|
FreshFeesh posted:John Wick was a good movie all around, but one part really stood out in a bad way. This is actually less stupid than a scene in Hitman, where the titular character gets into a four way Mexican standoff with three people who are all on the same side.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Mexican standoffs have never made any sense to me. If we want to kill each other and I'm pointing a gun at you and you're pointing a gun at me, isn't the best option for either of us to just shoot? Why does everyone just stand there like as though that's a stalemate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Jedit posted:This is actually less stupid than a scene in Hitman, where the titular character gets into a four way Mexican standoff with three people who are all on the same side. I like the reversal of this stupidity in Ronin where someone suggesting this scenario as a viable plan reveals themselves to be an fake. It was a refreshing moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Mexican standoffs have never made any sense to me. If we want to kill each other and I'm pointing a gun at you and you're pointing a gun at me, isn't the best option for either of us to just shoot? Why does everyone just stand there like as though that's a stalemate? This reads like you're talking exclusively about two people facing off. You are correct, in a duel the first to act has the advantage; a Mexican standoff however involves three people in opposition to each other most of the time (occasionally more), and the whole point is that the first to act is at an inherent disadvantage. Opponent A shoots opponent B, then while so occupied, opponent C can shoot A and so forth. The concept of a Mexican standoff between two forces is mostly a political idea, it just got turned into a general thing due to popular usage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
I guess the idea of a three-way Mexican standoff is that it's like rock paper scissors; you shoot him, he shoots the other guy, the other guy shoots you, everybody loses. I don't know why the answer to this situation is almost always "actually it was a fakeout the whole time and nobody's going to shoot anyone and they're all just gonna talk each other down" but I guess it's more tense that way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:I guess the idea of a three-way Mexican standoff is that it's like rock paper scissors; you shoot him, he shoots the other guy, the other guy shoots you, everybody loses. I don't know why the answer to this situation is almost always "actually it was a fakeout the whole time and nobody's going to shoot anyone and they're all just gonna talk each other down" but I guess it's more tense that way. Nah, with three people it makes sense. If A shoots B then C will shoot A. But you see it all the time where there's just two people, which is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
EmmyOk posted:If only someone would have a school for gifted children! Which tends to find said young mutants only after they've put their boyfriend in a coma/melted Central Park/inverted the neighbor's house into a cat's rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Why's it a Mexican standoff?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Because everyone who could run, jump and swim away are American now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Why's it a Mexican standoff? JFGI, it's on Wiki. Mexican standoffs between two parties work fine; all they are is people mutually threatening each other who would all gain more from backing down, but nobody wants to back down first. The Cold War was a Mexican standoff. Two people pointing guns at each other is about the only context in which they don't work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
Jedit posted:JFGI, it's on Wiki. They work when two people are pointing guns at each other, it just needs to be set up right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 10:59
|
|
|
Jedit posted:JFGI, it's on Wiki. A two-way Mexican standoff generally works by having the first shooter win the immediate standoff but lose in another way. Maybe they can't afford to actually kill eachother, or maybe there's be repercussions if one of them gets shot, or maybe they just plain don't really want to kill anyone but are forced into such a situation anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:What's the alternative, though? Just accept that every now and then a whole neighborhood will randomly get flash-fried because some 13-year-old had a bad breakup? Yep, or goes through puberty and murders their entire town then gets killed by Wolverine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
Slime posted:A two-way Mexican standoff generally works by having the first shooter win the immediate standoff but lose in another way. Maybe they can't afford to actually kill eachother, or maybe there's be repercussions if one of them gets shot, or maybe they just plain don't really want to kill anyone but are forced into such a situation anyway. Like one's a cop and the other's a kidnapper who has someone hidden away. If the cop shoots, the victim will die. But he still isn't going to just stand there and take a bullet to the face.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
Memento posted:Yep, or goes through puberty and murders their entire town then gets killed by Wolverine. That story is great 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
I killed my parents? Yeah, because you're a gay. :wolversmug:
