Small things that break you suspension of disbelief or immersion

[The Glyphstone]

-----

I am scarred for 2019 Hellboy, I do not see how you can surpass Ron Perlman's portrayal of Hellboy.

You can't. But what you could do is create a different portrayal, one that's good on its own merits by playing Hellboy differently instead of 'Pearlman but worse'. I'm hoping people give the new one a fair chance.

[Rodin]

You can't. But what you could do is create a different portrayal, one that's good on its own merits by playing Hellboy differently instead of 'Pearlman but worse'. I'm hoping people give the new one a fair chance.

I have to say, I was of the opinion that nobody could d it justice but the latest trailer has impressed me enough to make me reconsider. I'm going to keep an eye on it and see how the reviews do. I'm hopeful for it, because while Perlman did a brilliant Hellboy the writing from the movies wasn't that great. The second movie in particular had an awful plot that Perlman could only do so much to save.

[Ramza00]

You can't. But what you could do is create a different portrayal, one that's good on its own merits by playing Hellboy differently instead of 'Pearlman but worse'. I'm hoping people give the new one a fair chance.

I agree with this logic, and this is my instinct yet I am still scarred for Perlman did such a good job that I bet anyone else even if they do something original and fabulous will still be in his shadow.

[Lemmy]

I agree with this logic, and this is my instinct yet I am still scarred for Perlman did such a good job that I bet anyone else even if they do something original and fabulous will still be in his shadow.

That's indeed the downside of having such a great actor/character fit... The next guy has some really big shoes to fill. In any case, I choose to be cautiously optimistic for the time being.

[Tvtyrant]

There are at least three really good actors for the Joker, a role that doesn't exactly drip with nuance. I'm sure Hellboy can be done differently but well a few times.

[BeerMug Paladin]

A couple minor points.

On "messages": Works can present ideas in a fashion inviting consideration. Sometimes, just broaching a subject matter at all is the message all on its own. There's a moment in Bojack Horseman where one of the characters is sad in a public place. Unsolicited, a stranger gives them a suggestion to smile. This sort of thing isn't portrayed very often. Bojack Horseman is very rich in presenting ideas.

About zombie cures. It can be quite hard to let go of people who are clearly damaged and self-destructive. It's not a pleasant thing to feel that someone is beyond your help and will only harm you if you try to help them. Of course, we all know the trope that zombie-stuff is 100% fatal and incurable, but within the fiction the characters don't know it. And yes, I know that the stories with this trope tend not to be about this, but that's because the horror genre shies away from horror and rather focuses on action.

Seeing gender-related arguments tends to break my suspension of disbelief.

[Liquor Box]

I meant the professors argument against Asimov (and in general), not specifically the twilight thing.

Yeah, I understand that. But in the professor example, surely the highest he can go is to say "it is possible to read these meanings into the work (and I have done so)". So the work has the message X, only in the sense that X is one possible message that can be drawn from the work, as are many other messages some of which contradict message X. And that message X says as much about the professor as it does about the work.

[Peelee]

Yeah, I understand that. But in the professor example, surely the highest he can go is to say "it is possible to read these meanings into the work (and I have done so)". So the work has the message X, only in the sense that X is one possible message that can be drawn from the work, as are many other messages some of which contradict message X. And that message X says as much about the professor as it does about the work.

Well, my issue with the professor example is he claimed the the author wasn't even qualified to speak about the message. Im totally on board with the ideas of unintentional meanings that the author subconsciously or accidentally put in, or even clever re-imaginings of the message that work within the text, but the authors intent and execution are certainly primary messages, since they have absolute control over introducing and hammering away at the themes.

[Liquor Box]

Well, my issue with the professor example is he claimed the the author wasn't even qualified to speak about the message. Im totally on board with the ideas of unintentional meanings that the author subconsciously or accidentally put in, or even clever re-imaginings of the message that work within the text, but the authors ingebtik an execution are certainly primary messages, since they have absolute control over introducing and hammering away at the themes.

I agree with you that the author must be qualified. Even speaking generally, the mere fact that the author had created a work of literature that was notable and widely known enough that the professor was debating its meaning, in my opinion suggests that the author was at least as qualified in literature than the professor. Relaying that back to the Twilight conversation, I am sure that the writer of Twilight is crying all the way to the bank that people who have themselves never done anything literary of note are labeling her a poor writer - her success suggests that sentiment is not so widespread.

