It's the same reason movies and novels have bad sword-fighting scenes, bad hacking scenes, and bad sex scenes: the audience is at least as ignorant as the creators, if not more so.
It's the same reason movies and novels have bad sword-fighting scenes, bad hacking scenes, and bad sex scenes: the audience is at least as ignorant as the creators, if not more so.
Brian Cox, a well known science presenter in the UK, who also happens to be a Professor of particle physics at the University of Manchester and also currently works at CERN on the LHC, was...
Brian Cox, a well known science presenter in the UK, who also happens to be a Professor of particle physics at the University of Manchester and also currently works at CERN on the LHC, was recently on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast and mentioned something relevant to this topic:
When he was working as the scientific advisor on the scifi movie Sunshine, Danny Boyle the director said he "wanted to do it right" (meaning the scientific aspects of the movie) and so one of the things he decided to do was have all the scenes with the spaceship traveling through space without any sound in them... and can you guess what Prof. Cox said about the result? He said, "It looked shit." Which was why they decided to put some rumbling sounds in them even though they are unrealistic, since they made the scenes with the ship flying through space more emotionally impactful and "less shit" as a result.
So not every unrealistic depiction in films and tv is done out of ignorance... often times the simple fact is that the unrealistic serves the scene and story better.
Even at the highest skill levels in HEMA, duels are generally awkward/sloppy looking, and rounds rarely last more than a few seconds. So if you wanted absolute realism in sword fighting, just imagine that exact same fight but with one (or more likely both) competitors dropping dead, dying or wounded after every round.
So some of those HEMA guys actually put together a cinematic portrayal of their stuff that actually looks pretty damn cool while still being more "realistic". So while it's not exactly true to...
So while it's not exactly true to life, it is more accurate than your average movie and honestly looks really fucking dope. I'd love to see a competent film maker incorporate this style of sword fighting into a large budget movie.
LOL, that's one of my favorite fight scenes as well, although IMO it's exaggerated a bit too far in the other, incompetent direction. But the final battle scenes in Seven Samurai with the peasants...
LOL, that's one of my favorite fight scenes as well, although IMO it's exaggerated a bit too far in the other, incompetent direction. But the final battle scenes in Seven Samurai with the peasants are actually the most like I suspect they probably were in real life. The peasants stay clumped up in fearful little packs through the entire fight with the bandits, only attacking timidly when they have the severe numerical advantage, and even then they are usually just flailing their weapons around wildly or poking half-heartedly, more concerned with not dying than actually doing any damage to their enemies. And it's only once the bandits get wounded by chance, disarmed somehow, or fall down that they charge in en masse, stabbing like madmen.
I'm pretty sure at least some of the time it's just a massive joke on purpose. Like the "enhance" scenes in CSI or that one scene in NCIS with 2 people typing on one keyboard to battle a hacker...
I'm pretty sure at least some of the time it's just a massive joke on purpose. Like the "enhance" scenes in CSI or that one scene in NCIS with 2 people typing on one keyboard to battle a hacker with ULTIMATE SPEED. Or the Willhelm Scream.
I think the Harry Potter example in the article is probably the best explanation in and of itself: chess magic isn't movie magic, and such details must always be sacrificed for the sake of the...
I think the Harry Potter example in the article is probably the best explanation in and of itself: chess magic isn't movie magic, and such details must always be sacrificed for the sake of the overall work. The chess game designer's blog post is a good read.
There's a movie that went through the trouble to craft a real chess situation, customized to the situation, and they had to cut it down to nonsensical chess in order to keep the movie on track. Chess is a great shorthand but, like all shorthand, it is the first to be made fuzzy on the details. Of course, unless it's central to the theme of the movie (e.g. the X-men example in the article).
Just re-read it to check. FIrst, yes it was Ron's Thing when they were making their way to the endgame of the story. The movie follows the book very closely. But the book does not describe the...
Just re-read it to check. FIrst, yes it was Ron's Thing when they were making their way to the endgame of the story. The movie follows the book very closely.
But the book does not describe the match much at all. More detail is given to how the pieces clash together when one is captured than any of the moves made. The most detail we get is in the realm of "a white pawn moved forward" or "the black pieces moved at Ron's command".
This made me think of a classic episode of Seinfeld. I'm not sure the writers intended it to be any form of symbolism. The one symbolism explicitly stated (Seinfeld as a neutral part in the...
“What could you do with Risk as a symbol?” asks Shenk. “Except for it to be a symbol of exactly what it is, which is all these countries fighting each other. You can’t take Risk and turn it into a symbol for mathematics. You can’t take Risk and turn it into a symbol for schoolyard power dynamics. It’s just too limited by its specificity.
This made me think of a classic episode of Seinfeld. I'm not sure the writers intended it to be any form of symbolism. The one symbolism explicitly stated (Seinfeld as a neutral part in the Kramer/Newman rivalry) doesn't actually make sense, since the Seinfeld/Newman rivalry is much stronger in the show.
I think the author misses out on one of the most important reasons chess is used over other games though: Unlike for example Risk it's possible to have a state in chess where the two sides look very even, but the game can still be decided in a single move.
Poker is often used for the same reason. The two players have roughly the same amount of chips, a very even position. You know the protagonist is in deep trouble when you see the antagonist holding 4 aces. The antagonist goes all in, the protagonist considers his move to create tension, then matches the bid, only to reveal the only possible better hand; a straight flush. An even position looks suddenly hopeless, then just as suddenly is turned to victory.