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Mexican standoffs have never made any sense to me. If we want to kill each other and I'm pointing a gun at you and you're pointing a gun at me, isn't the best option for either of us to just shoot? Why does everyone just stand there like as though that's a stalemate? Well, gun shots aren't exactly instantly fatal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Well, gun shots aren't exactly instantly fatal. Exactly. Unless you can ensure an instantly fatal shot (hit their brain stem), they have at minimum enough time to squeeze the trigger back at you. Better to wait for a more sure outcome when the failure-state outcome is "I got shot". Maybe they get distracted or you're waiting for reinforcements.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:I guess the idea of a three-way Mexican standoff is that it's like rock paper scissors; you shoot him, he shoots the other guy, the other guy shoots you, everybody loses. I don't know why the answer to this situation is almost always "actually it was a fakeout the whole time and nobody's going to shoot anyone and they're all just gonna talk each other down" but I guess it's more tense that way. This is why the one in The Good, The Bad & The Ugly is so good. Blondie is the guy who creates the scenario and he's the only guy who seems completely confident (Angel Eyes is wary, Tuco is sweating bullets) and it turns out to be because he completely stacked the deck in his favor. He's the only one who knows that Tuco's gun isn't loaded so he can safely discount him as a threat, and he also knows that if Angel Eyes manages to kill him, the stone at the center doesn't have a name on it anyway. Man that is a great movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Evilreaver posted:Exactly. Unless you can ensure an instantly fatal shot (hit their brain stem), they have at minimum enough time to squeeze the trigger back at you. Better to wait for a more sure outcome when the failure-state outcome is "I got shot". Maybe they get distracted or you're waiting for reinforcements. As we're talking about these things in movies, they are almost never portrayed in a way that makes sense. If two people suddenly whip guns out and point them at each other in the heat of a fight, it seems hard to believe that they wouldn't shoot. It's generally not two guys calmly taking out their guns and pointing them at each other over the dinner table, it's them running about like lunatics in a darkened warehouse. Without knowing 100% what your opponent is thinking, surely you'd fire? I'll have to defer to people who have actually been in a life-threatening gun battle, but I doubt most people think things through to any great degree when adrenalin is running the show.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Yeah, after gunning through hordes of mooks who so much as looked at him sideways, it seems unlikely that Generic Action Hero Man is going to see the master villain pointing a gun at him and suddenly decide to stop and talk. Most of the time you can get around that with either a hostage or a plot point (only Villain knows the secret code to disarm the bomb) , but then there is literally zero reason for the villain to not immediately open fire. Short of the 'friends/family reluctantly turned against each other' trope, it's hard to think of a real-world scenario where two people are pointing guns at each other but neither are prepared to fire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Speaking of which, I have yet to encounter a single moment where the villain gets shot halfway through their "WE'RE NOT SO DIFFERENT" speech. For gently caress sake, the good guy did not murder innocent civilians and plot to destroy the city. He killed armed combatants that made a conscious decision to enter combat. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:Speaking of which, I have yet to encounter a single moment where the villain gets shot halfway through their "WE'RE NOT SO DIFFERENT" speech. For gently caress sake, the good guy did not murder innocent civilians and plot to destroy the city. He killed armed combatants that made a conscious decision to enter combat. A man's got to earn a living to feed his family, you heartless gently caress. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag_AFraxj-4
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
It's not a mexican standoff you racist fucks, it's merely an impasse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-gVzaU5vMk&t=96s
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Oh, and this may have nothing to do with anything, but at one point I realized why cowboys had showdowns or whatever and why they didn't just shoot as soon as possible. If they shoot first and kill their opponent, it's murder, whereas if they shoot after the other person, it's self-defense. Thus you stand, waiting for them to pull first, hoping you can pull and shoot in between the time when they start to pull and when they kill you. hth
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
If someone's pointing a gun at you and you shoot them, it's still self defense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
ActingPower posted:Oh, and this may have nothing to do with anything, but at one point I realized why cowboys had showdowns or whatever and why they didn't just shoot as soon as possible. If they shoot first and kill their opponent, it's murder, whereas if they shoot after the other person, it's self-defense. Thus you stand, waiting for them to pull first, hoping you can pull and shoot in between the time when they start to pull and when they kill you. hth Ummmmm. I'm just going to assume this is satire so my brain doesn't explode. Seriously... God drat. Edit: now I want to see a movie with cripplingly autistic cowboys. Might be greaf/ Drunk Nerds has a new favorite as of 03:18 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
