“In other words, if you buy the story, you buy the WHOLE story. “
I disagree. That’s not how it should work.
Every movie has it’s own internal reality. None of these realities are just like real life, but they should be consistent within the framework of the movie. The world within a film that presents a hero with superhuman powers is different from one, say like Saving Private Ryan, which presents WWII combat in very realistic terms. Of course that’s setting aside the fact that Tom Hanks was really too old to be playing an army captain at that time. In the movie’s world he was 27 instead of 42.
Superman exists in a representation of the real world. While his superhuman strength is fictional the weight of the vehicle, the strength of the building, the laws of physics, etc. should remain consistent with reality, or at least close enough to allow the suspension of disbelief.
A classic example of this was in Blue Thunder, when the heat seeking missile was diverted by the reflection of the sun off a glass building. They don’t work that way. Of course everyone has to draw the line for themselves. I didn’t object to German soldiers anachronistically wearing Afrika Korps uniforms in the time period in which Raider of the Lost Ark was set, but the stupid scene in the wretched Crystal Skull where Indiana Jones survives an atomic blast inside a refrigerator was just too stupid.
Interesting comment. I see your point. That’s why movies/shows have “continuity directors/supervisors”, I guess.
I guess I didn’t make my view too clear, though. If we are willing to accept plainly outrageous circumstances, we can’t hang our hat on small details. Tom Hanks is a great example of suspending belief, in that the actor was too old, but it didn’t kill the mood or message. To your point, a 95 year old would have completely ruined it, which is your comment about drawing the line. The last Raiders movie was horrible whether he survived a nuclear blast or not... :-)
In the case of “Wonderful Life”, it looks to me that the internal reality is spelled out, in that life with Potter in charge would be horrible - he’s the villain.
In a much more broad pet peeve of mine - this type of article is a furtherance of liberals trying to re-write not only real history, but our cultural history as well. The FICTIONAL villains of old are now being positioned as good guys, and heroes are now being positioned as the bad guys. (Potter, Malificent, and others...)
Have a great weekend, FRiend.