Is it time for a new special genre: "realistic modern movies"?

Nicole Johnson20 said:If I'm following her logic correctly, she's saying you can still showcase human nature—and draw conclusions about it—even through these drawn characters, superheroes, and the like...

It’s not just that we *can*—it’s that humans are so incredibly anthropocentric. We view even our own pets as merely imperfect, flawed versions of ourselves, despite them being perfectly complete on their own terms. Everything is increasingly measured against and forced to fit human values. It doesn't matter if it's aliens from another planet—who we perceive as more advanced or complex—or fantasy creatures, which are really just distorted reflections of an already distorted humanity. Humans can't even accept themselves as they are; we’re obsessed with becoming "better"... and that obsession bleeds into everything in our culture, not just movies.

Take zombie films, for example. They are a perfect mirror for the relationship between the individual and society—specifically, how a person dominated by herd instinct is basically just a transitional stage between animal and human. A true human being is an individual who isn't ruled by that atavistic pack mentality, which means they are perpetually under pressure to be hunted, bitten, infected, or devoured by the mob. The herd cannot tolerate an individual narrative. Anything falling outside the herd's value system is considered unknown—and in our minds, the unknown is synonymous with evil, because anything we don't understand is terrifying and unacceptable...

Isn't that what makes a movie truly "realistic" today? At some level, it hits the absolute core of the issue.

Paul Rogers94 said:even within those surreal fantasy creatures, there's more or less just a classic drama about unrequited love (say, between two warring species), blah blah—the movie essentially boils down to drama which is always the same old thing or just variations on a theme in any film, set against some backdrop—whether it’s a looming catastrophe (a comet, a war, whatever historical or future disaster you can dream up), and even those surreal creatures are so heavily anthropomorphized that they aren't significantly different from "real people today" in terms of their needs. The drama is always existential and always the same; films that truly break away from shallow, boring human nature and its accompanying clichés are incredibly rare.

Exactly—but here, we are talking specifically about those backdrops. And who better to get lost in a setting than the audience? No one was ever questioning the core essence itself.

Honestly, what kind of movies would actually "fundamentally deviate from shallow, boring human nature and the clichés that come with it"? Can anyone provide an actual example?

Nicole Johnson20 said:Sure, but we're talking specifically about those settings here. And who better to immerse themselves in such backdrops? No one was actually questioning the core essence itself.

Honestly, what kind of movies would even "thoroughly deviate from shallow, boring human nature and its attendant clichés"? Any examples?

I was thinking of Antiviral from 2012 (Brandon Cronenberg’s debut, if I recall correctly)—personally, one of the most impactful films out there—plus another one that's slipping my mind right now. Though, when you really dig into it, it's just an extreme depiction of an already twisted "human nature." It's funny how elastic that term "human nature" is... probably because man hasn't quite figured out where he fits in the "natural order." Besides that, humans are inherently contradictory and at war with themselves—literally schizophrenic because they lack self-awareness. For instance, one moment someone is wearing one uniform and bowing to one flag, then in the very next scene, as if nothing happened, they're in a different uniform bowing to different symbols, seeing no paradox whatsoever. That's just how it is...

Paul Rogers94 said:so even within those surreal fantasy creatures, there's more or less just a classic drama about unrequited love (say, between two opposing species), blah blah, the movie essentially boils down to drama which is always the same stuff or just variations on a theme in any film, set against some backdrop, whether it's some looming catastrophe—like a comet, a war, or whatever various historical or future circumstances you can think of—and I mean, those surreal creatures are so extremely anthropomorphized that they don't actually differ much, at least when it comes to their needs, from "real people" living today; the drama is always existential and always the same, and films that truly deviate from shallow, boring human nature and its accompanying clichés are incredibly rare

I guess I partially agree with what was written, but maybe try to notice a few things here:

1. I haven't been spitting venom or demanding a ban on "unrealistic" movies. There have always been such films, and there always will be, along with their fans. I'm just speaking up for those of us who crave different kinds of cinema, because for us, finding gems in modern filmography feels like it's becoming a rarer and rarer occurrence.

