least somewhat cater to what they believe is expected of them....which is their business and not mine or yours or anybody else's)


But then there are artists who only sort of cater to an audience. Maybe even barely, considering ones definition of audience. I often think of a quote of Jim Jarmusch that goes along the lines of 'I have no idea if anyone is ever going to be interested in the kind of movies I make....but I want to see them, so I have to assume there must be others out there that do as well'


Some artists cater to this 'audience' of one. They live with the hope that maybe it is more than just them, but they can't let they discourage the from the path they are on. Art for many who deal in more experimental or abstracted or unconventional forms are frequently a leap of faith for the one creating them. And for some out there, ie me, we find a beauty in the defiance of pursuing this vision even if no one ultimately cares.


So this notion of 'who cares about transgression', it is an absolutely essential element of what art is and how it moves forward. Even transgression that ultimately fails Even transgression that is only for transgression sake. Transgression is what allows the hope that there are other ways of doing things outside of the box the rest of the standard audience (ie Corax) would prefer it to stay inside of. Even when it doesn't work, it offers a route for future attempts that might. That might be transformative. Thst might even be what ultimately creates a new box for people to try and keep art inside of.


As for the whole idea of artifice in cinema, and how it is used to evoke empathy, I don't really see how much of what I said is in opposition to Yarns posts. It was mostly just an addition to it. But arguers got to argue I guess. Got to eventually get ones money's worth from those lucrative philosophy courses
The idea behind this thread was invite to excavation of the implicit levels of realism in varying genres and subgenres--making that which is tacit explicit--in order to consider the norms that govern them. We often speak of genre as being divided by content (e.g., Western, War movies, Space movies) and by purpose (e.g., to make you laugh, to make you cry, to make you thrill), but we rarely discuss the differing approaches to reality that they feature. These are rules of expectation that we rarely consider "on the front burner."

You entered the thread and went off on the idea that genre should constrict art at all and rather violently (figuratively, not literally) suggested that audiences who expect movies to meet their expectations should be run over like speed-bumps(!). You offered an aesthetic objection radiating with moralizing contempt for the very middle ground that would make the discussion I propose possible (i.e., the idea that there is a middle ground, that it is a dance, and that audiences are owed something).

You've been dragging the discussion to the extremes, instead of considering the very resource for transgression that genre provides (you can't cross a line unless the line has already been drawn). And so you have been arguing to the alleged autonomy of the work of art so that you can try to claim that artworks need not care about their audiences (they are independent). When you've admitted that we do need a guardrail to push-back, you've returned with talk about artists who themselves don't make art for anyone but themselves (well, these guys are independent!). You have attempted to mitigate the experience of reality(ies) that people get out of art (and which draws them to art), by attempting to deflate it out of existence by arguing that we only egoistically feel for avatars representing ourselves.

If you look to the original post in this thread you will see that I have noted that genre provides a resource for transgression--again, I have offered no brief for genres as unchanging Platonic Ideals. All this transgression business is besides the point. Again and again, I have asked "so what?". Yes, films transgress.

So, again, the idea here is to consider the rules of expectation definitive of "reality" implicit within genres and sub-genres, to consider these as default starting points, a sandbox for artists to play in. When we reach for genre, we're reaching for equipment that has been on the playground for generations. It's no surprise that artists make use of these features to tell stories so that they don't have reinvent the whole wheel (what is the tone?, what counts as real?, what are the stock characters?, what sort of resolution is initially expected?, what sort of motivations do we expect?).



The idea behind this thread was invite to excavation of the implicit levels of realism in varying genres and subgenres--making that which is tacit explicit--in order to consider the norms that govern them. We often speak of genre as being divided by content (e.g., Western, War movies, Space movies) and by purpose (e.g., to make you laugh, to make you cry, to make you thrill), but we rarely discuss the differing approaches to reality that they feature. These are rules of expectation that we rarely consider "on the front burner."

You entered the thread and went off on the idea that genre should constrict art at all and rather violently (figuratively, not literally) suggested that audiences who expect movies to meet their expectations should be run over like speed-bumps(!). You offered an aesthetic objection radiating with moralizing contempt for the very middle ground that would make the discussion I propose possible (i.e., the idea that there is a middle ground, that it is a dance, and that audiences are owed something).

