StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I dislike hero's who take a pistol over a shotgun or rifle, especially when they want to take on multiple targets or a hardened target like a fleeing car.

I hate hero's who take the melee weapon over the ranged weapon to kill the badguy.

I despise military tactics portrayed as one blog of guys running towards another blog of guys.

-When facing each other with pistols in hand, neither person will just shoot and get it over with, there will be a tense stand off.

Knife wrote:I dislike hero's who take a pistol over a shotgun or rifle, especially when they want to take on multiple targets or a hardened target like a fleeing car.

This has worked in David Drake books where the character is going with a pistol because its a weapon he is familiar with and has used extensively and is going into nonspecific danger.

How about the action movie cliche that any gassed up car is a instant bomb when damaged in any way?

Explosions in action movies are always miraculously shrapnel-free. There is heat, there is flame, there is noise. People are thrown like rag dolls. But no shrapnel. The shirt could literally be burned off your back from proximity to the blast fireball, but other than that, your biggest injury will be a cut to your face from where you landed.

I always feel happy when I see those non-firebally explosions. The dark dirty ones that look like a frag grenade has blown off, rather than a petrol bomb or something.

That's why Swordfish was awesome with its ball bearings flying everywhere tearing everything apart. "Each of the twenty-two hostages has been wired with 20 pounds of C4 explosives. They've also been strapped with 15 pounds of stainless steel ball bearings, making them the world's largest walking claymore mines."

Pulp Hero wrote: -A strange annoyance, but: POV sniper scope views where the crosshairs have clearly just been pasted over the picture in post-production.

They even did that in Saving Private Ryan. The problem was there was absolutely zero bullet drop when the crosshairs were pointed right at someone, even when changing ranges in the increments of dozens of feet. Strangely, Jackson manages to put his crosshairs right on a running enemy soldier in Ramelle and fire several times, yet not one bullet lands anywhere near him.

Another one is grenades. In action movies, a grenade can toss a tank on its side, or level a building, or sink a ship... but the hero can safely through it while ducking behind little more than an office cubicle partition.

The list of fucked-up portrayals of military stuff is an entirely different list.

Minischoles wrote:-When facing each other with pistols in hand, neither person will just shoot and get it over with, there will be a tense stand off.

Didn't I say that?

Bad guys who Just. WONT. DIE

Seriously, the limit in a semi-serious movie for the number of times your big bad guy (if they're human) can come back from certain death to torment the protagonist(s) should be 1-2, any more than that is idiotic and lame to the max.

Darth Wong wrote:Explosions in action movies are always miraculously shrapnel-free. There is heat, there is flame, there is noise. People are thrown like rag dolls. But no shrapnel. The shirt could literally be burned off your back from proximity to the blast fireball, but other than that, your biggest injury will be a cut to your face from where you landed.

Also, thermal radiation (or convection for that matter) doesn't exist in Hollywood. The largest explosions won't even singe someone's hair provided the fireball doesn't actually touch them. The same holds for raging infernos, molten rock, and molten metal.

When someone looks through a pair of binoculars, it always looks like this.
In real life the field of view is just one big circle, not 2 overlapping circles.

Pulp Hero wrote:-A strange annoyance, but: POV sniper scope views where the crosshairs have clearly just been pasted over the picture in post-production.

Or how, no matter the range, the person in the scope looks like they're 50 yards off. Sniper, I'm looking at you.

Adrian Laguna wrote: Also, thermal radiation (or convection for that matter) doesn't exist in Hollywood. The largest explosions won't even singe someone's hair provided the fireball doesn't actually touch them. The same holds for raging infernos, molten rock, and molten metal.

Thermal radiation exists, it's just that action movie heroes can outrun it when the need is dictated by dramatic necessity...

Adrian Laguna wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Explosions in action movies are always miraculously shrapnel-free. There is heat, there is flame, there is noise. People are thrown like rag dolls. But no shrapnel. The shirt could literally be burned off your back from proximity to the blast fireball, but other than that, your biggest injury will be a cut to your face from where you landed.

Also, thermal radiation (or convection for that matter) doesn't exist in Hollywood. The largest explosions won't even singe someone's hair provided the fireball doesn't actually touch them. The same holds for raging infernos, molten rock, and molten metal.

Ugh. Reminds me of Independence Day. Of course, they have to follow the rule that the family pet never dies. So just as the family runs into a maintenence passage in a tunnel as a huge fireball comes roaring down, their Golden Retriever comes bounding in just two feet from the flames, and they're all perfectly all right.

chitoryu12 wrote:
Ugh. Reminds me of Independence Day. Of course, they have to follow the rule that the family pet never dies. So just as the family runs into a maintenence passage in a tunnel as a huge fireball comes roaring down, their Golden Retriever comes bounding in just two feet from the flames, and they're all perfectly all right.

