Is calling a story unrealistic a fair criticism?

[Classic]

On 1/28/2020 at 9:45 PM, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Well that depends. In the case where most people use it, the entire thing hinges on the type of work the story is. Suspension of disbelief is a thing. It becomes a problem when a story breaks it's own rules but that's more commonly called a plot hole.

So, no I guess I do not think calling most stories unrealistic is valid. They're stories, they're meant to be unrealistic to varying degrees depending on the story.

I generally agree with this.

Almost all media is "unrealistic", every action movie ever breaks some part of physics somewhere, so maybe "How far should people suspend their disbelief before calling bs?" is a more apt question.

When people complain about realism, they usually mean their suspension of disbelief was broken, because of a plot hole, characters acting like idiots for the story to progress, etc. Something like that can be valid critique, but has nothing to do with realism most of the time.

[Rapier]

"Realism", when applied to fantasy settings where we stray from actual realism, means following the set of rules for that universe, expecting that acts have the natural consequences that should follow them. It's about consistency between actions and results. This of course also applies to characters, we obviously expect them to stay in-character and not completely reverse their personalities, goals and motivations without very good reasons for such.

There are cases where a writer breaks these self established rules while keeping their spirit (Sanderson did this a few times), but it has a risk of making the audience break their belief in the world's internal consistency.

[Rapaille]

Depends on the story. A movie like Amour has to be more realistic then something like Star Wars because it wants to tell a realistic story. Also some people simply dislike stories that are unrealistic.

I remember recently going to a movie named a Hidden Life and being endlessly frustrated by the fact that the characters speak English despite the fact that the story is based on true events during WW2 in Austria (also extras spoke German in the background just to put salt on my wound). Now one could say that a lot of movies do this (The Pianist is one of my favourite movies and the Polish characters also speak English in that movie) so I need to consider why those movies worked for me and why this movie didn't since they share the same flaw but it is more noticeable in one of them. Doing this I can better understand what I'm looking for in a movie and in which way I consume them (I guess you could say the same about other forms of media). 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you criticize a movie anyway you want as long as you properly explain why you feel that way and that it's okay to disagree. One of my favourite directors, Micheal Haneke, said that he found the film Der Untergang repulsive and irresponsible because it depicts Hitler in a sympathetic way while not challenging the audience in any way to think for itself and come to his own conclusion and added that movies like Schindler's List create melodrama from serious issues which he dislikes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_osgrcpes4). While I disagree with this statement (I think that humanizing someone like Hitler pulls him down to Earth which is important because we have built a myth around him by making him a taboo which led to some people being attracted to him), I do understand where he is coming from and it makes me consider why our opinions differ.

Tl;dr, your critique is only as strong as your arguments and it's okay to disagree.

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by LJwalhout

[Quillmonger]

I think that unrealistic is kind of dumb when you consider how many stories there are out there that are fantasy and or high science fiction. I think a better way to look at it is how realistic and sensible are the things that happen within the logic of the story. 

[Ingen]

Depends on what is being called unrealistic here. Stories, fantasy stories especially, can be somewhat unrealistic but there will be a point where it disengages the audience (or at least some people). It also depends on what themes are being pursued or are put into focus. Most Fire Emblem stories, for example, focus on the main characters building up their strengths, resourcefulness an that of their companions to fight together to stop a threat that is supernatural in nature. They also take place in fictional settings. Things that fall outside of the story can often enough be unrealistic without people batting too much of an eye on it. Nobody seems to care that bows in Fire Emblem can be made from steel and silver and nobody's wondering where or how the iron ore and coal for making the weapons are coming from and which countries have more of the stuff than others. Nobody's asking what else magic is being used for in day to day life other than battles. I'm sure there are many things in the Fire Emblem stories that can be picked apart for realism's sake but I think many of said points lose their weight when they are out of focus if not very far out of focus of the game's story and game mechanics. 

TL;DR: Realism is only as relevant as the scope and focus of the story makes them.

[Lord_Brand]

"Realistic" and "believable" are two different criteria. It's more important for a story to be believable than to be realistic per se, as part of the reason we turn to fiction is a need to take a break from reality. That said, scenes where characters stand anywhere near lava are forever ruined for me thanks to my knowledge of how convection works.

[Samz707]

If it's unrealistic within it's own confines (or goes way too far in liberties if set in the real world with real stuff.) then I think it's fair:

For instance, both Awakening/3H have super-strength:

In Awakening, Chrom and Lucina do not canonically have super-strength, yet they're capable of jumping/falling the distance of a tall building with no ill-effects in CG Cutscenes, it's just trying to be cool out of nowhere and looks dumb and unrealistic.

In 3H, Crests grant super-human abilities and the story to an extent deals with how they'd be out of battle, (I think I recall hearing it's even stated how Dimitri breaks Lances faster due to this.) they're not out of place in cutscenes just to look cool (Though 3H does have it's own problems with that such as Byleth nearly dying to a generic mage having a spell that doesn't even exist.), these characters actually have empowered strength due to them.

Or on a smaller detail, Chrom sticking his Sword in the ground all the time, it only makes sense in a turn-based context (In that why Chrom isn't simply rushed and gutted while defenseless) and it just sorta looks stupid regardless.

Same with battle animations, most FE battle animations are relatively grounded, but your suspension of disbelief isn't tested with where most absurd combat animations come from, as crits are rare and special. (Like how relatively grounded war movies might have a moment of two of over the top action, it's over the top but infrequent enough that it doesn't quite break your disbelief.)

Edited April 4, 2022 by Samz707

[picheholiya]

I would say yes when it comes to people doing unreasonable things or having a sudden chage of heart that comes out of nowhere, etc.

vidmate
 

mobdro
 

Edited May 9, 2022 by picheholiya

[henrymidfields]

Depends on the story, but I prefer consistency, and at least some effort in well-thought-out plot points of why things are the way they are.

[Jotari]

Huh. I'm kind of surprised I never commented on this before. I certainly buttheads with Ottservia enough and he definitely had me watch said video. I guess I'll throw out an opinion now.

If someone says they find something bad because it is unrealistic they are not lying to you. This is something crucial people seem to miss about criticism. Unless you think they're being clandestinely paid to shit on something or if they're openly arguing from a position of Devil's Advocate, someone is being honest with their feelings. Maybe they aren't articulating their feelings as precisely as they wish to make you understand, but their lack of engagement with the work is an earnest reaction to said work. Every thing is a valid criticism to art, because everyone's feelings and reaction to it is valid. And if you disagree, you can either just accept someone's earnest reaction to something you love is contrary to yours, or you can actually listen and try to help them help you to understand why they had that particular reaction. Of course art doesn't need to be realistic. We have some examples of phenomenally highly praised art that is completely divorced from realism. We also have highly praised art that aims to be a complete representation of ordinary life. There is no official mandate for what a story must be. It can be literally anything. People might not like it if it is certain things, but if you've heard of it, then chances are there are people who like what that story is trying to be.