h a l f b a k e r yWhere life irritates science.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Currently, movies/films and TV programmes are rated according to adult content. This makes a lot of sense and helps people to make sensible decisions about their children, in-laws and so on. However, something which is never taken into account is the realism of movies.
I imagine a lot of people
have sat down in a cinema only to be irritated to screaming point by the likes of sound in space, big balls of orange flame in explosions, historical anachronisms and, for God's sake, protagonists speaking Maltese in a Turkish prison! It's really annoying to a lot of people and it can be dangerous. For example, the impression might be given that all you need to do to cope with a fire is to soak a towel in water and wrap it round your nose and mouth, when this is clearly not so. Alternatively, you might go into a shop in Budapest and unwittingly tell the shopkeeper that your hovercraft is full of eels when you want a box of matches.
Then there's Apollo XIII, which so far as i know is a paragon of technical accuracy, but that's the point - i don't know. I have nothing against those films which allow you to turn your brain off for two hours, but we should at least know we're meant to do that.
Therefore, i propose that films and TV programmes be rated for accuracy in the same way as they currently are for sex and violence, and that these ratings are clearly displayed at the cinema, on the DVD box and on the TV, for the following reasons:
* It would be less irritating.
* It would be educational and potentially safer.
* We have a right to know if we're wasting our time and money, and in a sense what genre of film we're letting ourselves in for.
* It would really annoy Trekkies and Star Wars fans.
Hard SF rating scale
http://www.kheper.n.../scifi/grading.html
One prototype which already exists [nineteenthly, Apr 02 2009]
Apollo 13 goofs
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112384/goofs
[coprocephalous, Apr 02 2009]
To boldly split
http://www.cbc.ca/n...ds/infinitives.html
[coprocephalous, Apr 02 2009]
Movie Mistakes
http://www.moviemistakes.com/
This site might help when trying to rate movies. [Aristotle, Apr 02 2009]
[link]
|
| |
//which so far as i know is a paragon of technical accuracy,//
so, not very far? |
|
| |
Why would it annoy trekkies? Star Trek is very realistic. |
|
| |
No, probably not. It isn't generally part of a herbalist's job description to send his patients to the Moon in a literal sense. But, you see, i would've known. That's the point.
[Zeno], there could be an argument for different kinds of accuracy, but, for example, why don't they all speak with Australian accents? That's never been explained. |
|
| |
I thought it was obvious. You simply can't go around saying no worries mate if you are dealing with klingons. |
|
| |
I thought all warp drives made that noise? I think mine must be faulty. |
|
| |
And if Bruce Willis bought it in the opening scene the rest of the movie would be very realistic. |
|
| |
Absolutely it would, and some might claim that it would make for a more interesting film, particularly fans of absurdist drama.
OK, i don't really wish to engage in gratuitous Trekkie-baiting (though Star Wars is fair game so far as i'm concerned), so i suggest a modification of this idea: canon-relative and absolute realism. For instance, i think pink Klingon blood and the time taken for travel in 'Enterprise' are less faithful to the Star Trek canon than other aspects, so maybe they should have a lower realism rating relative to the Star Trek universe. That does not alter the fact, however, that the only changes in the English language in 'Star Trek' seem to be that split infinitives are now standard English and that contractions are no longer used. They should either all be speaking Jamaican patois or Australian, because that would be more realistic. |
|
| |
//canon-relative and absolute realism\\ Yes, now you earned my quossant. |
|
| |
//the Star Trek canon //
They're called "phasers", duh! |
|
| |
I like it. You'd probably have to have a two-tier system for 'stuff supposed to be realistic' versus 'obviously made-up plot points', though. For exxample, a sci-fi film wouldn't be rated down in the former for the existence of aliens with green blood, but would for their ship making noise when it blow up in orbit around the Moon. However, it would get a 'there's a lot of this so watch out' type rating in the 'obviously made-up plot points' half. Meanwhile, a modern-day rom-com would get a low 'made-up plot points' rating. |
|
| |
Ah, but, is a rom-com psychologically realistic? What do you do with Firefly? That seems psychologically more realistic and there's no sound in space in it, but the 'verse is disturbingly convenient and not terribly roomy. The terraforming is handwaving to me.
'Notting Hill' for example, doesn't seem very realistic to me, though not because of all the androids. |
|
| |
Yeah but I don't think real people watch modern-day rom-com so then we would have to have an audiance reality rating system. |
|
| |
woosh-woosh <leaving the room>. |
|
| |
In order to continue to enjoy movies and TV, I've started watching with the attitude that the characters might be misinformed, ie: if somebody in a film says "it takes 10 minutes for light to get to the Earth from the Sun" I just let the remark stand for the character, not the production. |
|
| |
I sometimes interpret old films and programmes as dramatic reconstructions of "real" events, which can get me past ropey special effects. I could apply the same principles to that sort of thing.
[Bigsleep], yes that can carry things sometimes, so that you want to believe. I don't see a problem in mixed ratings as this happens already with sex and violence. The specific reasons are sometimes mentioned, but the rating itself is a single value rather than a long code, and that's fine by me. I still think there should be a separate canon-relative rating. |
|
| |