You've been dragging the discussion to the extremes, instead of considering the very resource for transgression that genre provides (you can't cross a line unless the line has already been drawn). And so you have been arguing to the alleged autonomy of the work of art so that you can try to claim that artworks need not care about their audiences (they are independent). When you've admitted that we do need a guardrail to push-back, you've returned with talk about artists who themselves don't make art for anyone but themselves (well, these guys are independent!). You have attempted to mitigate the experience of reality(ies) that people get out of art (and which draws them to art), by attempting to deflate it out of existence by arguing that we only egoistically feel for avatars representing ourselves.

If you look to the original post in this thread you will see that I have noted that genre provides a resource for transgression--again, I have offered no brief for genres as unchanging Platonic Ideals. All this transgression business is besides the point. Again and again, I have asked "so what?". Yes, films transgress.

So, again, the idea here is to consider the rules of expectation definitive of "reality" implicit within genres and sub-genres, to consider these as default starting points, a sandbox for artists to play in. When we reach for genre, we're reaching for equipment that has been on the playground for generations. It's no surprise that artists make use of these features to tell stories so that they don't have reinvent the whole wheel (what is the tone?, what counts as real?, what are the stock characters?, what sort of resolution is initially expected?, what sort of motivations do we expect?).

They are related arguments. When talking about the illusioary reality of film, this opens the door to questioning what reality is at all in regards to film. And to properly talk about this it makes total sense to at least acknowledge abstract and experimental cinema and what their relationship to emotional responses are. You certainly don't just exclude whatever approach to filmmaking you don't think qualifies as a film because it doesn't live up to your 'expectations to be entertained'. They are as much a part of the conversation as what you were saying about genre.


But I get it. Unless people decide to respond to your post exactly as you anticipate them to, you find it frustrating. Which is hilarious considering you are the guy who scribbles outside of the lines of every single post you've ever responded to. So why do you get to blather on about unrelated shit in everyone else's thread and we have to be puritanically observant thread monks in yours?


But, regardless of this, my initial post has a lot to do with what you're talking about. I know any acknowledgement of non narrative cinema irritates you to the point you consider people who talk about it androids, but just because you fundamentally do not understand how these two topics are at least tangentially, if not directly related, is your enormous Blindspot.



They are related arguments. When talking about the illusioary reality of film, this opens the door to questioning what reality is at all in regards to film. And to properly talk about this it makes total sense to at least acknowledge abstract and experimental cinema and what their relationship to emotional responses are.
This has all been addressed. I was shifting gears in the hopes of seeing if you have anything of interest to offer besides a moralizing take out of the prompt premised on as assertion of artistic autonomy that your own analysis has contradicted (e.g., when you talk about the need for push-back on transgressions) or your attempts to drag the conversation exclusively into the realm of your imagined exceptions.

Your main line of attack has been mitigated to insignificance via your own concessions to Yoda and your "exceptions" are irrelevant to the prompt, because I am talking about genre and how genre functions where you are attempting refocus on particular artists and what they do (apples meet oranges). I am talking about genre as a default expectation. You are moving downstream of this to assert that artists can transgress boundaries--a point that has been conceded and which is not competitive with the idea of the prompt (initial conditions meet terminal conditions).
You certainly don't just exclude whatever approach to filmmaking you don't think qualifies as a film because it doesn't live up to your 'expectations to be entertained'.
This is a mischaracterization of my position. And again, I am talking about genres offering default frames of reality for artists--this is a precondition that allows for creative approaches.
They are as much a part of the conversation as what you were saying about genre.
No, they aren't. This material is non-competitive with the assumptions of the prompt and off-topic relative to the prompt.
But I get it. Unless people decide to respond to your post exactly as you anticipate them to, you find it frustrating.
No, I was hoping to be surprised, to hear ideas about tacit conventions in genres and sub-genres which I had not considered.

Your entry into the thread was blustery, moralizing, and violent (run them over!). Kicking over the lemonade stand and then blaming the proprietor for customers not doing business in the way they expect is hardly a failure of the proprietor. You have some some rather extreme and deeply held ideas about art. These ideas don't interest me, but my prompt has apparently conflicted with your intuitions, so here we are.
Which is hilarious considering you are the guy who scribbles outside of the lines of every single post you've ever responded to.
Well, this is really what this is about isn't it?