However, I still struggle with the bolded bit. If there is message a person can read into a work, but that the author did not intend, is it really there? If I a person was to read something into your post that was not a meaning that necessarily follows from the words you used (ie, it's only a possible interpretation), nor what you meant or intended to convey does that mean you have subconsciously put the meaning in or does it mean that people are reading in something that is not there? I tend to think the latter.

[Mechalich]

I agree with you that the author must be qualified. Even speaking generally, the mere fact that the author had created a work of literature that was notable and widely known enough that the professor was debating its meaning, in my opinion suggests that the author was at least as qualified in literature than the professor. Relaying that back to the Twilight conversation, I am sure that the writer of Twilight is crying all the way to the bank that people who have themselves never done anything literary of note are labeling her a poor writer - her success suggests that sentiment is not so widespread.

It is absolutely possible, and in fact quite common, to create a piece of hot garbage in art that is at the same time massively popular and receives such public notoriety that discussion of it by critical entities is inevitable, if only do demonstrate why it is bad. While criticism is easier than creation in some contexts, the ability to create something worthy of critical attention is not the same as the ability to create something good.

Additionally, history has actually shown that people labelled as 'hacks' in one form of art or another have a tendency to take it pretty hard and often engage in extensive campaigns of self-defense or massive projects precisely for the purpose of critical validation - a good recent example would be T-Pain's participation in The Masked Singer, which he clearly did to (successfully) prove a point. This isn't universal, there are hacks out there who are sufficiently self-aware or sufficiently egotistical to not bother with this (like Michael Bay), but generally professional creative types want to be thought of as good at what they do in addition to simply being successful at it.

[Liquor Box]

It is absolutely possible, and in fact quite common, to create a piece of hot garbage in art that is at the same time massively popular and receives such public notoriety that discussion of it by critical entities is inevitable, if only do demonstrate why it is bad. While criticism is easier than creation in some contexts, the ability to create something worthy of critical attention is not the same as the ability to create something good.

Who decides what is hot garbage when we are talking about something almost entirely subjective like art? Obviously you don't think it is by consensus or public opinion...

[Razade]

However, I still struggle with the bolded bit. If there is message a person can read into a work, but that the author did not intend, is it really there? If I a person was to read something into your post that was not a meaning that necessarily follows from the words you used (ie, it's only a possible interpretation), nor what you meant or intended to convey does that mean you have subconsciously put the meaning in or does it mean that people are reading in something that is not there? I tend to think the latter.

It's neither. Because this is a false equivalence to start and a false dichotomy to second. A person's post isn't the same as an entire work of literature (even a short story) and it isn't just between subconscious hidden messages or reading into something that's not there. Both points are flawed.

[The Jack]

I realise a lot of people don't like guns but I've been watching american serials where people are threatened in their daily lives and they don't at least try to get a firearm for their home. Like In a context where someone new will try to raid your home three times a year (in addition to the raids on your friend's home) you'd be an idiot not to get a gun when they're available regardless of your beliefs. People are raiding your home and going after your loved ones, and you know they'll do it again because you keep making enemies

Bonus points for extensive weapons closets that just aren't rational. double Axes,Flails, Greatclubs, fantasy swords, fancy daggers, predator's wristblades, blackpowder sporting guns, but no firearms from this century outside of a maybe an elephant gun when you live in a gun friendly state. Unless your cover story is that you're a very serious LARPer I don't know what you're doing. I get that the old style of weapons have advantages over loud guns that a monster hunter could take advantage of (though this is also usually in the context where gun silencers are magical) but these weapon selections are crazy.

[Lemmy]

Heh... Magic gun silencers, like sound in space, is one of those things that makes absolutely no sense, but doesn't bother me because it allows many cool possibilities and/or make the scene more entertaining.

[Peelee]

I realise a lot of people don't like guns but I've been watching american serials where people are threatened in their daily lives and they don't at least try to get a firearm for their home. Like In a context where someone new will try to raid your home three times a year (in addition to the raids on your friend's home) you'd be an idiot not to get a gun when they're available regardless of your beliefs. People are raiding your home and going after your loved ones, and you know they'll do it again because you keep making enemies

.....no, they wouldn't be idiots? There are a lot of reasons not to get a gun for those who dont want them, even in such a scenario as that. Chief among them wanting non-lethal options (stun guns, Tasers, mace, hell even a good baseball bat or metal baton), but also personal safety or responsibility - if there's small children in the house, keeping the gun in a secure location inaccessible by said children and having the gun available for easy access largely work at cross purposes (there are ways to satisfy both, but not everyone will have the knowledge or means to do so). Are you going to keep it loaded at all times? Maybe just a full mag but not actually in the gun? Hope you familiarized yourself with the gun, because you'll have to remember where the safety is and how to disengage it. Which is pretty easy for most models, but for someone who never pulls it out and is suddenly pumped full of adrenaline and fear, you've got a recipe for forgetfulness and clumsy fingers. Did the person take gun safety classes? Have a friend teach them? Is their trigger discipline good? Better hope so, or again the fear and adrenaline may give them a few new holes in the house. And so on and so on.

