Posts by goldenhound32

Anthony Roberts2 said:So, we've pretty much reached a consensus—snipers are definitely going for the head shot.🙂

Yeah, assuming the targets are wearing body armor and staying perfectly still.

rustywalker42 said:I don't remember either—it's been way too long since I watched them. But yeah, there's probably something to find in there.

What am I supposed to tell you if I know more than you? lol.

No. I know plenty too, but I don't stress over it, you get me?

Aha, so he just repeats her and gets ready? ok
🙂

That gets sorted out later in the messages; clearly, there's nothing unrealistic happening here.

"Probably" just doesn't cut it.
I suppose I'll have to watch them again; I only caught them once the first time around. I just need to get my hands on a copy first.

No. I I know plenty myself, so I don't find it necessary to dwell on it, if you catch my drift.

For me, that isn't even a matter of choice.
That plot hole hits me right in the eye—it's just too glaringly obvious to ignore. 🙂 Robert Wilson, honestly, when someone rings my doorbell after only three seconds, it feels like they’re driving a finger straight into my ribs.

Anthony Smith3 said:Man, what a joke... I don't get their move. The movie basically pulled mostly good or solid reviews, so why bother?🤷

Reviews are secondary when you're actually talking about the cinema experience. Haven't we already moved past that stage of the debate?
I honestly don't know why you're surprised.

By the way, since we're on the subject of critics, Outlander has a 4.7 on Rotten Tomatoes, and Ebert only gave it two stars.

Emily Thomas3 said:Whether I'm in my room, walking outside alone without even realizing it, or just sitting at my computer... it just happens. Usually, it's just me vocalizing my thoughts—basically narrating my brain or playing out scenarios. Sometimes it turns into singing, too (I have this habit of making up lyrics and singing them, even though I'm a terrible singer). 🤷 A few times people have actually walked in while I was talking to myself and it was super awkward, though most of the time you don't even realize you're doing it.

When I was a kid, there was this older guy living above our house who would sing all day long, just making up songs on the spot. He had an amazing voice, though. Eventually, it either starts driving you crazy or you just tune him out completely. 🙂

Are you even forming coherent sentences here?
Because those characters in movies who talk to themselves... they actually *are* talking to themselves.

And this whole business about singing is a completely different matter.

Jerry Martin19 said:That’s just "on-topic spam." I mean, does anyone actually believe a car explodes just because it hits something?...🙄Honestly, pointing stuff like that out is just redundant...

What kind of reaction...?

Repeating the same old mistakes right before a total disaster...

It isn't about whether he knows or doesn't know; it's about whether he bothered to mention it.
I happen to know the things others don't, and vice versa.

So, we're just repeating obvious clichés in the face of criticism.

Perhaps there are people out there who wouldn't bother pointing out the obvious before they've even seen the opponent.

Emily Thomas3 said:I do that all the time. Honestly, I know plenty of people who talk to themselves. I've been doing it since I was a little kid, and I still see my old man doing it today.🤷 My elementary school teacher used to tell us that only crazy people talk to themselves, but it's been about 15 years since then and I'm still perfectly sane.🤷

Just because you've never seen it happen doesn't mean it isn't real. This post just doesn't sit right with me.

So, picture this: I’m sitting here in my room, and there is absolutely nothing but silence. It’s that heavy, thick kind of quiet—the sort that feels like it has actual weight to it. And in the middle of all that stillness, I just start... speaking. I’m articulating sentences into the void. It’s a strange sensation, really. There’s no one to react, no audience to judge the cadence or the choice of words, and certainly no feedback loop to validate whether what I'm saying even makes sense. It’s just me, my thoughts, and the sound of my own voice cutting through the vacuum. It feels a bit clinical, perhaps even a little lonely, though I suppose I’ve always been somewhat comfortable with my own company. It’s a measured process—just syllables being released into an empty space, drifting away until they're swallowed by the quiet again. It’s almost meditative, if you can ignore the slight absurdity of it all.
It isn't that I lack faith in you; rather, it's simply because I find the subject matter fascinating.

This post simply doesn't suit you.

Fair enough.

