Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Bad: Saving Private Ryan. I was watching this one last night and thinking about stuff like this. Yes, on the whole it wasn't terrible, but there are a few things that really stand out. One of my biggest peeves is that the US army was apparently using a black powder loading for their cartridges in Normandy. I don't know if this was due to some funky blanks they were using or if it was a decision for atmosphere or what, but more than once you will have 2 guys fire 3 rounds each or something and leave the area they're in a very cloudy, smoky mess. This is especially egregious in the scene right after they make it off the beach when they clear the first bunker (the one they shoot the guys running out of, not the one they flamethrower).

More Bad: Enemy at the Gates, AKA "Century Arms Catalog: The Movie." Every single loving gun in this movie except for one or two MGs is straight out of Century's stock ca. 2002 or so. Every Russian in the world has a m91/30. Every German in the world has a RC K98k. Sniper rifles? Look closely and all are clearly repros built off of those. I think there is a single belt fed MG in the whole film and one Mp40. We're just going to gloss over the plain old stupid poo poo, like a team of four snipers deciding to clear a four story department store to look for a single pair of dogtags off a supposedly dead enemy sniper. Oh yeah, and apparently lovely sheet metal (like found in duct work) will stop rifle rounds.

Good:

Shockingly enough, Death Wish 3. Yes, this movie is crazy for every other second that it is on the screen and has all of the gunplay realism of the Doom movie. That said, it's the only movie to ever feature a realistic depiction of reloading cartridges, and for that it gets a little love.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Uncle Caveman posted:

Not to mention that one scene with the really improbable display of penetration.

Oddly enough that's probably one of the only parts of that movie that's actually based somewhere in historical fact. I forget her name, but sometime around '42 there WAS a female sniper operating in the same area as Zeitsev, and they DID have an affair. At least, so Vassily claimed later on.

There's been more than a little research done on women in the red army and so-called "front marriages" that shows that, guess what, put women in combat units that are NEVER taken out of the front line and are generally experiencing an apocalyptic "everyone here is going to die before victory" type campaign and, yes, people will gently caress on occasion.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006




More or less like I said - every one of those MGs has about 3 seconds of screen time. Also, the pictures from the variations on the Mp38/40 are all from the same sequence. The PPsH is only in the scene with the retreating soldiers.

Forgot about the pistols, though. The TT33 and Nagant were also available through Century at that time!

The Luger never comes out of its holster that I recall. Chances are it's rubber.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Pvt. Public posted:

The chief one that I remember is them trying to recreate the shot of that sniper from Vietnam where he shot another sniper through his scope. They trotted out all these variable power scopes that have so many lenses getting a shot through one is nearly impossible. Had they bothered to source an original scope the opposiing sniper might have been using (not terribly difficult), they would have had a much easier time recreating the shot. I think someone even showed this by doing it correctly, though I don't recall where I saw it.

In all fairness they came back and re-did it with a repro PU scope and, surprise surprise, it worked.

On the other hand, the "oh poo poo we've got snipers mad at us on the internet " banter that they had going on for the whole loving show made me change the channel at least four times before they got to actually shooting the scope.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Eat This Glob posted:

If it's any consolation, Comrade Commissar doesn't know how to load or shoot the rifle and passes it off to Zaitsev.

WHen he tries somehow he manages to jam the mosin's bolt. I have no loving clue what he's supposed to be doing in that scene, but it appears that he's trying to work the bolt and it won't move. I'd think he was trying to use it like a straight pull, but it clearly shows him jiggling the handle up and down.

Of course the second he hands it over to Zaitsev he clears the empty round by nonchalantly working the bolt like a normal human.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



BaronW posted:


FAILS AT BOTH: Starship Troopers. The big fuckoff goofy rifles they carry don't even have sights, and they continually use infantry to do things that call for air/armor feed the bugs.


In all fairness they kind of HAD to have the marines engaging the bugs directly or the entire plot of the story falls apart. In the (much better) book the marines are in self-contained power armor that is capable of stuff like atmospheric re-entry when launched from drop ships, carry low-grade nuclear ordinance, and have targeting built into the HUD, so it makes a whole lot more sense.

