3 ms·

> Huh? Come on, now. It's far more realistic than a wizard learning to cast spells, FFS. That's the problem. People can suspend disbelief when the wizard cast

> Huh? Come on, now. It's far more realistic than a wizard learning to cast spells, FFS. That's the problem. People can suspend disbelief when the wizard casts a spell, they can't when the guy with the mundane gun does something they "know" is impossible.

tivert 3y ago
> That's the problem. People can suspend disbelief when the wizard casts a spell, they can't when the guy with the mundane gun does something they "know" is impossible. Is it really, though? Have you heard about wire-fighting kung-fu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fu)? Did the "5 point palm exploding heart technique" prevent people from suspending disbelief during Kill Bill, ruining the finale? (No, it did not.) And does the guy with the mundane gun have to do something impossible, after his development arc? Why not just something impressively skilled? IMHO, suspension of disbelief isn't really a function of the kind of thing depicted, but a function of how the storyteller makes that thing "fit" into the story. Edit: I have some company in my view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief: > J. R. R. Tolkien challenged this concept in "On Fairy-Stories", choosing instead the paradigm of secondary belief based on inner consistency of reality: in order for the narrative to work, the reader must believe that what they read is true within the secondary reality of the fictional world. By focusing on creating an internally consistent fictional world, the author makes secondary belief possible. Tolkien argued that suspension of disbelief is only necessary when the work has failed to create secondary belief, saying that from that point on, the reader ceases to be immersed in the story and so must make a conscious effort to suspend their disbelief or else give up on it entirely.[16]

tivert 3y ago

> That's the problem. People can suspend disbelief when the wizard casts a spell, they can't when the guy with the mundane gun does something they "know" is impossible. Is it really, though? Have you heard about wire-fighting kung-fu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fu)? Did the "5 point palm exploding heart technique" prevent people from suspending disbelief during Kill Bill, ruining the finale? (No, it did not.) And does the guy with the mundane gun have to do something impossible, after his development arc? Why not just something impressively skilled? IMHO, suspension of disbelief isn't really a function of the kind of thing depicted, but a function of how the storyteller makes that thing "fit" into the story. Edit: I have some company in my view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief: > J. R. R. Tolkien challenged this concept in "On Fairy-Stories", choosing instead the paradigm of secondary belief based on inner consistency of reality: in order for the narrative to work, the reader must believe that what they read is true within the secondary reality of the fictional world. By focusing on creating an internally consistent fictional world, the author makes secondary belief possible. Tolkien argued that suspension of disbelief is only necessary when the work has failed to create secondary belief, saying that from that point on, the reader ceases to be immersed in the story and so must make a conscious effort to suspend their disbelief or else give up on it entirely.[16]