Hollywood versus Reality
 

Most everyone here (obvious exception aside) knows all this already, but now we have it with embedded clips!

5 Ridiculous Gun Myths Everyone Believes (Thanks to Movies) | Cracked.com

Hollywood has been lying to us for a long time. Next thing you know, they'll be saying that Spanish Fly isn't real, exposing your cock to a bunch of high school girls showering after cheerleading practice is bad and that Han shot first.

Apparently there's no such thing as a "Kissing Booth" either.

Jerks.

Wait, do we really turn to Hollywood for reality?

It makes me curious though. I imagine that many of these unreal conventions came about to make movies more exciting. But I wonder how much of it has to do with being unable to capture reality on something that's fabricated. Inconsistencies seem to be rather abundant in all films, even today. It's a kind of game for some to find these.

What makes me curious is how action/thriller films compare to thriller novels. Putting together events and action in novels is different from trying to film them. Does anyone know if books like Grisham's or Clancy's are more accurate/realistic in terms of what they cover?

I was disappointed that 'damage to humans, recoil, and kinetic energy imparted' didn't make the list.

Embedded where? All I see is a link to that conspiracy repository site I know now is called Cracked.com.

And good-gosh-darn-it all! You just had to mention this bit, didn't you?

I am just now remembering I ran across somewhere, but not altogether recalling exactly where, that definitively stated that Han, indeed, did shoot first, but that was either two hours ago, or two days ago, where I stumbled across that random article of intrigue. Now I'm not gonna get it out of mind until I re-encounter it again, and in all likelihood, that paricular site/blog is about 300 weblinks in my past -- can't believe this.

Some people don't see the difference between what Hollywood tells them and what happens in the real world.

Worst off is the generation raised on FPS (First person shooters) with their magical "healing kits", "1 HP Left" effect (I still still move with 20 gunshot wounds), and worst of all; the reset button. Makes for bad gun handlers and owners.

My girlfriend gets to hear me shout at the TV everytime some protagonist cocks his semi-automatic pistol or sits there firing his full-auto rifle for ten minutes at at a time. I just read this on Digg and was laughing out loud by the end.. especially the Ahhhnolldddd clip where he's spraying the AK, never seen that.

The cocking thing gets me everytime though. It would mean they had deliberately racked the slide to chamber a round and then purposely de-cocked it just so they could click it down when the baddie was nearby. That, or they never racked it all and cocking the hammer will do absolutely nothing because you'll pull the trigger on an empty chamber. I'd wager that most people believe pulling back that hammer in-and-of itself makes the gun ready to go. Pulling the hammer back on completely empty gun would probably fool most.

Click the link, read, then return to complain, k?


Compare the original theatrical release versus the later one. The shot sequence was "fixed" in the latter.

No. Surprisingly, books, including non-fiction, are horribly inaccurate. Tom Clancy isn't as horrible as Hollywood, but he still makes up stuff.

Also, I'm leafing through "Gun: A Visual History" and I've already uncovered half a dozen WTF? mistakes. How do you mess up stats?

There are numerous websites dedicated to this and it's a popular topic on many gun forums.

Well, a good novelist shouldn't let reality get in the way of a good story. Just as long as it's consistent. :thumbsup:

My issue with that? He's got someone on his staff to do research. "How many Hydra-70 rockets CAN the Apache hold?" and "What type of communication equipment do the SAS use?" He doesn't even have to Google it. He has henchmen. He can just fill in the correct tech later, right? But no... PFFT!

So I get a little pissed when he screws it up.

From that thread:


hahaha.. awesome.

That would be the original theatrical releases, the original home video releases, george lucas' own statements, and the recent DVD release which includes the original unedited versions.

I have returned.

Again (or for the first time, as previously, I didn't bother to explain), it's just a simple matter of semantics. There is nothing embedded here, in this thread. That was my contention. You just posted a link to an article elsewhere, of which I mentioned I saw. Said article does contain videos to try to substantiate their enumerated claims, but as of yet, there are no embeddables in this discussion (no wait, Jinn posted one).

And regarding the second part, yeah, I did have the misfortune to recently view the "remastered" version of Star Wars, and it was none too pleasing to see such blatant and unneccessary changes. I'm still looking for that needle-in-a-net-stack article about Han shooting first for you to view, as I hadn't read it either, but did notice the title of its outlandish(?) claim (if only I remembered the source, though). :no:

How many people do studios have working on action films?

It depends on the budget, but a fair estimate for a Hollywood production, with an average of $10 million investment capital for shooting budget is a crew of around 150-200 persons, not including actors or executive producers.

How easy is to type in the correct nomenclature in a friggin' word processor? What does the lay man care if Stephen King refers to the police sidearm as a Beretta-Taurus? He doesn't. He's oblivious. Guys like me care. And it would have been trivially easy to type in Beretta M96 .40 S&W instead.

As far as the zillion issues that Hollywood has? They're a visual medium and thus Desert Eagles are ubiquitous and shotguns shoot napalm grenades.

Ah the joys of hollywood. This is why most action flicks also fall into the comedy genre.