The Willing Suspension of Disbelief Metathread

[Khaldun]

So look, we have enough metaconversation bubbling up in these threads (and over in TV). Let's see if folks can, without getting hung up on an individual film just yet, set out the boundaries:

1) When is a film just fun and you don't care if it's plausible, realistic, etc.?
2) When or at what moment do you start saying, "Hey, wait a minute." Why?
3) When does "Hey, wait a minute" curdle into nerdrage and displeasure?
4) Is there any film ever dealing with fantasy, speculative or futuristic themes and motifs that has 100% withstood your most brutal skepticism? How come?

[schild]

You assume these are lines cut into some sort of stone, and not sand.

Number four is the only one, I think, where people can actually give an answer. The first thing that popped into my head was 'Primer' and as for why - because it was a goddamned masterpiece.

[MahrinSkel]

I don't like it when a film rubs my nose in its bullshit.  In the thread that got this started, ID4 didn't work for me because there were too many times where the violation of common sense was closely juxtaposed with places where it didn't.  Just as a quick example, it jumped immediately from Goldblum and his dad sailing out of NYC without traffic problems to DC totally locked down in only one direction, and then gave me time to think about how stupid that was.

I can accept completely unrealistic events and framing devices, as long as the movie commits to them and doesn't just toss them out for convenience.  As long as it doesn't make me go 'What the fuck just happened?' while I'm sitting there, I'll wait to pick it apart and just enjoy the ride.

--Dave

[lamaros]

It depends how central the suspension of disbelief is to the nature of the film. You want something that takes itself very seriously and tries to build the entertainment on speculative realism then you need a lot more than ID4 personality driven SF war blockbuster. You want a thought experiment like Cube to have good consistent characters and decent performances, but mostly to stick strongly to the guidelines it sets itself. Etc, etc.

No film, of any sort, withstands serious skepticism. There are inconsistent characterizations in dramas, poor performances, bad makeup, continuity goofs, blah blah whatever. That's the nature of the medium. The whole thing is speculative and built upon the willing suspension of disbelief of the viewer.

It's when a film breaks its own rules in an obvious and contradictory way, without doing do deliberately or with purpose that adds something else of significant value, that I get annoyed.

[apocrypha]

The key is in the term. It's willing suspension of disbelief. I can turn it on or off at will.

If I'm enjoying the film enough then I don't care about it having it's wicked way with the laws of physics. If I'm not enjoying the film then flagrant abuses of intelligence are bundled up into the general dislike.

Whether or not I enjoy a film enough is entirely subjective! Of course it's circular - being written intelligently and not treating your audience like morons adds to the enjoyment.

[Abagadro]

They are movies for fuck sake. You suspend your disbelief just believing that an actor is a character. All I care about is whether I enjoy the thing or not and it entertains me on the terms that I expect going in (or surprises me in a good way).

[Pennilenko]

They are movies for fuck sake. You suspend your disbelief just believing that an actor is a character. All I care about is whether I enjoy the thing or not and it entertains me on the terms that I expect going in (or surprises me in a good way).

This exactly.

[Ratman_tf]

I think first up for me is sincerity. I don't care if a movie is silly or serious or 'realistic' or whatever, as long as the people making it give as much of a damn as I do watching it.
Or, at the very least, fake it well enough so I don't notice.  

And that's why I hate Armegeddon so much. I use the science mistakes to jab at it, but my ire comes from the thing being so cynical. Not the story, but the film.

[Ingmar]

For fantasy, I really only care if things are internally consistent. For science fiction, I am somewhat pickier, but again internal consistency is more important than checking off real science checkboxes. Honestly it only becomes a problem when the film invites me to dwell on issues like that by either being boring in other ways or just being completely blatant and dumb about it.

[taolurker]

Subjective things are subjective. Asking for objectivity defeats the purpose, and derails are what inter-related forum tangents are all about.

[Teleku]

If I'm enjoying the film enough then I don't care about it having it's wicked way with the laws of physics. If I'm not enjoying the film then flagrant abuses of intelligence are bundled up into the general dislike.