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.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



KewlBiens posted:

The wording of the rule lead me to believe that Magnum Research had threatened legal action against SA at some point. Is that not the case?

Not that Im aware of. They're just a lovely company, which is what I always figured LW was venting his spleen at there.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Stout Bootboy posted:



On the machine gun nest, why didn't they go around? There's trees on either side, it's on an incline and there's a destroyed bunker behind them that they're NOT covering.... Oh, I know why, because then Wade wouldn't have been killed taking a machine gun.


Because "we can't just leave this to ambush the next guys who come down the road!"

No, really, that was Hanks's exact justification when one of the guys in the squad pointed out they could, you know, just walk around the entrenched MG.

everyone posted:


Equilibrium!

GUN KAAAAAAAAAATAAAAAAA!

Equilibrium was a fine popcorn movie and if you try to take something like that seriously in a gun play sense you just miss the entire point of "fantasy" and "enjoying a movie." You might as well bag on Star Wars because you think that whole "force" thing is a bunch of over-hyped bullshit.

This thread is about the movies that try, and gently caress up horribly. The worst ones are the ones where the gun porn is an integral part of the plot and they gently caress it up hilariously.

Example of a terrible gun movie:

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.

Example of a great gun movie:

Shockingly enough, The Postman. Yeah, it's a post-apocalyptic Kevin Costner vehicle. That said, the guns are all more or less believable for a post-apocalyptic PacNW. Lots of national-guard grade M16A2s, a few early M4s, a bunch of shot guns and hunting rifles, the odd Glock or revolver. People also seem to really care about their ammo. There's a scene where Costner comes across someone on a trail riding towards him and readies his M16A2 for action. Rather than a stupid racking noise when he raises it or something, he clearly chambers a round with the charging handle and checks the bolt with a little side tilt and glance to make sure it seated properly. Why is he carrying +0? They never address this, but with a limited ammo situation and a M16 it's plausable you'd do that to avoid dimpling primers too often. Plenty of other little things like this.

Of course the final "battle" is more than a bit stupid, but the other stuff is fairly believable guerilla tactics and ambushes.

Even objectively "terrible" films can be "good" from a gun standpoint.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Veen posted:

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_handgun_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.

I know you can shoot a Glock underwater if you put in "maritime firing pin cups" whatever those are. Now, I don't know if there's some special 1911-specific reason why doing this would be a terrible idea, but after seeing that I"m pretty certain that you wouldn't flat out destroy a gun by submerging it and then just shaking the water out or letting the barrel drain.

That said, if I dunked one of my pistols and fired it I'd blow out the barrel like the guy does in No Country just because I'd be worried about making a ring in the barrel. Same reason why I dry boresnake a gun barrel if I've oiled it for medium-term storage recently. Maybe the dude just really liked that 1911 and figured he had enough time to before the dog got there to not risk ringing his barrel? vv

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



From what I remember of that scene the bullet just creased the helmet anyways.

Someone wearing a helmet has an effectively larger head, what with the extra space taken up by the helmet, liner, etc. It shouldn't come as a surprise that you will get a certain percentage of guys who get their helmet creased by a bullet that would normally have just sailed on past (albeit uncomfortably close to their dome) if they didn't have one.

The fact that someone who's not a ballistics or armor expert sees his helmet "get hit" by a bullet and notices he's still breathing and associates the later with the presence of the former is fairly understandable.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Fat Ogre posted:

24 had Jack Bauer get hit in the chest by AK47 rounds at less than 60 feet, yet he killed all the bad guys and easily shot people one handed with his hand gun at over 200 yards away after just getting tapped in the chest a couple times.

As for good gun stuff I still love how in Pulp Fiction Jules says they need shotguns for work like this. Which is true, shot guns in that opening scene would have been much MUCH better than their handguns.

On a similar note, I like how when that kid hiding out in the back with the revolver bursts out he manages to get off six rounds without hitting them, starting Jules's little epiphany. The guy was across a room from them, panic shooting, and it did a good job of showing how that can lead to some bad shooting. Way too many movies have guns being something that a random person can pick up and be making good, rapid shots on point targets really quickly.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



NosmoKing posted:



Seen in a few horror movies, but only for special "wow" special-effects scenes. I can't recall seeing it in a military movie that I can recall.

