This is my last Hollywood rant -- I PROMISE!!!


PDA






heavyshooter
November 21, 2008, 12:46 AM
Why does every LEO and bad guy on television carry his weapon without a bullet in the chamber? Every time it is time to fight crime the good guy unholsters his weapon and racks the slide. I know what you're thinking. It no big deal, they do it for the dramatic affect. Here’s why it annoys me. These are the same people who gave the impression that the "new innovative plastic glock" can pass through airport security (see Bruce Willis and Die Hard). These are the same people who have taught that "tactical rifles" are used only by SWAT, the military, and bank robbers. These are the same people who have said that all guns should be outlawed and they insult Tom Selleck on their talk show for his NRA endorsement (see Rosie O'Donald -- never mind her armed body guards).

I mention this because it gives insight into the ignorance of those who are going to implement laws that I must adhere to. :banghead: I live during a season when actors and musicians dictate (or heavily influence) public policy. If you do not believe that is true, pay very close attention to the unique laws of California.

I am sorry about my rant, but I am realizing that in 2 months my "High Capacity Magazines" will become collectors’ items. It's annoying!

Heavy

If you enjoyed reading about "This is my last Hollywood rant -- I PROMISE!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
M203Sniper
November 21, 2008, 12:58 AM
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute here;

After spending 8 years in the Marines and now a few years carrying the M9 on a professional level, I can tell you this for a fact. The US military knows less about sidearms than Hollywood does.

I have never carried with a round in the chamber on a Federal installation. It's the policy. We train to Slingshot the slide, and qualify like that on a simple speed and accuracy course. Talk about :banghead: for the gun guys....

You recognize that it is fiction on the silver screen = true, but realize that you may see that exact scenario in Real life, depending on where a shooter got trained and by whom. :)

MasterSergeantA
November 21, 2008, 01:23 AM
Heavy,

You are correct that the entertainment industry is putting out bad "information". Look at movie silencers, for instance. (And talk about 'high capacity' magazines...I want one of the ones they use in THOSE guns...holds about a gazillion rounds.) I have seen bad training in my 41 years in uniform as well. Right now, here in Baghdad, the troops are required to carry a magazine for their weapon at all times. BUT they are not permitted to put the magazine IN the weapon until instructed to do so. A lot of them keep a rag or something wedged way up inside the magazine well so they don't have to clean it as often. Getting it out in a hurry will be a chore...and their leaders don't correct the problem.

yeti
November 21, 2008, 01:48 AM
This made me laugh. I was watching some old dog of a movie on The Bad Movie Channel last night, rolling on the floor with laughter. Every time the Good Guy drew he racked, every change of angle he racked, every noise in the dark, he racked. In one scene he racked his slide 3 times before he took his first shot. It was stupid, but he did look good doing it. Though I do seem to remember him also getting off a couple of great shots after the slide locked back.

Bozo
November 21, 2008, 07:21 AM
The entertainment industry is NOT putting out bad information. It is making movies, it is NOT real. It is acting, plain and simple. You are not supposed to believe it is real or that you should get your education from it.

foghornl
November 21, 2008, 07:38 AM
The "Click!" of the hammer falling on an empty {slide locked back} Glock, XD, 1911, etc.

Obvious 6-shot revolvers that shoot about 30 rounds before reloading.

Golden Hound
November 21, 2008, 07:42 AM
The entertainment industry is NOT putting out bad information. It is making movies, it is NOT real. It is acting, plain and simple. You are not supposed to believe it is real or that you should get your education from it.

I don't buy that excuse. I think that movies should strive for realism. That's what separates a good movie from a great movie. A movie wouldn't show a guy driving a car with one hand up his ass and the other hand in the ashtray. Because that's not how you drive a car.

But for some reason, the people in Hollywood feel that they can screw up the little details of life and not get called on it. There are many examples of this, not just guns. There's the fact that every time someone orders a beer at a bar in a movie, they always just say "I'll have a beer." They never specify what kind of beer they want, the always just say "a beer." Who EVER does that in real life? It's one of those stupid things that ruins my suspension of disbelief. One of the other big ones for me is the "555" for the first three numbers of almost all movie phone numbers. It's like a giant red flashing sign saying "MOVIE! MOVIE! NOT REAL!" but I want my movies to feel like reality. I think they should either have real phone numbers, or find a way to not reference the specific phone number at all. On the rare occasions that they actually use a real phone number, not a 555 one, in a movie, I take note of it. For instance, in "The Departed." I remember watching that and thinking to myself, "hey, they used a real number instead of a 555 one."

Other people who are not as astute and aware might not mind, but for someone like myself who observes every conceivable detail, movie gaffes are very annoying. And especially when it comes to guns.

It's not like it's that hard to figure out the correct information about guns. As mechanical systems go, they're pretty simple. All they would need to do to be realistic in a movie is get their calibers and their firearm terminology straight, and train their actors to hold the guns properly (finger off the trigger, pointed in safe direction) especially if the actors are portraying guys who are supposed to be cops or special-forces soldiers. But they don't, and so most movies look laughably unrealistic to anyone who knows the first thing about guns.

When they do make a movie that's halfway realistic, the gun people take note. The prime example is HEAT. (Although even HEAT has some errors - for instance, the robbers have a bunch of empty magazines strapped to their vests - you can see the followers. I don't know why or how they screwed that up.)

A director who is truly great will learn all that he can learn about whatever subject he's making the movie about. Stanley Kubrick obviously did, for Full Metal Jacket, and made a point of detailing all the drilling and field-stripping of the M14 rifles very accurately, and for that reason, gun people love that movie. A mediocre director will half-ass his way through the real-life details of the movie, and therefore, the movie won't be great, it'll just be mediocre at best.

6_gunner
November 21, 2008, 07:53 AM
The entertainment industry is NOT putting out bad information. It is making movies, it is NOT real. It is acting, plain and simple.

I agree. I actually like some of the movies with the most inaccurate gun portrayals; especially when I feel like it's done intentionally for dramatic effect, rather than just out of ignorance. One example is Last Man Standing. The gunfights were ridiculous. Bruce Willis' 1911s were infinite capacity and blew people half-way across the street, but it was a very entertaining movie.

