Action movies losing tension and suspension of disbelief by having too much firepower.

[repoman]

Been watching a fair amount of action movies recently and depending on what tone and market it is going for there is often and insanely high amount of weaponry being used.

There are some movies where it works, like Fast and Furious 7, where by the rules of the series and the deft tone handling (James Wan) I can just say fuck it and enjoy the ride. Other movies where it is supposed to be realistic I just get annoyed.

I watched an otherwise fantastic suspense/spy movie from South Korea called The Berlin File that if it had 90% less bullets flying could have been a solid A.

Recently I just saw Surviving the Game (1994) with Ice Tea. Absolutely perfect amount of firepower and realistic human ability to take damage. Kept me engaged in the stakes of the movie.

 

[bilby]

I think it was the author Christopher Brookmyre who talked about the 'Bullet Deadliness Coefficient' (BDC).

According to Brookmyre, a movie can work with a BDC of zero (The A-Team TV series is a perfect example of this - Thousands of rounds of ammo can be expended in a few minutes, but the worst injury to a human being will be a grazed left shoulder or upper arm, that might slow the character down for a scene or two until it can be bandaged); and a movie can also work with a BDC of 100%, where both good and bad guys stand a real chance of death or serious injury in even a brief fire-fight. Consistency is the key; viewers need to know the level of deadliness they should expect from gunfire, and the director's job is to keep that level of deadliness constant within the framework of the show.

A movie cannot really work well if the good guys and bad guys have different BDCs (eg if the bad guys cannot shoot straight, but the good guys can kill from absurd range with a single shot from a handgun - the Star Wars stormtroopers are a good example of this) or if the BDC changes over time (thousands of rounds fired with no apparent damage to anyone for 90 minutes, and then the hero shoots and kills the bad guy in the final scene).

Sure, it is most accurate if the BDC in a movie consistently matches the real world; But almost by definition, action movies want to present scenarios that are more exciting than real life. So a low BDC is often needed, to let the viewers see lots of flash and fury, without the movie having to end after ten minutes because everyone is dead.

A realistic BDC moves a film from the realm of 'action' to 'drama', as the scriptwriters have the much harder task of keeping the audience interested through intelligent plot-lines and character development, rather than just throwing special effects at the problem.

Of course, real-world weapons use up ammunition when fired, and real world gunmen have a limit to the amount of ammo they can carry while remaining effective. Movies could be quite boring if the action kept pausing for everyone to change magazines; and 'I'm out of ammo!' is a plot device to be used sparingly, rather than a commonplace problem that requires attention to the logistics chain (a logistics chain that is non-existent for most 'lone wolf' heroes, who nevertheless seem to have limitless access to fresh supplies of ammunition).

 

[Kharakov]

They just don't have enough blood anymore.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was just noticing a related thing: The almost total inability of bullets to hit in a chase. They can exchange a lot more fire than their guns can hold, yet nobody ever gets hit while either chasing or being chased. Only if they are basically stationary can they be hit.

 

[marc]

A movie cannot really work well if the good guys and bad guys have different BDCs (eg if the bad guys cannot shoot straight, but the good guys can kill from absurd range with a single shot from a handgun - the Star Wars stormtroopers are a good example of this)

Actually I've found this argument defending storm troopers to be rather compelling

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/lBOnlKhg7hE[/YOUTUBE]

 

[KeepTalking]

I was just noticing a related thing: The almost total inability of bullets to hit in a chase. They can exchange a lot more fire than their guns can hold, yet nobody ever gets hit while either chasing or being chased. Only if they are basically stationary can they be hit.

Hitting a moving target can be difficult at best. If you are moving as well, you are probably going to miss, unless you have a lot of practice. I would say that in most chase situations, unless one side simply has a huge amount of firepower with converging fields of fire, no one is going to get hit except for innocent bystanders. That's my problem with movies depicting gun fights, they seldom depict the very real issue of hitting unintended targets.

 

[prideandfall]

this has been true for quite some time, and it's amazing how much the lesson isn't learned by film makers.

just look at the matrix vs. the two sequels - it's a really blatant example, but the stakes of the first film are totally absent from the second due to the lack of threat.

the same thing happens in john wick vs. john wick 2, in the first one it seemed a hyper-stylized scenario but roughly believable that a highly skilled assassin with the element of surprise could clear out the guards in a club, whereas in the second film he's just murdering every single person in an entire building while being sprayed with bullets the entire time that just never do any damage to him.

 

[repoman]

I watched The Corruptor recently and the car chase with shooting was great (for realism) with lots of bystanders shot or hit by the cars.

 

[Sarpedon]

I found John Wick 1 to be plenty stupid enough. If 2 is worse, I won't bother.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was just noticing a related thing: The almost total inability of bullets to hit in a chase. They can exchange a lot more fire than their guns can hold, yet nobody ever gets hit while either chasing or being chased. Only if they are basically stationary can they be hit.

Hitting a moving target can be difficult at best. If you are moving as well, you are probably going to miss, unless you have a lot of practice. I would say that in most chase situations, unless one side simply has a huge amount of firepower with converging fields of fire, no one is going to get hit except for innocent bystanders. That's my problem with movies depicting gun fights, they seldom depict the very real issue of hitting unintended targets.

Of course a shot while running will probably miss.

However, I'm talking about things like where the guy in front stops, turns and fires when the chaser comes into view. Or the chaser stops and takes a shot at the person running away. Those should have a reasonable hit rate, yet the movie hit rate for such shots is basically zero. Moving makes you all but invulnerable, chases end with an escape, with getting cut off, with a dead end or by means other than gunfire.

 

[Derec]

Needs more dakka.

 

[Underseer]

Been watching a fair amount of action movies recently and depending on what tone and market it is going for there is often and insanely high amount of weaponry being used.

There are some movies where it works, like Fast and Furious 7, where by the rules of the series and the deft tone handling (James Wan) I can just say fuck it and enjoy the ride. Other movies where it is supposed to be realistic I just get annoyed.

I watched an otherwise fantastic suspense/spy movie from South Korea called The Berlin File that if it had 90% less bullets flying could have been a solid A.

Recently I just saw Surviving the Game (1994) with Ice Tea. Absolutely perfect amount of firepower and realistic human ability to take damage. Kept me engaged in the stakes of the movie.

Maybe you're just having trouble emotionally connecting to the main characters, and thus aren't emotionally engaged?

If only there were more movies with Nazi protagonists.

 

[repoman]

I was able to empathize with Ice Tea ;-)