Yeah, this is exactly where I stand.  The better or more enjoyable the movie, the more my brain glosses over impossibilities and minor plot holes.  Pacific Rim is a good case of this, where there is a lot about the plot you can shoot holes through when you look at it, but seriously none of that really crossed my mind or bothered me while watching the movie.  The more boring or terrible a film is, then I cannot even stop myself from nit picking every damn thing to add to a giant rolling snowball of hate for it.

Also what Ingmar said.  I'll pretty much run with any premise, no matter how outlandish (ok, except for maybe a world where gun powder just suddenly stops working.  Thats just fucking stupid).  As long as it remains internally consistent with the rules it setup, I'm fine.  Blatantly breaking your own rules tends to make me hate the story twice as much as I might have normally before, however.

[01101010]

One of my key components in whether or not I really enjoy a movie is the actor/character thing. If I watch a movie and think about the actor playing the role rather than the character in the movie, then I am definitely missing the immersion part of it. For whatever reason, Brad Pitt does this... I see that guy and never think of the character he is playing but that it is Brad Pitt in the movie. He has done some great work in some movies, but it still boils down to Brad Pitt - Brad as Tyler, Brad as Mickey (though this was one that he seemed to fade into character), Brad as David... as Jeffrey... Same with Vin Diesel. I can't see him as any of his characters. He is Vin Diesel in Fast and Furious movies, Riddick movies, etc. Contrast this with Tom Hanks who seems to become his characters at will in most of his movies. Same for the most part with Johnny Depp. Yeah, they have their off movies, but the majority, they become their roles.

This is of course outside of the story and cinematography and score and everything else production-wise in a movie. Just how the actors in the movie can kill it for me.

[Khaldun]

Part of it for me is whether the film itself is inviting me to think about its internal rules or premises.

World-building fantasy a la Tolkien invites that for me, and films that are trying to work in that domain--to create a comprehensive sense of being in a world that has its own rules, its own logic, its own internal consistency--call up that instinct in me. Del Toro's little gestures in that direction in his films are very dangerous in that sense--if I'm asked to start thinking about things like "the black market economy in kaiju parts" I might start thinking about other things, and then it's hard to beg off on the "this is just dumb fun" excuse.

Films where the speculative premise IS a big part of the story also heighten my expectations for consistency. Primer is a good example of a film that did that and survived the scrutiny it invited. I felt that way about District 9 too. The contrast is to films where the speculative elements are just there for mood and feeling and sensation like The Fifth Element.

[Khaldun]

Picking up off something over in the Pacific Rim thread, here's two examples I always found interesting:

1) It was really common to make fun of the computer virus in ID4 but less so to make fun of the general ridiculousness of spaceships that size with those capabilities doing something as grubby as blowing up cities so they can, what, steal some minerals? They don't even want our women.

2) Lots of folks remembered saying, "Wait, what?" when Indiana Jones rode on the outside of a submarine that apparently never submerged during a trip across the Mediterranean but not really "Wait, what?" when Indiana Jones got dragged behind a truck and only got kind of sore and bruised.

In both cases, the films really weren't trying to lodge any serious claim to internal consistency or realism, they were both totally dedicated to fun and pulpy cheese--but even when the mood is right, sometimes a single plot element seems to break in to the experience and get people saying, "Oh, come on!"

[jgsugden]

It depends on the genre and target audience. 

If it is a comedy, I don't give a %@$# about whether it is plausible or sensible.  We're just there to laugh.  If it is for kids, I don't generally watch it and expect that plausability isn't going to be a priority.  If it is a drama above PG (including most sci-fi, fantasy, etc...), I expect them to do it all. 

I expect drama characters to be written so that their reactions to the world around them make sense.  I don't like those moments where a character does something odd just because it sets up a cool special effect.  Why does the victim flee upstairs?  Why does the crowd that just found out the world has been saved hold off their celebration to see if the pilot made it out alive?  Why does the guy that has only seen a girl for 15 minutes think he is in love?  Earn it if you want us to buy it.

