MovieChat Forums > Precious Cargo (2016) Discussion > Glaring GOOFS so far...

Glaring GOOFS so far...

posted 8 years ago by Bdave101
16 replies | jump to latest

Not even 5 minutes in:
1) Shooting some one that close in the FACE with a blank gun would blind a the person being "shot". Possibly permanently.

2) There is no such cartridge as a .308 Win Mags. It is either a .308 or a .300 Win Mag.

3) That is a US Optic scope on the sniper rifle which is an M1 Garrand in a modern chassis. The scope is WAAAY too far forward for anyone to get any use out of it. It simply will not work where it was mounted.E

Today, almost all "A" movies and most "B" movies do a much better job of weapons handling than in years past.
I am already seeing that nobody cared a *beep* about the production value so far.
These sort of errors you dont even see on TV shows today.

I am actually amazed how well actors are trained to handle weapons that are well equipped. This movie is an insult to those producers, and directors that actually care.

If it had just been one error I let those slide. But so many errors in a 2 minute space, right at the very start of a movie where it is important to get details correct....I have to call the lazy ass people out who were supposed to be in charge off this.

[–] ajaddiction2004 8 years ago

I know it sucked, but at least they all seemed to being doing a good job holding their pistols. Guns also ran out of ammo and they had to reload at various times.

Also no rear sight on Tyler Jon Olson's M4 when he hosed a group of bad guys down.

Seemed like a lot of digital muzzle flashes were added to some of the early shootouts and they just had the actors react to recoil. Of course some will not understand the sensation of a pistol going off in the hand and will react less than others, making it hard to sell the digital effect as real.

It could all have been worse...

[–] mason25 8 years ago

Thank god I'm not the only one to think of the blank scene as being ridiculously stupid.
Whilst it IS true that a metal projectile does NOT come out, there is still A projectile and at close enough range, it CAN be deadly. shoot a blank into someones eye/temple/mouth/throat, probably gonna kill them. that was definitely close enough to have done some damage.

[–] largrizzly 8 years ago

My two cents:

1) In the boat chase scene, bullets were sparking when hitting the fiberglass hull of the chase boat. Bullets don't spark, especially when hitting fiberglass.

2) The muzzle blast from the shotgun showered sparks. Shotguns don't throw sparks.

[–] Bdave101 8 years ago

I thought I would get flamed for being too nit picking. I have had a problem with gun handling for years (especially sparks off or FROM ANYTHING!), but overlook most of it. Up to a point.

I see that a lOT of productions are amazing. Remember La Femme Nikita from the nineties? They had the coolest weapons (MP5-SD's) and darn decent handling except the "hero" scenes where Micheal would take out 5 bad guys with his MP5 while fast roping down a building...LOL So, there has been some shows that show decent gun handling.

Except for rarely running out of ammo and unusally long bursts from tiny 20 round Tommy Gun magazines, the 60's show Combat actually did some half way decent weapon handling. For some reason, they rarely showed magazine changes. It was said that the character Cage(Cajun), could jam a clip of blanks (not a magazine!) into a Garrand as fast as anyone

The Lone Survivor comes to mind. The SEALs did ALL semi auto fire. AIMED fire..no pray and spray. That is what they did when they had no belt fed machine guns and limited ammo miles from home. Marcus Luttrell HIMSELF showed the actors how to hold, shoot and do quick mag changes with their MK12 SPR's (accurized, heavy barreled, modified M16's). I think the actors trained with M4's too.

Other than belt fed weapons, much of war from at least USA's side is done in semi auto. There are exceptions like the laying down of "supressive fire".

I am pretty well versed in boats, yachts, ships, guns, and planes. I know what they can and cannot do. I give Hollywood a "pass" in so many situations.

LIBTARD Hollywood directors and Producers do not realize one thing since they are mostly anti gun and live in anti gun Kalifornia.

That one thing is that America is becoming a GROWING gun culture. MORE and more citizens are arming and educating themselves. For every Diane Fienstein there are a 1000 NEW gun owners.

Every time Hussein Obama introduces or even TALKS about gun legislature, 100,000 or more AR15's get sold. The gun dealers OWE Hussein since he has single handily increased gun sales in the USA more than any person in history (unless Hillary gets elected.God forbid).

Not a rant. Just some facts that an increasing number of Americans are being made aware of.

I do not apologize for using any forum I can to show my agenda. Not push it, just show it. EDUCATION, people!

[–] largrizzly 8 years ago

I'm with you, Bdave101. I often get angry with Hollywood on their poor (maybe purposeful) depiction of guns.

1) When a double action revolver is opened, the actor often spins the cylinder and you hear the clicking of the ratchet mechanism. This sound can only be heard when the cylinder is closed.

2) They always have to rack the slide on a semi-auto for effect (even if it already had a round in the chamber, that round never comes out during this operation signaling that the chamber was actually empty).

3) So many rounds were fired in this movie and hardly anyone got hit (very bad shot-to-hit ratio).

4) One camera angle on a scene shows the hammer down and another camera angle shows the hammer cocked. A good example of this is the telephone booth scene in Terminator 2.

5) As mentioned above, bullets always spark in movies (they don't in real life).

