Re: how come nobody shoots kong when he's on the ground?
- From: Russell Watson <russell-watson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:20:59 -0500
On 13 Dec 2005 14:28:15 -0800, "Jacqueline Heather Jones"
>seriously, if someone had just shot it in the heart with a regular
>rifle, wouldn't it have died?
Cinematic explanation: it was much cooler having the "8th Wonder of
the World" shot off the top of what was then the newly-completed
"World's Tallest Man-Made Structure" by fighter planes, which were
also still a relatively recent invention (having come into existence
roughly 18 years prior to the making of the film, at a time when the
world was still fascinated by aviation in which records were broken
almost weekly and WW1 aces like Rickenbacker, Udet, Fonck, etc., and
post-war pilots like Charles Lindbergh, Jimmy Doolittle, Roscoe
Turner, Wiley Post, et al, were very famous people).
Logical explantion: It took hundreds of rounds of .30 caliber ammo
fired from machine guns to kill him. The NYPD didn't have the
firepower to do that on the ground, their most common automatic weapon
being the 1928 Thompson submachine gun, which fires a .45 caliber
pistol round (totally ineffective against an animal like Kong)
interspersed with a few 1918 BARs, which fire the much more powerful
..30-06 round, but not enough of them to do the job. Would have jiust
pissed him off even more. Not to mention that being an anthropoid Kong
was a pretty mobile creature who wouldn't be easy to hit effectively
on the ground, while once atop the building he was pretty much
- Prev by Date: Re: OT Lefties losing Limbaugh
- Next by Date: Re: bowling for columbine
- Previous by thread: Movie fantasy and children
- Next by thread: Re: how come nobody shoots kong when he's on the ground?