The problem is when people who are ignorant of firearms see such inaccurate movies and think that they represent reality. Much of the fear which people have of firearms is probably due to what they see in movies. When some of the antis talk about guns, it is obvious that their knowledge of them is based only on what they see in movies.

It also encourages dangerous behavior, because many people handle firearms based on what they see in movies.

We probably shouldn't criticize Hollywood too much, because their goal is to entertain people; not to educate them. However, it is frustrating, because it makes the job of educating people about firearms much more difficult.

Phil DeGraves
November 21, 2008, 08:27 AM
The entertainment industry is NOT putting out bad information. It is making movies, it is NOT real. It is acting, plain and simple. You are not supposed to believe it is real...

No that is incorrect. A movie, accurate or not is supposed to make you suspend your disbelief. You do this by making it as realistic as possible (unless of course, you are spoofing it; then it's okay). If the director wants us to take his story seriously, then he should have the wherewithal, integrity and conscientiousness to PAY ATTENTION TO DETAIL. It doesn't HAVE to be realistic, but it has to APPEAR to be realistic. Racking the action three times before firing isn't even trying to be realistic in my opinion.

And the uninformed morons watching it DO believe it's true.

RKBABob
November 21, 2008, 08:51 AM
Golden Hound wrote: A movie wouldn't show a guy driving a car with one hand up his ass and the other hand in the ashtray. Because that's not how you drive a car. Of course... Everyone knows you're supposed to hang your left arm out the window, smoke with your right hand, and look your passenger in the eyes during any sort of dialog, all without slowing down or crashing.

Seriously, though... They never stop to think "Gee, maybe I better do a little research, or 25 million people might think I'm foolish." I'm suprised there was never a full-auto revolver shown in the movies.

CentralTexas
November 21, 2008, 09:24 AM
If the average family drama movie showed the actor glance at the New York city limit sign, then his car's gas gauge on "E", and then showed him passing the Dallas city limit sign a few minutes later...
Or, the actor being late for her wedding looking at her speedometer showing her traveling 300mph or the car jumping over other slower cars wouldn't the average movie goer feel insulted?
The director would never allow that in a reality drama, because the average watcher would reject it as unrealistic.
When it comes to medicine, forensics, the law, guns, the military etc. the movie makers/writers aren't too concerned with getting it right -as they feel the "average" person won't know, or it makes for a better film if they "stretch" things.
And has been already said, that's what seperates the greats from the mediocre...

MikePGS
November 21, 2008, 09:59 AM
Sure they may be inaccurate, but at least hollywood movies are both well written and entirely original :rolleyes:

Golden Hound
November 21, 2008, 11:02 AM
I thought There Will Be Blood was a spectacular movie in every sense of the word, but when that 8 year old kid was shooting quail with a boomstick that was bigger than he was, with no recoil whatsoever, I had to laugh.

Justin
November 21, 2008, 11:42 AM
If Hollywood irritates you so much, stop supporting their products.

yeti
November 21, 2008, 12:22 PM
There was an extremely short lived detective program on TV a few(probably 10 years ago now) years ago, a Mike Hammer type tough guy private dick thing. The lead actor was a fairly well known semi thug guy, who's name I can't recall, but he is always the dark, brooding, violent guy. Any way the show was set in the 1950's, and the producer made a real big deal about how much effort went into making every little detail, period correct. No detail was to minor, they spent a small fortune getting it perfect, right down to the 1950's dust in the air, and beer cans needing church keys to get to their nectar. It was perfect, nothing was missed, everything felt so right, right up until the moment our hero opened a box of .45's, tilted the box up, and out slid all those bright, shining, .45 cartridges, neatly nestled in their white plastic tray.:scrutiny::confused::what: I damn near wet my pants!

But it was still a great show, for the few episodes that aired. To bad the tough guy actor was a real thug in life.:banghead:

In a world where Danny DeVito is a romantic lead, I can laugh at multiple gun flubs.:D

heavyshooter
November 21, 2008, 01:36 PM
I think that movies should strive for realism. That's what separates a good movie from a great movie.

This is an excellent point. The need to create artificial drama is a self imposed need. We have developed the need for a racked slide because it happens so often in movies. Don't choke on the irony; movies must do it because all previous movies have done it. :mad: This has resulted in the dumming down of America (this does not apply only to guns).

I also want to point out how insulting it can be to those who have had the real life experince. I have never been in a war zone, but I recall a friend who, after seeing Saving Private Ryan, cried because the opening seen accurately depicted his experince in Vietnam. He said that he noticed how often the soldiers in bad war movies would run over and check the vitals of their fallen comrads. Through tears he assured me that he rarely had to check.


The problem is when people who are ignorant of firearms see such inaccurate movies and think that they represent reality. Much of the fear which people have of firearms is probably due to what they see in movies. When some of the antis talk about guns, it is obvious that their knowledge of them is based only on what they see in movies.

It also encourages dangerous behavior, because many people handle firearms based on what they see in movies.

This explains the immanent ban on "tactical rifles" and "High Capacity Mags." It also explains the prevalence of the horizontal gun hold ("gangster style"), and the belief that hero Jack Bauer (24) can double tap 20 terrorists with his Heckler and Koch without a spare mag in sight and no one questions it.

heavyshooter
November 21, 2008, 01:42 PM
I'm suprised there was never a full-auto revolver shown in the movies.

Clearly you do not watch CSI Miami. Rugers are not automatic, but they are "very rare." :)

Okay, that's my last CSI jab. I PROMISE :D

mp510
November 21, 2008, 01:45 PM
It's for cinematic effect probably.

ArfinGreebly
November 21, 2008, 02:06 PM
Hollywood not putting out bad information?

That depends.

There are people for whom the stuff coming out of Hollywood IS information.

Ban on armor-piercing cop-killer Teflon-coated bullets?

Where do you imagine that "bad information" came from?

That's pure Hollywood, enshrined in law.

So, considering the folks that actually DO see that stuff as "information," I would have to say that -- until education actually educates people on actual facts so they can tell the freakin' difference -- Hollywood is, indeed, putting out bad information.

