Movie firearms giraffes...with a test - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > The Firing Range > Movie firearms giraffes...with a test

Kodo Zoku: Mar 6, 2008

This isn't a firearms gaffe, but it's a big pet peeve of mine: surviving explosions. It seems that if you don't get hit by the fireball, you might get thrown a few feet, but outside of that, you're cool. Or, you might get hit by the fireball, and throw you 30 feet, but you're still good, if a little singed.

The good:

The Hurt Locker. In the opening scene, the bomb tech isn't killed by the evil fire, shrapnel, or debris. It's the shockwave, and it doesn't rip him apart, his head doesn't fly off, or anything dumb like that. The shockwave causes massive internal bleeding, and more importantly, travels faster than the smoke, fire, shrapnel, and debris.

The bad:

I think the majority of movie explosions I've seen depict people surviving explosions at ranges that should have killed them easily, but I'd love to hear about some good examples. I'm sick of seeing people so close to a C4 explosion that they get hit by the fireball and their body somehow magically remains intact.

How was the rest of the movie for firearm accuracy, TFR? It seemed pretty good to me but I'm not very knowledgeable in these matters. I know that a shotgun doesn't cause someone to pratfall / pirouette, et cetera, but I'm still finding myself incorrect about gun issues and the like on these forums.

# ? May 18, 2010 23:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 19, 2013 11:42

NosmoKing: Nov 12, 2004; I have a rifle and a frying pan and I know how to use them

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I said that I really liked the scene in Saving Private Ryan where the guy trying to blow the tracks off the tank with a few pounds of TNT demo charges in his sock got turned into a cloud of bone flecked goo. Also, bombs and grenades and artillery rounds apparently don't have any fragmentation effects in movies. At least in M*A*S*H the primary wound they were operating on were mortar or artillery splinters stuck in the guy's innards.

Fat Ogre posted:

Did you even read this thread?

Don't rise to the bait. He's a decent poster in TFR, but likes to give the regulars the needle from time to time. In other words, he's just fuckin' with ya.

Bad: Every goddamn movie that shows sniping, especially the ones that show the Carlos Hathcock "shot the other sniper through the scope" shot.

Good: poo poo, I can't think of lots of good sniper scenes, but the Generation Kill stuff seemed reasonable to me. Some folks with 75% reliability to me tell me that the stuff in the sniper training scenes in Jarhead are reasonably accurate.

NosmoKing fucked around with this message at May 18, 2010 around 23:08

# ? May 18, 2010 23:03

DJExile: Jun 27, 2007

Cyrano4747 posted:

Sniper: Everything in the loving film. The only way that movie will come anywhere near being about real snipers is if you put the DVD out on a 500 yard line and get a trained rifleman to blow it into shreds.

I don't disagree with a thing here, but pointing his rifle at his buddy right at the end was pretty funny with the "You're zeroed for a thousand rounds, might want to aim a bit lower..." line.

# ? May 18, 2010 23:14

Alain Perdrix: Dec 19, 2007; Howdy!

NosmoKing posted:

Good: poo poo, I can't think of lots of good sniper scenes, but the Generation Kill stuff seemed reasonable to me. Some folks with 75% reliability to me tell me that the stuff in the sniper training scenes in Jarhead are reasonably accurate.

Fun fact: one part of the sniper team in Generation Kill (Rudy Reyes) played himself.

As for the machine-gun nest in Saving Private Ryan, Cpt. Miller's justification is stupid, for sure, but it's sort of implied that he did it because he was on the verge of a mental breakdown, and that the guys in his squad know that it's really stupid to be doing. I'm pretty sure it was Sgt. Horvath who said "we could just go around, this is kinda gay" and Miller was all like "shut your bitch mouth, bitch, and let's get our medic killed."

# ? May 18, 2010 23:28

JEEVES420: Feb 16, 2005; The world is a mess... and I just need to rule it

DJExile posted:

I don't disagree with a thing here, but pointing his rifle at his buddy right at the end was pretty funny with the "You're zeroed for a thousand rounds, might want to aim a bit lower..." line.

Sniper was Tom Beringer and Billy Zane

Shooter was Marky Mark

# ? May 18, 2010 23:34

InfiniteNoodles: Jul 9, 2008

Good: It's been said before but I think it bears repeating; blood diamond was exceptionally not-terrible in terms of firearm realism.

