When discussing works of fiction that take place in worlds more fantastic than our own, criticism of certain plot points someone finds nonsensical is often met with the response "of course it doesn't make sense, it's a movie/video game/TV show/etc." This post will be about unpacking that statement; I think it is mostly a cop out, but there is also some truth to it.
As I alluded to in the first paragraph, creating worlds different from our own involve creating a new set of rules. No matter what type of world you're creating- a fantasy land of magic and mythic creatures, a science fiction space adventure, an alternative universe where United States foreign policy actually gives a shit about democracy- a fictional universe needs its own set of governing rules that dictate how everything operates. Let's take Fullmetal Alchemist, an easy example.
A universe where perfectly coiffed hair curls can withstand anything.
In Fullmetal Alchemist, the show emphasizes the principle of "equivalent exchange"- the idea that in order to obtain anything, something of equal value must be given in turn. In other words, alchemists can transform and modify objects in that world, but they can't simply make something out of nothing. When you see Edward make his staff, he's transforming the materials in the ground into his signature weapon.
If someone in that show were suddenly able to make objects materialize out of nothing, then you'd want an explanation for how that happened. Yes, alchemy is basically magic and defies our laws of physics, but the world of Fullmetal Alchemist still has its own set of rules that it is expected to follow. Hell, if someone were to suddenly bust out an iPad when the technology of that world is about equivalent to the technology of the early 20th Century, you'd want an explanation.
And that is where the "it's a _____, of course it's not realistic!" idea falls apart. Yes, we shouldn't hold our entertainment to our own laws of reality. But fictional works need to hold up to their laws of reality, otherwise that is inconsistent writing, even if other elements of the story are awesome.
A big example of this sort of inconsistency from a work I like (I prefer to pick apart works I like so that it's more analysis than complaint) is from The Walking Dead. As this article tells us, one of the main rules about zombies is that their eyesight is poor and their sense of smell is strong. We see that confirmed when Rick decides to cover himself and his pals in zombie remains to walk through the streets... but then we see it broken later when they avoid zombies by hiding under cars.
Then Daryl does something badass and all is forgiven.
A common response to this criticism is that the walkers spot the humans first, and then they use the ol' sniffers to track out whether they are human or not. But that goes against the rule mentioned above, which specifically says their eyesight is "poor" but they have a "strong" sense of smell. That would mean that their smelling ability is stronger than their sight (unless the meaning of those words have changed recently), and therefore the hiding trick they used shouldn't have worked. It's a vague, inconsistent trait that helps kill the believability of their world- again, not because it is "unrealistic" by our terms, but by the terms the show sets up for itself.
These inconsistencies can make us feel less like we're watching something unfold in a different world and more like we're watching something unfold in a clearly fictional one. Now, different inconsistencies bother people to different degrees, and what some people consider plot holes others don't. For instance, I find a lot of the so-called plot inconsistencies everyone usually brings up about The Dark Knight Rises to be unfounded, and a lot of the actual inconsistencies didn't bother me much.
"No one noticed Bruce Wayne in the European cafe!" Oh, right, because a billionaire who is well known in his own town will definitely be globally recognized. Just like how you would totally recognize the CEO of Walmart or Target if they walked by you right now!
So, yes, some things take some people out of the movies, while those same things don't take others out. Some aren't taken out of the experience because they don't think the inconsistency is a big deal, while others don't think it's an inconsistency at all. That's fine, because we all interact with fictional worlds in our own ways.
The main problem with saying "it's a [comic book/fantasy/sci fi/etc] [movie/game/TV show/etc], don't think about it" is that it's dismissing the fact that these types of works have the ability to be immersive and take people to a different world. A well crafted world with consistency is a fantastic thing. When you say "don't think about it" you're encouraging people to not immerse themselves, to not critically engage with what they enjoy.
Now, that all being said, not everything needs an explicit explanation. A movie that comes to mind is the movie Midnight in Paris from a few years back.
They never once explain how Owen Wilson keeps finding work!
In the movie, Owen Wilson is a writer who is visiting Paris with his fiance. He loves it there, particularly because it was the home of many ex-patriot US writers during the modernist era of the 1920s. One night, while on a walk, he ends up transported to 1920s-era Paris and gets to meet Ernest Hemingway, F Scott Fitzgerald, Zelda Fitzgerald, Gertrude Stein, Salvador Dali, and others from that time period. There is never an explanation given as to why Wilson (and, later, someone sent to track him) are able to travel back in time.
The thing is, the movie is still establishing a set of rules. The movie shows us early on that time travel is possible in that universe, but everything else about it is realistic. No one shows up with a light saber, or mind reading abilities, or a positive opinion of any M Night Shyamalan movies. That is a universe that permits time travel in certain vehicles to the past, and the movie never adds extra fastballs into the mix.
So an explanation isn't always necessary. In the original Star Wars trilogy, they established how the force functioned as a power, but not what it actually was "scientifically" speaking. Everyone loved the movies, and then the prequels came up with a sci-fi explanation as to what the force was. It wasn't a bad explanation, but it wasn't an answer people were clamoring for to make further sense of the universe.
So, in the end, what is arguably most important is establishing a clear set of rules that the works within that universe follow consistently. Analyzing and picking apart fiction can be fun, and certainly helpful to anyone trying to create their own. Critiquing and contemplating entertainment can help give us a deeper understanding of it- or at least that's what I tell myself to justify all the time I spend over-analyzing pop culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment