https://youtu.be/gCEo7SCvYH4
how does hundreds of police charging down a single street against 15 ak 47s only kill 7 officers...... check at 1;46
wow funnelled down a narrow street inbewtsween those two tanks... Jesus no wonder Bain lost. that was bad Nolan
It should read: How DO hundreds of police. Grammar obviously is not your strength
And several officers died, for your premise to be anywhere close to valid you'd have to demonstrate that ZERO died off screen and considering the chaos and the fact that the camera cuts away from the cops a couple of times and the fact that someone threw a canister of tear gas I'd say you are in no position to make that assertion. Also shooting a moving target is rather difficult.
Better luck next time kid.
When you Start with being a grammar nazi you lose right away.
They showed almost the entire charge including a wide long shot which showed the entire crowd. I also clearly stated 7 died. So you ignored my post to strawman.
Lol a densely packed group running in a straight line is difficult to hit? You’ve decided to ignore reality to defend a movie. Come back to reality and fact based thinking please
Just trying to give you a little helpful advice as you are not presenting yourself as anything that could be considered intelligent.
Watch the scene again they cut away several times and even in the shots we saw we couldn't see the entire crowd. Your point is debunked
They were all moving and yes it is hard to shoot a moving target and AK-47's have higher recoil than AR-15's so that's another disadvantage, plus several cops did fall and there were most certainly more off screen. Your point is debunked
Do your homework next time kid.
“Just trying to give you a little helpful advice as you are not presenting yourself as anything that could be considered intelligent.”
Yes we know you think yourself an intellectual and you are a laughing stock on here
“ Watch the scene again they cut away several times and even in the shots we saw we couldn't see the entire crowd. Your point is debunked”
I own it on 4K Einstein. It shows 7 fall. Then does a high angle shot of the crowd funnelling between the vehicles. Even less than 7 are on the ground
“
They were all moving and yes it is hard to shoot a moving target and AK-47's have higher recoil than AR-15's so that's another disadvantage, plus several cops did fall and there were most certainly more off screen. Your point is debunked”
Yes they were moving in a straight line, densely packed in direct fire.
You are a joke. But everyone knew that. Imagine being the dumbest person on this board. No one will take that crown from you.
Clearly you aren’t since you don’t know how to construct a proper English sentence genius, furthermore you don’t know how to read I said prove to me no other cops fell off screen it cuts away from the cops several times and considering they are moving it’s very likely many dead bodies wouldn’t be visible, also for your premise to be valid you would have to demonstrate mathematically how many cops should have died, that’s quite a burden of proof you’ve taken on, if not then all you have is your narrow minded subjective opinion which is not accepted. Also your pathetic attempts at personal insults show your desperation kid, better luck in the future
shareThey're Schrödinger police. When they are not being observed, they are both alive and dead.
share@ 00:49 ya look at the hard to hit dense crowd.....@1:28 they are charging literally shoulder to shoulder. At1:54 still densely packed. Three guys are in shot firing three fully auto weapons directly at the cops 15 feet away. 2 fall down lol
Imagine being so sad and delusional you deny physics and basic facts to defend a film. Be a man. Admit you are wrong. It’ll only sting for a minute
Prove to me no other cops were shot off screen, again shooting a moving target at distance is really hard, clearly you don’t know the first thing about guns (as is the case with a lot of things), you would actually have to gain at least 50 IQ points just to reach the level of stupid
EDIT: The day I actually care what a small group of anonymous internet trolls think of me I'll be sure to let you know.
"Prove to me no other cops were shot off screen,"
we saw the entire thing. we saw individuals shot and fall down @1;56 they did a long wide shot that showed the entirety of the crowed right before the closed the distance. THATS HOW> again not rocket science. come back to reality
""again shooting a moving target at distance is really hard, clearly you don’t know the first thing about guns (as is the case with a lot of things), you would actually have to gain at least 50 IQ points just to reach the level of stupid "
LOOLLLLLLLLLL shooting a densely packed crowed that are running straight at you is hard??!? do you know how reality works? even if the bullet missed the first person, or the second, or the third, or the fourth , or the fifth, you can see at 0:50 the crowd goes BACK at least 80 rows. how does a straight moving bullet miss 80 rows of densely packed people?
honestly you keep going full retard. are you a troll or just really really really really stupid?
No I said prove to me no cops died when the camera panned away, we did not see the whole thing as there were plenty of shots of the mercenaries firing meaning the cops weren't on screen genius.
Guns have recoil numb nuts, sometimes the bullet doesn't go where you want it to go especially if you are firing under pressure, also the cops were a pretty good distance away from them meaning it was a hard shot, by the time the cops were within a standard range of fire someone threw tear gas meaning the MERCENARIES COULDN'T SEE THEM!!! Not to mention PLENTY OF COPS WERE HIT AND THEY WERE WEARING BULLET PROOF VESTS, some of the cops who were hit may have been able to press on, again there are plenty of bullet proof vests that can stop a 7.62x39, hell the one I own can stop a .44 magnum.
