[quote]
James Bond must have had thousands of bullets aimed at him over the course of his movie career. He must be the most shot-at fictional film hero of all. Can anybody calculate the odds of him not having taken a fatal hit over the past five decades? Surely they are astronomical.
• There is some ambiguity over how many gunshots have been fired at James Bond because, in many gunfights, it is not clear who the shots are aimed at. However, by my reckoning, in the 22 Bond films to date, there have been at least 4662 shots fired at our hero. A static well-aimed shot would almost certainly have proved lethal, but assuming all 4662 were "on the run", the probability of a single fatal shot is about 5 per cent. That is, the chance of a single shot missing is 0.95, and hence the probability of all shots missing is 0.954662 or 1.4 × 10-104, which is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Apart from gunshots there have been 130 dastardly attempts to kill Bond. Factor that in, and you have a really small probability. For the record, Bond has also slain 198 villains, creating yet another bizarre improbability.
Gordon Stanger, Solomon Islands
What is even more remarkable about the statistics involved here, is that somebody has bothered to count the shots fired at Bond - Ed[/quote]
[url]http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428633.600-die-another-day.html[/url]
Really? I counted 4661. I must have missed one.
[QUOTE=IliekBoxes;35896692]Really? I counted 4661. I must have missed one.[/QUOTE]
You better have a recount.
I've always been a fan of the theory that James Bond was just a code name like 007, hence why he can be played by so many different actors. Its the same "Agent" but a different man at the same time. Something like Doctor Who almost. Which it would be interesting to see two Bond's together on a mission.
4662 rounds fired without a kill isn't that impressive. Tens of thousands (and by some estimations, hundreds of thousands in our current two conflicts) are often fired in conflicts per single kill.
Slow news day?
More on that is that each "Agent" is established for specific tasks and skills and the men who will be those agents are trained as such. So someone who is Agent 007, James Bond would be trained in one way as opposed to an Agent 004, who would receive entirely different training.
[QUOTE=Yahnich;35896826]007 is trained to shag ladies and look handsome[/QUOTE]In many ways, yeah. A 007 James Bond would be based largely around appearance and persuasion. The agent would have to be good-looking, persuasive, be highly capable in social engineering. Things of that nature.
A 004 might be based around intimidation, using brute force aggression. A 005 might be based around speed, carrying out tasks quickly, and hit-and-run style attacks.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35896717]two Bond's together on a mission.[/QUOTE]
James Bond Generations.
[QUOTE=IliekBoxes;35896692]Really? I counted 4661. I must have missed one.[/QUOTE]
You must have forgotten to count the one from the intro.
[url]http://angryalien.com/aa/bondbuns.asp[/url]
That's the best version of James Bond.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;35896910][url]http://angryalien.com/aa/bondbuns.asp[/url]
That's the best version of James Bond.[/QUOTE]
2nd best
[img]http://i.imgur.com/xdKYz.jpg[/img]
Did they count this one:
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vQt8fCr1PE4/TrdcNGEzkZI/AAAAAAAADRQ/7H7lCNQurS4/s1600/Grace+on+the+set+of+A+View+to+Kill+1984.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=GunFox;35896767]4662 rounds fired without a kill isn't that impressive. Tens of thousands (and by some estimations, hundreds of thousands in our current two conflicts) are often fired in conflicts per single kill.[/QUOTE]
yeah but it isn't "the US army vs one british guy"
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;35897343]yeah but it isn't "the US army vs one british guy"[/QUOTE]
That data is from modern conflicts, it was calculated that it takes 60,000 rounds to kill one insurgent in Afghanistan and this is highly trained soldiers against peasant villagers
[QUOTE=download;35897635]That data is from modern conflicts, it was calculated that it takes 60,000 rounds to kill one insurgent in Afghanistan and this is highly trained soldiers against peasant villagers[/QUOTE]
This is also a lot of firing into the mountains at a man you may or may not have a clear view of, you also have to factor in suppression fire which is basically just control spraying. Plus all the conflicts that end with the insurgents fleeing right after the attack, so the return fire just goes straight into the mountains for a few minutes until everyone is sure the attackers are gone. I'm sure it adds up pretty quick.
People don't want to kill eachother, even in war.
