|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Jul 22, 2023 6:36:02 GMT -5
Thank you 😊 (even if this example is technically Bronze Age). We had a similar discussion in The Spectre thread. The Code didn't explicitly forbid showing the good guys killing the bad guys, but people at DC and Marvel preferred to be very cautious, because the CCA had a lot of leeway to make its decisions and there was no way to appeal. Here's an example from RAWHIDE KID #70, June 1969, so late Silver Age, by most reckonings:  Prior panels are filled with the same kinds of cheats I mentioned before: the bullets seem to be hitting critical marks, but there's gun drops and shoulder-clasping to give (semi-)plausible deniability, and never explicit acknowledgment of death. |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jul 22, 2023 8:18:10 GMT -5
I read an interview with a, well, gunslinger who entered one of those Quick Draw contests. He said that hitting a handgun is very difficult, because it is a very small target and certainly the 6-shots that were used in the Far West were certainly not sniper weapons.
But oh well, comics 😉
ETA I believe one of this but I don't remember which one 😅
|
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Jul 22, 2023 10:20:40 GMT -5
I read an interview with a, well, gunslinger who entered one of those Quick Draw contests. He said that hitting a handgun is very difficult, because it is a very small target and certainly the 6-shots that were used in the Far West were certainly not sniper weapons. But oh well, comics 😉 ETA I believe one of this but I don't remember which one 😅
Difficult? It's damn near impossible in a stress situation, and bordering on unfathomably lucky if shooting from the hip-- even with a "modern" sidearm. Even at close range (less than 21 feet) "shooting to disarm" is a pipe-dream concept made up by Hollywood writers for dramatic effect... much like the myth that switchblades are potentially more dangerous than other types of handheld knives.
Unfortunately, the general public often buys into what they see portrayed on the screen as realistically plausible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 22, 2023 11:24:47 GMT -5
I read an interview with a, well, gunslinger who entered one of those Quick Draw contests. He said that hitting a handgun is very difficult, because it is a very small target and certainly the 6-shots that were used in the Far West were certainly not sniper weapons. But oh well, comics 😉 ETA I believe one of this but I don't remember which one 😅
Difficult? It's damn near impossible in a stress situation, and bordering on unfathomably lucky if shooting from the hip-- even with a "modern" sidearm. Even at close range (less than 21 feet) "shooting to disarm" is a pipe-dream concept made up by Hollywood writers for dramatic effect... much like the myth that switchblades are potentially more dangerous than other types of handheld knives.
Unfortunately, the general public often buys into what they see portrayed on the screen as realistically plausible.
Yeah...there's just no way that's happening. My youngest son did Cowboy Action Shooting for a number of years. So, single-action revolvers, lever-action rifles and a double barrel shotgun. The scoring is a combo of timing and accuracy, seconds off for each miss. While he was never top caliber (HA!) he got pretty good. The garbage that they show in movies and comics is just that, garbage. |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jul 22, 2023 13:18:10 GMT -5
Difficult? It's damn near impossible in a stress situation, and bordering on unfathomably lucky if shooting from the hip-- even with a "modern" sidearm. Even at close range (less than 21 feet) "shooting to disarm" is a pipe-dream concept made up by Hollywood writers for dramatic effect... much like the myth that switchblades are potentially more dangerous than other types of handheld knives.
Unfortunately, the general public often buys into what they see portrayed on the screen as realistically plausible.