Give it up kid or step up your game, your nonsense is starting to bore me.
No I said prove to me no cops died when the camera panned away, we did not see the whole thing as there were plenty of shots of the mercenaries firing meaning the cops weren't on screen genius.
"because a second after the cops reach banes men".
"Guns have recoil numb nuts, sometimes the bullet doesn't go where you want it to go especially if you are firing under pressure, also the cops were a pretty good distance away from them meaning it was a hard shot, by the time the cops were within a standard range of fire someone threw tear gas meaning the MERCENARIES COULDN'T SEE THEM!!! Not to mention PLENTY OF COPS WERE HIT AND THEY WERE WEARING BULLET PROOF VESTS, some of the cops who were hit may have been able to press on, again there are plenty of bullet proof vests that can stop a 7.62x39, hell the one I own can stop a .44 magnum. "
LOOLL the cops were a good distance away? WHAT @ 1;20 you an clearly see they are 20 meters away LOLLL.
you really just implied that 15 men with fully auto weapons missed.
remember when you said they dodged the bullets LOOOLL
"because a second after the cops reach banes men".
WHAT???
Clearly you dont' know the first thing about guns, 20 meters away is a rather difficult shot to make especially when: A) Your target is wearing kevlar so you have to aim for a very small target B) You have a gun that has high recoil C) The target is moving D) The target is a long distance away.
Also until you prove that no one died off screen you don't have a leg to stand on, I know I just asked you to prove a negative but you said you could so the ball's in your court numb nuts.
Strawman, I never said they dodged the bullets, damn you suck at this.
20 meters is a difficult shot for 15 men with full autos firing on 1200 people packed 80 rows deep in an area 40 feet wide
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
"The target is moving"
retardation confirmed. there is no issue hitting a moving target when the target is shoulder to shoulder 80 rows deep
Yeah I bet you are well tuned with your "retardation" meter, I figured you would be an expert
Until you prove to me that only 7 people died (a line of dialogue from the film or confirmation from Nolan will be sufficient), none of this matters because your premise has no basis numb nuts.
"EDIT: I take that as a concession that you can't prove no one else died off camera, so by your logic the death toll of the Titanic was like 30 or so.
[–] djangounlamed (1543) a few seconds ago
"I guess by your logic only about 30 or so people died on the Titanic. "
No by my logic they SHOWED the titanic was full of people. whether it was the large dinners for the wealthy, the crew, the everyday life of decks filled with people, the poor securement and their dancing party.
the ship was shown to be brimming with people
what it is equivalent to, and you are TOO FUCKING STUPID TO GET YOU DISPROVED YOURSELF. is if they showed almost no one on the titanic... no big dinner party, no dance party, no everyday life brimming with people
so when it sunk wed be like, "so what did like 50 people die?
you re so FUCKING DUMB you disproved yourself. I take that as a concession :) thanks"
THE CAMERA CUT AWAY MULTIPLE TIMES!!! PLENTY OF PEOPLE COULD HAVE DIED OFF CAMERA, PROVE THEY DIDN'T OR ELSE YOU DON'T HAVE A CASE YOU IDIOT.
Are you mentally challenged? I really don't mean that as a put down but if you are I need to lay off you because that would make me a bully.
No by my logic they SHOWED the titanic was full of people. whether it was the large dinners for the wealthy, the crew, the everyday life of decks filled with people, the poor securement and their dancing party.
the ship was shown to be brimming with people
what it is equivalent to, and you are TOO FUCKING STUPID TO GET YOU DISPROVED YOURSELF. is if they showed almost no one on the titanic... no big dinner party, no dance party, no everyday life brimming with people
so when it sunk wed be like, "so what did like 50 people die?
you re so FUCKING DUMB you disproved yourself. I take that as a concession :) thanks"
LOOOOL
a rough estimate at 0:50 shows about 15 men across with around 80-90 deep. meaning its roughly 1200-1400 people give or take.
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW 1200 people running down the narrow corridor of a street are hard to hit "moving targets". do you know how physics works?
this is how pathetic and deranged you are. you are literally denying basic reality to defend a film. you need help
"I said prove to me no other cops fell off screen it cuts away from the cops several times and considering they are moving it’s very likely many dead bodies wouldn’t be visible,"
you do know how movies work right? its a visual medium. SO they dont need to show every single person who fell so I can count every body. but when you do show us things, you would normally show a decent amount falling. So without being shown every body, the audience says "wow they are getting hit hard, a lot are dying". because previously we were shown 15 men with AK 47s. its called film logic
Instead im shown almost none falling in close shots, and when another long shot is used again almsot none are down. the only logical conclusion is "wow... they didn't hit almost anyone..". that's why if someone with a handgun fires 5 shots and we see 50 extras fall dead. we would say to ourselves "ummm that makes not sense". similarly when you have that firepower vs the cops and almost no fall you are left equally confused and shocked at the massive flaw
so not only are you denying basic filmmaking, you are also denying gun psychs. which I don't expect to be perfect, tis a film. but then show Bains henchmen with handguns. or show them with maybe 1 or 2 AKS. but again. 15 ak 47s firing on shoulder to shoulder densely packed people running in one direction is "not a hard moving target" because a bullet goes straight and if it missed the first person there are 80 other rows behind them.
