Unrealistic movie tropes and plot holes

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.

What really gets under my skin is when a character spends the entire movie being absolutely tormented by some villain—we're talking someone who’s gone through the ringer, maybe they've been beaten, violated, or had limbs and teeth torn away—only for the hero to finally get their hands on a weapon, and then spend thirty agonizing minutes just staring at it, debating whether or not to actually pull the trigger. Like, give me a break, 🙄.

Richard Martin5 said:And let’s not forget those classic "20 against 1" showdowns. You know the ones—where the lead guy (some insanely handsome heartthrob) just tears through twenty martial arts masters one by one. Of course, while he’s busy pummeling two or three of them, everyone else just stands there dancing around him, totally frozen, waiting patiently for their turn to get beat up. 🙄

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.

goldenhound32 said: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.

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.

Back to the main point. This whole debate is pointless to me. Film is art, plain and simple, and art demands creative freedom. It’s not some scientific research project where everything needs to be clinically precise.
In those early Dirty Harry movies, the guy takes a bullet right to the forehead and all you see is a tiny little dot, maybe 3 cm wide. Am I saying the movie is bad? No. Did it bother me? Not at all. In fact, it's one of the best films ever made, if you ask me.
And why? Because it's obvious that insisting on total realism would be completely mindless. What do they actually gain from that—the audience or the movie itself? Nothing. The movie would just end up censored, and what does the viewer get out of it? The point is the victim was shot; the exact diameter of the entry wound is totally irrelevant.
On the flip side, when they make something like Rambo IV where everything is depicted with sickening realism, people complain about the excessive brutality. So, who's actually crazy here?
Anyway, my advice? Just relax and enjoy the movie instead of nitpicking every stupid detail. It's also interesting how much it depends on the genre; plenty of Steven Seagal movies have these kinds of blunders that people love to mock, but when it comes to a cult classic, nobody says a word. That's just how it goes.
I once watched this Lebanese film—set during the start of the war in Lebanon back in 1982. They film a street scene, and there's a Mercedes parked right there that wouldn't even hit production for another three and a half years.
Honestly, there are so many ridiculous things you could focus on that you'd lose the plot entirely. What if I spent the whole time staring at the cars like I did with that one? Or looking at the trees and realizing that specific species doesn't even grow in the setting? Or if some expert in another field notices something isn't quite right?
But I wanted to focus on the bullet wounds specifically, because that's the very last thing anyone should be obsessing over for the sake of realism.

I agree with those who mentioned that plot holes or script inconsistencies are far more distracting than missed shots, unlocked car doors, or using the 555 prefix 😁... but since we are on the subject, I’ll add my own observation.

It seems like in American movies, almost all women have sex while wearing bras... I mean, actually taking the bra off during the act—who has ever seen that? It feels like extreme perversion 😬. Similarly, there always seem to be these sheets used to cover men up to the navel and women up to the neck... what a ridiculous invention 👍...

Furthermore, whenever there is a rustle in some dark corner of a house, a garden, a basement, or an attic 😂, some "genius" decides to go investigate it while wearing nothing but pajamas and slippers 🙄. Honestly, if you are foolish enough not to grab a knife, a bat, or whatever else is nearby (not to mention how almost everyone in the US is armed) then you don't deserve anything better than a bloody end 😁. Or take those moments when a villain (whether a human, an alien, or a vampire, whatever 😁) lies still and we all assume they are dead... the hero invariably goes to check on them, whether by turning them over or through some accidental clumsiness... only for that person, alien, or vampire to spring up and struggle with the protagonist. First of all—why don't the main characters watch movies 😁 so they would know that in 99.9% of cases, that creature isn't dead?

Is it really that hard to fire one more bullet, stab them with a knife, or just kick them 😁...

silentpilot6 said:I agree with those who mentioned that plot holes or script inconsistencies are far more distracting than missed shots, unlocked car doors, or using the 555 prefix 😁... but since we are on the subject, I’ll add my own observation.

It seems like in American movies, almost all women have sex while wearing bras... I mean, actually taking the bra off during the act—who has ever seen that? It feels like extreme perversion 😬. Similarly, there always seem to be these sheets used to cover men up to the navel and women up to the neck... what a ridiculous invention 👍...

Furthermore, whenever there is a rustle in some dark corner of a house, a garden, a basement, or an attic 😂, some "genius" decides to go investigate it while wearing nothing but pajamas and slippers 🙄. Honestly, if you are foolish enough not to grab a knife, a bat, or whatever else is nearby (not to mention how almost everyone in the US is armed) then you don't deserve anything better than a bloody end 😁. Or take those moments when a villain (whether a human, an alien, or a vampire, whatever 😁) lies still and we all assume they are dead... the hero invariably goes to check on them, whether by turning them over or through some accidental clumsiness... only for that person, alien, or vampire to spring up and struggle with the protagonist. First of all—why don't the main characters watch movies 😁 so they would know that in 99.9% of cases, that creature isn't dead?

