Fotorealism maybe. Killing a gazillion enemies single-handedly doesn't constitute realism per se.

#1 The Village, 17th century village living off I-95
#2 The Happening, plants create wind
#3 Signs, aliens invade planet comprised of 70% water, are allergic to water
$4 The Lady in the Water, never seen it, heard its AWFUL
#5 I'm sure one of his other films make a 5th

How about:

#6 Dead guy was like, all crazy for some old sled.

Even if we decide to judge movies by plot synopsis, which is stupid, I really prefer "17th century village living off I95" to "Boy has secret, waits too long to tell it to girl, girl gets mad, then they get back together after a montage of them being sad". Different isn't the only thing that's important, but at least it's something.

Again, I'm not saying M Night's movies are perfect, but on average they're better than at least 50% of movies that get released. I can only say one good thing about "The Happening": the scene where the people all jumped off the roof was kind of visually interesting and vaguely disturbing. It was a bad movie with wooden acting, bad pacing, etc.. But that one good thing is one more good thing than I can say about a lot (or even most) movies.

#3 Signs, aliens invade planet comprised of 70% water, are allergic to water

Yes... "Signs" wasn't realistic or consistent in how the global invasion or whatever played out. I don't think anyone will argue this. But it was entertaining, the character's reactions had a tinge of realism that's scarce in this kind of movie, and it had a few scenes I thought were really great - like the fuzzy "Mexican birthday party" video.

All time great? No. But the 3rd worst movie of all time? Even accounting for a truckload of hyperbole it isn't even close. I'd say it's better than 80% of movies that come out.

I can understand thinking M Night is overrated or egotistical or something... whatever.. but I still don't understand the hate. He's far from the worst director out there.

>> ^EDD:
The red and green laser-like effects for projectiles kind of subtract from the realism, no?
Audio is very nice - graphics not so much, though.

You've never seen green tracers, before? The US and NATO in general uses phosphorous in its tracer element, which tends to burn orange/red. Soviet ammunition has always used barium, even back to WW2, which instead burns green.

This game looks really good. Two more weeks till it's released here.

The red and green laser-like effects for projectiles kind of subtract from the realism, no?
Audio is very nice - graphics not so much, though.

Bloomkamp is a genius. We need more directors like him, who know how to create atmosphere and realism through film. I loved his short, and I'be been waiting for this for a while, and since I LITERALLY got chills at the end...I am not doubting its going t be great.

>> ^calvados:
It's a candy-assed arcade game, people.


Yeah, but I can play a candy-assed arcade game if it's fun, and I've had a blast with it. Realism is over-rated, imho.

+1 Throbbin. Yahtzee is tired.

As interesting as it is to see a capoeira practitioner actually win an MMA fight using essentially ONLY Capoeira techniques, I can't help but think how irresponsible this set-up is. Those spinning heel kicks (use whatever terminology you want) can easily kill a person.

That sound you hear is probably his cheek or ocular bones shattering. And that's if he's lucky.

This is why i think it's funny that people get so carried away with the "realism" of MMA competitions. Something like this just goes to show that those competitions have rules for a reason and that you never know what's going to happen in the ring or in life.

This is one of the reasons that I would never join one of these competitions. Because NOTHING is like a real fight. (the other reason being that I would have my ass handed to me)

Oh and before anyone else can say it: "That wouldn't work in a REAL street fight11!!!1!!"

none of the women except Charlotte are rich by accident. they are all self made, hard working girls (Miranda is a lawyer, Samantha is a prestigious event planner/publicist and Carrie is an author) i find the show very empowering to women because all of them embrace and openly discuss sex. Samantha is the epitimy of that, never being hung up on men and playing a true equal to men in the sex field. (Unlike a lot of media that portrays men as players and women as either sluts or emotional train wrecks) there is quite a bit of consumerism clothes wise, but they have the money, its reality, if ur a rich woman you usually splurge on some nice things. Obviously their lives should not be the way women strive to live, ITS A SHOW, it needs to be entertaining which complete realism cant always achieve. The movie pissed me off a bit with the whole stupid wedding drama..and SPOILER samantha dumping smith...but i usually didn't have any problem with the show.

