Rewatching Matrix Revolutions. Realizing something has always bothered me. The squid-like machines move like they’re underwater rather than in the air. They’re in underground air but aren’t underwater. But dynamics look lighter-than-medium. Avengers I has the same problem.
Conversation
Replying to
I think the idea is both have some sort of hover technology (because it looks cool) but yes, obviously it's not "realistic" barring that
1
1
Otoh a thunder God who flies by twirling his hammer isn't particularly realistic either so :shrug:
1
1
Replying to
That’s different. It’s laws of magic not physics there. The hammer is some sort of dimwitted magical sentient object with agency.
1
Replying to
"Magic" and "Science" in the context of fantasy / soft sci fi like the matrix or avengers is a matter of aesthetics. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
1
Replying to
There’s logical conventions here. If it’s magical, don’t portray it like it’s constrained/limited by laws of physics and signal its agency. If it’s fake physics, keep it coherent by analogy to the right real physics. It’s aesthetics but with applicable composition principles.
1
1
Replying to
I certainly get the importance of establishing conventions and sticking to them unless it's a plot point that it's broken (comes up all the time in RPGs and fiction writing).
1
But I also don't think "we did it because it looks fuckin baller" has been a losing strategy for Marvel's bottom line (or the Matrix, in its day)
1
Replying to
I don’t think you can assume the success was because of those decisions rather than despite. My enjoyment of both is despite those things. I like other aspects of thise movies enough to tolerate these off notes.
Replying to
Because of, certainly not. I'd be surprised if it bothered the average viewer, though.

