Car Chases Are Stupid

What sense do they make?

Why don't they shoot out the tires?

What would they do if they caught the car they are chasing? Both parties have guns.

For movies, they allow for action-packed scenes of robbers trying to get away from the cops or away from whoever is chasing them. In real life, they are done to catch someone evading the law. Some jurisdictions don't permit cops to chase criminals due to public safety, etc. 

In real life, cops do shoot out the tires depending on where you live and spike strips, used to puncture tires, are very popular. You can see that in the movies as well. 

The car being chased does not always have guns... If the people being chased have guns and they got surrounded or their vehicle rendered immobile, a standoff takes place, which can lead to a variety of outcomes, such as a shootout, a surrender, or a suicide. 

In movies Sam. In movies.

In movies, everyone in the chase have guns.

No one ever shoots out the tires,

NP one shoots the driver.

And the damage left by the chase is worse than what the criminal did in the beginning.

Why do otherwise intelligent film makers use this silly gimmick?

"In movies, everyone in the chase have guns."

No guns were used during this specific car chase www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbJEvmv_pUs
I guess you can say the grappling hooks are a type of gun/projectile, but that's just taking it to an extreme. They did not have a shootout in the middle of New York, no one flashed guns, bullets weren't flying, etc. 

"No one ever shoots out the tires"

Nope

"Why do otherwise intelligent film makers use this silly gimmick?"

Possibly because they are intelligent enough to recognize that the people who will watch a movie for its overly dramatic car chase scenes that aren't put to a premature end due to someone's tires being shot at and that is intensified due to people shooting will always far outnumber the people who will moan and groan about how silly these 'gimmicks' are. The Fate of the Furious is the latest instalment in the very successful, and possibly overextended, Fast and Furious franchise. That movie grossed over a billion dollars and the franchise as a whole earned 5 billion dollars through these flashy gimmicks.

So we get stupid movies because film makers are intelligent enough to realize the general public is stupid?

I find it easier to believe that we get stupid movies because film makers are stupid, and the general public ever more stupid.

Of all the stupid and bizarre scenes typical to movies, car chases are probably pretty ordinary imo? I'm a big fan of horror movies and I regularly beat my head in when the characters enthusiastically jump through their suicidal antics. I understand that the movie wouldn't be fun if they did the rational thing and not confront the horror entity at every opportunity however so it's fair enough.

No, no, no. People do stupid things in real life. And even smart people get killed in reality, but that is different from the stupidity of movies. 

It is possible to get the tension and suspense without the stupidity. It lazy writing, and knowing that the audience won't care either way.

Trump isn't embarrassing America, our silly movies are.

stupidity in movies is pretty realistic then. Irl people are stupid, so it follows that people in movies are just as stupid. I agree that a lot of stupid things happen but I think this is where the fun is. I went to a comedy festival earlier and it was patently stupid and I thought that was all well and good too.

They're super boring 90% of the time because they're just so typical. I'm always like, "What made you think you could go so long without anything interesting happening?"

But if they're doing it believably, the fleeing car is weaving in and out of traffic and obstacles a lot (responsible) to keep the chasing car from line-of-sighting them. If the chasing car is equipped with pistols or semiautomatic firearms of a comparable rate of fire, it should be hard to hit objects as small as tires on a moving target while yourself firing from a moving car, adding that the constant weaving of the fleeing car gives you ridiculously narrow windows of time to get in even the most perfectly accurate shot. If the attackers have automatic weapons, it should be a spray-and-shred where every part of the fleeing car could easily get hit. In which case if a tire pops the chase could still continue with the fleeing car grinding on a rim.

The chasing car must think it would have a significant advantage in a fight once the cars stop, otherwise there should not be a chase. This advantage could be superior numbers, superior firepower, superior physical strength, or psychological dominance.

"So we get stupid movies because film makers are intelligent enough to realize the general public is stupid?

"I find it easier to believe that we get stupid movies because film makers are stupid, and the general public ever more stupid."