Saving Private Ryan has a few (although just a few) realistic depictions of head wounds. When they're pinned down on the beach's shingle and Hanks is trying to rally the survivors there's a bit where he's relaying info to a radio guy. Says some stuff to radio guy, turns and talks to another guy, goes back to radio guy, goes back to other guy, then turns back to radio guy only to find that his face is missing. It's kind of an odd wound for a guy laying prone, but his face and forehead are canoed out pretty well. For some reason the crater that was his face is smoking. I'm still not sure why that was, I always explained it to myself by saying that it was really steam - Omaha beach was about 45-50 degrees that morning, so sudden exposure of 98.8 degree brain matter would steam a bit. Still, it really looks like someone lit a camp fire in his dome, it's kind of thick smoke.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



LvK posted:


NO RECOIL:
Bad: A lot of movies. Characters tend to shoot perfectly flat with no reaction to the gun at all (besides wincing and closing their eyes). This isn't a deal-breaker, but a lot of times guns either have no recoil or insane recoil. I know there's no safe way to simulate recoil safely as a mechanic feature, but it's a bit noticeable when you go from a movie that features some degree of recoil to one that treats them like airsoft pistols.

Good: Dirty Harry movies. Clint Eastwood actually liked to practice with guns he'd be using to get an idea for the recoil. They even had an extra, non-blank-firing AMC Auto Mag made for the fourth movie so Eastwood could learn what kind of recoil to expect from the gun.

(of course, the set gun also supposedly jammed so much that he threw it into a river, but details)

Goddamn is Saving Private Ryan ever a bad offender when it comes to recoil. Watching people pop off a whole 8 round string from a Garand while keeping the gun perfectly level didn't bother me before I got into guns, but ever since I bought my first M1 I can't watch it without cringing.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



The Bananana posted:

Would an incindiary round or, like a tracer or something do that? You know, the high heat of a round like that cooking and burning the flesh, causing all that smoke?

Not like I have a whole ton of personal knowledge about the effects of tracers on flesh (I really doubt the MGs would have any incindiaries in the belt) but I doubt it. Human bodies are mostly water and it takes a LOT of "cooking" to get any kind of sizzle/smoke reaction. Burn victims are probably going to be the best analogy for this one, and there you need at least 3rd degree burns before anything like that starts happening. I seriously doubt a tracer has enough thermal energy stored in it to give third degree burns extensive enough to cause a cratered-out head to smoke.

This is pure conjecture, though. Anyone who has actually seen someone shot in the face with a ~.30 cal tracer, please correct me.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



The Automator posted:


FYI I constantly want to gently caress on women hotter than my girlfriend

Welcome to owning a functioning dick and pair of balls

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Yeah, if you missed that they were hitting EVERY. SINGLE. GUN. AND. ACTION. MOVIE. CLICHE. EVER. in that movie you're about as dense as the core of a neutron star.

The "we'll use our full auto FALs to cut the wires holding the planter above that crazy old woman with the Sten and just knock her out" type A-Team poo poo was just as much a way of making fun of old action movie clichés as the already mentioned (and goddamned hilarious) scene where there is a completely disruptive cacophony of racking/cocking noises every 5 seconds.

It's not even just gun stuff. They hit the cop buddy-movie stuff, the single unstoppable super-powered action star stuff, the "bad guy gets one final "gently caress you" shot in" routine, and even the "NOOOOOOOoooooooo" Secret-Service-slow-mo dive in front of a bullet to save someone bit.

Goddamn that movie is just so great it hurts.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Fat Ogre posted:

That small flame is all goodness really is. Something that has to be kept alive, cared for and carried and tended to. It has to be protected with your life because that is all that will keep you warm against the cold indifference and evil of the world.

Or maybe I'm just reading too much into the whole thing....

This core idea is really the whole point of EVERYTHING Cormack McCarthy writes. It's the not-so-underlying moral of THe Road as well.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Illegal Clown posted:

Were you talking about these guys?