you are a delusional spazztard
I already explained it dingleberry, first of all they did hit several cops, we saw them fall and there were most certainly more cops hit off screen, secondly a lot of them were wearing bullet proof vests, third the charge didn't last that long and it wasn't enough time to kill all of them, fourth a couple of AK47s are not going to take out that huge crowd of cops, a 7.62x39 is not a particularly high caliber bullet (a level 3 bullet proof vest would be able to stop it) however it does have a higher recoil than your typical AR-15 so therefore it is harder to aim with an AK-47, fifth the cops were moving, it's harder to hit a moving target, sixth someone clearly threw a canister of tear gas which made it impossible for the mercenaries to see the cops, given how they had probably 30 rounds at most in their magazines they aren't just going to waste bullets because that entire crowd of cops is about to converge on them.
The movie did show multiple cops falling genius, so it did show instead of tell, telling would be random cop #5 saying "the mercenaries took out 30 of our own guys", the movie however doesn't have to show every single cop dying in order for it to be logical that they did die. In Black Hawk Down we didn't see every single soldier die however given the chaos and the fact that we did see several soldiers die it is logical that more died off screen, same thing with Titanic, I seriously feel like I am talking to my hand here, actually I could probably have a more intelligent conversation with my hand.
Edit: just watched the scene again and it cuts away to a shot of Gordon and a shot of Selina clearing the tunnels, plenty of people could have gotten shot in that time, your premise is debunked
"I already explained it dingleberry, first of all they did hit several cops, we saw them fall and there were most certainly more cops hit off screen, secondly a lot of them were wearing bullet proof vests, third the charge didn't last that long and it wasn't enough time to kill all of them, fourth a couple of AK47s are not going to take out that huge crowd of cops, a 7.62x39 is not a particularly high caliber bullet (a level 3 bullet proof vest would be able to stop it) however it does have a higher recoil than your typical AR-15 so therefore it is harder to aim with an AK-47, fifth the cops were moving, it's harder to hit a moving target, sixth someone clearly threw a canister of tear gas which made it impossible for the mercenaries to see the cops, given how they had probably 30 rounds at most in their magazines they aren't just going to waste bullets because that entire crowd of cops is about to converge on them. "
did you really just say that...............
so 15x 30 is 450 bullets... and only 7 fell cause "dey had da bullet proof vests!!!"
"The movie did show multiple cops falling genius, so it did show instead of tell, telling would be random cop #5 saying "the mercenaries took out 30 of our own guys", the movie however doesn't have to show every single cop dying in order for it to be logical that they did die. In Black Hawk Down we didn't see every single soldier die however given the chaos and the fact that we did see several soldiers die it is logical that more died off screen, same thing with Titanic, I seriously feel like I am talking to my hand here, actually I could probably have a more intelligent conversation with my hand.
"
again. 7 out of 1200..........
Show me the proof that no one else died off screen. Until you do your premise is debunked. I guess by your logic only about 30 or so people died on the Titanic.
I also noticed you ignored a good 99% of my post, I'll take that as a concession on those points.
Im here for the long haul now :) I think I found a new favourite place on movichat :) thank you.
I own this board now
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, OK kid whatever makes you feel good about yourself. If you want to stay that's fine, I'm more than happy to beat up on you some more.
EDIT: I take that as a concession that you can't prove no one else died off camera, so by your logic the death toll of the Titanic was like 30 or so.
"I guess by your logic only about 30 or so people died on the Titanic. "
No by my logic they SHOWED the titanic was full of people. whether it was the large dinners for the wealthy, the crew, the everyday life of decks filled with people, the poor securement and their dancing party.
the ship was shown to be brimming with people
what it is equivalent to, and you are TOO FUCKING STUPID TO GET YOU DISPROVED YOURSELF. is if they showed almost no one on the titanic... no big winner party, no dance party, no everyday life brimming with people
so when it sunk wed be like, "so what did like 50 people die?
you re so FUCKING DUMB you disproved yourself. I take that as a concession :) thanks
Nope they didn't show 1500 deaths so therefore by your logic they didn't die.
Logic sucks when it works against you doesn't it?
"EDIT: I take that as a concession that you can't prove no one else died off camera, so by your logic the death toll of the Titanic was like 30 or so.
