JsARCLIGHT

Baseketball and Orgazmo

And everybody knows the MPAA ratings system, right? What exactly is a PG-13 movie? What exactly is an R? Most parents have no clue. They just know an "R" movie is a "Bad" movie... just like most parents know a "M" game is a "Bad" game. A little factual info on the MPAA from our friends at Wikipedia: MPAA film rating system The MPAA film rating system is a system used in the United States and instituted by the Motion Picture Association of America to rate a movie based on its content. It is one of various motion picture rating systems used to help patrons decide which movies may be appropriate for children. The current MPAA movie ratings consist of: * Rated G – GENERAL AUDIENCES: All ages admitted. * Rated PG – PARENTAL GUIDANCE SUGGESTED: Some material may not be suitable for children. * Rated PG-13 – PARENTS STRONGLY CAUTIONED: Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. * Rated R – RESTRICTED: Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. (Some jurisdictions or theater companies may have a higher age.) * Rated NC-17 – No one 17 and under admitted. (Some jurisdictions or theater companies may have a higher age.) If a film was never submitted for a rating, the label "NR" (Not Rated) is often used; however, "NR" is not an official MPAA classification. Films that have not yet received MPAA classification, but are expected to, are often advertised with the notice, "This film is not yet rated". History Origins The MPAA film rating system was instituted in November 1968 as a response to massive citizen complaints about the appearance and increase of explicit sexual content, graphic violence, scatology and related features of postmodernism in American film following the abolition, by the MPAA, of the Production Code of America in 1964.. The United States came rather late to motion picture rating, as many other countries had been using rating systems for decades. The postmodern movement had its advantages and disadvantages: while it allowed in its earliest days (before the Code was completely abolished) for movies like Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960) to be filmed, it also sparked a rise in low-budget exploitation films that became more and more explicit in their sexual and violent changes. In 1967, two movies, Ulysses and I'll Never Forget What's'isname, were released containing the word "FBomb" in their dialogue. This precipitated the public demand for the re-introduction of self-regulation. After a series of meetings with government representatives, the Motion Picture Association of America and National Association of Theatre Owners agreed to provide a uniform ratings system for all of its constituents' movies, a system that would be theoretically enforced by the film exhibitors. Film production companies not members of the MPAA were not affected, and the ratings system had no official, governmental enforceability due to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as interpreted in regards to matters of sexuality and violence in the media dating back to 1951's United States vs. Playboy Inc. decision. Original ratings The original movie ratings consisted of: * Rated G – Suggested For GENERAL Audiences (including children). * Rated M – Suggested For MATURE Audiences: Parental Discretion Advised. * Rated R – RESTRICTED: Children under 17 (originally 16) not admitted unless accompanied by a parent or adult guardian; some theater chains specifically stated that the "adult guardian" must be at least 21. * Rated X – Children Under 18 Not Admitted; the notation "Age limit may vary in certain areas" was sometimes added. Many parents thought films rated M contained more adult content than those that were rated R; this confusion led to its replacement in 1969 by GP: * Rated GP – General audiences/Parental guidance suggested. In 1970 GP was changed to PG – Parental guidance suggested . From the adoption of the system through the mid-1970s, it was not uncommon for mainstream films such as Airport, Planet of the Apes, The Odd Couple, and 2001: A Space Odyssey to be released with G ratings, but by 1978, that rating had become increasingly associated with films, often poorly made, intended specifically for children, while the PG rating became increasingly common for "family" films, with the G rating increasingly stigmatized by a public perception that a film so rated was a "dumb movie rated G for kids." This led to the PG rating becoming overloaded with everything from family films "spiced up" to avoid a G to very mature films that were "toned down" to avoid R ratings. It also led to the somewhat waggish public connotation (never intended by the MPAA) of PG as "Pretty Good." PG-13 In 1984, the actions of Steven Spielberg led to the introduction of the PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned) rating. Violent scenes in the PG-rated films Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (which he directed) and Gremlins (which he produced), were the catalyst. Public outcry about the violence led Spielberg to suggest a new PG-13 rating to Jack Valenti, who conferred with theater owners and then introduced the new rating on July 1. The rating still allows children under 13 to be admitted without a parent or guardian, but it cautions parents about potentially shocking violence or sexual content. The first movie to be released with a PG-13 rating was 1984's Red Dawn. By this point, the mass audience for films with content in the "G" or "PG" range had largely abandoned filmgoing, and filmmakers began to consciously tailor their material to ensure a "PG-13" or, even moreso, an "R" rating, focussing on the remaining audience (largely teenagers and their college-age "adult" siblings) who preferred such material. NC-17 In the early years of the ratings system, X-rated movies such as Midnight Cowboy (1969) and A Clockwork Orange (1971) could win