It renders the hand unuseable for many weeks. Totally stupid movie glam.
Things you're tired of seeing in movies
- Thread starter Joosh
- Start date
Whoever thought of that idea for the movies probably nver suffered a bad hand injury in their lives...
jkno
Legendary Member
I usually use superglue on cuts and it works fine. You need to stop the bleeding, clean the wound and disinfect it and then apply superglue, by closing the opening - apply it for a couple days if it gets worn. The advantage is that you can use the hand/fingers 95% like before you got hurt, you can even wash hands like before. One of the cases when I cut my finger and applied superglue:
DO NOT USE KICKER!!! Someone on here or Starship Modeler did that and got third degree burns.
Must be that new cauterization method....
MaxPower89
Active Member
Bad fx sounds. Blades making “snit” sounds when coming out of sheaths. Guns going off in small rooms and no one having hearing loss. Chloroform working instantly. Mr. Christopher “Grounded in reality” Nolan is guilty of these things. Drives me bonkos.
One of the ones that always gets me, which I believe I mentioned before, is when they have the sound of cocking the hammer on a gun when they are using guns that don't have an exposed hammer, such as a Glock. The Family Guy show lampooned this with them using the cocking sound with bows and arrows.
MaxPower89
Active Member
Thunder as soon when lightning flashes. It should have a delay.
genZOD
Sr Member
Yeah, I still use superglue on "normal" cuts. IIRC, it was actually developed as liquid stitches. The gash on my hand was WAY past superglue and butterfly bandages. It's been 35 years and I still have a scar and feel a twinge if I flex my thumb just right (wrong?).
genZOD
Sr Member
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but... LASERS as useful hand-held weapons! I built a TOS phaser with a blue laser in it. It's powerful enough that the beam is fully visible indoors under normal lighting (Rayleigh scattering). Outside at night looks fully sci-fi. I've used it to pop balloons and light my grill. It's hardly a death ray, but it stings pretty bad up close and can 100% blind anyone who gets hit in the face with it or who looks at the spot it makes on a wall. I was an idiot when I first started playing with the laser module and looked directly at the hotspot it made on a nearby white wall. (after spending 10 minutes burning holes in a black piece of paper). Anyway, I went to bed thinking I had permanently damaged my vision. Luckily I got away with it. Now, when I bring it out everyone has to wear eye protection. What I'm saying is any laser using visible light that would actually work as a weapon would end up blinding everyone on the battlefield who wasn't wearing welding goggles strength protection for the correct wavelength.
Riceball
Master Member
Both Star Trek get around that by saying that their energy weapons aren't actually lasers. Star Trek phasers are some sort of highly advanced form of lasers and are like modern firearms (in terms of capability and tech) are to Medival handgonnes. And in Star Wars, blasters use plasma and so aren't lasers either.
genZOD
Sr Member
I love how s-l-o-w blasters and phasers shoot. Both are often depicted moving across the frame.
To be fair to Trek, the one time they explicitly use a "laser" on a super high setting in the pilot, they do wear goggles. I assume the narrative idea was to relate the power of the ship's lasers to atomic tests, something viewers in the 60's would be very familiar with. In the same episode, I think Spock squints when he fires a laser pistol.
Riceball
Master Member
Visible bolts or beams traveling fairly slow across the screen is just one of those necessary evils. If they depicted beam weapons actually traveling at realistic or near realistic speeds then we'd barely see anything. So to make it more exciting and so the audience can actually see something, they show phaser beams and blasters bolts traveling much slower than they really would if they were real.
In my head cannon, sci-fi "blasters" are not laser guns, but instead fire highly compressed bolts or bursts of plasma "bubbles" that move much slower than the speed of light. Super fast to a human, but no faster than say, a bullet leaving the barrel of a gun. As such, "blaster bolts" still succumb to resistance through the medium they are fired, gravity, wind/air currents, etc... the same as a bullet. So in space, a starfighter firing a much more powerful "blaster" version would not have to contend with those issues, and the "blaster bolt" could travel farther with more precision.
p51
Sr Member
Something you often see in movies about aircraft attacking something on the ground (and as recent as 2022's "Devotion" drives me nuts.
Far too often, in movies, you'll see an airplane attacking something on the ground, then seconds later, another coming from a right angle, doing the same.
