The Gun Counter

As a genre, when did they originate? I realize there were Westerns, mostly meant to entertain children/show off horsemanship from the early days. But, I mean to, "cartoonish levels of impossibility in fighting and shooting action movie."

Watching a GM, or a M ranked (esp. if SF, which implies the M ranking is due solely to a lack of experience w. the game side of things) shoot a course of fire can seem a bit surreal, but you are witnessing an expression of superlative ability.

A federal firearms instructor, and single-stack GM, was shooting a local match, and one of the spectators came over, and felt compelled to mention that it was a pleasure to watch him shoot - and that's one of the finest expressions I've heard of what its like to watch one of them run a course, and handle a gun. (I think its why duffers enjoy watching the PGA.)

But, action movies are just idiotic. The pretense to reality is just irritating. Its like watching Soviet propaganda, but w.o. the entertainment value.

If it was purely cartoonish, like the old martial arts movies, then its enjoyable.

What I really can't get, is that "kids" would probably work cheap. If you wanted to make an action movie, and use retired SF/SEALs, etc, they'd probably do it for a fraction of what one actor costs, and you'd be able to portray competence.

I realize you'd have to preclude the actual drudgery of working your way through a building, etc, but just having one character actually be able to handle a gun reasonably, would be astounding.

I think the Expendables/E2 are so over the top they qualify as cartoonish. "Hey, let's pool all the '80s and up action stars in a big shootemup!"

I got the first one on DVD for Xmas, I thought it was silly and dumb. The scene where Stallone straddles and poses on his chopper while Mickery Rourke (IIRC) works on his tats was so macho it went gay.

Golan Globus and The Cannon Group. That is all.

CByrneIV wrote:
Oh and by the way, good and realistic handling and use of weapons, and combat techniques?

They don't look good on camera.

They're boring, and not in the slightest bit dramatic; except in the extreme skill shown in speed shooting.

Was Act of Valor "dumbed down" as it were in regards to the gun handling and combat? I thought it was pretty damn awesome to watch, but I have no experience with what they actually do on a mission...

As I was going to say, it's MUCH easier to train a professional liar (ACTOR/ACTRESS) with techniques/items to use in the film than try and turn a honest & honorable warrior into a slick & believable liar. Even Audie Murphy had one hell of a time trying to get the takes & lines right in his own movies. Being able to BELIEVABLY pretend to be someone entirely different from yourself, some one with (usually) entirely different values, ways of talking, reacting, IS A LOT OF WORK. I've seen some of these folks at work in downtown San Diego while they work for HOURS (and sometimes DAYS) on a section of filming which takes only 20 seconds on film.

Personally, I completely believe why these folks have trouble maintaining stable relationships and remaining faithful to their spouses. And I completely understand why they typically have LOTS of mental issues - while trying to believably portray people MUCH different than their own character, and the further they get away from their own core character and can do so believably, the more problems they might have adjusting back afterwards.

NO THANKS!! Not a job I'd want - AT ALL!!

I've been doing gunfight reenactments for years, not on par with Hollyweird folks but it's still hard as hell. The only advantage we've got is that we do pretty much the same shoots over and over so we've got the script memorized. The problem with movies is often that the writers and directors don't know what the hell they're writing about.

Hollywood has actually gotten better with this over time. The simple fact that most actors will now shoulder a rifle before firing and grip a handgun with two hands is a major improvement over the spray and pray days of the 80's. Even the new Rambo movie is more realistic than the old ones, despite the new one not being particularly realistic by todays standards.

Essentially there are two types of action movies in Hollywood now days, realistic ones and fantasy ones. Movies like The Expendables, 300, and The Matrix obviously fall into the fantasy side of thing. No one should go into these movies expecting a realistic display of weaponry and tactics but rather a fantastical spectacle of action. On the other side of things you have more realistic movies like Collateral and Band of Brothers. However even these moves are not going to be 100% because as Chris said it would be boring.

Was Act of Valor "dumbed down" as it were in regards to the gun handling and combat? I thought it was pretty damn awesome to watch, but I have no experience with what they actually do on a mission...

I don't think so (and any recently deplyed SEALs feel free to correct me), but bear in mind that the SEALs have some slightly different habits regarding gun handling due to institutional inertia (IMHO) from previous training.

I just saw Expendables 2.

Not going to give any spoilers, but it was enjoyable.

Jered wrote:I just saw Expendables 2.

Not going to give any spoilers, but it was enjoyable.

Agreed. A fun romp, eye candy.