2. It's true that a talented director can genuinely capture human nature even within an "unrealistic setting." But then again, a truly great director is a rarity, so quite often, alongside unrealistic scenery, you get an unrealistic portrayal of human nature too. What really gets under my skin are the flaws in the script, the characters, and especially the DIALOGUE. I honestly feel like directors would need to pay way more attention to those specific details if they were filming a realistic contemporary drama than if they were making a flick about a supernatural hero wandering through some undefined space and time.

3. A "realistic modern film" demands ninety minutes of pure directorial focus and screenwriting precision. To actually be watchable, a "realistic modern film" has to be high quality. On the flip side, an "unrealistic film" can sort of "cheat" its way through those ninety minutes by leaning heavily on technical spectacle. Sure, you could probably cram some kind of "drama" into the 13th installment of Iron Man or the 23rd Star Wars sequel to label it "high quality," but if you strip away the special effects and superpowers, take the exact same actors and the exact same dialogue, and transplant them into a quiet street in Santa Barbara... well, I wonder how much "quality" drama would actually be left over...

So, I’ve just been sitting here scrolling through the first page—you know, this current one—of the subforum, just scanning all the thread titles:

Alien: Covenant
War for the Planet of the Apes
Constitution of the United States
Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
The Shining (1980) by Kubrick
Terminator 1 [1984] VS Terminator 2 [1991]
Spider-Man (2017)
The Snowman (2017)
Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Avengers: Infinity War (2018 & 2019)
Dunkirk (2017) - Christopher Nolan
Baby Driver (2017)
Ready Player One (2018)
The Mummy (2017)
Alien 5 (2018)
The Usual Suspects [1995] VS Se7en [1995]
Justice League (2017 & 2019)
Split (2017)
Mother (2017) - Darren Aronofsky
Atomic Blonde (2017)
Logan Lucky (2017)
Gifted (2017)
Kong - Skull Island (2017)
Jennifer Lawrence
The Irishman
Wonder Woman
The Vegetarian (2012)
The Dark Tower (2017)
Blade Runner 2049
Fast 8 [2017]

If I managed to list them all correctly, I guess that makes 31 different movie titles being tossed around here lately. I was wondering if any of the real cinephiles here could tell me how many of these actually have a coherent plot, you know, with actual characters living in realistic settings? I'm thinking specifically about those ones where the years 2017 and 2018 are attached. Like, out of all those from 2017, how many are even remotely grounded in reality? I mean, I realize that realistic films are probably in the minority, but I don't really have a sense of just how small that minority actually is.

Paul Rogers94 said:even within those surreal fantasy creatures, there's more or less a classic drama about unrequited love (say, between members of rival species) blah blah. Basically, the movie consists of drama which is always the same or just variations on a theme in any film, set against various backdrops—whether it's some looming catastrophe (like a comet, war, or different historical or future scenarios). Plus, those surreal creatures are so heavily anthropomorphized that they don't really differ much, at least regarding their needs, from "real people" today. The drama is always existential and always the same; movies that truly break away from shallow, boring human nature and its usual clichés are actually quite rare.

That’s absolutely true; the core plots in movies are always the same. I guess silentridge3 is asking why filmmakers today pour massive amounts of money specifically into films that wrap those same old plots in fantasy worlds. Why does today's generation seem to prefer fantasy over the real world? Is it just a passing trend, or are there deeper reasons? You could also ask why previous generations mostly remember and use mafia movies or real war stories as their benchmarks. I think it's pretty clear that a movie like > wouldn't be made the same way it was 30 years ago. I don't mean the technical side, but just the acting, the publicity, and the overall impact on the audience. There isn't an investor today who would produce it that way; the film industry simply isn't that kind of medium anymore. Who goes to the theater for a four-hour drama these days? You might find some people, but there isn't a critical mass to make it an economically viable machine. That's why we have festivals or retro screenings; those are niche areas that are practically separated from the mainstream multiplex machine.