Bad: Not technically a movie, but there's a point in heroes season 1 where a cop advances on someone with a handgun, but the slide is locked back. No rounds were fired beforehand. The same thing pops up in torchwood at some point. It doesn't really surprise me that either show would have firearm inaccuracies, but a locked back slide seems so obviously wrong.

# ? May 18, 2010 23:42

DJExile: Jun 27, 2007

JEEVES420 posted:

Sniper was Tom Beringer and Billy Zane

Shooter was Marky Mark

FFFFFFFFFFFFF

# ? May 19, 2010 00:17

Kodo Zoku: Mar 6, 2008

NosmoKing posted:

I said that I really liked the scene in Saving Private Ryan where the guy trying to blow the tracks off the tank with a few pounds of TNT demo charges in his sock got turned into a cloud of bone flecked goo. Also, bombs and grenades and artillery rounds apparently don't have any fragmentation effects in movies. At least in M*A*S*H the primary wound they were operating on were mortar or artillery splinters stuck in the guy's innards.

I definitely read your post about SPR & the "sticky bomb"

sorry. I also never really watched M*A*S*H (leave me alone, I've already caught enough poo poo from my mom about not watching it).

NosmoKing posted:

Good: poo poo, I can't think of lots of good sniper scenes, but the Generation Kill stuff seemed reasonable to me. Some folks with 75% reliability to me tell me that the stuff in the sniper training scenes in Jarhead are reasonably accurate.

Anyone want to chime in on whether or not the sniping scene in The Hurt Locker was any good? IMFDB says that it's plausible that the bomb techs would have been trained with the M107 because it could be used for ordinance disposal, but would they be able to function as a spotter / shooter team so effortlessly?

# ? May 19, 2010 00:35

Roundboy: Oct 21, 2008

Kodo Zoku posted:

I definitely read your post about SPR & the "sticky bomb" sorry. I also never really watched M*A*S*H (leave me alone, I've already caught enough poo poo from my mom about not watching it).

Anyone want to chime in on whether or not the sniping scene in The Hurt Locker was any good? IMFDB says that it's plausible that the bomb techs would have been trained with the M107 because it could be used for ordinance disposal, but would they be able to function as a spotter / shooter team so effortlessly?

The sniper scene was a mixed bag.

GOOD:

A 'novice' needed a couple shots to get on target.
Dust from the shot obscured the target and got in mouths / eyes
Length of time waiting for a good shot lending to thirst, eye strain, etc.
Blood on rounds made racking the next round impossible

BAD:

'Novice' sniper gets a head shot on a target moving in 2 axis.
Somehow a bomb tech can pick up the subtlety of extreme range sniping (I assume he had no sniper training or shot for fun at home, it was never mentioned)

# ? May 19, 2010 00:42

Frag Viper: May 20, 2001; Fuck that shit

Kodo Zoku posted:

I definitely read your post about SPR & the "sticky bomb" sorry. I also never really watched M*A*S*H (leave me alone, I've already caught enough poo poo from my mom about not watching it).

Anyone want to chime in on whether or not the sniping scene in The Hurt Locker was any good? IMFDB says that it's plausible that the bomb techs would have been trained with the M107 because it could be used for ordinance disposal, but would they be able to function as a spotter / shooter team so effortlessly?

That loving scene pissed me the gently caress off and im just an armchair commando. My friends in the corp feel the same way. All of a sudden they're professional snipers taking out expert Iraqi snipers armed with Drags? Give me a god drat break. I really really hate that movie.

A direct quote from my friend
"If the surroundings were safe to do so, we'd just crew serve that fucker with whatever was mounted on our ride"

# ? May 19, 2010 00:43

Kodo Zoku: Mar 6, 2008

Frag Viper posted:

That loving scene pissed me the gently caress off and im just an armchair commando. My friends in the corp feel the same way. All of a sudden they're professional snipers taking out expert Iraqi snipers armed with Drags? Give me a god drat break. I really really hate that movie.

A direct quote from my friend
"If the surroundings were safe to do so, we'd just crew serve that fucker with whatever was mounted on our ride"

I was about to question whether or not the Iraqi snipers were experts, but then I remembered that their first shot was a kill.

I thought that one of the dumbfuck brits had wasted all their crew serve ammo, but I can't remember if he ran out of if he got shot. Now that I think about it, your buddy makes a drat good point. Once they knew the location that the incoming fire was coming from, why the hell didn't they just light it up with the big gun, assuming there was ammo? Oh yeah, drama.

I really liked the film, what made you hate it?

# ? May 19, 2010 00:50

priznat: Jul 7, 2009; Let's get drunk and kiss each other all night.

