# Did rear projection films ever look real to audiences?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rear-projection-films-ever-look-real-to-audiences/772768>\
**Category:** Cafe Society\
**Created:** [November 22, 2016, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rear-projection-films-ever-look-real-to-audiences/772768 "2016-11-22T21:43:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SpoilerVirgin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@SpoilerVirgin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpoilerVirgin)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rear-projection-films-ever-look-real-to-audiences/772768/21 "2016-11-23T19:01:23Z")

</div>

> [@RealityChuck](#):
>
> There’s some incredibly good CGI today that is next to impossible to detect. It’s just that the physics in superhero movies is rarely done well. People like the unrealistic look of superhero CGI (despite the clamor for “realism”), so the movies stick with the look.

This is the part that still makes me laugh. “When Superman is flying through the air, it doesn’t look realistic.” Yes, well, unfortunately Superman wasn’t available that day to fly through the air for the shot.

I can maybe see someone wanting a movie about a true life event, something like “Spotlight”, to look realistic. But the complaints usually involve things like Harry Potter or hobbits, and its hard for me to take seriously discussions about whether they look realistic enough.

If everyone was so concerned about realism, you would think that “Boyhood” would be the #1 movie on the Internet.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\
**Post date:** [November 24, 2016, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rear-projection-films-ever-look-real-to-audiences/772768/22 "2016-11-24T00:02:43Z")

</div>

> [@Backwater\_Under\_Duck](#):
>
> This is not a threadshit, but to make a comparison, I’ve never seen a modern CGI film that looked even close to realistic. Kind of the same thing.

I understand [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPw5plmkd6Q) did pretty well, if you’re defining it as CG elements within a live action film.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\
**Post date:** [November 24, 2016, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rear-projection-films-ever-look-real-to-audiences/772768/23 "2016-11-24T01:09:47Z")

</div>

> [@SpoilerVirgin](#):
>
> I can maybe see someone wanting a movie about a true life event, something like “Spotlight”, to look realistic. But the complaints usually involve things like Harry Potter or hobbits, and its hard for me to take seriously discussions about whether they look realistic enough.

If you’re going to show a herd of centaurs carrying a woman off into the woods, at least have them move like real centaurs would, ferchrissakes. Even centaurs would obey the laws of physics!

As models, you could use … oh, I don’t know … horses, maybe? :dubious: 😕

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rear-projection-films-ever-look-real-to-audiences/772768.md?page=1)