[–] djangounlamed (1543) a few seconds ago
"I guess by your logic only about 30 or so people died on the Titanic. "
No by my logic they SHOWED the titanic was full of people. whether it was the large dinners for the wealthy, the crew, the everyday life of decks filled with people, the poor securement and their dancing party.
the ship was shown to be brimming with people
what it is equivalent to, and you are TOO FUCKING STUPID TO GET YOU DISPROVED YOURSELF. is if they showed almost no one on the titanic... no big dinner party, no dance party, no everyday life brimming with people
so when it sunk wed be like, "so what did like 50 people die?
you re so FUCKING DUMB you disproved yourself. I take that as a concession :) thanks"
I accept your concession.
shareI know I rekt you kid :) that's why you cant address it and have to lie now :*.
we both know it, you don't have to admit it. I love that you are fuming now because you know you got exposed :)
what a big fail having your titanic comparison backfire SOOOOO spectacularly :)
Fuming??? LOL I'm LMAO at how badly you are drowning here (much like those people by your logic didn't drown when the Titanic sank)
shareyou like apples?
" (much like those people by your logic didn't drown when the Titanic sank)"
yes my logic is that if we had been shown barely any people on the titanic, we as viewers would logically infer there arent many.
imagine the film being a ghost ship, and we are constantly told "theres sooo many people on the ship!"
it wouldn't be believable
again movie making 101 :)
get rekt kid
We were shown lots of cops, we were shown people firing at them, some of these people died, we didn't see the entire charge, it's logical that more were shot off camera unless you want me to believe they magically gained Jedi powers to deflect the bullets and then immediately lost them when the camera cut back to the battle.
You are debunked, you lose, better luck next time you flaming trollboy.
we were shown 7 cops fall out of 1200.
again bad basic filmmaking. dont have 15 guys with AKs then. have 1.
hahah im debunked? remember when you failed so hard over your titanic comment LOLLL
Show me the proof only 7 died or else you have no basis in your premise. The Titanic analogy is legit, by your own logic only about 30 or so people died on the Titanic which is beyond insulting to the people who died and history itself.
I guess Norman Bates also didn't kill 2 other women since we were never even shown the victims.
"Show me the proof only 7 died or else you have no basis in your premise"
films a visual medium. SHOW DONT TELL.
"he Titanic analogy is legit, by your own logic only about 30 or so people died on the Titanic which is beyond insulting to the people who died and history itself.
"
No because the shop was shown to be full and brimming with people. if we see a hundred people here or dozens and dozens just walking the deck, we can INFER the ship is full. Not to mention all the people waving bye at the beginning.
the various scenes SET UP that the ship is full. just like how the shooting scenes is supposed to give us an idea how many were shot. and when we see 15 AK47's kill 7 people on screen, we can infer it barely killed any
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
you know you are desperate when you tart to claim im insulting titanic victims.
you basically just admitted you have nothing.
LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
And we saw plenty of cops charging, several of them die and the mercenaries were still firing, it's very logical more died off camera. They don't need to show every single death.
Your concession remains noted.
"except for the very long post I did in this literally convo about how I dont need to be shown every death LOL. the face planting continues keep going :*"
Same thing with the cops moron, the camera cuts away and we saw some cops fall therefore it's within logic that they didn't just magically not get shot off camera. You really suck at this junior.
"Same thing with the cops moron, the camera cuts away and we saw some cops fall therefore it's within logic that they didn't just magically not get shot off camera. You really suck at this junior."
except 15 ask firing on a crowd that densely packed and large and showing 7 fall is ass believable as a single man with a handgun firing and killing 100.
Its basic filmmaking
GET REKT
"except 15 ask firing on a crowd that densely packed and large and showing 7 fall is ass believable as a single man with a handgun firing and killing 100."
OK I'm going to do my best to decipher your baby talk but I'll say again PLENTY OF COPS WERE SHOWN FALLING AND IT'S LOGICAL MORE WERE SHOT WHEN THE CAMERA PANNED AWAY!!! What about this are you too stupid to understand? All you're doing is repeating yourself, it's really pathetic.
plenty.... as in 7......... wow... that's a slaughter. who knew 15 AK 47s firing on 1000+ people could inflict such damage LOL. imagine there were 30 AKS! they could have killed 14 people. imagine the horror!
you know what that means? that means 7 out of the 15 AK's hit NOBODY. and the other hit one person. LOL
people should pay me for the embarrassment ive levelled on you
Show me where it was established only 7 people died a line of dialogue from the film or confirmation from Nolan will be sufficient.
share"Show me where it was established only 7 people died a line of dialogue from the film or confirmation from Nolan will be sufficient."
the spazo still doesnt get what "visual medium" means... or "show not tell"
ouch... the kid needs to go back to introduction to film studies I see...
remember at the end of titanic when rose said the exact amount who died on the titanic? oh right me neither (maybe she did? but it doesnt matter! why? cause the film didn't need to. it VISUALLY established the ship was full
Except we were shown several dying and the camera cut away which implies more likely died you moron. How did the cops magically not get shot when we were shown Selina clearing the tunnel?
