Movie Theater Question about the movie "Shooter"

[Bizill]

okay, when Wahlberg's character and the FBI guy go pay a visit to that old guy looking for sniper knowledge, what is the old guy trying to learn by examining their palms? or is he simply palm reading and nothing more?

are snipers supposed to have calluses or something? i think not. someone, anyone, please enlighten me. i don't wanna search google because i'll only trust what i read from you fine gentlemen/women.

 

[libertyman777]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bizill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">okay, when Wahlberg's character and the FBI guy go pay a visit to that old guy looking for sniper knowledge, what is the old guy trying to learn by examining their palms? or is he simply palm reading and nothing more?

are snipers supposed to have calluses or something? i think not. someone, anyone, please enlighten me. i don't wanna search google because i'll only trust what i read from you fine gentlemen/women. </div></div>

I don't know why that was in the script but I do know that you can tell a lot about a man by his hands and his handshake. Probably nothing more than that.

It's been a long time since I read the book, I wonder if it's addressed there?

 

[Bizill]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

shows how much i know. i didn't even know it was based upon a book, though it probably mentions that fact in bold lettering toward the opening credits.

 

[High Binder]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

Foreplay.

 

[Bizill]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: High Binder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Foreplay. </div></div>

'zactly, just like the dogs in the sig line above.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

Not addressed in the book. There is no 'hand' examination. In the book, the guy they visited was sitting under a blanket and his wife was there.

In the book, the character was almost certainly supposed to be Jack O'Conner or possibly Charles Askins. He was one of the old time rifle experts/shooters/writers we all grew up reading.

As an amusing aside: the guy playing the 'old shooter' is Levon Helm... the former drummer for The Band (a la Robbie Robertson, The Night they Drove 'ol Dixie Down, Ophelia, The Weight, etc.). And he was not acting. He is like that! Right down to the glasses. He probably ad-libbed the hand thing.

Cheers,

Sirhr

PS. Anyone want to bet that Stephen Hunter is lurking on this forum? You out there?

 

[Bizill]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

thanks for the tidbits of info sirhr.

 

[Strangedays]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

Stephen Hunter is not on this forum or else his writing wouldn't be so bad. He would have more detail about the bullets he talks about and would have moved on from the 168 Grain SMK as being the best sniper bullet by now. Lowlight should write what Stephen hunter does and maybe the story would be a learning experiance as well as an interesting read

I think the movie was better than the book and this never seems to be the case.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

Strangedays... It is all in the details... isn't it??

I was very disappointed that the last Clancy book referred to the STEN gun as having been invented by (and named after) David Stirling, the Special Air Service founder. Not even close... Even the later Sterling (Patchett) SMG had nothing to do w. Stirling. 5 seconds on Google would have fact-checked.

Oh well, good yarns are good yarns even if you occasionally have to red pen some details.

And Hunter probably hasn't changed from the Sierra's because some people still swear by them. Everyone has their favorite recipes and if there weren't 168 Match King fans out there... they would have stopped making them. I still wouldn't bet against Hunter lurking around ;-)

LL SHOULD write a book! Let's see... a sniper mystery centering around a forum... with the action culminating at the SH Cup Match... has potential.

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[vferguson3006]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

That's easy he was checking his hands, his left hand had the drop data written on the palm for the 168's and his right hand had the data for windage holdover in MOA.
SWEET!

 

[DTW]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

I once met Hunter at a signing, and asked him about the character and the scene in the book. He said that the old man wasn't based on anyone, he was merely trying to portray a particular type of American that you seldom found anymore. I loved the old man's quote about one of his remaining pleasures being reading the "foolishness of liberals in the new Yrok Times" or something like that.

As originally written the episode never would have made it into anything made by Hollywood.

 

[TOP PREDATOR]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

palm swells?

 

[i_rep]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

He was looking for a working mans hands. Anyone that spent time on the ground in the field it would show. It was confirmation to the identity he suspected.

Go out and load several thousand rounds topload, cycle the bolt, pull the trigger and check and see if your fingers are sore. YES you will have callus build up over time and it takes time to have skill not to mention become a Gunny.

 

[kennyg]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: i_rep</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He was looking for a working mans hands. Anyone that spent time on the ground in the field it would show. It was confirmation to the identity he suspected.

Go out and load several thousand rounds topload, cycle the bolt, pull the trigger and check and see if your fingers are sore. YES you will have callus build up over time and it takes time to have skill not to mention become a Gunny.


</div></div>very true

 

[SilentSH00TER]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

for the most part the movie was OK, but the part with the old man and them using one of his fired bullets drove me nuts. I would love to see what a 408 cheytac round looks like after hitting a can of stew.

 

[chain]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

.." I still got the shovel."

 

[ArcticLight]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bizill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">shows how much i know. i didn't even know it was based upon a book, though it probably mentions that fact in bold lettering toward the opening credits. </div></div>

The book was 1000 times better than hte movie, the movie did good but it would have to be 4 hours long to really encompass all of it.

