Talk:Collateral - Revision history

Funkychinaman at 20:59, 6 May 2014

2014-05-06T20:59:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:59, 6 May 2014
Line 27:		Line 27:
	:I think it's a bit weird he's not wearing a belt. I don't think I've ever seen anyone wear a holster with no belt. --[[User:Funkychinaman\|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman\|talk]]) 13:29, 6 May 2014 (EDT)		:I think it's a bit weird he's not wearing a belt. I don't think I've ever seen anyone wear a holster with no belt. --[[User:Funkychinaman\|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman\|talk]]) 13:29, 6 May 2014 (EDT)
	::There are some IWB holsters that have a sprung clip so they do not need a belt, but they work a lot better with one. However that doesn't appear to be the case with this one, particularly with those two weird hex bolts. I have found a few more images [http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/tom-cruise-collateral-iwb-holster-431183497 here] including a shot that shows some detail of the [http://images.cloud.worthpoint.com/wpimages/images/images2/1/0413/09/1_2663df0aa4e1cd490d69fae87d3e4969.jpg "belt loop"] for lack of a better term. To me, it looks like it physically locks onto his trousers, with one piece of the plastic being either side of the material and it is clamped in place with the hex bolts. Not incredibly practical for everyday wear as it require a couple of holes in your trousers, but I can see why they did it as it would create a pretty secure fit that would neither come off, nor slide around like it could on a belt. I'm just guessing at this attachment method and the reasons for it, but from the pictures it seems to make a kind of sense. --[[User:Commando552\|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552\|talk]]) 16:18, 6 May 2014 (EDT)		::There are some IWB holsters that have a sprung clip so they do not need a belt, but they work a lot better with one. However that doesn't appear to be the case with this one, particularly with those two weird hex bolts. I have found a few more images [http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/tom-cruise-collateral-iwb-holster-431183497 here] including a shot that shows some detail of the [http://images.cloud.worthpoint.com/wpimages/images/images2/1/0413/09/1_2663df0aa4e1cd490d69fae87d3e4969.jpg "belt loop"] for lack of a better term. To me, it looks like it physically locks onto his trousers, with one piece of the plastic being either side of the material and it is clamped in place with the hex bolts. Not incredibly practical for everyday wear as it require a couple of holes in your trousers, but I can see why they did it as it would create a pretty secure fit that would neither come off, nor slide around like it could on a belt. I'm just guessing at this attachment method and the reasons for it, but from the pictures it seems to make a kind of sense. --[[User:Commando552\|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552\|talk]]) 16:18, 6 May 2014 (EDT)
			:::It also means you can't change into another pair of pants with that holster without a hex wrench. It'd be so much easier with a belt. If you want to keep it from shifting, just have a notch that locks into a hole in the belt (it's a lot more practical punching a hole in a belt.) How does his mag pouch stay on then? --[[User:Funkychinaman\|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman\|talk]]) 16:59, 6 May 2014 (EDT)
	==The Train Scene==		==The Train Scene==