They "educate" our lawmakers.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Jeff White
November 21, 2008, 02:08 PM
mp510 has it right. It's a way to convey to the audience that the character is preparing to go into action.

rcmodel
November 21, 2008, 02:13 PM
Novels aren't any better.
I just read one of Clive Custlers latest.
(Custler is a guy who mostly gets his facts on straight)

In it, the bad guy always wraps an old bath towel tightly around his 1902 Colt .38 Automatic to muffle the sound.
Then proceeds to shoot three or four people dead with it before they know what is happening.
(Folks on the other side of a door can't hear the shots!)

No explaination on how the empties get out of the gun with a towel wrapped around it!

The book before that had the hero loading his S&W ".45 Colt" revolver with a "clip" holding 8 rounds.
And then clicking the safety on! :banghead:

Quite frankly, gun mistakes of that magnitude ruin the whole book for me, even if it is a good book!

As far as modern TV fair goes, "The Unit" comes as close as anything to doing it right, most of the time. Heck, they got pinned down and actually ran out of ammo the other night!

rcmodel

Justin
November 21, 2008, 02:23 PM
I think that movies should strive for realism. That's what separates a good movie from a great movie.

Yes, because The Matrix wasn't one of the most ground-breakingly awesome films ever made due to a lack of realism.

McCall911
November 21, 2008, 02:32 PM
Yes, I agree that such silliness is only for dramatic effect. It's like a visual/audible reminder to the audience that the character has a loaded "weapon" and may be about to use it.

Such things remind me of the old Westerns where the shooters "threw" the bullets from the barrel of their Colt SAA's, as if such a practice gave the bullets extra velocity. :D

Sinixstar
November 21, 2008, 02:41 PM
I don't buy that excuse. I think that movies should strive for realism. That's what separates a good movie from a great movie. A movie wouldn't show a guy driving a car with one hand up his ass and the other hand in the ashtray. Because that's not how you drive a car.

But for some reason, the people in Hollywood feel that they can screw up the little details of life and not get called on it. There are many examples of this, not just guns. There's the fact that every time someone orders a beer at a bar in a movie, they always just say "I'll have a beer." They never specify what kind of beer they want, the always just say "a beer." Who EVER does that in real life? It's one of those stupid things that ruins my suspension of disbelief. One of the other big ones for me is the "555" for the first three numbers of almost all movie phone numbers. It's like a giant red flashing sign saying "MOVIE! MOVIE! NOT REAL!" but I want my movies to feel like reality. I think they should either have real phone numbers, or find a way to not reference the specific phone number at all. On the rare occasions that they actually use a real phone number, not a 555 one, in a movie, I take note of it. For instance, in "The Departed." I remember watching that and thinking to myself, "hey, they used a real number instead of a 555 one."


It's called suspension of disbelief. It's a pretty big component to movie making. Movies are not real, so getting bogged down in the detail of trying to make them real is an exercise in futility. You will never be able to script something, and have it go down the same way a *real* scenario would. You make movies for entertainment value, not reality value.

As for "beer" - that has more to do with product placement agreements, etc. Also if you notice - a lot of times the bottles are not in focus - or the label is turned around so you can't see what kinda beer it is.

The debate about whether hollywood puts out bad information or not is - well. Silly. Hollywood is ENTERTAINMENT not EDUCATION.
If people use movies for their education, well, that's just sad. Can hardly blame the producers or directors for that. Their job is not to educate, their goal is not to educate. Their goal is to entertain, and make money in the process. If stupid people want to substitute education for entertainment -that's just, well... stupid. :)

misANTHrope
November 21, 2008, 02:44 PM
Re: the usage of 555- phone numbers in movies:

I have to ask... would you want your phone number broadcast in cinemas across the nation? Because that's the reason for using 555- numbers; they're always invalid. Better than putting a real number on the screen, and then having thousands of folks call the thing just for the hell of it.

zombienerd
November 21, 2008, 03:28 PM
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute here;

After spending 8 years in the Marines and now a few years carrying the M9 on a professional level, I can tell you this for a fact. The US military knows less about sidearms than Hollywood does.

I have never carried with a round in the chamber on a Federal installation.

Did you serve post 9-11?

After 9-11, every watchstander on deck in Norfolk, VA was Condition 1 with the M9 and M500. Magazine in, round chambered, safety on. The M-14's on watch were kept in condition 2 (Mag inserted, no round in chamber)

It wouldn't make sense (to me) that the marines were C2 when the Navy is C1.

Phil DeGraves
November 21, 2008, 03:52 PM
Hollywood is ENTERTAINMENT not EDUCATION.


Which just makes one wonder why actors testify before Congressional Committees on topics they've made movies about. Totally ridiculous!

GEM
November 21, 2008, 03:58 PM
To explain the world to politicians who don't read books or newspapers?

Also, how come nobody recognizes Superman as Clark Kent in the movies - if I take my classes off, no one fails to recognize me?

Just read two books where the heroes pulled back the hammer on their Glocks to make the point that they were ready to shoot.

Phil DeGraves
November 21, 2008, 04:02 PM
Just read two books where the heroes pulled back the hammer on their Glocks to make the point that they were ready to shoot.


Just like the guys that flip the safety off their revolver to prepare to shoot, (The Taking of Pelham 123; the movie was better than the book) or "expertly hold the wrist of their shooting arm with their support hand." (Relic).

30mag
November 21, 2008, 04:05 PM
I don't buy that excuse. I think that movies should strive for realism. That's what separates a good movie from a great movie. A movie wouldn't show a guy driving a car with one hand up his ass and the other hand in the ashtray. Because that's not how you drive a car.

ROFL.

30mag
November 21, 2008, 04:08 PM
And, let's not forget the classic "jump it in the car and slam it in park"
Just watch, anytime anyone is driving a column shift in a movie, they always shift the lever UP... into Park.

30mag
November 21, 2008, 04:12 PM
Not to mention the enormous explosions that are a result of every car wreck EVER.

