Movies, finger off the trigger!

This thread has certainly drifted in some interesting directions.

I've pondered the OP a bit since we started.

To the naysayers who seem to believe that motion pictures and television shows cannot widely influence our habits and practices, I offer forth the following: 1980s network TV shows and movies. Who can forget the influences on men's fashion, such as pulling up sleeves on sports coats, loafers with no socks, Members Only jackets, "popping" the collar on your polo shirt, pleated pants and my personal favorite, the "mullet" hairstyle?

For those of us that still indulge in the occasional television series or cinema, most of us have certainly noticed that Hollywood does seem to be making more of an effort toward realism in certain genres (not, of course, the absurdly crappy movies based on comic books that are 90% CGI) and firearms use is being depicted far more accurately (at least in shows featuring law enforcement and military) with actors actually getting trained in tactics and gun-handling and shooting. The trend is positive, in my opinion. Yeah, there's still a lot of crap out there and obviously unsafe gun-handling being shown, but in the productions that strive for more serious audiences, we are light-years ahead of where we were when I was a kid in the early '60s.
 
Did I miss something? Who said that movies don't have an effect on people's behavior? Seems obvious that they do, in some ways. I just don't think that movie depictions of good trigger discipline is one of those ways. Wish I could remember where I read it but allegedly we've had a drastic drop in the rate of accidental discharges in the last 50 years or so. IMO, that has very little or nothing to do with better trigger discipline in movies though.
 
bearcreek said:
Did I miss something? Who said that movies don't have an effect on people's behavior? Seems obvious that they do, in some ways. I just don't think that movie depictions of good trigger discipline is one of those ways. Wish I could remember where I read it but allegedly we've had a drastic drop in the rate of accidental discharges in the last 50 years or so. IMO, that has very little or nothing to do with better trigger discipline in movies though.
Click to expand...
I would say it's not quantifiable, but it falls squarely into the category of "can't hurt, might help."

And that's leaving aside the fact that the actors and production crew should be following basic gun safety rules for their own protection.
 
Justin said:
I would say it's not quantifiable, but it falls squarely into the category of "can't hurt, might help."

And that's leaving aside the fact that the actors and production crew should be following basic gun safety rules for their own protection.
Click to expand...
Old habits die hard. As we've discussed in this thread, Hollywood started making movies back when trigger discipline wasn't a thing. They've gotten significantly better since then, along with the general gun using populace. IMO, those practices bled over from the gun users into Hollywood, not the other way around. Yes, of course it wouldn't hurt, but there's not really any evidence to suggest it would do any good either. I like to see accurate portrayals of firearms use as much as the next gun forum commenter, but the general movie watching public doesn't know, or care, in the vast majority of cases.
 
When they filmed Glory in 1989 they contacted the Civil War re-enacting community. Likewise Gettysburg.
Sone things are done the way they are because they work better on film. "You throw your punches for the camera", the roundhouse punch is used because it shows up better on film. In Last of the Mohicans the knives were all 2 feet long , the gunstock club Chingachook carries is really a ceremonial one-real ones are much smaller-but it look better on the screen. When Bruce Lee did his fight scenes in The Green Hornet they had to get him to slow down.
 
For those of you that get the Hallmark Movies and Mystery channel, they are running their Gourmet Detective series today. This series is chock full of interesting gun use.

The "Dective" in the series, played by Brooke Burns, carries a Springfield XD, which in itself would be odd for LE. However, in the episode "Roux the Day" (airing at 4:00PM Central Time) she will end up searching a house for a criminal, and they'll end up showing close ups of her carrying the gun with the slide locked back for the whole scene.
 
bearcreek said:
Old habits die hard. As we've discussed in this thread, Hollywood started making movies back when trigger discipline wasn't a thing. They've gotten significantly better since then, along with the general gun using populace. IMO, those practices bled over from the gun users into Hollywood, not the other way around. Yes, of course it wouldn't hurt, but there's not really any evidence to suggest it would do any good either. I like to see accurate portrayals of firearms use as much as the next gun forum commenter, but the general movie watching public doesn't know, or care, in the vast majority of cases.
Click to expand...

It's probably a result of Hollywood armorers and firearms advisors attending much of the same training and being exposed to much of the same material that developed out of Cooper's advocacy back in the day. It all filters out and to the various places where people are expected to know what they're doing. The armorers and advisors get the four rules ingrained in them, and then they propagate that to the actors on set.
 
Justin said:
It's probably a result of Hollywood armorers and firearms advisors attending much of the same training and being exposed to much of the same material that developed out of Cooper's advocacy back in the day. It all filters out and to the various places where people are expected to know what they're doing. The armorers and advisors get the four rules ingrained in them, and then they propagate that to the actors on set.
Click to expand...

These people only matter as much as the director/producer desires their input to matter.

Hence all the scenes like those that do the dramatic chambering of a round with a gun the good guy had been pointing in the face of the bad guy during the dramatic dialog leading up to it.

"Why did the do that?"

"Because it was in the script."
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
These people only matter as much as the director/producer desires their input to matter.

Hence all the scenes like those that do the dramatic chambering of a round with a gun the good guy had been pointing in the face of the bad guy during the dramatic dialog leading up to it.

"Why did the do that?"

"Because it was in the script."
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely. On the other hand, a director probably isn't going to care about whether an actor has finger on/off the trigger unless there's a compelling narrative reason for them to care.
 
Justin said:
Oh, absolutely. On the other hand, a director probably isn't going to care about whether an actor has finger on/off the trigger unless there's a compelling narrative reason for them to care.
Click to expand...
I think there is a growing realization though that if one wishes to portray a character as trained/competent, vs. untrained/incompetent, then portraying actual competence onscreen is helpful.