Somehow I saw Nick NOlte playing the FBI agent in my mind...

Checking hte palm for blisters perhaps, roughness......he was a cooky guy in the book - the movie did REALLY good with him - perfect!

Oh but the BESt scene.

 

[Bolt_Overide]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

making sure that he used enough asswipe and didnt get any on his hands?

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sirhrmechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As an amusing aside: the guy playing the 'old shooter' is Levon Helm... the former drummer for The Band (a la Robbie Robertson, The Night they Drove 'ol Dixie Down, Ophelia, The Weight, etc.). And he was not acting. He is like that! Right down to the glasses. He probably ad-libbed the hand thing.</div></div>

In case anyone is interested, Levon Helm died last night. throat cancer. A very unique and talented individual.

Sirhr

 

[Twisted .308]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

God Bless him

http://www.levonhelm.com/

 

[aur0ra145]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

Funny part in that movie, where he says he buried the bodies out in Terlingua. I was actually on a stop over in Midland on the way to Terlingua, gave me a good laugh.

 

[E3C3H3O3]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: chain</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.." I still got the shovel." </div></div>

that was one of my favorite movie quotes of all time,LMAO

 

[xs hedspace]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

Sat next to Levon at a bar in town(Woodstock) about 20 years ago, he talked for about 20 min, and between his accent, and my bad ears, I still don't know what the hell he said. Good man, tho.
PS:I shoot paper patched bullets in my 45-70, retrieved one from a snowbank, and noticed there were no rifling marks readable on the slug...an evil idea did pop into my mind at the time....

 

[ArcticLight]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

You guys need to remember one thing - it's HOLLYWEIRD!

As for the book, again, WHEN IT CAME OUT, Stephen Hunter DID his research - he knew nothing about sniping and did quit well in the book...

The movie would have to be four hours long to really do justice to the book.

 

[Sean the Nailer]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

You are very right, ArcticlLight. Most would know this, having read the book. T'was (and is still) excellent.

 

[verdugo60]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

I must say, Stephen Hunter is probably the best FICTION writer to ever talk about guns and especially sniping. So he chose an antiquated bullet for a book written about the 70's...so what. At least he knew what a match bullet was, and the 168 is a great shooter, if not the highest BC. His writing is excellent and he is a huge proponent/fan of shooting and private ownership of firearms. It doesn't get much better than that fella's, besides the guys who really know are usually terrible writers. Hunter is about as happy-a-medium as you can find.

Oh, and to the OP, might have been just me but I think it was just the guy being quirky. Maybe implied that he felt he could "read" something off their palms or that he was just checking for callouses like someone else suggested. He was obviously enjoying messing with Nick the FBI guy too. "Good coffee? " Ha ha.

 

[topgun99]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

I really wish they could have stuck closer to the book. The next two in the series, Black Light and Time to Hunt are good also with Time to Hunt being my favorite. Would love to see them made into sequels.

 

[verdugo60]

Re: Question about the movie "Shooter"

That would be sweet man. I actually liked Mark Wallberg pretty well.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: topgun99</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I really wish they could have stuck closer to the book. The next two in the series, Black Light and Time to Hunt are good also with Time to Hunt being my favorite. Would love to see them made into sequels. </div></div>

 

[Ranger822]

I don't get too worked up over movies and accuracy. Most movies, unless intended to be historically accurate are first and foremost entertainment. The fact is that one person's story becomes another's screenplay, which in turn becomes the director's vision, and then when it comes time for post-production editing, it becomes the producers' and executive producers' (ie the big fish who lay down the money, credibility, and any used favors) movie to break. The draft then goes thru viewing sessions with sensing audiences which (without necessarily any expertise on the subject matter but who merely indicate if they liked it), result a final cut production. This passing thru so many hands with so much feedback an opinion, makes for an amazing evolution which can become full of compromises. It is a wonder that the final cut bares any resemblance at all to the original story, reality, or accuracy.

Unfortunately some of the most accurate movies may prove to be dull and not successful at the box office - and that for investors that is a non-starter. Accuracy, realism will always have to give way to what will ultimately be determined by those with the capital investment. In that manner many movies represent the most lucrative solution for a movie.

 

[Triggerf16]

If you want a great author for guns and action writing, look no further than Larry Correia.

He has three book sin the Monster Hunter International series that are very gun intensive. Zombie, monsters, guns, etc. . . Great books, highly recommended!

His latest two have been in the Grimnoir series. 1930's timeframe, guns, magic, monsters, etc. very entertaining fiction. Hell, John Moses Browning is a character in the books.

maybe they will be made into movies, who knows.

I also recommend John Ringo. Less on the gun accuracy and more on military SF. His Kildar series is great.

I buy their books directly from baen.com as e-books. I hope the authors get more money that way than if I purchase the e-books from amazon.

