Morpheus Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 I think I'll pass this one......and I'll make sure that my son never watch it in the future. Quote
Graham Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 Die Hard ended with #3 for me. I can't even begin to imagine a movie that could top Die Hard with a Vengeance, esp. not the crap that's being released this summer. Die Hard ended with # 1 for me. # 2 was pure crap beacuse of the sheer number of really stupid firearms errors, espcially the line: - "That punk pulled a Glock 7 on me! You know what that is? It's a porcelain gun made in Germany. It doesn't show up on your airport X-ray machines, and it costs more than you make here in a month!" There's no such model as a Glock 7. Glocks are Austrian, not German. No guns are made of porcelain. Glocks easily show up on airport metal detectors. Glocks are not that expensive, even back in the 90s. The other error that really get's my goat, is the bad guys switching between mags using live ammo and blank ammo in their (IIRC) select fire MP5s. Sorry, you can't do that. Either a firearm is permanently modified to fire blanks, in which case it can no longer fire live ammo. Or in the case of a live firearm, you need to fit an external BFA (blank firing adaptor) to the muzzle in order to fire blanks and you can't fire live ammo again until you remove the BFA. Blank ammo will not cycle the firearm in either semi or full auto without a BFA. Oh and the hand grenades with the really, really slow fuses. Silly, silly movie. Graham Quote
grss1982 Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 That was AWESOME! Just curious, in real world would that really happen to a person when shot with a .50 calibre at that range? Quote
CoryHolmes Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 Just curious, in real world would that really happen to a person when shot with a .50 calibre at that range? You'd probably get spaghetti. The chunky style. Quote
Duke Togo Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 Have you ever read the original novel? In the jail scene where Rambo escapes from the police, it graphically details how Rambo quickly slices the gut of one of the officers with a razor blade causing his intestines and stuff to spill out and then the poor schmuck tried to push hist guts back before he collapsed. I've only glanced at parts of the book, but First Blood in its original written form from what I could tell was even more violent then the movie adaption. Totally missed my point, Apollo. Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 Just curious, in real world would that really happen to a person when shot with a .50 calibre at that range? The .50 cartridge was originally based on a German round designed to go through tanks [1]. You do the math. [1] Okay, the made-of-tin World War I type-tank. Quote
bandit29 Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 Cool trailer. Some good ole' fashion violence. But if I saw grandpa Rambo coming I'd laugh. I'll check it out though. I liked the first Rambo movie alot, second one was alright, the third movie was a crapsterpiece. Quote
reddsun1 Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 (edited) Whoa, whoa, whoa! Whoa! Wait jus' a cotton-pickin' dog-gone minute! Not to be too analyitical here, but you mean that a .50 cal can basically puree a guy in the front seat, but not even bust out the front glass?! No rounds blowing out through the engine block and front end? WTF? C'mon, these SFX/pyrotechnics guys are just damn lazy. As for what such a gun would do to a person, I'd agree with the effects. I have seen some Gulf-War gun-cam video from an Apache attacking some guys using chain gun [similar size/slightly larger round?]; even from beyond visual range, and through the crappy grainy night vision lens, it's obvious to the viewer that the gun makes a gruesome God-awful mess of the poor buggars on the receiving end. Not something I'd ever care to watch more than once. Seriously, there ain't no way you're gonna convince me that viewing enough amounts of such material doesn't affect the mind. Maybe I'm getting soft in my old age or something... And yeah, Sly needs to cut that sh*t out--Rambo exorcised his demons with film #2--for me, that's where the series [should] end. For me, pt. III just doesn't exist, a "fitful dream" or something [in reality, a sh*tty bit of Hollywood-heart-on-sleeve sociopolitical commentary]. Edited May 21, 2007 by reddsun1 Quote
