Just watched it in a recent western and hoped they wouldn’t do it in the stupid traditional way. AARRRRRGGGHHHHH! They did
The bad guy grabs a kid or a girl and tells the hero to drop his gun, and the stupid hero does it. I’ve seen this hundreds of times ever since I was a kid and even then I knew it was stupid.
I thought, the bad guy is obviously a coward because he’s holding an innocent in front of him. If that innocent is the only thing keeping him alive then shooting them is just like shooting himself. Point that out to them.
If you surrender your weapon you have no little chance of defending yourself or the innocent, and there’s no guarentee he’ll let either of you live, If you have the potential to kill him you have some bargining room.
If you kill them you’ll be dead 2 seconds later.
I mean it, I’ll kill them
I believe you. I mean it to. Right now they are all that’s keeping you alive.
Here’s the deal If you drop your gun and let them go I’ll let you walk away.
How do I know you’re telling the truth.
You don’t. But if you kill them you have no chance at all. My word gives you a chance.
I actually saw Billy Jack do this in one of the series of films and said “Finally some script writer has some sense.” I was wondering if there were other films where the hero took a smarter appraoch to the hostage situation other than the sxtremely stupid, standing up and dropping your weapon.
That, pretty much, is what Keyser Soze did in The Usual Suspects. (I’d provide a link but the scene has language and violence that might be considered NSFW.)
Yeah, It only makes sense that it has a lot less chance of working when you’re holding a henchman. Works better when you have the boss, {the guy who pays them}
It’s known as “caring for other people.” You should try it some time.
In any case, in the traditional setup, the hero doesn’t have a clear shot at the villain. He can’t be sure he can take him out, or even if he does, the guy might kill the hostage anyway. This is rarely the optimum situations.
Films have upended the cliche but, in real life, try explaining to the hostages family that it was for the best.
None of those change the basic points I mentioned. I’m not suggesting you risk a shot that’s chancy. I’m only saying putting your gun down and coming out into the line of fire is a bad idea.
You won’t have to if he kills you both.
I really don’t know but I’m pretty sure some PDs have a no negotiating policy. Once a hostage is taken there’s no gaurntee they will be okay no matter what decision is made. Using the bad guys own life as a bargaining chip makes more sense because he obviously values that more than any innocent persons.
Also Robocop in at least one of the Robocop movies. I think it may have been “Robocop” (or “The Bus That Couldn’t Slow Down”).
The OP appears to be assuming that both characters are acting rationally, that each knows the other is acting rationally, and that the screenwriter’s primary job is to show the characters acting rationally at all times.
Used carelessly the scene is just a cheap way of prolonging conflict, but used properly it serves another purpose, showing that the protagonist – who may have been as ruthless as the antagonist up to this point – cares more about the hostage’s welfare than his own.
The OP’s version of the scene shows the character coolly weighing the risks and making a decision based on probability. There may be times when this is exactly the sort of behavior you want to portray, but there are times when it isn’t.
Sure, you amy want to portray stupidity. Obviously scriptwriting doesn’t have to make sense, but IMO it’s bad writing. Put some kind of twsit on it and be clever. O know I thought the writing was more interesting and more realsitic in the Bill JAck flick
Except the hero often has a backup plan, and gets away with it, and defeats the bad guy and gets the girl (often the hostage), so it doesn’t really prove stupidity. There’s no guarantee your plan would work better. (If you’re a cop, and there are witnesses, I might take you at your word. If you’re a vigilante who makes his own rules, not so much. Especially if I’m a desperate street punk hopped up on goofballs.) So your scenario doesn’t say smarter to me, it says colder. Again, there may be times when that’s what you want to portray, but usually by that point in the movie you have shown the character’s ruthless side, so you want to put a twist on that. Your version is only a twist if the character has previously been shown to be sentimental.
Let’s face it, there are millions of people out there convinced they can write better than the people who actually make a living at it. Few of them do.
If the villain isn’t rational, you reach the same conclusion. By the time the villain is going to shoot the hostage, the benefit of threatening to shoot the hostage has already been lost. A villain evil enough to kill the hostage for no reason because you resisted is also evil enough to kill the hostage for no reason because you didn’t resist.
)