If cars really exploded like that in real life, other than the Pinto, I'm pretty sure we would have bigger problems than guns here in America... oh, what's that?
We do have bigger problems than guns?
Oh... well... crap.

yeti
November 21, 2008, 04:20 PM
Don't ignore the nuclear hand grenades. Fun with 100 lbs of c-4 in a convenient hand held package.

yeti
November 21, 2008, 04:26 PM
And it would be remiss of me not to mention mans recently discovered ability to out run and jump explosions. Nothing more exhilarating than having been blown up and outrunning the blast. I guess Churchill would have put it "having been blown up and missed".

Sinixstar
November 21, 2008, 04:29 PM
Which just makes one wonder why actors testify before Congressional Committees on topics they've made movies about. Totally ridiculous!

So Charlton Heston was a moron who knew nothing about guns, correct?

RPCVYemen
November 21, 2008, 04:45 PM
I think that movies should strive for realism. That's what separates a good movie from a great movie.

I'd like to humbly suggest that you are out of your mind. :)

Sound of Music? Mary Poppins? Apocalypse Now? Lord of the Rings? Take a list of the top 100 movies of all time, and verify your claim about realism.

What is the return on the extra cost of training actors and maintaining realism in a movie? $0 What would a reasonable business man invest in a process that returns $0?

Most moviegoers are concerned with the characters motivations, interactions, etc. Why and when a character tries to kill another character is in general much more important than the details of the mechanism.

Mike

yeti
November 21, 2008, 05:10 PM
Sound of Music? Mary Poppins? Apocalypse Now? Lord of the Rings? Take a list of the top 100 movies of all time, and verify your claim about realism.


WAIT! WAIT! Wait! Are you saying the Austrians did not break out in spontaneous inappropriate singing in the days surrounding the Anschluss?:what:

The hills are alive, with the sound of NAZIs..............................

98C5
November 21, 2008, 05:29 PM
Jeepers Creepers had to have the most car gaffes I have ever seen/heard. It was like a 9 speed manual that shifted by itself with BOTH the girls hands on the steering wheel. :uhoh:

Back to the gun gaffes though. I always make fun of the sound effects when watching these movies. Some studios do really well others are so off the mark. Harrison Ford in Raiders of the Lost Ark had one of those 22 shot revolvers. :p

Then again, we are all gun people here, so we'll notice these errors. Just like my brother is a copy editor for a magazine. He tends to correct my emails for grammar. :rolleyes:

Golden Hound
November 21, 2008, 05:30 PM
People are missing my point about movie realism big-time, but it's probably my fault for not making it more clear. So I'll attempt to do that now.

I have been a huge movie fan for all my life. It was once my dream to go to Hollywood and become a great director, though I abandoned that when I realized how damn hard it would be. But my passion for movies, and my very critical eye for analyzing them, remains, and always will.

There are different degrees to which a movie can violate the laws of real life. Obviously a superhero movie or a Sci-fi film like The Matrix is going to have a lot of violations of the laws of physics, gravity, time perception, et cetera. These things are generally okay to violate in the context of a fantasy movie - because the philosophical assumption at work here is the idea that different theoretical universes might have different rules of physics or time than our universe. Or that a super-being might be able to do things that we humans cannot, or that events may be able to take place in a virtual-reality computer simulation of life that could not happen in actual life.

All of this is fine. I don't think that all movies should only be about real life. Of course there is a place for fantasy, sci-fi, et cetera.

However - there is NO EXCUSE for having guns in a movie not work the way actual guns work. No excuse whatsoever. It is not justifiable on the grounds of it being fantasy or sci-fi. A gun would not randomly go "CHH-CHH!" without the action being operated in the "Matrix universe" any more than it would in the real universe - because the guns are the same guns. If it was some kind of made-up laser blaster, that would be a different story. But when a character in a fantasy movie has a shotgun that EXISTS IN REAL LIFE, I expect that shotgun to operate the same way it would IN REAL LIFE regardless of whether or not the movie is in a fantasy setting.

Here's an analogy that will maybe make it easier for you to understand. Say there was a Matrix type sci-fi movie with a character who was Italian. But every time this character talked, he said things like "yabba dabba dobba bobba hobba gobba." And everyone else went on referring to his speech as being in the Italian language. This is simply not acceptable or justifiable in any way whatsoever. You can't just say, "it's a sci-fi movie, so his Italian doesn't need to be real Italian, it can just be made up gibberish." It doesn't work like that.

Certain things need to be realistic EVEN IF THE SETTING OF THE MOVIE IS NOT REALISTIC. Say Bruce Willis, in Action Movie X, pulls out a pack of cigarettes, sticks one of them in his mouth backwards, lights the filter end, and starts puffing away at it as if this is totally normal. This is not acceptable. "It's just a movie" is not an appropriate justification for this. That is not how you smoke cigarettes in real life, and if it were to happen in a movie, regardless of whether or not the overall context of the movie is true-to-life, it would be absurd.

And a gun randomly going "CHHCHH" is just as absurd.

I don't think I'm being overly hard-to-please or unreasonable here. I think that the guys who make movies should try to have the details of real-life objects be as realistic as possible. As I have said before - it's what separates the great movies - movies like Full Metal Jacket - from the mindless, mediocre "popcorn flicks."

Coyote3855
November 21, 2008, 05:31 PM
Mcall911 says "Such things remind me of the old Westerns where the shooters "threw" the bullets from the barrel of their Colt SAA's, as if such a practice gave the bullets extra velocity."

Apparently there is some reason for this behavior. In his book "Sixguns," Elmer Keith recommends this practice in situations where a precise sight alignment is impossible. He used this technique when shooting at a running coyote from the back of a running horse. I've also heard but cannot quote a source that lifting a cap and ball handgun briskly back over the shoulder dumps the cap fragments out of the action. (?) My favorite from those same old Westerns is when the bad guy ran out of bullets, he would throw his SAA at the good guy. Or even the good guy would toss his handgun in the rocks if the villian got the drop on him. My dad would visable wince at the potential damage to a good gun.

yeti
November 21, 2008, 06:03 PM
And why did the bad guys always throw their empty guns at Superman? You'd think, after you shot the guy 6 times, with no visible result, throwing a perfectly nice revolver, at the man of steel, would be uselessly redundant.:confused:

Justin
November 21, 2008, 06:43 PM
Here's an analogy that will maybe make it easier for you to understand. Say there was a Matrix type sci-fi movie with a character who was Italian. But every time this character talked, he said things like "yabba dabba dobba bobba hobba gobba." And everyone else went on referring to his speech as being in the Italian language. This is simply not acceptable or justifiable in any way whatsoever. You can't just say, "it's a sci-fi movie, so his Italian doesn't need to be real Italian, it can just be made up gibberish." It doesn't work like that.