I frequently invite interlocutors to show me how and where a response have made has gone off-topic. I invite clarifications a regular basis.
So why do you get to blather on about unrelated shit in everyone else's thread and we have to be puritanically observant thread monks in yours?
You're then who came in the thread bemoaning the very idea of the conversation, and your objections have been addressed, at length. I have performed that labor for you and not merely dismissed your arguments out of hand.

What are we doing here?
But, regardless of this, my initial post has a lot to do with what you're talking about.
This has already been addressed. The original formulation of the take-out was taken out by your own concessions to Yoda. That's done.
I know any acknowledgement of non narrative cinema irritates you
The only thing I find baffling is your stance that film is not about narrative. I find that quite odd. I do, however, enjoy discussing formal properties as much as anyone else. That stated, at the end of the day, we have to consider all the elements come together in telling a story. The proof of the formal pudding is in the tasting of the elements in the experience of the narrative.
to the point you consider people who talk about it androids, but just because you fundamentally do not understand how these two topics are at least tangentially, if not directly related, is your enormous Blindspot.
I understand that there are connections. I am not the eliminativist here. You're the one who consistently has these bizarre denials of the relevance of rules, relevance, story, anything that gets in the way of your idea of art for art's sake and unrestricted auteurs creating new forms ex nihilo.

Our conversation is not moving in a productive direction, so I suggest we leave off. At least, I am done.

Keep on truckin'



premised on as assertion of artistic autonomy that your own analysis has contradicted (e.g., when you talk about the need for push-back on transgressions)

There was no contradiction. The fact that there is something to push back against does not mean the artist isn't working independently from their own instincts. Some artists may deliberately push these buttons, but just because lines are being crossed does not mean all artist do this specifically to cross those lines. Some artists may simply want to do the things you aren't supposed to do because they think there is something interesting there to play with or explore.



I think it is telling you can't see the two as being possibly separate.


Your main line of attack has been mitigated to insignificance via your own concessions to Yoda and your "exceptions" are irrelevant to the prompt, because I am talking about genre and how genre functions where you are attempting refocus on particular artists and what they do (apples meet oranges).
Huh? Artists and genre aren't mutually exclusive. Genres are an outgrowth of what artists have done with them over the years. Certain reflexes and expectations can codify. They are never entirely independent from the whims of an artist. One comes along, shakes things up, and the genre changes.

Exactly how long have you been on these kinds of movie forums? Have you read anything anyone has ever said?

Your entry into the thread was blustery, moralizing, and violent (run them over!).
Holy ****, man. You literally mentioned (twice) in a recent thread about religion about MKS getting hit by a car and dying in a gutter. You called out a specific poster directly by name and made violent allusions towards him.

And I of course was outraged by such a....no, I realized it was a ****ing joke. Or are you the only person who is permitted to make jokes related to car violence....don't answer. Of course you are

You have some some rather extreme and deeply held ideas about art. These ideas don't interest me
Yeah, film isn't narrative. Terribly extreme. Or maybe just a fundamental understanding of what film is that you totally lack.

I frequently invite interlocutors to show me how and where a response have made has gone off-topic. I invite clarifications a regular basis.
Like that time you baldly accused me of supporting child exploitation in a discussion about film.

You do it all the time. You have a history doing it. You have a history of many many many posters calling you out for doing it. But I guess its just a big conspiracy against you.


And not merely dismissed your arguments out of hand.
My initial post was completely in earnest. It was you who misread its intent. Probably because you were too closely identifying with those horribly maligned speed bumps.

The only thing I find baffling is your stance that film is not about narrative. I find that quite odd.
My stance is not abnormal. Or even remotely controversial to anyone with even a fragmentary understanding of art history. If anything, the fact that you still find these claims 'baffling', after twenty years on movie forums where this very point would have been mentioned hundreds if not thousands of times, by a variety of different posters, says everything I need to know about how little you actually pay attention to what anyone ever writes in these spaces

I do, however, enjoy discussing formal properties as much as anyone else. That stated, at the end of the day, we have to consider all the elements come together in telling a story.
Yes, please tell everyone what they have to do again.