Mr March Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 Not that I'm defending a coming soon film that IMO looks like crap, but this John Rambo is a throwaway action film people. None of the sequences are going to stand up to scrutiny or more than 5 seconds of thought. Which is pretty much the whole point. The first time you see it, it's exciting and visceral. The second time through you start thinking and it's all downhill from there. As for the Die Hard films, I agree the first was the only good one. As for firearm errors in actions films, I could care less. Firearm talk, in the context of a film script, is the equivalent of technobabble for all intents and purposes. Any film relying on more than a passing mention of technobabble isn't a great film anyway. Quote
Jolly Rogers Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 (edited) Doesn't look like Richard Crenna will be back as Col. Samuel Trautman for this one... bummer. Added: Nevermind, he passed away in 2003. RIP... Edited May 21, 2007 by Jolly Rogers Quote
aaajin Posted May 21, 2007 Posted May 21, 2007 wow, terrifict. This one's gonna make it in my must-watch list, if it ever gonna be allowed to be shown in Malaysia... Quote
Max Jenius Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 First Blood is where to go if you want Rambo with a plot. Everything besides that has been cathartic action that allows you to shut your brain off and smile. Quote
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 (edited) you mean that a .50 cal can basically puree a guy in the front seat, but not even bust out the front glass?! No rounds blowing out through the engine block and front end? WTF? C'mon, these SFX/pyrotechnics guys are just damn lazy. As for what such a gun would do to a person, I'd agree with the effects. I have seen some Gulf-War gun-cam video from an Apache attacking some guys using chain gun [similar size/slightly larger round?];]. Yeah, should have shown the bullets go all the way to the engine block, but hey, its Hollywood and the Never-Empty-Sixgun-School-of-Combat we are talking about here. As for the Apache, its a heck of a lot bigger round. 30mm. Weighs about 8-10 times more than a .50 per round. BTW, Graham, how do you tell if the MP5 was using live or blank magazines? Those guns which I have fired blanks on use identical mags for live and blank ammo. Edited May 22, 2007 by Retracting Head Ter Ter Quote
Graham Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 Firearm talk, in the context of a film script, is the equivalent of technobabble for all intents and purposes. Any film relying on more than a passing mention of technobabble isn't a great film anyway. But if you are going to have technobabble, at least get it right. When so obsious and stupid a mistake is made, it really ruins the movie (if you are a gun guy). The more factually accurate and realistic a film is and the more professional the gun handling, the more interesting it is to me. The more likely I am to watch it multiple times and/or buy the DVD, something I would never do with DH2. Graham Quote
hutch Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 I agree. A little OT, but I was reminded of this thread when I was flipping through channels tonight and stopped for a second on ID4 to hear Will Smith say "Just like the AMRAAM launch pad on a Stealth"... Ummm...correct me if I'm wrong, but neither the B2 nor the F/A-117 ever carried AMRAAM's... So easy to get right, as Graham says...it's like they don't even try. Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 I agree. A little OT, but I was reminded of this thread when I was flipping through channels tonight and stopped for a second on ID4 to hear Will Smith say "Just like the AMRAAM launch pad on a Stealth"... Ummm...correct me if I'm wrong, but neither the B2 nor the F/A-117 ever carried AMRAAM's... So easy to get right, as Graham says...it's like they don't even try. Tell me about it, Transformers trailer-Beagle-2-probe... Quote
Garou Kuroryuu Posted May 22, 2007 Posted May 22, 2007 Tell me about it, Transformers trailer-Beagle-2-probe... Or Top-gun's F-5-turned-Mig-28s? Firing Exocet anti-ship missiles?!?!?!?! Gimme a break! Quote
