An explanation of the grotesque continuity breaks in films re guns
 

I was explaining to someone why sometimes the guns CHANGES to another gun and then changes back. Usually bad editing, BUT the editor can only work with what they have. Here are some examples of why continuity breaks happen (and other dumb stuff that happens) that I have run into in the past.


a) The director swapping guns between actors like an maniac:
I've been on films where the director changed out the guns without consulting the armorer or at the time we didn't know what the shot list was. In fact, very rarely does the armorer even know the script or shot list, except in larger films where a big gun battle or action sequence is taking place. If the filming is going at a breakneck pace, then we have to run onto set and hand an actor a gun quickly without knowing what shot the director has in mind. I've been on sets where the director makes the actor use a different gun. At the time I just figured it would be explained later, but alas, rarely it does.

b) The production not telling us what guns to bring on what day
I was on a television show where they wanted a shotgun but the woman in charge of the props department requested an AK47. Who uses an AK to breach the hinges on a heavy door?!?!?!?! The production had to make do, but these guys expected me to show up with a semi truck trailer filled with hundreds of guns (like the props trailer on a set), but armorers don't work like that. We don't bring hundreds of guns to a set with the hopes that the movie will use ONE GUN out of all of that. Also this scene broke continuity with a sequence filmed earlier where the actor DID have a shotgun. Again, not our fault.

(c) Only major motion pictures do tons of pre-production with guns.
Most lower budget movies, indies, and many foreign films give us NO TIME to barely train the actors. We don't have the luxury of spending weeks training the actors with gun handling and tactics. Only the BIG BUDGET films do that. When that happens it's a DREAM. On indie shoots, It's a bit of a hair raising experience on some sets to maintain firearms security AND firearms safety. But we have never wavered. I (and other armorers) have stopped a particular shot because it was unsafe. You have better be quick on your feet to see if some productions are a bunch of impulsive monkeys or not (I've discovered that some foreign film crews work on a completely different set of rules than American ones do .... mostly to do with safety and common sense ... ;) )

(d) Most directors don't know sh*t about guns or tactics
Sure there are some COOL directors who have great gun battles in their films, but 99% of the other directors don't know a damned thing. You wondered why someone shot with a .44 magnum goes flying backwards twenty feet, doing a triple aerial sommersault at the same time? It's because the stunt coordinator thought it up and the director loved it, even though the gun wrangler/armorer thinks it's completely retarded. We don't argue with the director. It's not our place.

(e) Some actors don't listen
I can't count how many times I've yelled at actors or extras for dry firing guns or doing stupid things like spinning a cylinder and slamming it shut on a revolver, etc. etc. And seeing them 'ad lib' and drop the gun when we have rubber guns for that kind of thing?!?!?! It's enough to give you a stroke! Also the bad gun stance, the bad room clearing technique, the bad pistol or rifle or shotgun handling. We work with what we are given. Some actors or actresses just can't do it right, no matter how many times we try to train them. So we have to make do with the least offensive techniques. We have a filming schedule to keep after all.

(f) Some editors just don't catch the problems
Again, editors work with what they have. If you see a gun, and the ultra closeup of the trigger being pulled is from a completely different weapon, then the editor didn't have footage to pull from to do that sequence. It happens. Sometimes Directors of Photography (DP) or the director themselves don't get the coverage needed to do a cool and fast paced sequence, so the editor has to make do. A gun savvy editor would be horrified and do something else. Most editors don't know anything about guns. To them, a gun is a gun is a gun.

I guess I'm a bit of a hot head. A lot of the other armorers really know how to bite their lips on a set. ;) Makes you wonder why someone would post only with an online screen name .... oh wait a minute ... that's why ;)

Well if I have your job, I would know your pain, but you get paid one way or another and you do your job to the best of your abilities can take you and eventually you run into actors that listen and learn, directors who understands and editors that pay attention. I can't imagine the stress armorers have to go through on sets.

