It wasn’t so long ago that I was lamenting over the advancements in sci-fi ‘technology’ (or lack thereof) and the effect they have on inspiring ‘science actual’ advancements. Today, my concern is for the dirty flipside of the same coin; that is to say, the way that advancements in technology influence changes in my beloved pastime of watching movies.
Any film that tries to have some sort of credibility in regards to realism can be potentially stunted by the invention of a real-world item that is ‘too good’ and thus stifles the dramatic potential of a realistic/semi-realistic film. As convoluted as that last sentence may have been, I do have an example in mind. The PopSci front page is currently featuring a story that talks about the invention of a type of “bulletproof custard” liquid armour that looks to be more effective than a Kevlar vest.
While this advancement is fantastic for the potentiality of a real-world application that will doubtlessly save the lives of folks who get shot at for a living, what’s it going to do for future cop/war films? Hollywood has done well to establish that Kevlar can be a hit-and-miss form of protection, in that wearing it does not guarantee that a bullet won’t get through, but gives them an awesome opportunity to explain, with a single word or tap on a character’s chest, why said character survived an otherwise lethal hail of lead. But now, assuming this “bulletproof custard” armour becomes the next best thing, suddenly a movie cop or soldier wearing a vest is more likely to be akin to Robocop or The Terminator.
As this is only one example, what troubles me more is the prospect of the Hollywood approach of falsifying plot information for the sake of circumventing the real-world items in their film which, ironically, were there in the first place to make the film more believable. I don’t want a Thank You for Smoking situation where a single line of dialogue appeases the questions that arise from a script not being able to believably overcome logical obstacles.
Am I overreacting or does my concern for how realism in films will be affected by technological advancements that are too ‘drama-proof’ have some standing?
(Incidentally, the Thank You for Smoking situation I was referring to can be viewed in the last scene of the trailer embedded below. Skip to the 2.10 point, but I highly recommend watching the whole trailer if you haven’t seen the movie before.)
Popular Science has been a leading source of science, technology and gadget news since 1872. With up-to-the minute latest space news, insightful commentary on the new innovations and concept cars ...if it's new or future technology you'll find it at popsci.com.au.
WW Media - Popular Science © 2010
Technology - DIY - Videos
I think that the answer you are going for there is ‘budget’ and not film budget but city cop budget which does not have the money to splurge on crappy kevlar let alone awesome invincy gel.
There is always a loop hole.
I think Hollywood has proven time and again that the real world will never get in the way of some old-fashioned over-dramatisation. Look at the now decades old staple of the silencer. In a movie if you chuck it on the end of your pistol/SMG/Shotgun you’re gun’s noise effectively becomes a “pew pew” that wouldn’t startle the most timid of mice. In the real world the only real affect a silencer would have (in most movie situations) is to make your gun sound like a slightly smaller gun. What silencers are actually best for is making a sniper shot more difficult to pinpoint as it spreads out the sound from the gun and also (and most importantly) hides the muzzle flare.
I also don’t think I need to explain exploding cars, exploding fuel barrels and exploding bullets.
I think that custard armor is a pretty cool invention, but don’t fear TPP, I’ll never lose faith in Hollywoods ability to simply ignore the real world and somehow convince us that their version is more believable. Probably because their versions of reality are often cooler than real life.
What they said.