And I'm the one forcing my film morality down people's throats.

You are simply unwilling to give a fraction of a second to anything that doesn't fold to your extraordinarily narrow definitions of art.

understand that there are connections. I am not the eliminativist here. You're the one who consistently has these bizarre denials of the relevance of rules, relevance, story, anything that gets in the way of your idea of art for art's sake and unrestricted auteurs creating new forms ex nihilo.
I don't deny any of these things. This is once again an example of you either not reading or not understanding a ****ing thing that glazes across your eyeballs. My point is, and has consistently been for twenty ****ing years, that my issue is with people who discount art that does not fulfill the functions of those particular things.

This is not me rejecting story. This is me rejecting ******** who reject anything that dares not be. Learn to distinguish between these two things.


Our conversation is not moving in a productive direction, so I suggest we leave off.
Oh, I wonder why.


At least, I am done.
lol



So... how does what J.J. Abrams did to Star Trek fit into all this?

Sure, within the realm of sci-fi... a realm that's already dealt with time travel, alternate timelines, and parallel dimensions countless times... the "rules" were already in place for more such stories or even entire counter-continuities to completely subvert entire franchises.

But it seems like Abrams was so preoccupied with whether or not he COULD, that he never stopped to think if he SHOULD.



So... how does what J.J. Abrams did to Star Trek fit into all this?


JJ's a thing unto himself. I think he really thought he had the "secret sauce" to story telling figured out with that mystery box shtick. Sorry JJ, but it turns out you need to have something good in the box and you can only have the main action outrun your plotholes for so long.


Sure, within the realm of sci-fi... a realm that's already dealt with time travel, alternate timelines, and parallel dimensions countless times... the "rules" were already in place for more such stories or even entire counter-continuities to completely subvert entire franchises.


Star Trek has never really made all that much sense in terms of the physics or internal consistency. Every week on the original series they would encounter a technology they could use to solve a problem next week. Hmm, that formula which makes you move faster than a wink of an eye would come in handy? Hmm, that time travel thing sure would come in handy right now? Hmm, perhaps we should have saved the configuration the Kelvans used to make the Enterprise fast enough for intergalactic travel?



At least with most Star Trek, however, the B.S. makes sense within the confines of a single episode. Forget about the alien device that would have solved this week's problem and the episode works OK.



J.J. Trek, however, just piles on the B.S. on multiple levels. It doesn't makes sense in terms of the internal logic of its own story, the wider logic of Star Trek (e.g., canon), or the external logic what we know about the world.



J.J. Trek doesn't even makes sense in terms of the folk psychology. Jim Kirk, for example, has "THOR" syndrome (i.e., in every movie he's having to learn to grow up to become a true leader). And the emplotment doesn't make sense, on face. So, OK Nero appears when Kirk is born, but waits two decades to attack Spock? Why? Khan is this ancient Earth leader who is put in charge of developing high technology? What? Now we have backpack transporters that can transport people from Earth to the Klingon homeworld directly? OK, so why do we need starships anymore?



J.J. is a gingerbread man who is just trying to run from one frame of the storyboard to the next with no wider view of the overall story. It's dream-logic, set pieces that are moving so quickly that the idea is that your brain won't notice.


The problem with J.J., however, is not a problem of genre but simple a problem of competence.



The doors of wisdom are never shut. - 'Socrates'
There was a deleted scene to explain why Nero waited 20 odd years. He was imprisoned by the Klingons for that time and escaped and used his ship to destroy a bunch of Klingon ships.
__________________
Did you know that in the 1980s movie PREDATOR the titular character was not originally portrayed by Kevin Peter Hall. It was in fact Jean-Claude Van Damme donning a much more insect inspired full body suit before he left the production which then led to the recasting and redesigning of the famous hunter.



There was a deleted scene to explain why Nero waited 20 odd years. He was imprisoned by the Klingons for that time and escaped and used his ship to destroy a bunch of Klingon ships.

Right, but that they decided to cut this important connecting detail to keep the momentum going is so very J.J. (even if he wasn't in the editing bay).



Also, the idea that this giant advanced ship that could destroy any Federation ship of the period was just sitting in an "impound yard" waiting for Nero to steal her back is also so very J.J.