I haven't seen the movie in a while but I remember there were Polish or Belorussian groups sided with the Germans. I assumed it was correct for them to be armed with the M38s, since those were secondary line weapons anyway.

Yeah, those were local volunteer troops. Historically accurate - they were usually armed with local police/military stocks or with captured equipment. There were a few equipment errors in that movie, but it wasn't anything really horrible, mostly just me picking out K98ks with the RC treatment, Mosins and SVT-40s that had clearly gone through the post-war refurb process, stuff like that. From what i recall in the theater there's also one scene where, on a gun propped on a tree, you can see a dot-matrix import billboard on a receiver. Oops, should have gotten that in post-production, or at least had a gaffer hit it with a can of black spray paint.

Other (relatively minor) bad thigns from that movie: A few weapons malfunctions that were "fixed" at crucial plot moments were rather hilariously contrived. A Mosin that the guy couldn't pull the trigger on, but then a watch maker tinkers with it for 30 seconds and it works just fine being one key example. Stukas being used against a partisan camp was pretty bullshit too. I seem to remember seeing some MG-related BS in the big, climactic battle, but that battle was pretty Hollywood in the first place. I don't remember what it was now, but I do remember being slightly annoyed by it in the theater - it was something silly like someone obviously having a rubber gun from the way he was just tossing around an MG34 or something like it was a 10/22.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Just got back from seeing the A-Team.

I loved it. It's basically made with the same structure as the old shows: awesome intro, 2nd act problem, 3rd act where BA builds something awesome, 4th act reveal of the plan.

Tons of action, lots of poo poo blowing up, lots of cameos of everything from old actors to AC556s. TONS of little references to old stuff if you watched the show.

Best of all, it doesn't try to be something it's not - it's just a great action flick - but also doesn't get too stupid or adhere too slavishly to the old A-Team with some of the random specific weirdness foisted on them by being a prime-time TV show in the 80s.

Bonus: there was a preview for the upcoming movie "Predators"

note that extra "s".

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



joehonkie posted:

Do you think this movie may contain more than one Predator?

Pretty much. Think of the movie "Alien" as compared to the movie "Aliens." From what the trailer was showing it was a poo poo TON of predators.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Kodo Zoku posted:



This is exactly what I wanted to hear- a two-hour episode of the A-Team with a bigass budget. Schweet.

They basically gave the A-Team the Batman Begins treatment. It's the A-Team's origin story, more or less, built up as a 2 hour long "episode."

Some great one-liners too. Really, it's everything an action movie should aspire to be. The weapons poo poo is a LITTLE cartoony in places, but even that is fairly well done and without major, glaring flaws. Nice mix of new gear too, once they get into the present day. That said, the early bit with Hannibal spray-firing an AC556 made me giggle like a school girl.

Oh yeah: Liam Neeson as Hannibal Smith =

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Eat This Glob posted:

As a giant MMA nerd, how did "Rampage" Jackson do as B.A.?

GREAT.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Dr. Gojo Shioji posted:

accurate one-handed pistol shots from 50 yards.

Uh, this isn't all THAT bad. I find it a bit awkward to get two hands on my Luger, so a lot of times I'll shoot that with an old school bulls eye pistol stance. For some retarded reason the pistol line only has 25 and 50 yard lines on it. If we're talking "accurate" as in "the hero does a triple backflip over the barbedwire and shoots the half-inch detonation switch for the explosive out of the bad guy's hand while he rides away on a motorcycle" I'm with you, but I can put 8 of 8 on a torso sized target at 50 without TOO much trouble.

Yeah, no adrenaline, no stress, etc. but if I can do that at the range I imagine someone with actual training can do it under stress if they had to.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



The first 48 is great for this. I'd say 90% of the murder cases they close involve the suspect confessing because he doesn't ask for a lawyer and they basically bullshit him into admitting he did it. In a LOT of those cases you full well know that if the guy had just kept his drat mouth shut and asked for his lawyer he probably would have walked out of there a free man.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Fang posted:

This was just as silly when TF opined it. The interpretation is a much stronger statement about the people who hold it than the movie itself.

