What action movie sequence should have killed/ seriously injured someone?

[Durkoala]

Note that these days, they call it 'a controlled pair' rather than 'double tapping'.

Is there a reason behind the changing names that you can say on the forum? Techniques for killing people are very much not something I expected to there to be a more sensitive term for and I'm curious as to why the name has been changed.

[The Glyphstone]

Controlled pair seems to imply more precision to me, at least. Double-tap has a connotation of bang-bang, two quick successive shots that might not be as well aimed.

[Thomas Cardew]

A 'double tap' is two shots fired from the same sight picture as fast as possible, the only consideration is pure speed the reasoning being that the recoil won't throw the second round far from the first. A 'controlled pair' fires a shot from the first sight picture, then allows the front sight to settle to a reasonable second sight picture before firing again. In practice, a DT is about .25 to .35s between shots while a controlled pair is about .5 to .9 s between shots.

[Traab]

As an additional note for car jumping. Cars are NOT generally balanced to fly through the air stable. Then tend to VERY quickly tilt forward (or backward) thus making any jump likely to end up nose down on the ground or upside down entirely. You have to balance the heck out of the car to take it over a jump and have it land on all 4 wheels. Thats another big part of the car jump daredevil stunts, not just the excessive roll cage and restraints. Bikes and motorcycles are different due to weight distribution or just outweighing the bike and being able to wrestle it into a straight path. A pickup truck is going to lawn dart itself.

That said, terminator two, the truck chase scene where john is on his little dirtbike trying to outrun a semi tow truck that just plowed off a bridge, probably 20 feet down onto the spillway and somehow has all its tires intact and engine functional. Most hilarious "yeaaah no" moment ever imo. Even as a kid I called bs at that. Here we go

[factotum]

That said, terminator two, the truck chase scene where john is on his little dirtbike trying to outrun a semi tow truck that just plowed off a bridge, probably 20 feet down onto the spillway and somehow has all its tires intact and engine functional. Most hilarious "yeaaah no" moment ever imo. Even as a kid I called bs at that. Here we go

You can actually see something very similar to the Dukes of Hazzard scene I mentioned above there, if you look closely--in the first couple of shots of the truck after it lands, you can clearly see that the front wheels are pointing in different directions, then they suddenly fix themselves as he steers to chase the bike!

[Vinyadan]

I'm always amused when falls from great heights are stopped short of the ground. Like, neither the height nor the ground are really the problem, it's the sudden change in speed that's the problem. Spider-Man catching Mary Jane 30 stories down a 60 story building is like a truck's front fender "catching" Mary Jane a few feet off the ground after she fell off a 30 story building. Not too helpful there, Pete.

Tarzan by comparison had scenes in which he fell from the top of a tree and surived grabbing a liana, and a caption observed that such an action would have broken a common man's shoulder, but he was Tarzan, and no common man!

[Brother Oni]

Is there a reason behind the changing names that you can say on the forum? Techniques for killing people are very much not something I expected to there to be a more sensitive term for and I'm curious as to why the name has been changed.

Further to Thomas Cardew's excellent post, the intention is to make soldiers think more about what they're shooting at, rather than spray the nearest target that even vaguely looks like a hostile. This is important when engaging in CQB, there may be civilians in the area, and the opposing force is not clearly uniformed.

[Rogar Demonblud]

And the walls in most places don't even pretend to claim bullet resistance.

That was one nice bit in Bad Times at the El Royale. The cultist hides behind a couch, and Miles just shoots through the couch.

[Traab]

And the walls in most places don't even pretend to claim bullet resistance.

That was one nice bit in Bad Times at the El Royale. The cultist hides behind a couch, and Miles just shoots through the couch.

Anyone watch the episode of mythbusters where they bulletproofed a car with phone books? It took like 3 phone books thick to stop the heavier calibers and even then a sniper round went right through the engine block.