Jerry Martin19 said:I pulled you in. On purpose... 🙂

Like I said...
Feels like this whole debate about whether we actually need it or not is just pointless...
Whether it’s actually realistic or not... that's a whole different conversation. And honestly, that's exactly why I started this thread...

It’s pretty vital because if you go that route, you could pull examples from like 99% of movies... do you realize how massive that really is?...

Risk mitigation...

But you can't say for sure that her reaction wasn't totally irrational... 🤷

Every time you bring up something that nobody actually does, you're just cluttering up this thread.

But can you say with 100% certainty that her reaction is illogical? 🤷

Which reaction?

Furthermore... talking to oneself. I don't know anyone in real life who does that, yet I see it constantly in films.
I'm not even counting characters seeing people who aren't there, those with mental illnesses, sleep-talking, or "conversations" with inanimate objects (like Christine). I can accept all of that.

But a perfectly normal character, alone in the room, staring straight ahead, just uttering sentences to thin air? It feels surreal. Or does it?

rustywalker42 said:I don't think you get my point. Look, I'm sure The Godfather has mistakes too, it's just a deeper movie than some Seagal action flick, so we tend to overlook them.

If I don't know it, I don't care. 🙂

Same deal with that rocket launcher in Man on Fire. A buddy on a forum told me it's impossible to fire one from a hotel room without blowing everything to hell. Now I know he was right.

That’s what I’m talking about. Don't sweat it; I don't pay attention because there's no point. You wouldn't even know half of this stuff if you hadn't started digging into it.

It's not that I'm being insistent, I just prefer it when things are done properly.
It's no coincidence that complaints usually look like this:
'There's no way they could have filmed this'

rather than this:
'Wow, this was filmed so realistically.'

Honestly, it drives me crazy when someone comments on a movie like that. To be blunt, I don't even watch films with people like that.

You already got your answer to that in an earlier post.

I don't overlook them. I binged all three godfather films in two days about seven years ago, so my memory isn't exactly sharp. If there are similar issues in the godfather movies, feel free to point them out.

You wouldn't even know half of these things if you hadn't started digging into them.

What am I supposed to say if I already know more? lol.

Honestly, it drives me crazy when someone comments on a movie like that. In fact, I don't even watch movies with people like that.

Fair enough. As for me, I just eat while I watch.

You already got your answer to all of this in an earlier message.

Aha, so you're just repeating yourself and calling it a day? fine.
🙂

Jerry Martin19 said:So you don't even bother. Makes me wonder why you said...

? 🤷

I see this whole thing about forgetting to lock the car all the time. It's great that most people have remote keyless entry these days where you just hit a button and the car's locked. Easy enough... 🙂

Finally, some good news. Now you might actually get some sleep... 😁

You completely butchered that part about the shotgun... it's actually pretty straightforward...
In reality, once he figures out how to use it, he’s gonna start pulling it out constantly... not just waiting until he's staring down his opponent...

What makes you say that? And based on what...? 😕
I'll definitely throw that right back in their face if I get the chance... ☕

that was a response to:

basically a joke 🙂

p.s. the only time these kinds of mistakes would actually bug me is in movies that try to go full realism. then every little slip-up would really stick out...

When I say "it bothers me," I mean it's unpleasant, not that I'm pulling my hair out.

And I find myself getting dragged into all sorts of debates, too.😢
Let me repeat myself:
"It seems to me that debating whether or not something should bother us is pointless.
But whether something is realistic or not—well, that's a different story altogether. And that's exactly why this thread is open."

Why and how did you conclude that? 😕

Risk mitigation.

rustywalker42 said:What does that even have to do with anything? Everyone makes mistakes when they're on the job. Or do you honestly think every soldier or special ops guy out there is some kind of cold-blooded machine? How many of them do you think have lost it, broken down crying, or spiraled into anxiety right before a mission?

Why, for God's sake?

Pure psychopathic pleasure from taking out human trash.

True, though I suppose it all boils down to the specific character we're watching on screen.

I'm trying to recall the specifics here, but my memory is failing me. When Arnold Schwarzenegger repeats that little drill in Terminator 2, is he doing it at the start while prepping his gear, or is it when the villain is staring him down?
And I can't quite remember if he has that habit of reloading after every single shot, or if he just does one quick reload and then fires seven times straight? 🤷

From the psychopathic thrill of slaughtering human garbage.