Commando552: /* Vincent's Holster */

2014-05-06T20:18:56Z

Vincent's Holster

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:18, 6 May 2014
Line 26:		Line 26:
	At long last the holster has surfaced on the internet. It looks like a one of a kind piece made for the film. Here is a link to a perfect picture. If someone starts making replica's, put me down for one. https://www.yourprops.com/Vincent-s-IWB-Holster-original-movie-costume-Collateral-2004-YP65673.html [[User:GLOCK10mm\|GLOCK10mm]] ([[User talk:GLOCK10mm\|talk]]) 11:05, 6 May 2014 (EDT)		At long last the holster has surfaced on the internet. It looks like a one of a kind piece made for the film. Here is a link to a perfect picture. If someone starts making replica's, put me down for one. https://www.yourprops.com/Vincent-s-IWB-Holster-original-movie-costume-Collateral-2004-YP65673.html [[User:GLOCK10mm\|GLOCK10mm]] ([[User talk:GLOCK10mm\|talk]]) 11:05, 6 May 2014 (EDT)
	:I think it's a bit weird he's not wearing a belt. I don't think I've ever seen anyone wear a holster with no belt. --[[User:Funkychinaman\|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman\|talk]]) 13:29, 6 May 2014 (EDT)		:I think it's a bit weird he's not wearing a belt. I don't think I've ever seen anyone wear a holster with no belt. --[[User:Funkychinaman\|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman\|talk]]) 13:29, 6 May 2014 (EDT)
			::There are some IWB holsters that have a sprung clip so they do not need a belt, but they work a lot better with one. However that doesn't appear to be the case with this one, particularly with those two weird hex bolts. I have found a few more images [http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/tom-cruise-collateral-iwb-holster-431183497 here] including a shot that shows some detail of the [http://images.cloud.worthpoint.com/wpimages/images/images2/1/0413/09/1_2663df0aa4e1cd490d69fae87d3e4969.jpg "belt loop"] for lack of a better term. To me, it looks like it physically locks onto his trousers, with one piece of the plastic being either side of the material and it is clamped in place with the hex bolts. Not incredibly practical for everyday wear as it require a couple of holes in your trousers, but I can see why they did it as it would create a pretty secure fit that would neither come off, nor slide around like it could on a belt. I'm just guessing at this attachment method and the reasons for it, but from the pictures it seems to make a kind of sense. --[[User:Commando552\|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552\|talk]]) 16:18, 6 May 2014 (EDT)

	==The Train Scene==		==The Train Scene==

Funkychinaman at 17:29, 6 May 2014

2014-05-06T17:29:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:29, 6 May 2014
Line 25:		Line 25:

	At long last the holster has surfaced on the internet. It looks like a one of a kind piece made for the film. Here is a link to a perfect picture. If someone starts making replica's, put me down for one. https://www.yourprops.com/Vincent-s-IWB-Holster-original-movie-costume-Collateral-2004-YP65673.html [[User:GLOCK10mm\|GLOCK10mm]] ([[User talk:GLOCK10mm\|talk]]) 11:05, 6 May 2014 (EDT)		At long last the holster has surfaced on the internet. It looks like a one of a kind piece made for the film. Here is a link to a perfect picture. If someone starts making replica's, put me down for one. https://www.yourprops.com/Vincent-s-IWB-Holster-original-movie-costume-Collateral-2004-YP65673.html [[User:GLOCK10mm\|GLOCK10mm]] ([[User talk:GLOCK10mm\|talk]]) 11:05, 6 May 2014 (EDT)
			:I think it's a bit weird he's not wearing a belt. I don't think I've ever seen anyone wear a holster with no belt. --[[User:Funkychinaman\|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman\|talk]]) 13:29, 6 May 2014 (EDT)
	==The Train Scene==		==The Train Scene==

GLOCK10mm: /* Vincent's Holster */

2014-05-06T15:06:01Z

Vincent's Holster

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:06, 6 May 2014
Line 24:		Line 24:
	According the the HKPro forums, a member contacted Mick Gould, the firearms instructor for the film, about the holster. The holster he used in training was a example of a Yaqui Slide type holster. But, the holster in the film was custom made, and Cruise kept it after filming. I can add some credit to this, as I've searched through almost every hoslter maker with a website, and found nothing even remotely similar. But, of course, this is the internet, and people can say whatever they want.--[[User:GLOCK10mil\|GLOCK10mil]] 18:39, 4 August 2011 (CDT)		According the the HKPro forums, a member contacted Mick Gould, the firearms instructor for the film, about the holster. The holster he used in training was a example of a Yaqui Slide type holster. But, the holster in the film was custom made, and Cruise kept it after filming. I can add some credit to this, as I've searched through almost every hoslter maker with a website, and found nothing even remotely similar. But, of course, this is the internet, and people can say whatever they want.--[[User:GLOCK10mil\|GLOCK10mil]] 18:39, 4 August 2011 (CDT)