You really don't see something there? I mean, the entire premise of the movie is that Liam Neeson has the time to go after his daughter precisely BECAUSE she is a virgin, which puts her in a different food chain than her non-virgin friend who is kidnapped at the same time. The non-virgins get put straight to work locally and are kept drugged up on heroin (leading to the OD of the girl his daughter was kidnapped with), while his daughter gets shunted to the high-end auction circuit where she's eventually bought by a oil shiek or something.

You can argue about how deep that message runs all you want. Me, I tend to think it was a convenient way to give the dad an entire chain of poo poo to chew up, beginning with low life street thugs and hustlers and leading up to a final assault on a yacht full of highly trained middle eastern body guards. It also had the added benefit of providing some extra dramatic tension based on the whole idea of the father figure as a protector and the fact that, after a certain point, the audience flat out knew that she wasn't being gang raped non-stop every second he dicked around in Paris but that if he didn't hurry his rear end up she would suffer a very unpleasant fate.

I don't agree with the people who think that it was the ONLY point in the movie or who accuse it of being some kind of ham-fisted sermon on the importance of virginity. Still, you can't really argue that the issue wasn't kind of crucial to the plot.

I mean, hell, the climax of the movie was quite literally the father/protector shooting the soon-to-be-rapist in the forehead while he holds a big, curved, ostentatiously oriental dagger at his daughter's throat. (I also don't agree with the people that freak about perceived racial messages, but that whole scene could have come straight out of the pages of a turn-of-the-century pulp orientalist novel).

For what it's worth, in actual real-life human trafficking that poo poo does happen. It's well established by all sorts of human rights and anti-trafficking organizations that "virgin" prostitutes command a MUCH higher premium in certain parts of the world, whether they really are new to the trade or not. It's a major driving force in the really despicable stuff like child prostitution.

Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Jun 16, 2010

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



iyaayas01 posted:

Transporter 2 -

Good: Scene where Jason Statham is fighting the crazy blonde assassin chick near the end and she burns him on the neck with the suppressors from her dual wielded Glock 18s.

Bad: Everything else in Transporter 2.

The absolute best bad part of that movie was in the fight in the doctor's office, when the crazy blonde chick unloads at Stratham and he opens up an office door, which stops all of the many 9mm rounds that are spitting out of her G18s.

Ok, whatever, this is a REALLY NICE doctor's office, so maybe that door is solid oak heartwood or something, rather than the normal hollow-core plywood construction you find in most interior doors.


. . . then, in the VERY NEXT SHOT, she turns and blows the living gently caress out of a helicopter that's hovering outside the office (it's in a skyscraper or something) with a short 2 second burst, causing the helo to explode in mid-air and plummet to the street below.

The bullets are either weak enough to not go through a door or powerful enough to blow up (as in explode) a helicopter - pick one and stick with it.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



mlmp08 posted:

I kind of wonder if other people whose hobbies and professions show up in movies all the time get as pissed off about them being done horribly as firearm enthusiasts do.

Do race car drivers and their crew chiefs sit around bitching and moaning about how stupid car stunts are and how those dumbasses put 1966 trim on that 1965 car?

How irritated do doctors get about all the stupid plot-point medicine and such?

I can imagine that IT people get very annoyed by the stupid rendition of hacking and general "COMPUTERS!!!!" you get in so many movies.

My dad's a surgeon, and my mom was a nurse for a long time. Neither one of them can stand any kind of hospital drama show or movie. Not so much because of the absurdity of everything they show going on (that's a part of it, though), but because they would prefer not to watch a show about doctors after being in a hospital for 12 hours in one day. I've known a few police officers who felt the same way about police shows.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



mikerock posted:

I hated that part so much it ruined the movie for me.

I never bothered watching GI Joe. The previews looked like it was a bit too "reimagined" and just not for me, and I wanted my fond memories of the Joes kicking Cobra rear end to remain unsullied.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Mr. Funny Pants posted:

I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.

Checkmate professor.

Pretty much this.

The whole sex slavery thing is necessary for three reasons.