They do that in movies all the freakin' time. Up to and including hiring people who can mimic the sound of a particular language without actually knowing how to speak the language itself.

What most people who nitpick movies don't understand is that even in films that strive for a particular level of realism, it's never going to be perfect simply because the process of creating a film makes it impossible to be perfect. Anyone who's ever spent even a moderate amount of time on a location shoot for even a low-budget production understands that film making is a collaborative art form requiring the input and talent of dozens, if not hundreds, of people and that often times it is impossible to simply go back and re-shoot a scene because there was a technical inaccuracy that only nerds on a gun forum are ever going to notice.

This is certainly not a reason to excuse away abysmal firearms handling, but frankly there's absolutely no reason to get so bent out of shape over inaccuracies in movies in television. It's entertainment. If you want proper gun handling, turn the idiot box off go dry fire. Or make your own error-free movie.

Golden Hound
November 21, 2008, 07:40 PM
They do that (speak fake languages) in movies all the freakin' time. Up to and including hiring people who can mimic the sound of a particular language without actually knowing how to speak the language itself.

But they don't do that in a great movie. They didn't do that in The Godfather.

See what I'm getting at here? Some movies are great, some movies are just mediocre. Some movies make a profound statement and others are just marketing schemes to sell toys or get people's asses in the movie theater eating snacks. The difference between these types of movies is the amount of effort that the director, actors, screenwriters, set design people and everyone else put into the movie.

frankly there's absolutely no reason to get so bent out of shape over inaccuracies in movies in television.

I'm not getting bent out of shape so much as I'm simply being a discriminating consumer of the arts. Movies can be more than entertainment. Great movies are ART. Crap movies with no realism are "entertainment."

I wouldn't sit and listen to a band play a concert full of wrong notes for two hours because it's "just entertainment." I want, at the very least, competence enough to not play wrong notes when I listen to musicians. Stupid gun errors are "wrong notes" in movies, and they lower my estimation of the movie and the people involved with producing it.

David Lynch - creator of Twin Peaks, Blue Velvet, Lost Highway and Mulholland Dr. - is one high-profile director whose movies I consistently like, and he consistently displays realism with regards to firearms in his films and in Twin Peaks. In Twin Peaks they even talk about the new model Beretta pistol that the FBI has been issued and David Lynch himself, in a cameo as the FBI bureau chief, visits the town of Twin Peaks to present Agent Cooper with his new pistol and explains all of its features in detail. That show also had a scene where the sheriff's department begins a new program of pistol range training after one of the deputies has a negligent discharge. THAT is the sort of gun realism that I wish there was more of.

heavyshooter
November 21, 2008, 11:50 PM
As far as modern TV fair goes, "The Unit" comes as close as anything to doing it right, most of the time. Heck, they got pinned down and actually ran out of ammo the other night!

I agree whole heartedly. They clearly have a good advisor on the show.

heavyshooter
November 21, 2008, 11:53 PM
I think that movies should strive for realism. That's what separates a good movie from a great movie.

Yes, because The Matrix wasn't one of the most ground-breakingly awesome films ever made due to a lack of realism.

Justin, you have to admit that there is a fundamental difference between fiction and science fiction.

In addition to that, the whole point of the Matrix is that they are NOT in the real world. Morpheus makes this crystal clear when has asks Neo the defining question, "You thinks that's air your breathing?" If the air isn't real, then the guns can't have a much hope. Their minds dictate reality according to the reality violating program of the Matrix; that's like the whole point of the movie. If my mind desires an infinite clip capacity -- Abra Cadabra -- bring on the agents. They are literally denying reality. I love that you chose that example because it is self-refuting. In fact, I would be so confident (or arrogant) as to say that all other examples will be equally self refuting. Bruce Willis and Sylvester Stallone do not have the freedom of a reality altering computer program. Fiction vs. Science Fiction -- Let's keep the straw men to a minimum brethren. Compare Apples to Apples. Please. :D

heavyshooter
November 22, 2008, 12:08 AM
Hollywood is ENTERTAINMENT not EDUCATION.

I beg to differ. I am amazed by how regularly the "entertainers" are seen as the most respected political philosophers of our day. More to the point, the entertainers willingly assume that role. Sean Penn, Rosie O'Donald, Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney, and many others are not speaking as entertainers. They are speaking as lobbyist and they are being heard.

heavyshooter
November 22, 2008, 12:16 AM
I think that movies should strive for realism. That's what separates a good movie from a great movie.

I'd like to humbly suggest that you are out of your mind.

Sound of Music? Mary Poppins? Apocalypse Now? Lord of the Rings? Take a list of the top 100 movies of all time, and verify your claim about realism.

Watch the Straw Men guys. Again I must point out that you are comparing Apples to Oranges. The Lord of the Rings does not represent itself as realistc fiction; Die Hard does. The beast in The Lord of the Rings are referred to as mythical. The Die Hard Glock is not. As we proceed with the discussion, lets not obligate Golden Hound to the reality standard of flying nannies and hobbits. Are you kidding me! It cannot be that hard to catch his point.:banghead: With all due respect.:rolleyes:

Golden Hound
November 22, 2008, 12:39 AM
Thank you, for understanding what I'm trying to say.

If there were a movie about a magical gun that could do all sorts of krazy tricks, that'd be one thing. Then, maybe, there could be an excuse for the gun goofs. But in a movie where the guns are ostensibly the same ones used in real life - regardless of what genre the movie is, whether it's fantasy, sci-fi, action, or whatever - the guns should operate the way they do in real life.