Ronin

The Bad:
* "He sprayed the bullet with teflon!"

* SPAS-12 and SPAS-15 (french cops I guess - the SPAS-15 is kind of cool though just because you never see em)
* Some kind of mockup LAW type launcher that doesn't look that convincing (although the scene is still pretty badass despite probably an impossible shot)

The Good:
Some pretty cool guns including
* Sig P228 (Sam)
* Glock 17L (Gregor)
* Beretta 93R
* Sig rifle (imfdb sez 551)
* HK 40mm launcher
* Silencers galore
* Shootin into playgrounds with crazy raceguns

The Ugly:
* Where the hell did that Russian guy hide that gun when he got in Gregor's jeep

# ? May 19, 2010 00:52

JEEVES420: Feb 16, 2005; The world is a mess... and I just need to rule it

Frag Viper posted:

A direct quote from my friend
"If the surroundings were safe to do so, we'd just crew serve that fucker with whatever was mounted on our ride"

Isn't that what they tried to do from the get go but the dude got sniped?

priznat posted:

Ronin

The Bad:
* "He sprayed the bullet with teflon!"
* SPAS-12 and SPAS-15 (french cops I guess - the SPAS-15 is kind of cool though just because you never see em)
* Some kind of mockup LAW type launcher that doesn't look that convincing (although the scene is still pretty badass despite probably an impossible shot)

The Good:
Some pretty cool guns including
* Sig P228 (Sam)
* Glock 17L (Gregor)
* Beretta 93R
* Sig rifle (imfdb sez 551)
* Shootin into playgrounds with crazy raceguns

The Ugly:
* Where the hell did that Russian guy hide that gun when he got in Gregor's jeep

I always figured he had it in his crouch. The racegun was just his Glock 17L with a silencer, scope mount, and eotech.

JEEVES420 fucked around with this message at May 19, 2010 around 00:58

# ? May 19, 2010 00:52

Kodo Zoku: Mar 6, 2008

JEEVES420 posted:

Isn't that what they tried to do from the get go but the dude got sniped?

I'm pretty sure that was the dumbfuck brit who was just spraying wildly, before they knew where the incoming fire was coming from.

edit: I've always wanted to compliment your awesome avatar.

edit 2:

priznat posted:

Ronin

That movie rules so hard because of the car chase scenes that I barely noticed anything else.

Kodo Zoku fucked around with this message at May 19, 2010 around 00:58

# ? May 19, 2010 00:53

Roundboy: Oct 21, 2008

I think it was the fact the house the iraq sniper was in, and the berm they ended up hiding behind were the only two high spots in a low valley.

The iraqi sniper seemed to have things dialed in for that known range too.. and 1/2 the brit team was taken down before they knew where it was coming from.

The guy on the .50 cal was taken out because he was the next biggest threat.

# ? May 19, 2010 00:56

priznat: Jul 7, 2009; Let's get drunk and kiss each other all night.

Would having blood on the .50bmg ammo be all that big of a deal that they would need to clean it off? Perhaps if it was blood + sand.. But blood alone?

Overall I thought it was a pretty cool scene anyway, it had a good eye for the distances involved and showed the amount of waiting for a target and patience involved (it seemed like the movie skipped forward a period of time - just waiting for someone to make a move)

# ? May 19, 2010 00:59

LogisticEarth: Mar 28, 2004; Yeah pal? Well, you don't have a tongue but that don't stop me having to SHUT YOU UP!

priznat posted:

Would having blood on the .50bmg ammo be all that big of a deal that they would need to clean it off? Perhaps if it was blood + sand.. But blood alone?

I was rolling my eyes at that when I saw the movie. I can't imagine that blood would make the rounds fail to feed. Even if it did, why the hell wouldn't the just manually chamber them instead of taking five minutes to "spit and rub" or whatever they said.

What bothered me most about that scene (aside from the fact that the EOD team was just tooling around in the desert all by thier lonesome) was when Sanborn just jumped right up on the rifle after the brit dude JUST got hit there. I can't imagine the first thing a combat seasoned vet would do when someone gets shot by a sniper, is to jump right back onto the spot where the sniper just scored a hit, and lay there. Isn't that just asking to get shot again?

EDIT:
Oh jeeze, I was just looking this up, you can see the clip (and a gun-oriented review) here. The sniper was apparently over 850 meters away from them. Leaning out of a window. Shooting accurately with a Dragonov and scoring several hits. And conversely, Sanborn, the EOD controller, was somehow able to accurately hit a running target at, once again, 850 meters. Both of these guys are both simultaneously the greatest shots in the world, and also giant morons.

