[quote] Like in a horror movie when someone manages to not only stay conscious for seemingly hours with one of their limbs cut off, but is able to fight off the monster with a massive flamethrower as well.[/quote] So RE7 and 8? But yeah, I suspend disbelief at the slightest.

In the beginning of A Quiet Place Part 2, the girl makes a monster stunning contraption with a guitar amp, a microphone, and her hearing aid. Except she cuts off the power cable to the guitar amp. There is no way this thing has power throughout the entire movie, yet she flicks the switch and it’s on. I though the film was great, real nice thriller, but I left the theater fuming at that one detail. Yes, I will hold grudges against lazy filmmakers. I could make a strongly worded list of all the glaringly painful design flaws and inconsistencies that plague me every time I rewatch a film.

It depends on how serious the movie is taking itself.

Depends on the movie. I'll suspend my disbelief more for The Suicide Squad than I would John Wick due to the nature of the movie.

Depends on how seriously the movie takes itself.

I am ok with made up physics and stuff *as long as* it is still consistent within the universe I’m presented. For example, i had no problem with Game of Thrones magic, dragons, etc because it’s set in a fantasy world. Unrealistic dialogue probably ruins the immersion for me more than anything. Predictable and forced romances, plot armor, references to IRL hot topics/current events, also tend to ruin immersion.

The thing that gets me the most is when characters do unbelievably stupid things when the plot calls for it. Army of the dead was pretty unbearable for this reason.

It's hard. Lots of things take me out of the story. Cars emitting vapor when they've supposedly been driven an hour. Chainsaws can't cut metal. Weapons don't make cachunk sounds just because you point them at the bad guy. Bullets would go through most of the stuff the heroes hide behind. No one says over and out. Over means it's their turn to talk. Out means that you're finished. Extras who ignore the totally hot lead character. Brad Pitt walks in and the women don't look. Fake science. In Alien it was special and scary molecular acid. All acid is molecular. People sitting on exotic or classic cars. Car guys/girls do not sit on their baby.

Depends on the movie, if is a movie that takes itself seriously I tend to notice those things, but in a stupid horror or action flick I don't mind since it is more or less expected. I actualy have similar issues with continuity in movies and series where some events or conversations don't make sense when compared to past events or conversations. What does annoy me a lot in American movies though is how little they seem to know about societys outside the US, where for example the protagonist is on the run from the cops in Germany and they open fire when they see him, which does not happen in real life or getting the language wrong (Dutch is German for example).

It really depends on if it creates cognitive dissonance within the characters or story, and if that dissonance is large or small in impact. Were they always capable of that? Was it foreshadowed or explained beforehand? Is there a logical reason for this within the story's narrative? Is it something to expect moving forward or is it just a one-tine thing? If a character does something unusual or normally unlike them, but there is a proper and reasonable explanation for it (better shown than explained though), then I understand the purpose behind the action and will not fault that character. Same can be said for any plot device.

I mostly watch sci-fi and fantasy, and i've found that there's mainly four factors regarding suspension of disbelief. The first is internal consistency, which i also think is the most important. This is especially critical in sci-fi and fantasy, where the writers create new rules for theur new universe. If these rules are constantly being broken and contradict each other, then the universe isn't plausible. Also, if a wound is inflicted, then it better still hurt unless the character got medical attention. It doesn't make sense that a character who gets shot in the leg can go dancing in the ballroom two seconds later. The second is the portrayal of the scene. Sometimes, a movie can rewrite our logical senses based on what we see on the screen. Using OP's example, if a limb is cut off, then the functionality of the character depends on how bad the wound was. Is it something like star wars, where the limb just kinda falls off and the character screams in momentary pain, or is it like a slasher movie, where the detached nub is just spewing copious amounts of blood and viscera all over the place? Or when a character falls off a cliff, we can see their bruises and cuts, and that can enough for us to suspend pur disbeliefs. In reality, most movie charavters falll off cliffs would break their neck and instantly due. The third is the style and setting of the movie. Fantasy and sci-fi can usually get away with this pretty easy because magic, but i find other genres have more trouble. The closer the movie gets to real life, then the harder it will be to maintain plot armor and still be plausible. If they're going to put a shitty film grain and have a shaky camera the whole time to make their movie "gritty" and "realistic", then the audience is justified in being much harsher when it comes to suspension of disbelief. Likewise, if a movie is going to appropriate the average joe, human stereotype, then the rules and physics that apply to us in real life should apply in the movie. Logic is the last aspect, and this refers strictly to the plot. There must be a reason for everything that happens. Even if events seem a little too coincidental or the events that happen don't make much sense, then there should at least be some mysterious entity or deity or some inkling of something that is the reason behind what happens on screen. It's stupid when characters that dive headfirst into dangerous situations just because they "feel like something was wrong". If they can't engage their brains and use logic to solve the conflicts, then why should the audience be expected to do the same?

Usually quite easy for me. But if it's any kind of modern military movie, I'm a nitpicking -blam!-.

[i]It depends on the movie, and the thing in question. I’m more likely to ignore something like that in a generic action flick, or typical summer block buster. If a movie is trying to be realistic, or presents itself as something more sophisticated than offering cheap frills, and basic entertainment, then I will hold it to a higher standard.[/i]

It breaks immersion but I don't really care in the first place [spoiler]spoiler or something idk[/spoiler]

the opposite of easy, i immediately call out unrealism cuz it breaks my immersion

Very easily. If I wanted a physics lesson I'd have gone to college for that. [spoiler]Sorry, all out of salt.[/spoiler]

Naw. I grew up on B movies. Honestly it’s hilarious.