1) provide dramatic tension where this guy who is a hard as gently caress operator gets shaken up enough to be taking things seriously personally, leading to him doing things like leaving scumbags he's just tortured with home electrical wiring to die terrible deaths as he nonchalantly pimp struts his way to the next guy he's going to kill in a new and exciting way.

2) give the bad guys a reason to both tell Liam Neeson to gently caress off, not demand ransom or any other conceivable demands (intel, whatever) that he could provide, yet keep the daughter alive. The whole way this works is that SHE IS THE COMMODITY.

It also really helps to add a level of tension based on the fact that we, the audience, all know the daughter is OK for now, but daddy Liam better hurry his poo poo up and stop the polite chitchat over dinner with some (scumfuck, implicated in it all) french spook buddy of his and his family.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Young Freud posted:

It's probably in a dream, where the laws of physics don't apply.

I'm psyched aobut this movie as well. It feels like every dream I've had. I really hope they do a "falling out teeth" bit.

Goddamnit, I HATE that dream.

At LEAST once a month.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



I also have recurring nightmares about it being the final day of a semester or finals week or something and remembering some totally random class that I had enrolled in and then forgotten.

Inevitably it is something completely random like a biology class, it's always some kind of required class, and it's always the sort of cumulative knowledge discipline where if you haven't been going to class you're really just kind of hosed.

Oh yeah, and also recurring nightmares about an old academic adviser of mine, but that has more to do with her almost driving me out of school a few times. She was a bit of a hard person to deal with.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



No gun dream, but I did have a strange as gently caress dream last night.

I was back in school, only poo poo was all strange. I can't figure out if it was supposed to be middle school or college. I was there with all my old college buddies, only all of us were about 14 years old or so. The class I kept going to was taught by my old AP European History teacher from HS, but it was in a gently caress-off big auditorium like you'll use for large, general-ed classes at a university

Did I say that it was my old college buds in that class? Well, that was a little bit of a lie. It was me, my old college buds, and Hitler. 14 year old Hitler, but he had the 'stasche. Yeah. He was a bit of a whiny douche, so instead of paying attention to class we would prank the poo poo out of him the entire time. Tied his shoe laces and backpack straps to the lecture chairs, set him up on a blind date with a Jewish girl, used a razor to cut the bottom out of his lunch bag while he wasn't paying attention so all his poo poo spilled when he picked it up, that sort of thing.

Every time I kind of started feeling bad for basically bullying the poo poo out of this kid I though "oh, wait, this is loving HITLER" and it was OK.


Today, today I am doing anything BUT history.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006




NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Oh gently caress.

Goddamnit.

gently caress.

I had such high hopes for that too. I love zombie movies, I really enjoyed the faux-oral history angle of WWZ.

And then they go do this.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Eh, I think he's been pretty terrible for a few years now. Maybe it's the roles he's chosen - a lot of his movies have been pretty unwatchable turds.

Really the only movie he's been in that I can remember liking both the movie and his role in it in the last 2 or 3 years is Inglorious Bastards, and really that was just him playing a ridiculous, over the top stereotype. WWZ was an interesting book because, once you got past hte zombie premise, it wasn't that insane.

He's just got a predilection for either slap-sticky crazy comedy poo poo or way over the top action (and frequently a mix of both) and seeing WWZ turned into that would just kind of suck. I can like those movies, Zombieland for example was really loving good, but WWZ has the potential to be way more than that.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Just to expand slightly:

The entire Zombie genre, at its best, has absolutely nothing to do with the dead rising from the ground and eating brains. Yes, there are zombies doing this, but it's far more about the interactions of people in extremely hosed and extremely stressful situations. Ever since Night of the Living Dead (the original one) really good zombie movies have focused on this aspect and simply used the zombies as an ever present physical threat against which the protagonists need to band together in order to survive. Inevitably people don't die in these types of zombie movies because a rotting corpse eats their face (although this is usually the literal cause of death) but rather because someone inside the group betrays them or fucks up or freaks out or whatever. Human strengths permit survival, while human frailties ensure destruction. If you were going to categorize them, they tend to fall into the "suspense-horror" end of things.