Both of the images below are screenshots from movies ostensibly portraying competent shooters. One of them is much more believable than the other.

IMG_9969.jpeg
IMG_9970.png
 
benEzra said:
I think there is a growing realization though that if one wishes to portray a character as trained/competent, vs. untrained/incompetent, then portraying actual competence onscreen is helpful.

Both of the images below are screenshots from movies ostensibly portraying competent shooters. One of them is much more believable than the other.

View attachment 1189781
Click to expand...

Yeah, that top movie was FULL of gun tropes, and I never actually saw the movie!

Like the scene where Madison holds one of the other Angels at gun point, literally with a gun at her head...and then dramatically cycles the slide to chamber a round.

:rofl:
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
Yeah, that top movie was FULL of gun tropes, and I never actually saw the movie!
Click to expand...
Sure you didn't;)You don't have to be afraid to admit it, what's said in THR stays in THR ...

I confess, since I'm old now and not easily embarrassed, that I tried to watch one of the "new" Charlie's Angels movies but it didn't hold my interest enough to finish watching... At least the TV series was such over-the-top camp (with so much unintentional humor) that it qualified as a guilty pleasure (kind of like the Adam West Batman series).

If a movie that is trying hard to take itself seriously but can't get technical stuff right, it better have darn good acting and a good script. Sadly, screenwriting these days is horrible, has been for some time, and with the overwhelming use of CGI, most movies today are unwatchable.
 
Old Dog said:
Sure you didn't;)You don't have to be afraid to admit it, what's said in THR stays in THR ...
Click to expand...

Oh, don't get me wrong! I DID want to see the Charlie's Angels movies, but never got around to it when they were in the theaters.

After they came out and I saw reviews of them, I'm glad I didn't. I loved the TV show, but these movies made a mockery of the series.
 
Charlie's Angels was a decent TV show because it never took itself serious, and because of the hot chicks of course. Plus the chemistry between the performers was pretty good.

Never saw the movie but I suspect I would have wanted more of the same and been disappointed.
 
I was thinking of this the other night watching 'Rio Bravo' - perhaps one of the greatest offenders is "The Duke." Finger on the trigger at all times, using his Winchester as a pointing stick with the only safety being his thumb on the (cocked) hammer.


1706077428140.png
 
In "Rio Bravo" after a gunman takes a pot shot at
Wayne, Ricky walks behind him with his
SAA cocked and pointed at his spine,
finger on trigger. At least that's how I remember it.
 
UncleEd said:
In "Rio Bravo" after a gunman takes a pot shot at
Wayne, Ricky walks behind him with his
SAA cocked and pointed at his spine,
finger on trigger. At least that's how I remember it.
Click to expand...
I wonder if any of them ever tripped while they were doing a scene like that and pulled the trigger. I would think that would have been a clue.
 
Last edited:
My original comments about movies showing the corret way of doing things relate mostly to current TV shows or movies require actors to fasten their seat when they get into a car. It happens with regularity where the driver does not drive off until the passenger has fastened his seat belt.

Why not have actors follow current gun handling standards and not show them with their finger in the trigger guard except when getting ready to fire the gun.

Granted, old productions cannot be changed. It is what it is. but with current production TV shows and movies, why not show the safe gun handling procedures considered for today.

But, I'll agree, dealing with a period production, things get a bit shady. Maybe with dealing with period production firearms, using firearm handling of the day is not as important as when the film production is more current day. Handling what is considered antique firearms, aka muzzle loaders, etc, will not influence impressional folks as much as film productions showing gang gun violence.

I'll agree it is walking a fine line.
 
I think the television/movie industry has bigger fish to fry than the minutiae of proper gun handling.

I think they're too busy trying to educate us to the virtues of the new WOKE culture.

I watched the most recent episode of Quantum Leap the other night and they spent 5 minutes right in the middle of the show explaining Binary versus Non-Binary and how women bind their breasts to feel more like men and how that's just peachy.

The story of the episode was trying to find a father's Lost Treasure but they had to throw in that Trans angle

Now instead of Leaping from Life To Life trying to set right what once went wrong Ben has become a time traveling Trans Rights activist.
 
Last edited:
dobedo said:
Coming from the USCG when I was on a boarding team in the late 70s I was the shot gun man and was first on deck to secure the area for the rest of the party. Finger off trigger is only for the police. Special operators in the military always have their fingers on the trigger otherwise they will be dead. Movies are politically motivated to show finger off the trigger. If I draw my CCW I intend to use it and have my finger on the trigger. Also, I always carry one in the chamber cocked and ready to go.
Click to expand...

That may have been true in the 70s but I can guarantee you that high speed MIL/LE guys no longer operate that way. Fingers are off the triggers until ready to shoot.

In a dynamic situation you may flag someone with your muzzle but if your finger is off the trigger you'll be alright. Catastrophic accidents happen when people fail to follow both safety rules at the same time, those rules being finger off the trigger and muzzle discipline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

4
  • Locked
Joe's thought of the day on DA vs SA triggers
Replies
14
Views
908
C.R.Sam
C
L
  • Locked
Finger behind trigger?
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
MrBorland
MrBorland
G
  • Locked
The manual safety - yet again.
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
130
Views
4K
Kleanbore
K
birdus
  • Locked
Proper technique for a light trigger
Replies
9
Views
682
Cemetery21
Cemetery21
S
  • Locked
Why DAO/Long-pull trigger?
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Elkins45
Elkins45
Back
Top