Well, I certainly can't wrap my head around diving that deep into a psychotic mind.

rustywalker42 As requested:
On the other hand, when they go out and film something like Rambo IV where everything is portrayed with a sickening level of realism, they still get criticized for being overly brutal.

I wasn't complaining. 🙂

It is an interesting point to consider that everything really hinges on the specific film in question. A lot of those Steven Seagal movies are riddled with such obvious goofs that people can't help but nitpick, which inevitably leads to constant complaining. However, when you're dealing with an actual cult classic, people tend to be much more forgiving. That’s just how it works.

I don't even bother watching movies starring Steven Seagal. Honestly, when you spot a blunder like that in a film like The Godfather, feel free to point it out. In Seagal's movies, I've come to expect completely unrealistic situations, which is exactly why I don't even bring them up.

They’re filming on location, yet there’s a Mercedes-Benz parked right in the shot that isn't scheduled to hit production lines for another three and a half years. Honestly, there are so many glaring inconsistencies they could focus on that I’d eventually lose interest in following the plot altogether.

Whatever I don't know doesn't hurt me. 🙂

It was exactly the same deal with that rocket launcher scene in Man on Fire. I remember one colleague on the forums arguing that it would be physically impossible to fire a weapon like that from inside a hotel room without causing a total disaster for the shooter. And now, I know he was right.

But my primary intention was to focus on the bullet wounds, since that’s the one detail I would insist on seeing handled with actual realism.

It isn't that I'm trying to be difficult or insistent; it's simply that I have a preference for things being done properly.
It isn't by accident that complaints tend to follow this specific pattern:
God, this is just unbearable.

It’s more like this:
God, this is just unrealistically well-made.

To wrap things up:
It seems to me that this entire debate over whether we should be making an issue out of this or not is becoming utterly pointless.
But whether any of this is actually realistic or not—well, that’s a whole different conversation entirely. And honestly, that’s exactly why I felt the need to open this thread in the first place.

rustywalker42 said:Sometimes this stuff gets so stupid. But look, if the choreography is tight and the camera work is solid, none of that matters. If we see nineteen guys just dancing in the background while one guy is getting his head kicked in? That looks cheap and dumb. I hate it. But if the camera stays focused and we don't see that nonsense? Then I'm fine with it. It actually looks like a well-shot scene.

Wait, what is this? Some kind of sniper code? Honestly, it’s just stupid to nitpick over nonsense like this. It’s not even a mistake. You get a rush of adrenaline and boom—you forget to chamber the next round. Or maybe you were just waiting to see if he'd actually follow through with the reload? Either way, it's a pretty weak argument.

Characters in these kinds of action flicks have handled firearms long before the scene starts; they aren't going to suddenly forget to chamber a round just because of an adrenaline spike. That’s like saying someone forgot to load their pistol because the adrenaline was pumping too hard.

Or maybe you were just waiting to see him actually chamber one.

Why on earth would anyone do that?

Robert Wilson said:Or maybe just the sheer cliché of it all—whenever you hear "shoot the gas tank" in every single movie, it starts getting on my nerves. Honestly, I feel like just farting in the tank and watching the car go to hell would be more effective at this point.
And don't get me started on those horror tropes where some hideous monster chases a girl around. The villain moves at a snail's pace, which the whole movie emphasizes by showing how slow he is, yet the poor girl keeps tripping over her own feet. They just keep cutting back and forth between her and him, and then, in the grand finale, the famous bad guy catches her (probably because he hit the nitro when the camera wasn't looking, and then turned it off once he did).

Then there's that ridiculous physics where a villain gets hit with a 9mm Beretta—which is basically a standard movie trope where the lead actor shoots some side bandit and the guy gets knocked clean off the set by a single bullet. It’s unbelievable.

When I say "realistic," I mean realistic within the context of that specific film. To me, that means whether the movie actually provides an explanation for its logic, even if it is sci-fi or pure fiction.