If you look at it strictly from a business perspective, movie theaters today are expensive to equip and aren't found in every small town. Also, the films shown in them are pricey to make and require expensive tickets. Anyone looking to make money through cinema has to offer a product specifically tailored for high-tech theaters. That's where fantasy films come in, as their production can offer that audio-visual "wow" factor. Back in the day, people could easily watch Westerns in small-town theaters because they were simple productions that an average viewer could enjoy anywhere just the same.

silentridge3 said:3. To idea of a "realistic film of today" demands 90 minutes of pure directorial focus and razor-sharp screenwriting.

From what I can tell, you’re constantly attacking mainstream fluff—yet somehow, boring art house flicks are your kryptonite. Most film productions actually fall under what you call "realistic films of today," but let’s be honest... you just don't watch them.

Would you consider something by Luis Buñuel "realistic"?

It’s the same deal: most movies are either loose adaptations of classic dramas (think Romeo and Julia in modern New York City, just without those specific names) or some kind of interpretation of actual events—which are essentially inspirations where nothing is pulled out of thin air.

I can't stand mainstream garbage either—but my issue isn't with the spectacle, it's the cheap, shallow, and utterly mindless dramatization. I'll happily sit through a low-budget flick if the drama actually hits home.

Paul Rogers94 said:Look, I can't stand mainstream productions either, but honestly, my issue isn't really with the flashy special effects, it's more about that cheap, shallow, and just plain mindless attempt at drama,

My whole theory is that those two things are actually cause and effect, you know? I guess the more a movie leans on "fantasy" and heavy technical wizardry, the thinner and cheaper the actual drama becomes.

I mean, you’re probably a much bigger expert than I am when it comes to cinema, so tell me—out of those 31 movies I listed as what this community finds most interesting right now, how many of them are actually grounded in reality (you know, real people facing plausible modern situations)?

Because even if they *are* making realistic films, why does it feel like everyone on this forum is mostly obsessing over other stuff, just endless mainstream fantasy? There was a time, I suppose, when a father and son, or a literature professor and some random guy, could all sit down and watch the same thing together. But nowadays? Did the literature professors just stop watching movies entirely—leaving only kids to haunt these forums—or have they just fallen victim to the "boiling frog" effect, where they've slowly grown accustomed to watching mainstream fantasy with its paper-thin dramaturgy? Now, maybe you'll see two professors debating whether the flight scenes in Spider-Man 3 or Gliderman VII. were better... and then, I guess, just to soothe their own consciences, they try to inject some sense of "drama" into movies where the script feels like it was spat out by a smartphone app rather than an actual screenwriter...

silentridge3 said:My argument is that those two things are directly linked—cause and effect. The more "fantasy" and technical wizardry you throw at a movie, the shallower and cheaper the drama becomes.

I'm sure you're the expert here and know way more about cinema than I do. Out of those 31 films I listed as currently most interesting to this forum, how many are actually realistic? (Meaning actual people in situations we might face today?)

Look, I’m no expert—I just appreciate good movies. But out of those 31 that the forum crowd finds interesting, they all suck to me... honestly, it's just the worst kind of pretentious, superficial layer of mainstream production masquerading as being "more than just a movie."

you still have to dig beneath the surface in America

silentridge3 said:My argument is simple—those two things are directly linked. The more "fantasy" and technical wizardry you cram into a movie, the shallower and cheaper the drama becomes.

I’ll assume you know more about cinema than I do. Out of those 31 titles I listed as the most interesting ones for this forum right now, how many are actually realistic? (Meaning actual people in plausible modern situations)

You actually listed 30—Jennifer Lawrence is an actress, not a movie. 😵 😁

Out of those 30, maybe 6 or 7 are "realistic." Though, I have to disagree on the dialogue quality—the writing in these newer Marvel's films is often better than in most "realistic" dramas. While the fact that they're still Marvel movies means they're mostly just adolescent nonsense, the dialogue itself is generally solid.