They are intelligent enough to make movies that will be bought by the majority of people and they enjoy lots of success in doing so. So long as they make money making films that cater to those people, you will still see those films. Sure, you as an individual can take issue with how movies are made and the prevalence of what you consider to be stupid in those movies, but to call those people stupid is illogical. It's silly to ascribe to the belief that the Fast and Furious movie series's success is due to mere coincidence, that they have no idea what they are doing, they are stupid, and that they just stumble into success and good box office performances everytime they make a movie. You'd have to illustrate how stupidity and a lack of common sense can go on to consistently churn out movies that do well.

If a movie had car chases and shooting in it yet went on to be a massive box office flop, cite it, because your position would be a lot more tenable then it is currently as all you are doing is asserting. Even if you did cite a movie that incorporated a lot of shooting and car stuff yet went on to fail, it still doesn't detract from the immense success the majority of movies experience have that do incorporate that stuff. Baby Driver is all about police chases, shooting, crime, driving stunts on public roadways, crashes, etc and it enjoys a 93% on rotten tomatoes and earned 226 million dollars against a 34 mil budget; pretty successful for a movie headed by stupid people and filled with car chases, shooting, crashes, etc. 

For example, Fast and Furious 6 had some crazy things in it[www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-23005848] as did the last movie with the nuclear submarine. You always see those articles published exploring the realism behind these movies, whether it be the extremely long runway and the weird stunts performed by Vin Diesel in Fast and Furious 6 or the whole submarine thing in The Fate of the Furious[www.thewrap.com/fate-furious-can-submarine-really-outrun-car/]; however, both went onto be extremely successful. Regardless of your personal disagreements and reservations about these movies, you are just going to have to accept that they have a winning formula and that they know how to use it. 

As for the average movie-goer/the general public being stupid, you can certainly make a case for that depending on what's being discussed. In this instance, the desire to relax and watch a movie that offers an over-dramatic, less than realistic portrayal of driving, shooting, crime, and 'whatever' doesn't make people stupid. You are just being a critic. 

You misunderstand me Sam.

There is stupid, and then there is stupid. The movie sets up the universe. OK, I'm willing to accept that universe, but you have to be true to it. But no, they will set up a universe, and then violate the very universe they themselves set up.

Professor X can control minds but is inexplicably helpless in the most mundane of situations. 

If the stupidity flows from the character or the plot, OK, but to have a character strong enough to crush Ironman's headgear, but is helpless when he's holding ironman's head is silly.

The success of movies is due to what I call the porn effect. The public eats it up because nothing better is out there. The movies are financial successes, but that doesn't point to intelligence of the film maker. Every blockbuster is stupid.

Matrix was a movie that tried hard not to be stupid. They stayed pretty true to the universe they set up. Movies do not have to be stupid.

"Professor X can control minds but is inexplicably helpless in the most mundane of situations."

This apology is why movies remain silly.

If I controlled what you ate and fed you only rotten dog meat, you'd eat it. Because you ate it all wouldn't mean rotten dog meat was good. You would have a difficult time finding movies to watch if you refrained from watching stupid movies. Movies can make a ton of money and still be stupid.

Let me mention that I take no issue with movies aimed at kids. I can accept their stupidity. But it seems like almost every movie is aimed at 14 year old boys. A filmmaker should be an artist, not a sales clerk.

The car chase can be eventful and exciting without being silly. It is a testament to how much humans can be trained to like poor quality by your beautiful defense of mediocrity.

Big budget movies like F&F need millions in marketing to make, say a 100% profit. Movies like Blair Witch or Moonlight Kingdom had rates in the 1,000's.

Rotten goat meat.

If the public stopped buying tickets for movies with car chases, Hollywood would stop making them.

True, but the public includes teens and immature and uneducated adults. They wouldn't have the self-control even if they understood the stakes.

Both films and the public in general have been increasing in stupidity the last few decades. That trend is unlikely to stop.