Sharps-shooter
November 22, 2008, 12:42 AM
yabba dabba dobba bobba hobba gobba

That is just awesome. Never in my life have i laughed so hard at complete gibberish.

Once i saw this show called dirty sexy money, and the guy had this side by side shotgun, and he racked the slide on it, or it somehow made that sound. That was funny. I try not to let that sort of thing ruin it for me, but I do consider it bad storytelling-- glaring inconsistencies.

Golden Hound
November 22, 2008, 01:16 AM
Thanks, it's good to know I can do at least one thing right - gibberish!

Timthinker
November 22, 2008, 05:08 AM
After reading these postings, I think our readers know why I have referred to Hollywood as Hollyweird.:D


Timthinker

DoesItMatter
November 22, 2008, 05:19 AM
I love the endless clips - man... that'd make shooting at the range so damn cheap!

Or the revolvers that can keep shooting and shooting...

Or why, when the good guys go in with guns and flashlights,
the bad guys shoot anywhere, but where the flashlights are!

Or the fact that a handful of bullets into a car or an engine block
will generate a huge explosion!

Man... I don't want to drive those cars, fender benders would
result in tons of explosions!

BHP FAN
November 22, 2008, 05:47 AM
Band of Brothers was the best for gun realism I've seen in a long,long time.Last Of The Mohicans and The Patriot were also quite impressive in this regard.In fact,if you've seen both of the latter,I think you qualify for some Revolutionary War medals!

Old Guy
November 22, 2008, 06:16 AM
I worked on several films in Canada as a gun guy, the fetch the gun, show the actor how to hold it, etc.

One job, delivering a Winchester lever action, it was miles away from Toronto, on a farm, depicting late 1800s ranch, my scene was over, rifle back in bag, in jeep.

They have great food shipped in! So I was eating, and watching the next scene, ranch hand demanding from owner (Something?) pointing this lovely old single action Colt 45, not a replica! You guessed it, hammer down!

With a mouth full of pie, pointed this out to the Director. He re shot the scene, he said how many people would notice that? My answer, a lot.
(you lot!)
As a camera is only a one eyed instrument, you do not have to point a weapon at an other actor to look like you are doing just that!

Each time it was a blank firing scene a little speech was given "See this box, see this cartridge?" showing the movie only 50 round cardboard case,
"I did not load these cartridges" "And do not know what is inside them!"

"POINT THE BLOODY GUN A BIT TO THE SIDE!" It wasn't easy.

ditch_dgr
November 22, 2008, 06:44 AM
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute here;

After spending 8 years in the Marines and now a few years carrying the M9 on a professional level, I can tell you this for a fact. The US military knows less about sidearms than Hollywood does.

I have never carried with a round in the chamber on a Federal installation. It's the policy. We train to Slingshot the slide, and qualify like that on a simple speed and accuracy course. Talk about for the gun guys....

You recognize that it is fiction on the silver screen = true, but realize that you may see that exact scenario in Real life, depending on where a shooter got trained and by whom.

Was the same in the Navy for the longest time the watchstanders carried a weapon in a holster with no magazine inserted, then we went to magazine but no round in the chamber. It was frustrating. As I was getting ready to retire a few years ago, it was changing. Not sure where it is now.

hankdatank1362
November 22, 2008, 11:01 AM
There's only one name you need to know when it comes to Hollywood firearms realism: Michael Mann. (80's Miami Vice series, Heat, Collateral, new Miami Vice movie, etc....)

unisonic12
November 22, 2008, 03:19 PM
And why did the bad guys always throw their empty guns at Superman? You'd think, after you shot the guy 6 times, with no visible result, throwing a perfectly nice revolver, at the man of steel, would be uselessly redundant.

And notice how he takes six shots center of mass, yet ducks when the revolver is thrown at him. ;)

chuwee81
November 22, 2008, 04:28 PM
To Old guy:
I guess they didn't have you at the set of Art of War 2 (do not watch it guys) I even want my $1.00 back from Red Box.
Anyway in the first assasination scene, they showed a Glock firing with a CGI muzzle flash. The Glock didn't even show recoil or eject the empty casing or showed any slide movement. I knew I should stop right there but i got 2 hours on my break so i suck it up. Then they showed this XXXX battle rifle - which is a Calico handgun, no rifle stock or anything. The antagonist said it fires depleted uranium rounds. But when he test fired it, it shot a "smart bullet" with stabilizers and exploded on impact :banghead:

JohnKSa
November 22, 2008, 04:31 PM
I believe that there are those in the entertainment industry who actually pride themselves on their lack of "gun knowledge". I think that the majority of them just don't care.

unisonic12
November 22, 2008, 05:24 PM
What, no one's yet mentioned "curving the bullet" like in Wanted? :rolleyes:

Rshooter
November 22, 2008, 05:44 PM
The point I really dislike is where Mel Gibson makes millions on shootem up movies like lethal weapon "x" (take your pick) and then he is a stinking gun grabber.:cuss:

unisonic12
November 22, 2008, 05:53 PM
So is Ah-nuld and Stallone. :rolleyes:

You mentioned Lethal Weapon...don't forget Danny Glover. Rabidly anti-gun. Renee Russo as well. Pretty much EVERY Gibson movie heavily involves weapons. The Road Warrior/Mad Max movies, The Patriot, Braveheart, etc.

Bond, aka Connery is anti-gun and I believe the current Bond, Daniel Craig, is as well.

Even Carrie Fischer is anti. Pretty much the only movies she's known for had her as a gun totin' Princess Leia. She even rocked an M16 in the Blues Brothers.

James Brolin in No Country for Old Men.

Sigourney Weaver of the Alien movies.

Matt Damon of the Bourne movies.

David Duchovny as the gun toting FBI agent both on TV and the movies.

The list goes on and on with these POS hypocrites.

Anti gun companies and celebrities:

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0302.htm

heavyshooter
November 22, 2008, 06:47 PM
What, no one's yet mentioned "curving the bullet" like in Wanted?

You don't know how to do that. It's all in the rist.:)

heavyshooter
November 22, 2008, 06:55 PM
So is Ah-nuld and Stallone.

