Unrealistic special effects, but the wrong way!

[ghouck]

I was watching Sniper 2 today, and noticed that the scene where they are in the tunnel and the claymores start going off, , those are absolutely the weeniest claymores ever. A claymore is about 1-1/4 pounds of C-4, MUCH more powerful that what we see in the film. The explosions in the film looked LESS powerful than a decent black-market firecracker. In movies, we expect over-the-top effects like the .44 mag pistol that blasts it's target through three concrete walls or the hand grenade that blows the turret off a tank, but UNDERPLAYING the effects, what's up with that? Anyone else have examples?

[Doc Daneeka]

Almost every film prior to the 60s with guns; not a drop of blood, or impact at all for that matter, to be found :P

[Jim H]

Blood is probably the big one.  Films frequently vastly underestimate how much blood comes out of a wound. 

I'd also say the many films that show high powered rounds being fired frequently are underplaying the effect (since they're probably using blanks with far less power than real bullets).  For example, Agent Smith one handing a Desert Eagle in the Matrix films.

[peter johnson]

In ROBO-C.H.I.C., a stick of "dynamite" goes off in a limo, causing no damage at all & only a pitiful little puff of smoke --

This is one of the reasons Andrew hates it with such passion!!

peter johnson/denny gimp the satan's onion

[asimpson2006]

I was watching Sniper 2 today, and noticed that the scene where they are in the tunnel and the claymores start going off, , those are absolutely the weeniest claymores ever. A claymore is about 1-1/4 pounds of C-4, MUCH more powerful that what we see in the film. The explosions in the film looked LESS powerful than a decent black-market firecracker. In movies, we expect over-the-top effects like the .44 mag pistol that blasts it's target through three concrete walls or the hand grenade that blows the turret off a tank, but UNDERPLAYING the effects, what's up with that? Anyone else have examples?

I haven't seen Sniper 2 so I'll have to see this for myself.  The only reason I could see making an explosion look less powerful is to lower the chances of injuries or death of the stunt performers and or actors/actresses.

[Jim H]

One thing that is a bit interesting - watch old black and white films, from like the 40s.  Normally when you see a dynamite explosion in those.  You'll notice they seem underpowered, since there's no gigantic fireball like in modern movies.  Back then, they just used real explosives, which, of course, don't produce fiery explosions.  Just an interesting tidbit...

[Javakoala]

Blood is probably the big one.  Films frequently vastly underestimate how much blood comes out of a wound. 

I'd also say the many films that show high powered rounds being fired frequently are underplaying the effect (since they're probably using blanks with far less power than real bullets).  For example, Agent Smith one handing a Desert Eagle in the Matrix films.

I've always been underwhelmed by the sound of guns in movies. They never really capture the lethal sound. One movie that DID capture the right sound was "Dillinger" with Warren Oates. There's a scene where Melvin Purvis fires a tommygun in a stairwell, I think. This thing was firing .45 rounds, and they make the sound horrific; you could clearly hear each round explode out of the gun. The scene made me utterly respect that weapon just from the sound.

[ghouck]

I was watching Sniper 2 today, and noticed that the scene where they are in the tunnel and the claymores start going off, , those are absolutely the weeniest claymores ever. A claymore is about 1-1/4 pounds of C-4, MUCH more powerful that what we see in the film. The explosions in the film looked LESS powerful than a decent black-market firecracker. In movies, we expect over-the-top effects like the .44 mag pistol that blasts it's target through three concrete walls or the hand grenade that blows the turret off a tank, but UNDERPLAYING the effects, what's up with that? Anyone else have examples?

I haven't seen Sniper 2 so I'll have to see this for myself.  The only reason I could see making an explosion look less powerful is to lower the chances of injuries or death of the stunt performers and or actors/actresses.

Well sure, but when you have a tunnel that is 8 feet wide and plant a claymore, the effect should show the overkill you are apparently going for. A claymore has a kill zone of about 50 meters, a grenade could have been used instead of a claymore, and it would have made more sense AND the effect would have matched much better.

[The Burgomaster]

I've always been underwhelmed by the sound of guns in movies. They never really capture the lethal sound. One movie that DID capture the right sound was "Dillinger" with Warren Oates. There's a scene where Melvin Purvis fires a tommygun in a stairwell, I think. This thing was firing .45 rounds, and they make the sound horrific; you could clearly hear each round explode out of the gun. The scene made me utterly respect that weapon just from the sound.

Thank you.  I love this scene.  Purvis keeps firing at the guy and the sound of each shot is explosive.

Another great movie for devastating gun sounds is OPEN RANGE.