This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Drop by and say hi! (Recycle Bin)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Rankkor
now that we're touching the subject of movies and violence, why is it that whenever someone gets shot in the head on a movie ALWAYS the bullet lands cleanly IN THE MIDDLE of the forehead, right above the eyes, exactly in the middle.
It matters little if the shooter is a trained marksman or a gansta, if he's using a precision rifle, or a 38° revolver, someone getting shot in the head will ALWAYS take the bullet exactly in the middle of the forehead.
This is just plain dumb, and unrealistic, specially if the shooter isn't even in front of the victim, but say, on the sides.
So far the only movie with headshots that I've ever seen where this is subverted, is Red Dragon, where the bad guy is shot (By a blind woman no less) in the head and the bullets hit him in the nose, and upper cheek.
Other than this unique subversion, the only other time in films where someone is shot in the head and the bullet doesn't hit him or her exactly in the middle of the forehead, is if the person who's been shot was looking through a telescope/binoculars/telescopic sight on a rifle.
If that's the case, expect the shooter to hit them straight in the eye, by shooting through whatever it is the victim was watching them. (Like the sniper scene on "Saving Private Ryan")
Anyone wonders why is this?
Post by
Rankkor
Oh I see. That's nice...
I wonder if you can import a "dead Shepard" file from ME2. Would be interesting to see an easter egg from it (no I haven't been keeping track of ME3 so I don't know what happens if you do, if it was announced).
you can't
They've specifically said that if your shepard dies at the end of ME2, that's a save-file you can't import to the game.
Though to be fair, unless you are actively trying to do it, its quite hard to have shepard dead on ME2.
You'd have to purposely refuse to do all the loyalty missions, refuse to upgrade the ship, purposely send the wrong specialists on the wrong tasks, and take 2 non-loyal squadmates with you to battle the last boss.
getting the perfect ending where everyone lives though is also quite hard, and requires a significant amount of grinding mats to upgrade the ship, as well as doing all the loyalty missions, and choosing the right specialists for the right tasks.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Interest
Oh I see. That's nice...
I wonder if you can import a "dead Shepard" file from ME2. Would be interesting to see an easter egg from it (no I haven't been keeping track of ME3 so I don't know what happens if you do, if it was announced).
you can't
They've specifically said that if your shepard dies at the end of ME2, that's a save-file you can't import to the game.
Though to be fair, unless you are actively trying to do it, its quite hard to have shepard dead on ME2.
You'd have to purposely refuse to do all the loyalty missions, refuse to upgrade the ship, purposely send the wrong specialists on the wrong tasks, and take 2 non-loyal squadmates with you to battle the last boss.
getting the perfect ending where everyone lives though is also quite hard, and requires a significant amount of grinding mats to upgrade the ship, as well as doing all the loyalty missions, and choosing the right specialists for the right tasks.
That is true....
Post by
Rankkor
well, just read wikipedia's resume of "The human centipede" and yep, that's most definitly a movie I will
NEVER
ever ever ever see.
I had enough of a trauma seeing that documentary of the Papues of New Guinea, I'm not gonna submit to the same torture again, and from what I read on the article, the sequel is even worst, and to top it all off, the director is working on a part 3 that will make part 1 look like a "Disney" film.
Yep, no way in hell I'm seeing that one.
And that director has some serious issues with his head.
Post by
Interest
well, just read wikipedia's resume of "The human centipede" and yep, that's most definitly a movie I will
NEVER
ever ever ever see.
I had enough of a trauma seeing that documentary of the Papues of New Guinea, I'm not gonna submit to the same torture again, and from what I read on the article, the sequel is even worst, and to top it all off, the director is working on a part 3 that will make part 1 look like a "Disney" film.
Yep, no way in hell I'm seeing that one.
And that
director has some serious issues
with his head.
Two words:
Tommy Wiseau.
Post by
gamerunknown
And criticising his signature isn't? :P
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of OverZealous saying he should remove it.
Random aside: Kevin Smith is coming to a cinema near me and he'll have a one hour question and answer period. I'm really hoping to get a ticket, but I have no clue what to ask him (he's pretty much my favourite director). I may ask him how he got into 4.3.2.1 and why he isn't in every movie ever made... or perhaps what he thinks about Occupy.