For instance, there was one movie where the lead had a specific handgun, and in just a few seconds of screen time, he mentions he modified it to hold more ammo. Within the world of that movie, that feels realistic because they actually gave us an explanation. On the other hand, in other movies I've watched, you wouldn't believe for a second how much ammo could actually fit in a 16-round magazine.

To clarify what Jessica Rogers2 was getting at: I doubt anyone here is talking about real-life physics or things happening in the real world. Take a Superman movie, for example. Personally, I don't think it's great, but hey, I'm no critic. He flies around lifting buildings and destroying stuff, but the movie explains *why* he can do that, even if it's only for a few seconds. Because those answers are provided, the movie stays "realistic" on its own cinematic level.

Still, there are exceptions. When it comes to Superman, it always drove me crazy how he puts on that suit and suddenly nobody recognizes him, when in reality, he just took off his glasses... Give me a break. It's like an >.

It isn't quite like that in every flick, though. Take *28 Days Later*, for instance; those infected people actually sprint after you.🙂

When I say "realistic," I mean what I personally consider realistic within the context of that specific film, which essentially refers to the explanations provided throughout the plot itself.

I agree with you there.

But even then, there are exceptions. When it comes to Superman, it always irritated me how he supposedly transforms into his superhero persona and suddenly becomes unrecognizable, when in reality, all he did was take off his glasses... absolute nonsense... (>).

How would one fix that?
If I were the director, I’d have Superman wear a mask. And I'd tell him that while he's playing Superman, he needs to change his voice too.

Jerry Martin19 said:With so many variables at play, there are just as many ways to look at it. That situation you mentioned in your first post doesn't necessarily have to be a logical flaw...

"Every once in a while"? Depends on how much of a hack the writer is...

So when the hero pulls a gun on the villain, I guess we just ignore the whole concept of marksmanship...

But let's say he's armed. It’s a fair assumption since the bad guys usually carry something...

Wait. Why wouldn't we just assume it isn't?...

You mentioned that scene in the intro post. Can you give an example of a scene like that being totally illogical?...

Maybe it exists, but who knows. Doesn't even matter. The point is how they wreck reality just to make the hero look cooler... If you watched *The Wire*, you'd see they don't do that. There's this one guy with a gun, he just fires, no repetitive nonsense...

Maybe that hero is actually... sweet...?

Haven't seen the series, so I've got nothing to say...

Exactly.
It’s been forever since I’ve seen a car actually explode after a crash. That's mostly because I steer clear of action movies...

Just stay away from them if you don't want those movie "mistakes" getting on your nerves...

When is he coming?...

I skimmed this too quickly and totally missed what you guys were saying (that whole thing about the instant phone connection and the door opening when someone rings). My bad. Sorry...

Incorrect.
I am speaking from memory here. I haven't always had a massive selection of films to choose from.
As for the whole thing about leaving cars unlocked, I see that quite often. It’s actually a nice touch that modern characters usually have remote keyless entry; they just press a button and lock the car. That makes things much more efficient. 🙂

You completely misinterpreted the part about the shotgun... it's actually quite simple.
In reality, someone who has a gun in mind will likely use it immediately to repeat the shot, rather than waiting until they are staring directly into their opponent's eyes.

Jason Campbell70 said:Are you serious?🙄

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvF4yurWSc0

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u...1895bramit.jpg

The Nagant 1895 😎

Fair enough.

And yet, the point remains: the Nagant stands alone as the sole exception.

Jerry Martin19 said:Wouldn't an armed fugitive turn around at some point and fire a shot just to throw the hunter off? And the hunter would obviously return fire. Besides, what they're carrying matters. If he’s got a pistol and the other guy is stuck reloading a shotgun every single time, who's really doing the chasing here? 🤷

p.s. the original post didn't mention anything about an armed villain 🤷

And yeah, if you happen to have an example of a scene like that, I'd love to see it... 🙂

We're back to the idea that it really depends on what kind of movie we're talking about... 🙂

These two things aren't the same. You don't care to see how Scully eats or goes to the bathroom, but the phone scene is important (and short), so it has to be in real time.