 

[GunMax]

I think the guy was just being weird!

 

[ksthomas]

Hunter's not really much of a shooter or a handloader himself, and does rely on outside assistance for technical expertise. Most of what he got from those earlier works was from a good friend of mine, John Feamster. Even named him specifically several times in the acknowledgement pages of his various books, and eventually included a character by that name in one of his later works. To John's frustration, Hunter didn't always listen to him, even in the tech matters where he was getting good advice. That's where much of the more outlandish stuff comes from. John and I were both regular contributors to Precision Shooting Magazine at that time, which is how we originally met. There was also a character in the book that was a very slightly disguised Dave Brennen (editor of PS Magazine, even to having the same full-time "day job" as Dave; an insurance agent) when Swagger was looking for the target shooter who fired the shot. The old guy who knew the history of "The Tenth Black King" was something of a composite of Townsend Whelen, Elmer Keith and a couple other notable writers/shooters of the period, as I recall. Good book and a great read, but I hated the movie. Too many changes, too much Hollywood stuff added that ruined the film. Typical.

 

[Dogtown]

Hunter's not really much of a shooter or a handloader himself, and does rely on outside assistance for technical expertise. Most of what he got from those earlier works was from a good friend of mine, John Feamster. Even named him specifically several times in the acknowledgement pages of his various books, and eventually included a character by that name in one of his later works. To John's frustration, Hunter didn't always listen to him, even in the tech matters where he was getting good advice. That's where much of the more outlandish stuff comes from.

The irony here is that process described above is extremely common in Hollywood. A production team will often rely on outside advice and assistance, however it's not always taken 100% of the time, which is often the result of one of two things. Either some aspect of the production schedule or budget prevents the advice from being taken or there's some specific story point or visual the director and/or producer (or studio) is going for that negates the advice. From my personal experience it depends on the director and a good one interested in staying true to the material and keeping it accurate often falls into the first category. Case in point, "Flags of Our Fathers" and Clint Eastwood was all about accuracy, but movie making is an extremely messy and inefficient process at times and when he determined the production was going to be adversely affected, he opted to ignore the advice of the advisors (let alone the VFX team). Michael Bay is the opposite, in that he will have a chorus of advise from knowledgeable advisors only to turn to them and say, "yeah, but this will be so much cooler!" While I'm on directors, the Michael Mann way is to take the advise, but then obsess over some aspect of it that isn't that big of a deal, devolving the whole process into a case study in lunacy.

Filming a movie 100% like the book doesn't work in most cases either, as they are two very different mediums relying on different connections with the audience. A book leaves much up to the reader's imagination and is able to explore certain details with a level of verbosity that would make a movie start to crawl. I remember one of the military books I read in the Army had this amazing chapter where the main character was E&Eing across a jungle and swimming through a rice paddy. It was a really long chapter with lots of detail and for the story it played well into the character's psychology, but at the time I remember thinking "this would be the most boring movie ever." Movies have a certain pace that we're all used to and follow a three act structure - deviate from that too much and you will likely not make your budget back in ticket sales. And that's nothing to scoff at: someone has to pay for the film and they expect to make their money back; ideally with some extra on the backend because this movie making stuff is a business and investment (ie gamble). That means you have 90 to 120 minutes usually to compress a novel into an audio/visual story and as you can imagine, it often doesn't translate well, so it needs to be trimmed or altered to fit that format. Some are very successful; "Shawshank Redemption" comes to mind, but even that was just a short story, not a 400 page novel.

Don't misinterpret a movie being different from a book because some elitist Hollywood snob thinks he's got a better way to tell the story - the reality is that's rarely the case (except with Michael Bay).

 

[ksthomas]

Dogtown,

What we're actually seeing here is a second-generation issue of this; Hunter didn't listen to John in many areas where John's advice would have made the book much more accurate, and then some Hollywood crew added to the confusion by throwing on another layer of BS to do things THEY thought would look good, or be more dramatic. Amazes me how they can take some pretty good stories, and make them far, far worse by trying to "improve" them.

 

[Dogtown]

Taking a good story and making it into a successful film is extremely difficult. If it was easy, everyone would do it.

There are also lower budget productions that don't have advisors, so they go off of what's been done in the past and what they see in other films. This creates a bit of a feedback loop where the inaccuracies just build on themselves. They also film in other countries for budgetary reasons (ie tax intensives, film subsidies) even though the story is supposed to take place in America, for example. And in those other countries you often can't find the same equipment, so instead of a guy rolling in a HMMWV with an M4 he's in a BTR with an R4. But in all fairness, this happens in books too, where you'll read about a character shooting a vehicle and making it explode or taking guys out as he ropes onto a roof. It comes down to the individual in the end: the story teller knowing what he's talking about and the audience knowing the difference. Is it any surprise that some on both sides don't care or worse, think they know more than they actually do? I see the latter all the time here on the Hide whenever I see arguments about science