Oh so now you're OK with "tell don't show" when it suits your agenda, you aren't even trying to hide your poorly thought out premise.
yes and the number ON SCREEN was so low, we can infer it was barely any more. because we dont see them dying en masse.
from what we are SHOWN in the VISUAL MEDIUM, 15 AK47s had almost no effect
my premise is the exact same as it was form the beginning. its clear and concise and has not diverged. unlike your pathetic attempts like "they were moving and dodged them"
unmanned again : *
remember when you said this
EDIT: I take that as a concession that you can't prove no one else died off camera, so by your logic the death toll of the Titanic was like 30 or so.
[–] djangounlamed (1543) a few seconds ago
"I guess by your logic only about 30 or so people died on the Titanic. "
No by my logic they SHOWED the titanic was full of people. whether it was the large dinners for the wealthy, the crew, the everyday life of decks filled with people, the poor securement and their dancing party.
the ship was shown to be brimming with people
what it is equivalent to, and you are TOO FUCKING STUPID TO GET YOU DISPROVED YOURSELF. is if they showed almost no one on the titanic... no big dinner party, no dance party, no everyday life brimming with people
so when it sunk we'd be like, "so what did like 50 people die?
you re so FUCKING DUMB you disproved yourself. I take that as a concession :) thanks"
I already debunked this point, your concession is accepted.
share"if is ay it enough I can convince myself of my delusion!"
https://youtu.be/J2nJMKcTIo4
LOL I remember when the titanic showed hundreds of people. SHOW NOT TELL>
tard confirmed :*
I didn't see anyone die, therefore by your logic they didn't you numbskull
shareyou didn't see all those people who were locked behind the doors in the lower class section? (SHOWN NOT TOLD)
you didn't see the people filling the engines get trapped? (SHOWN NOT TOLD)
you didn't see all the dead bodies in the water? (SHOWN NOT TOLD)
you didn't see the ship split and sink (SHOWN NOT TOLD)
LOOOOOOLLL rent again. I love this :)
Please show me the scene where it shows all of them dying
Please show me the scene where it shows all of them dying
I didn't see 1500 dead bodies, I only saw maybe 30 or 40
I didn't see anyone die in that scene.
Nice try kid.
they dont have to! they showed a decent amount dying so we can extrapolate that more died!
they didn't show one person die and we are supposed to extrapolate that 1000s died
SEE HOW SIMPLE IT IS :)
even you can get it!
They don't need to show all of the cops dying, they showed a decent amount dying so we can extrapolate that more died.
SEE HOW SIMPLE IT IS :)
even you can get it!
7 dead cops vs 15 AK47s out of 1200 is a decent amount? wow you are dumb....
share30 out of 1500 is a decent amount? wow you are dumb.....
share7. learn to count. you are making stuff up in your head. saying its magically higher. SHOW DONT TELL
shareI was talking about the Titanic genius and I just proved that you don't know how to count. OK kid, first comes 1, then 2, then 3, now what number comes after 3??? Even you can get this I know you can!!!
shareNo by my logic they SHOWED the titanic was full of people. whether it was the large dinners for the wealthy, the crew, the everyday life of decks filled with people, the poor securement and their dancing party.
the ship was shown to be brimming with people
what it is equivalent to, and you are TOO FUCKING STUPID TO GET YOU DISPROVED YOURSELF. is if they showed almost no one on the titanic... no big dinner party, no dance party, no everyday life brimming with people
so when it sunk wed be like, "so what did like 50 people die?
you re so FUCKING DUMB you disproved yourself. I take that as a concession :) thanks"
Answer my question, first I need confirmation you can actually count: What number comes after 3?
shareAlso 12 clearly fell in the 10 seconds or so that we were shown, you don't even know how to count properly idiot.
shareomg 12!!!! so 3 ask didn't hit a thing and the other 12 hit 1 target. wow...
shareAnswer my question, first I need confirmation you can actually count: What number comes after 3?
sharehttps://www.bodyarmornews.com/officer-shot-at-with-ak-47-and-saved-by-bullet-proof-vest/
faila Army over here
Normally a NIJ Level IIIA bullet proof vest in combination with Level IV hard armor panels can stop AK-47 rounds including armor piercing. Level IV hard armor panels can be purchased by officers and are not restricted to military personel.
shareWatching you get owned is hilarious.
shareNo by my logic they SHOWED the titanic was full of people. whether it was the large dinners for the wealthy, the crew, the everyday life of decks filled with people, the poor securement and their dancing party.