The doors of wisdom are never shut. - 'Socrates'
Right, but that they decided to cut this important connecting detail to keep the momentum going is so very J.J. (even if he wasn't in the editing bay).



Also, the idea that this giant advanced ship that could destroy any Federation ship of the period was just sitting in an "impound yard" waiting for Nero to steal her back is also so very J.J.
I agree they should have kept that scene in as it was puzzling as to why Nero took so long. Before I saw the D/S I just took it that they needed a long time to repair their ship then went into hiding while awaiting for Spock.

Yeah it is a bit odd that the Klingons wouldn't have stripped the ship for all the future tech that they could get their hands on. Its like how the heck did Maz get Lukes Lightsaber from Bespin. That is never explained.



I agree they should have kept that scene in as it was puzzling as to why Nero took so long. Before I saw the D/S I just took it that they needed a long time to repair their ship then went into hiding while awaiting for Spock.

Yeah it is a bit odd that the Klingons wouldn't have stripped the ship for all the future tech that they could get their hands on. Its like how the heck did Maz get Lukes Lightsaber from Bespin. That is never explained.
I think this suggests a "kind" of reality we expect of science fiction, which we don't expect of screwball comedies--internal consistency and/or basic common sense behavior (e.g., people with a burning desire for revenge don't wait 20 years if they don't need to).

A screwball comedy can defy internal consistency and common sense for a gag, where a science fiction film will defy basic laws of fundamental physics but still respect commonsense reasoning, basic folk-psychology, and internally consistent rules/sequencing.

J.J. irritates some of us by violating reality relative to the genre. If J.J. were making an Airplane-style parody of Star Wars or Star Trek, we probably wouldn't care about these details and be more concerned about whether it made us laugh.

NOTE: The implicit contract of different levels/varieties of reality explains why we will watch Nosferatu (1979) and argue about whether the rats which run pour onto the docks would have spread the plague, as only black rats have fleas that spread this plague, but we will NOT argue the more obvious unreality (i.e., that vampires exist). We tune our expectations to the implicit contract of the genre.



Comedies in the genre of Airplane! and its sequels... (I'd say one step beyond screwball.. with such notables as The Big Bus, Top Secret, the Naked Gun series, etc.) basically have no rules, which is made apparent early on. Anything can happen (and usually does) and in most cases just to make a verbal or visual pun as they satire more series genres that came before them.

These types involve a barrage of the impossible from the get go, whereas I see screwball comedies as plausible but improbable, then there are the plausible comedies that, while still involving a heavy degree of improbability, adhere to the basic rules of reality (such as a movie like Midnight Run).

Still, there seems to be a thin line between the "level" or "rules" of a movie and plot holes that are the result of poor writing or shoddy editing.



More About Vampire Films

Default Expectations of Reality by Genre: Vamps
1. Sustained by Blood-Drinking

2. Sharp elongated canine teeth

3. Supernatural Ontology
a. Demonic or Satanic origin
i. Vulnerable to Holy Water
ii. Unable to Enter Churches
iii. Averse to Crucifixes
b. General Magical Powers/Properties
i. Batform and/or flight in human form
ii. Mistform
iii. No Reflection
iv. Unable to enter without invitation
v. Undead
5. Vulnerable to Sunlight

6. Vulnerable to Fire

7. Averse to Garlic

8. Can be killed with a wooden stake
This list is not intended to be exhaustive or necessarily perfectly organized, but rather to lay out traditional features.

Although many films pick and choose which elements are relevant to their tales, a vampire film will honor some of these features. A film that embraces none of these features (or the most salient ones) will probably be rejected as belonging to the category. Thus, for example, there is some debate as to whether the creatures in Lifeforce are vampires or quasi-vamps or vamps-by-proxy, etc. For another example, vampirism in Near Dark
WARNING: "Can you resist the enthralling temptation to look?" spoilers below
can be cured via blood transfusion
and do not have fangs, which makes this one a quasi-scientific vampire film, however, they do have limited immortality and the elemental weaknesses of vampires (e.g., sunlight, fire).