So, when one person finishes up, are we supposed to just wait forever for the other person to show up? Sure, he has to wait, but unless we want to sit through ten minutes of him just "hanging out" in the apartment, directors are going to cut the fluff and get back to the actual plot. I don't see the issue, unless you've got an example that proves otherwise. Can't think of any similar scenes right now... 🤷

It could happen, but it isn't a necessity. There are too many variables at play.

besides, what the fugitive is actually carrying matters. if he's got a handgun and the other guy is lugging a shotgun that requires "constant" reloading, then who is really doing the chasing? 🤷

"Constant"? That depends entirely on the shotgun.

p.s. the original post didn't specify anything about the villain being armed 🤷

But let’s assume he is. It's a fair assumption, given how often villains in these things are armed.

and yeah, I'd love to see an example of a scene like that if you happen to have one 🙂

Maybe one exists, but I couldn't tell you. Not that it really matters. What matters is how reality gets bent just to make the hero look cooler. Take a show like The Wire, for instance; they don't do that. There's one guy with a shotgun who just fires—no dramatic reloading sequences required.

so we're back to the point that what kind of movie it actually is is what matters most 🙂

Precisely.
I haven't seen a car explode after a collision in quite some time. That's mostly because I tend to avoid action movies altogether.

so, when one person is neutralized, are we supposed to wait as long as it takes for the other one to arrive?

Wait for him to arrive?

boldfalcon13 said:1. everyone is having sex without any protection at all
2. everyone finishes in like, two milliseconds flat
3. hooking up on the beach
4. standing up during sex
5. sex under the water
6. parents who respond to the absolute worst possible situations with just a calm conversation
7. everyone manages to work, go to college, and stay incredibly fit all at once
8. everyone is already a CEO by the age of 25

well... that's basically what comes to mind immediately

Technically, anything is possible.

6. parents who actually handle their kids' biggest screw-ups with a calm conversation

I’m fairly certain those people exist somewhere.
Especially if they happen to be Japanese.🙂

The concept of a syndrome—that vague, unsettling cluster of symptoms that refuses to be pinned down by a single diagnosis—has always struck me as particularly wearying. It’s that frustrating middle ground where medicine acknowledges something is fundamentally wrong, yet lacks the vocabulary to name it precisely. You spend months navigating the bureaucracy of American healthcare, bouncing from specialist to specialist, only to be handed a label that feels more like a placeholder than an answer. It’s a hollow sort of recognition. One begins to wonder if we aren't just grouping disparate failures together and calling it a phenomenon simply because we lack the courage to admit our own ignorance. kaže:
It goes exactly like this... during a rocket launch, the exhaust gases are released and simply bounce off whatever wall is standing behind you—or whatever structure happens to be in the vicinity. That force then slams back into you with such sheer, violent intensity that it ends up shattering your ribs and crushing your lungs.

Fine. 🙂

This could easily be its own dedicated thread. 🙂

I suppose I should probably weigh in here, though I’m rarely the one to lead the charge. It seems my previous observations were met with a certain level of skepticism, which is fine—honestly, I've grown accustomed to being the odd man out in these discussions. There is a particular exhaustion that comes with dissecting these narratives, a feeling that we are often just circling the same drain of predictable tropes and hollow sentimentality. One tries to find substance where there is none, perhaps out of a misplaced sense of duty to the medium, only to realize the well has run dry. It isn't quite cynicism, not exactly; it's more of a weary recognition of the patterns repeating themselves, over and over, until the novelty has completely evaporated. Anyway, if you'll permit me to continue, I have a few more thoughts on the matter, however uninspired they may seem to the rest of you. kaže:
Yeah, let’s be honest—the score was absolutely flawless.

I suppose that’s all there is to say. Short, blunt, and utterly devoid of substance. Typical.

The lead single.
Carlos Varela—one word.

lonelynx44 As requested by:
Suppose we consider a scenario where a simple phone call scene drags on for five or ten seconds... at that point, one might just call it an art film. 😁

Heh... honestly, that would be absolutely wonderful for me.
It presents an excellent opportunity to truly get to know the character’s temperament. If he's feeling agitated, he might lash out, shouting, "Come on, answer me! Pick up the damn phone!" But if he's more composed, he might simply pick up a book and spend his time reading the back cover to study the synopsis. If I'm sitting at my computer, I can just pause the movie and read the summary, or perhaps find something else to watch on the TV or PC. Honestly, the possibilities are endless.