If someone exllicitly doesn't want a gun, they will almost never be an idiot for not getting a gun.

[Willie the Duck]

The story about Isaac Asimov and the English professor comes to mind. I'm firmly against the professor there, but I'm sure it's a fairly popular interpretation.

I'm of two minds of it. I know we had a death of author discussion here recently, but it really devolved into hating on professors who misused it rather than actually critiquing the analysis method as a whole. Overall I think authors get to decide what their message is, the audience (including people who happen to be professors) get to decide whether it is communicated well (as well as if there are any messages the author unintentionally included), and as usual people that make complete unsupported conclusions are just as off-base in the field of literary criticism as anywhere else.

I realise a lot of people don't like guns but I've been watching american serials where people are threatened in their daily lives and they don't at least try to get a firearm for their home. Like In a context where someone new will try to raid your home three times a year (in addition to the raids on your friend's home) you'd be an idiot not to get a gun when they're available regardless of your beliefs. People are raiding your home and going after your loved ones, and you know they'll do it again because you keep making enemies

Bonus points for extensive weapons closets that just aren't rational. double Axes,Flails, Greatclubs, fantasy swords, fancy daggers, predator's wristblades, blackpowder sporting guns, but no firearms from this century outside of a maybe an elephant gun when you live in a gun friendly state.

So, shows like Buffy? Regardless of your opinion on guns defending a normal person's home, she and her friends/loved ones were kept safe by writer fiat that made no sense and guns would have made all the sense in the world. True. It is clearly a case of theme over logic. I understand the reasons -- Guns turn a show like that into Blade, instead of Vampire-themed Goonies--with badass female asskicker(TM).

If someone exllicitly doesn't want a gun, they will almost never be an idiot for not getting a gun.

True in real life, not necessarily in shows (and The Jack did do a pretty good job of setting up the scenario he imagined). There are plenty of shows where it doesn't make sense that the status quo would exist -- these people realistically would either get good enough to use guns carefully and responsibly, or do something else (most likely go live elsewhere).

[darkrose50]

The idea that dealing with zombies would be difficult. Depending on the various rules used in the story, this can be variable.

Are they stupid walking dead folks, or walking dead folks with Superman's strength and Batman's cunning? Most of the time we get stupid walking dead folk.

Can you get infected by one being near you, or by exchanging body fluids, or by one biting you? This can change things, but mostly we get the body fluid or bite thing.

[1] Defending against the zombie (human) bite . . . this really should not be such a big issue. We have linin and glue! We have leather! We have Kevlar!
[2] If in America . . . America has so many guns and bullets that it should not be a trouble to mow down zombies at a crazy high rate. A gosh-darned hunting rifle from Walmart combined with high ground (like a roof to a building, advertisement sign, or the roof of a truck) would end many, many, many zombies.
[3] Shields, spears and people = dead zombies.
[4] Traps = dead zombies.

It is like people forget how to be people in these zombie stories . . . the non zombie people that is.

[Bohandas]

Well, my issue with the professor example is he claimed the the author wasn't even qualified to speak about the message. Im totally on board with the ideas of unintentional meanings that the author subconsciously or accidentally put in, or even clever re-imaginings of the message that work within the text, but the authors intent and execution are certainly primary messages, since they have absolute control over introducing and hammering away at the themes.

I think it's more symptomatic of an auhorial phenomenon I've seen refrenced man times where the characters and situations in a book will "seem to take on a life of their own". If the settings and characters are sufficiently well defined then that limits the directions where the story can go without retcons or deus ex machina, and sometimes none of these directions may be the one that the author originally intended, and thus for example what was meant to be a story about the dumbing down of entertainment may spontaneously mutate into a story about censorship and totalitarianism

EDIT: NVM, I'm thinking of the Bradbury anecdote, not the Asimov anecdote

[Themrys]

However, I still struggle with the bolded bit. If there is message a person can read into a work, but that the author did not intend, is it really there? If I a person was to read something into your post that was not a meaning that necessarily follows from the words you used (ie, it's only a possible interpretation), nor what you meant or intended to convey does that mean you have subconsciously put the meaning in or does it mean that people are reading in something that is not there? I tend to think the latter.

