 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
You expect this from some old John Wayne flick, but I thought Hollyweird was getting more realistic. Over the weekend, there some a fairly recent Chuck Norris flick on and I swear, none of the bad guys could hit him, ever, none of them. Ol' Chuck just stands there firing away, killing 20 bad guys at a time and not one of them with their machine guns on full auto can even scratch him.Then, Chuck takes out another 3 or 4 in a split second while doing a diving tumble in the air and before he hits his feet. Simly amazing!
Follow Ups:
crying out loud, you think they would be as precise as a pistol held in a vise grip.
Randy
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly. What is essential is invisible to the eye. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery
Maybe there's some answers here.....
My favorite movie cliche is when the hero goes in and silently takes out all of the guards with sucker punches. One hit and they go down for the count. Of course when it comes to fighting the bad guy, they'll each take about 50 blows to the head and still look good.Another thing I've learned from the movies is that if you stab a guy in the stomach, he'll instantly and silently fall to the ground dead. Note that he will NOT lie there screaming for medical attention for 3 hours.
Oh, and if someone sneaks up behind you and wrenches your head 90 degrees to either side, you will die instantly.
Of course I just happened to be slumming this past weekend and rented "the Scorpion King", so I got to see all of these in action. One thing that bugged me about that movie is that the Rock is supposed to be some sort of world-class assassin, yet almost every single time he tried to assassinate someone, his M.O. was to run into the center of town and start kicking the crap out of the nearest guard. None of this sneaking about stuff. And of course the bad guys managed to stop every one of his assassination attempts. Oh, and in the middle of a sword fight, every time his opponent had a clean opportunity to kill the Rock, they would punch him or kick him instead of gutting him. I know it's a cheap shot taking cracks at this movie, but it's like they didn't even try to make it believable. I'll stick with Conan.
My personal pet peeve movie cliche is...anytime a car crashes it explodes.
Bush hits Saddam dead twixt the eyes, while Saddam's round goes
completely astray in their proposed duel! As for Cheney, I'm
not so sure, it's not a perfect world. - AH
About 2 Americans hiking in Finland. They cross the Rusian border and get framed for the rape of a child in the village. They are aressted and sent to some Soviet prison.They escape. They are persued by Russian soldiers.
In one scene they are running down a large sewer/drain pipe. 4 or 5 soldiers follow them and enter the pipe. They open fire down the completely enclosed, straight pipe for what seems like 10 seconds or more. The camera views the guys running toward the camera with the soldiers shooting at them in the background.
You guessed it.....the Americans emerge from the other end of the pipe with out one bullet wound!
This stands out as the most laughably bad shooting scene of any movie I have ever seen.
I am sorry but I cannot remember the name of the film...Born in the USA? Born American....Born something.
Rob
Because in real life, people (even trained people) are lousy shots. Adreneline gets going, nerves are frayed and when the other guys are shooting back bodily functions can let loose. Remember Amadu Dialo in NYC. The cops shot at him innumerable times and hit him very (and I do mean VERY) few. And virtually no one but a trained sniper can hit a moving target at night. There are examples of this in every battle you can name. People who lay down covering fire almost always shoot high. Gun fights in the "Olde West" seldom took place (usually it was a rifle or shotgun from behind) but when they did the antagonists were at most 3-4 feet apart not 20 feet (and they still missed often.)Duelists were probably better shots at 20 paces than anyone (especially considering the weaponry) even so, both parties often escaped without injury unless reloads were allowed. And when someone was shot in the first round it the victor was the normally the guy who shot second and was already missed by his opponent. It be much easier to shoot at an unarmed man who is standing stock still.
The movies get it right, but for the wrong reasons (i.e. "movie excitement").
It was dark and he was dark skinned with dark clothes.I trained with Marines in when I was stationed in Scotland and they are all VERY good shots. I myself have hit fleeing deer with the first shot fired on occasion.
Now of course in combat when you are being fired on, it is much different, as you say. But I still contend that Hollywood really does inflate the shots-fired-to-shots-home ratio quite a bit, especially when it comes to the bad guys.
Rob
"It was dark and he was dark skinned with dark clothes."He was standing under a light (small, but a light), in a small vestibule, was silhouetted against a lighter colour and did not move except to turn around in place (so much for people being thrown against a wall by pistol shots . . .that's one place movies REALLY get it wrong!).
He was hit right away, after that the officers thought they were being fired upon (their own ricochets) and they missed by as much as 10'.
It actually makes my point rather well instead of calling it into question.
For combat that is an excellent result.
"Now of course in combat when you are being fired on, it is much different, as you say." I have seen the best shot in a company unable to hit the broad side of a barn (from the inside) when the "bees" were whizzing past his ears.I was in Angola occasionally, and (trust me) 1 out of an hundred was a good result.
Training is not a firefight, nor is paintball! Nor is the cinema.
Cheers!
