Science fiction/fantasy author Poul Anderson wrote an essay, “On Thud and Blunder”, years ago about what it’s really like to be hit over the head and knocked unconscious. As well as a lot of other writing tropes.
Actually, only one sidearm is issued (if that) the rest are the officers and he gets to keep them.
But yeah, you’re right. Not to mention bring in the Union, etc.
Why were they not cut to ribbons by the flying glass or skewered by strips of metal and wood?
Huh. I always liked it, and thought of it as a great pivotal moment, taken in context. I mean, Tom Cruise’s character is totally throwing the Hail Mary: he’s bluffing about having testimony he doesn’t really have, and he admits he’s banking his case (and own future) on trying to goad Jack Nicholson’s character into losing his temper:
So as the scene plays out, with Kaffee badgering him and Jessep sparring back, when Nicholson finally explodes with the famous line, I instantly went “Ha! Tom Cruise did it,” as Nicholson goes on and totally incriminates himself. I thought it was a cool climax.
I would agree that people who quote it around, misremembering as having been a good moment for Nicholson’s character, or one that made him look cool, are silly.
I love Casino Royale, but that scene bugged me for a different reason. Bond should have just followed on the ground. The parkour-guy has to come down sometime. It would be more logical, and a lot safer.
It’s OK, I’ve had my tetanus shot.
Very true…but the reason is obvious. The “real life” alternative is a four-hour stand-off with lots and lots and LOTS of very, very dull dialogue.
“C’mon, Sam, put the gun down.”
“Nuh uh!”
“Sam. C’mon. Put it down.”
“Guh 'way!”
“Sam. Listen to me…”
Four hours of this? Not much of a movie!
Ah, that reminds me of the other one, dated now, in which someone fires six shots, hears the dread click on the seventh, and he throws the gun at the person shooting, or just away.
Why would any one throw away a perfectly good gun for want of a bullet?
Because, duh! It’s the gun, it controls the bullets, so it MUST be more powerful than the bullets themselves, so it’s surely going to take the bad guy down.
character fires all bullets at the target to no effect
Bad guy - Hmmph, nice try.
character throws the gun at the bad guy, striking his chest
Bad guy - OOOOWWW! Dammit, that hurts. You jerk! Be careful with that thing. Guns have been known to kill people, ya know!
walks away clutching his chest, cursing and grunting in pain
I take it back; I don’t understand why they do it, because that’s exactly how much sense it makes.
Because that’s all he had to throw after tossing his empty canteen.
Or they are in the desert, drink the last drop and throw the canteen away…:eek::dubious:
Or shoot the canteen.
Just as Our Hero is taking a drink, Snidely Whiplash shoots it, instead of just, I don’t know, taking it away and saving the water.
That Snidely’s a real SOB.
No, they need those. Who would want to see the sinking of the Titanic, or the attack on Pearl Harbor, without a sappy love story to relieve the boredom?
I’d have preferred seeing the heroic but ultimately failed efforts to save the Renault in Titanic’s hold.
I’d hoped they’d show Rose’s diamond falling onto the car to make a glittering hood ornament.
what was that loud noise?
How many aliens look like humans with skin conditions.
I know right! I mean, all the aliens I’ve ever known, they are pretty freakin’ non-humanoid. Most of them are short and have multiple appendages, no distinguishing facial features like a mouth or nose. Not to mention the fact that they don’t speak English. All of our conversations involve a lot of pointing and audible sounds of frustration along with an occasional F-Bomb dropped from either one of us, because, well, the F-Bomb is universal.

I was on a jury last year for the first time, and they did object a lot. But there was a difference between a real life trial and courtroom dramas: they never said the reason within earshot of the jury. They would just say “objection” and the judge would say either “sustained” or “overruled.” If it happened several times in quick succession the judge would ask the attorneys to approach the bench and they would discuss the reasons in hushed tones so the jury couldn’t hear.
I often object in practice myself, but, objections in film are done when there should be none in real life. This is particularly egregious because 99 % of objections in film are during witness examinations, IRL you would rarely do so there, unless the opposing counsel made some major error, like leading questions in Chief or asking a witness opinion/ eliciting hearsay, all of which in anycase the judge would usually pick up without you doing to much.