There are varying degrees of "message" in a literary text.

For example, I do not think even C.S. Lewis denied that "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" contains a Christian message. The character who sacrifices himself so that an undeserving traitor can escape the punishment the rules of the universe itself demand may be a talking lion, but it would be hard to deny it is a Jesus metaphor.

But if the author had denied it, would it then not be there? Would that plot not bear an uncanny resemblance to a certain story we know from the Bible merely because the author did not intend it to?


On the other side of the spectrum, there's people who claim that the scene wherein the female main character steps on a banana is a feminist message because a woman crushes a phallic symbol under her heel.


In the Twilight example, it is a fact that in this universe, women who literally have superpowers literally can't have babies. The only thing I have to do in my interpretation is to substitute "careers" for "superpowers". The only debatable question is whether the author portrayed this as a good thing or as a bad thing.

When authors have things happen to their characters, then it is plausible that this stems from subconscious thoughts about people in the real world. (Unless it is deliberately done, in which case the message is intended.)

When authors have things happen to inanimate objects, then I think it is pretty ridiculous to assume this has anything to do with subconscious thoughts about people. (Which by the way is also why I consider any universal guide to dream interpretation that tells you what objects are symbols for what complete and utter nonsense. Perhaps a cigar is a phallus symbol to some people, but to other people, it is just a symbol of someone having too much money, or a symbol for lung cancer.)




@darkrose: Zombies are undead in most stories. Rifles would do nothing, spears and shields a bit more, but to really get them to stop moving you'd have to hack their legs off.

Which, admittedly, shouldn't be that difficult, either. Phone the local reenactment group and tell them to bring their chainmail and swords, problem solved.

[Bohandas]

What was this anecdote about Asimov and the english professor that people mentioned? I initially thought I knew what they meant but I just realized that the anecdote I was thinking of was acually about Ray Bradbury, not Isaac Asimov. So what's the Asimov one?

[darkrose50]

@darkrose: Zombies are undead in most stories. Rifles would do nothing, spears and shields a bit more, but to really get them to stop moving you'd have to hack their legs off.

That would be another rule to look into. What does being undead get you? Most of the time destroying the brain works in killing a zombie. Most of the time a rifle-shot can destroy a brain. Then go squish those brains using some sort of combination of tools and tactics to not get bitten.

[The Glyphstone]

That's something that used to bug me, but I've just had to accept as a core facet of the genre - in 99% of zombie stories, there is no zombie fiction (and apparently no Voudoun either), so no one in the universe has any idea what zombies are or how they work. The number of exceptions I can count on one hand, and are the only zombie stories I genuinely like, but me complaining about it is like complaining that characters make dumb decisions based on misunderstandings in romantic comedies.

[Peelee]

I'm of two minds of it. I know we had a death of author discussion here recently, but it really devolved into hating on professors who misused it rather than actually critiquing the analysis method as a whole. Overall I think authors get to decide what their message is, the audience (including people who happen to be professors) get to decide whether it is communicated well (as well as if there are any messages the author unintentionally included), and as usual people that make complete unsupported conclusions are just as off-base in the field of literary criticism as anywhere else.

True in real life, not necessarily in shows (and The Jack did do a pretty good job of setting up the scenario he imagined). There are plenty of shows where it doesn't make sense that the status quo would exist -- these people realistically would either get good enough to use guns carefully and responsibly, or do something else (most likely go live elsewhere).

Good points on both counts. I can totally agree on author's statement of intent vs readers statement of execution.

What was this anecdote about Asimov and the english professor that people mentioned? I initially thought I knew what they meant but I just realized that the anecdote I was thinking of was acually about Ray Bradbury, not Isaac Asimov. So what's the Asimov one?

Copy paste hack job, so sorry about that. It's apocryphal, to the best of my knowledge.

Asimov came upon a group of fans at a convention. A man was speaking to them at length about one of Asimov's stories going on and on about subtext and allegories and so forth. Asimov cuts in and points out that it's simply a story about (whatever the tale was). The speaker tut-tuts him and explains how it may SEEM so on the surface but, if one goes between the lines, one can find a richness and depth to the story which would be unsuspected to the untrained reader. Asimov retorted that the Speaker was full of it. It was a simple, straightforward story about [...] nothing more. Speaker: Sir, I am an English professor who has been teaching literature for years. What makes you think you know more about it than I? Asimov: Because I, sir, am the story's author. Speaker: So? Just because you wrote it, what makes you think you know anything about it?