Gregory Howard said:There are at least two or three different levels being conflated here.

1. Technical impossibility due to the very nature of reality. Most of the examples in the first post are well-supported, but what about confirmed "miracles"? There was a hero from Appalachia back in the 1930s who supposedly pulled a locomotive with his teeth; during WWII, two or three American soldiers, fueled by pure panic, actually flipped a military truck 180 degrees because they ran into Germans and were being kidnapped.
Even more sophisticated works scream about this—novels by Honoré de Balzac, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Stendhal are riddled with technical impossibilities. For example, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once pointed out that in a certain Fitzgerald novel, it would be impossible for a narrator sitting in a bar to see an entire person entering the room; at most, they’d see them up to the waist.

It's poetic license, even when those instances fall flat.

2. The second issue is the low or non-existent probability of small details—like the 555 prefix. But I maintain that this argument doesn't hold water. Life is full of incredible coincidences and things that "shouldn't happen." For instance, two of my classmates from high school died on the exact same day. They had different illnesses, nothing to do with one another, and they were far too young to be dying, let's put it that way. One funeral was at 11:00 AM, the other at noon. They sat bench to bench.

So, what exactly makes something believable or not?

3. The third point is more important to me: the sheer improbability and lack of realism in how environments are portrayed. If we compare The Sopranos to godfather 1,2, The Sopranos show us somewhat realistic mobsters, whereas The Godfather is an idealization. Then there is the general lie found in clichés—in war movies, all Germans are either villains, idiots, or die in wagons. Or take the average American TV show—everyone is a supermodel, yet when you take a documentary camera out onto the street, everyone is overweight or unattractive.

If you ever actually spot one of those "miracles" on screen, let me know, and then we can have a proper discussion.

My third point—which I find more pressing—concerns the sheer improbability and lack of realism regarding the setting itself. For instance, if we compare The Sopranos to godfather 1,2 - soprano, The Sopranos depict mobsters who feel somewhat grounded in reality, whereas The Godfather is little more than an idealization.

Then there is the general falsehood found in clichés—the idea that every German in war movies is either a villain, an idiot, or someone destined to die on the tracks.

Yes, we see that trope quite frequently in cinema. There are exceptions, of course, which (given how much is left to chance 🙂 ) result in films that aren't entirely terrible, such as Schindler's List or The Pianist.

Or take the average American TV series—everyone is a supermodel, yet once they step out into the real world with a documentary camera, it's nothing but overweight people or unattractive characters.

This is a completely different subject, but it's a good one nonetheless.

Emily Thomas3 said:Of course they do. These kinds of movies don't try to mirror reality; they build their own. If you're chasing some fugitive, it’s totally logical that something goes sideways with your gun—if it didn't, it wouldn't feel like a movie. That last action flick might be a bit dumb, but it actually does a decent job explaining why movies are packed with so many clichés and logic gaps.
Sometimes it bugs me, sometimes it doesn't—I don't mind it at all in action flicks, but in realistic dramas, it definitely hits differently.

By the way, I bet maybe 1% of gunshot wounds in movies are actually realistic. If someone shoots you in the head from six inches away, half your skull should be gone, but in movies, it’s usually just a tiny little hole. Remember the kid's head in In the Bedroom? Now *that* was a real wound.

"The 555 prefix convention started when phone companies began nudging TV and movie producers to use those specific numbers back in the day. You can see one of the earliest examples in Panic in Year Zero! (1962) with 555-2106. Back in the 50s and 60s, shows would use stuff like 'Klondike 5' because phone exchanges used letters and numbers. Modern media conventions still lean on this style too. For example, Dr. Emmett Brown's phone number in Back to the Future is 'Klondike 5-4385'."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_(telephone_number)

Hmm, I had always assumed that caliber played a significant role in that equation.
If you are insisting that the outcome remains the same regardless of the caliber used, do you happen to have any actual evidence or perhaps a link to back that up?