Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That scene in Underworld: Evolution wasn't a momentary lapse in physics, it was a horrific abomination of green-screened CGI jammed in amongst tortured plot, pointless non-dialogue, and some decent set design and costuming. It broke the 'reality' of the film in ways that dead corpses played by real actors in costumes never could. It's why Terry Gilliam's fantasy movies have such wonderful realism to them, because the props used in the special effects are real objects themselves, and subject to the same laws as the other objects in the film.

The criteria is easily established in the case of a film: the objects depicted need to make some attempt to exist in the same space according to the same rules. Peter Jackson recognized this somewhat when Andy Serkis played Gollum in the initial filming of the Lord of the Rings, and was later 'dubbed over' by a CGI creation, so that the objects that were filmed interacted with the CGI overlay. It failed for the same reason that most CGI failed, despite some serious care with Gollum's interaction with objects: the object never existed in the scene that was first filmed, so eye-lines are subtlely off, Gollum moves really awkwardly to get him to cove Serkis' movements, and so on. Plus he's a cartoon character, design-wise, inserted in a live action film. It would have been more realistic to have him as he was initially depicted in the third film, like a greasy AIDS-ridden miniature version of Brad Dourif's Wormtongue.

So yeah, supernatural diseases are great so long as they're depicted in the same layer with the same lighting, and looking like they could be actual diseases, for momentary lapses in physics you need cheap and crappy compositing along with bad CGI.

Hi Nurglitch.
I totaly agree with you about 'concistancy in narrative ' as reguards to things that totaly break with the expectations of the onlookers.

I often substitute/replace the demand for 'realism in 40k' as a request for 'consistancy in results to meet the expectations of the players as not to disrupt the narrative.'
Or getting rid of the WTF moments.

I am aware that the 'brainwashed GW collectors' have no interest in using anything but 'Official' 40k rules' with thier minatures .
I belive the best way to keep a constant narrative is to have a real world counter part as a frame of reference.(To get a consitant simulation...)

However as there are some 'gamers' who play 40k , maybe they want more of a tactical simulation?
And I am happly (and slowly) writing a rule set for my own enjoyment.

Its just when people find 40k game mechanics lacking,I like to post alternatives ...

Happy gaming
Lanrak.