I've just watch "Heat", with Al Paccino and...you know...this other dude..De Niro yeah.

The shoot out in this film is, I think, one of the best I have ever seen (definitely top 10). Of course it had wonderful sound effect, but there was something else too it.

One of the element,to me, for a good gunfight scene, is to create a tri-dimensional environment for the viewers.

When we know where the belligerent are, we naturally project a 3D plan of the place in our head, so when we see a shot of De Niro running to get cover behind the yellow car, we know how far he is from Paccino, and from which angle he can get shot etc.

Wonderful use of this technique in "Saving private Ryan" too.

What are, too you, the secret to a good and engaging gun fight?

Movement is key. A gunfight is a kinetic action, it is chaotic and, at the same time, organized. A director must convey movement well. Many directors do it different ways. As you say, setting up a fixed point (or points) that allows the viewer to situate themselves allows for the conveyance of motion by altering that point. I've seen the actual style done many ways - from the handheld, "I'm sitting here with my Handycam trying to capture this fight" look of Miami Vice, to the hyper stylized lobby scene of The Matrix. The point is showing movement.

For example:

http://fxhome.com/effectslab/lite/video-gallery/3

Compare the second clip in that video to the third clip. The second effectively conveys the energy and movement of a shootout, whereas the third seems lifeless and far less proffessional.

eh, heat sucks. only gun fights i can think of that happen in a useful way to the story are from SErgio LEone's films.

I thought the Heat bank shootout was very key and effective, mainly because of it's eerie similarity to the LA Bank shootout of 1997. It's actually kind of strange how close those two are...

The secret of a good gunfight is to present the story in such a way the audience cares about the characters and whats at stake if they lose or get hurt.

From here it can be kinetic or still, large or small scale, comical or dramatic with the theme or design of the story informing these choices.

If construction of the fight itself is the foucus then there is a serious problem.
A gunfight without character is just false drama.

quote:

Originally posted by REDking:
If construction of the fight itself is the foucus then there is a serious problem.
A gunfight without character is just false drama.

Agreed.
However there are times when this is not possible. For example, if a gunfight is the opening scene in a film, its really impossible for the audience to feel connected to the characters that they have not "met" yet. However there are technical methods or stylistic techniques make the audience feel like they are part of the fight even if they are not acquainted with the participants.

Cinematical, that was a VERY good example.

I think one of the most important things to conver in a gunfight is this: It's scary.

In a real gunfight, one mistake and your dead. The director that can convey that has me sold.

I think Band of Brothers caught gnfights better then Saving Private Ryan . . . they were much more hectic and realistic in my opinion. I personally do not like stylized (I.E. Matrix) gunfights and look for the realism in one.

It wasn't really a fight, but the scene in the Bourne Ultimatum (spoilers for those who haven't seen it) when he is trying to get the reporter away from the sniper is a great example of realism and keeping the feeling that if either Bourne or the reporter makes a mistake, everything goes wrong (and it did, of course).

quote:

Originally posted by braininabox:
.
However there are times when this is not possible. For example, if a gunfight is the opening scene in a film, its really impossible for the audience to feel connected to the characters that they have not "met" yet......

Good point! I wonder which is more effective! i mean a gunfight is probably a very good "hook" in a visceral snense. Any examples I can't think of one because I apparently burned away that part of my memory.

But if Say resevior dogs started with the botched robbery would it have worked as good? I'm sure there are a 1000 examples of each way that work!

But i stick to my guns that the introduction of a gun is often a phony way to ratchet up the drama and a real hack move if not properly motivated! Same goes for midgets, ninjas, drug deals gone bad, and anytime the word hitman is mentioned by anybody..

quote:

Originally posted by REDking:
Any examples I can't think of one because I apparently burned away that part of my memory.

the proposition.

quote:

REDking said:
Same goes for midgets, ninjas, drug deals gone bad, and anytime the word hitman is mentioned by anybody..

Man, you're gonna hate my next film: Midget Ninja Hitmen vs. Drug Dealers Who Suck at Their Jobs and Compensate by Carrying Guns

I'd agree that characters and backstory complement an effective gunfight. The shootout in Heat would not have been nearly as tense if DeNiro and Pacino hadn't just had their talk over coffee. The final gunfight in For A Few Dollars More became much more than just a gunfight when we saw the connection between Angel Eyes and what's his name...

But all those thing about caring for a character are more based on a script writer standpoint.

I was more interested by the director way of creating a good gun fight.

Destruction is another good point. If there's a gunfight in the middle of a desert, it's not as good as one in a closed space, simply because of the breaking glass and ripping walls that can be seen.

quote:

I was more interested by the director way of creating a good gun fight.

Most filmmakers are.