I really hated the Hurt Locker, I didn't even finish it, I got bored and wandered out of the room. I haven't done that for a long time.

LogisticEarth fucked around with this message at May 19, 2010 around 01:38

# ? May 19, 2010 01:30

El Jorge: Feb 26, 2006; A spiritus dominatus,
Domine, libra nos,
From the lighting and the tempest,
Our Emperor, deliver us.

A morte perpetua,
Domine, libra nos.

That scene was poo poo and plays to the Juba masturbatory fantasies.

# ? May 19, 2010 01:34

Shubs: Sep 27, 2008; by angerbot

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Collateral[/url].

Hell yeah http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmKR6evZRQQ

# ? May 19, 2010 01:39

Bogon: Nov 7, 2006

Im disappointed in you goons How could someone forget Heat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONHHdjyyVHo

The Good:
Its loving loud, Trigger discipline when they run around and Frequent Mag changes.

The Bad: Im mixed you do see cars with rounds going though but no one is shown being shot this way. Also Magical Armored Volvo(in video 3:50).

# ? May 19, 2010 02:03

LvK: Feb 27, 2006; HA, Too-Ticki! We haven't been to the wild west for nothing!

Bogon posted:

Im disappointed in you goons How could someone forget Heat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONHHdjyyVHo

The Good:
Its loving loud, Trigger discipline when they run around and Frequent Mag changes.

The Bad: Im mixed you do see cars with rounds going though but no one is shown being shot this way. Also Magical Armored Volvo(in video 3:50).

I think Heat is just assumed by now.

# ? May 19, 2010 02:04

Detective Thompson: Nov 9, 2007; Oh well looky what what we got ourselves over here.

Bogon posted:

Im disappointed in you goons How could someone forget Heat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONHHdjyyVHo

The Good:
Its loving loud, Trigger discipline when they run around and Frequent Mag changes.

The Bad: Im mixed you do see cars with rounds going though but no one is shown being shot this way. Also Magical Armored Volvo(in video 3:50).

Check the second post, dude. I didn't go into good or bad with the movie because it's all pretty much good.

# ? May 19, 2010 02:35

Sgt. Shaved Balls: Sep 6, 2006; The Year Is 2053. Basketball Is Dead.

Bogon posted:

Im disappointed in you goons How could someone forget Heat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONHHdjyyVHo

The Good:
Its loving loud, Trigger discipline when they run around and Frequent Mag changes.

The Bad: Im mixed you do see cars with rounds going though but no one is shown being shot this way. Also Magical Armored Volvo(in video 3:50).

What about the massive loving muzzleflashes though? I thought that poo poo was

# ? May 19, 2010 02:53

LogisticEarth: Mar 28, 2004; Yeah pal? Well, you don't have a tongue but that don't stop me having to SHUT YOU UP!

Sgt. Shaved Balls posted:

What about the massive loving muzzleflashes though? I thought that poo poo was

Watching it again, there's also a fair bit of bottomless-magazine syndrome.

# ? May 19, 2010 02:59

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004

I rather enjoyed Hurt Locker. I mean, it wasn't perfect and there were plenty of inaccuracies, but I thought it was a movie about how war psychologically fucks with people rather than a documentary on proper military tactics.

# ? May 19, 2010 03:16

Snowman_McK: Jan 31, 2010

While i'm very much an ignorant enthusiast when it comes to firearms, i feel the need to draw your attention to Sniper 3, which makes Sniper 2 look like Sniper 1. Tom Berenger's character, the master sniper Beckett, is pinned down by an evil sniper for...some loving reason. He ditches his own rifle for...some loving reason and draws a pistol. He mutters something about waiting for an opening, then shoots the evil sniper through the scope with his pistol at a range of a couple of hundred metres. It's breath-taking.

I don't know nearly enough about guns to point out a good example, but Val Kilmer's rifle reload in Heat during the bank heist seemed really smooth.

# ? May 19, 2010 03:27

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

LogisticEarth posted:

Watching it again, there's also a fair bit of bottomless-magazine syndrome.

Like Snowman said, Shiherlis's reload was very nice. I'm willing to forgive a bit of bottomless-magazine syndrome when they give that much focus to a reload. Also, Hanna runs out of shells for the shotgun he borrows from a cop and has a nice *click* "...poo poo" moment when he is hunting McCauley at the end. Finally, there's the bit where they cycle out the buckshot and load breaching rounds into the shotgun when the cops are going to kick down the door on Hugh Benny's place.

