Which isn't much of a boundry if you ask me.
You already said it yourself that the movie was unrealistic, and that it's not trying to be realistic. So what, it's not realistic, big deal. It's a silly movie. You like it, and that's fine. I don't like it, and that's fine too. So let's just move on.
You already said it yourself that the movie was unrealistic, and that it's not trying to be realistic. So what, it's not realistic, big deal. It's a silly movie. You like it, and that's fine. I don't like it, and that's fine too. So let's just move on.
I don't care whether or not you like Fury Road. What I find bewildering is when you said this:
"I prefer serious films. But it was only one of many drawbacks. A lack of realism on it's own would not ruin the movie for me, but it does contribute because it's something I don't enjoy."
You said you like movies like Foxcatcher, A Most Wanted Man, and A Woman Under the Influence. Do they show people going poop in those films? Do they show every second of travel when someone goes somewhere in those films? Are those films in real time showing every second of every characters lives? Do none of the characters in those films have story arcs? Do none of those stories follow three act structure? See my point?
You've already sacrificed every single strand of "realism" when watching any film. Films are a representation of real life, not real life itself. This even applies to documentaries. This is why my only concern for a film is to judge it based on the logic it creates. A film is bound only by itself, which is why I can enjoy a "realistic" film like The Great Beauty and a "realistic" film like Fury Road.
To me you've set a boundary that doesn't actually exist.
__________________