the ship was shown to be brimming with people
what it is equivalent to, and you are TOO FUCKING STUPID TO GET YOU DISPROVED YOURSELF. is if they showed almost no one on the titanic... no big dinner party, no dance party, no everyday life brimming with people
so when it sunk wed be like, "so what did like 50 people die?
you re so FUCKING DUMB you disproved yourself. I take that as a concession :) thanks"
Yes I do concede, I concede that you don't have an intelligent response and I concede that you don't understand this movie.
sharehttps://www.bodyarmornews.com/officer-shot-at-with-ak-47-and-saved-by-bullet-proof-vest/
remember when you aimed the police got hit by an AK round and kept running
"Stephens said fortunately Beavers didn’t receive a direct full AK-47 round. He said there’s only one bulletproof-type vest that can stop a 7.62 mm full metal jacket steel round from an AK-47, and only the U.S. military has that."
how dumb are you?
Answer my question, first I need confirmation you can actually count: What number comes after 3?
sharehttps://www.bodyarmornews.com/officer-shot-at-with-ak-47-and-saved-by-bullet-proof-vest/
remember when you said the cops shot at 20 meters with an ak47 kept going???
"Stephens said fortunately Beavers didn’t receive a direct full AK-47 round. He said there’s only one bulletproof-type vest that can stop a 7.62 mm full metal jacket steel round from an AK-47, and only the U.S. military has that."
From the same article: Normally a NIJ Level IIIA bullet proof vest in combination with Level IV hard armor panels can stop AK-47 rounds including armor piercing. Level IV hard armor panels can be purchased by officers and are not restricted to military personel.
Also none of this matters unless you can prove that no other cops were killed off screen, considering you've demonstrated you don't know how to count your credibility is at an all time low kid.
"Madison County Sheriff’s Investigator Brent Patterson calls it “amazing, it’s a miracle and I can’t explain it. I’m not sure anybody can.”"
and then "police say Shriver fired at Beaver 12 to 15 times at the intersection of U.S. 231 and Joe Quick Road. Beavers was wounded and taken to Huntsville Hospital in critical condition, where he had surgery Tuesday and is recovering."
which also went first through his car door.
THIS MAN would be worse off then police fired at point blank directly?
WOW you live in la la land. your conversion to the insane realm of fantasy is complete..
From the same article: Normally a NIJ Level IIIA bullet proof vest in combination with Level IV hard armor panels can stop AK-47 rounds including armor piercing. Level IV hard armor panels can be purchased by officers and are not restricted to military personel.
Also none of this matters unless you can prove that no other cops were killed off screen, considering you've demonstrated you don't know how to count your credibility is at an all time low kid.
"Also none of this matters unless you can prove that no other cops were killed off screen, considering you've demonstrated you don't know how to count your credibility is at an all time low kid."
I DONT HAVE TO YOU FUCKING RETARD
amazing how simple concepts are tough for tards like you :) ill go over it again for the 15th time! maybe you will get it this time :)
so the concept in film is show not tell. because film is a visual media its better to show the audience scenes or character development rather than just deliver it through exposition
now since we cant see every single thing that happens in a film. the director shows scenes in a way so the audience can understand what is happening.
for example!
if a group of people is running at at a machine gun that is opening fire. the director will likely show many of them dying. it shows the threat and danger of the machine gun.
notice how here you dont need one of the characters to say "omg look at that machine gun! it is so deadly and killing so many of us!"
now if the director shows a big machine gun firing at a group of people, but only shows 7 people fall, it may leave the audience confused.. because the danger of the machine gun doesnt match up with the shots we are shown!
I shall explain and re-explain and re-explain this as many times as you need kid :)
It can be implied that cops were killed off camera just like it can be implied more than 30 people died on the Titanic off camera.
sharethe implication COMES FROM WHAT IS SHOWN ON SCREEN. how dumb are you?
so had only 1 officer been shown to fall, it wouldn't make sense for you to say "yaa but actually 100 fell offscreen"
the offscreen numbers come from what is SHOWN
fuck you are dumb man
But far more than one officer was shown to fall so your premise is debunked. Sucks don't it?
shareill explain again
ill go over it again for the 15th time! maybe you will get it this time :)
so the concept in film is show not tell. because film is a visual media its better to show the audience scenes or character development rather than just deliver it through exposition
now since we cant see every single thing that happens in a film. the director shows scenes in a way so the audience can understand what is happening.
for example!
if a group of people is running at at a machine gun that is opening fire. the director will likely show many of them dying. it shows the threat and danger of the machine gun.
notice how here you dont need one of the characters to say "omg look at that machine gun! it is so deadly and killing so many of us!"