Yeah...there's just no way that's happening. My youngest son did Cowboy Action Shooting for a number of years. So, single-action revolvers, lever-action rifles and a double barrel shotgun. The scoring is a combo of timing and accuracy, seconds off for each miss. While he was never top caliber (HA!) he got pretty good. The garbage that they show in movies and comics is just that, garbage. You know, from a purely intellectual point of view I think it's actually more harmful for kids to believe that violence can be used without any consequences than to show the harsh reality. When using violence as a problem-solving tool, you should also accept the possibility of killing or maiming those you are using it on. Don't pretend that "don't worry, you can safely neutralize the bad guys by shooting them and leaving them unharmed!". Obviously I'm not saying that it is wrong to use violence in certain contexts , there is simply the risk of creating a culture of glorification of violence as a solver of every problem (there are never consequences, right?) instead of the extrema ratio to be used only as a last resort. And it has absolutely nothing to do with it, but I wanted to include a scene from one of my favorite TV series. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 22, 2023 13:36:42 GMT -5
Yeah...there's just no way that's happening. My youngest son did Cowboy Action Shooting for a number of years. So, single-action revolvers, lever-action rifles and a double barrel shotgun. The scoring is a combo of timing and accuracy, seconds off for each miss. While he was never top caliber (HA!) he got pretty good. The garbage that they show in movies and comics is just that, garbage. You know, from a purely intellectual point of view I think it's actually more harmful for kids to believe that violence can be used without any consequences than to show the harsh reality. When using violence as a problem-solving tool, you should also accept the possibility of killing or maiming those you are using it on. Don't pretend that "don't worry, you can safely neutralize the bad guys by shooting them and leaving them unharmed!". Obviously I'm not saying that it is wrong to use violence in certain contexts , there is simply the risk of creating a culture of glorification of violence as a solver of every problem (there are never consequences, right?) instead of the extrema ratio to be used only as a last resort. And it has absolutely nothing to do with it, but I wanted to include a scene from one of my favorite TV series. My son honestly gets upset about the way firearms are portrayed in most media. The number one thing drilled into him during all his years in shooting sports was safety. He’s forever pointing out the poor trigger discipline and the horrendous shooting techniques in movies and television. |
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Jul 22, 2023 13:51:00 GMT -5
My son honestly gets upset about the way firearms are portrayed in most media. The number one thing drilled into him during all his years in shooting sports was safety. He’s forever pointing out the poor trigger discipline and the horrendous shooting techniques in movies and television. That's probably worth getting upset about. Sure, one's area of expertise is going to reveal non-authenticities in movies--I've seen two recently in which a supposed scientist/mathematician/engineer type exposed themselves when they referred to Euler's equation as "Yooler's equation"--but it's hard to imagine a situation where mispronouncing "Euler" (American academics, other than those few that know Swiss phonetics, approximate the pronunciation as "oiler") could be consequential. But thinking you know how to fire a weapon because you've seen it on tv? That could go very wrong... |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jul 22, 2023 15:56:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 22, 2023 17:41:40 GMT -5
Wild Bill Hickock, who would be considered a bit of an authority on shoot outs, preferred accuracy over speed. Also, the better shootists preferred to keep one chamber empty, for safety. You don't see that in Hollywood, either, because it isn't dramatic enough. They also tend to get wrong the eras of metallic cartridges vs ball and cap and the amount of smoke generated by the discharge of a pistol, especially ball and cap. Meanwhile, the Lone Ranger never had a problem shooting a gun out of an outlaw's hand; but, he was the Lone Ranger!  |
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Jul 22, 2023 19:48:27 GMT -5
My son honestly gets upset about the way firearms are portrayed in most media. The number one thing drilled into him during all his years in shooting sports was safety. He’s forever pointing out the poor trigger discipline and the horrendous shooting techniques in movies and television.
As do I. And for most of the same reasons.
When you're married to a licensed firearms instructor, watching action movies together provides for lots and lots of head-shakes and facepalms.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Aug 16, 2023 14:07:09 GMT -5
Difficult? It's damn near impossible in a stress situation, and bordering on unfathomably lucky if shooting from the hip-- even with a "modern" sidearm. Even at close range (less than 21 feet) "shooting to disarm" is a pipe-dream concept made up by Hollywood writers for dramatic effect... much like the myth that switchblades are potentially more dangerous than other types of handheld knives.
Unfortunately, the general public often buys into what they see portrayed on the screen as realistically plausible.