Is it really that hard to fire one more bullet, stab them with a knife, or just kick them 😁...

This bothers me too, but not because of the topic itself. It's the hypocrisy of Americans. You can watch a murder or a corpse on screen and it's totally fine, but breasts? Absolutely not. That's why I've always had more respect for American directors who are actually normal about this stuff. Honestly, I've always respected European films more; nudity and actual anatomy are treated normally there, without all these ridiculous sheets getting in the way.😁

Exactly... hypocrisy straight out of a textbook.
Kill, slaughter, maim, burn everything down... anything goes, as long as you don't accidentally show any compassion. 😁

rustywalker42 said:Back to the main point. This whole debate is pointless to me. Film is art, plain and simple, and art demands creative freedom. It’s not some scientific research project where everything needs to be clinically precise.
In those early Dirty Harry movies, the guy takes a bullet right to the forehead and all you see is a tiny little dot, maybe 3 cm wide. Am I saying the movie is bad? No. Did it bother me? Not at all. In fact, it's one of the best films ever made, if you ask me.
And why? Because it's obvious that insisting on total realism would be completely mindless. What do they actually gain from that—the audience or the movie itself? Nothing. The movie would just end up censored, and what does the viewer get out of it? The point is the victim was shot; the exact diameter of the entry wound is totally irrelevant.
On the flip side, when they make something like Rambo IV where everything is depicted with sickening realism, people complain about the excessive brutality. So, who's actually crazy here?
Anyway, my advice? Just relax and enjoy the movie instead of nitpicking every stupid detail. It's also interesting how much it depends on the genre; plenty of Steven Seagal movies have these kinds of blunders that people love to mock, but when it comes to a cult classic, nobody says a word. That's just how it goes.
I once watched this Lebanese film—set during the start of the war in Lebanon back in 1982. They film a street scene, and there's a Mercedes parked right there that wouldn't even hit production for another three and a half years.
Honestly, there are so many ridiculous things you could focus on that you'd lose the plot entirely. What if I spent the whole time staring at the cars like I did with that one? Or looking at the trees and realizing that specific species doesn't even grow in the setting? Or if some expert in another field notices something isn't quite right?
But I wanted to focus on the bullet wounds specifically, because that's the very last thing anyone should be obsessing over for the sake of realism.

I'm with you on this... at the end of the day, it's just a movie, a scripted flick, not some documentary. Some get it right, some don't. Some people will spot every little error or logic gap, while others won't even blink.

Honestly, I highly recommend everyone check out this documentary series. MythBusters Since 2003, Discovery Channel has been airing that show where a bunch of wild characters—who I'm pretty sure actually work in the film industry—test out all those ridiculous movie stunts for real. You know, like seeing if a car actually explodes when you hit the gas tank, if escaping Alcatraz is even possible, or if the shark from Jaws could really bite through a steel cable like in a Bond movie. There are tons of clips on YouTube if you want to binge them.👍

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?

goldenhound32 said: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?

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.

When paying for a taxi, neither party ever seems to track the actual fare.

After the caller hangs up, the person on the other end just stares blankly at the receiver.

Whenever a car veers off the road, it inevitably erupts into a massive fireball.

A police officer is always shot just days before retirement, or they’re working a case while already being suspended.

In horror movies, the victim only lands one blow on the attacker, even when the villain gets back up for the tenth time.

If the camera lingers on a window in a close-up, someone is bound to crash through it.

Whenever someone breaks into a house—especially in horror films—the doors are never locked and nobody ever answers.

There is simply never enough time to sit down and eat breakfast.

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: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.

Jerry Martin19 said:And how does the main guy always manage to stay alive just to face the big bad at the end?

p.s. not true. they get shot in the leg all the time.

I actually struggled with that logic myself for a while, so I eventually rationalized it by deciding that if you aren't the lead actor, there's no guarantee you'll make it to the credits. Essentially, the director (or whoever is calling the shots) already knows exactly who survives and who is going to be the face of the story, so the entire film naturally revolves around them. Honestly, that felt like a much more solid explanation in my head 🤣 😁 which would imply that the movie isn't necessarily happening in real-time while we watch, but rather acts as a reconstruction of events.

crimsondriver54 said:When paying for a taxi, neither party ever seems to track the actual fare.

After the caller hangs up, the person on the other end just stares blankly at the receiver.

Whenever a car veers off the road, it inevitably erupts into a massive fireball.

A police officer is always shot just days before retirement, or they’re working a case while already being suspended.

In horror movies, the victim only lands one blow on the attacker, even when the villain gets back up for the tenth time.

If the camera lingers on a window in a close-up, someone is bound to crash through it.

Whenever someone breaks into a house—especially in horror films—the doors are never locked and nobody ever answers.

There is simply never enough time to sit down and eat breakfast.

Honestly, I’m not surprised. In major global cities, taxi rates are standardized, so you can pretty much estimate that a ride will cost you roughly $3.25 to cover an entire section of town (using dollars as a loose guide here). This isn't Washington, D.C.