The second type of Zombie movie came out later, and basically takes advantage of the fact that walking, animated corpses are right up there with Nazis in terms of faceless enemies you can kill in hilarious and grotesque ways without creating any moral questions for the audience. It's a rotting corpse brought back to life by some unknown, possibly evil force that wants to consume your flesh. Shotguns, machineguns, chainsaws, pipe bombs, napalm, gasoline, sledge hammers, weed whackers - it's all fair game when it comes to chopping these guys up and keeping your sweet, sweet brains in your cranium. They also offer a great opportunity to stick in all kinds of crazy, gruesome death scenes for the humans - stuff like having intestines ripped out and eaten while the owner is still alive. These movies are basically gun/explosion/FX porn and are a hell of a lot of fun to watch. Categorizing these, you get more into the "action-horror" type of film.

Some movies, of course, throw in a little from column A and a little from column B. There's no reason you can't have both if you really, REALLY do a good job and make sure that it doesn't just degenerate into exciting ways to blow up walking corpses. 28 Days Later is a great example of a film that really managed that balancing act, while 28 Months Later is a perfect example of one that tried, but failed. By the same token, Zombieland is a great example of a movie which set out from the get go to make the second type, but managed to sneak in some good writing and first-type inter-personal development and interactions while they were doing it.

What made WWZ such a really interesting book was that Brooks figured out that a whole lot of the "us vs. them, banding together against the common menace" tropes from the zombie genre are the exact same sentiments you see from the huge font of WW2 commemorative literature that's come out in the last 20 years. Whether it's Flags of our Fathers, the Greatest Generation, Band of Brothers, the central theme is usually a group of people (be it Easy Company, a handful of Marines, or an entire generation of men and women) banding together against a great, unspeakably evil common enemy. He basically wrote a book about the great war against the zombies roughly as it would look if Stephen Ambrose was covering it. Sure there was action, but it had more to do with looking at how individuals, governments, and entire societies reacted to a total melt down in normal life and how they picked up the pieces afterwards.

When I first heard they were making a WWZ movie I really, REALLY hoped it would be the first type of zombie film. Yes, there are obvious places for some huge special effects heavy stuff in it - the book is full of pitched, massive battles. But there is also a lot more in there than just that, and even greater opportunities for looking at the personal interactions that make zombie movies so interesting in the first place. It's also the sort of book which, due to the large number of individual stories and the way it cuts between them, would lend itself better to a larger cast which in turn means fewer stars with massive paychecks.

I just fear that with Pitt cast it's going to inevitably be a lot of face time for one big mega star and a ton of set piece CGI slaughterfest battles to showcase him, rather than what the book actually was.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Bored As gently caress posted:

The Zombie Survival Guide was pretty cool at first but the guns section was a piece of poo poo and so was the tactics section. The best part was the recorded attacks section.

World War Z was loving awesome except for the fact that 10 years after the apocalypse they have exploding bullets and massive ammunition output, and the military tactics part.

Well, the whole point was that it wasn't the apocalypse, just a kind of near-apocalypse event. Due to societal/military weaknesses and fuckups they royally screwed up in the early stages, poo poo got way out of hand, and they had to do some hard core triage to save the west coast in order to eventually recapture the midwest and east coast.

Again, WW2 parallel and the general way the master narrative of that war is generally portrayed in most history and mainstream media. Substitue "zombies" for "japanese in pacific" or just draw your own really blatantly obvious comparison with the Soviet experience of Barbarossa.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



wilfoy posted:

Zombies work as a horror genre because nobody knows what the gently caress is going on until it's far too late. Any movie where zombie infestation has already occurred and the characters are used to seeing shuffling masses of undead is going to suck. Just look at how bad Day of the Dead and Land of the Dead were.

If you think zombie movies are about the zombies you're missing the point really badly.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



2pint posted:

In Romero's worlds, there are plenty of people who escalate problems because they can't escape procedure (or habit). There are also those who behave selfishly or go AWOL and exacerbate the suffering; In short, there's a lot going on beneath the surface in which the choices of individuals contribute to much larger effects - for better and for worse - and the characters are often aware of this, themselves.