A vampire film that rejects highly expected features will often feature explicit exposition early in the film to establish what is NOT to be expected in this world. Thus, Blade tells Karen (our audience surrogate) early in the eponymous film,
“Vampire Anatomy 101, crosses and holy water don't do dick so forget what you've seen in the movies. You use a wooden stake, silver or sunlight to kill them.”
Blade, initially, dodges supernatural ontology by explaining vampirism as a blood disease (probably to drop Christological baggage), but we do meet a "blood god" at the end so even this scientific film enters into the supernatural.


The rules are negotiable, but once they're set, we have a revised contractual reality. And we will expect plausible folk-psychology and (for the most part) plausible folk-physics, and coherent sequencing/causality to obtain.



Speaking of vampire rules (not meaning to go off topic) - but what's the deal with a vampire turning a person into another vampire?

I've seen a vampire get someone under a spell, but not kill them, with a limited bite and a little blood sucked out.
But to kill and convert, it seems the vampire must drain a body of enough blood so it dies and then the victim becomes a vampire themselves (due to the vampire's "venom," presumably, which replaces the victim's human blood?)

However, in some movies the vampire must "get" the victim to bite the vampire and drink the vampire's blood in order for the victim to become a vampire?

Is there any set rule or are the interchangeable based on the story / writer?



Speaking of vampire rules (not meaning to go off topic) - but what's the deal with a vampire turning a person into another vampire?
The rules here vary. (1.) Sometimes it's enough to just be bitten by a vampire (Innocent Blood). (2.) Sometimes only some people who are bitten will turn (those marked by the devil as a having a wicked soul (Twins of Evil, IIRC). (3.) Sometimes you have to be intentionally sired, usually by drinking the blood of the one who turns you (usually with the obligatory scene with the master vamp screaming "enough!" when their novice starts taking too much blood in their newfound enthusiastic thirst). (4.) In some cases, the vampiric death with an improper burial will result in the return of the dead (folklore, tradition, right?).

I think that those stories that show us central characters being turned will explicitly worry about the mechanics of vampiric progeneration. Thus Interview with the Vampire details how vampires are "made." Otherwise, we will have the classic vamp vs. hero thing and the story will focus on the rules of how to evade and eventually kill the thing as opposed to how join the club.



Comedies in the genre of Airplane! and its sequels... (I'd say one step beyond screwball.. with such notables as The Big Bus, Top Secret, the Naked Gun series, etc.) basically have no rules, which is made apparent early on. Anything can happen (and usually does) and in most cases just to make a verbal or visual pun as they satire more series genres that came before them.
There is an expected "consistency" of "tone," however. That is, if the rules of Top Secret went from being "wide open" to "real-world consistent" half-way through the movie, we would feel cheated in that the film would have violated it's own "unreality."
These types involve a barrage of the impossible from the get go, whereas I see screwball comedies as plausible but improbable,
In that case, I suppose we need a label for those films in the super-wacky Mad Magazine style of Airplane.

Romantic comedies will typically allow for more physical abuse than the real-world would allow (without debilitating injury) such as Meet the Fockers or Just Friends, but don't involve warp drives, ghosts, or time travel. I think these operate on the level of improbable or implausible, but "verisimilar if you squint at it." That which could, if we stretch, imagine happening in our world as we know it.
then there are the plausible comedies that, while still involving a heavy degree of improbability, adhere to the basic rules of reality (such as a movie like Midnight Run).
Right. A comedy that can "play it straight" with reality and still make us laugh comes from the pen of a talented writer as the author operates within tighter constraints and (arguably) the laughs feel more "earned."
Still, there seems to be a thin line between the "level" or "rules" of a movie and plot holes that are the result of poor writing or shoddy editing.
Exactly. There is this grammar we've been fluent in our whole lives without really knowing it. We know that a long black transition implies (in many cases) longer passage of time, but few of us would note this as a rule. We just "know it when we see it." Ditto for the rules of the real in fiction. We know, more or less, what is appropriate to genre, but we do this mostly by feel, it seems.



Exactly. There is this grammar we've been fluent in our whole lives without really knowing it. We know that a long black transition implies (in many cases) longer passage of time, but few of us would note this as a rule. We just "know it when we see it." Ditto for the rules of the real in fiction. We know, more or less, what is appropriate to genre, but we do this mostly by feel, it seems.
This reminds me of a very-debated scene: Superman going back in time / spinning the Earth backwards in Superman (1978).