Drills were "improved" alot after world war 2 to get everyone shooting after it was noticed that only 1/4 of the soldiers in ww2 ever fired their gun in combat. In the Korean war 60 percent fired their weapons and in the vietnam war over 90 percent already fired their weapons. This either goes to show that in war soldiers fire when drilled to, they might not even see the damn target or that the value of human life had a severe drop in just a few decades :v:
[QUOTE=GunFox;35896767]4662 rounds fired without a kill isn't that impressive. Tens of thousands (and by some estimations, hundreds of thousands in our current two conflicts) are often fired in conflicts per single kill.[/QUOTE] Those rounds aren't aimed to kill usually. It's mostly used for suppression.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35896858]In many ways, yeah. A 007 James Bond would be based largely around appearance and persuasion. The agent would have to be good-looking, persuasive, be highly capable in social engineering. Things of that nature.
A 004 might be based around intimidation, using brute force aggression. A 005 might be based around speed, carrying out tasks quickly, and hit-and-run style attacks.[/QUOTE]
OOOOOHHH...... I want 00-everything movies now......
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35896717]I've always been a fan of the theory that James Bond was just a code name like 007, hence why he can be played by so many different actors. Its the same "Agent" but a different man at the same time. Something like Doctor Who almost. Which it would be interesting to see two Bond's together on a mission.[/QUOTE]
All possible 007 Bonds working together at once.
There wouldn't be enough bullets to even try to stop them.
[QUOTE=Falchion;35897777]People don't want to kill eachother, even in war.
Drills were "improved" alot after world war 2 to get everyone shooting after it was noticed that only 1/4 of the soldiers in ww2 ever fired their gun in combat. In the Korean war 60 percent fired their weapons and in the vietnam war over 90 percent already fired their weapons. This either goes to show that in war soldiers fire when drilled to, they might not even see the damn target or that the value of human life had a severe drop in just a few decades :v:[/QUOTE]
The data that report comes from has actually been shot down a lot. I couldn't link you to where, but it went to great lengths showing several faults with the methodology that didn't take into consideration such as that only 1/4 of the soldiers in ww2 were actually combat role trained. People tend to forget that 90% of any given military is actually there for supporting functions, only a very small percentage of people in the military actually do the fighting.
Regardless, it is true that there has been an increase in performance among soldiers over the decades, owing mainly to better training systems and preparation. Let's not forget a large amount of young men were very naive about the nature of warfare pre-WW1, and the propaganda machine advertised it as a great adventure, vs today where the media exposure and coverage of warfare throughout the decades gives the average guy joining say, the infantry, a very real view of what he's going to encounter.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35896717]I've always been a fan of the theory that James Bond was just a code name like 007, hence why he can be played by so many different actors. Its the same "Agent" but a different man at the same time. Something like Doctor Who almost. Which it would be interesting to see two Bond's together on a mission.[/QUOTE]
If I recall there's a scene in one Bond movie where he gets rejected by a girl, and he exclaims that "This never happened to the other fella..."
[editline]10th May 2012[/editline]
Yep, "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Her_Majesty's_Secret_Service_(film)]On Her Majesty's Secret Service[/url]".
James Bond didn't [I]dodge[/I] any bullets... all bad guys just have horrible aim!
i know its James Bond an all but im just waiting on a film were the good guy suddenly makes a dash for it and rather than every bullet missing him all the bad guys rip him to shreds ^_^
Too bad all the goons went to the Stormtrooper Academy, they have an exchange program there.
[QUOTE=GunFox;35896767]4662 rounds fired without a kill isn't that impressive. Tens of thousands (and by some estimations, hundreds of thousands in our current two conflicts) are often fired in conflicts per single kill.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but those are often fired in the general direction of a threat, instead of being in the same room as Bond often is.
I guess he doesn't have a close bond, james bond with bullets.
[QUOTE=GunFox;35896767]4662 rounds fired without a kill isn't that impressive. Tens of thousands (and by some estimations, hundreds of thousands in our current two conflicts) are often fired in conflicts per single kill.[/QUOTE]
This wouldn't sound so stupid if james bond wasn't a spy infiltrating places up close with guards and soldiers weren't in cities and open places hundreds of metres apart
[QUOTE=koeniginator;35896926]2nd best
[img]http://i.imgur.com/xdKYz.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Reminds me, Nightfire was one of the better Jamesbonds, even if it was only just a game
[QUOTE=koeniginator;35896926]2nd best
[img]http://i.imgur.com/xdKYz.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Oh god his mouth is all wide.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.