Have you ever wondered why...

birdfromboat wrote in post #9378713
I think the most glaring goof in a war movie is every time someone grabs a recently fired machine gun by the barrel. Audie Murphy even did it, and he was a soldier in real life with lots of combat experience.
Put the whole nine yards down a belt fed browning and you aren't going to get your hand anywhere near the barrel for awhile. It is definitely gonna bother your hand a little.

Is that the same machine gun that always seems to have an endless belt of ammo and never jams?

If we are on to shooting in the movies, how come the star always hits people first time but the "baddies" never hit anyone?

Has 007 ever missed a shot?

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #9378882
Has 007 ever missed a shot?

Never.

I also love the recoil-less shooting.

Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but I hate it when the character looks through binoculars and they show the two overlapping circles on the screen. That's not what it looks like when you look through binoculars. Come on, Hollywood. Let's do better.

mg550 wrote in post #9378958
Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but I hate it when the character looks through binoculars and they show the two overlapping circles on the screen. That's not what it looks like when you look through binoculars. Come on, Hollywood. Let's do better.

Oxymoronic...

Wilt wrote in post #9369013
...when there is a movie with a photojournalist shooting a film camera, there is always the sound effect of a motor drive to advance the film and cock the shutter,

For the same reason that in Star Trek, when they fire lasers at each other, the pistols make a shooting sound. Everybody knows that lasers make no sound. Its light for chrissake!

Pmolan wrote in post #9379082
For the same reason that in Star Trek, when they fire lasers at each other, the pistols make a shooting sound. Everybody knows that lasers make no sound. Its light for chrissake!

"Lasers" (always with the finger quotation marks) are in Austin Powers - Star Trek has phasers.

My pet peeve is WWII documentaries that show a shell exploding a mile or more away, but you hear the sound as soon as it explodes.

I also had to laugh a lot in Crimson Tide where they are running around on the grating in the sub making enough noise that the Russkis could have heard them halfway around the world, ABOVE THE SURFACE.

How about the classic scene in a lot of movies where there is a spy/private eye/detective staking out a subject with camera in hand, shows them taking pictures with a SLR with a lens attached that looks to be somewhere between 100-200mm. Yet when they show the view through the camera it has better magnification than a 500mm and is rock steady?

It's the same with Hollywood binoculars. I love those 500× zoom binoculars with infinite image stabilization, especially the models that can fit in your pocket.

Wow, thank you for this thread. Have you ever seen stuff by JJ Abrams? (sp?) He did "Lost" and the new Star Trek movie.

Utterly ridiculous use of lens flare. Every damn scene, there is lens flare on purpose! Even in computer generated clips of the Enterprise, there is a ton of lens flare!

Drives me nuts!

Grimes wrote in post #9382151
Wow, thank you for this thread. Have you ever seen stuff by JJ Abrams? (sp?) He did "Lost" and the new Star Trek movie.

Utterly ridiculous use of lens flare. Every damn scene, there is lens flare on purpose! Even in computer generated clips of the Enterprise, there is a ton of lens flare!

Drives me nuts!

Coppola used it quite a bit in Apocalypse Now as well. Especially in the Playboy Bunny / USO show scenes.

AFAIK, this was all done with filters.