[Rodin]

I'm a big fan of the moment in Discworld where Vimes is being sniped at by a guy with a gun - something that doesn't usually exist on Discworld. He goes to do the old "hold your helmet up to draw fire" bit, then remembers the bullet penetration he had seen earlier in the story. He grabs a broom and uses THAT to lift his helmet up, and the sniper shoots through the wall to where he would have been sitting if he'd been holding his helmet up with his hand.

Accurate gun physics. People acting sensible and not falling for overused tropes, and our hero proving he's the hero by being even more sensible.

[Kitten Champion]

I was watching Disney's Three Musketeers from all the way back in '93 where they did that trope at the end. Where Charlie Sheen - as Aramis - gets shot by Tim Curry's Richelieu at near point-blank range and Sheen ends up surviving because of a crucifix hidden under his robes blocking the bullet, and you get a "there is a God"-moment kind of played for laughs after it's revealed what saved him.


It's usually a crucifix, bible, or maybe a lucky coin of some kind in these situations.

[Knaight]

Further to Thomas Cardew's excellent post, the intention is to make soldiers think more about what they're shooting at, rather than spray the nearest target that even vaguely looks like a hostile. This is important when engaging in CQB, there may be civilians in the area, and the opposing force is not clearly uniformed.

They're not police, mercenaries, or Air Force pilots; they can't just gun down whoever and never see repercussions.

[Gnoman]

Even a shotgun sprays a good area, yet many movies treat it like some sort of laser guided targeted weapon that tosses hit people across rooms and through walls.

Shotguns are not an area of effect weapon. A shotgun with a wide-open choke firing buckshot spreads about 1 inch for every 36 inches of range. By the time this gets far enough to hit more than one person, or even hit somebody that you weren't aiming properly at, the balls will have lost almost all energy. Birdshot spreads more, but generally doesn't do much damage to human-sized targets.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I was watching Disney's Three Musketeers from all the way back in '93 where they did that trope at the end. Where Charlie Sheen - as Aramis - gets shot by Tim Curry's Richelieu at near point-blank range and Sheen ends up surviving because of a crucifix hidden under his robes blocking the bullet, and you get a "there is a God"-moment kind of played for laughs after it's revealed what saved him.


It's usually a crucifix, bible, or maybe a lucky coin of some kind in these situations.

It's usually a straight on shot too. It might be possible for your metal cigar case or whatever to deflect a bullet, but only really on an angled shot. The object will still be ruined and you'll feel the impact, but there is a chance of the bullet bouncing off to the side in that scenario. A hit straight on? Few objects are going to stop a bullet. If they could we'd make bullet proof vests out of those objects.

A factor that makes this slightly less bad is that at least it's usually done with handguns, which are still more than powerful enough to blow through your pocket office manual, but at least it's not as ridiculous an idea as that thing stopping a military style rifle round.

The slightly less annoying cousin of this is the "sheet of scrap metal under the shirt" method of stopping bullets. It's a little more believable both in that a thick sheet of metal is going to do a bit more to stop a bullet than most random objects and in the sheet being high and wide enough to actually have a decent chance to stop a bullet, plus they often go through the trouble of showing that without any real padding the shot still bloody hurt. But it still works way too reliably in movies. In the real world it's a desperate gamble at best.

take your pick... for me soldiers moving through a rice paddy and a mortar goes off a couple of feet away and they pick themselves up again. I call BS. Mortars don't work like snipers rifles. You aren't required to actually hit the person, close is good enough.

Explosions also look way too flashy in movies. Almost every movie explosion is a gas explosion. They're relatively controllable in use and friggin awesome to look at, but they're not ideal for most weapon systems. In real life an RPG is barely going to produce any flame effects, it's just going to penetrate your armored vehicle and either kill the engine or the unlucky occupant(s) sitting in that spot. Grenades too are usually very loud but visually relatively unimpressive explosions, with both the shockwave and the shrapnel killing people well beyond "where the flames reach" range.

The big exception are air burst munitions, those spread a powdered explosive and then ignite it, and that looks quite a bit like a movie style gas explosion.

[Kitten Champion]

It's usually a straight on shot too. It might be possible for your metal cigar case or whatever to deflect a bullet, but only really on an angled shot. The object will still be ruined and you'll feel the impact, but there is a chance of the bullet bouncing off to the side in that scenario. A hit straight on? Few objects are going to stop a bullet. If they could we'd make bullet proof vests out of those objects.

A factor that makes this slightly less bad is that at least it's usually done with handguns, which are still more than powerful enough to blow through your pocket office manual, but at least it's not as ridiculous an idea as that thing stopping a military style rifle round.

Yeah, probably because the image of seeing the item with the bullet stuck in it is usually the crux of the scene - at least if the item carries thematic weight - or is considered necessary to explain the miraculous recovery of the character in question. I think cinematically it would come off too ambiguously if you merely implied it was deflected.

In the case of The Three Musketeers I was going to make some allowances for it being the 17th century and a small handgun in question... but in retrospect that movie's guns are portrayed as being unreasonably deadly and accurate when convenient to the protagonists.

The slightly less annoying cousin of this is the "sheet of scrap metal under the shirt" method of stopping bullets. It's a little more believable both in that a thick sheet of metal is going to do a bit more to stop a bullet than most random objects and in the sheet being high and wide enough to actually have a decent chance to stop a bullet, plus they often go through the trouble of showing that without any real padding the shot still bloody hurt. But it still works way too reliably in movies. In the real world it's a desperate gamble at best.

That does have the element of "the character is savvy enough to plan for being shot despite original outward appearances" to it so it's easier to accept on a basic movie/television-watching level, even if it's not much more realistic. It just doesn't quite have the bad aftertaste I get when the character survives because twenty scenes ago someone gave him/her a pocket copy of the US constitution or something and that was all set up for the death fake-out at their climax.

[snowblizz]

It's usually a straight on shot too. It might be possible for your metal cigar case or whatever to deflect a bullet, but only really on an angled shot. The object will still be ruined and you'll feel the impact, but there is a chance of the bullet bouncing off to the side in that scenario. A hit straight on? Few objects are going to stop a bullet. If they could we'd make bullet proof vests out of those objects.

Mythbusters has done quite a few "bulletproof" segments and invariably the take home is "it varies". Quite a few objects can stop even a straight on bullet. Provided the weapon isn't particularly powerful. Which usually translates into "the .22 was stopped, everything else went straight through" on the show. And there's the crux, it all depends on how much energy (weight and/or velocity) does the bullet have and how sturdy is the object shot at.

The reason we don't make bullet proof vest out of such things is because it's super inconvenient and will only work in the most favourable circumstances.

Movies of course live on the 1 in a million chance thing. But as Elan notes, it's a sure thing then...

[Traab]

It's usually a straight on shot too. It might be possible for your metal cigar case or whatever to deflect a bullet, but only really on an angled shot. The object will still be ruined and you'll feel the impact, but there is a chance of the bullet bouncing off to the side in that scenario. A hit straight on? Few objects are going to stop a bullet. If they could we'd make bullet proof vests out of those objects.

A factor that makes this slightly less bad is that at least it's usually done with handguns, which are still more than powerful enough to blow through your pocket office manual, but at least it's not as ridiculous an idea as that thing stopping a military style rifle round.

The slightly less annoying cousin of this is the "sheet of scrap metal under the shirt" method of stopping bullets. It's a little more believable both in that a thick sheet of metal is going to do a bit more to stop a bullet than most random objects and in the sheet being high and wide enough to actually have a decent chance to stop a bullet, plus they often go through the trouble of showing that without any real padding the shot still bloody hurt. But it still works way too reliably in movies. In the real world it's a desperate gamble at best.



