What Does It Mean To Kill Someone "In Cold Blood"?

[Christopher]

I think it is pretty safe to say that each persons body is different enough and each gunshot wound is unique enough that consistently predicting body movement to supersonic projectile impact is all but impossible.

Yeah, but within the limits of the basic laws of physics. Nobody hit by a handgun or rifle bullet is going to go flying several meters through the air.

 

[Knight Templar]

I think it is pretty safe to say that each persons body is different enough and each gunshot wound is unique enough that consistently predicting body movement to supersonic projectile impact is all but impossible.

Yeah, but within the limits of the basic laws of physics. Nobody hit by a handgun or rifle bullet is going to go flying several meters through the air.

Kind of like when they show someone get electrocuted onscreen that they routinely show them flying through the air rather than simply stiffen briefly and drop.

 

[Christopher]

Let's see... just what can make a person fly through the air? The shock wave from an explosion wouldn't do it, I know that, since a shock wave isn't actually a push, just a peak of air pressure propagating outward. It's equivalent to a wave in the ocean -- it doesn't push you along with it, just passes through you. (Surfers aren't actually propelled by waves -- in order to ride on a single wave, they first have to get themselves up to the same speed that the wave is traveling.) The only way an explosion would send you flying is if you were close enough to be caught by the actual expanding gases of the blast itself, which would surely be fatal in an explosion large enough to propel a human body.

Being hit by a fast-moving, massive vehicle would do it, or by something like a swinging I-beam or wrecking ball -- anything with a mass greater than a human body. Odds of survival, again, pretty slim.

Otherwise, being thrown through the air would require being swung and tossed. Most of us have jumped off of swings in our youth. There are also springboards and the like. A sufficiently strong person could spin another person around and toss them some small distance, perhaps, but that person would feel an equal and opposite reaction and would probably fall or stagger back in the other direction.

Of course, stunt performers in movies who get "thrown through the air" when shot are really being yanked back by a wire, generally with several big, strong stagehands pulling on the other end.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You'll often here the media spouting out "they shot him execution style." As opposed to shooting someone non-execution style?

Yes. There's nothing confusing about this.

 

[Knight Templar]

Of course, stunt performers in movies who get "thrown through the air" when shot are really being yanked back by a wire, generally with several big, strong stagehands pulling on the other end.

I thought stuntmen generally used hydraulic or air rams to throw themselves through the air? As they don't have to be harnessed for that.

 

[Christopher]

That's another way. It depends on the stunt. A ram/launcher would only work if you couldn't see what they were standing on, like if it were a mid-close-up or a shot from below as they were thrown off a balcony or something. If it's a full-length shot where you can see their feet on the ground/floor, a wire's the way to go.

 

[Knight Templar]

That's another way. It depends on the stunt. A ram/launcher would only work if you couldn't see what they were standing on, like if it were a mid-close-up or a shot from below as they were thrown off a balcony or something. If it's a full-length shot where you can see their feet on the ground/floor, a wire's the way to go.

Has CGI developed to the point that lots of stunt work can simply be done on computer?

 

[Christopher]

Has CGI developed to the point that lots of stunt work can simply be done on computer?

Well, contrary to what many people assume, it's by no means "simple" to replicate real people or objects in a computer. It can only be done convincingly if you can devote a lot of time, effort, and processing power to it, which is why CGI effects can look all but completely convincing in big-budget motion pictures but still look cheesy on TV shows.

A computer is a powerful tool, but it makes no sense to depend on it exclusively rather than using it as just one tool in the box. The best way to create convincing screen illusions is to use a mix of different techniques, so as to keep the audience guessing, and simply to use whatever method works best for the needs of each particular shot.

So yes, CGI is to the point where it can be used for stunts that are too dangerous or difficult to achieve with live performers. We've seen it used for things like Spider-Man's swinging in the Raimi movies, Superman's flight in Superman Returns, and big fight scenes in plenty of movies, and sometimes it actually looks convincing. But if a stunt is something that a live performer can do reasonably safely, then it's usually going to be simpler and cheaper to do it that way, and more satisfying to the audience because they're actually watching something real and tangible.

One of the main ways CGI is used to enhance stunts these days is not to replace the stunt performers, but to enable supporting them with heavier safety wires and harnesses and such than in the past -- because these days the wires can just be digitally erased from the shot, and thus don't need to be invisibly thin. Also CGI can be used to replace a stunt performer's face with the face of the actor being doubled (something that was first done, as far as I know, with Ariana Richards's stunt double in Jurassic Park), but it's still a live human being performing the stunt.

 

[gturner]

^ Unfortunately the over reliance on computers in film seems to include the use of canned plot and dialog generators. I'd say "random plot generators", but a random plot generator would at least produce something new.

 

[Christopher]

^ Unfortunately the over reliance on computers in film...

Depends on the film. Of the two big superhero films this month, The Amazing Spider-Man relies on live stunts as much as possible for Spider-Man's feats, and The Dark Knight Rises was made by a director so traditionalist that he doesn't even own a cell phone, and keeps the use of CGI to a bare minimum, relying on conventional physical stunts and effects as much as possible (and is also the only major movie this season shot on film instead of digital cameras). If anything, I think we're getting to the point where there's a backlash against excessive and gratuitous use of CGI, and doing things for real is considered the classier way to go.

I'd say "random plot generators", but a random plot generator would at least produce something new.

There are no new plots. Every plot is a variation on a few basic templates going back thousands of years. After all, there are certain constants of human behavior and emotion, so there are only so many ways people will behave or interact or come into conflict, and only so many story structures that will be meaningful and effective for an audience. It's like grammar -- you can make an infinite number of sentences, but they have to be put together according to familiar structures and use recognizable vocabulary to be meaningful. Creativity doesn't mean making up completely new vocabulary and grammar, it means combining familiar elements in fresh ways.


On the other hand, this thread has become completely different from what it started out to be. What's the topic now?