MovieChat Forums > The Hurt Locker (2009) Discussion > Question about # of bombs James tells hi...

Question about # of bombs James tells his superior

posted 9 years ago by nickbotic12
12 replies | jump to latest

Sorry if this has been asked already. But when James is asked about how many bombs he's disarmed, he says 873. Does this number reflect the number times he's gone and suited up and defused (no pun) the situation, or is 873 the number of individual bombs? Like prior to this, he was working on the car I'm which he opens the trunk, and there's multiple bombs. So like would he count that as like 7 bombs, and when he pulled all those out the ground did he count those as 6? Or are each of those just 1 in his count?

[–] capsrule41 9 years ago

Individual bombs defused

[–] RodneyAnonymous 9 years ago

Which is why (among countless other reasons) this movie misses the mark so spectacularly. EOD almost never (and when I say almost never, I know a fair number of EOD techs, and not one of them even knows of ONE instance where an IED was "defused") "defuses" ordnance. It just doesn't happen. The ordnance is "rendered safe." In almost every instance, that means placing a charge on it, and blowing it up. Rarely, other methods are used, such as hitting it with high-pressure water or with a large-caliber precision rifle round.

The idea that one EOD tech "defused" TWO bombs stretches the limits of credulity - the idea that he did 800-something is just *beep* stupid.

Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut.

[–] capsrule41 9 years ago

Great, another one of you guys who are so butthurt by a FICTIONAL movie. In Inglourious Basterds, did you scream out "HEY! Hitler didn't die like that!" And proceed to get all butthurt over that too? Like, the movie's not real. Get over yourself. If he had said "I've defused 2 bombs," do you think it would have had the same affect? Movies like this obviously strive for realism, but at some point, the realism has to take a backseat in favor of story and character development. If it didn't, then the movie would suck. That's how it works. Every movie's universe will always have some magic in it so that the story stays interesting. Suggestion: take your thumb out of your ass and accept the fact that the FICTIONAL number of bombs that FICTIONAL Sergeant James defused in the FICTIONAL Hurt Locker is not an atrocity. It's still a great movie.

[–] RodneyAnonymous 9 years ago

I know you won't take this in the spirit in which it is intended, but here it goes anyway:

No, I'm not butthurt that the film got a few minor things wrong. And I wasn't butthurt at Inglorious Basterds at all, because that movie was portrayed as a fantasy/farce, with no attempt at "realism" and (much more importantly) no claims by the filmmakers and the "critics" that their movie (THL) was sooooooooooooo realistic. And that's the critical difference.

If I make a cartoonish take on historical events, and never try to pretend otherwise, then any number of "inaccuracies" are allowed to pass without notice. However, if I make a movie and scream from the rooftops about how "realistic" it was, and how it was co-written by someone who had "been there and done that," and how my movie SHOWS WHAT IT'S REALLY LIKE FOR THE REAL GUYS WHO ARE REALLY THERE DOING REAL THINGS!!!!1!eLEVEN!!!.... And then my movie is a completely cartoonish fantasy that has absolutely nothing to do with reality...well, then there's a problem.

It's not just the ludicrous number of bombs SFC James has "defused." It's not just the lone HMMWV rolling around in the desert, stumbling upon a crack team of Commonwealth PMCs who CAN'T CHANGE A *beep* TIRE. It's not the fact that they are wearing uniforms that weren't worn at the time the movie takes place. It's not the fact that SFC James violates every protocol of EOD every time they go out on a call. It's not the fact that SFC James sneaks out of base - and then back into it because he pretends to know where a whorehouse is. It's not....you get the picture. It's not a single mistake, or exaggeration, or miscue. It's that the entire film - which is lauded (and lauds itself) for it's staggering "realism," - is entirely, completely, from start to finish, utterly unrealistic.

There is an amazing story to tell about EOD units in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It could even be embellished a bit in the interest of character and story. This, however, just isn't it.

Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut.

[–] capsrule41 8 years ago

Just because it's not a documentary and isn't realistic to these facts doesn't mean it "missed the mark." It's a good movie. It's good entertainment. That's what we pay for. Sorry, deal with it.

[–] JudgeNotLestYeBeJudgeReinhold 8 years ago

I think the British guys didn't have a spare tire, that's why they were asking for help.

[–] strahd9 7 years ago

No, one of the guys threw the tire wrench at another one. So they had no means to change the tire.

drew

I'm a person just like you
But I've got better things to do
- Minor Threat

[–] homelessguy 8 years ago

Inglorious Basterds was satirical; The Hurt Locker is not.

[–] capsrule41 8 years ago

Look at my response above.

Okay, yes. The movie does not get these facts right. But it's a good movie, and it certainly doesn't portray US soldiers negatively in any way. It's a character study, not a documentary. Fictional drama. It's just one of a million movies not to forgo facts for an interesting story. Deal with it people and don't watch it if you don't like that and would rather bitch about how they don't wear the correct uniforms or whatever.

[–] earloftea 9 years ago

I say he just said a made up number, since he was asked to "just answer the question". - Typical army humor

[–] maxdense 9 years ago

I say he just said a made up number, since he was asked to "just answer the question". - Typical army humor

Exactly.

[–] russell-415-618666 9 years ago

It might seem to some a trivial historical inaccuracy... To me it is very telling of the way this film uses falsehoods and exaggerations to create a heroic character as part of its justification for US militarism. I mean if there was authenticity the Americans wouldn't lookup good and their enemy so simplistically villainous. The hurt locker is very much the pre-cursor of Clint Eastwood's Sniper absurdity.