Of course, the premise of the entire movie requires us to throw physics out the window in lieu of science fiction explanations (like rays of a yellow sun enable a Kryptonian to defy gravity and somehow accelerate their body through the air) = with such explanations containing virtually all fiction and no science.

But even upon my first viewing at about age 13, I interpreted the changing of the Earth's rotation as a movie-style visual metaphor for flying so fast that Superman was going backward in time. It was a perception provided to the audience that was not meant to be taken literally - or, in this case, visually, IMO anyway. (Perhaps it was intended as a way to show how Superman himself might have perceived his own traveling backwards in time?)

It was similar to other movie metaphors relating to the passage of time: like pages of a calendar being torn off, or a clock's hands suddenly sped up or time-lapse photography showing the passage of days & nights, or even something as blatant as a caption saying "One year later...". Even if the film is dead on realistic in all other respects, no one is presuming the audience will think there's a giant caption hanging in the sky somewhere that reads "One year later...".

It never occurred to me that Superman was supposed to have changed the rotation of the Earth (until people started arguing that doing so would devastate the planet) because I was thinking in that same symbolic language of movie time-passage metaphors (and how Earth spinning backwards would be a visual perception of such a concept) rather than trying to analyze or explain the physics of what appeared to be the Earth changing its rotation.

Question: what was the intention of the filmmakers? Visual metaphor for faster-than-light, reverse time travel, or Superman reversed the rotation of the planet which somehow didn't destroy the Earth, but rather transported him back in time?



This reminds me of a very-debated scene: Superman going back in time / spinning the Earth backwards in Superman (1978).

Of course, the premise of the entire movie requires us to throw physics out the window in lieu of science fiction explanations (like rays of a yellow sun enable a Kryptonian to defy gravity and somehow accelerate their body through the air) = with such explanations containing virtually all fiction and no science.

But even upon my first viewing at about age 13, I interpreted the changing of the Earth's rotation as a movie-style visual metaphor for flying so fast that Superman was going backward in time. It was a perception provided to the audience that was not meant to be taken literally - or, in this case, visually, IMO anyway. (Perhaps it was intended as a way to show how Superman himself might have perceived his own traveling backwards in time?)

It was similar to other movie metaphors relating to the passage of time: like pages of a calendar being torn off, or a clock's hands suddenly sped up or time-lapse photography showing the passage of days & nights, or even something as blatant as a caption saying "One year later...". Even if the film is dead on realistic in all other respects, no one is presuming the audience will think there's a giant caption hanging in the sky somewhere that reads "One year later...".

It never occurred to me that Superman was supposed to have changed the rotation of the Earth (until people started arguing that doing so would devastate the planet) because I was thinking in that same symbolic language of movie time-passage metaphors (and how Earth spinning backwards would be a visual perception of such a concept) rather than trying to analyze or explain the physics of what appeared to be the Earth changing its rotation.

Question: what was the intention of the filmmakers? Visual metaphor for faster-than-light, reverse time travel, or Superman reversed the rotation of the planet which somehow didn't destroy the Earth, but rather transported him back in time?
I dunno. I couldn't offer a better analysis than what you just gave here. 13-year-old you was much cleverer and subtler interpreter than 13-year-old me. As a kid it just to seemed to me that there must have been some conceit of physics behind it.

I don't have a guess as to the artistic intention.

I do agree that this was an odd moment that challenges suspension of disbelief. I think they got away with the goods emotionally rather than logically. We were upset with the passing of Lois and so, like the children we were, we were willing to hope against hope that there was some way out from death--kind of like pounding on a wall in grief--Superman flies around the world, and he is Superman, and this is his movie, so... ...time travel.

Run Lola Run has a similar emotional function. The titular character keeps running until she gets it right, reality be damned. The Pirate Movie also invokes the primacy of emotion over reality when Christy McNichol's "Mabel" demands a happy ending to her story (which she gets). Of course, the former is an experimental movie that is premised on Lola running and rerunning and the latter is a very light comedy with lightsaber wielding pirates, so there is not much room for complaining about the triumph of emotion over reality in these cases. With Superman, you just kind of scratch your head a bit and just keep going.

