Conrad dies from a sholder shot? - Three Kings (1999) Discussion

[–] Lucy9596 13 years ago

Maybe it was an artery which got hit. But yeah, first they say, it's a shot right trough, not too bad, and suddenly he's dead. Practically the same sort of shot MW as Bob Lee Swagger gets in Shooter. Which he survives easily with self made treatment.

Reed Rothchild: "Hey, are those lizard?"
Dirk: "No, they're Italian."

reply

[–] Druff 13 years ago

Gun shots are trippy things. One person can get shot full on in the chest and not get any treatment for a few hours and still survive. Another guy can get shot in the leg and bleed out in minutes. All kinds of weird random things can happen when a bullet enters a body.

reply

[–] tommy_a83 11 years ago

It appears he's hit above the collar bone and it came from the side so the damage was probably severe.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] defensorvindexbrat 11 years ago

The bullet could have also fragmented or ricocheted off bone sending it into something vital.

reply

[–] puschit-1 10 years ago

Also, Conrad was already injured.

Then again, Barlow has been tortured right before he got shot. They forced him to swallow mineral oil - that alone should have killed him.

reply

[–] clickbait 10 years ago

Not true puschit-1...we never get to see him swallow the oil...he bites the cd case and as long as the oil not flow between his teeth, he cant swallow it.

~If the realistic details fails, the movie fails~

reply

[–] F_Serpico 10 years ago

Though, we hear him choking quite a bit, some must have went down.

Why am I Mr. Pink?

reply

[–] Pregnat_asian_woman 9 years ago

If I just got mortally wounded, I'd want someone to say "hey it's not so bad" as I lay there bleeding to death. Though I agree it was a confusing line for us as the viewer.

reply

[–] Rycor 10 years ago

Getting shot sucks. The round tumbled. A high-velocity round can enter your foot and come out the top of your head.

In reality, a AK-47 most likely would blow your shoulder off, so there are some inaccuracies in this movie.

However, doesn't really matter where the entrance wound is. The cavitation is what matters.

reply

[–] r_buro 9 years ago

They made it pretty clear how walberg survived, and spike didn't

reply

[–] tyler_durden900 8 years ago

Probably made an infected pocket full of bile in that shoulder.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56646) 5 years ago

Ever heard of spoilers?

reply

[–] Costumer (1821) 5 years ago

No offense here, but this movie is 20 years old. The first post on this thread was 9 years ago.

Listing a thread as containing spoilers for a time after a movie or tv show premiers is polite. However, that should only last a reasonable time. My personal time line is six months.

Twelve years (the time of the first post) most certainly exceeds any reasonable expectation of spoiler announcements. If you plan to visit a board of an film that has been out for some time, especially years, you should expect you may read spoilers. There should be no need to announce it.

Should we announce spoilers for SW: a New Hope? Or Forbidden Planet? or the Wizard of Oz?

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56646) 5 years ago

There are young people haven't seen it and you can't expect every person to watch every single film that contains a spoiler. If someone was 16-years-old, can you really expect him to be watching Three Kings?

reply

[–] Costumer (1821) 5 years ago

By that logic spoilers must be announced forever. Sorry, I'm not going to circumcise my speech for decades because maybe someone hasn't seen something.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56646) 5 years ago

Who gets to decide how long it's appropriate for someone to not give spoilers? A week? A month? A year? A decade? What may be enough time for you may not be enough time for someone else. It fluctuates from person to person, so the only logical thing to do is not spoil it at all without a fair warning. It's not that hard putting "Spoilers:" in advance.

reply

[–] Costumer (1821) 5 years ago

Fine. I will expect each and every post you ever make on a film to have a spoilers notation on it.

Seriously, the time will vary for everyone. But it must be reasonable. I can see up to a year. After, that, no. It is your responsibility, not mine or other posters, to protect yourself from spoilers on films that have been available for a significant amount of time.

I, and most reasonable and polite posters, are not going to twist ourselves into knots to avoid letting something slip. Take responsibility for your own actions.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56646) 5 years ago

It is your responsibility, not mine or other posters, to protect yourself from spoilers on films that have been available for a significant amount of time.

As I said, how is that the fault of a younger generation? Fight Club was released in 1999. If someone is born today, they're already past the time limit that you personally set from which the film was released. So just because they were born 21 years after the film's release, they will get spoiled on something they had no control over. The only time someone can enjoy that film spoiler-free is the time you set. No future generation can enjoy it unless they -- by fluke -- didn't have it spoiled for them.

reply

[–] Costumer (1821) 5 years ago

Why are you bringing fault into it? Of course its not their fault. It is their responsibility. The world doesn't stop just someone new gets to see and learn things at their own pace.

>>>No future generation can enjoy it unless they -- by fluke -- didn't have it spoiled for them<<<

Nor can they avoid the general talk and references to past films, books and events. People quote from all three allthe time. They reference the past. Every generation has had to live with that.

It is not the world's job to make sure everyone enjoys everything to their maximum potential. I'm sorry you don't realize that.

