Bottomless Magazines

[Ash]

There are so many films out there where the amount of rounds a person expends in his or her weapon defy the ACTUAL magazine capacity.

I was reading the review of "Commando" here on this site and that film is a prime example.
Arnold shoots about 300 rounds per magazine.

Yes I do call it a magazine.....I become seriously annoyed when they are referred to as "clips".  
What? Hair clips....paper clips?
There is a difference!

The only film I can think of that comes remotely close to accurately depicting the amount of rounds fired to the ACTUAL magazine capacity is "Die Hard".  Especially when he uses the MP5 SMG.  (except the scene where Hans says, "Schiessen das fenster!"......."Shoot the glass!")  
Willis fires about 200 rounds in that scene from only one magazine...it doesn't show him re-loading..
Though there are a couple times in it when the ammo expenditure does exceed the limit.
When Bruce Willis fires up through the bottom of the table into the terrorist, if I remember counting correctly, he fires 16 rounds from his 9mm Beretta service revolver.  
The magazine capacity if I remember is 12 rounds for that gun...though I may be mistaken.

Consider that other than drum-fed weapons such as the M-249 SAW or the "Chicago Typewriter" Thompson (Tommy Gun), the max capacity for most magazines is 30 rounds which can be emptied in a few seconds.  
Saving Private Ryan also did a good job of accurately firing the correct amount of rounds from weapons.  
Tom Hanks was constantly re-loading his Thompson 20 round magazine throughout the film.

Two questions here:

What film comes closest to accurate firing of rounds to magazine capacity...?

And...

What film does NOT come close to accurate magazine capacity?  (most of them I'd think)



Post Edited (10-17-03 16:21)

[wickednick]

I may get some disagrements here but The Matrix I thought was pretty good on being accurate with ammo.The scene were Trinity and Neo are storming the goverment building really shows this.They empty most of there guns in a few seconds and eventually have to start grabbing the gards guns because they have used up most of there's.I don't know much about the weapons they used or there ammo cappacity but at the rate they fired them and then discarded them I think it might be pretty accurate.

[Neon Noodle]

Which one doesn't come close? The Killer - what a great John Woo film. I remember someone saying this film made a record for the most bullets ever fired during the making of a movie.

After you see it, you'll know why. The bullets are flying all over like crazy and I don't remember any reloads being done.

[kirk]

ASHTHECAT wrote: When Bruce Willis fires up through the bottom of the table into the terrorist, if I remember counting correctly, he fires 16 rounds from his 9mm Beretta service revolver.


9mm Beretta service REVOLVER?!?!?

Go away.  Go far, far away.  You just lost any and all credibility you had.

Kirk

[The Burgomaster]

I think you need to be careful with this topic. You have to assume that some of the reloading occurs off camera. So, when the camera is on the bad guys, you can assume that Arnold is reloading. Not only that, the lack of reloading is important for cinematic effect.  Can you imagine how BORING an action scene would be if the action had to stop every few seconds so that the audience could sit there and watch everyone reload?

Come on . . . this is one of the best examples of that old filmmaking concept known as "suspension of disbelief." These are movies, they are not real life.

[Fearless Freep]

Come on . . . this is one of the best examples of that old filmmaking concept known as "suspension of disbelief." These are movies, they are not real life.

Being a computer programmer and watching how computer activities are performed on screen, I have very little sympathy for this topic

[Ash]

You know what Kirk?

f**k you

Every post you write has a negative tone in it.
If anyone here doesn't believe me, do a search for any of his posts & read 'em.
They're almost all negative.

It's a good thing you don't post here often but when you do, you always rile someone up.

And by the way, I took that "revolver" bit DIRECTLY from the back of the DVD box.



Post Edited (10-17-03 16:21)

[kirk]

No, I just call BS when I see it.

Just for kicks, I read through my posts.  I'm pretty darn friendly, with a deep hatred of The Pest, starring John Leguizamo.

Shouldn't you be out collecting unemployment or something?

Kirk

[JohnL]

I don't know if it was a joke or not, but some article once quoted one of the action stars (Arnold?) saying that they film reload scenes, they just don't make it into the finished movie.

[Neon Noodle]

The Replacement Killers does have reload scenes, and I think Face-Off does too. I guess John Woo decided to put a little bit o' reality into his gunfights in later movies.

[Fearless Freep]

Reload scenes are not all that uncommon, but they are usually only shwn when the actors are talking through the scene or the scene is needed for pacing or whatever.  

Movies are not real life.  In a movie, the story matters and anything not contributing to the story is left out.  Like trips to the bathroom and stops for meals and such.  Unless something is happening during such an occasion that moves the story, you won't see those occasions in a movie, or a play, or read about them in a book, or...

I remember watching "Return Of The Jedi".  In the scene where the band of heroes is captured by the Ewoks, R2-D2 has a little saw to cut the ropes.  Next second, they all come crashing through a huge gaping cut hole in the net.  Nobody wants to see R2-D2 cutting through rope for ten minutes.  Basically the movie said "They're in a net, R2-D2 has a saw, that's how they escape, don't sweat the details and let's move on.."  I can live with that.


So a guy fires 300 rounds from a handgun and you don't see him reload, so what?  

That's not nearly as ridiculous as something like in "Clear And Present Danger" where Harrison Ford is deleting a file from a computer and a) you see a progress bar for two minutes of the file deleting and b) someone on another computer is watching it.  That's absurd, and can't even be explained away with "there's stuff happening that we don't show because it's not important"

[Conrad]

Ha!  In "Running Scared" two of the supporting actors (one of whom is a cult chappy whose name escapes me, played the militia leader hiding-in-a-box in 24 series 2, and Delroy Lindo's partner in Get Shorty) playing detectives actually RUN OUT OF AMMO!!!!  Probably the first and only time I've seen this in a film, although the subject does come up in "Downtown" (?) when gangbangers attack a police station.

This isn't a recent trend - I remember a correspondent complaining to the Daily Express over here (i.e. the sunny UK!) @ 1980 about some 1940's Basil Rathbone film, saying that he didn't realise the 30-round revolver had been invented in 1942.

[Fearless Freep]

Antonio Banderas and Cheech Marin both ran out of ammo...several times..in "Desperado"

[Susan]

>>Like trips to the bathroom and stops for meals and such. Unless something is happening during such an occasion<<,

Don Corleone: I never wanted this for you. I work my whole life - I don't apologize - to take care of my family, and I refused to be a fool, dancing on the string held by all those bigshots. I don't apologize - that's my life -

Michael Coreone: Hold that thought pop, I gotta take a wizz





i see



Post Edited (10-18-03 18:55)

[Flangepart]

Magnum Force. The reloads are visable. Particulary dureing the scene where the bad cops are hunting Harry through the mothballed carrier. 6-reload-6-reload...
If you see a short cut of the hero/bad giy reaching for a spare mag, we don't need to see the compleat recharg.
Still, at least a nod to the process of reloading would be nice....