I expect the science/magic to be sensible.  I don't need to understand all the details, and I certainly don't need to believe it could 'really happen'.  However, I do need it to make sense.   If there is tech that allows people to teleport cheaply, why isn't it used all the time?  If there is magic that can make food, why are people starving?  If the monster can punch through a wall, why doesn't it kill the main character when it punches him? 

[Teleku]

Picking up off something over in the Pacific Rim thread, here's two examples I always found interesting:

1) It was really common to make fun of the computer virus in ID4 but less so to make fun of the general ridiculousness of spaceships that size with those capabilities doing something as grubby as blowing up cities so they can, what, steal some minerals? They don't even want our women.

2) Lots of folks remembered saying, "Wait, what?" when Indiana Jones rode on the outside of a submarine that apparently never submerged during a trip across the Mediterranean but not really "Wait, what?" when Indiana Jones got dragged behind a truck and only got kind of sore and bruised.

In both cases, the films really weren't trying to lodge any serious claim to internal consistency or realism, they were both totally dedicated to fun and pulpy cheese--but even when the mood is right, sometimes a single plot element seems to break in to the experience and get people saying, "Oh, come on!"

The complaints in both of these cases seem reasonable though.  In ID4, the premise is alien attack.  Ok.  They have huge giant ships that blow up cities.  I can write off all physics behind that because the premise is that they are mysterious aliens with crazy advance tech.  So fine, they can do all sorts of things we can't.  However, they are using crazy unknown alien tech...... which somehow can read Mac/earth programming instructions to its processor and OS.  Also, Goldblum figured out how to command an alien network he's never seen before to do all this.  Now thats just god damned impossible.

In Indy, getting drug in dirt behind a moving for a bit seems like something you could walk away from, depending.  Never happened to me, but its something I think most people see on screen and think 'Ok, that seems plausible', even if it probably would cause more damage in real life.  Guy jumping on top of a submarine that travels across the ocean and defeats its entire purpose by not diving?  Ok, thats fucking wierd.

Though incidently, the shooting script for the movie actually explains it.  The scene was just cut.  Bascially the submarine dove, but he tied himself to the parascope, and let it drag him along till it came up again.  Still pretty unlikely, but I guess the submarine cruising to its destination while remaining at parascope depth to keep watch on things would seem far more plausible on the big screen.   Info taken from here.

[Nebu]

Not sure if I can explain this well, but I need realistic interaction between characters.  If the characters and their actions are believable, then I can let go of all the science and enjoy the ride.  If the dialogue, story, and acting don't grip me I'll rip the thing to shreds.

[Ironwood]

Yeah.  Begins and, indeed, Dark Knight, should have been unbelievable piles of utter wank.  For the first one, only the Microwave emitter really raised an eyebrow and the second one Joker was a little TOOO well planned, but they sold it.

I'm still surprised at how well they did that and how FUCKING BADLY THEY FAILED with the 3rd one.

[schild]

To be fair, Heath Ledger sold it. Everyone else sucked, except when Morgan Freeman was talking. Because, you know, Morgan Freeman.

Still haven't seen the third one.

[Ironwood]

Don't.

[schild]

No intention. I only saw the first one because it was a reboot. I only saw the second one because of Heath Ledger as the Joker. The third one gives me absolutely no reason whatsoever to watch it.

I still say the first 3 questions in the first post are too much a part of a moving goal post.

[jgsugden]

Major caveat to what I said above:  If the acting sells it, anything goes.  You can have ridiculous science, non-sensical storytelling, and internal inconsistency as long as the acting is so convincing and riveting that I don't notice it. 

You know, like in Alien from LA.

[Merusk]

No intention. I only saw the first one because it was a reboot. I only saw the second one because of Heath Ledger as the Joker. The third one gives me absolutely no reason whatsoever to watch it.

I found watching Anne Hathaway in leather with long hair a pretty good reason to watch, but that was about it.

[schild]

No intention. I only saw the first one because it was a reboot. I only saw the second one because of Heath Ledger as the Joker. The third one gives me absolutely no reason whatsoever to watch it.

I found watching Anne Hathaway in leather with long hair a pretty good reason to watch, but that was about it.

Instead of watching the movie, I can watch 2-3 hours of ACTUAL porn or just a clip of Anne Hathaway naked over and over.