We have all had that sort of thing happen. If you don't want to know about something before you see or read it first, then don't go to a forum dedicated to discussing that item. If you do, you better be prepared to see spoilers.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56646) 5 years ago

Why are you bringing fault into it? Of course its not their fault. It is their responsibility.

Okay, how is it a 13-year-olds responsibility to catch up on Fight Club before they're spoiled?

I'm not saying you can't spoil, I'm just saying give a fair warning. I'm not going to give out my personal time frame of when it's okay to spoil something because it varies by person, which is why a fair warning is courteous.

you don't want to know about something before you see or read it first, then don't go to a forum dedicated to discussing that item.

The thing is, it's not just a forum. I've seen movies that use references to other films. The Scary Movie franchise spoiled movies that came out less than a year before. "The Simpsons" parodied the "Planet of the Apes" ending. "Ace Ventura" parodied "The Crying Game" twist.

Nobody likes being spoiled. It's not the world's job to make sure people watch something to its full potential, but at the same time, we all complain when we haven't seen it.

reply

[–] Costumer (1821) 5 years ago

Its a 13 year old's responsibility to realize that if he or she starts to discuss, or joins a discussion, for anything that has been out for awhile to realize that it may be spoiled. Its that simple.

Other people can't be expected to make sure your enjoyment isn't spoiled. Everyone, yes, even teens and children, need to take responsibility for their own choices. If they don't want it spoiled, don't join a discussion.

As I've said, a reasonable time after an item is released is appropriate and polite. You can argue about what that reasonable time is. I like six month. I can see a year. Beyond that, you take your chances and you live with the consequences.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56646) 5 years ago

If they don't want it spoiled, don't join a discussion.

Its a 13 year old's responsibility to realize that if he or she starts to discuss, or joins a discussion, for anything that has been out for awhile to realize that it may be spoiled

I've seen Three Kings so I don't care. So should kids stop watching all movies in case they parody other movies like "Ace Ventura" did? Or how about commercials? How about social media where people decide to randomly post a spoiler?

reply

[–] Costumer (1821) 5 years ago

You are now talking gibberish.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56646) 5 years ago

I'm asking because you keep bringing up joining a discussion. People aren't only spoiled from joining a discussion.

reply

[–] Costumer (1821) 5 years ago

Whatever are you talking about? You come here to join a discussion. If you are in a group you join a discussion.

In everyday life you will see references to all sorts of things.

If you go to see another film that references a earlier film, well that is the right of the film maker. No, he doesn't have to put a big notice at the front of the film with a list of things that are referenced.

You are descending into gibberish. Everyone should be protected from every possibility that they might have something spoiled?

Now, if you are just arguing reductio ad absurdum it is a poor attempt and not helpful.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56646) 5 years ago

No, he doesn't have to put a big notice at the front of the film with a list of things that are referenced.

I never said they had to do this. If you read what I wrote again, I said that they (movies, commercials) reference things that just came out. So that would go against your criteria of giving spoilers after a certain amount of time. I brought this example up to illustrate that you can be spoiled on recent releases, even if it's not on a discussion board.

reply

[–] Costumer (1821) 5 years ago

You are getting ridiculous. None of us has any control on what advertisers are going to do. Trailers could be said to be spoilers.

We are talking about discussion boards. I least I am. We still don't have control here, but at least our opinions are read by others and may, or may not, influence others.

I'm not sure why you keep grinding away at this.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56646) 5 years ago

I'm talking more than just posters. But even so, sites like this and IMDb have the option to cover spoilers which will reveal when you hover the cursor over. It's done for this exact reason.

reply

[–] Costumer (1821) 5 years ago

I have explained my position over and over. This discussion is over from my end. You seem determined to force everyone to label everything they write or say with spoiler notices for the entire history of the human race. Sorry, that is never going to happen. Nor should it.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56646) 5 years ago

You seem determined to force everyone to label everything they write or say with spoiler notices for the entire history of the human race. Sorry, that is never going to happen. Nor should it.

The irony in this statement is priceless. So me saying people should make spoilers known in advance for the entire history is "force" but you saying it won't happen and "nor should it" is not force? Well, I guess we all have to follow Costumer's rules of what shouldn't happen while he criticizes others for what they think should happen.

reply

[–] Costumer (1821) 5 years ago

Sigh. It is hopeless to discuss anything with someone so utterly blind. I am done. Rant to yourself.

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 5 years ago

Agreed wholeheartedly, Costumer. No reasonable person can arrive at the party so late and demand to be shielded from spoilers. Attention whores, on the other hand, are different. Let’s put the question another way: ever heard of good sense, or of having flesh-and-blood friends in real life?

reply

[–] Costumer (1821) 5 years ago

Apparantly, samoajoes is not reasonable. As he has just posted, no one gets to decide what a reasonable time is, so everyone has to post spoilers on every post we make.

As I've said to him, that is not going to happen.

Thank you for your support.

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 5 years ago

I guess you could say he’s “spoiled” MovieChat, and in more ways than 1.

reply