Re: Starship Troopers, I wholeheartedly agree on the comments addressing the failure of the movie versus the book...however, Starship Troopers 3 was getting a bad rap. It's actually about the equal of the first one, both in story and production values (it's written and directed by the writer of the first one). Furthermore, in the third one they ACTUALLY HAVE POWERED ARMOR SUITS! The kicker is that they are called, wait for it, the MARAUDER program. Why they didn't do that instead in the first one is beyond me.

# ? May 19, 2010 04:25

TheStig: Jan 3, 2009; Just need to mount the guns on the car....

Cyrano4747 posted:

Really that's that movie's greatest crime: they took a film that could have legitimately been about utterly kick-rear end power armor doing insanely bad assed things and turned it into a lovely Full Metal Jacket remake.

Go watch the third Starship troopers and you will rethink that opinion.

# ? May 19, 2010 04:52

Inspector_71: Oct 7, 2003; ...essence

LogisticEarth posted:

Watching it again, there's also a fair bit of bottomless-magazine syndrome.

Just because they don't show every single reload doesn't mean they're not happening.

# ? May 19, 2010 05:18

Specter: Dec 25, 2005

TheStig posted:

Go watch the third Starship troopers and you will rethink that opinion.

Yeah SST3 really does make one appreciate how relatively good the first movie really was.

Bad: Today I was reviewing footage to use for an editing class final which is from Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee that came out on HBO a few years back. Had to stop and beat my head against the desk because the footage of the cavalry firing and loading was just mind blowingly incompetent.

Good: I had Gods and Generals on over the weekend out of boredom, the rebs assembly line loading rifles behind the wall at Fredericksburg was a nice touch.

# ? May 19, 2010 06:30

Frag Viper: May 20, 2001; Fuck that shit

Kodo Zoku posted:

I really liked the film, what made you hate it?

God I don't know where to start because I don't remember much. To give you a detailed breakdown I'd have to watch it again, and that's not ever going to happen.

The movie started off good and we were all interested, but then the main characters whole "gently caress LIFE I'M WRECKLESS AND TOTALLY EXTREME" mentality throughout the whole movie killed it. The part that really sealed the deal for all of us was the part when he was running through the streets of a crowded and hostile city all alone in search for a kid or something. Really? Give me a loving break...

# ? May 19, 2010 06:34

Bored As Fuck: Jan 1, 2006; Be polite. Be professional. But be prepared to PARTAYYY!

Here's a quote from the The Hurt Locker thread in Cinema Discusso way back when:

ZenMaster posted:

Jan 23, 2006

[quote="ape canyon"]
I don't think anyone would have a problem with all the dissatisfaction with this movie if it weren't framed as "Hey, go ahead an love every second of it, but just know that it OBJECTIVELY SUCKS." It might not be exactly what you're trying to watch, it might come across a little flat to you, but there's no reason to just sort of sit on the internet all day and tell people that an almost universally acclaimed movie is a piece of poo poo because hey, you say so. Trolling gets really boring really fast.

It's not trolling to have a legitimate opinion. There is some trend in America that says you can create tension in a film in any way you want.

I say you can't. If a character MUST enter into a dangerous situation, due to his or her job, personal motivation, or circumstance I say fine, that can be real tension and very good cinema. But to force your characters to make a dumb decision to create false tension is so transparent and lazy, most people will scoff at it.

Sending the girl to the basement to find her friend when there is a knife wielding maniac in the house is a sort of joke or cliche in highly fictional movies... you think, "you idiot, don't go down there", but it's supposed to be cheesy and unreal.

This is not acceptable in a film based on real events (the war on terror) and real people (the bomb squads in Iraq). I know the film is not based on anything specific, but it is based in reality, not horror or science fiction, understand?

Soldiers do not act this way, people who know better and have expert training in these areas do not act this way.

Question: Why would they be dumber than I am, when I have no training at all in their areas of expertise?

The Hurt Locker presents us with dangerous situation after dangerous situation that didn't need any extra yowling from the ham-fisted writers who ruin, yes ruin, all attempts at tension by making the characters act foolishly, or in a manner no sane person would act. Sorry, these motivations do not fly in a movie like this.

Take the opening scene. Ok, so they were going to kill off Guy Pierce in the script. Fine, no problem.