Post by
Rankkor
well, just read wikipedia's resume of "The human centipede" and yep, that's most definitly a movie I will
NEVER
ever ever ever see.
I had enough of a trauma seeing that documentary of the Papues of New Guinea, I'm not gonna submit to the same torture again, and from what I read on the article, the sequel is even worst, and to top it all off, the director is working on a part 3 that will make part 1 look like a "Disney" film.
Yep, no way in hell I'm seeing that one.
And that
director has some serious issues
with his head.
Two words:
Tommy Wiseau.
this
is how memes are started :P gotta admit this brought a chuckle out of me.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
dayoodin
Despite the abysmal reviews it got (And I tottaly knew it would suck based just on the trailers) I saw Dragon Ball Evolution, just to mock it mercilessly at the cinema. It is fun to be your own Mystery Science Theater 3000. :)
now that we're touching the subject of movies and violence, why is it that whenever someone gets shot in the head on a movie ALWAYS the bullet lands cleanly IN THE MIDDLE of the forehead, right above the eyes, exactly in the middle.I wonder less about the bullet placement on people who actually aim for the head and more about why in zombies movies no one ever does aim for the head--they are always shooting them in the torso when everyone knows you have to kill the brain!
If you really enjoy the sort of feeling you get from The Human Centipede I'd also recommend Salò (1975) and Srpski film (2010). Neither of them are in English if that'd be a problem though (and I'd
love
the irony of meeting someone who refused to watch them on that objection xD). I will have to put those on our Netflix list!
I've had a long tradition of forcing my friends to endure crappy horror films during the stayovers at an (unsigned) actor friends house. Our first was "One missed call"... Aw. :( If it was the American version of "One Missed Call" that you watched, I can't blame you. But, I didn't think the original Japanese ones were too bad, even if that is one the rare cases where I think the sequel is better than the original (the Japanese did three "One Missed Call" movies, though I have never been able to find the third one).
why is it that whenever someone gets shot in the head on a movie ALWAYS the bullet lands cleanly IN THE MIDDLE of the forehead, right above the eyes, exactly in the middle.
Post by
dayoodin
P. S. - Worst movie I've ever seen: "Bleeders." (Please don't hate me if you watch it.)
Post by
MyTie
MyTie, about your sig:
It's quite allright that you are a religious person and considering atheism wrong, weird or whatever you would wish to call it, but I don't think it gives you the right to have a sig like that. I'm a tolerant person and it doesn't bother me, but it's guaranteed to bother others. You know quite well that Atheism isn't all about what you wrote, and I think you also know that many of us (atheists) consider life meaningful. Stating that we dont is plain wrong. So please, remove that sig. It'll cause drama.
I changed my sig. Not because I believe my sig is wrong. Not because I fold to peer's pressure. Not because I think my sig is all that inflammatory. I changed it because it was meant to be a joke, and I figured people would take it in good humor. Since it is not fulfilling its purpose, I changed it. You don't see me weeping when people mock me by calling my God some kind of "wizard" (hurr durr). I suppose just because I can take a joke, doesn't mean I should expect others to be able to.
Regardless, the sig is changed. The issue is resolved.
Post by
baradiel
Is there something that tells me when did i started to post on this thread?
Post by
Rankkor
now that we're touching the subject of movies and violence, why is it that whenever someone gets shot in the head on a movie ALWAYS the bullet lands cleanly IN THE MIDDLE of the forehead, right above the eyes, exactly in the middle.I wonder less about the bullet placement on people who actually aim for the head and more about why in zombies movies no one ever does aim for the head--they are always shooting them in the torso when everyone knows you have to kill the brain!
Because the torso is the center of mass in a human body, and its MUCH easier to aim for it than to aim for the head.
By and large, the head section is the smaller part of the human body, and landing a shot there, is quite difficult unless you are an experienced marksman yourself.
I should know, I've used a mere BB gun (Which lacks the recoil and kickback of a real gun) at a mannequin and it was damn near impossible to heat its head, and that was a stationary target.
Try that trick at a moving target that is walking and with a weapon that actually has a recoil and its harder. Try it again at a running or strafing target and unless you have plenty of practice with guns (Which few protagonists in zombie movies have) you will miss often. Try it again with YOURSELF moving, and YOUR TARGET MOVING, and even experienced marksmen will have to empty an entire clip just to put 1 bullet on that very small target area.