So how would you rule out one aircraft either pumping rounds into the other, or simply running into it if the other were a split-second early or late?
You wouldn't. That why they don't do it like that!
Same thing that I posted earlier when you see artillery of any type fired in movies. In real life the impact is a split second after it leaves the tube, even it max range. "The Beast" is the only movie I've ever seen to get that right. They used former Russian-made tanks in Israel, shooting water-filled bags at the head of the round, causing not only the gun to fully recoil in battery like a real breech-loader does with live ammo, but they timed it perfect with the ground charges for the distances involved.
Far too often, in movies, you'll see an airplane attacking something on the ground, then seconds later, another coming from a right angle, doing the same.
So how would you rule out one aircraft either pumping rounds into the other, or simply running into it if the other were a split-second early or late?
You wouldn't. That why they don't do it like that!
That is oh-so-very true. An RPG is moving when it leaves the tube. You'd only see it flying if you fired the thing and were watching it down the narrowest axis possible; it's flight path. In real life, you grab an RPG, pull the trigger and BAM, that sucker be gone. The James Bond movie, "The living daylights" I think uses real RPGs because they're instantly gone from the entire area once the mujahidin guys on horseback shoot them once or twice. Most other films use model rocket motors, and you could 'Matrix' yourself out of getting hit like that as you have a moment to see one of those coming.
Same thing that I posted earlier when you see artillery of any type fired in movies. In real life the impact is a split second after it leaves the tube, even it max range. "The Beast" is the only movie I've ever seen to get that right. They used former Russian-made tanks in Israel, shooting water-filled bags at the head of the round, causing not only the gun to fully recoil in battery like a real breech-loader does with live ammo, but they timed it perfect with the ground charges for the distances involved.
Last edited:
My son was telling me something like this about blasters shooting plasma in theory. As for reality, plasma would not travel like a laser and would be about as successful as shooting someone at a distance with canned air.
Last edited:
Strikerkc
Sr Member
The star wars tech lore was that blasters needed 2 things to fire, gas (like the tibana gas minded at cloud city) and power packs.
Power packs would deplete and need recharging/replacing at a similar rate to we experience with real world firearms.
The gas was more of a "ware" item, something you would replace/top off during regular maintenance; like springs in a modern gun, or coolant in a car.
Blasters would super heat a very small amount of plasma for each shot, and encase it in a magnetic field (so that the plasma wouldn't just expand 360 degrees at the end of the barrel), and accelerate the field containing the plasma down the barrel. This was relatively power intensive, but the amount of gas needed was minimal (hence the less frequent need to top off the gas).
This was also why lightsabers could deflect blaster bolts. The lightsaber was essentially a plasma chain saw. using all the same ideas of the blaster. a magnetic field would move super heated plasma up, then another magnetic field would move that plasma back down, and was a closed system.
The "deflection" was the magnetic fields interacting with each other, and any plasma that intermixed during the deflection was absorbed into the system, or replaced from the gas and energy stores in the saber.
It's also what has been used to explain "saber lock" that we see in the movies. It's a slow but strong hit between sabers, and their fields interact with each other in a way that leaves them slightly attractive to each other, rather than repulsive.
Power packs would deplete and need recharging/replacing at a similar rate to we experience with real world firearms.
The gas was more of a "ware" item, something you would replace/top off during regular maintenance; like springs in a modern gun, or coolant in a car.
Blasters would super heat a very small amount of plasma for each shot, and encase it in a magnetic field (so that the plasma wouldn't just expand 360 degrees at the end of the barrel), and accelerate the field containing the plasma down the barrel. This was relatively power intensive, but the amount of gas needed was minimal (hence the less frequent need to top off the gas).
This was also why lightsabers could deflect blaster bolts. The lightsaber was essentially a plasma chain saw. using all the same ideas of the blaster. a magnetic field would move super heated plasma up, then another magnetic field would move that plasma back down, and was a closed system.
The "deflection" was the magnetic fields interacting with each other, and any plasma that intermixed during the deflection was absorbed into the system, or replaced from the gas and energy stores in the saber.
It's also what has been used to explain "saber lock" that we see in the movies. It's a slow but strong hit between sabers, and their fields interact with each other in a way that leaves them slightly attractive to each other, rather than repulsive.
Similar threads