And of course the flame front never expands laterally into the space where our family - and pet - are hiding...

Kanastrous wrote:

chitoryu12 wrote:
Ugh. Reminds me of Independence Day. Of course, they have to follow the rule that the family pet never dies. So just as the family runs into a maintenence passage in a tunnel as a huge fireball comes roaring down, their Golden Retriever comes bounding in just two feet from the flames, and they're all perfectly all right.

And of course the flame front never expands laterally into the space where our family - and pet - are hiding...

Um, duh- that's becuase fire only sees movement, so if you stay perfectly still you'll be fine.

Pulp Hero wrote:
Um, duh- that's becuase fire only sees movement, so if stay perfectly still you'll be fine.

I'll try and remember that the next time a billowing wall of flame comes blasting down a hallway at me...

Imperial Overlord wrote:

Knife wrote:I dislike hero's who take a pistol over a shotgun or rifle, especially when they want to take on multiple targets or a hardened target like a fleeing car.

This has worked in David Drake books where the character is going with a pistol because its a weapon he is familiar with and has used extensively and is going into nonspecific danger.

Meh, stuff like that takes lots of set up and usually is a crappy plot device for the pistol wank. If you're a pistol marksman, you may not be familure with all the gizmo's and buttons on a assault rifle, but in most cases you should be able to fire it and it has better characteristics than a pistol round in almost all situations.

Besides, nothing wrong in grabbing both.

Kanastrous wrote:

chitoryu12 wrote:Ugh. Reminds me of Independence Day. Of course, they have to follow the rule that the family pet never dies. So just as the family runs into a maintenence passage in a tunnel as a huge fireball comes roaring down, their Golden Retriever comes bounding in just two feet from the flames, and they're all perfectly all right.

And of course the flame front never expands laterally into the space where our family - and pet - are hiding...

Movie dogs laugh at your puny gas dynamics.

Good call on the rifle scope/binocular thing. A similar annoyance for me would be the flashy graphics and information feed that will pop up while looking through said scope or binoculars.

Another thing I always hate are the silent, beautiful and deadly bad girls you see in movies, usually the main baddie's love interest. For example, the blonde bad girl in Die Hard 3, Maggie Q in...heh, Die Hard 4, and the sniper girl in Under Siege 2.

It's been already partly addressed, but I find most annoying the whole "'nuclear bomb/doomsday machine/humanity-extinction 'genetically engineered' disease/whatever contrived plot device the screenwriter came up with' the hero must defuse at the very last minute after neverending fistfight with main bad guy".
Once, it works. Twice, possibly. But after a while, it goes boring. Even an otherwise good movie like "Batman Begins" falls in this.

Somehow connected to the above is the following rule:
"Whatever stratagem/idea/invention the good guys come up with within the first 60 minutes of the movie is doomed to failure, no matter how well-conceived and thoroughly thought it is, most likely due to some stupid reason (90% of the times, an unknowing civilian showing up at the wrong moment...). On the other hand, whatever stratagem/idea/etc. the good guys resort to in the last 10 minutes of the movie, no matter how jury-rigged and poorly planned it is, will invariably succeed...".
It applies to action TV series too: just halve the timing...

I also second the explosion issue, both for explosives and for wrecked cars. That is one of the reasons for which I greatly appreciated "Ronin": at least it tried to be realistic in this respect.

Knife wrote:
Meh, stuff like that takes lots of set up and usually is a crappy plot device for the pistol wank. If you're a pistol marksman, you may not be familure with all the gizmo's and buttons on a assault rifle, but in most cases you should be able to fire it and it has better characteristics than a pistol round in almost all situations.

It isn't actually, but then Drake is a good writer (nor is it specifically restricted to pistols). And when expecting trouble that needs a rifle, his characters grab a rifle (if they can). The only time he's done pistol wank that I can think of is Joachim Steuben, who is damn deadly with any gun and uses larger weapons whenever the situation calls for it. Of course, most action movies aren't written with anything like Drake's skill.

I noticed a while ago that there is a cliche which actually transformed into another cliche.

I call it the "SWAT commando ubersoldier syndrome".

When watching an older american movie, like from the 70s or early 80s, the SWAT commando ubersoldier team either:

1) All dies in the first five minutes massacred by the baddies in a most humilitating way, or

2) Is so gung-ho and agressive it ends up fucking up the situation/mission horribly due to hubris.

In newer movies, the SWAT commando ubersoldier teams almost never get killed off, and are portrayed as, well...commando ubersoldiers. And, of course, they arrive everywhere there is even the smallest problem on a moment's notice, rapelling down from helicopters and shouting badass military stuff in slow motion and all,