The horror of Romero isn't the presence of zombies. The horror is how the living react to their presence.

The living have agency and will, the dead are consigned to only a rudimentary, short-lived reprieve from quiescence; Only the dead are incapable of inhumanity or of moral transgression, free from responsibility.

Finally, someone who gets it.

Again, if anyone thinks zombie movies (or books, or slideshows, or whatever) are actually about zombies, they're not paying attention.

edit: poo poo, even zombie computer games. The whole L4D franchise is based on the premise that the situation is hosed but the players can get through it if they work as a team. Don't work as a team, and they get hosed. The gameplay has far less to do with the living dead or even the specific sub-types and what they do or how they attack and everything to do with the team communicating, cooperating, and making the optimal use of the resources provided for them.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



Young Freud posted:

/\/\/\You said it, Mister T!


You know that most explosive weapons are designed to kill top down from airburst, where if an enemy infantryman that was stupid enough (or, more likely, taken by surprise, as dropping to prone in reaction to area effect weapons is a standard infanty drill) to be standing when a mortar, bouncing betty, daisycutter, cooked hand grenades, grenade launchers, automatic grenade launcher, aerial or artilley dispersed submunitions, APERS rounds, etc. Guess what posture is the natural position of a zombie?


Have you actually read WWZ?

The whole point wasn't that explosive weapons were pointlessly ineffective. Indeed, they describe how they hosed quite a lot of poo poo up. The problem is that they were relatively inefficient in terms of the amount of resources expanded producing the ammo to the number of effective kills generated - and economic efficiency is a HUGE part of that book - and that the soldiers who deployed with those weapons simply didn't have enough ammo for them to hold the line for any reasonable amount of time. 20 or 50 rounds, or whatever it is that a self propelled artillery piece carries in ready stowage, really isn't that much in that kind of situation.

To draw on a historical parallel, it's kind of like how a thick minefield and a couple batallion-level 150mm barrages on call aren't going to save your rear end Nazi rear end from a human wave charge if Zhukov is simply willing to mulch a WHOLE LOT of siberian conscripts to overrun you.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006



QuarkMartial posted:

Since we've gone down this dark, twisted path anyway....

Why not just bunker out with a suppressed 22lr anyway? For one, you can stockpile a ton of ammunition in a small space. It's quiet, so it wouldn't attract any attention. Surely you could manage to get a round inside one's head somewhere between 50 and 100yds away. Or maybe 17hmr...

Ignoring the whole "walking dead" angle, this is precisely why I argue that in a true TEOTWAWKI situation you don't want some battle rifle, you want a fairly easy to maintain .22LR rifle and as much ammo as possible.

Think about it. You don't want to be engaged in actual combat. The people fighting are the ones who are going to be killing each other. The only objective is survival, and the easiest way to survive combat is to not get in it. .22LR is perfect for small game - which will be the majority of your meat-based diet, yet still hefty enough, especially out of a simple rifle, to drop a deer if you take your time with your shot, and if you gently caress up and the animal gets away it's not the end of the world. We're not talking ethical hunting here, we're talking survival. While far, FAR from ideal for dropping people it will still kill a man if you need it to.

A very simple .22LR rifle (think the single shot ones that don't even have a magazine) is also damned near indestructible, usually fairly light, and can be repaired with just about anything. Extractor get hosed up? Either use a pen knife to get the shells out or make a new one with some bent sheet metal, perhaps from a tin can. gently caress up the firing pin? You can probably fashion a new one with a file and some suitably sized scrap metal. Springs take a poo poo on you? Salvage some from wherever you can - we're not exactly talking heavy duty industrial springs here, and they tend to be on the shorter side.

Plus, if you're being highly mobile you can still carry 1000+ rounds in your bag with ease, and have tons of space/weight left over for other more important stuff. If you're bunkered down you can store 10k+ rounds in the space that you would use on 1k rifle rounds.

Yes, it's not reloadable. By the time that's an issue you'd drat well better have worked out using snares or taught yourself to make a bow and arrow, or something, because if society is still hosed at that point being able to reload .308 isn't going to help you for poo poo.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply