Anyone else hate when they do this in thrillers?

H

harmonica44

SPOILERS FROM MOVIES:



I was watching Lakeview Terrace and was disappointed in the climax. The good guy gets his hands on the bad guys pistol, tells him not to move. The bad guy keep charging at him and attacking though. Does the good guy shoot? No, he decides to use the pistol as a hitting weapon, and when the bad guy pulls out an extra gun and starts shooting at the good guys wife, does the good guy shoot him then? No, he just stays there with the gun, and tells the bad guy to stop, but he doesn't and the good guy just keeps panicking.

This happens in other movies too, even Die Hard. John McClane tells the bad guy to drop his gun (Karl's brother), the brother does not, so John hits him the head with his gun and then attacks him, even though, he's holding a machine gun, and can tear McClane apart at any moment.

Later on another villain comes into the room and points a gun at McClane. Does McClane shoot? No he decides to tell the villain to drop his gun, even though the villain can just shoot him right there. McClane also has no back up and he is cornered, which means he's just going to have to kill him anyway, while he still has a chance.

The only convincing reason a good guy armed with a gun, has to keep a bad guy alive, is if the bad guy is unarmed, and a far enough distance away that you can shoot him if he tries to move. If the villain is either armed or close to the good guy, the good guy's logical thing would be to shoot him. Not doing it usually really takes me out of the suspense, and a lot of movies, the good guy does not have a good reason to risk his life for the bad guys, who are aiming to kill him any chance they get.

So why do they do this? Why not have the good guy not have a gun for most of the movie, until the climax, cause then he can start shooting, and the movie won't be over too soon. This way it is a lot more logical, cause, that way he cannot kill all the bad guys, when they are attacking him. I know that if the good guy were to behave logically a lot of movies would be over, but by not arming him, you make it more logical.

Sure he can have a knife or a long pipe or something for a weapon. Something you can attack with but the villain still might survive the fight, as long as he has a hitting weapon too. But to give the good guy a gun, and have him not use it to save his life, is just foolish, and can be a suspense killer. So why don't more action movies, just have him not have one for most of it, if they want the villain to live a little longer for whatever reason?
 
Last edited:
Aside from making the movie uninteresting; if McClane shot at them without warning or without trying to make them surrender first, then he would probably be less likable, and villain-like. Sometimes it's acceptable, and sometimes it isn't. It depends.
 
Well McClane did have no back up and they were aiming to most likely kill him. I don't mind at all the hero shooting at heavily armed, hostage takers, in a trapped building. Justifiable scenario. McClane did however shoot the one guy without warning on the stairwell leading to the roof. So since he did it there, with the audience not minding, I figure why not the other times?

Plus if it were a real cop trapped in a building with men with machine guns the real cop would shoot, in all those cases, cause all of the bad guys were in positions, were they had their fingers near the trigger, and could have very quickly raised their guns and sprayed. So if a real every day moral family man cop would shoot, how can we have any dislike for McClane doing it? Plus McClane did do it in Die Hard 3 also a couple of times, and no one seemed to complain.
 
Last edited:
Film festival screeners hate this -- someone pulls a gun and doesn't use it. A truly tired gimmick.

Do this in your film you may find your film rejected by festivals.
 
It happens a couple of times in my scripts, but only when the villain is unarmed, and the good guy has an understandable reason to not shoot an unarmed villain, who has surrendered on command. I hope that's okay.
 
Last edited:
It's lazy writing. There are other ways to put your protagonist in a rough situation and not force him to kill and, as a result, make him harder to sympathize with.

SPOILER:::::

In The Next Three Days, for example, Russell Crowe needs money for his wife and is outside of a bank with a gun. He's contemplating robbing it but then decides not to. If he'd rob the bank, it would lower the audience's sympathy. So what now? His wife is out of the question? Movie over? No. He ends up following two drug dealers to rob them of their money. It still moves the plot forward without sacrificing sympathy. Then later, Crowe is in a room with the two dealers. In the beginning Crowe has a gun and is holding the dealers at gun point. When a big dog comes barking at Crowe and starts biting him, he points the gun at the dog but then just puts the dog away in the closet. He could've easily killed the dog but he doesn't and he reiterates that he made an ethical decision. Once again, improving sympathy. Then when one of the dealers gets shot, not by Crowe, Crowe tries to take him to a hospital but can't in time.

This is brilliant writing. They're making sensible and intriguing scenes that allow the story to move on naturally without making the protagonist look like the bad guy.
 
The vast majority of people say that they would kill BadguyA in such-and-such situation in a movie. In real life, the overwhelming majority of people (including many trained law enforcement officers) will hesitate to take the life of another human being. I see it all of the time and can't understand it. Logically, it makes no sense, but people are not the most logical of creatures. As for the lone cop in a building full of bad guys, there are times when it is a bad tactical decision to shoot someone. If you are in a position where gunfire will give away your location, you might be best served by avoiding the bad guy or using something less noisy to subdue him/her.

