this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
248 points (97.7% liked)

Movies and TV Shows

2114 readers
68 users here now

A community for entertainment industry news and general discussion about movies and TV shows.

Rules:

  1. Be civil.
  2. Please do not link to pirated content.
  3. No spoilers in the title of submissions. And please use spoiler MarkDown in the body of discussions. This is a courtesy to other users.
  4. Comments solely criticizing headlines and/or journalism will be removed for being off-topic.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You cheat the perspective. You use CGI. You use electronic sim guns.

John Wick, one of the most gun-heavy actions films in recent memory, never had one actor point a live firearm at another, because that's stupid and dangerous.

https://www.slashfilm.com/1227707/john-wick-4-director-chad-stahleski-gets-candid-about-live-firearms-on-film-sets/

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I agree with that article, though I'd argue John Wick is the worst example to use as proof it can be done in other ways sure, they've got a lot of guns firing, but first is it's super fast paced, so you can't actually see a single shot. Second is that with that many rounds firing they probably wouldn't have a choice, at least for interior scenes. Taking into account multiple takes, that would be so much gunpowder going off that you'd probably have to take a lot of time between takes for the smoke to clear.

For a slow scene with only one or a few rounds fired close to the camera, perspective tricks probably wouldn't work, and CGI likely wouldn't look as realistic either. Is that a good enough reason? I don't know. I'm not a director or actor. I know some directors will go through a ton of effort for a tiny amount of added authenticity. John Wick goes the opposite direction with all their gun-magic after the first movie.