And as for the rest of your logic? What's the point of watching movies then?🤷

goldenhound32 said:

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.

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.

goldenhound32 said: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.

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

rustywalker42 As follows:
It doesn't surprise me one bit; in major American cities, taxi rates are standard knowledge, so you can pretty much estimate a ride to be around... $3.25 For an entire section of the city, they've turned the currency into a caricature. This isn't Washington, D.C.

If we follow that logic, I suppose there’s little point in watching movies at all.🤷

Those are just cinematic clichés; there's really no need to take them so seriously. Even when a guy is firing his pistol like crazy, he never seems to run out of ammo.👍

Everyone’s hunched over their keyboards typing away like absolute maniacs... It's ridiculous. It looks like they're stuck in the DOS era, staring at a screen with zero graphical interface, somehow living in the year 3000.

crimsondriver54 said:

rustywalker42 As follows:
It doesn't surprise me one bit; in major American cities, taxi rates are standard knowledge, so you can pretty much estimate a ride to be around... $3.25 For an entire section of the city, they've turned the currency into a caricature. This isn't Washington, D.C.

If we follow that logic, I suppose there’s little point in watching movies at all.🤷

Those are just cinematic clichés; there's really no need to take them so seriously. Even when a guy is firing his pistol like crazy, he never seems to run out of ammo.👍

I know, that's exactly why I said if you follow that logic, you shouldn't even be watching movies at all.

goldenhound32 said:From the era of the 555 prefix convention all the way to the sheer absurdity surrounding firearms...

It's all just one big collection of tropes we've come to expect.

To start things off, here is a little copy-paste I found on a site:

Silencers on revolvers

Only an idiot would ever attempt to put a silencer on a revolver. Silencers are designed for semi-automatic pistols where the gases vent through the barrel; with a revolver, the gas escapes from the cylinder gap, which is essentially wide open.

The empty gun

We have all sat through those scenes where the protagonist—or more often the villain—presses a pistol against someone's head after a long, completely unnecessary monologue, only to pull the trigger and hear a hollow 'click,' revealing the gun was empty. It's another tired cliché. When a semi-auto runs dry, the slide locks back in that position. Furthermore, the firing mechanism locks up, so you wouldn't get a rhythmic clicking sound upon pulling the trigger. Anyone with half a brain can tell if an automatic is empty just by looking at it.

Super-precise snipers

Movie snipers always aim directly for the head, with their crosshairs perfectly centered on the target. Sure, you could do that, but only if the target is within 100 yards. A real sniper has to account for windage, distance, air pressure, and humidity. Under ideal conditions, a sniper will actually aim slightly above the target rather than directly at it. And one more thing: actual snipers aim for the torso, almost never the head.

Clouds of gunpowder smoke

This is the kind of mistake that creeps into the work of writers. The phrase 'the stench of cordite' shows up constantly in cheap crime novels, but cordite has nothing to do with modern ammunition. Cordite was a component of gunpowder used in the late 19th century and hasn't been relevant for ages.

Pump-action shotgun repetition

We’ve all seen this one. After dropping a gritty line like 'Go ahead, make my day,' the hero pumps the shotgun and kills the villain, the monster, the alien, Little Red Riding Hood, or whatever else is standing in their way. This implies only one thing: there wasn't a shell in the chamber. By pumping the shotgun, they are chambering a round; if the hero had pulled the trigger before that, absolutely nothing would have happened.

Side-shooting

If you ever find yourself holding a handgun, try shooting while holding it out to the side of your body. You’ll miss the target by two miles. It looks great on screen, but it bears zero resemblance to reality. There is a reason we hold a gun at eye level and in front of us—it's the only way to actually hit anything. Shooting from the hip gives you about the same chance of hitting something as a long shot at a casino. Slim.

Pressing against the wall

Police officers creep along, guns drawn, scraping their backs against the walls. It doesn't work that way. Real cops fire a few shots and then immediately seek substantial cover. After that comes the shouting and the intimidation to get criminals to surrender. Walls, especially in the US, aren't thick enough to stop a bullet, and bullets have a nasty habit of ricocheting off walls and floors.

Every single time I hear a 555 number in a movie, I can't help but think of Last Action Hero—specifically that kid trying to explain to Arnold Schwarzenegger that you can't just have every number start with 555 because you'd run out of combinations. And Arnold’s response? "That's what area codes are for." 🤣

Ultra-precise snipers

Movie snipers always aim straight for the head, hitting the target dead center in their sights. Sure, they might do that if the target is sitting right in front of them—maybe 100 yards at most—but a real sniper actually has to account for windage, distance, air pressure, and humidity. In perfect conditions, a sniper would actually be aiming above the target, not directly at it. And one more thing, snipers almost always aim for the torso, never the head.

😕 That bolded part is total nonsense; if it's a shoot-to-kill situation, of course they're going for the head.