That said, yeah it irks my nerves also.
 
In The Lord of the Rings, Gandolf could have just summoned his flock of giant eagles. They would have flown to Mordor, without much drama, and then the movie is over. And that would have been a boring movie.
 
Cracker Funk said:
In The Lord of the Rings, Gandolf could have just summoned his flock of giant eagles. They would have flown to Mordor, without much drama, and then the movie is over. And that would have been a boring movie.
Click to expand...
There's the nazgul and I'm pretty sure Sauron's eye can do more than look at you balefully, etc.

I hate the "we're not so different, you and I" speech the most, followed closely by tacked on romances that serve no purpose to the story.
 
Wombat said:
There's the nazgul and I'm pretty sure Sauron's eye can do more than look at you balefully, etc.
Click to expand...

Also, the Ring's corrupting influence (the hobbits could only character because they were about as magic as a potato. Bear in mind that Borimir was corrupted just by being in the same party and he was nowhere near as magic as a giant eagle).

Also, the eagles are servants of Manwë, Lord of the Valar (think Zeus) who has a "do not interfere" policy in place; even Gandalf pushes it by being directly involved. The eagles showing up at the end is more God throwing the hobbits a bone; even he was kinda surprised by the destruction of the ring. Stupid policy? Maybe, but when you are the KING OF THE GODS, you can make any policy you want to. Anyway, the eagles are not Middle Earth's Taxi Service, and were the Fellowship to treat them as such, they would really piss off, you know, God.

That said, even Tolkien thought they were a clumsy deus ex machina, and they only arrived because he wanted Sam to get back to his garden. Hitching a lift was never really an option.

This one gets on my nerves even more than the Balrog's wing debate (everyone knows that doesn't matter, and they wear fuzzy slippers: http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm point 31)
 
drc said:
It's lazy writing. There are other ways to put your protagonist in a rough situation and not force him to kill and, as a result, make him harder to sympathize with.

SPOILER:::::

In The Next Three Days, for example, Russell Crowe needs money for his wife and is outside of a bank with a gun. He's contemplating robbing it but then decides not to. If he'd rob the bank, it would lower the audience's sympathy. So what now? His wife is out of the question? Movie over? No. He ends up following two drug dealers to rob them of their money. It still moves the plot forward without sacrificing sympathy. Then later, Crowe is in a room with the two dealers. In the beginning Crowe has a gun and is holding the dealers at gun point. When a big dog comes barking at Crowe and starts biting him, he points the gun at the dog but then just puts the dog away in the closet. He could've easily killed the dog but he doesn't and he reiterates that he made an ethical decision. Once again, improving sympathy. Then when one of the dealers gets shot, not by Crowe, Crowe tries to take him to a hospital but can't in time.

This is brilliant writing. They're making sensible and intriguing scenes that allow the story to move on naturally without making the protagonist look like the bad guy.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, if you don't want the hero killing left and right, just have him reasons not to do it. Some thrillers though the movie, the hero has all the reason to start shooting, but he doesn't, but yes, the Next Three Days is not one that's written like that. Die Hard and Lakeview Terrace are two examples that are.

Lucky Hardwood said:
The vast majority of people say that they would kill BadguyA in such-and-such situation in a movie. In real life, the overwhelming majority of people (including many trained law enforcement officers) will hesitate to take the life of another human being. I see it all of the time and can't understand it. Logically, it makes no sense, but people are not the most logical of creatures. As for the lone cop in a building full of bad guys, there are times when it is a bad tactical decision to shoot someone. If you are in a position where gunfire will give away your location, you might be best served by avoiding the bad guy or using something less noisy to subdue him/her.

That said, yeah it irks my nerves also.
Click to expand...

It has been argued that gunfire would give away McClane's location, but the bad guys fired shots on the same floor as him, and no one else on other floors heard. I'm guessing cops are trained to have some idea how loud a gun shot can be a few floors apart.

It seems that most true stories though the cops do shoot. You don't often read in the paper that the cop hesitated and the dangerously armed man got away as a result. Most often in real stories if someone is holding a gun, the cops shoot, at least in all the stories I've read in the paper and seen on the news. Even if it is logical in real life, to hesitate, when you see the good guy do it in the movies, don't you think the good guy is dumb, and you don't feel much intelligence for him, rather than feeling sympathy?
 
I'm no firearms expert, but I'm more comfortable around them than my circular saw if that communicates anything useful.


Chicken or Egg and the 500 lb Pink Gorilla in the Bedroom.
Generally speaking, most viewers don't know sh!t about "guns".
They don't understand them as tools, like when to use a crescent wrench or adjustable pipe wrench or ratchet or pliers.
So, directors get away with the DUMBEST BULLSH!T EVER with "guns" & gunplay in film.

