MovieChat Forums > Rescue Dawn (2007) Discussion > Ditching the guards guns

Ditching the guards guns

posted 16 years ago by chrismahon2005
21 replies | jump to latest

Did they really do that in reality ?, i understand they were tired and carrying them was a pain, also that they could not use them to hunt due to the noise, but did not one of them later get killed by a knife while the other could not help?, now if they had keep them then he could have saved his mate.

Sorry i only caught up to that part, had to go to work (where i am now) and the film was round a mates so it may be a while before i see it all, and it got me thinking. Any one know the truth about this bit ?

[–] erikriveros 16 years ago

it's always better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.

he'd roll over on his mommy, his daddy, his two panty granny and the *beep* king of siam

[–] rehiii76 16 years ago

Yeah, I thought them ditching the guns was REALLY stupid as well. They are in a hostile land and the guns were the only means of true defense. Plus, there no doubt was a lot of nasty wildlife undoubtedly lurking in the jungles (Tigers come to mind).

Also odd how they said they couldn't hunt because of the noise but yet it was fine to scream your lungs out at aircraft that were high overhead that had no chance of actually hearing you. That seemed pretty stupid to me. The sustained yelling would of drawn more enemy attention than one or two gunshots since they could easily know where you were.

[–] yehaww 16 years ago

Well, they WERE delirious, so maybe not making the smartest decisions. I don't know how true to life the story was. Would have been nice to have a commentary from Dieter to clear things up. Guess that won't happen.

[–] Esmacious 16 years ago

AFAIK they both had their machetes still at that point (when Duane was killed). I think they just hoped that if they acted submissive - they were both on their knees - they would be treated with compassion. Which is pretty dumb of them - if they'd gone in more assertively they probably would have scored a couple of bowls of rice - but then that wasn't the style of either of them, especially by that point in the journey.

I agree about the guns - I guess the weight of them was just getting too much to allow them to carry on. I'm not sure why they were *so* pessimistic about their chances with the guns if they came across the VietCong though - surely better than being unarmed?

[–] johnslegers 15 years ago

According to http://www.rescuedawnthetruth.com/, much of the story was messed up by Herzog. Too bad, because even the orriginal story sounds very interesting...

[–] koko83 15 years ago

well....illusions667, that website sure puts a damper on the movie.

if that website is the truth and is word from dengler's family and friends, then thats sad what herzog did. I was quite motivated by the movie and thought it was an inspiring real life story, but they should have stuck with the TRUTH, instead of pushing foward a hollywood hero story.

[–] dyahrmarkt 14 years ago

@Koko

Herzog has never denied making up great swaths of information for his films. He's coined the term "ecstatic truth" to represent his notion of truth as its *represented*, not documented. It's worth noting, too, that he made up a lot of "Little Dieter Needs to Fly" as well, the documentary of Dengler that preceded this one.

Please nest your IMDB page, so you respond to the correct person.

[–] zackattack-1 14 years ago

Another thing is, they could have used the rifles to signal those passing helicopters by firing shots in distinct time intervals. Would work a lot better than the fire they started.

[–] savaslikesmovies 13 years ago

Yea.. Good idea, shoot in the air and I'm sure those guys in the helicopters will believe you're a friendly. Not really!

As for the guns, they could have ditched one and took turns carrying the remaining one. If they had, I'm sure his friend wouldn't have died and they would have even been able to take some food from them.

[–] anarchojoseph 16 years ago

Yeah, why didn't they just use the guns on the fisherman? Take his food.

[–] Nova_UB313 16 years ago

I didn't comprehend this at all. One would think that any gun is better than no gun in this type of situation--even one without ammo or one that's jammed.

More science, less fiction.

Karlrobert Kreiten--http://tinyurl.com/n938vj

[–] ABBEY1227-1 16 years ago

One would think that any gun is better than no gun in this type of situation--even one without ammo or one that's jammed.
---------------------------------------------

Just for the Appearance of being menacing, yes.

or as the Boris the Blade said " De veight is sign Uv Reliability, if it douz nut vork, you can alvays heet heem vit it"

[–] tuet 15 years ago

You can tell they werent infantry. No grunt would ditch a rifle.

[–] edenney01 15 years ago

This part was just about as stupid and nonsensical as most of the rest of the movie was to me. Obviously there were VERY serious inaccuracies in the movie as opposed to the true story, but in regards to this particular scene I don't know if they actually ditched the weapons like that or not (I too would be interested to know).

If they did, short of them doing it because they were completely delirious (which at least makes a little sense), that's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. As another person indicated, it's always better to have and not need than to need and not have, and I can think of many reasons why I'd rather have a weapon in that situation. Their reasoning for throwing the rifles away (in the movie), while on the very surface might seem to make sense to the casual observer, was actually quite absurd.

[–] chrismahon2005 15 years ago

I Posted the question, and yes if they were delirious then that fine, but in the film they did not really come across like that, hungry and tired yes, but not out of there minds. One obvious point is had they had the guns when they got attacked, and even had they not wanted to kill any of the villagers, just pointing the guns at them, may have saved his friend from getting hacked to death.

[–] Nathanel 15 years ago

I don't think many of you have pushed your bodies over periods of days or weeks to the point these men were at. I haven't come close to their suffering, but I did hike the entire Appalachian Trail which is over 2,000 miles long. I can definitively state that when you are exhausted beyond belief ANY significant reduction in weight feels like a life saving gift. Even just lightening your load by 5 lbs can do wonders over many miles and days. These guys didn't even have ergonomic backpacks, and I'm guessing these guns must have at least weighted 20 lbs each. I can assure you ditching them did wonders for their strength and stamina, which were two things they absolutely required to get out of that jungle alive.

In their weakened state, to carry something that heavy for that long would be torture. They made a calculated risk/reward decision and believed not having the guns would give them more stamina and allow them to go further and last longer. This increased strength outweighed the risk of running into a situation where the guns would have saved their lives.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheMachinistSleeps 15 years ago

Would those particular guns even be able to fire after all of the water and other various jungle filth they went through?

[–] haladay 14 years ago

I've hunted with a mosin nagant for a couple hours and that's 8 pounds that gets annoying after awhile. If you've been starving for months (let alone years) those 8 pounds get real heavy. An AK 47 is almost 10 pounds so when you barely have the strength to walk, carrying that extra weight is torture.

They're also greatly outnumbered. They may have been useful to get out of the camp but after awhile, it just slows you down. At that point, I have to imagine, getting recaptured is looking pretty good. Yeah they could have used the guns later but they didn't know it.

.

{My goal in life is to have my own IMDb page.}

[–] infinity8 12 years ago

Yes. And the men had to nack through the jungle with machetes while tired, sick, and largely starving. They did not have the physical strength to move forward *and* carry heavy guns for much longer.