Explosions also look way too flashy in movies. Almost every movie explosion is a gas explosion. They're relatively controllable in use and friggin awesome to look at, but they're not ideal for most weapon systems. In real life an RPG is barely going to produce any flame effects, it's just going to penetrate your armored vehicle and either kill the engine or the unlucky occupant(s) sitting in that spot. Grenades too are usually very loud but visually relatively unimpressive explosions, with both the shockwave and the shrapnel killing people well beyond "where the flames reach" range.

The big exception are air burst munitions, those spread a powdered explosive and then ignite it, and that looks quite a bit like a movie style gas explosion.

Scrap of metal example that came to mind, v from vendetta. He had some sort of armor under his gear, looked like a breastplate. He took like 2 dozen rounds from automatic weapons and a powerful revolver and lived. At least when he took it off you could see it was riddled with holes and he was pretty seriously wounded. Like slow death instead of dying there wounded.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Spoilers for V for Vendetta:

I'm giving V for Vendetta a bit of a pass because it's never made quite clear how much of an ordinary mortal and/or a superpowered experiment created mutant V really is. As you said, the plate did an at least sort of realistic amount of work, and he still dies eventually. His body holding together until then could be because he's a unique individual.

[Rogar Demonblud]

It makes more sense in the comics, where V uses a combination of hyper-reflexes and his reputation to avoid getting shot. Probably the same for Batman, now that I think about it.

"Don't shoot him, you'll just make him angry."

[tomandtish]

Mythbusters has done quite a few "bulletproof" segments and invariably the take home is "it varies". Quite a few objects can stop even a straight on bullet. Provided the weapon isn't particularly powerful. Which usually translates into "the .22 was stopped, everything else went straight through" on the show. And there's the crux, it all depends on how much energy (weight and/or velocity) does the bullet have and how sturdy is the object shot at.

I believe their final analysis is that technically nothing is bulletproof. It's just bullet resistant.

I also remember that in the Middle East Top Gear special, Jeremy had the idea that putting sand between his door panels would act like a sandbag (they had passed military checkpoints with people on guard inside a ring of sandbags). When they shot the door with a nine mil, it went through the door and out the door opposite it, as well as serving up some nice shrapnel from the door.

The human shoulder is a marvel of engineering, but damage resistant it is not. Subclavian artery, infrascapular vein, brachial plexus nerve junction, the topmost part of the upper lobe of the lung...

This reminds me of something that happened to the older brother of a friend of mine. Note: I CANNOT verify that the story is true, but... well, you'll see. We will call him John.

John (mid 20s at the time) was walking home one night (this is back in early 80s) when someone jumped out nd demanded his wallt. When he said No, the guy pulled out a revolver and fired three times.

First shot: Bang! And it hit him in the shoulder.

Third Shot: Bang! and it hit him in the abdomen.

Second shot: This is the interesting one. He says there was a very soft "Pop".

When he gets hit, he staggers for a step and then drops to his knees. He says he looked down and saw something sticking out of his shirt. (He freely admitted he's in shock at this point). He reaches down, and grabs what turns out to be the second bullet, which is right over his sternum. And then "I looked up and the other guy was running away".

Of course, then he collapses entirely. Neighbors get an ambulance to take him to the hospital (he crashes once in the ER). After a 2 month stay he finally gets to go home with a shiny new colostomy bag and an arm that won't go above 90 degrees from his body.

Consensus was that the second shot was a misfire of some kind, which probably saved his life.* But he took great pleasure in imagining that the guy ran because he saw John pull a bullet out of himself.

* He died about 10 years later from complications with his bag.

Again, is the story true? I have no way of knowing, so I only know what my friend and John told me. But he did have injuries that were consistent with it.

[Kitten Champion]

Oh, I was watching through some of Lindsay Ellis' videos when I got around to returning to her analysis of The Hobbit trilogy.

I had genuinely forgotten how cartoony those movies got. When she repeatedly goes back to the clip of the Dwarves fighting Smaug at the end of the second movie to demonstrate the lack of tension in the series it was an "Oh, right, this BS".