Everyone's cocking their slides BECAUSE IT SOUNDS COOOOOOL! when there's likely a round already chambered.
Everyone's thumbing back their pistol's hammer BECAUSE IT SOUNDS COOOOOOL! Umm... when you're six feet away you can probably hit your target without jarring the barrel from pulling the double action trigger too hard. At twenty or more feet out... it might make sense.
Everyone's pumping their shotguns FOR DRAMATIC EFFECT when it's completely unnecessary!
I love shooting from the hip almost as much as indiscriminate spraying of the area in front of them.
And the there's the bullet proof couch, the bullet proof drywall (which the antag can throw the protag COMPLETELY THROUGH because there ARE NO STUDS IN THE WALL every 16inches!!!!!!!, bad guys that drop and perish upon any little bullet wound (the body is amazingly resilient), gunfire that rockets people off their feet, empty magazines but no slide locked back, every discharge sounds like a GD howitzer, everyone's sporting a Desert Eagle because it has a big GD barrel on it (IRL, to assist those with no barrel control) and exploding cars from little chunks of lead.

O.
M.
F-ing.
G.

So, now that children, and children do watch this stuff, have been baptized in a suffocating syrup of ignorance for decades, reinforced across multi-media (so it MUST be true!!!!), and are now kool-aid guzzling fool adults, the ingenue director is now in a catch 22: Perpetuate the ignorance - or -alienate your audience by presenting them with... like... some common f#cking sense.


There are two kinds of films.
Candy corn dumb sh!t: DIE HARD et al
Legit sh!t: HEAT and THE TOWN, both of which use fairly legit gunwork.

It depends upon your audience.
Serve then what they want to eat.
If it's a goofy movie use goofy gunplay.
If it's your hard dark p#ssy pounding terroist-fest I'd stick to legit gunwork.


Yeah, I hate it when directors serve dumb sh!t, but then again I live in the real world, not in fantasy land where everyone is "informed".
 
Last edited:
GuerrillaAngel said:
Right there, a great alternative to a gun for a weapon. A battery powered circular saw. :cool:
Click to expand...
Aye.
You wanna scare someone? Come after them with a reciprocating sawzall.

jr3070ctact2.jpg

Pipe = arm or leg.
 
Last edited:
harmonica44 said:
It seems that most true stories though the cops do shoot. You don't often read in the paper that the cop hesitated and the dangerously armed man got away as a result. Most often in real stories if someone is holding a gun, the cops shoot, at least in all the stories I've read in the paper and seen on the news. Even if it is logical in real life, to hesitate, when you see the good guy do it in the movies, don't you think the good guy is dumb, and you don't feel much intelligence for him, rather than feeling sympathy?
Click to expand...

Don't get me started on the media. I've been in the news often enough to know how wrong they get their stories, even on the rare occasion that they're saying something nice about you.

I don't feel sympathy for anyone who makes stupid decisions. I have seen cops tackle a guy that was holding a knife on them rather than shoot him. I can honestly say that, if you bring a knife to my gunfight, I will shoot you and you will die.

rayw summed up the proliferation of stereotypical stupidity superbly.
 
Wow you actually saw the cops wrestle a knife man when they had guns? I thought that only happened in the movies. Any footage of this event?
 
You gotta remember, the stuff you see on the news isn't the everyday normal stuff. A lot of officers can go their career without ever firing a gun in the line of duty. The stuff on the news is the extraordinary, as in (extra=outside of)ordinary. You don't hear about your friend's parking ticket on primetime news.
 
rayw said:
directors get away with the DUMBEST BULLSH!T EVER with "guns" & gunplay in film.
Click to expand...

Hey Ray, my personal favorite of all time was in a film called, I think, The River Wild. It's a thriller with Kevin Bacon and Meryl Streep(!) -- have you seen this?

There's a revolver, see, with six rounds in the cylinder. It's fired a few times during the course of the movie, then one of the characters gets hold of it but isn't sure how many bullets are left, so - get this - the character pops out the cylinder and sees three bullets and THREE EMPTY CHAMBERS!!! Did I mention this is a REVOLVER??? What the hell happened to the SPENT CASINGS??? I about came unglued - this director was assuming his audience was comprised of complete and utter morons. It's the only thing I remember about that stupid movie. Bacon and Streep were slumming with that one, I tell ya. :weird: :rolleyes:
 
One thing I hated about that movie is how the father, was able to build that whole big trap apparatus, that the bad guys would flow into accidentally and get their boat flipped over or something. But the chances of the boat floating right into that spot and everything else going right, were like 1 out of 10, so was it really worth building the whole thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top