Academy Award nominations and awards. But the rating, which wasn't trademarked by the MPAA (as were its other ratings), was self-applied by the "adult entertainment" segment of the industry to the point where an X rating became an advertising gimmick equated strictly with film pornography. This led to large number of newspapers and TV stations refusing to accept ads for X-rated movies, and some theaters' landlords forbade exhibition of X-rated movies. Such policies led to a compromise with the distributors of George Romero's 1979 horror film Dawn of the Dead: the audience restriction for X would be enforced, but the letter "X" itself would not appear in the film's advertisements or displays, with the following message being substituted: "There is no explicit sex in this picture; however, there are scenes of violence which may be considered shocking. No one under 17 will be admitted." The same dispensation was granted to some later horror films, including Zombie and Day of the Dead. NC-17 rating symbol The MPAA introduced the NC-17 (No one 17 and under admitted) rating on September 27, 1990 to differentiate MPAA-rated adult-oriented films from movies rated X by their producers. This move was largely prompted by Universal Pictures' Henry & June (1990), which would have otherwise received a dreaded X rating. The argument was that X equated with artlessness, and "Henry & June" was intended as a master-work of film: the revision of "X" to "NC-17" was intended to placate the filmmakers' complaints. However, media outlets which refused ads for X-rated titles viewed ads for NC-17 rated films as equally unsuitable, despite studio claims of such films being non-pornographic art, and thus simply transferred that policy to NC-17 titles, as did many theater landlords. A number of social conservative groups placed pressure on large video chains including Blockbuster Video and Hollywood Video, as a result of which these chains do not stock NC-17 titles. While a number of movies have been released with the NC-17 rating, none of them have been a major box-office hit. In a bold attempt to broaden the acceptance of NC-17 rated films towards the movie-going public, United Artists marketed it's big-budgeted Showgirls heavily, with splashy TV and print ads. The film became the first (and, to date, only) NC-17 rated film to open in wide release, on 1,388 screens. But the critically-savaged film's poor box-office performance only created a larger stigma towards the rating, deeming any film rated NC-17 as being "box-office poison". However, that has not stopped several "NC-17" movies from accumulating artistic praise such as Requiem for a Dream in which the lead actress, Ellen Burstyn, was nominated for Best Actress in the 2000 Academy Awardss. The "NC-17" rating has more recently been limited to films considered to appeal to a limited audience, where the limited distribution and advertising of such films is not considered a major obstacle. The rating process While the MPAA does not publish an official list of all the exact words, actions, and exposed body parts used to determine a movie's rating, some details have nonetheless been made available: * if a film uses "one of the harsher sexually-derived words" (such as "Fbomb") once, it remains eligible for a PG-13 rating, provided that the word is used as an expletive and not in a sexual context; * if such language is used more than once, or once if in a sexual context, it usually receives an R rating; * a reference to drugs usually gets a movie a PG-13 at a minimum, though a few movies were rated PG for mild drug references; * a "graphic" or "explicit" drug scene earning a film an R at a minimum; * while total female nudity is permitted in an R-rated movie, any display of naked male genitalia will (usually) result in an NC-17 rating. Non-sexual male nudity is the one exception. Members of the MPAA's Rating Board view the movie, discuss it, and vote on the film's rating. If the movie's producer is unhappy with this rating, (s)he can re-edit the film and re-submit it, or can appeal to an Appeals Board. In nearly all appeals the film was either rated R and the producer was seeking to have the rating changed to PG-13, or (occasionally) rated NC-17 and the producer was seeking to have the rating changed to R.. Effects of ratings Legally, the rating system is entirely voluntary. However, given that MPAA member studios are expected to submit all of their theatrical releases for rating, and few mainstream producers (outside the pornography niche) are willing to bypass the rating system due to potential effects on revenues, the system has a de facto compulsory status in the industry. One of the unintended side effects of the rating system is that the G and (in recent years) PG ratings have been associated with children's films and are widely considered to be commercially bad for films targeted at teenagers and adults. For example, the 2004 action/adventure film Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow received a PG rating, even though it was not targeted at children. The movie did not do well at the box office. In a number of cases, such as the movie Sneakers or Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie, directors have intentionally added profanity in order to avoid the G rating. The minimum age for unaccompanied patrons at R films, and all patrons at X films, was originally set at 16 and by 1970 raised to 17 (in some areas the age may be higher still, often 18 but in rare cases as high as 21 or even 25), though theater owners could still allow children into R-rated (but, at least in theory, not X-rated) films without being accompanied by an adult since the rating system is technically voluntary and does not have the force of law behind it (those films with strong enough content to merit an X rating being presumably subject to obscenity laws at one governmental level or another). In