Thorin riding on a metal shield on a river of freshly melted liquid gold - which I believe should be over 1,000 °C - and the cast utterly ignoring dragon fire so long as it didn't technically hit them directly being the two prominent ones.

Also, how could've I forgotten Legolas. He moved from "can move with supernatural grace and dexterity" in LotR to "can ignore gravity on a whim" by the third Hobbit movie.

[factotum]

I watched the first Hobbit movie and frankly had no desire to watch any of the others after that...

[Tyndmyr]

I was watching Disney's Three Musketeers from all the way back in '93 where they did that trope at the end. Where Charlie Sheen - as Aramis - gets shot by Tim Curry's Richelieu at near point-blank range and Sheen ends up surviving because of a crucifix hidden under his robes blocking the bullet, and you get a "there is a God"-moment kind of played for laughs after it's revealed what saved him.


It's usually a crucifix, bible, or maybe a lucky coin of some kind in these situations.

A coin probably wouldn't do it, simply because of physics. If you spread the force out over a large area and/or large weight, it's fine. That's why recoil hurts less than a bullet, despite Newton's guidelines of motion.

A bible...maaaybe. I could see a thick enough book being plausible with a sufficiently old timey gun, as some of the pistols were of quite small caliber. Really depends on the era and model, but certainly within easy handwaving range. The cross as well, I suppose. If it were large, and of very durable composition. Extremely lucky in any case, but at least physically possible. You would still need literally everything to line up perfectly.

But stopping a bullet with a coin would probably result in a coin with a hole in it and the bullet slamming into you. If the coin were constructed of unobtanium, somehow, the bullet would merely slam the coin into you.

Shotguns are not an area of effect weapon. A shotgun with a wide-open choke firing buckshot spreads about 1 inch for every 36 inches of range. By the time this gets far enough to hit more than one person, or even hit somebody that you weren't aiming properly at, the balls will have lost almost all energy. Birdshot spreads more, but generally doesn't do much damage to human-sized targets.

Yeah. Unrealism in movies and games usually is more on the side of the spread being significant. *Most* shotguns do not spread any appreciable amount at room ranges and can be essentially treated as a large-bore rifle for the purposes of portraying what happens.

Explosions also look way too flashy in movies. Almost every movie explosion is a gas explosion. They're relatively controllable in use and friggin awesome to look at, but they're not ideal for most weapon systems. In real life an RPG is barely going to produce any flame effects, it's just going to penetrate your armored vehicle and either kill the engine or the unlucky occupant(s) sitting in that spot.

There is a weird partial exception here for the film T-34, which is a...very Russian movie that is about tanks. There may be a plot, I'm not sure, but mostly the heroes are tanks killing other tanks, and while I would not say everything is realistic in it(at all), the way tank rounds hit other tanks is often surprisingly good, with no fireball at all, merely some liquidification and blowing a small hole through...everything.

This is most definitely not the norm, but maybe interesting to consider if you enjoy watching tanks murder each other in slow-mo.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

There is a weird partial exception here for the film T-34, which is a...very Russian movie that is about tanks. There may be a plot, I'm not sure, but mostly the heroes are tanks killing other tanks, and while I would not say everything is realistic in it(at all), the way tank rounds hit other tanks is often surprisingly good, with no fireball at all, merely some liquidification and blowing a small hole through...everything.

This is most definitely not the norm, but maybe interesting to consider if you enjoy watching tanks murder each other in slow-mo.

Tanks are also a bit of a funny exception in general. While the impact of the round is often very violent, the firing of the gun can be noticeably lackluster, especially in older films, because they're firing blanks and firing blanks is simply not the same as the real thing. I think it was in The Beast (1988) that they pioneered the method of having a bucket (of sorts) of water on top of the blank. The water provided recoil, making the tank shake as if a real round was fired, and turned into steam for a satisfying cloud of smoke coming out of the barrel. Looks pretty real.