Thanks. Whew! I was pretty tired when I wrote that and it's not well written. I will have to go back and rewrite some of that. Also that rant blurs the line between a true armorer, a weapons wrangler and an on set technical advisor, which many times are completely different jobs, but many times the lines are blurred. When the actors don't have a technical or military advisor, we do our best. But usually armorers are just there to provide, look after, load up , unload, secure, oversee safety of the weapons. But on many sets we have to wear a few more hats. ;)

This post is appreciated. However, don't worry about us blaming the armorer for all the shit about guns that's inaccurate in movies. Criticizing Hollywood for gun inaccuracies and stupid handling is a trademark of the gun-owning community, but I think we take for granted that most of the ignorance is because Hollywood is full of liberal idiots who don't like guns and don't know anything about them.

Yeah, what the hell is with that? I've seen plenty of movies where I watch actors throwing down or dropping guns that are quite obviously not the rubber stunt versions.

Like in "Die Hard 2: Die Harder". Remember the scene where Bruce Willis fires an MP5 loaded with blanks at the police chief, and then he ejects the magazine to show him that it's blanks? When he takes out the mag, he throws the MP5 down on the floor HARD. I don't think the MP5 used in that scene was a rubber version (because I'm not aware of rubber guns that have detachable magazines), and I can't imagine they would have mentioned him throwing the gun on the floor in the script, so I think Bruce actually threw down a real, expensive transferable MP5 while ad-libbing! I bet (in fact, I hope) Mike Papac yelled at him for that afterwards. Something else you should ask Mike about!

But anyway, it really is crazy to me that actors could have so little respect for other people's property. Maybe it's just me, but when somebody hands me something expensive (doesn't matter if it's a gun, a car, a computer, whatever), my first instinct is to treat it with care. After all, it's not mine, and I don't want to pay for it if I break it, plus I believe in taking care of stuff. But I guess this instinct is eroded in the minds of too many actors who get paid such ridiculous salaries that they don't give a shit what they break.

They might have put a pad down. I've seen the way Willis handles guns, he seems like a pretty gun-savy person. Republican too I believe.

In T2, they had him drop that real GE M134 Minigun with no padding or anything, because it "had to look real" and the Terminator wouldn't care about it. Who care what the stupid Terminator thinks, have him toss it at a mat off-screen!

As for MPM's post, excelent work, great way to sum it up from your perspective. I promise you if I ever become a director, anyone who does that crap will be OFF THE SET. I would kill an actor if they tossed one of my guns on the ground or mishandled it.

Hey MPM, has anyone been dumb enough to cause an on-set gun related injury while you were around?

And who are some actors well known who you would recommend to avoid giving a gun to?

But if you're the director, they won't be using YOUR guns. They will be prop guns rented by the production company. As the director you will be worried about alot more things than the small details. Sure, the department heads are supposed to clear things with you like wardrobe, props, art design, makeup design, etc. etc. And usually the director is more worried about what looks COOL on camera. They are more than willing to ruin guns for the shot, and their studio or production company will cut a check for the replacement cost. A production working for Warner Brothers destroyed one of my Cobray M11s years ago and WB corporate dutifully sent a check for three times (3x) the replacement cost, and they did it quickly. That was nice. But that was back in the day when a person could just go out and get another one. Rare guns or guns that are no longer made .... destroying them would give me a heart attack.

Nope and thank God.
And THAT is the reason I post anonymously! :D hahahahahaha. Ask the other armorers on IMFDB that question! They probably have seen more famous people fuck up on set than I have :) But as a rule, armorers are very 'discreet'. We don't risk getting 'blacklisted' when outing "gun idiots". :)

Removing info for MPM's sake

I mentioned that I had no idea. He was out of my line of sight for 15-20 minutes and the gun returned destroyed. Also, yes. I appreciate those quips be out of a public forum. I mentioned them in private user pages since I assume those aren't perused by the general public. :D

I think this list of why there are continuity breaks should be in the myth page when it gets made

MPM I feel your pain, I had a M2HB crushed by a hummer 2 years ago, they paid me in less then 5 days lol.

a) The director swapping guns between actors like an maniac:

up here directors let alone anyone else are not allowed to touch the guns,
only the armorer period, if he wants to swap it out and I know it's wrong, well it's his show.
But I do agree with you on this.

b) The production not telling us what guns to bring on what day

Oh how I know this all to well lol.
Yes sir, let me slide that gun you just dreamed of
from between my butt cheeks.