Now if the director shows a big machine gun firing at a group of people, but only shows 7 people fall, it may leave the audience confused.. because the danger of the machine gun and rate of fire doesnt match up with the shots we are shown! just how if a single man fires a few shots of a handgun and we cut to a shot of 20 dead people we are left confused.
what we see on screen sets up for what we dont see offscreen.
so we dont need to see every single dead person from the titanic to know many died BECAUSE we are shown multiple scenes establishing the ship is full thousands. we also know many parishes because MULTIPLE scenes shows hundreds and hundreds of people in jeopardy!
had they shown only 5 people in jeopardy, it would have been illogical to extrapolate "yaa but there were 2000 others you didn't see!" SHOW DONT TELL
so are we confused when 15 people with ak47s firing on a dense crowd downs 7 people. its basic filmmaking that Nolan overlooked
I shall explain and re-explain and re-explain this as many times as you need kid :)
It can be implied that cops were killed off camera just like it can be implied more than 30 people died on the Titanic off camera kid. We did see cops die so therefore you don't have a basis of asserting "show don't tell", Nolan did show.
shareILL explain again for you :)
so the concept in film is show not tell. because film is a visual media its better to show the audience scenes or character development rather than just deliver it through exposition
now since we cant see every single thing that happens in a film. the director shows scenes in a way so the audience can understand what is happening.
for example!
if a group of people is running at at a machine gun that is opening fire. the director will likely show many of them dying. it shows the threat and danger of the machine gun.
notice how here you dont need one of the characters to say "omg look at that machine gun! it is so deadly and killing so many of us!"
Now if the director shows a big machine gun firing at a group of people, but only shows 7 people fall, it may leave the audience confused.. because the danger of the machine gun and rate of fire doesnt match up with the shots we are shown! just how if a single man fires a few shots of a handgun and we cut to a shot of 20 dead people we are left confused.
what we see on screen sets up for what we dont see offscreen.
so we dont need to see every single dead person from the titanic to know many died BECAUSE we are shown multiple scenes establishing the ship is full thousands. we also know many parishes because MULTIPLE scenes shows hundreds and hundreds of people in jeopardy!
had they shown only 5 people in jeopardy, it would have been illogical to extrapolate "yaa but there were 2000 others you didn't see!" SHOW DONT TELL
so are we confused when 15 people with ak47s firing on a dense crowd downs 7 people. its basic filmmaking that Nolan overlooked
I shall explain and re-explain and re-explain this as many times as you need kid :)
It can be implied that cops were killed off camera just like it can be implied more than 30 people died on the Titanic off camera kid.
yes cause in titanic we are shown hundreds and hundreds of people in jeopardy, in danger, on the verge of death, trapped and about to die etc.
and in TDKR? we are shown THE ENTIRE CROWD and 7 people fall. that doesnt impart danger.
again basic filmmaking.
owned again kid :)
Yes BECAUSE in TDKR we are shown hundreds and hundreds of people taking gunfire, on the verge of death and about to die, etc.
Also learn to count it was more than 7.
owned again junior :)
im watching in 4k on my 65 inch LG old B9 you retard.
"Yes BECAUSE in TDKR we are shown hundreds and hundreds of people taking gunfire, on the verge of death and about to die, etc.
"
and yet 7 fall. where's the danger? that shows no danger at all. you dont get to "infer" what happened offscreen. because onscreen we are shown very little danger
I love unmanning you in public. you make it soo easy
See you still don't know how to count, it was clearly more than 7, why should I take you seriously you can't even count to 12 which I knew how to back in kindergarten.
We only saw about 30 people die on the Titanic yet we know it was 1500.
Keep this up I am so enjoying owning you.
Also none of this matters unless you can prove that no one was killed off camera.
share@ 2:12:10 the charge starts
@2:12:14 an overhead high angle shot shows approximately 250 police in the shot. NOT A SINGLE OFFICER FALLS
@2:12:32 a slight above eye level long shot shows the officers charging. @ EXACTLY 2:12:35 a single officer in the centre of the frame falls, immediately after one to his right does
It then cuts to Banes men firing then immediately back to the police. @2:12:37 a medium-long shot from the side shows the cops charging. exactly 4 cops all fall within a second of each other in the centre of the shot. you can actually see only the legs of one officer who fell in the middle left of the frame
AND FINALLLY @2:12:42 we see an over the shoulder long shot behind Banes men. ONE OFFICER FALLS.
I already debunked this point in the PM, learn how to count kid.
Also none of this matters unless you can A) Prove to me that no one else died off camera and B) Show me an objective standard that says more cops should have fallen
15 aks 47s takes out 7 people on screen. with a magazine of 30 rounds each. 450 bullets in total. takes out 7 men... there done. its called math and psychics. work it out
an effective rate of 1.5%. at 20 meters to literally point blank.