the 1970s the East Coast-based Century theater chain used its own rating system, with only three categories instead of four: For All Ages, For Mature Audiences and No One Under 17 Admitted, with most, but not all, R-rated films receiving the middle designation, under which no age limits were enforced. Many films which are rated R have been targeted at teenage audiences. In 2000, due to issues raised by Senator Joseph Lieberman, the National Association of Theater Owners, the major trade association in the U.S., announced it would start strict enforcement of ID checks for R-rated movies. The 2001 independent film L.I.E. challenged its NC-17 rating and waged a publicity campaign against the arbitrary nature of the ratings system. Lot 47, the film's distributor, lost its appeal, and released the film unrated. With the recent success of another NC-17 film, The Dreamers, some film producers and directors hope that the rating may begin to lose some of its stigma and more movie theaters will consider playing such films. Video has allowed studios to skirt the rating system and release unrated versions of films on videocassette and DVD. Sometimes these versions would have earned an NC-17 if submitted for rating, but often their unrated status is merely for marketing purposes, with the implication that the added unrated material is racier than an R rating would permit. For example, one DVD release of American Pie, rated R in its theatrical release, exclaims on the box, "UNRATED! The Version You Couldn't See In Theaters". Sometimes the difference between an R-rated feature and its unrated home video counterpart is as little as a few seconds. A number of filmmakers have also taken to filming additional footage specifically for video or DVD release, with no intention of submitting this material to the MPAA. Some foreign and independent films do not bother to submit to the rating system, reasoning that they will not be distributed widely beyond their art-house audience, so the expense is unnecessary. Critics of system The movie rating system has had a number of high-profile critics. Film critic Roger Ebert argues that the system places too much emphasis on not showing sex while allowing the portrayal of massive amounts of gruesome violence. Moreover, he argues that the rating system is geared toward looking at trivial aspects of the movie (such as the number of times a profane word is used) rather than at the general theme of the movie (for example, if the movie realistically depicts the consequences of sex and violence). He has called for an A rating, to indicate films high in violence or mature content which should not be marketed to teenagers, but do not have NC-17 levels of sex (or that rating's cachet). Perhaps with these objections in mind, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Office for Film and Broadcasting (a descendent of the formerly influential National Legion of Decency) maintains its own film-classification system, which takes the overall "moral tone" (according to its point of view) of a film into account, rather than focusing on content alone. Many critics of the system, especially independent distributors, have charged that major studios' releases often receive more lenient treatment than independent films. It is widely assumed that Saving Private Ryan, with its intense depiction of the D-Day invasion of Normandy, would have earned an NC-17 if it were not a Steven Spielberg film. The comedy Scary Movie, released by a division of The Walt Disney Company's Miramax Films, contained "strong crude sexual humor, language, drug use and violence" but was rated R, to the surprise of many reviewers and audiences; by comparison, the comparatively tamer porn spoof Orgazmo, an independent release, contained "explicit sexual content and dialogue" and received an NC-17. Ironically, before its purchase by Disney, Miramax heads Bob and Harvey Weinstein often clashed with the MPAA, proclaimed the rating system unfair to independents, and released some films unrated to avoid an X or NC-17. Orgazmo director Trey Parker's ratings battles later inspired the (R-rated) film South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut, which directly criticized the MPAA and holds the Guinness world record for most profanity and violence in an animated feature (399 profane words, 128 offensive gestures and 221 acts of violence). On June 13, 2004, the Harvard School of Public Health released a study documenting "ratings creep" as more adult content is allowed in films at a given rating than was allowed in the past. The study reports: "The MPAA appears to tolerate increasingly more extreme content in any given age-based rating category over time. Movies with the same rating can differ significantly in the amount and type of potentially objectional content. Age-based ratings alone do not provide good information about the depiction of violence, sex, profanity and other content." Films rated PG-13, in particular, seem to be exhibiting the most "ratings creep" as more features that would have received R ratings even five years ago are now receiving the lesser rating. The CAP Ministry had noticed and reported similar results four years earlier. (Apologies to MW for such a long post, I highlighted a lot of very important points about the MPAA) ... soooooooooo aparently the other massive ratings system in place, the MPAA, has the exact same problems as the ESRB... and exactly like the ESRB there is, has been and will be no governmental stepping in on the MPAA. Yet people love to tout how the MPAA is the superior ratings system... All ratings are suggestions. They carry no bond of law. They are enforced optionally by the will of the establishments that purvey the items. Someone please tell me how the ESRB can be "ineffective" when the MPAA uses a ratings system on which it was based and somehow the MPAA "works" and the ESRB "doesnt"?