6) When actors are shooting at targets, the holes in the targets are always backwards because the squibs are placed behind the target and blow towards the camera. The bullet holes should always be nice and round, the squibs always leave ragged holes.

7) In the restroom scene in True Lies, you can see the squib tape for each shot on the inside of the stall door.

I could go on, but my fingers are getting tired!

[–] Bdave101 8 years ago

@LARGRIZZLY...HA! Great screen name!! Only guys like us would know what your user name means. Cool.

2) They always have to rack the slide on a semi-auto for effect (even if it already had a round in the chamber, that round never comes out during this operation signaling that the chamber was actually empty).

5) As mentioned above, bullets always spark in movies (they don't in real life).

YES! I agree with ALL your points. But these two really piss me off. You see these two in almost every show that shows guns and gunfire. Why dont they just show close ups of real rounds making Swiss Cheese out of what ever they are shooting at. Use a "stand in" prop or something. But show REAL bullets making real holes.

I need to direct a movie short someday on a fictional story showing gun fire in the most realistic way possible.

[–] largrizzly 8 years ago

Ha! You are right about my username. I have two and have been shooting them for the past 25 years. I have one in .357 Magnum and one in .45 Winchester Magnum (the latter is a monster).

http://www.largrizzly.net/shooting.html

The item that ticks me off the most is number 1). Every time an actor opens a double action revolver, the cylinder always gets spun with the audible clicking noise of the mechanism. What a bunch of idiots. It just goes to show how much Hollywood doesn't know about guns!

[–] Bdave101 8 years ago

The item that ticks me off the most is number 1). Every time an actor opens a double action revolver, the cylinder always gets spun with the audible clicking noise of the mechanism. What a bunch of idiots. It just goes to show how much Hollywood doesn't know about guns!

Best revolver scene ever was in The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly.

When Tuco comes in from the desert to a lone store and croaks, "Revolvers!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meP_Ufwj-FY

Pure Hollywood (SpagettiWood), but so fun to watch. It was said that the actor had no idea what he was doing except to follow the prop guy's instructions.
Classic, historical scene. I dont crap about revolvers..especially old ones.
How real was this scene?
Doesnt matter. Even as gun guy, it was awesome. The target practice too.

Nobody made gun shots sound so unique as Leone did.

[–] MovieboyJim 8 years ago

You lost me at "libtard".

"Go, Land Crabs!"

[–] robh_d 8 years ago

I just started watching it a 20 minutes ago and I'm like WTF. Bad guy is shooting at the boat that's taking off-- with a rifle, no aiming. It gets farther away so he drops the rifle and raises his pistol, now trying to aim? Doesn't even raise the pistol until the boat is out of range. Now that's just silly.

[–] solarflareq 8 years ago

2) There is no such cartridge as a .308 Win Mags. It is either a .308 or a .300 Win Mag.

i hear you , as soon as she said that it grated my nerves so much.
if writers are going to say specifics at least fking make sure such a thing exists

she was holding a Springfield M1A in a EBR stock its 308-win there is nothing magnum going on there.

I dont usually get anal about things in movies but like i said if they are going to use technical terms at least do some research and say the right terms.

3) That is a US Optic scope on the sniper rifle which is an M1 Garrand in a modern chassis. The scope is WAAAY too far forward for anyone to get any use out of it. It simply will not work where it was mounted.E

yea the eye relief was off for sure the us optic scopes have decent relief but not like that , its not quite a garrand but i guess the m14 was based off the garrand platform so kind of correct , i wouldn't exactly call it a sniper rifle either its a battle rifle most wont shoot 1moa without lots of work,(i've owned a few) milage varies gun to gun however so for mid ranges i guess it can be used like one.

Raylan GIvens: didn't i tell you you were gonna wish i killed ya... well don't ya?

[–] npm_petre_mihai 8 years ago

Guys, relax, it's just a movie, not a documentary. The same things happens with cars exploding at slightest impact. Movies need to entartain, if they portray real life then they won't atract people. Of course people want to see explosions and sparks flying all over the place, that's why they watch a movie, otherwise, they'll watch a documentary about guns and ammo. And you really expect that level of attention from such a low budget movie?

[–] yahsx 8 years ago

- I liked how the bad guy jumped from a fast moving armored vehicle forward on to the truck that was towing it.

*beep* physics right.

- Also was this movie set in a time where armored vehicles didnt have trackers, emergency buttons, communications.

- Bruces crew was tracking them with satellites or some NSA *beep* or something.

- Where did that super bad guy take the enormous plane to.

Whole movie didnt make much sense. I mean sure you can suspend your disbelief
but this was a little much for me.

I like movies set in current universe at least semi believable.

[–] Ghenghy 8 years ago

STFU Dave, nobody cares about your little goofs. Thats not why people watch movies you know?

[–] mgsgamer2009 8 years ago

Also... That plane would take much longer than 15 minutes to refuel. I'm not exactly sure what plane it is, but I fuel c-130's and c-40's at work. This plane was larger than both and c-40s had jets not props. Both of those planes are large and take at least 45 minutes to refuel. But i guess a 45 minute refuel time doesn't exactly make for close calls in film