Time travel in general is narrative acid, IMO. If you can kill your own grandfather, all bets are off. If Superman can go back in time anytime he pleases, why would he ever let the good people of Earth suffer a humiliating loss of life? Fat old Brando can only lecture him, he can't stop him. Time travel only works intuitively if you don't think about it. As "Older Joe" says in Looper to his younger counterpart
I don't want to talk about time travel because if we start talking about it then we're going to be here all day talking about it, making diagrams with straws.
Time travel only works logically if we suppose branching realities. That is, you don't change the present, but create a new past, a new present, and a new future. The world you left goes on without you.



Wasn't sure where to post this (but this thread seemed kind of close... but not really)...

Interesting stuff (I especially liked the one about how The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was really a commentary in support of vegetarianism while criticizing the livestock industry)...




Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I agree with the some people about The Usual Suspects in that the movie also felt pointless to me since the whole thing was a lie.

As for how realistic movies are, I am often not bothered by it. Some people are taken out of it. I know someone who is a nurse, and she cannot stand shows like Grey's Anatomy that just throw everything medically realistic, out the window she ways, and it bothers her.

However, I myself have had jobs and experience in audio recording, and I see movies where they really push the limit and even past it, as to how good recording equipment is in real life, especially in movies dealing with audio espionage and surveillance. But it doesn't bother me for some reason and I still get sucked into the story anyway.

I find I am more bothered by character decisions that can sometimes be too dumb or questionable compared to physics more often.



I think ‘medically realistic’ is a separate issue, though, especially when it’s about medicine as a sector/business/professional environment. There’s suspension of disbelief, and then there’s blatant disregard for the realities of a profession (and, at times, the laws of physics when it comes to medicine). I’ve heard this from many medical professionals about most medically-themed shows.

I rarely watch anything relating to my own (litigation comms, crisis management, high-level financial corporate comms) sector, but from what I’ve happened to skim, Succession was perfectly realistic/grounded/well-researched in terms of the minutiae of comms work (which you’d expect, seeing as it’s about a very real and powerful media empire, but then when you have things like Emily in Paris popping up, you realise how rare that actually is).

I do think though that ‘realism’ in sector-specific issues/portraying professional services work is a whole other ballgame/thread.

I’ve recently been rewatching Mr Robot, which I love. It manages to spend a fair bit of time on PR for a show about hackers, as it needs to keep Angela busy and somehow adjacent to all the events, which isn’t easy.

Well, even so, the comms sector portrayal here is absurd beyond belief, it doesn’t throw me out of the show exactly (seeing as it’s all
WARNING: spoilers below
unreliable narration and world-disrupting global financial systems hacks
), but even so, I was mildly bemused to see a twenty-something (with next to no prior experience save for a stint at a tiny cybersecurity firm) come to lead a crisis comms team
WARNING: spoilers below
at ‘the biggest conglomerate in the world’ at a time when said people are on TV 24/7.)


It’s not so much the fact she gets the job (bribery and pulling favours do exist) but the fact that she supposedly does said job ‘well’ in the show’s universe. (Incidentally, I’m also annoyed that she’s shown to be doing no work whatsoever between her bouts of sneaking around and disrupting things for the sake of moving the plot along. I realise this is a minor, nit-picky gripe and you can’t fit everything into a show, but still, I did notice it. Plenty of people here would argue, though, that her comms work isn’t ‘essential to the plot’/‘necessary’ and so it need not be shown, and I do see the logic here).

All the ‘technical’ references when it comes to crisis comms are very much, hilariously off (such as the binary choice between Fox (!!!) and Bloomberg for one’s interview exclusive).

But I think the question is, how central is this to the plot? I’m super-pedantic about accuracy generally, but I can’t expect people who clearly understand hacking/cybersecurity well (as far as I’m aware, the tech side of Mr Robot largely holds up to scrutiny) to have a similar grasp of a sector that generally requires a diametrically opposite skill set.

In short, I feel like as long as there aren’t any obscene goofs, we’re good. Some sectors are easier to get right than others; most of John Grisham’s work, both the books and the adaptations, is accurate to the point of eliciting hysterical tears from those working anywhere near the legal sector.