You mentioned Lethal Weapon...don't forget Danny Glover. Rabidly anti-gun. Renee Russo as well. Pretty much EVERY Gibson movie heavily involves weapons. The Road Warrior/Mad Max movies, The Patriot, Braveheart, etc.

Bond, aka Connery is anti-gun and I believe the current Bond, Daniel Craig, is as well.

Even Carrie Fischer is anti. Pretty much the only movies she's known for had her as a gun totin' Princess Leia. She even rocked an M16 in the Blues Brothers.

James Brolin in No Country for Old Men.

Sigourney Weaver of the Alien movies.

Matt Damon of the Bourne movies.

David Duchovny as the gun toting FBI agent both on TV and the movies.

The list goes on and on with these POS hypocrites.

Anti gun companies and celebrities:

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0302.htm


unisonic12 made my point better than I did. They are not merely actors/entertainers, they are political philosophers. And in spite of their overt hypocrisy, they are being heard. I know I am a broken record, but you have to admit that the entertainment capital of the world (California) has very peculiar gun laws.:rolleyes:

Old Guy
November 23, 2008, 03:59 AM
I am a broken record, but you have to admit that the entertainment capital of the world (California) has very peculiar gun laws.

They don't do well on "till death do us part either"

The new Bond I am not sure of, but Mel Gibson blinked his way through the PD Range session in Lethal Weapon 1, shooting blanks!

I am totally at a loss as how you can profess to hate an inanimate object?

One time had the pleasure of having a TV reporter, nice looking Lady, use my range for a live fire portion of a story on the Gang culture, and the script called for her shooting a Glock 17. While waiting for a battery pack, I showed her how the pistol dissembled (she had already gone through the I hate guns speech) when it was in little pieces she started asking questions!

Then went through dry fire, master eye, grip and trigger release.

Pack arrived, IPSC target, seven yards, I only loaded one round, Bang.... the camera panned to the target (I saw this on the 6 o-clock news later) dead center hit! Had to do it again, screwed up the talking part.

The tape I used was the exact color of the target, I patched it, she fired again, placed the gun down as instructed, pointing down range, locked back.

I put it back in it's case, she could not wait to go in to the range to look at her hits! The second one was an inch away from the first one.

She asked if she could have the target? Sure said I. And signed it.

heavyshooter
November 23, 2008, 05:43 AM
Imagine that. She enjoyed the detestable.

BBQLS1
November 23, 2008, 11:54 AM
All IMO,

It surprises me that so many people put stock in what a movie star or musician has to say without further investigating the subject themselves. Many times, the star really isn't that educated on the subject or has enough thought to be objective with their reasoning.

psalm91
November 23, 2008, 12:07 PM
That genious turned pansy at the sight of a firearm..handled them like dirty drawers.

Mr_Rogers
November 23, 2008, 12:36 PM
I did the shooting for a short movie clip yesterday (some sort of promotional trailer)- just the part where a hand with pistol appears from below the frame and then fires four shots in rapid succession. The clip is to be cut into some previous footage made with an actor raising an empty pistol. Particularly the movie team wanted a clip they could slow down to show the slide cycling and a juicy muzzle flash.

They used a Glock 40. Why? Everybody has heard of a Glock.

The ammo they supplied did not produce enough muzzle flash - I made up some reloads at short notice that did a better job.

They wanted a tight shot - this resulted in the pistol recoiling out of the frame. I offered lower power loads but they thought zooming out would be OK.

My Sig with standard ammo produced a better flash than the Glock. They may cut the Sig into the scene but they know that it must be impossible to detect the change of pistol. Black pistol on dark background - may work.


After reviewing the first take I realized that my trigger finger was along the frame until the pistol was on target. Since the shots were tight my finger showed up clearly because we were using a dark background to capture the muzzle flash. This was supposed to be a bad-guy firing so we decided that the finger should be on the trigger as the gun came up - can't have the sleazy bad-guy using good technique.

The movie crew was great to work with and they appreciated comments to improve accuracy and the application of strict safety rules.

johncantiusgarand
November 23, 2008, 03:31 PM
What most people who nitpick movies don't understand is that even in films that strive for a particular level of realism, it's never going to be perfect simply because the process of creating a film makes it impossible to be perfect.

I am somewhat forgiving of an actor's inaccurate portrayal of gun-handling techniques or impossible skill. And I understand that it is impossible to be perfect. But the fault isn't always the ignorance of the movie-makers. What irritates me is the added sound effects like the trigger clicking noise they add as the bad guy continues to try to fire his now-empty slide-locked auto. Or the metallic clicking noises that have to accompany the pointing of every pistol. And what really gets my goat is the "zzzzzzzzz" sound they add when someone swings out and then spins the cylinder of a double action revolver. Yes, Mr. Director, single action revolvers make that ratchety sound when you spin their cylinders, but surely you noticed that the double-action revolver's cylinder you filmed spun silently. Why do they have to dub in all those extraneous, innacurate sound effects?

Leanwolf
November 23, 2008, 06:14 PM
" Why do they have to dub in all those extraneous, innacurate sound effects?"


'Cause it's all just "show biz." :)

L.W.

Pilot
November 23, 2008, 06:25 PM
It's all MacGyver's fault!

That genious turned pansy at the sight of a firearm..handled them like dirty drawers.


That's why I could NEVER watch that show. What a tool.

mgregg85
November 23, 2008, 06:36 PM
I always enjoyed the pump shotgun racking sound byte that is played in most movies when people pull out all manner of guns. I've never heard a glock or a revolver make that noise in real life, but they magically make that noise on the silver screen.

RPCVYemen
November 23, 2008, 07:18 PM
They are not merely actors/entertainers, they are political philosophers.

Huh? David Duchovny? Political philosopher? Methinks you have been spending a little too much time with People magazine. :)

Mike

heavyshooter
November 23, 2008, 09:26 PM
Huh? David Duchovny? Political philosopher? Methinks you have been spending a little too much time with People magazine.

Mortimer J. Adler said, "All men Philosophize." He never said they were good at it.:) The problem is not that Duchovny is a philosopher, we are all philosophical animals. The problem with Duchovny is that he is not a very good philosopher and he has a platform from which his voice heard.

Cyborg
November 23, 2008, 10:31 PM
Two observations:

1) on "one in the pipe vs rack the slide): I am reliably informed that Israeli Special Forces (some of the baddest mike foxtrots on the planet) and Mosaad both practiced racking the slide of their Jerichos (same as U.S. marketed Baby Eagle) even though it is single/double action and works just fine with the hammer down on a loaded chamber. With the de-cocker engaged it is impossible to fire the weapon even if you pull the hammer back by hand and let it go. But ISF and Mosaad did it as a safety measure. Me I carry my Uzi Eagle and my Glock 22 with one in the pipe.

2) on movie accuracy in general: I am into airplanes. Just carry for work and to prepare for SHTF/EOTWAWKI. Hollywood is no better with aircraft than they are with guns. On "Smallville" (ok so I think Erica Durance is super hot) they use a Gulfstream G4 for daytime establishing shots of Green Arrow's corporate jet and a Hawker for the night shots. Completely different aircraft. On "CSI: Miami" recently they reported a G4 inbound from South Africa but showed a quick shot of a Cessna Citation Jet right afterward then followed up with a U.S. REGISTERED (N number on the tail instead of ZS, ZT or ZU ) Citation II taxiing on the tarmac. Anyone with any knowledge of aircraft can spot the differences but Hollywierd can't tell the difference so they don't think anybody can. Why would anyone notice little things like poor gun safety? It's like the myth of Orientals being "inscruitable". I raised an adopted Japanese daughter. Orientals aren't the least bit inscruitable to me. But that is the result of specialized knowledge/experience.

But you would think that their tech advisors would TRY to get them to get it at least in the ballpark of being right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sticking your head in the sand only makes your a** a better target.

heavyshooter
November 24, 2008, 02:28 AM
But you would think that their tech advisors would TRY to get them to get it at least in the ballpark of being right.

This is precisely what I am thinking. I doubt that the most lame firearms advisor would make some of these mistakes.

As it relates to the mistakes with the plane, I do expect them to research these points better because it will make for better entertainment. Having said that, I do not believe much public policy comes from such misrepresentations (careless as they are). I doubt that a movie gaffe concerning a plane can have an indirect effect on the Bill of Rights.

Old Guy
November 24, 2008, 07:24 AM
A movie I saw years ago, many years ago, title? something that had mummy in it.

The actor, in the desert, with a truck, just him and this mummy we had not seen a mummy yet, when he slammed the door of the truck closed, you got a brief glimpse of a white coveralled individual in the glass!

qajaq59
November 24, 2008, 08:14 AM
This is my last Hollywood rant -- I PROMISE!!! I wont hold you to your promise because it's good for your blood pressure to rant occasionally. Besides, I often agree with you. :neener:

Phil DeGraves
November 24, 2008, 08:39 AM
CSI is so rife with errors that the wrong plane is hardly worth mentioning.

Officers'Wife
November 24, 2008, 08:45 AM
One of the re-run sit-coms (Married with Children I think) has an episode where the family ends up in a Hollyweird studio where the director gives the line- We learn less making these movies than you do watching them.

This is the only accurate statement I've ever seen on TV.

Phil DeGraves
November 24, 2008, 08:52 AM
So Charlton Heston was a moron who knew nothing about guns, correct?


He was testifying as THE PRESIDENT OF THE NRA, not because he made a movie where the character he played was the president of the NRA. If you can't see the difference, well, there are none so blind as those that will not see.

jason10mm
November 24, 2008, 09:07 AM
You guys have to realize that guns are just a means to a dramatic end for movie directors. They want it as a symbol of tension, hence the multiple racks and hammer cocks (I've seen them do SEVERAL slide racks, like in Jason X, losing a round each time!). The effects must be equally dramatic, otherwise the audience, trained in the hollywood "language" might get confused.

If I shoot a guy and he just falls down, did he trip? Pass out? But if I blast his chest apart and he flys through plate glass, you KNOW he is dead! Plus the bad guys need an emotionally and physically satisfying end.

In "The Mummy" the director fully realizes that guns don't rattle, but he added lots of foley effects to the scene in the crypt where the Americans and Brendens group have a showdown. The director thought the gun shake sounds added tension.

I think we ARE being heard. The number of somewhat trained actors and the overall level of "swat team" style scenes is improving. Lots of actors use decent stances, keep their fingers off triggers, and show press checks.

In the editing process trying to keep track of which takes were used, and how many shots were taken, then to insert a reloading sequence, would probably be both impossible and tedious to watch on screen. I prefer to think of such things as precious screen gems (like the entire final fight in "Way of the Gun", perhaps the most accurately portrayed movie gun fight EVER).

GEM
November 24, 2008, 11:23 AM
I love the Mummy movie and watch it endlessly when it reruns. The gun fight on the boat is great! Esp. when Brendan tells the fat merchant to wait here while I go get help and jumps overboard.

Now what round for mummies? None seemed to work. But throwing cats did!

Dr. Fresh
November 24, 2008, 06:50 PM
Anybody seen that movie Snatch?

There's a funny part in the scene where the guys are robbing the bookie with a SPAS-12 and the guy with the shotgun cocks it and an unfired shell clearly flies out and noisily lands on the ground.

I don't know for sure but I think it was an intentional jab at unnecessary gun cocking in movies.

heavyshooter
November 25, 2008, 01:35 AM
There's a funny part in the scene where the guys are robbing the bookie with a SPAS-12 and the guy with the shotgun cocks it and an unfired shell clearly flies out and noisily lands on the ground.

:D:DThat is hillarious!!!:D:D

heavyshooter
November 25, 2008, 01:45 AM
I mentioned this thread to my father and he reminded me of the time when our Pastor used Russian Roulette as an illustration. He repeatedly made reference to the act of "spinning the barrel." He must have said it 5 times. My father leaned over to me and asked, "Spin the barrel? What kind of gun is he using?” ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "This is my last Hollywood rant -- I PROMISE!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!