So I should start with a disclaimer that I'm not trying to dog anyone for critically analyzing fiction. Analysis is it's own form of enjoyment and I like it in places such as #shouldiwatchthis, reviews, literary analysis, or whatnot. Analysis is valuable and has it's place, but just not during the experience. If anything, I'd like to make a rant-ish argument for correcting a tendency I see in some people.
One day I overheard a conversation where Some Guy says:
- "so did you see it? It wasn't a very good movie because, like, no one recovers from a broken back that quickly."
At the beginning of Fargo, the Coen brothers put "based on a true story". If Fargo is based on a true story then Starbursts are an organic fruit product. But they said it was anyway. So why say it? When you put that up front, at least Some Guy throw his hands up and say "no one could walk away with a jaw injury that bad". When you just accept it, you experience the movie the way it was meant to be experienced. Reality is stranger than fiction, after all, so why should anyone have to dismiss fiction at the slightest improbability?
I didn't feel like throwing the remote at the TV when Starbuck held a gun sideways in Battlestar Galactica--hell, I didn't even notice until people complained about it later. One of the things from which I extract enjoyment from fiction is immersion, so I suppose I don't find myself trying to escape that deliberately. And I'd hate to be next to that guy who blurts out "oh come on" and ruins the mood for me.
Sure, sometimes it can be made hard to suspend your disbelief at which some point it becomes the fault of the fiction; but that point isn't so easy to reach if you just give it a chance. Admittedly, it did get kinda hard to ignore the central character being conveniently snatched from danger when I read Metro 2033, and the book did catch criticism for those plot conveniences (which is a bit ironic considering that in the first version by the author, the main character catches a stray bullet part-way through his journey and dies meaninglessly). Nonetheless it didn't stop me from enjoying the book.
So at the beginning of The Dark Knight Rises they should have said "based off a true story". Someone out there would have believed it; and they would have enjoyed the movie more for it.
As what I suppose is the resident critic here, I'll give my input. Also I like hearing myself talk...or...uh. Type.
Criticism needs to be based entirely off the level of seriousness that the film presents. I'm going to be using Star Wars as an example later. Just giving you a heads up. All films, or media in general, are not meant to be taken with the same gravity as each other; you don't watch Schindler's List as a comedy, even if it was hi-lair-i-ous when that girl found her red coat. At the same time, you aren't holding Rush Hour to impeccable realistic standards. Everything in media is relative.
The problems with people arise from their lack of understanding of those differing standards. When people look at the Lord of the Rings trilogy and complain how the eagles could have just flown them in, they are missing the point of the movie entirely and holding it to a standard it was not designed to meet. The film was about a grand adventurer and the growth of a fragile character in to an unlikely hero, among many, many other things. The story is both a physical and metaphorical journey, and the eagles would have simply detracted from the narrative.
Then you have films like Star Trek: Insurrection where the basis of the plot is set in the preestablished Star Trek pseudoscience. Its required that certain tools either be disabled or not present if the suspension of disbelief can be held, because the world has a set of rules that we understand and know. Everyone knows how the transporter works, how the warp core works, phasers, everything. Even if the film was not a quality product, the plot holes brought up by its shitty script are reasons to dislike the film while you're watching it.
Okay, time for Star Wars. These films, yes, all six, are perfect examples of when criticisms can apply. The Star Wars hexilogy is not a super serious franchise. It is a space adventure film, except for the prequels which are feces pressed in to the shape of a movie. A space adventure film does not need to be held to impeccable realistic standards; they have laser swords and super powers, they fly in space which has sound, they turn in ways that are totally impossible, they have a gigantic pointless moon, and many, many other things that do not work.
For the Original Trilogy, the fact that those elements are present and unrealistic does not detract from the film because they do not break the established rules of the universe they occupy. There are laser swords and super powers because we've been told about lightsabers and the Jedi. Space fighters work that way because the space fighters themselves are unimportant and have bullshit technology to make them work. If people were criticizing the Original Trilogy for being unbelievable then they don't understand the nature of a fantasy setting and are probably really boring people to begin with.
Now transition over to the prequels. The prequels are also not serious movies despite being filled with boring political dialogue and horrible injuries that are in films marketed to children. However, their flaws are so vast in terms of the rules of the Star Wars universe that they repeatedly break suspension of disbelief. Midichlorians. Done. I don't even need to write any more. We all remember how fucking stupid that was right? And you can't just ignore that seemingly minor detail because it creates such a huge change in characters, plot, and the universe as a whole that its a totally unavoidable detail. I'm not going to list out what that changed, I'm sure everyone knows.
Tying back in to Schindler's List for a second, the more dumberer a movie is, the less serious it tries to be, the more leniency its granted when it comes to plot errors. The Avengers is full of plot holes but that movie is about as serious as attempts to reboot Firefly. When you get to a movie like The Dark Knight Rise of the Planet of the Apes then you have a higher standard that you're holding it to because the movie tries to be a smart, serious superhero movie.
When you break a hole in the plot of Avengers its fine because who cares why the Hulk is angry? He punched that giant alien. In Dark Knight revengeance then Batman recovering from his spinal injury is a bit of a big deal, because the movie is attempting to take itself more seriously than not even a tiny bit. It doesn't have to be %100 realistic, but it needs to be held within a believable scale, because most human beings will understand that Batman is a superhero who has billions of dollars. Just attach a magical robot plot device to his back like he did for his knees, which I guess are busted even though he's been doing absolutely nothing as Batman.
I'll put it in a simple way that is also just topical enough that you might laugh. Which is good. Laughter means I can easily exploit your interest for sweet, sweet cash.
If the tweet about Obama from a few days ago, the explosion one, had been from say....4chan...then nobody would have paid it any mind. Since it was from Associated Press, people gave a shit because it was a serious twitter feed, something that should never be said in the same sentence.
Yeah, sometimes throwing disbelief out the window certainly can make things more fun. I think that's why people do mushrooms.
I once met a guy who was openly into and actively pursuing and dating male to female transsexuals (ladyboys) in SE Asia. I asked him what the appeal was. Admittedly, some of the ladies he dated were pretty gorgeous, but knowing they had penises eliminated them from the sexual/romantic sphere for me. I thought he'd say something along the lines of, "they have perfect bodies" or the revelation of a fetish, but what he told me was, they have hot bodies, like many of the women around us did, and while feminine, they already had insight into the male mind. So in his view he was really getting the whole package, plus y'know . . . a package.
Anyway, once I understood his point of view I began to understand that for him, this wasn't some fantasy but in fact his reality and that to him the transition of his partners from male to female wasn't a lie, his logic made sense. To him, they're women that used to be men, not men that are becoming women, if you'll allow that distinction. In a way, it seemed like he was more honest with himself, in terms of romance. He wanted a girl who could hang out like one of the guys, so he found some in places others might refuse to look. One of the happiest dudes I ever met.
I guess that's different from "enjoy fiction" but I think that could apply to that guy I met too.
If I understand what you're saying (pronouns are nuts when talking about this sort of thing), girls in transition -- male-to-female -- tend to get hit on by guys with a trans fetish. This strikes me less as demoralizing and more as a sort of empowerment -- like, I still can get laid as a different gender? Testing the waters sort of thing.
No idea, though.
I guess it's sort of objectification. However, it's also a bit delusional or unrealistic for these women to not see themselves as trans. It's part of them, and denying it just makes a thing out of it.
I sympathize with them and get why they don't want to be hit on for that specific purpose, though.
Wow, that's an extension of the concept I wouldn't have thought of. Pretty fascinating though, and I can understand the guy's happiness. You just need to believe ☆☆☆.