I watched Paycheque last night and it was pretty good, but it had the dumbest scene like that. The protagonist is running from all these guys in a subway station and get's cornered in a tunnel. Both him and the bad guy have guns. The bad guy is only there to kill him and they've already shot up the whole station but they both just stand around for waaaay to long. Then he gets away by ejecting the magazine out of his own gun and kicking it into the electrified rail so that it explodes and provides a distraction while he escapes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Drunk Nerds posted:Ummmmm. I'm just going to assume this is satire so my brain doesn't explode. Seriously... God drat. Under the vegetable posted:If someone's pointing a gun at you and you shoot them, it's still self defense. ...No, I'm just a moron.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Has any movie done the shoot the hostage-taker bit, but with the hostage dying instead of getting out unharmed?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Opening scene of Skyfall.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Speed has the hostage getting shot, but not dying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Coffee And Pie posted:Has any movie done the shoot the hostage-taker bit, but with the hostage dying instead of getting out unharmed? The Usual Suspects.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
Vulpes posted:Yeah, after gunning through hordes of mooks who so much as looked at him sideways, it seems unlikely that Generic Action Hero Man is going to see the master villain pointing a gun at him and suddenly decide to stop and talk. Most of the time you can get around that with either a hostage or a plot point (only Villain knows the secret code to disarm the bomb) , but then there is literally zero reason for the villain to not immediately open fire. Sometimes they do the "these guys are both so goddamn good that if one of them moves enough to fire, the other will be able to react and fire back, resulting in mutual destruction" thing. Which is still garbage. I would certainly love to see a climactic action sequence where after mowing through all the mooks and the evil lair exploding all around him, the hero sees the villain in retreat, has a shot, and takes the shot. No standoff, no monologuing, just capitalizing on an opportunity. There are a myriad of other ways to create dramatic tension in the climax; the hero could still have to escape the disintegrating lair, or figure out how to cancel the nuclear missile launch, or an object of rescue could be in peril with no clear way to get to them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
Che Delilas posted:Sometimes they do the "these guys are both so goddamn good that if one of them moves enough to fire, the other will be able to react and fire back, resulting in mutual destruction" thing. Which is still garbage. Even though Shoot Em Up is not supposed to be taken seriously, it was the failure to just shoot the bad guy, over and over again, that bothered me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
FELD1 posted:Opening scene of Skyfall. The Colin Farrell opus, SWAT.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
Che Delilas posted:I would certainly love to see a climactic action sequence where after mowing through all the mooks and the evil lair exploding all around him, the hero sees the villain in retreat, has a shot, and takes the shot. No standoff, no monologuing, just capitalizing on an opportunity. There are a myriad of other ways to create dramatic tension in the climax; the hero could still have to escape the disintegrating lair, or figure out how to cancel the nuclear missile launch, or an object of rescue could be in peril with no clear way to get to them. This more or less happens in an episode of Leverage, of all things. The main villain isn't in retreat but it's definitely a situation that in most shows would have been two dudes tensely pointing guns at each other while talking tensely. Instead it's one guy walking in with a gun pointed at the other guy and trying to talk to him and the other drawing his gun and shooting him without hesitation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
This may not be irrational, but it kind of made me think too hard about the film and... Well, let me just say it first. Edge Of Tomorrow. (OH GOD THE CYCLE BEGINS ANEW!) Loved the film, don't get me wrong. Really loving loved it. I felt the tension of each new cycle as Cruise learnt a little bit more, each time they'd make it a bit further was great. He'd get so far and the tension would mount and I'd get all excited, "THIS TIME! MAYBE THIS TIME!" And then boom. He gets impaled, or whatever. Then he loses his time-warp ability. He's just a normal dude again and he's not going back into the battlefield he knows off by heart, he's going into alien territory and it SHOULD be really tense and nerve wracking because if he dies now that's it, humanity is over. Only it wasn't. Not for me, anyway. Once he lost his power I knew he was going to win. I knew the film was going to have a happy ending. Not that I didn't expect that before, but when he'd scrape through a potentially lethal encounter WITH his powers it had more gravitas than when he was in danger without them, because of course he'll survive! He has plot armour now. The reason why I post this here is because obviously with 9/10 films the main character is going to succeed on some level. I don't watch Commando and think for once second Matrix isn't going to win the day and rescue his kid. I guess watching a film about repetitive failure put my mind in a different space so when the action turned to a more standard fare it kinda frazzled me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:Even though Shoot Em Up is not supposed to be taken seriously, it was the failure to just shoot the bad guy, over and over again, that bothered me. Well, to be fair, there was at least one time he really tried to. That damned fingerprint scanner thing though. CURSES!!! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
ChogsEnhour posted:Then he loses his time-warp ability. He's just a normal dude again and he's not going back into the battlefield he knows off by heart, he's going into alien territory and it SHOULD be really tense and nerve wracking because if he dies now that's it, humanity is over. This is totally accurate and why the drama in most Hollywood films is totally hosed. Also why I really love things like Game of Thrones that establish quite clearly that everybody can seriously die, there is no plot armor.  Then I actually care about people and worry they might die!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:50
|
|