>> ^hixsonj:
I knew before I watched this that he was going to give this game a slightly unfair review, simply because he's not a skater himself. He does admit that it's a game by and for skateboarders and might not be easy to play or appeal to gamers in general.
I used to skate quite a bit so to me, these games are amazing. The controls, cameras, etc are all spot-on for those in the scene. I'll never go back to Tony Hawk.


I am never going to play a Tony Hawk game again as long as there are Skate games.

I was one of those people who entered the realism cheat in TH2 so it would feel more like real skating.
I hated the fact that I had to do all these crazy unrealistic moves. I wanted a game where a 360 kickflip to 5-0 was worth a good score and TH definitely was not that sort of game.

>> ^dag:
I can't believe they are using jerky cam on astronomy cgi. I have to admit it does the job as usual, adding 20% more realism to any footage. Eventually we will get jaded of this film technique. It will be the 21st century's laugh track.


I was SOOO thinking exactly that! I mean its obviously a recreation why pretend theres a helicopter filming it the sound of the lawa flowing was acceptable tho

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I can't believe they are using jerky cam on astronomy cgi. I have to admit it does the job as usual, adding 20% more realism to any footage. Eventually we will get jaded of this film technique. It will be the 21st century's laugh track.

Has realism in games gone too far?

^ Exactly what competitively played game (single player) do you have in mind that fits your special criteria? The fact that you even mention graphics makes your argument sort of suspect in my mind. Of course games that were made in 1981 and earlier were limited by all sorts of technological hurdles, that is obvious. You're judging their gameplay by standards that didn't even exist when these games were in their prime. I still fail to see how that somehow means they require little or less skill than gaming today, once the quirks and idiosyncrasies (which ALL games have by the way, new or old) are learned/worked out. Bad gameplay from the game that virtually started the platforming genre? Pfft! I'll just assume that's your personal opinion unless you can objectively prove otherwise and that's fine if it is, we all take away something different from this wonderful new artform, barely in it's infancy.

If anything games seem to be getting easier with each technological flourish that comes along; less time & attention is payed to the meat and bones (gameplay) of a game and more attention to superficial perks (overemphasis on story, shiny graphics, redundant behaviors/gameplay mechanics for the sake of realism, complexity for complexity's sake, the list goes on, etc.) that are just that, perks. There's just way more breathing room for error in today's games as a result.

I think there's a sense of solidity & reliability & elegant simplicity in retro games that, for the most part, can't be matched by a vast majority of next gen games.

Sort of film they re-release once in a while at the cinema, or at least I think they did here a few years ago. Maybe I shall just pick up the DVD.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
It is a brilliant film.

I felt the same way the first time I watched it. I couldn't believe this is AFI best director film of all time. Then I watched it years later on a rainy afternoon and totally fell in love with it.

The news reel thing at the start puts alot of people off, because it takes sometime to cover his life and then start the actual film.

I can only imagine how it was watching it when it was made, news reels were always played before the film so it lent an interesting realism at that time.

In reply to this comment by Deano:
That's a great final line. I have watched the film and didn't like it but that was years ago. Time to try again.

*cinema

It is a brilliant film.

I felt the same way the first time I watched it. I couldn't believe this is AFI best director film of all time. Then I watched it years later on a rainy afternoon and totally fell in love with it.

The news reel thing at the start puts alot of people off, because it takes sometime to cover his life and then start the actual film.

I can only imagine how it was watching it when it was made, news reels were always played before the film so it lent an interesting realism at that time.

In reply to this comment by Deano:
That's a great final line. I have watched the film and didn't like it but that was years ago. Time to try again.

*cinema