(c) Only major motion pictures do tons of pre-production with guns.

Very true.
I am doing a swat series and they expected me to teach the actors how to use 5 various firearms in 1 hour with 7 key cast members, it was a long coffee break amongst all of us, they knew it was BS.

(d) Most directors don't know sh*t about guns or tactics

Man, do I ever roll my eyes on this one, but it's entertainment.

(e) Some actors don't listen

The background for sure, a small percentage of stunts, key cast....only one to my mind and I yelled at him with sound and camera's rolling for a good 10 seconds, lots and lots of F bombs.
The producers thanked me for that.

(f) Some editors just don't catch the problems

agree, sometimes the prop teams between the units don't talk well enough or even know the differance between guns.


At the start I would always suggest the right way, after awhile it just became clear that that's what they want and so be it, only the 1% see the goof and life will move on, but my suggestions sometimes are heard by the ones who care.

interesting read, thanks.

Cool story bro

If I was myself 3 years ago, I wouldnt give a damn about breaks in continuity and what makes sense in real life as long as it's cool, I'd be set. But in the recent year I've learned a great deal about firearms, terms and the technology of it and really appreciate it and everytime I watch a movie and see a gun, I really notice the bad continuities and gun myths, like recently I just saw the movie Push and they did the classic "click" sound to tell us the gun is empty instead of a slide lock

Was that movie anything special or can I just skip over it? It seemed somewhat unoriginal and unoriginal isn't worth $20.

worth a rent to take a look at the guns. The IDEA in the movie is good, but the movie was not exciting at all. It had some interesting thoughts and concept but poorly executed. The effects were ok, though. I'd just rent it, cap it and post the guns

If you do, I beg of you, use the 100% proper method. And if you could caption the images it would be appreciated, people who look at the page and have never seen the film are left clueless by captionless caps.

what's the 100% proper method?

I've been meaning to do "Push" for a while, just haven't gotten around to it (like a lot of other things...) Most of the screencaps are on my HD, just need to get maybe a few more.

Hmmm, I didn't think the guns were all that special. Lots of Glocks, the SIG P228, some Berettas, Uzis, MP5s, etc. The two-tone Browning HP Practical was the only gun I saw in that movie that I haven't seen anywhere else.

It was definitely a pretty cool and interesting take on the whole superhero/superpowers concept. Plus, it was set in Hong Kong which was kinda cool. The main problem was that the director simply didn't know how to convey action, or how to get good performances out of his actors. Which is the kind of thing that sinks movies like "Push", unfortunately.

You keep the links out of the titles (you've gotten good on that now), fill out a full description of the gun used. This means instead of writing:

==Beretta 92FS==
Used by Insp. Tequila.

You write:

==Beretta 92FS==
A [[Beretta 92FS]] is used by Insp. Tequila ([[Chow Yun-Fat]]) during the shootout in the hospital.

And I know you don't like doing it, but putting captions in the screencap thumb tabs helps explain the situation to people who haven't seen the movie yet. For isntance, you can have a description that says:

==IMI Desert Eagle Mark VII==
Jack Slater ([[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]) uses an [[Desert Eagle|IMI Desert Eagle Mark VII]] as his sidearm in the film.

While this description is vague to the story line, by describing the scene seen in the screencap, the reader can know where they are when they use this gun. You can see on my pages that I use this type of description quite often.

And of course, add a stock gun image for visual reference.

Does this help any? I don't mean to pick on you about this, it's just the pages look much more professional and aesthetically pleasing when done to 100% format.