Graham Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 BTW, Graham, how do you tell if the MP5 was using live or blank magazines? Those guns which I have fired blanks on use identical mags for live and blank ammo. There's no difference in magazines. You use the same magazines for either live or blank ammo. There are two ways to make a live semi-auto or selective fire firearm cycle reliably with blank ammo. 1) You can permanently convert it to fire blanks. This usually envolves grinding off the locking lugs or removing the locking mechanism and partially obstructing the barrel to ensure you get enough back pressure by either drilling the barrel and welding a pin through it or by drilling and taping the muzzle end of the barrel and installing a a hollow hex-head screw to restrict barrel diameter. Sometimes, on pistols, a lighter recoil spring is also used. 2) The second way, which is what the military does on rifles and machine guns is to temporarily mount an exernal blank firing adaptor to the muzzle of the weapon. These are usually yellow (well they are in the UK miliitary, not sure about US). Of course a revolver will fire blanks reliably without any modifications. Unmodified semi-autos will fire the first shot, but will need to be hand cycled to eject the case and chamber the next round. I used to work in a company that did firearm movie rentals. Graham Quote
David Hingtgen Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 Not to mention that no plane has a launch *pad* for an AMRAAM. There's plenty of planes they could have written into that line instead of the stealth. "Eagle" "Viper" "Falcon" "Hornet" "Tornado" etc. Quote
drifand Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 I've fired the 7.62 FN MAG (GPMG) with 'metal blanks' during training, i.e. no blank attachment for the muzzle. The blanks are metal cased just like live rounds (instead of the plastic cased 5.56s for M-16s etc), but the tips are crimped (pinched) instead of having a proper bullet. You'd be doubly careful not to point the gun at anyone while firing this kind of 'blank'... Quote
Mr March Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 But if you are going to have technobabble, at least get it right. When so obvious and stupid a mistake is made, it really ruins the movie (if you are a gun guy). I suppose that's true. But as a sci-fi fan with more than a passing knowledge of physics, I guess I've just been desensitized to all the numerous factual errors made in film. Bring out the radiation inoculant! Quote
wolfx Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 Abit late. Just seen the trailer. I was LMAO.....what's with the gratious OTT violence ??? I thought i was watching a parody film or something. Quote
Uxi Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 2) The second way, which is what the military does on rifles and machine guns is to temporarily mount an exernal blank firing adaptor to the muzzle of the weapon. These are usually yellow (well they are in the UK miliitary, not sure about US). They're usually red, at least for the Marines. Always use blanks and BFA's with MILES/TWGSS laser tag, too. Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 Not to mention that no plane has a launch *pad* for an AMRAAM. There's plenty of planes they could have written into that line instead of the stealth. "Eagle" "Viper" "Falcon" "Hornet" "Tornado" etc. There are only two kinds of 90s movie fighter planes, F-18s and "Stealths". This has been recently updated to F-22s and F-35s. Quote
GutsAndCasca Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 I suppose that's true. But as a sci-fi fan with more than a passing knowledge of physics, I guess I've just been desensitized to all the numerous factual errors made in film. Bring out the radiation inoculant! *claps hands* I hear ya' on this one! Gotta' love that artificial gravity too. Quote
areaseven Posted December 18, 2007 Posted December 18, 2007 The film's gone through a title change. It's now simply known as Rambo "Let the bodies hit the floor..." Quote
Uxi Posted December 18, 2007 Posted December 18, 2007 Anyone have the original trailer anymore? I want to see all that carnage again... and this time save it to the hard drive... Quote
Jolly Rogers Posted December 19, 2007 Posted December 19, 2007 Yeah this new ADD edit trailer looks lame, the old one's much better. Quote
Jolly Rogers Posted January 25, 2008 Posted January 25, 2008 Wow, they're having midnight screenings of this flick! Quote
UN Spacy Posted January 25, 2008 Author Posted January 25, 2008 I've been hearing the gore in this movie is pretty intense. Quote
CoryHolmes Posted January 25, 2008 Posted January 25, 2008 I've been hearing the gore in this movie is pretty intense. The gore in the trailer was pretty intense It'd be a huge let-down if the movie was less so. Quote
sabretooth Posted January 25, 2008 Posted January 25, 2008 just bought tickets for friday @7pm.... should be awesome Quote
Jolly Rogers Posted January 25, 2008 Posted January 25, 2008 Time for some statistics... http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/ima...death-chart.jpg Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.