Plus protagonists in zombie movies tend to be
Genre Blind
by default.
Post by
Rankkor
You don't see me weeping when people mock me by calling my God some kind of "wizard" (hurr durr).
Dude, even though I'm a devoted Christian, from a technical point of view, God IS sorta a wizard. At least he performs super-natural miracles that no human being can duplicate, and from a purely technical point of view, that's what a wizard does.
:P
Post by
dayoodin
Because the torso is the center of mass in a human body, and its MUCH easier to aim for it than to aim for the head. But then they act as though the zombie must be dead now, so they walk away... then get eaten by it. It would make more sense to me if they would incapacitate it a bit with a torso shot, then when it's stunned or whatever, get the head when it's not moving and/or has gotten closer. Even when zombies are right in front of them practically on top of the gun, they still go for the torso. Plus, in movies nothing is realistic, so "realistically" they should be able to hit them in the head no matter how fast they are moving or how far away they are. ;)
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
I once thought something I said wasn't inflammatory and was quickly informed that I was wrong in that opinion ^_^ All about point of view I guess.
That sig clearly wasn't rule-breaking or anything so I think that OZ did what was appropriate by politely asking you to change it, handling the issue on a personal level. I didn't find it offensive but I questioned (still do) its motives and so while I wasn't "inflamed" by it, that doesn't mean it wasn't inflammatory in nature - I think intention is important. Either way, I think it was cool for OZ to state their issue and ask for you to change it and I think it would have been cool if you had decided to change it out of respect for the request but, t'is a mere bagatelle.
Post by
Adamsm
Because the torso is the center of mass in a human body, and its MUCH easier to aim for it than to aim for the head. But then they act as though the zombie must be dead now, so they walk away... then get eaten by it. It would make more sense to me if they would incapacitate it a bit with a torso shot, then when it's stunned or whatever, get the head when it's not moving and/or has gotten closer. Even when zombies are right in front of them practically on top of the gun, they still go for the torso. Plus, in movies nothing is realistic, so "realistically" they should be able to hit them in the head no matter how fast they are moving or how far away they are. ;)
Most people aren't willing to admit that they are up against a Zombie, and just think it's some drugged out person; now later in the movie, after surviving attacks and still acting like that, they deserve to be eaten.
Post by
Rankkor
But then they act as though the zombie must be dead now, so they walk away... then get eaten by it.
again
Genre Blind
by default. "Most protagonists in movies, will act as if they've never seen a movie"
It would make more sense to me if they would incapacitate it a bit with a torso shot, then when it's stunned or whatever, get the head when it's not moving and/or has gotten closer.
the problem with this is that in most zombie movies, zombies can't feel pain, as such, shots in the torso will not incapacitate them, only shot to the leg will hinder their movements if you sever the tendons connecting the bones together.
If I was in the middle of a zombie holocaust, the best weapon to kill a zombie would be either explosives, or fire. As both can get rid of the threat even by collateral damage.
Of course, the limitations of that method is that they can't be used in enclosed environments.
Even when zombies are right in front of them practically on top of the gun, they still go for the torso
Genre Blindness chalks this one up too. Though it doesn't really make much sense when certain weapons are used.
I know for a fact that certain high-caliber rifles and auto-shotguns have enough kinetic force to rip apart someone's torso open like a banana. IF a zombie is shot with such a weapon, even if the shot is in the chest, it should eliminate them as a threat.
Plus, in movies nothing is realistic, so "realistically" they should be able to hit them in the head no matter how fast they are moving or how far away they are. ;)
this is something that always irks me on action movies :S
The good guys will often fire few shots and ALWAYS hit ,even under implausible conditions such as falling, running, strugling, or not using a support.
By contrast, 50 bad guys can be shooting full automatic rifles at an exposed target that is not using cover, nor moving, and still miss every single shot.
=/
Then again, the movie "Zombieland" features a sequence where one of the protagonists is shooting an AK rifle WHILE HANGING UPSIDE DOWN in full auto, and hits a horde of zombies straight in the head.
now that is flat-out impossible :P (Just hanging upside down for more than 4 minutes will render you near blind due to the excess of blood on the brain)
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.