You already have placed him in a tense, dangerous situation and the audience knows his motivation for being there: it's his job, he has been ordered to defuse bombs in Iraq, trained and leading a team, and his job (if done correctly) protects innocent people and his fellow soldiers.

You can find a million plausible reasons to get him over to that bomb. The charges didn't fire, the robot breaks down, some kid is near the IED... No, you have a flimsy cart which breaks and so Guy decides to walk over and stand over the bomb which could be triggered at any second. He could fix the cart, use the robot to deliver the charges, or any number of things to keep his face away from a big pile of explosives, but no, he walks over to them, they tell us any place within 82 feet is certain death, and doesn't let the robot do it's job.

To create... TENSION! I say, wow, what a dumb rear end. I would never do that, you could do (insert 100 things smarter) instead of walking over to a remotely activated cluster of bombs when you have no idea when or how they will be triggered. They certainly made enough noise entering into area and clearing it out, I would bet the terrorists know they are there to defuse the bomb and will have no choice but to set it off if anyone gets close.

I might be able to see him risk walking over for the robot or a child, but certainly not the cart.

Also, why would the terrorist with the cell phone stand on the street in full view of the soldiers to activate the bomb? He could have been inside behind a wall, on a rooftop. I am not this dumb, no one is this dumb. Why when he was spotted did he give them a full 20 seconds before he even started dialing?

It was for... TENSION! The scardy-cat coward won't shoot the terrorist... the terrorist stands deciding on whether or not to detonate, the commander is running away from a spot he never should have been... oh the tension!

-Guy should never have been near the bombs.

-Terrorist would NEVER stand in the street holding a cell phone in full view. He had no idea the guy who turns out to be a coward would not have instantly put his rear end on the ground with a bullet. He would not have hesitated for so long with a gun in his face.

-Oh, and let's throw in a coward who won't fire at a person (even at the ground for pete's sake) ready to kill his friends.

So the terrorist is standing in the doorway of a shop holding a cellphone and nervously pacing. The soldier clearly sees him, is instructed to fire and is portrayed as such a coward, he does not fire (having over 20 seconds to do so) and causes the death of his teammate.

That is fake tension, and is maddening. That is writing the characters to be so dumb, they cause themselves to die/more danger in every scenario than they should ever be in/danger to other around them. You may protest and say "Well, the soldier didn't know if the guy was an innocent or a terrorist, he wasn't sure!"

You stick a gun in a person's face and yell at them, and an innocent person will retreat inside. The guy stood there forever holding the phone up like an imbecile.

They do this over and over and over.... They have tons of tension by the characters just being where they are, doing the job they are doing. Why do they need all the extra crap to ruin it?

Why do they present problems that any rational, untrained person would look at and say "Hey, I shouldn't do this, and I could easily do this other thing and not be in any danger" and then make their characters do the opposite, to put themselves into more danger, and choose the most dangerous path, or ridiculous motivations..

Why? TENSION!!!!

They had it on thick without any help, and decided to ruin it by slathering on more and more until it became unpalatable.

Stop saying these are trolls, they are not. If you look at the movie, these flaws are unmistakably glaring.

EDIT: I am not trying to come off as someone trying to tell you not to enjoy the film. Go for it, I am upset this even ranked as a contender for best picture of the year and they ruined the film (for me anyway) by taking the tension already there and piling on more and more ridiculousness to try and add to it.

And another one from Arkane

Arkane posted:

You're stuck on the profession thing.

Look at it this way (dumb analogy incoming...its late, pardon me): your movie is the Verizon Guy is lost in the woods and has a broken leg and needs help. He fashions a raft and escapes through the white water rapids to safety. Nice movie...it has drama, a plot, and action. Problem: why the gently caress didn't he use his Verizon Guy cellphone? Where the hell are the 5,000 people who follow him around?

These aren't just minor nitpicks like the Verizon logo was the wrong color; they are HOLES in the script. You don't have to be a Verizon employee, i.e. that specific profession, to sit there and wonder why he isn't just using his cellphone and slowly getting more and more annoyed by it. Eventually your suspension of disbelief disappears and you're just mad at the movie. Good movie premise gone bad by un-believable scenes that make the (poor) assumption that their audience wouldn't know any better.

There wouldn't BE a movie if he just used his cell phone. Just like there wouldn't be a The Hurt Locker if he was punished for throwing that smoke bomb and putting his team in danger 2 minutes into his first scene. To repeat the other example, if they had a loving radio, nothing in the sniper scene would've taken place. How do we solve this? Um...we don't. Enjoy!