What motivates them not to? Do they see a loss of revenue from using it incorrectly? Do they see a loss of prestige or otherwise take a hit to reputation? This can be solved the same way all other...
What motivates them not to?
Do they see a loss of revenue from using it incorrectly? Do they see a loss of prestige or otherwise take a hit to reputation?
This can be solved the same way all other decision making by humans can be resolved - perception of risk vs reward. Here we have pretty much literally zero risk coupled with some reward (effective stereotypical nerd scene). Why wouldn't you keep doing what you're doing?
It's the same reason movies and novels have bad sword-fighting scenes, bad hacking scenes, and bad sex scenes: the audience is at least as ignorant as the creators, if not more so.
Brian Cox, a well known science presenter in the UK, who also happens to be a Professor of particle physics at the University of Manchester and also currently works at CERN on the LHC, was recently on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast and mentioned something relevant to this topic:
When he was working as the scientific advisor on the scifi movie Sunshine, Danny Boyle the director said he "wanted to do it right" (meaning the scientific aspects of the movie) and so one of the things he decided to do was have all the scenes with the spaceship traveling through space without any sound in them... and can you guess what Prof. Cox said about the result? He said, "It looked shit." Which was why they decided to put some rumbling sounds in them even though they are unrealistic, since they made the scenes with the ship flying through space more emotionally impactful and "less shit" as a result.
So not every unrealistic depiction in films and tv is done out of ignorance... often times the simple fact is that the unrealistic serves the scene and story better.
E.g. "Realistic" sword-fighting looks like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viCVrexfHNc#t=2m13s
Even at the highest skill levels in HEMA, duels are generally awkward/sloppy looking, and rounds rarely last more than a few seconds. So if you wanted absolute realism in sword fighting, just imagine that exact same fight but with one (or more likely both) competitors dropping dead, dying or wounded after every round.
So unrealistic though they may be, frankly, I would much rather watch these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB8tiSMCwRE#t=1m12s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERmM5l2ceoY#t=1m10s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDlZ_SXx5gA#t=3m30s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAtbzV8CTV0#t=1m40s
So some of those HEMA guys actually put together a cinematic portrayal of their stuff that actually looks pretty damn cool while still being more "realistic".
So while it's not exactly true to life, it is more accurate than your average movie and honestly looks really fucking dope. I'd love to see a competent film maker incorporate this style of sword fighting into a large budget movie.
Sword fighting is my favorite part of Rashomon. When you get to the final scene you get to see what contemporary sword fighting was really like.
LOL, that's one of my favorite fight scenes as well, although IMO it's exaggerated a bit too far in the other, incompetent direction. But the final battle scenes in Seven Samurai with the peasants are actually the most like I suspect they probably were in real life. The peasants stay clumped up in fearful little packs through the entire fight with the bandits, only attacking timidly when they have the severe numerical advantage, and even then they are usually just flailing their weapons around wildly or poking half-heartedly, more concerned with not dying than actually doing any damage to their enemies. And it's only once the bandits get wounded by chance, disarmed somehow, or fall down that they charge in en masse, stabbing like madmen.
p.s. <3 Kurosawa so much. :P
Thanks for the "realistic" sword fighting link. Now I feel way less like a dork for the way I look when I play Beat Saber.
I'm pretty sure at least some of the time it's just a massive joke on purpose. Like the "enhance" scenes in CSI or that one scene in NCIS with 2 people typing on one keyboard to battle a hacker with ULTIMATE SPEED. Or the Willhelm Scream.
I think the Harry Potter example in the article is probably the best explanation in and of itself: chess magic isn't movie magic, and such details must always be sacrificed for the sake of the overall work. The chess game designer's blog post is a good read.
There's a movie that went through the trouble to craft a real chess situation, customized to the situation, and they had to cut it down to nonsensical chess in order to keep the movie on track. Chess is a great shorthand but, like all shorthand, it is the first to be made fuzzy on the details. Of course, unless it's central to the theme of the movie (e.g. the X-men example in the article).
Now I'm trying (and failing) to recall how the chess scene was described in the book. If it was even in the book?
Just re-read it to check. FIrst, yes it was Ron's Thing when they were making their way to the endgame of the story. The movie follows the book very closely.
But the book does not describe the match much at all. More detail is given to how the pieces clash together when one is captured than any of the moves made. The most detail we get is in the realm of "a white pawn moved forward" or "the black pieces moved at Ron's command".
This made me think of a classic episode of Seinfeld. I'm not sure the writers intended it to be any form of symbolism. The one symbolism explicitly stated (Seinfeld as a neutral part in the Kramer/Newman rivalry) doesn't actually make sense, since the Seinfeld/Newman rivalry is much stronger in the show.
I think the author misses out on one of the most important reasons chess is used over other games though: Unlike for example Risk it's possible to have a state in chess where the two sides look very even, but the game can still be decided in a single move.
Poker is often used for the same reason. The two players have roughly the same amount of chips, a very even position. You know the protagonist is in deep trouble when you see the antagonist holding 4 aces. The antagonist goes all in, the protagonist considers his move to create tension, then matches the bid, only to reveal the only possible better hand; a straight flush. An even position looks suddenly hopeless, then just as suddenly is turned to victory.
What motivates them not to?
Do they see a loss of revenue from using it incorrectly? Do they see a loss of prestige or otherwise take a hit to reputation?
This can be solved the same way all other decision making by humans can be resolved - perception of risk vs reward. Here we have pretty much literally zero risk coupled with some reward (effective stereotypical nerd scene). Why wouldn't you keep doing what you're doing?