If you’re looking for realism, just step outside. You won't find anything more authentic than that. 😁

People flock to those unrealistic fantasy nonsense flicks because they can't experience that stuff in real life—that's where the entertainment is.
Reality is just too dull for them. 😁

I wouldn't just limit myself to the big blockbusters and typical Hollywood films; at the end of the day, that's all about the bottom line and figuring out how to give an audience something they'll actually pay top dollar for. If the marketing hits the right notes and you've got a premise that grabs people—even if the movie itself is just decent or loaded with heavy CGI—you're going to make your money.
If I were you, I’d suggest branching out and checking out some other cinema. Spaniards, Englishmen, Argentinians, Australians, Koreans, and folks from all over have produced some truly great work that I personally enjoy watching. Most of them seem more interested in staying grounded in reality, placing the weight on atmosphere and sharp dialogue rather than relying on flashy special effects.

silentridge3 said:My argument is pretty simple—these two things are directly linked. The more a movie relies on "fantasy" and flashy technical tricks, the shallower and cheaper the actual drama becomes.

It’s a classic move: hiding a total lack of substance behind big visual effects. And honestly? If a movie opens with a sex scene just to grab your attention, you can pretty much skip it unless you're looking for porn.

Look, I get it—there are plenty of "realistic" movies out there if you’re into heavy dramas, war flicks, thrillers, and all that stuff. Personally, I’m always down for a solid sci-fi movie; even if it isn't strictly "realistic," it can still feel grounded enough to work for me. But honestly? Superhero movies don't even touch the realm of realism for me. I really think we’re overdoing it with that genre, and they definitely enjoy way more hype than they actually deserve. But hey, that’s just how people work, right? It seems like the more fantasy elements you throw into a flick, the more people lose their minds over it. Take something like Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter—they're massive hits that everyone obsesses over, but I just don't see what the big deal is. I'd much rather sit through a "real" movie that actually tackles a tough moral dilemma (like 12 Angry Men) instead of some cliché story where good vs. evil is just played out in black and white—which feels incredibly old-school and religious to me—or something that relies on nothing but magic powers. In my opinion, we have plenty of both "real" and "unreal" movies being made today; it just feels like the fantasy stuff gets all the spotlight and all the glory.

I know where you're coming from—my dad can't stand modern movies. He always asks why anyone would bother watching something that has zero connection to reality. Even animation? Forget it. To him, those are just cartoons for kids.

So, we end up sticking to the classics or Westerns. Watching those old films makes me wonder: why don't we see anything like them anymore? Like someone else mentioned regarding 12 Angry Men.
But let's be real—these kinds of movies still exist today; they just don't get the massive marketing budgets they used to. You only hear about them if they're in the running for an Oscar, and only then do studios actually spend money on ads.
Lately, I’ve been finding out about them through Facebook groups.
Take a movie like Olive—it's a story of a brave girl traveling to Germany to find her grandfather's sold olive tree. It isn't some masterpiece, but it's decent.

It really should be easier to track down films like that.

Right now, the market is flooded with superhero movies, and honestly, it's exhausting. I truly don't understand how this overproduction hasn't hit their bottom line yet—not to mention the excessive use of CGI btw. 😠

Btw, I watch pretty much everything depending on my mood. Sometimes I'll enjoy something like Doctor Strange (though less and less lately), and other times I just want something down-to-earth, like that one film that was playing on PBS the other night.

The Grand Seduction

Over on the other thread, people are actually having a serious debate about one of those rare instances where a historical drama actually felt somewhat grounded back in 2017—specifically, Dunkirk.

Look, I’m certainly no expert here, but it seems like this director is considered such a massive deal for some reason (which explains why he’s the focus of this whole discussion). I guess if he’s primarily known for making those "supernatural" spectacles, maybe the audience has just been conditioned to respond to his specific style? Honestly, reading through some of the comments from folks who absolutely loved Dunkirk, I’m feeling pretty baffled by their reasoning. It seems like they don't really care whether what's happening on screen is realistic or not; instead, they’re calling it a masterpiece mostly because of the music (!), the sound design (!), and the acting of an actor who spends basically the entire movie with his face covered up while sitting in a single position (!). I can't help but wonder... did we just lose sight of what actually makes a movie good?

