Didn’t he piece rumors and made intelligent guesses so well that the government freaked out wondering where the leak was?

Chuck Norris can rack the slide on his revolver

Until it came to anything vaguely to do with computing or electronics, which turned into basically magic

Precedent: A 1944 science fiction story accurately described an atomic bomb – so much so that it prompted a visit from the FBI to the NY office of Astounding Science Fiction. Definitely a point of pride for editor John W Campbell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadline_(science_fiction_stor...

There's a rumor that Reagan very seriously asked his admirals repeatedly if it was true. I know he "couldn't put it down."

Tangentaly related observation, but Reagan may have been the only president to really pay attention to movies and entertainment for inspiration of future events, and possibilities. It was said that he had a similar reaction to War Games, and took it very seriously

The only time movies try for sound accuracy is with flashbangs.

Michael Mann movies tend to get this right, Heat and collateral have really decent gun sounds. Turns out they are very loud.

Edit: just noticed you mentioned heat already, I need more coffee…

I wonder if part of this is also failing to consider the acoustic effect of loud sounds in enclosed spaces. Guns don’t sound nearly as loud if you only shoot outside.

In reverse, "point blank" is an archery term indicating the distance where, with your bow fully drawn, the point of the arrow can be sighted directly on the target. (Closer and you have to bring the point down, farther and you have to bring the point above the target.)

It seems that "point blank" has come to mean simply, "a shot you can't miss".

Dip their arrow heads in the fire braziers so the tar / pitch starts to burn, ready for the coming "pull" and "loose" commands?

What's the correct term? Loose? I'm sure I've heard that before.

I know nothing about arrows except to identify the pointy end.

And what about archer companies doing "volley fire" ? As in what looks like 99% of Hollywood movies.

https://acoup.blog/2025/05/02/collections-why-archers-didnt-...

I was just watching Tom Scott's latest video, he mentioned firing a trebuchet and the guide pointed this out that you don't "fire" a trebuchet since it doesn't involve gunpowder, you launch it.

Tom's commentary later was that he disagreed with that sentiment. "I disagree with those potential comments. Words change their meaning overtime. In modern English, you can fire an arrow, you can fire a torpedo, we were gonna fire that trebuchet"

This is a good example of movies using inaccurate depictions that audiences will easily understand instead of accurate depictions that may confuse them.

Just think of it as a translation.

thanks, now I will never be able to stop noticing this when watching anything in English

When a certain now famous (in those circles) narrator was first getting started he mentioned on his FB page he wanted help with pronunciation of certain military terminology. I offered to help, knowing people in many fields plus my own. And ... my goodness, the absolute poor quality of some the writing he sent me. One author would use the full terminology for every firearm every time he looked at it, picked it up, loaded it, holstered it, drew it, released the safety, fired it, cleaned it, thought about while in the shower, whatever. You got tired of reading about the "Heckler & Koch HK45 Compact Tactical (HK45CT) MK-24 Mod-0" fully spelled out three times a page.

And then the author with his own specialty started writing about my field ... oh so badly.

So, knowledge of weapons doesn't translate in knowledge of writing (or vice versa). My only criteria any longer is just don't say "clip" unless your character has scored himself a Mauser C96 or similar and we're good.

A modern author who's fairly good in this regard is Andy Weir; the main thing is you have to do a ton of research while writing and have trusted sources (I think Clancy had many) to rely on when mulling over the details.

The tough thing is, once you get "above average" in terms of accuracy, those of us who like to be a little more pedantic will grade on a curve!

...enhance...enhance...

I'm not a deep-in-the-weeds expert, but if I had to put together an "obvious long rifle mistakes in fiction" article, it’d probably be:

* People pumping shotguns after every round, or unnecessarily cycling the bolt after every round

* Wrong action type for the gun

* Wrong shotgun ammo for the context

* Wrong safety type for the gun (most long guns have safeties, but they are operated in a variety of ways)

* Magazine vs clip vs chamber vs tube

* Shotgun impacts launching people across rooms, or unrealistic recoil (both too high and too low) for the weapon type

Bond using a “top secret compact rifle” that I recognized as an AR-7 was greatly disappointing to me, especially I had just finished discovering how crappy a gun that thing is.

Then most people on this comment section would have to find something else to preach and declare absolute knowledge about. Ah wait, that’s just every comment section around here.

Probably.

But I think sometimes we're more justified than the gun nuts. Take for example the movie series favorite "we'll track him through his GPS".

If _you_ sound like this when talking about IT then you really ought to reevaluate your social skills. It’s not the topic, it’s the stuck-uppiness of it all.

Yes, it’s the flip side of Gell Mann Amnesia - nerding out!

yeap. And if you talk about trains like this, they blame vaccines ;)

This. Every movie shotgun uses the sound of a Remington 870 racking. Every camera uses the sound of a Nikon MD11/12 winding. I'm sure there are more.

Please, these are more often than not just creative choices, sure they may be inaccurate but accuracy is seldom the point a director is trying to make when taking creative liberties like this.

If every movie was as close to reality as possible they wouldn’t be classified as entertainment.

Go to any rural community in any country in the world and you’ll probably find at least one rifle of some kind.

I’m very in favor of strict gun laws, especially for handguns, but rifles have very legitimate and important uses for people who live away from dense urban environments.

There are many guns in Australia (the country that, according to the US NRA, "banned" guns) where they are tools with an application that require a licence to use (just like explosives, dangerous chemicals, lasers above a certain oomph level, cars, giant trucks, etc)

There are plenty of countries aside the US where citizens can and do own guns.

E.g. gun control is strict in most of Europe compared to the US, but it's entirely attainable to most people without a criminal record to own firearms.

Dogs kill about 30-50 people in the U.S. every year.

Intimate partner gun violence alone leads to about 700 women being killed every year.

So by your logic, if you’re a woman and your partner has a gun, and is walking towards you and you can’t clearly tell that they don’t have a gun on them, “they just want to give you a kiss before leaving home” isn’t an argument. They’re vermin that can kill you and you’re absolutely allowed to play it safe, defend yourself and shoot them.

I am a dog owner, and I agree that a loose and aggressive dog is a liability to humanity and you are making everyone a favor if you kill it even if you could have escaped (e.g. you manage to get into your car in time). If it was attacking you, it could be a child (or another dog, too) next time. I would say that even a loose, non aggressive dog of a breed that is very statistically likely to mangle people (e.g. Bully XL) should be taken away from their owners that same day.

Now this is certainly a take. A bad one, surely, but a take nonetheless.

Don’t pet strange dogs. Don’t let your children pet strange dogs. Don’t mess with animals you don’t know unless you’re willing to risk being bitten or worse. Simple as that.

But like don't going around shooting dogs people ask your child not to pet