As such, not even remotely a reason to watch it.

[Nebu]

Halle Berry in leather wasn't enough to save Catwoman. 

Schild is correct.

[Merusk]

Naked is a different animal, as is porn.  Again we're in to accounting for tastes.

[schild]

We're not accounting for taste. I can download all the clips of her in leather in 1080p if I wanted to search such a thing. There's no reason to watch movies for the chicks anymore since we can watch the chicks without having to see the movie. Also, "accounting for taste" is not a counterargument for anything.

[Paelos]

I'm less willing to forgive ham-fisted deus-ex-machina in a fantasy or sci-fi movie than any other story, for some reason. I guess if you're playing without regards to the rules, throwing that on top of the pile just ticks me off.

[Margalis]

2) Lots of folks remembered saying, "Wait, what?" when Indiana Jones rode on the outside of a submarine that apparently never submerged during a trip across the Mediterranean but not really "Wait, what?" when Indiana Jones got dragged behind a truck and only got kind of sore and bruised.

In both cases, the films really weren't trying to lodge any serious claim to internal consistency or realism

IIRC this was a real physical stunt, so to some degree it is by definition realistic. (From what I recall they dug a little trench to keep the guy being dragged in place)

To address the topic more generally, "suspension of disbelief" does not cover things like awful dialogue, characters acting without motivation or in nonsensical ways, etc. It also doesn't cover things introduced for convenience halfway through the movie, like the Earth spinning backwards somehow reversing time.

In fiction you naturally assume that unless otherwise indicated things in the fictional world are the same as in ours. In our world the earth spinning backwards would not reverse time, so there's no reason to believe it would in the world of Superman. In our world Superman doesn't exist but his existence is explicitly part of the premise so that's ok. Personally I don't give a shit about realism in our world, the problem is when things are not realistic even according to the fiction.

[Ingmar]

Yeah, when you're actually watching a stuntman getting dragged behind a car, who presumably got up and walked away from it, it isn't hard to suspend disbelief at all.

[Sir T]

1) Sharknado
2) Sharknado
3) Sharknado
4) Sharktopus

[Merusk]

2) Lots of folks remembered saying, "Wait, what?" when Indiana Jones rode on the outside of a submarine that apparently never submerged during a trip across the Mediterranean but not really "Wait, what?" when Indiana Jones got dragged behind a truck and only got kind of sore and bruised.

In both cases, the films really weren't trying to lodge any serious claim to internal consistency or realism

IIRC this was a real physical stunt, so to some degree it is by definition realistic. (From what I recall they dug a little trench to keep the guy being dragged in place)

[/quote]


Yeah, Indy was before our current "let the computer do it" days so it was totally physical effects and you knew it was doable.  Though, yes they dug a trench so he didn't go skirting all over the place.

To address the topic more generally, "suspension of disbelief" does not cover things like awful dialogue, characters acting without motivation or in nonsensical ways, etc. It also doesn't cover things introduced for convenience halfway through the movie, like the Earth spinning backwards somehow reversing time.

In fiction you naturally assume that unless otherwise indicated things in the fictional world are the same as in ours. In our world the earth spinning backwards would not reverse time, so there's no reason to believe it would in the world of Superman. In our world Superman doesn't exist but his existence is explicitly part of the premise so that's ok. Personally I don't give a shit about realism in our world, the problem is when things are not realistic even according to the fiction.

I finally realized something when I saw the film again 2-3 years ago: That this scene has been interpreted wrong for years and it's because it's badly filmed/ a bad way to convey the idea being presented.  It's not that Superman is reversing the spin of the Earth by flying around it, but that since he's going so fast he's traveling back in time and we see the Earth spin backwards as a result.

[jgsugden]

1) Sharknado
2) Sharknado
3) Sharknado
4) Sharktopus

Dolphicane?

[apocrypha]

1) Sharknado
2) Sharknado
3) Sharknado
4) Sharktopus

Dolphicane?

Pfft.

Scorpnado.

[eldaec]

I interpreted that superman scene as merusk described.

It was still terrible and made me think, wait, what? Why didn't you do that earlier?