I know it's a comedy and they can make ludicrous possibilities with anything, but it's kind of too extreme to think one strike from a candlestick to the head could kill a guy like that other than knock him unconscious. Unless Boddy was being hit repeatedly in the head with the candlestick, I don't see how it can really produce a fatal injury in the head.
But you're okay with a lead pipe and a wrench being used as murder weapons? If they can kill, then why not a candlestick?
It's solid brass, weighs a good amount and with enough force can crack a skull. You don't need to pulverize their head for it to be fatal. Hit with enough force to knock them out you can cause a concussion or even subdural hematoma which is a fancy way of saying blood starts leaking into the brain eventually crushing it.
Funny word, "candlestick." It sounds like another name for the candle itself, i.e., a stick of wax. The part used as a weapon might better be called "candleholder" or "candlestand."
I actually have a problem with all these 'weapons' - they of course exist because of the game, but someone was a bit thoughtless, as these are NOT 'equal' when it comes to 'being weapons'.
Maybe the wrench, lead pipe and the candelabra are about 'equal' when it comes to 'murder weapon' - but it'd be darned difficult to kill someone with them that's paying attention, and you'd have to be a really cruel, vicious, determined individual to go through with it.
There's a reason why knives and swords were invented (SO much easier to kill or defend yourself with those, as they're sharp and can go through your body so you don't have to be able to hit someone with it using devastating force to a vulnerable spot to kill them).
However, as the old thinking goes; if you have to kill someone EVEN with a knife (let alone these crude things), it's very 'personal' and messy. You really know you've DONE something awful. It's more scary, it's more hands-on, and it's a more concretical murder. You know you have taken a human life, done something atrocious, it's traumatizing, agonizing, painful and SO messy.
With a knife or even a sword, there'd be a struggle, that you might actually lose and get the knife used on you! It's a very uncertain way to kill one, and requires an iron stomach to go through. Not an easy thing to do, psychologically, physically, emotionally or in any other way. It actually requires a LOT from the killer.
If you kill someone with a gun, especially from a distance (after all, a gun is a ranged weapon), the
hit of a bullet will happen so fast, they have no time to duck, avoid, defend themselves, or struggle. The ease of it also makes it extremely detached and impersonal; you basically just flick a finger and someone dies. No mess, no struggle, no skill, just basically pressing a button to kill someone. Nothing could be easier.
This makes gun the most convenient, the fastest, the most long-ranged, and of course the EASIEST way (in all possible ways) to kill.
So to pretend that some darn ROPE can be an 'equal weapon' to a gun, is just ridiculous. They should all have given either guns or blunt hitting instruments (and most people that COULD kill someone with a gun, could never kill somoene using a candelabra or knife!).
Don't just hand people 'a variety of 'weapons'' and declare everyone an equal suspect. A gun owner is a thousand times more suspicious than a candelabra owner, who might not even have the necessary strength to murder anyone with it.
A gun is so superior to every other 'supposed weapon', it's completely ludicrous that this movie expects us to just put every 'weapon' on the same level'. It's one of the stupidest things about this movie (and possibly the board game).
At LEAST give someone a bow and arrow, or a crossbow (almost like a gun), another could get some souped-up tazer that has enough power to kill, and so on. That way, there's variety, but everyone can still kill 'conveniently' without having to have enormous strength (is it even possible to kill someone with a rope that way? It looks awfully clumsy and seems to require a lot of muscle) or have to struggle with the victim, etc.
What the F were they thinking when they thought this was a good idea?
So what if they're not equal? What possible relevance does it have that some are deadlier than others?
If you complained that these weapons leave completely different kinds of wounds (eg. you'd never confuse strangulation for a stab wound), then you'd have a point. Against the game, at least. But if something can kill, it can kill - doesn't matter if other implements can do it better. "Oh no, he couldn't have been killed with a wrench, because swords."
And yes, of course you can kill with rope. Strangulation - with or without ligature - is the fifth most common type of homicide.
Wadsworth got hit in the head with it and survived, so it's really about how it strikes the head. You can crush someones skull with just about anything if you hit them hard enough or repetitively enough.
Stop trying to poke holes in the plot and enjoy the ride.
Wadsworth was bopped in the head with it when it fell on him. It wasn't brought down on his head with any more force than what Sir Isaac Newton discovered. Take a blackjack. It's about 6-8" in length with either a solid lead piece at the end or lead dust in a leather pouch(http://www.weapons-universe.com/leather-billy-clubs.htm). If I dropped it on your head, it might sting but otherwise it would mildly annoy you. However, if I cranked up from downtown and smacked you on the back of the head, I guarantee you it will knock you unconscious. As for a candlestick, if I took the one like in the movie and swung from downtown onto the back of your head, I will more than likely knock you out and there's a good chance you might not ever get up.
