please.
"how about... a royal flush!" *loren avedon kicks a cauldron of boiling water into the bad guys*
Michael Keaton threw out the First Ball at the baseball game in Pittsburgh. April 10, 2006
shareIt was "Multiplicity" and "Jack Frost" that killed his career. He dumped the role of Batman because he felt he wasn't getting lines as good as his co-stars. Truly a stupid mistake.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
You're complaining about this being unrealisic, yet you are on the Incredible Hulk board asking why Eric Bana didn't return. It's good to see you like REALISTIC movies like that one where a guy turns green and grows 1000 times larger when he gets mad..... ummmmm...... yeah.... nice consistancy in your views of realism.
What's more realistic? Green monster smashing tanks or Amercian autoworkers building cars.... you be the judge.
I think this movie is 'realistic' enough for an eighties comedy. The purpose of a movie is to entertain, after all, and this movie does that.
However, I can see someone's point in both thinking a fantasy movie is realistic and this movie isn't.
You see, if a movie happens in 'real world', with supposed 'real people' and depicts existing cultures, deviation from what we actually experience in 'real world' with those 'real people' and 'existing cultures' can bring a sense of disappointment that then culminates in the frustrated realization that the movie took liberties, so it wasn't realistic, so you weren't able to feel immersion and thus enjoy the movie.
If, for example, everyday things we know and experience, are shown to be completely different than they actually are, but the movie is supposed to take place in our time and reality, it's completely valid to call out the movie for being unrealistic. If the laws of physics don't quite match, if buildings and nature look completely different, if people or cultures act completely differently than they normally do, etc.
However, if we look at a fantasy movie, that is _NOT_ happening in 'our real world', does NOT depict 'existing cultures' and does not depict 'real people', then what passes as 'realistic' conforms strictly to the movie's OWN rules of what is realistic and what is not.
So in this sense, Hulk can be just as realistic in a fantasy movie as a Japanese office worker in a comedy movie.
I think complains about Gung Ho being 'unrealistic' have to do with depictions of cultures, possibly mostly the japanese culture and the terrible japanese pronunciation.(I also noticed odd mistakes in the written japanese, for example "Yolk", which should be "Yooku", was written as "Yuuku" in katakana near the beginning, when Keaton's character is in Japan)
Most movies aren't realistic anyway, and even documentaries or biopics use some fakery or trickery.
BTW, you misspelled 'unrealistic' as 'unrealisic'.
I see why you wanted to make such a criticism about the original poster's criticism (especially since it basically consists of one word - how lazy can you be?), and I can see how hypocritical it can be to accept a fantasy movie fully, and to call this 'real-world'-movie 'unrealistic' - but I just wanted to show at least one possibility as to how the mindset can still be relatively valid, if looked from a certain perspective.
We don't REALLY know that Hulk smashing a car would be unrealistic for certain - there may very well be a planet where such things happen, at least in different dimensions, or 'virtual realities'. There must be -very- convincing 'virtual realities' in better worlds, so therefore, Hulk might be actually more realistic than the depiction of Japanese culture in this movie.
What _I_ found very unrealistic, was that the 'group of guys' were staring at some 'Heather', presumably the girlfriend of someone rich and wealthy, and the 'Heather' joyfully greeted this group, and Hunter specifically, and the wealthy guy just let it happen without ANY reaction whatsoever. THAT is the most unrealistic thing in this movie.
However, when talking about 'realism', we can always have multiple viewpoints to what it really means - maybe it WAS realistic in this movie's Universe.
We can also ponder how much it matters, whether something is 'realistic' or not - as long as a movie is entertaining, follows its OWN rules, and has a good feel to it, why would it be a dealbreaker if it doesn't mimic OUR reality 100%?
Movies are supposed to be ESCAPISM (though not modern movies so much), so the more 'unrealistic' they are, the better.
I think it's kind of silly to bring 'unrealism' as a criticism against a movie, because we couldn't watch most movies, if they all had to be strictly 'realistic' - if that would even be possible. I'd rather be able to watch Back to the Future than live in a world, where due to 'realism', that movie couldn't have been made.
though dated, I kinda liked this movie, right now, StarZ is reshowing this movie and oddly, it's also kinda more 'interesting' considering the state of the U.S. auto industry.
share