Also the tear gas was thrown before they were at point blank range. You are really drowning here son.
sharesooo gas stops bullets now!! omg I didn't know! more new physics! by the retard!
shareI already explained this you idiot. The mercenaries can't see now so of course their accuracy is going to go down.
shareill go over it again for the 15th time! maybe you will get it this time :)
so the concept in film is show not tell. because film is a visual media its better to show the audience scenes or character development rather than just deliver it through exposition
now since we cant see every single thing that happens in a film. the director shows scenes in a way so the audience can understand what is happening.
for example!
if a group of people is running at at a machine gun that is opening fire. the director will likely show many of them dying. it shows the threat and danger of the machine gun.
notice how here you dont need one of the characters to say "omg look at that machine gun! it is so deadly and killing so many of us!"
Now if the director shows a big machine gun firing at a group of people, but only shows 7 people fall, it may leave the audience confused.. because the danger of the machine gun and rate of fire doesnt match up with the shots we are shown! just how if a single man fires a few shots of a handgun and we cut to a shot of 20 dead people we are left confused.
so are we confused when 15 people with ak47s firing on a dense crowd downs 7 people. its basic filmmaking that Nolan overlooked
I shall explain and re-explain and re-explain this as many times as you need kid :)
It can be implied that cops were killed off camera just like it can be implied more than 30 people died on the Titanic off camera kid.
shareWhen you start with argument ad hominem and by being an ill-educated asshole, YOU lose.
shareI just watched the clip you sent, and you know what's actually weirder? Bane's guys are charging the cops. They're in cover behind the armoured cars, but they keep coming out. They don't set up two lines, one crouching, one standing (heck, add one prone) and just unload on the cops as they come forward. Two lines of Bane's goons and they'd annihilate these cops. They don't know not to close range?
shareyaaa nothing makes more sense when you have high powered fully automatic weapons, then charging and engaging in hand to hand combat...
"They don't set up two lines, one crouching, one standing (heck, add one prone) and just unload on the cops as they come forward."
im not even asking for basic common sense tactics :p justifying in their general direction and actually hitting more than 7 people would be an acceptable minimum bar for me
'Two lines of Bane's goons and they'd annihilate these cops" you must have missed MovieCHatUsers amazing explanation, see 1200 people densely packed 80-90 rows deep shoulder to shoulder in a narrow street who are running directly towards the gunmen are "moving targets" and hence hard to hit.
we have to inform the US army they are doing it all wrong! we have to get MovieChat in contact with US army high command immediately so he can explain his new theory
It's weird that more guys don't go down. It's hard to tell the exact layout of the place. Bane's on the steps of a building with some kind of commanding officer. The guys in the street can see this guy flip his arm forward, so they've got a visual on him. The cops also think they can run there, so it's pretty close. Meanwhile, in between are the tumblers. They get disabled by the batplane. Now, at this point, it does look to me like those vehicles provide a certain amount of cover. But if Bane's goons hadn't pressed forward (or had fallen back) the cops couldn't have charged without getting slaughtered. Or, since Bane's thugs were closer to the cars, they could have used them for cover themselves and fired from behind the tumblers. They don't do either of those things.
I could assume that the tumblers soaked up some/most of the bullets but for the fact that Bane's guys are already shooting around the cars, which implies that they at least can see the cops.
That said, these are Blackgate pen inmates, right? So they aren't trained. It would be tough to hit targets coming through tumblers.
its not perfectly clear. but when I see 15 guys with aks and only 7 fall, my immersion is gone.
I mean only show 4 guys with guns AKs, show only handguns, anything.
its not perfectly clear. but when I see 15 guys with aks and only 7 fall, my immersion is gone.
I mean only show 4 guys with guns AKs, show only handguns, anything.
They were pretty heavily-armed, yeah.
The cops should have maybe attacked from multiple angles, too. They don't know the city that well or something?
I dunno id say its more a "final head on charge" kinda thing that was meant to be all symbolic rather than any sort of intelligent well coordinated attack
shareIt's not weird, it's just crap. There should be dead cops everywhere, but you can't do this in the Batman universe no matter who is directing. Batman buzzed Bane's goons moments before, considering how Bats is against just killing the bad guys, he could have pelted them with tear-gas or something you'd expect the Bat to be equipped with and the fight would have been more even-balanced and plausible.
"They don't set up two lines, one crouching, one standing (heck, add one prone) and just unload on the cops as they come forward."
Cops... thousands of them. Don't shoot till you see the whites of their donuts.
If Michael Caine played Bane then the cops would have lost big time.
The most nonsensical element was "trapping" people on the island. Can't people swim? No one has boats? Oh, there are patrols? Every few hundred feet at all hours of the day? I would have escaped in the first week.
shareYeah, the fact that Gotham was stagnant for so long with neither the US government nor the citizens making a real move was a little strange. But they couldn't shrink that timeline without having Bruce's back healing be anything shy of miraculous. It's already silly ("Broken back? No problem! I'll fix it with... karate punch!")
One of the reasons I couldn't get into this film is that it kinda piles on one questionable element after another, and those flaws add up. I didn't really care for the plot, anyway, even if the details had made sense, but that's a whole other post...