Just for fun:
Aslan.
Clean.
Yea.
No excuse for spelling errers.
The pacing of that scene was a bit odd, but I think we were supposed to have jumped forward a few minutes between the “why so serious?” monologue and the henchman deathmatch. We didn’t actually see what he did to kill him.
So, I realize it’s action-movies and all, but which is more realistic: the kung-fu movie cliche of of hitting a guy only to have him bounce right back up, or the American movie cliche of hitting a guy and having him drop like a rag doll?
IIRC the novel The Godfather makes reference to this a few times. Ditto South Park 
It’s also a fetish of S.M. Sterlings. He constantly references “befouled breechcloths” and whatnot in his books. Anytime somone dies, he’s probably going to make a reference to the “usual squalor” or somesuch. Kind of annoying.
As I recall from reading the book (many years ago, as a child), that scene was where the human character (Peter?) was attacked by a wolf (wolves?). It was the first(?) time he’d ever used a sword. Yes, he put it back in the scabbard without wiping it, and Aslan corrected him.
However, the scene I was talking about was the final conflict, the big battle scene at the end.
And an episode of The Venture Brothers!
“Ewww!”
“Yeah, they never show that part in the movies”
Oh yeah, forgot about how in historical movies they show swords, daggers, arrows, practically anything with a sharper point than a carrot going right through full plate armor. Uh-uh. Not going to happen.
A heavy war arrow from a longbow or a crossbow bolt at relatively short range might punch through plate, but only if it hits pretty squarely. More likely is going through joints, which were backed only by mail and cloth or leather. A volley of arrows would cause some casualties just through chance and numbers, not to mention the psychological value of the attack, but a single arrow would have to be extremely well placed to count.
Mail would be proof against almost any cuts, and would turn some arrows. Drawback is that it doesn’t protect against broken bones, so if you get hit hard enough, you might get something broken. Better than the alternative. On the other hand, if you tried to stab a guy wearing plate in the gut, the blade would skate right off. In historical fighting manuals they depict ways to get past the reach of an opponent’s blade and start using wrestling moves and half-swording — grabbing part way up the blade with one hand to guide the tip — in order to get into the more vulnerable joints. Unfortunately, this isn’t as cinematic as showing a wet dill pickle penetrating a steel breastplate, so you get stupidity on screen.
While we’re on the subject, medieval armor isn’t really that heavy. Full plate would dress out at about 50–60 lbs. for a regular fighting suit. Mail can actually be heavier for similar coverage. What I know about modern soldiers is that full battle kit for the guys in Iraq and Afghanistan ranges from 50–80 lbs. depending on the mission and armor. They might drop with upwards of 100 lbs. if they think they’re going to burn through a lot of ammo in the beginning, or if they aren’t planning on performing a very mobile role.
Fighting gear has tended to a range of between 40 and 80 lbs. no matter what the era and weapons. Heavier than that negatively affects mobility and the ability of the soldier to fight. When you’re getting up around the top end, I’ve heard that the guys start to act like ultralight backpackers, opting for lighter tools if they can get them, trading out less essential gear for a savings of ounces or pounds because every little bit makes a difference over the course of hours.
You’ve got me, but I’m not a doctor. Mine feels the same on both sides. Anatomy drawings show right and left for both vessels.
Strangling deaths are rarely shown accurately. It’s really really hard to kill someone by strangling them. Even if you have a garrotte, it’s going to take longer than what usually happens in the movies.
The Godfather did it pretty well.
This is something I’ve heard, but haven’t corroborated: In handgun suicides (on film), usually the gun is usually found by the body. I’ve read (again, but not confirmed) that in reality, because of spasmodic reactions the body has as it’s shot, that the gun might be flung 20 feet away. Anyone???
I wouldn’t be surprised. It could go almost anywhere. We had one where the gun fell into a chest and the chest closed from the impact. The doors were locked from the inside. And there was no gun in sight. Where is Miss Marple when you need her?
Really? I’ll have to watch that again…
Emptying the bowels and bladder is a fear response and only hapens if the victim has the time (and inclination) to panic.
What did it look like? Was it above ground? Because an above ground septic tank would be pretty useless, since gravity would not carry the sewage upward from the toilet to it.
I’m sure a chiropractor could answer that.
Not forgetting death in outer space. I’m sure being exposed to a sudden vacuum doesn’t make you pop like a balloon as in “Outland”.
Most wounds caused by military-style weapons are not accurately portrayed in terms of the gruesome damage they will do to the human body (exceptions being Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers).
For example, baddies being shot full of submachine gun rounds in gangster films tend to just stagger about and fall down. In reality …
I had a great-uncle who was killed in just that manner during the Prohibition era (he was a rum-runner - an unlucky one). Way I heard it described, they basically had to put what was left of him in a bag - being riddled with .45 submachine gun slugs had blown chunks of him all over the place.
Same with bullets.
I personally know several people who were shot multiple times and survived (one was shot eight times :eek:) They were never quite the same after the experience, but still.
Unless a bullet hits the heart or the brain, death can take it’s time.
What I really hate is the screen depiction of a gunshot where the victim is knocked off his feet and backwards, as if hit by a charging linebacker.