It is a basic requirement that we create the illusion of reality in order for the viewer of a film or a reader of a work of fiction. My question is, how can persons who are professionals overlook this principle and all those who are their advisers ignore it?


First the positive:
I just saw the New King Kong film and it is truly impressive. It's special effects are astounding and the character development is supremely done.
It definitely is far superior to the original. The humor is welcomed and brings a refreshing new facet to the film which originally was deadpan serious affair. The island and the natives are far more intimidating than in the originals except for the few who were clearly white people with noticeable darkened skin. But that is a minor detail in the overall effects of terror which these natives and the scenery engender.

Yet, the film is sadly UNNECESSARILY marred by violation of a basic rule-"-Don't break the believability spell of the viewer by insulting his intelligence with inanities."

For example, one of the men who are sent to rescue the woman is attacked by large insects whereupon this young lad, whom we are previously told has never shot a gun before, proceeds to confidently clip off the insects from his body with surgical precision at close range with a machine gun and never hits the person even though he is spraying bullets in the mans direction without even taking aim and while the fellow is frantically writhing.

Another scene which seriously weakened my suspension of disbelief occurred when Kong took on a herd of T-rexes! I call it a heard because their were many of them appearing out of nowhere whenever one was easily dispatched. During this battle Kong is shown nonchalantly shuffling the girl from hand to foot as necessary to avoid her getting injured and to facilitate his fighting off the herd of Trxs. As I struggled to accept this as possible T-rex s is then shown repeatedly clamping down on Kong's arm without ever even drawing a drop of blood.

This forced me to hurriedly momentarily distracted by this anomaly, I began to conjecture why Kong's arm was intact and unaffected by the bites. Since I couldn't come up with any logical explanation I simply resumed watching and tried to ignore it hoping on hope that this was an oversight and would be rectified with a realistic display of some type of arm injury. But that was not to be. Perhaps those in charge of the film were in a hurry? Or else they didn't want Kong seriously injured so that the next scenes would not have to be marred by an injured Kong. However, as a viewer I just couldn't ignore those savage bites from teeth that we are repeatedly taught were serrated to easily slice--and yet not the slightest trace of blood or injury. Better to have toned down on the battle scene and made it more believable. In my opinion

After Kong's capture, there is also a scene in NY after Kong gets loose, where playwright in love with the woman goes out of his way to make himself a target of Kong. Then he stupidly trues to get away from Kong by putting the car in reverse on an ice covered street. This he does for no explainable reason other than to be chased which of courser he is and which f course provides for many a nice scene in which special effects dazzle. But the nagging thought of motive is never addressed. It's as if the director is saying-"Put your mind on hold and Watch this!"

Another nagging thought that kept interrupting my enjoyment was Kong's Urangatang-like agility. Many people today are well informed concerning the differences between arboreal apes and gorillas. The gorilla is NOT an arboreal ape and doesn't have the agility that Orangutans and even chimps have. In fact, gorillas shun heights because of this and when they do climb, it is with great caution lest they fall and injure themselves. This is especially true of the silverbvack who might weigh up to 600 pounds or more. But I could have lived with this particular discrepancy if they would not have had Kong leaping and landing back on the Empire State building while snatching planes from the air. Also, the building's spire is missing conveniently in order to have Kong straddle the building's top. Which of course causes a viewer to pause and ask: "What happened to the spire?"

Why do they do these things?

Lol, you are very much like me. I can fairly easily "go along" with absurdities like giant gorillas, jumping forward and backward in time, etc, but frequently the stuff like you mention irritates me big time.

I don't have an answer; I ask myself those questions with nearly every movie I watch. Seems there's always something like that in them.

... just wanted to empathize with you a bit. You're not alone.

It works for too many people and we are the minority, Rick and Starman.

Where money rule and minds don't discern, quality fades. . So maybe this is more of an economics and intellect question?

And thanks for letting me know about another film I won't spend my "Ayn Rand" dollars on, lol.

I don't know the entire Giant ape concept looses reality in the title.

After that does it matter ?

And then "whose rule" about beleivabel. Star Wars? Where do we get that into beleivable

I don't know the entire Giant ape concept looses reality in the title.

After that does it matter ?

And then "whose rule" about beleivabel. Star Wars?? where do we get that into beleivable

Does it matter? According to all the college professors teaching the art of fiction writing it does matter because the audience's attention might be lost either permanently as when you toss a book aside or else momentarily by your mind wandering and the fixing itself on the absurdity of the scene instead.

Actually, I think you are misunderstanding what I posted. Science fiction or any other fiction does not require the belief you are mentioning. Below is a definition of the type of suspension of disbelief relevant to fiction.

Excerpt:
Suspension of disbelief is a willingness of a reader or viewer to suspend his or her critical faculties to the extent of ignoring minor inconsistencies so as to enjoy a work of fiction.

Suspension of disbelief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief)



.

Lol my boyfriend and I have exactly the same mentality. I can accept time travel, monsters, stretches of theoretical science but when the hero dodges spraying bullets of the lead actress is wearing tiny clothes in frezzing conditions etc I'm always going as if! Whenever one of picks up on one of these 'unrealities' the other always says: that's your problem with the reality of the film.
Glad it drives other people crazy too.

Lol my boyfriend and I have exactly the same mentality. I can accept time travel, monsters, stretches of theoretical science but when the hero dodges spraying bullets of the lead actress is wearing tiny clothes in frezzing conditions etc I'm always going as if! Whenever one of picks up on one of these 'unrealities' the other always says: that's your problem with the reality of the film.
Glad it drives other people crazy too.


The sad part about it is that this particular the film would definitely be a complete masterpiece if such absurdities were deleted. I mean, this New King Kong film is awesome in almost every sense of the word. But suddenly "Ding Dong!" and it's like a greece stain suddenly appears on the Mona Liza'a nose. Actually, deleting or altering those scenes is not such a big thing. Just a dab of red on the chest or arms would have been suffice for me. At least that would have shown some respect for the viewer. But to have T-Rex bite down TWICE on the same arm and to have Kong react as if a fly was annoying him? Sorry but I must needs protest!

BTW
Despite these faults the film is awesome. I truly hope that if those making it see this they can somehow modify those scenes a bit in order to get it perfect.