Redundant hero scene that never made sense to me

[cosmosdan]

@TWDuke

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.

I already said there’s no guarentee either way. They can write whatever they want but including that oft copied tired ole scene doesn’t get them any creative points from me. The twist in this one that wasn’t to bad was that after the hero was shot the hostage actually managed to kill the bad guy. THat was an decent twist, but they could have gotten there in a better way.
It doesn’t show concern for the hostage to walk out in front of someone you know is willing to kill you both. It shows stupidity.

Of course if the hero doesn’t have a shot at the bad guy even after they shoot the hostage that’s a different scenario. I’m talking about bad guy directly accross for the heros sights threatening to shoot the hostage unless you throw down your gun and come out in the open. Really really stupid, no matter how it turns out.

[Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker]

@RainGrowsBrite

Shoot the hostage.)

Also happened in “Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man.” Sorta.

[Alessan]

AFAIK, cops and soldiers are trained never to put down their weapons in hostage situations.

[YogSothoth]

I’ve never been in a standoff, but I imagine it would be very easy to win one: just shoot first

Movies always makes it seem like if 2 people have their guns pointed at each other, they are in a stalemate. But for the half a second that it takes to pull a trigger, you could shoot and the other person wouldn’t have time to react. Especially if you distract him with talk to simply gesture with your gun but pull the trigger instead. What’s so tough about that?

[carnivorousplant]

@YogSosoth

Especially if you distract him with talk to simply gesture with your gun but pull the trigger instead. What’s so tough about that?

You probably won’t hit him.

[cosmosdan]

@YogSosoth

I’ve never been in a standoff, but I imagine it would be very easy to win one: just shoot first

Movies always makes it seem like if 2 people have their guns pointed at each other, they are in a stalemate. But for the half a second that it takes to pull a trigger, you could shoot and the other person wouldn’t have time to react. Especially if you distract him with talk to simply gesture with your gun but pull the trigger instead. What’s so tough about that?

Sounds good. I’ll try the ole

“Hey your shoe is untied” ploy
“I’m wearing boots”

“dam it”

[cosmosdan]

In a real stand off I’m pretty sure I’d distract him by crying and peeing my pants.

Works every time. They can’t aim with tears of laughter in their eyes.

[JSexton]

@YogSosoth

I’ve never been in a standoff, but I imagine it would be very easy to win one: just shoot first

Movies always makes it seem like if 2 people have their guns pointed at each other, they are in a stalemate. But for the half a second that it takes to pull a trigger, you could shoot and the other person wouldn’t have time to react. Especially if you distract him with talk to simply gesture with your gun but pull the trigger instead. What’s so tough about that?

I saw that in a movie recently.

Bad guy grabs a hostage: “Drop your gun or I’ll-”
Good guy shoots him and makes a a line about talking too much.

Not sure what it was. A History Of Violence, maybe?

[msmith537]

@RealityChuck

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.

Well IRL I don’t think a police officer is supposed to relinquish his gun under any circumstances. If the officer throws down his weapon he just lost all control of the situation. Usually the bad guy knows the only thing standing between him and several bullets on their way towards his vital organs at high speed is the hostage.

@YogSosoth

I’ve never been in a standoff, but I imagine it would be very easy to win one: just shoot first

Movies always makes it seem like if 2 people have their guns pointed at each other, they are in a stalemate. But for the half a second that it takes to pull a trigger, you could shoot and the other person wouldn’t have time to react. Especially if you distract him with talk to simply gesture with your gun but pull the trigger instead. What’s so tough about that?

You know what the other person could also do in the half second that it takes to pull a trigger?

Shoot back.

Pistols don’t have a lot of “stopping power” AFAIK. There are few places you can shoot someone, even fatally, where they will just drop dead instantly.

[cosmosdan]

@msmith537

Well IRL I don’t think a police officer is supposed to relinquish his gun under any circumstances. If the officer throws down his weapon he just lost all control of the situation. Usually the bad guy knows the only thing standing between him and several bullets on their way towards his vital organs at high speed is the hostage.

My point exactly. It’s caring about someone to stupidly give up your best chance of saving them.

You don’t blaze away, but you keep the threat to the bad guy alive so he knows that his life is dependent on the hostage NOT BEING DEAD.

Pistols don’t have a lot of “stopping power” AFAIK. There are few places you can shoot someone, even fatally, where they will just drop dead instantly.

I’m telling Clint Eastwood you said that.
A freind of mine has a gun collection. He recently showed me his 50 caliber pistol You can hunt buffalo with that thing.

[cosmosdan]

Does anybody remember which movie or TV show had the scene where the hero shoots through the hostage , in a spot where they won’t die, to kill the bad guy.

Like, you realize their shoulder is lined up with the baddie’s heart so you just shoot them in the shoulder and the baddie in the heart. Problem solved.

[Satchmo]

@cosmosdan

My point exactly. It’s caring about someone to stupidly give up your best chance of saving them.

You don’t blaze away, but you keep the threat to the bad guy alive so he knows that his life is dependent on the hostage NOT BEING DEAD.

I’m telling Clint Eastwood you said that.
A freind of mine has a gun collection. He recently showed me his 50 caliber pistol You can hunt buffalo with that thing.

The Cowboy: Slim, I ain’t never seen a handgun that big before.
Frank Dooley: Yeah, it’s a 50 caliber. They used to use it to hunt buffalo with… up close! It’s only legal in two states. And this isn’t one of them.

John Candy in Armed and Dangerous

[BrotherCadfael]

@cosmosdan

Does anybody remember which movie or TV show had the scene where the hero shoots through the hostage , in a spot where they won’t die, to kill the bad guy.

On NCIS, Gibbs shot through the hostage, killing her, at her specific order.

A relative who was a cop confirms that they are trained to never, ever, give up the gun.

[silenus]

@msmith537

Pistols don’t have a lot of “stopping power” AFAIK. There are few places you can shoot someone, even fatally, where they will just drop dead instantly.

And all of them are exposed when holding a hostage with a gun to their head.

[cosmosdan]

@BrotherCadfael

On NCIS, Gibbs shot through the hostage, killing her, at her specific order.

A relative who was a cop confirms that they are trained to never, ever, give up the gun.

What?? He killed the hostage…by shooting through her, …and she ordered him to? That must have been a very bad , bad guy.

I like NCIS. Didn’t catch that one.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@cosmosdan

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}

I think he was referring to the scene where folks are holding Keyser’s wife and kid at gunpoint, and Keyser unhesitatingly guns down his own family along with the hostage-takers.

[cosmosdan]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I think he was referring to the scene where folks are holding Keyser’s wife and kid at gunpoint, and Keyser unhesitatingly guns down his own family along with the hostage-takers.

Ohhhh, right. That is definitely a twist on the theme.

[KidScruffy]

@cosmosdan

Ohhhh, right. That is definitely a twist on the theme.

He’d rather see his family dead, than live another day after that…

[Superhal]

I think there’s an unwritten rule of this type of scene: the hero drops their weapon with the tacit understanding that they are trading their own life for the hostage’s.

[cosmosdan]

@Superhal

I think there’s an unwritten rule of this type of scene: the hero drops their weapon with the tacit understanding that they are trading their own life for the hostage’s.

That the part that doesn’t make sense. Why would you expect this bad guy to let the hostage live, because that’s the tactic agreement?
Actually I’d enjoy that scene. The hero surrenders. The bad guy shoots him. As he lays mortally wounded the bad guy shoots the hostage. The heros last words are , "you fucker, we… had… a tacit… agreement, aaaaaarrr