It’s All Geek to Me – Suspension of Disbelief
Whether we’re talking Boom Tubes or retcons, there’s plenty of jargon in the world of comics. The PoP! Stars are here to ensure you’re not left scratching your head, saying “It’s All Geek to Me.”
Suspension of Disbelief – n. 1) The very act of letting go of one’s misgivings and sometimes logic in order to enjoy a fictional creation, in any form or genre.
As far as we all know, man can’t fly. When we see Superman flying on the pages of any of his comic books or on the big screen, any normal human realizes it couldn’t happen in real life. For that to even happen in a fictional surrounding, we naturally agree to accept the fact that the characters act in their own world with different laws of physics and whatnot. It could even be the existence of real magic or highly advanced technologies that may never be seen in reality.
So the average Joe accepts the unwritten agreement presented to him by the creator, and is now ready to accept anything thrown at him, from one of the smartest people in the world hidden in an advanced fighting armor to a blind doctor who can “see” sharply in the dark. Well, almost anything.
Unfortunately, Suspension of Disbelief is sometimes being taken for granted by writers, mistaken for the willingness of readers/viewers to also accept moronic plots and impossible character developments. Sadly, over the years it seems that creators have decided to use SoD as an excuse for ANYTHING even when it’s not really appropriate, and the audience made it too easy by letting them get away with it.
To wrap it up, SoD is an originally innocent term created for the benefit of all parties involved, in order to make fictional stories far more accessible, but was later abused to pave the way for whatever crosses the mind of a perverted creator.
Filed Under: Columns • It's All Geek to Me
That is an AMAZING piece of art at the top of the article. Two questions: where/who did it come from, and who is the yellow n’ red eagle-chested guy above Professor X? I can name everybody in the image easily except for him.
That’s Ultra Boy from DC’s Legion of Superheroes. He pretty much has the same powers as Superman except he can only use one at a time.
Found it on Google. It’s by American-Israeli comic book artist Michael Netzer.
I can never suspend enough disbelief to accept that two different actors are the same character, unless there is a reasonable age difference for the character (old version/young version).
Danny Huston & Brian Cox as William Stryker? Fine.
Terence Howard & Don Cheadle as James Rhodes? No.
Chris: What if the character’s face had been disfigured and it had to go through a plastic surgery that changed every feature on its mug?
Although I like both Howard and Cheadle (despite that, Rhodey was pretty lame in the movies so far), I get what you’re saying. I didn’t really mind the change like you did (it seems to also have to do with your previous opinion about Cheadle), but it’s probably because I didn’t care for the character in the first place.
Meh, see… that? I completely ignore who’s playing the role. It’s a character. That’s the important part.
LMAO Hey, if Rodriguez ever gets around to making “Dame To Kill For”, he’d better just put Clive Owen in prosthetics!! Ava says that Dwight has “the same eyes”. Not to mention his voice wouldn’t change, either. Casting a different actor, then bringing Clive back “post surgery” will be garbage. And, hey, Mark Hamill kept his job as Luke Skywalker… ;-P
I would’ve had less problems with Cheadle if he’d been Rhodey in the first place. I was more pissed at the change, than I was at him. It’s not his fault Terrence Howard was a primadonna.
But I don’t see the same character when it’s two different faces, two different voices, two different styles of acting. It changes the character, IMO.
“It changes the character, IMO”
I can see where you’re coming from on that. But let me ask this, if the first actor did a shitty job and they get a new guy that nails it, would you still prefer they kept the shitty guy knowing he’d deliver another lackluster performance?
Ten and D3r3k, you both make good points. Chris, I agree that two wildly different portrayals would make it weird, but… I don’t think it’s usually the case. I don’t feel like Cheadle did anything THAT different from what Howard did, for example. I do, however, agree with D3r3k that if the first actor was terrible in the role, I’ll gladly accept the change instead of continued suckage for continuity’s sake.