Yep I also have the Action Fleet Dropper and APC as well as the complete micro machine set. I even have the Halcyon Dropper, APC and Sulaco kits... albeit they are in trashed condition sitting in their boxes. Several moves will do that to models. I was totally stoked when I heard these Aoshima toys where coming out. I just got the APC and have the two Droppers on order. Soon my collection will be sort of complete again.

You know, I think MGREXX is right. Last time I was at a game store there was a masked guy from Rockstar behind the counter with a gun to the head of the salesman forcing him to sell their games to children. I also saw a Rockstar worker covering the eyes of the child's parents so they could not see what their child was playing. And now that he mentions it I've been seeing ads for GTA in Highlights for Children and TV spots during Pokemon... Since when is the maker's responsability that their product ends up in the right hands? Is it a moviemaker's duty to make sure that no one nowhere shows his R rated movie to anyone under the age of 13? Is it the sworn duty of Hugh Hefner to ensure that no child anywhere at any time sees his magazine? This is the same bullsh!t logic that people keep trying to pin on other industries for years. Since when is it the maker's responsability as to who gets their products? That falls entirely on the salesmen who sell the maker's wares. Is it Colt's fault that someone buys a handgun for a younger kid or a criminal? Is it Anheiser Busch's fault when somebody buys beer for teens? No. It's the fault of the jackass who is breaking the law for the child or other party. When a store clerk sells an M game to a child he is in the wrong, NOT the game maker. When a parent blindly buys an M game for their kids it is THEY who commit the error, not the maker. The makers of violent games are not standing on every street corner forcing people to buy their games. Just because things are out there does not mean the people who created them have a gun to your temple to buy them. And I'm also not sure where all these people are getting this "Game stores sell M titles to kids all the time" crap. I was in a Gamestop just this week and a guy behind the counter REFUSED to sell a T rated game to a 11 year old. A T rated game. People DO "get it" that the ratings mean something and retailers do understand that they should be enforced. Ever shop at a walmart lately? They have taken the responsability of all this out of the hands of the employees as now the computer asks to see ID. The industry knows this is a problem and they are trying... so once again where does the arrow of blame strike? Parents.

