So when a biopic combines people, eliminates characters, adds characters, re-arranges events and simplifies things in the interests of telling a story in reasonable amount of time, gaining audience sympathy, and minimizing confusion it doesn’t bother me as much as it once did. /QUOTE]
I’m going to have to disagree a little here. I think biopics have an obligation to get as much right as possible. Omissions, condensing the timeline, combined characters I can accept. But having real people act differently than they did in real life simply to manufacture tension and conflict shouldn’t be allowed. Sad but true, people learn history from movies, and they shouldn’t add confusion to facts.
Except for The Greatest Showman. That movie is so awesome I can forgive it. And really, a movie about the king of humbug, the person whose entire career was based on lying to the public? It would be wrong somehow if the movie were entirely factual!
That sounds sort of like my view of the Burger King product placement in Iron Man. It was so blatant that it stopped me thinking about the story and instead got me thinking about money-grubbing predatory businessmen… but since that’s what the story was about, it then pulled me right back into the story.
I accept the concept of “Hollywood Magic” when it comes to portrayal on the Silver Screen, so I’m pretty liberal. Last night, in fact, I watched a movie called, “Sunshine”. Amazingly, sound traveled quite well through the vacuum of space. You could rear the roaring of engines and explosions outside of the ship without any problem whatsoever. LOL I’m used to that and accept it, even though it is grossly inaccurate scientifically. (By the way, if anyone can tell me how they got Michelle Yeoh in the cast, I’d love to know.)
Another common and blatant misrepresentation is how often bullets seem to glance off of automobiles or, somehow, magically miss the occupants after passing through the windows. In **“The Hitman’s Bodyguard” **, there was a chase scene towards the end of the movie where the bad guys were literally pouring automatic weapons fire at Darius Kincaid (Samuel L. Jackson), and nary a bullet hit him.
Gravity in spaceships, especially in TV shows. The production requirements for weightlessness is so time-consuming and expensive I am surprised anyone would have an issue with it.
I justify the sounds on the basis that they’re being recorded by microphones located in the various vessels. I’m sure you can hear the spaceship you are travelling in - and hear it explode, albeit briefly.
Another one I don’t mind: Inaccurate planetography in classic science fiction. If someone wrote a story today where Mars or Venus has a naturally-breathable atmosphere, I’d be annoyed (unless the point of the story were that Martians had somehow tampered with the data from our probes, or something). But it doesn’t bother me one whit when Weinbaum or Heinlein or even Burroughs does it, because they really didn’t know any better.
I don’t mind sound in space as long as you don’t see the characters reacting to a sound. if it’s just for the audience’s benefit, then there’s no issue.
I used to roll my eyes at people complaining about geography at movies. Then I moved to Chicago, and now I can only help but get annoyed by the fact that they’re going the wrong direction at the beginning of National Lampoon’s Vacation.
As I’ve said on other occasions, I don’t mind product placement at all. We live in a world that’s filled with recognizable brand names. Why shouldn’t our movie characters encounter the same brand names we do?
Indeed, if I’m annoyed by anything, it’s the opposite of product placement–when a movie features an obviously made up brand name. It’s supposedly one of the biggest companies in its field, except it’s obviously fake and nobody in the audience has ever heard of it. It’s therefore obvious that there’s going to be something sinister or criminal going on at that company.
I don’t mind product placement when it’s incidental, but sometimes it does go way too far. Yes, our world really does have Coke, and people really do drink it, but when they do, they don’t all carefully set the bottle down so the label is facing the right way. And then you get things like the Hawaii 5-0 Subway commercial.
I like those big, spectacular, gasoline-fueled fireball explosions that are traditional in movies, even though most explosions look nothing like that in real life. Bonus points for the guy casually walking away without even checking over his shoulder, as opposed to the shock wave blasting him off his feet.
My mom always liked to comment that the cars in historical movies were always clean and always from whatever year the movie was set in. It never bothered me.
In the New Zeland superhero show The Amazing Extraordinary Friends I thought it was neat that one of the heroes is a slightly overweight older man wearing a rather ratty costume. It kind of bothers me though that his only role seems to be giving advice to the main hero.
I was a librarian for 30 years, and it’s never particularly bothered me to see stereotypical depictions of libraries and librarians in movies (old-fashioned buildings with high ceilings and long wooden tables, staffed by rubber-stamp-wielding women with their hair in buns). I had plenty of colleagues who were infuriated by that shit, but I’m happy to see libraries depicted as interesting, attractive places full of people reading and doing research.
That’s an interesting point. Most people are completely unaware of how common these geographic cheats are, and wouldn’t care if they did know—UNTIL they see a movie set in their city or town. Then they can’t wait to get on the internet and tell the world that the Bozo Building and Stupid Stadium are actually FIVE blocks apart, not four! :mad:
I guess Clevelanders have an advantage there, in that movies filmed in Cleveland are never set in Cleveland. Yeah, I know that Euclid never actually intersects with Prospect, but heck, maybe the street in New York that looks like Euclid really does intersect with the street that looks like Prospect. And of course, a New Yorker watching the same movie wouldn’t recognize either street.
In The Blues Brothers, we know only that the Palace Hotel, where the band plays their big show, is “up north,” and that it’s “106 miles to Chicago,” even though it takes them all night to drive there. John Candy’s police car crashes into a truck along Route 53 in Addison, a western suburb, and then minutes later, they enter Chicago city limits via Lake Shore Drive from the south.
Oh, and earlier in the film, they drove from Joliet to Calumet City, by way of downtown Chicago. Look at a map.
None of it makes any sense, but who cares? It’s the Blues Brothers. It’s fun.
And in things like the Star Trek movies, I don’t mind that they’re technology to travel faster-than-light all over the galaxy, because the alternative would involve really long boring trips between star systems. (And then in Star Trek, they have real-time videocalls with the admiral back at Star Fleet headquarters, or on some starbase someplace. I’m willing not to think too much about how implausible that is.)
As for product placement, subtlety helps. So it’s OK if we’re shown a Kellogg’s Corn Flakes box on the breakfast table, but less so if they spend five minutes talking up how wonderful the cereal is.