My father-in-law was involved in over a half-dozen fire fights in Vietnam. He was never struck by a bullet (he was superficially wounded by shrapnel from a mine blast that killed his patrol mate). He is pretty sure he was responisble for 4 enemy kills via his AR-15(the carbine or "light" version of the M-16). The policy in his detachment was controlled single or bust fire, with a heavy emphasis on conservation of rounds. He says he rarely shot blind, only at sighted targets. The SOP upon encountering hostile fire was to immediately lay supressing fire with the M-60's in return. Consequntly most of the rounds spent and most of the confirmed kils came by way of these M-60 gunners. He and the other riflemen would more or less pick off any enemy that would try to advance in the 'quiet' times between the large scale exchanges. This is they way most of the firefights went (This was small scale jungle patrol, so he never encountered large numbers of the enemy). All that said I am sure a helluva lot of rounds were fired to mount up the few dozen kills he was party to. But they did kill far more enemy troops then they themselves lost (7 men total, 3 to mines). This could only be because they were better trained and better marksmen. Lord knows it wasn't familiarity with the terrain or the element of surpise.My point is that films greatly exagerate this condtion in both directions. 5 bad guys shooting at the hero can't touch him with 200 rounds and he eliminates all five with two clips (you only see one token clip change in a fire fight). This is not reality.
Thanks,
Rob
"My point is that films greatly exagerate this condtion in both directions. 5 bad guys shooting at the hero can't touch him with 200 rounds . . ." slight exageration to great exageration depending on how much the bad guys possess the four "virtues" below.
". . . and he eliminates all five with two clips (you only see one token clip change in a fire fight). This is not reality." Great exageration, except see below . . .I was once escorted in Angola by a group who were:
1. Very efficient in firefights
2. very experienced in firefights
3. enjoyed firefights
4. had no moral compunction about/enjoyed killing the enemy (but only professionally so, not maniacally so).
(I actually believe that people really good in this arena possess all 4 attributes. They might not make good neighbors but come in really handy in a dark alley.)The comparison of my escorts' kill rate to that of the ordinary "citizen-soldiers" who opposed them was a joke. However, the one time my escorts were confronted by a group of similar skill, their kill rate went down as well. Let us just say that we and the other guys organised a "structured withdrawal". Even in that engagement (it was an ambush) there were over 50 rounds going past my ears that missed me. The firefight was at night, and as you (or your father) probably know, unless one is moonlight trained one aims too high at night (except for a skilled sniper with a night vision scope.)
The thing that frosts me most in action films is the way they got the details of military operation and protocol wrong, the effects of explosions, yada, yada.
The Marines (US) I trained with (Nuclear Weapons Security Detachment) as well as the SBS (UK) guys I got to observe showed me first hand that the Brits/Aussie/Yank/Kanooks really know how to train their troops and this shows in most 20th century conflicts.I know what you mean about militaty accuracy in films. Prior to Crimson Tide, the most technically accurate submarine film was Operation Pettycoat. Crimson Tide changed that however and was dead on as far as the sets were configured and especially the 'jargon' that was used. The missle commands that were batted back and forth were the real thing. My guess is that since this film was made post cold war, many of these commands have been declassified.
Thanks,
Rob
Like in Predator when they all start shooting into the jungle. They fire about 60,000 rounds (even though they are collectively only carrying 1,000) and turn a few acres of jungle into matchsticks.
Once their ears start working again they look around for a body -"We musta got it" "Nothin' could live through that" heh heh
Cheers
John K
i don't think i can match your level of humor here.but what about arnold s. in collateral damage?
couldn't dodge a car in the beginning of the movie. but then how many bullets did he dodge in the movie? had to be over thousands cause he kept running away from machine gun fire.
i never thought of him as a nimble guy, fleet of foot.
I saw this film with a friend who stayed very quiet throughout the entire movie, up to the end when terrorists in the underground garage try to detonate a bomb by activating it with a cell phone.At that point my friend cries out in disbelief, "Oh man, this is unbelievable. NO ONE can get reception in a basement."
To each his own.
One or two guys can take out 20-50 idiots standing around WAITING for their turn to get pummeled! An assembly line of death.
mp
His earlier movies are wonderful demonstrations of the techniques of Aikido. He is the Fred Astaire of chop suey movies in this regard. Full frame shots of fighting in real time. His first, Above The Law, is probably the best viewing of this approach to on-screen fighting. His later films, probably due to his expanding waistline, resorted to more of the typical cut/pan/fist-in-face, close-up conventional style of fight scene filming.But........
In every scene, the guys he is not fighting at that moment in time just stand by admiringly watching his stunning skills. And after each individual is laid to waste another moves in, one at a time, to have their limbs broken or bodies thrown like rag-dolls. Very obliging of them I must say.
Rob
Even more nonsensical is how the good guy always fights the gang that uses chains and knives -- the same gang that took over a city doesn't carry guns? Well, except for the big bad boss who comes in pointing a gun, but only after his 20 henchmen get beaten up. (That would be "Plan B" I suppose.) Of course, the big bad boss can never bring himself to kill the good guy right there and then ...My favorite part of Enter the Dragon is the mission briefing, when Bruce Lee suggests a quick resolution to the problem: "Why don't you just take a gun and ... BANG!" The captain says, "This island is in international waters, so we can't use guns". Issue resolved. Kung fu begins.
that's a good point. the good guy is always tied up by the bad guy in in seemingly impossible way to escape, so he can escape and kill the bad guys.obviously bad guys don't watch movies cause then they would know exactly what not to do.
A Chuck Norris film? 'Nuff said!Roger Ebert's review collection books used to include a fun movie glossary of these types of movie cliches. It got so big that he's since put them into a separate book. An example: ransom money, whatever the amount, always fills up the suitcase perfectly.
Personally, my favorite action movie cliche is when the bad guy inevitably explains to the good guy how "You and me ... we are both alike." At least the good guy's comeback line still varies (Collateral Damage: "The difference is, I'm going to KILL YOU!").
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