No the only moving parts on the APC are the wheels, front turret (turns) and the top turret which also folds back as well as turns. Edit: Allthough I don't have my dropships yet the level of cast detail on the APC is awesome. I have mine that I just got today sitting on my desk here at work next to my Micro Machines APC and the difference between the two is so massive they almost look like different vehicles... but ironically they both have the same moving parts.

When I was a kid I had a BB rifle shaped like an M16... I had access to and use of fireworks equal to quarter sticks of dynamite... I had a balisong at age 12... My friends and I used to have fun riding our bikes out to the desert outside of town and blowing stuff up, setting stuff on fire, shooting cans, breaking things, you name it. But I also had good parents that taught me right from wrong, reality from make-believe and the reprocussions of turning those impliments loose on innocent people. I am a firm believer that the only thing keeping my friends and I from becoming complete juvenile delinquents where our parents... who raised us well. Back then we did not fear the cops, we feared our FATHERS and what they would do to us if we did something bad. Guess what? NONE of my friends turned out bad, we are all respectable people with jobs, families and in some cases are pillars of our comunities. What keeps kids from going bad are PARENTS. Kids will always have access to things they should not... I read my father's playboys, I watched R and X rated movies at my friend's houses at sleepover parties and what kid as a damn balisong in junior high?... it is the ingrained morals that keep us from acting on the bad influences in life. Prohibiting kids from things only makes them want them more, what is needed is good parenting and the instruction in what is right and what is wrong. Things like GTA only affect children in the vaccuum of parental influence... with no other source of example than a video game they will follow the lead of the game... but in the presense of influence by good parents even a small child will know what is right and what is wrong. Constantly treating kids like they can't be trusted with things might give them a complex some day.

While I admire their addiction to SW I have to ask the question... did like a billion Macdonalds open in the galaxy far far away or is it just me? All the actors where quite beefy in the trailer. Plus while their visuals looked good for a fan film their audio editing was atttrocious. Either they all really sound like that or they mixed the cut on a fisher price happy sound box.

I hear a lot of sizzle but I have yet to see the steak. To me the story is everything. Until I hear of the finer points of the story and see how the show "flows" all the pretty pictures in the world will not convince me it will be good. The original Robotech had the benefit of basically lifting three already written and quite good stories and simply gluing them together. I fear this new show will hilight the weakness in their writers and it will quickly fall into either stale repetition or shallow traditional american cartoon show fare. After all, they have lifted the ship designs, lifted the general plot and lifted a good helping of everything else from the original show... I just fear writing on caliber with a horrid high schooler's fan fic. I'll watch the first epp or so but if it sucks on ice then off it goes.

I just had a ghastly thought... Does anyone else think this script and movie treatment was floating around hollywood for years sitting on various people's desks before one studio exec finally said "hey... let's take this crappy script, give it a license we have been sitting on for years to get the name draw, give it a B actor for more name draw, pattern it after a recent movie that was almost the same as this... BOFFO!" Stranger things have happened... like that Carrot Top movie.

Mine doccuments the first minutes of Robotech:Shadow Chronicles on the air...

