Will Hollywood EVER get climbing right?

The Silent Sea is set on the moon.

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

The Silent Sea is set on the moon.

Exactly, they should have been bouncing around due to reduced gravity. Not running around like on Earth.

@Cherokee Nunes:  Some day, I hope to earn the rank of Jedi Master

Ah padawan I see you are wise.

The entire point of The Martian was that it was "Hollywood Does Space Right" and... it wasn't a disaster. In fact, it was a pretty good movie.

On the other hand I'm a programmer with some security background and I can say that Hackers had no shred of realism to its representation of hacking. And honestly, if I had to pick one over the other, I'd definitely pick Hackers over The Martian.

Realism isn't everything.

This film got 5.9 trad dad vs 5.13 Euro climber pretty right. 

the thing that gets me is that hollywood struggles to portray climbing realistically, yet they are so intent on displaying gun-play accurately they will literally shoot and kill somebody on the set (albeit accidently).  that really makes me scratch my head...

slimwrote:

the thing that gets me is that hollywood struggles to portray climbing realistically, yet they are so intent on displaying gun-play accurately they will literally shoot and kill somebody on the set (albeit accidently).  that really makes me scratch my head...

Lol something must be wrong with my guns, they aren't clicking constantly when I move around and silencers don't have nearly the same effect.

slimwrote:

the thing that gets me is that hollywood struggles to portray climbing realistically, yet they are so intent on displaying gun-play accurately they will literally shoot and kill somebody on the set (albeit accidently).  that really makes me scratch my head...

No part of what you've said is true.

First, there are literally thousands of movies with gunfights and only a handful of people have died in the history of Hollywood (I'm only aware of three: Halyna Hutchins, Brandon Lee, and Jon-Erik Hexum). More people die from scaffolding collapses. More people die from falling stunts gone wrong. Gun accidents get a disproportionate amount of press because a) people are afraid of guns, and b) the people involved are likely to be more famous than no-name stunt(wo)men or set coordinators.

Second, if they're trying for realism, they're failing pretty miserably:

1. Movies almost never show someone reloading, instead opting to just mysteriously give them infinite ammo.
2. The dramatic "cocking the hammer" people do while pointing a handgun at someone in movies, is almost always wrong: if it's a DA/SA pistol, they're rarely at a distance where the accuracy difference between DA and SA is relevant, and if it's a (rare) SAO pistol, then that means they were just pointing a paperweight at them up until that point. I really have to wonder what directors think the actual function of cocking the hammer is in these situations. Sometimes instead of cocking the hammer, they'll rack the slide, which isn't better: either this means they were pointing a paperweight at the person up to this point, or they just ejected a round for no reason.
3. There's a similar issue with people cycling the slide of a pump-action shotgun threateningly. Is this guy stupid enough that he waited until he was in full view of the person he's confronting to chamber a round? Or is he stupid enough that he's ejecting perfectly good ammo for dramatic effect? Either way, it's stupid.
4. Silencers aren't silent, and aren't intended to be. The intent of a silencer is to reduce the noise of a shot to the point that it doesn't cause hearing damage, but most firearms with a silencer are still lound enough to be recognizable as a gunshot from a block away. The absolute quietest gun setups are expensive, and limited to small calibers (usually 22LR) with subsonic ammo, and still sound like dropping a heavy stack of papers--still too loud to shoot someone and go undetected by the guys in the next room. And this is basically the weakest ammo that exists while still being (barely) viable, and that means that in most cases, even if your gun doesn't wake up the neighbors, the person you shot will probably be alive long enough to yell and wake up the neighbors.
5. People in movies are insanely accurate when they're main characters, and insanely inaccurate when they're not. Particularly, Hollywood tends to treat rapid handgun shooting as far more accurate than is reasonably even for elite shooters, while also showing people missing slow fire shots with a long rifle, that even a somewhat inexperienced shooter could hit.

I'll give a lot of credit to the John Wick movies on meticulously counting rounds to make sure that he reloads when he should, but that's the exception: more movies get this stuff wrong than get it right.

David Kwrote:

No part of what you've said is true.

First, there are literally thousands of movies with gunfights and only a handful of people have died in the history of Hollywood (I'm only aware of three: Halyna Hutchins, Brandon Lee, and Jon-Erik Hexum). More people die from scaffolding collapses. More people die from falling stunts gone wrong. Gun accidents get a disproportionate amount of press because a) people are afraid of guns, and b) the people involved are likely to be more famous than no-name stunt(wo)men or set coordinators.

Second, if they're trying for realism, they're failing pretty miserably:

1. Movies almost never show someone reloading, instead opting to just mysteriously give them infinite ammo.

Reloading is boring...unless it's used for dramatic effect.

The dramatic "cocking the trigger" people do while pointing a handgun at someone in movies, is almost always wrong: if it's a DA/SA pistol, they're rarely at a distance where the accuracy difference between DA and SA is relevant, and if it's a (rare) SAO pistol, then that means they were just pointing a paperweight at them up until that point. I really have to wonder what directors think the actual function of cocking the hammer is in these situations.