The movie went far, far beyond the realm of rational fictionalization. I was, to be honest, shocked that some of those scenes made it past pre-production. It propped up the premise of "War is a Drug" with poorly thought-out, poorly researched scenes. Scenes that would never, could never take place. So yeah, maybe this fictional reality that Boal has created, war is a drug, but why am I watching this then? If nothing is remotely applicable to reality, then it's just art imitating...nothing. It's a stupid character doing stupid stuff for a couple hours. But that's the trick of the movie. Boal brings up his embed creds and now it's all about how "realistic" and "gritty" it is. Load of bullshit, and a slap in the face. But people eat it up. This guy was embedded, this poo poo is the REAL DEAL. And Tony Scott, of all people, was hoodwinked by it: " �The Hurt Locker,� directed by Kathryn Bigelow from a script by Mark Boal, is the best nondocumentary American feature made yet about the war in Iraq." Yeah, not quite, dude. This movie is ACTUALLY about a deranged lunatic who does stupid poo poo for a couple hours while the filmmakers make elaborate sets so we can pretend he is somehow related to Iraq or the US military.

As to your last point, the criticism, for me at least, is rooted purely in my opinion of the film as a film. It has nothing to do with the military. I can set my personal feelings aside and enjoy a good piece of fiction. This was a lazy script and I hated pretty much every part of the movie except for the first scene (which I loved). Oh...I also loved the wife, Kate Austen.

And my quote (in which I referenced Zen Master's little writeup) when people were still saying how that didn't matter (because he was a LOOSE CANNON RENEGADE BEND THE RULES KINDA GUY) and that the movie itself was well written:

Bored as gently caress posted:

That's just one example in the very first scene. Anyone with common sense that didn't stick their head in the sand, much less a person with any amount of knoweldge of military tactics, much less someone with combat experience, much less someone who is an EOD tech, could have come up with a more realistic, engaging, and not completely retarded scenario that would have created more tension than the stupid poo poo the writer came up with.

Even completely ignoring the various details it got wrong about uniforms, weapons, and tactics, it is still a horribly written movie. The very scenarios it creates to put the characters in tension are completely retarded, because no logical person would ever be in those scenarios, or do the stupid poo poo the characters do in those scenarios. "Oh let's run through a field at night with just us three guys! We'll catch those bad guys even though there's a company of troops securing the bomb area behind us - no, they couldn't spare a squad or two to help us in this completley unrealistic scenario of us chasing a bad guy in the night into a hostile city. Let's also go without night vision, our only advantage at night in unknown terrain. Let's also split up, because everyone knows that's a great idea in a potentially hostile city with an unknown number of enemy insurgents! Oh no I hear a scream, let's go get our buddy! SHOOT THE BAD GUY! YEAH! GOT HIM!"

So yeah pretty much anyone who was able to enjoy this movie must've been able to turn off all higher brain functions. The fact that it won Best Picture is the biggest crock of poo poo I saw since I saw the movie itself.

Bored As Fuck fucked around with this message at May 19, 2010 around 07:02

# ? May 19, 2010 06:52

AceMcSquelch: Feb 16, 2009

I know it says "movie" and all in the title, but I am ignoring that. A few years ago, I took my girlfriend to see Les Miserables on stage in Chicago. Yes, under normal circumstances, a stage production would not be held that accountable for "minor" details, and during the battle scene, most of the rebels had Brown Bess- type flintlocks (classy). I don't know what kind of horrible breech-loading nightmare happened in their design, but the prop muskets seemed capable of taking cartridges. Only 1 actor (the revolutionary leader, Enjorlas) actually simulated muzzle-loading, and he looked pretty stupid, being the only one. My girlfriend did not seem as upset as I was when I pointed that out.

# ? May 19, 2010 07:27

BaronW: Apr 16, 2007; Why yes, I HAVE seen uhaul.jpg

AceMcSquelch posted:

My girlfriend did not seem as upset as I was when I pointed that out.

I'd bet the average lady would be more annoyed at the commentary.

# ? May 19, 2010 08:00

The Casualty: Sep 29, 2006; Security Clearance: Pop Secret

Whiny baby

Bored As gently caress posted:

So yeah pretty much anyone who was able to enjoy this movie must've been able to turn off all higher brain functions. The fact that it won Best Picture is the biggest crock of poo poo I saw since I saw the movie itself.