I'd be the first to admit that plot is not Doom's strong point, but rather the look... the "feel" of it all. Doom is about hell bubbling up through a gateway on mars... the mars base is basically one big haunted house filled with demons and creepy stuff. This Doom movie is far too clean and orderly. I want to see a facility totally devistated... blood smears and trails everywhere... bodies strewn about... destruction and demonic symbols and items aplenty. Dark hallways with blinking lights... creepy noises and sounds... you know, stuff that makes you jump every time it happens. What I'm seeing in this trailer are clean, almost brand new looking medical labs that are very well (and pleasantly) lit... Nothing even remotely creepy at all. That was the same downfall of the Resident Evil movie. They had original subject matter that was dark, spooky and scary and they made it into clean, anticeptic hallways and well lit spacious rooms.

I this movie has as much in common with the Doom game series as the Resident Evil movies did... in other words they took a few of the names and the general idea of a handful of the locales and then just made up the rest. And by made up I mean filled with the the triumvarite of Hollywood script cliches: 1) find a mid A/B level star with name recognition that will draw in the stupid 2) pepper the cast with tons of character actors playing obvious stereotype action movie roles 3) steal the look, feel and probably most of the script from another movie... in this case Resident Evil, which stole heavily from other movies. Then again as others have said: who are we to expect good things from Hollywood of 2005?

Resident Doom? Dooident Evil? Suckident Blow? Only one word came into my mind while watching this trailer: LAAAAAAAME. I can't believe it took them 10+ years of having the Doom movie lisence to come up with that.

I'll put in my application for Blade Runner now to avoid the rush.

Family Guy will also pull no punch. The Simpsons I feel are above barf, fart and sex humor but Family Guy revels in it... once again I think that is just them playing to their key demographic: males aged 24 to 32 who grew up in the '80s.

If it's meant as a joke then damn they got their money's worth out of it...

They've had guests on for years, since about the second or third season. I think the only thing that has changed is that now they have characters blurting out (usually Homer) "LOOK KIDS! It's macho action hero Russel Crowe!" or "WOW! It's 17th Centry French Impressionist painter Eugene Boudin!" (when the writers know that most of their audience will have no clue who they are actually guest-starring). When a character just blurts out -name of guest star- it gets pretty damn weak.

Simpsons used to be the king of "nonsense" jokes like the classics of "boo-urns" and "TRAMAMPOLINE!" but they really just reigned it all back in and now do more sctick and double entendre wordplay. Their recent attempts at nonsense jokes all fall flat it seems... perhaps they are just too nonsequitor or just not handled quite right... I would also place a "classic" Simpsons epp against a new Family Guy any day... but I almost guarantee you more people of varying ages and backgrounds would laugh at the Simpsons more. Family Guy is almost too over specialized in their humor. I know a few guys here in my office who are like me and while watching FG all we can say is "GET OUT OF MY HEAD!"... but other people just sit there and the jokes go over their heads. It's kind of a testiment to both shows... how the Simpsons can make almost anyone laugh once and how FG can make it's core audience almost pee themselves every episode.

I have always seen the Simpsons as the more "traditional" off-center adult aimed animation show that gave birth to all the risque and downright freakish ones on now. Without the Simpsons you most likely would never have had a Family Guy, Aqua Teen or others. And much like the children of a parent, the children take it to the next level and expand on all the things we liked about the parent... just more specialized. I almost can't watch the Simpsons now because the rapid-fire humor of Family Guy has me getting bored watching the Simpsons. Plus the Simpsons is still a very broad based show with a lot of people of different age groups and places in life enjoying it and I can see by their current writing that they are comfortable doing "major news event cover shows" and other common sitcom fare now... while I think Family Guy is a specially targeted cruise missle of a show aimed at only one generation of viewers and features half it's humor being pokes at the obscure trivia of that generation. The Simpsons could never get away with half the stuff Family Guy pulls off mostly due to their seeming unwillingness to keep pushing the boundaries... I almost think they don't want people to think they are "imitating their imitator" if you follow my logic.