Dramatic effect.

There's a similar issue with people cycling the slide of a pump-action shotgun threateningly. Is this guy stupid enough that he waited until he was in full view of the person he's confronting to chamber a round? Or is he stupid enough that he's ejecting perfectly good ammo for dramatic effect? Either way, it's stupid.

You said it again - dramatic effect.

Silencers aren't silent, and aren't intended to be. The intent of a silencer is to reduce the noise of a shot to the point that it doesn't cause hearing damage, but most firearms with a silencer are still lound enough to be recognizable as a gunshot from a block away. The absolute quietest gun setups are expensive, and limited to small calibers (usually 22LR) with subsonic ammo, and still sound like dropping a heavy stack of papers--still too loud to shoot someone and go undetected by the guys in the next room. And this is basically the weakest ammo that exists while still being (barely) viable, and that means that in most cases, even if your gun doesn't wake up the neighbors, the person you shot will probably be alive long enough to yell and wake up the neighbors.

But but but....it's a SILENCER!

People in movies are insanely accurate when they're main characters, and insanely inaccurate when they're not. Particularly, Hollywood tends to treat rapid handgun shooting as far more accurate than is reasonably even for elite shooters, while also showing people missing slow fire shots with a long rifle, that even a somewhat inexperienced shooter could hit.

Did I mention dramatic effect?

We can add to all this someone being shot, perhaps more than once, and able to continue the fight as if it were paper cut instead of falling on the floor moaning in pain.

slimwrote:

the thing that gets me is that hollywood struggles to portray climbing realistically,...

Because they just don't care all that much.

Marc801 Cwrote:

Reloading is boring...unless it's used for dramatic effect.

Dramatic effect.

You said it again - dramatic effect.

But but but....it's a SILENCER!

Did I mention dramatic effect?

Right, as I said with regards to Hackers, realism isn't everything. There's no doubt that pointlessly ejecting rounds does add tension to a scene. If you know about guns it's a bit annoying that it works, but it does work.

We can add to all this someone being shot, perhaps more than once, and able to continue the fight as if it were paper cut instead of falling on the floor moaning in pain.

Right!!? I've had much less serious injuries than a gunshot wound where my brain effectively stopped the world around me so I could focus on the fact that I just got injured.

David Kwrote:

No part of what you've said is true....

then goes on to point out that that 3 people died...  lolz, did i "trigger" you a bit?

doncha think they could just use fake guns?  hard to use fake scaffolding though...

slimwrote:

then goes on to point out that that 3 people died... 

Three people, in over a century of Hollywood. You said, "hollywood [...] are so intent on displaying gun-play accurately they will literally shoot and kill somebody on the set". Given the number of times guns have been used in action movies ONLY THREE DEATHS is pretty strong evidence that there isn't the widespread willingness to risk lives for art that you're claiming there is. I stand by what I said: no part of what you said was true.

If this commitment to realism is too dangerous for you, climbing is also too dangerous for you.

lolz, did i "trigger" you a bit?

Nice.

doncha think they could just use fake guns?  hard to use fake scaffolding though...

In a lot of cases, yes, they can AND DO use fake guns.

you said that no part of what i said is true, then you confirm (twice!) that part of what i said was true, then you stand by your original statement? you're not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer are you? lolz...  

"If this commitment to realism is too dangerous for you, climbing is also too dangerous for you."

aren't you the same guy that used to post all of those 5.12 A6 R/X gunks routes (that you never climbed)?  easy there, moderate hardman!

slimwrote:

you said that no part of what i said is true, then you confirm (twice!) that part of what i said was true, then you stand by your original statement? you're not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer are you? lolz...  

*shrug* People can read what you said, and understand that I didn't confirm what you said, even if you can't.

"If this commitment to realism is too dangerous for you, climbing is also too dangerous for you."

aren't you the same guy that used to post all of those 5.12 A6 R/X gunks routes (that you never climbed)?  easy there, moderate hardman!

Nope, no idea who that is.

But hey, don't let truth or reality prevent you from saying things. Live your dream, man!

You'll just have to live it without me from here on out. Never thought I'd use the "Ignore User" feature on an Admin but I guess that's the nature of MP.

Ho…ly… shit. I just watched Fall and I think I’m about 50 IQ points dumber. They made the characters so hate-able I was rooting for the tower.

Yoda Jedi Knightwrote:

Ho…ly… shit. I just watched Fall and I think I’m about 50 IQ points dumber. They made the characters so hate-able I was rooting for the tower.

I thought about watching it last night to see how horrible it is, but after watching the trailer again, I got all I wanted out of it.

99% of what is in Hollywood action sci fi, super hero films is implausible and inaccurate.  Why should climbing be any different?  Another example of climbers thinking climbing is more important than it really is.

Are you telling me Superman is fictional?

Jeez dude, just because climbing isn't important to most people doesn't mean that we can't poke fun at how stupid the films are. Why even bother commenting?

For those that did NOT hate it, or those routing for the tower... the cast interview is available on YT. Grab some popcorn and DIG IN!