When playing like the contestents did in the final "duel", it is absolutely critical that you make sure to act first. To wait a few seconds before firing like they did in the first round is so stupid that it's totally unrealistic.
Why would you not take a free 50% chance of not having to risk your own life at all?
You are right, however people participating in such a " game " can be really called wise people in the first place. Moreover, tension could have something to do with it. I would call it slightly unrealistic
shareSeveral types of persons would prefer to fire second. These would include suicidal people, and also certain sadists.
But the main character appears to be neither suicidal nor a sadist, so I think it's just a logical mistake by the creators of the movie.
shareThe way that I see it, the main character was frightened, nervous and not mentally prepared for what he was going through.
He didn't have a full understanding of what he was getting into before he arrived and started "playing" the game. He just had a mysterious letter with odd instructions and the hope of some quick cash.
He didn't seem like the type of kid who would be so easily prepared to take another person's life, even if it meant risking his own. He also might have felt that he would be able to leave the game, to just stop playing- so if he didn’t have to kill anyone he could walk away with a clear conscious.
The guilt of murdering people must have weighed quite heavily on him. I think that at the end of the movie, this very idea is what kept him from being more protective of his own life right before he was killed. As long as he got the money to his brother(?) that was all that mattered.
As for the others who were participating, I do find it extremely odd that they would wait before firing their weapons. I wouldn’t.
"Beauty I'd always missed with these eyes before. Just what the truth is, I can't say anymore."
@soulsearcher
I agree with you on the first part ...
I mean, when I watched the movie it also came clear to me what the right strategy should be in this game, so next to luck there's also a factor of skill that comes into play. (I found that quite intriguing I must say...)
But that's with a completely rational subject in the seat...
I guess when they would put a gun in my hand and tell me to play Russian roulette with it on another guy I become a bit squeamish too (to say the least). Add to that also the fact that there's another guy which points a gun at your head playing the same game and I think my central nervous system tells my bowels and bladder to void...;-)
The mental stress of such an event is huge IMO, and only a very small percentage of the population could work this out "the rational way", a lot being psychopaths I'm sure...
So, no, I didn't find it unlogical, I even found it more or less realistic!
Good point... well we know that #6 is a sadist.. .. But my opinion is that in the final duel you can definitely sense that he is also suicidal at that point.. looks like his brother has been using him (dah!) and he wantd that to stop.. You can also see a little tear in his eye and some sympathy for the 22 year old... Anyone agrees?
shareI did see a bit of sympathy but I didn't think he was sadist. I just felt he was a bully.
As per someone's mention, he actually shot first, but did not have the bullet at that point. So, he cannot be called suicidal. It was just that he had come to realise that he would either die or have to kill the young man.
I don't see how his brother was using him and how he wanted "that" to stop. Was there anything in the movie suggesting this?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I didn't think Sebastien waited at all before firing during the final duel. I think that the fact that he was so intensely keyed up (whereas his opponent was relatively calm, having survived previous duels) worked to his advantage. As soon as that bulb lit up, he fired. What I can't understand is how the players, most of them drugged up, were able to wait until that bulb lit up at all. Wouldn't you have expected at least one of them to jump the gun (sorry!) and screw up the game?
shareAt the first stage fire just after the guy who your gun is pointed at has fired his weapon, so that more people are potentially knocked out for you.
The less people there are left in later rounds, the more quick-draw-Mcgraw you should be.
we are talking about a kid, who exactly didn't know what he was getting to, I think it worked well.
Last movie Seen
13 Tzameti 8/10
Emma 7/10
Crimes and Misdemeanors 7/10
I was wondering about the final duel, too. To wait is not the dominant strategy. But as others have pointed out, under stress I guess it's really hard to stay logical.
But, I also must say that the guys being chosen for this game might have undergone a longer "pre-approval" process until they finally were invited to the game. They all had broken lives and were ready to die, taking up this last chance with the game. So they had a certain time to prepare. And if not completely stupid they might have studied a bit the logic of the game.
Interesting to think about: what's the dominant strategy when you stand in the circle? Shoot or not shoot? An other replier has suggested to wait until the guy in front of you has shot. But I guess that's only partly correct. I think it depends on the number of participant: even or uneven number. Draw yourself a circle. You'll see that your decision, shoot or not shoot, creates a chain reaction. Yes, it's good when someone before you falls. But this also means he will not shoot his bullets, and let the person in front of him shoot. Is this the person behind you, then it's not ideal. I think when the number of players is EVEN, then shoot. It will increase the chance that the guy behind you will be shot. If the number is UNEVEN, wait. Again, draw the circle and experiment.
What was not clear to me is, what happens in the final duel when both shoot simultaneously and both hit a bullet. Can this practically happen? Who wins then?
Cheers
Theoretically it's possible for every player to die in the first round. Everyone would have to have a bullet in the chamber and also shoot while all the bullets are still in the air. Not very likely but possible ;)
Welcome to Costco, I love you...
I agree with the OP.
But I would like to see the math on the first few rounds though.
Wouldn't it make sense to withhold your fire in the beginning?
All because of the increased chance the person that has to shoot you will be shot?
I don't need a signature!
Yes this is what I was thinking. In the first few rounds you would take your chance. I was waiting for a round where no one was killed. Interesting.
shareNow what is so unrealistic about a person being stupid, and making a stupid mistake/decision? I'm sorry to break it to you, but the vast majority of this earth's population isn't exactly enlightened...
We've met before, haven't we?