Wadsworth got hit in the head with it and survived, so it's really about how it strikes the head. You can crush someones skull with just about anything if you hit them hard enough or repetitively enough.
Funny they never reveal who put the candle stick on top of the door so it would fall on Wadsworth. Maybe Mr. Boddy did somehow.
" You can crush someones skull with just about anything if you hit them hard enough or repetitively enough."
Stop backpedaling. You watered down your comment by 'hard enough + repetitively enough', rendering your whole statement completely redundant.
Look, you can't crush someone's skull with pudding, can you? You simply can't hit anyone 'hard enough' with a pudding. But putting that 'if you hit them hard enough' makes your statement meaningless, so it might not even exist.
You can't crush a skull so easily, it's pretty tough stuff, and even if you manage to break it a bit, it is no guarantee of a kill (I hope I don't have to list head injuries to you that people have lived through). You can even lose a big part of your brain without dying.
So killing with - and I think this was the point - ONE hit from a candelabra, is debatable - sure, it's possible if you are trained, know what you're doing, can use the weight to your advantage, hit the right spot, the victim happens to turn their head at the same time just the right way, and they happen to experience a shock in a more physically traumatizing way than usual. It's possible.
It's just not very likely in this movie's setting - none of those people could just instinctively know exactly how to hit someone IN THE DARK at the right spot with the right strength and speed while being able to grip that heavy candelabra just the right way - what if their fingers slip, etc.? You'd have sweaty palms in a situation like that, so .. your point is pretty much refuted. (Although you deleted it with your backpedaling).
There must be more things in existence that you can't crush someone's skull with than things you can crush someone's skull with.
OBVIOUSLY you didn't believe your own statement because you had to add those qualifiers.. "err, if you hit them hard enough OR repetitively enough"
Can I crush a skull with a tiny herring, if I just hit them repetitively enough? 'Hard enough' should be pre-requisitite!
"You could hit a person in the head with your bare hand and kill them."
Depending on who the 'you' is and about 100 other circumstances. In the movie's setting, this would be _HIGHLY_ unlikely. Skull is made of a pretty tough stuff, you'd probably hurt your hand more than they would ever die from that. You'd have to hit quite many times in most cases, I'd estimate.
"That heavy metal candlestick was like a medieval mace, and could definitely kill someone."
Maces in medieval times.. they weren't very common, as they'd be cumbersome, hard and heavy to carry around, and relatively useless compared to a good sword.
That candlelabra isn't balanced for hitting, it wasn't designed as a weapon, and those people wouldn't know how to kill someone even with an ACTUAL medieval mace. Also, candelabra can't kill anyone, especially by itself. It would always need someone to USE it as a weapon, in which case, the candelabra didn't kill someone, it was the human.
As someone said, candelabras don't kill people, humans do. If someone kills you with a candelabra, the police isn't going to say "Oh wow, a murderous candelabra that keeps killing people" and cuff and arrest it. No, it's the human being that USED a candelabra to kill someone that's the murderer.
It doesn't really matter what medieval not-so-common weapon you think the candelabra reminds you of, it still can't kill anyone, and it's be extremely unlikely that anyone could kill anyone with one blow to the head using that thing.
Maces in medieval times.. they weren't very common, as they'd be cumbersome, hard and heavy to carry around, and relatively useless compared to a good sword.
Don't know where you get your information. Maces were very common all over the world, not just in medieval times but for several thousand years in its various forms, they were very light and nimble, and far more deadly than swords as soon as armour was in the picture.
It doesn't really matter what medieval not-so-common weapon you think the candelabra reminds you of, it still can't kill anyone, and it's be extremely unlikely that anyone could kill anyone with one blow to the head using that thing.
In cartoons, maybe. In the real world, however, hitting someone over the head with such an object would have a very good chance of killing them in one blow. Death would probably not be instant, but a cracked skull is a cracked skull.
reply share
Of course the gun is the most effective and easiest way to kill someone. The dagger is the next most effective. However, the other four weapons have the advantage of silence. A gunshot would be heard throughout the house, and someone being stabbed would be able to scream. But cracking someone over the head with the wrench, candlestick, or lead pipe could be done in near silence. And the first shot would most likely knock the victim unconscious. The subsequent blows would kill them.
The rope is the least effective weapon. Not only do you need to be close to the person, but it takes a long time. And all the while the victim would be kicking and trying to fight you off and making a lot of noise.