Yeah...there's just no way that's happening. My youngest son did Cowboy Action Shooting for a number of years. So, single-action revolvers, lever-action rifles and a double barrel shotgun. The scoring is a combo of timing and accuracy, seconds off for each miss. While he was never top caliber (HA!) he got pretty good. The garbage that they show in movies and comics is just that, garbage. Or is it FANTASY? Just like Batman gliding on batwings, or Indy surviving a fall over a cliff, or James Bond outrunning a helicopter on skis... Of course the gunplay in a cowboy movie is fake. If it was accurate to real life, what would be the draw for me to watch it? I can turn on CNN and see bozos shooting it out in the streets of Oakland. It's not sexy and it's not fun. It's not even interesting. The idea that the Lone Ranger can disarm a villain without even hurting him, by shooting the gun from his hand, is no different than the superhero hijinks we let slide on a daily basis, because the SETTING is fantasy. Well, for the most part, cowboy movies, cop shows, and spy thrillers are way more fantasy than reality. Now, what really bothers me, in particular in MCU movies, is that EVERYONE is damn near invulnerable, whether they have "super powers" or not. Fall from 50 feet? Caught in an explosion? Hit by a car? No problem, just walk it off. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Aug 16, 2023 20:23:55 GMT -5
Even as a kid, I never understood what was supposed to be happening when the good guy shot the gun out of the bad guys hands.... is he hitting the gun? seems like that would at a minimum shatter the hand that was holding it, and might ignite the other ammo? maybe the bottom of the handle so that it flies away? That seems to defy physics.
Maybe JUST grazing the hand so they lose their grip but it doesn't actually damage the hand? that seems implausible, and that it would at least sometimes continue on to the body. It just doesn't make sense!
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 16, 2023 20:51:24 GMT -5
Even as a kid, I never understood what was supposed to be happening when the good guy shot the gun out of the bad guys hands.... is he hitting the gun? seems like that would at a minimum shatter the hand that was holding it, and might ignite the other ammo? maybe the bottom of the handle so that it flies away? That seems to defy physics. Maybe JUST grazing the hand so they lose their grip but it doesn't actually damage the hand? that seems implausible, and that it would at least sometimes continue on to the body. It just doesn't make sense!
Also, if they did hit the gun, I imagine the bullet would ricochet in an unpredictable direction. Did they have the term "collateral damage " back then?
Have there been any western movies that have tried to show gun-fights in a realistic manner, reflecting whatever historical research has been done by specialists to try to envisage how they actually would have went down? I'm thinking of both the one-on-one duels and more chaotic melees with several participants like the OK Corral (if I remember that right).
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 16, 2023 21:22:13 GMT -5
Even as a kid, I never understood what was supposed to be happening when the good guy shot the gun out of the bad guys hands.... is he hitting the gun? seems like that would at a minimum shatter the hand that was holding it, and might ignite the other ammo? maybe the bottom of the handle so that it flies away? That seems to defy physics. Maybe JUST grazing the hand so they lose their grip but it doesn't actually damage the hand? that seems implausible, and that it would at least sometimes continue on to the body. It just doesn't make sense!
Also, if they did hit the gun, I imagine the bullet would ricochet in an unpredictable direction. Did they have the term "collateral damage " back then?
Have there been any western movies that have tried to show gun-fights in a realistic manner, reflecting whatever historical research has been done by specialists to try to envisage how they actually would have went down? I'm thinking of both the one-on-one duels and more chaotic melees with several participants like the OK Corral (if I remember that right).
Tombstone is relatively accurate, in terms of the actual shootout and some of the events around it, but dumbs it down quite a bit, ignoring the fact that it was actually a political squabble. They don't really do much fast draw stuff, apart from Doc Holliday and Johnny Ringo, at the notable sections. Earp pistol whipped more men than he ever shot. The Shootist, as I recall, doesn't go for the fast-draw nonsense, as much as shooting smarter. No one beats Trinity, though...... ...and never call somebody "Mr Frazzle-bottom"... |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 16, 2023 21:33:36 GMT -5
Thank you 😊 (even if this example is technically Bronze Age). We had a similar discussion in The Spectre thread. The Code didn't explicitly forbid showing the good guys killing the bad guys, but people at DC and Marvel preferred to be very cautious, because the CCA had a lot of leeway to make its decisions and there was no way to appeal. Here's an example from RAWHIDE KID #70, June 1969, so late Silver Age, by most reckonings:
I read most of the various Marvel westerns as a kid - not as much as the superhero and later on the horror comics, but still a fair bit - and the Rawhide Kid was definitely my favourite of the ones that were around in the 1960s; as far as I can tell, probably because I liked his costume, because I don't recall much to distinguish his personality, etc from Marvel's other western heroes. So while I know that the use of a few Spanish words here and there is a pretty standard western trope, seeing him say "hombre" and "adios" in one panel makes me think they should retcon him to be Mexican, just to give him something beyond his outfit to distinguish him.
|
|