[Bohandas]

@darkrose: Zombies are undead in most stories. Rifles would do nothing, spears and shields a bit more, but to really get them to stop moving you'd have to hack their legs off.

Which, admittedly, shouldn't be that difficult, either. Phone the local reenactment group and tell them to bring their chainmail and swords, problem solved.

Traditionally horror film zombies can often be deanimated by removing the head or destroying the brain. It's basically only the demon driven zombies from the Evil Dead series and similar zombies that can't be deanimated which require bodily dismemberment to stop

[Lemmy]

Oddly enough, the only place where I've seen a zombie apocalypse that makes sense is in the "Left 4 Dead" games...

There, the zombie virus is airborne and the survivors are just part of the 1% of the population that happens to be immune to it by sheer genetic luck. Not only that, but the infected are as fast and strong as any human.... And that's without mentioning the "special infected", which are mutations that turn the infected into a rather dangerous creature with super-human abilities.

That means the infection is quick to spread and hard to contain, and zombies are an actual threat.

[Bohandas]

Good points on both counts. I can totally agree on author's statement of intent vs readers statement of execution.


Copy paste hack job, so sorry about that. It's apocryphal, to the best of my knowledge.

Asimov came upon a group of fans at a convention. A man was speaking to them at length about one of Asimov's stories going on and on about subtext and allegories and so forth. Asimov cuts in and points out that it's simply a story about (whatever the tale was). The speaker tut-tuts him and explains how it may SEEM so on the surface but, if one goes between the lines, one can find a richness and depth to the story which would be unsuspected to the untrained reader. Asimov retorted that the Speaker was full of it. It was a simple, straightforward story about [...] nothing more. Speaker: Sir, I am an English professor who has been teaching literature for years. What makes you think you know more about it than I? Asimov: Because I, sir, am the story's author. Speaker: So? Just because you wrote it, what makes you think you know anything about it?

That's like the scene in Annie Hall with Marshal McLuhan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE

Oddly enough, the only place where I've seen a zombie apocalypse that makes sense is in the "Left 4 Dead" games... There, the zombie virus is airborne and the survivors are just part of the 1% of the population that happens to be immune to it by sheer genetic luck. Not only that, but the infected move as fast as any human... And that's without mentioning the "special infected", which are mutations that turn the infected into a rather dangerous creature with super-human abilities.

All that means that the infection is quick to spread and hard to contain, and that zombies are an actual threat.

Don;t forget the "Living Dead"/"...Of The Dead" series where ALL people who died became zombies.

[darkrose50]

The unarmed heroes keep killing armed bad-guys, never pick up the bad-guy weaponry and keep running. This makes me want to question the intelligence of the characters, but is almost always bad writing.

[Lemmy]

The unarmed heroes keep killing armed bad-guys, never pick up the bad-guy weaponry and keep running. This makes me want to question the intelligence of the characters, but is almost always bad writing.

Look... If "Walker - Texas Ranger" taught me anything, it's that law-enforcement and weapon-smugglers very much prefer to rely on kick-boxe over firearms!

Also... There are a lot more ninjas in Texas than I thought...

[darkrose50]

The "let's take this over-the-top attractive gal and put her in a burlap sack, and *poof* she is no longer attractive" trope. Well . . . the burlap sack is normally overalls, glasses and a pony tail.

As if guys cannot tell that a pretty gal is pretty even if she is in a burlap sack.

[The Jack]

Guns R Bad

Don't ignore the context; If Axes and maces and 'steel pipes' were good non-lethal weapons you'd have a point, but these people are usually interested in lethal before non-lethal.
And they're experts, so I don't think accessibility concerns are applicable. More to the point they're not locking up the axes...

The idea that dealing with zombies would be difficult.

zombies would only be difficult if either:
-they were as intelligent as humans
-They were physically superior to humans
- They were physical equals and had cunning or better.
-They reproduce on their own or through magic, rapidly.
-The disease/curse was extremely hard to avoid. Like you've gotta boil everything you drink and spend your time in hazmat suits, or you've gotta keep yourself away from insects, or something like that.
-The zombies are controlled by necromancers or demons or whatever, or special infected exist, or some other not-useless ally was involved with them.

The walking dead demonstrates you can kill them by poking through a fence... just keep doing that and you'd never have a problem.


I will point out that modestly big guns will screw a zombie up as much as a medieval weapon.