Movies are an art form. Acting is an art (yeah, even when they’re wearing heavy prosthetics), sound design is an art, and film scores are an art...
The idea that realism should be the ultimate benchmark for art basically died out sometime in the 1870s. Honestly, I think you're being way too stuck in the past and just dwelling on things unnecessarily... My advice? Go watch more "art house" or prestige indie films—which, if I recall, is what a good chunk of the people on this forum actually recommend. You aren't going to change someone else's standards by arguing with them on a message board; you can only really work on expanding your own perspective.

Susan Taylor72 said:Movies are art. Acting is an art (even with a mask on, I suppose), sound design is an art, film scores are an art.
The idea of realism being a core standard for art sort of died out somewhere back in the 1870s. I think you’re being way too stuck in the past and just being pedantic about it, honestly. Maybe the cure is just watching more so-called "art house" or European cinema, which I guess some of the better people on this forum have suggested. You aren't going to change someone else's standards by arguing on a message board; you can really only work on yourself.

...or maybe it isn't me being "stuck," but rather a whole group of people who have slowly conditioned themselves to accept movies with increasingly supernatural themes and ever-dropping quality? Like, in order to actually watch anything, they had to constantly convince themselves—perhaps even subconsciously—that "the plot doesn't really matter anymore" or that "the special effects in this one are actually pretty great"...? It feels like a "boiling frog" situation where everyone just adjusted to the new reality and lowered their standards so everything looks "just as good" as it used to.

Saying a movie like Dunkirk is outstanding because of the score (especially since it's a historical war film) and the "acting" of a guy whose entire performance consists of a nearly motionless head covered by a mask (I mean, a soccer ball wearing a hat could have played that role, or maybe Helen Mirren or Vedran Mlikota in a hat) sounds to me like someone grasping at trivial details just to stay convinced that "good movies still exist."

I'm not saying Dunkirk is bad. Not at all—I actually gave it some credit for certain things. But if music and the acting of a "static head" are enough of a reason to label a war movie "excellent," then our general standards have definitely hit rock bottom.

PS: please don't try to drag "art" into this conversation; this is a far cry from actual art.

Back in Shakespeare's day, people would head to the theater to watch plays about all sorts of intrigue at some royal court—stuff that probably felt just as surreal and fantastical to them as those massive sci-fi spectacles feel to us in a movie theater today. The only catch was that Shakespeare was writing his plays for adults.
Modern movies are more or less what would happen if every single stage play was designed specifically for teenagers—meant to be light, fun, and careful not to stir up anything too heavy or intense.

As far as cinema goes, back before the era of Lucas and Spielberg, even the action directors were making movies intended for people well over 20 years old.
Nowadays, though, films are engineered with a younger demographic squarely in mind—an audience that producers believe wants pure entertainment and, more importantly, is willing to drop cash not just on tickets, but on all the merchandise that goes with it.
The result? These big spectacles are basically constructed so that adults act out versions of adulthood that teenagers *think* adults are supposed to act like.

But hey, aside from that, most of them are actually pretty good.

nimblemarlin6 said:These kinds of spectacles are basically engineered specifically so that grown adults end up acting out the exact way teenagers imagine adults should behave.

Exactly.

I caught the trailer for Atomic Blonde (2017) the other day and I think my head actually started throbbing from all that forced "coolness"—you know, the endless cycle of getting punched and then punching back, those ridiculous hundred-foot jumps and all that nonsense... and that was just the teaser. Honestly, God forbid someone actually forces me to sit through the full movie. I can already hear some critic trying to defend it by claiming the cinematography is "top-tier."

Does a movie like that even fall under the "superhero" umbrella, or does what happens in it count as "grounded realism"? Do teenagers seriously believe people actually move through daily life like that?