I plan to use this new name every time I have to mention walmart. Pure gold. As for this whole debacle, I've already voiced my opinion but I still feel this is nothing more than the common "moral outrage" generated by a government trying to draw the public's attention away from the things we really should be worried about and focus it on things that make it look like they are actually doing something in washington rather than sucking up our tax dollars. Sigfried and Roy and the US Congress have two things in common, they can draw your attention away from things long enough to pull a few tricks and they look creepy in sequened spandex jumpsuits.

The M9 is very close in size to the USP grip, it's just the ergonomics of the grips are quite different. I have the USP Tactical and my wife has her M9 and they are about the same overall size. The USP deceptively looks bigger because it is basically a big "brick" whereas the M9 is more curvy. Oh and I was calling the Mk23 Socom pistol unweildy... the thing is a yacht compared to the paired down USP Tactical. The Socom is almost as large as a DEP... some even claim it is. The problem with the Socom is that all the controls are spaced so far out that even people with large hands have to two hand operate it like a DEP.

The Socom is all hollywood hype just like the DEP... the things are gunboat sized and very unwieldy... you are better off buying a USP Tactical like I did. Same gun, same features, easier to handle and less than half the price. Edit: it should also be pointed out that when dealing with handguns feel is sometimes more important than features. I mean, in all honesty the only chief concerns you should have with a defensive sidearm are "is it reliable?" and "does it feel right?". If the answer is yes then you have a winner. I know guys who can shoot a matchbook off a fencepost with a beat up Sig 228 but can't hit the side of a car with a raced out 1911... and in the same breath I know people who swear that the more money you spend on a handgun the more accurate you are... cough cough... bullsh!t... cough... If a Glock feels good to you then bam, you're set. I myself tend to collect different calibers rather than different makes. I own a handful of H&K things but they were all bought to "fill gaps" in my collection rather than buying them for the "H&K Name". If you pay a nice piece of coin for a modern combat handgun it will perform just as well as any other one on the market. The expensive poligonal rifled, threaded barrelled, teflon finished, night sighted military handguns of the world are only affording you those options if you benefit from them. I myself bought my USP Tactical to use my friend's can with it and guess what? The thing is still loud.

Speaking as a fellow G21 owner, the post-ban 10 round magazines are a waste of your time now. Funny but true they are the same thing as those 13 round mags you have now only they were "detuned" to only take 10 rounds by means of a big plastic blocker. I still have a few 10 round mags but they mainly sleep in the bottom of my safe now. My G21 is a "new fingergrip frame" model as well, but mine is a C type with the ports in the top. They make a tad of difference on rapid fire but that is about it. I'd recommend you get a few upgrades to the gun to tighten it up and unless you enjoy the trapezoidal sights a sight swap. I've goosed my G21 into space with mods and it shoots like champ now and is 100% reliable. Also good call on not getting the .45 GAP models... no one carries the ammo around my neck of the woods and the guns are rotting on the shelves. A sad fate of many first run caliber weapons. Anyone have a .41 magnum laying around? Or worse yet an Uzi or Jericho chambered in .41AE? You know that pain then. As for your RRA you can "build your own" AR these days and save money in the long run. Hell, a nice RRA upper receiver with bolt and charging handle sits around $500. You can get a Mega or a Stag lower for $100, a parts kit for $60 and that telestock for $75. Right there you are money ahead. I can talk you through the assembly of the lower if you need a hand.

My only thinking is that he is a undercover cop first before he is a fake drug dealer so you'd think his tactical needs whould override his needs for "bling" weaponry. Anything chambered in .45ACP with a 12+ capacity is important. After all... what happens if something goes down and Tubbs is nowhere to be found and backup is five minutes away? Three 12 round mags is a sight better than three 7 rounders... plus I have seen some USP Tacticals ship in some pretty "blinged out" finishes.

Hard to tell being in the holster... just looks like a raced out 1911. Kind of strange choice of sidearm for the movie if it is in fact the movie prop. The 1911 is a good platform and all it's just sort of lower capacity than I'd expect from a deep cover cop. It's flashy but I'd have rather seen a USP tactical.