No poo poo. I figured Hurt Locker was going to be an also-ran but the fact that it practically swept the Oscars against contenders such as Avatar and Inglorious Basterds just blew my mind. Say what you will about those two movies, Hurt Locker was not as good in any regard as either. It won because it had A) A female director who was B) Not James Cameron.

# ? May 19, 2010 08:10

Absolut_Zero: Dec 23, 2008; A serious misallocation of valuable military resources

Inspector_71 posted:

Just because they don't show every single reload doesn't mean they're not happening.

The reload that Val Kilmer is shown performing is pretty rock solid, though. Someone taught him right.

Oh God, the *click* at 7:25 is the only sound effect they doctored. loving clicks HAVE to be in a movie every time someone moves a firearm.

Also, both a cop and a grocery store clerk get hit at 5:42, and while they check on the cop, nobody seems to give a poo poo about the clerk. In fact, I'm pretty sure Al Pacino steps over him with a disgusted look on his face.

Oh well, he was fat.

# ? May 19, 2010 08:40

sbyers77: Jan 9, 2004

GOOD
Pulp Fiction - In the street shootout Marcellus accidentally hits an innocent bystander and she can been heard writhing in pain for several more cuts instead of dying instantly. It also had a pretty good example of what happens when you don't follow the four rules.

BAD
Untraceable - I hope I'm not the only one who nearly had a brain aneurysm watching FBI agents execute a no-knock search warrant at the beginning of the movie.

# ? May 19, 2010 09:10

Veen: Oct 26, 2003; Just the tip!

BAD

Basically any movie, like mentioned, with the clicks. I really want to film a five minute short of two guys with guns talking in a basement about something. Everytime they wave their guns to gesture or enhance a point, all you can hear is that click played over and over in rapid succession, making the guns sound like someone is spinning a ratchet driver in the background.

GOOD

Boondock Saints - The cat. Not for realism at all, but for humor and to show why you might want to unload or holster the weaponry before you start getting loaded yourself. Loaded guns, firearms, enough booze to kill a horse, and a gun that's so cheap it clearly would fail CA drop testing so fast. NOTHING could go wrong in this situation!

When I watch the scene I just suspend disbelief by imagining a bottlecap or something got propped in the trigger guard.

Edit: I just also realized during the large shootout scene that despite what must have been almost 100 rounds fired at fairly close range, nobody ends up actually getting dropped since they're mostly concerned with not getting hit and basically spraying. Just very lucky minor wounds.

Of course then they drop back to realism with what has to be the most painful example of emergency medicine ever.

Veen fucked around with this message at May 19, 2010 around 09:29

# ? May 19, 2010 09:24

Mr. Funny Pants: Apr 9, 2001

Good: No Country for Old Men. Josh Brolin takes a long swim with a 1911 and a pissed off pit bull on his tail. When he emerges from the river, he removes the magazine and the chambered round, locks the slide back, blows out as much water as he can, reloads, and pops the pup at the last second.

I'm still in kindergarten in terms of my gun education, but I appreciated that they at least considered the issue of water jacking up the weapon (even if it wasn't accurate -- was it?).

Bad: This is probably really nitpicking, but in both Aliens and Starship Troopers, humanity has mastered faster than light travel. This would put us at a technological level that is almost impossible to relate to anything we can currently do. Yet what kind of weapons do the soldiers have? The kind that use exploding chemicals to throw pieces of metal.

# ? May 19, 2010 10:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 19, 2013 11:42

Veen: Oct 26, 2003; Just the tip!

Mr. Funny Pants posted:

I'm still in kindergarten in terms of my gun education, but I appreciated that they at least considered the issue of water jacking up the weapon (even if it wasn't accurate -- was it?).

Debatable. It's been mentioned before, so I suppose technically if enough water was stuck in the barrel it could create enough back pressure once you fired to grenade the weapon or at least render it entirely useless. I've never looked into swimming through a river with my gun on, so I never really looked into what you're supposed to do, if anything, before firing a gun that has just been submerged. I'd just fill up the bathtub and go try it myself if I hated my hands and face

That was definitely a quick clear though, and I'm surprised they threw that in. Even if it isn't accurate, the guy at least knew his firearm knowledge and lore (even if based on shaky urban legends) to act on it, which was just another bit of depth.

Edit: http://www.dlsports.com/underwater_...n_shooting.html - Long story short (since it's towards the bottom), looks like you'd be fine in an emergency situation firing immediately after submersion.

Veen fucked around with this message at May 19, 2010 around 10:28

# ? May 19, 2010 10:23

«‹›286 »

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > The Firing Range > Movie firearms giraffes...with a test