	At long last the holster has ~~surfaces~~ on the internet. It looks like a one of a kind piece made for the film. Here is a link to a perfect picture. If someone starts making replica's, put me down for one. https://www.yourprops.com/Vincent-s-IWB-Holster-original-movie-costume-Collateral-2004-YP65673.html [[User:GLOCK10mm\|GLOCK10mm]] ([[User talk:GLOCK10mm\|talk]]) 11:05, 6 May 2014 (EDT)		At long last the holster has surfaced on the internet. It looks like a one of a kind piece made for the film. Here is a link to a perfect picture. If someone starts making replica's, put me down for one. https://www.yourprops.com/Vincent-s-IWB-Holster-original-movie-costume-Collateral-2004-YP65673.html [[User:GLOCK10mm\|GLOCK10mm]] ([[User talk:GLOCK10mm\|talk]]) 11:05, 6 May 2014 (EDT)

	==The Train Scene==		==The Train Scene==

GLOCK10mm: /* Vincent's Holster */

2014-05-06T15:05:40Z

Vincent's Holster

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:05, 6 May 2014
Line 23:		Line 23:

	According the the HKPro forums, a member contacted Mick Gould, the firearms instructor for the film, about the holster. The holster he used in training was a example of a Yaqui Slide type holster. But, the holster in the film was custom made, and Cruise kept it after filming. I can add some credit to this, as I've searched through almost every hoslter maker with a website, and found nothing even remotely similar. But, of course, this is the internet, and people can say whatever they want.--[[User:GLOCK10mil\|GLOCK10mil]] 18:39, 4 August 2011 (CDT)		According the the HKPro forums, a member contacted Mick Gould, the firearms instructor for the film, about the holster. The holster he used in training was a example of a Yaqui Slide type holster. But, the holster in the film was custom made, and Cruise kept it after filming. I can add some credit to this, as I've searched through almost every hoslter maker with a website, and found nothing even remotely similar. But, of course, this is the internet, and people can say whatever they want.--[[User:GLOCK10mil\|GLOCK10mil]] 18:39, 4 August 2011 (CDT)

			At long last the holster has surfaces on the internet. It looks like a one of a kind piece made for the film. Here is a link to a perfect picture. If someone starts making replica's, put me down for one. https://www.yourprops.com/Vincent-s-IWB-Holster-original-movie-costume-Collateral-2004-YP65673.html [[User:GLOCK10mm\|GLOCK10mm]] ([[User talk:GLOCK10mm\|talk]]) 11:05, 6 May 2014 (EDT)

	==The Train Scene==		==The Train Scene==

MichaelH43ID: /* Ruger Mark II */

2014-02-19T02:14:18Z

Ruger Mark II

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:14, 19 February 2014
Line 150:		Line 150:

	Not only does a suppressed .22 pistol make a louder sound than the one portrayed in the film, but it also sounds different. It's hard to describe, but in terms of the type of sound it is... I'd say it's more like a nail gun. More "airy" and less "metallic," if that makes any sense. The best way to illustrate this is by pointing everyone to the YouTube video titled "Shooting suppressed handguns in a house."		Not only does a suppressed .22 pistol make a louder sound than the one portrayed in the film, but it also sounds different. It's hard to describe, but in terms of the type of sound it is... I'd say it's more like a nail gun. More "airy" and less "metallic," if that makes any sense. The best way to illustrate this is by pointing everyone to the YouTube video titled "Shooting suppressed handguns in a house."
			--[[User:MichaelH43ID\|MichaelH43ID]] 18:13, 18 Feb 2014 (PST)

	==Fanning==		==Fanning==

MichaelH43ID: /* Ruger Mark II */

2014-02-19T02:12:53Z

Ruger Mark II

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:12, 19 February 2014
Line 142:		Line 142:

	The gunshots are sound effects. A real suppressed .22 sounds more like a pop or a click- in the movie, they have the typical movie "silencer chirp" sound. While popular, this sound is very unrealistic. --[[User:ColonelTomb\|ColonelTomb]] 22:23, 25 March 2012 (CDT)		The gunshots are sound effects. A real suppressed .22 sounds more like a pop or a click- in the movie, they have the typical movie "silencer chirp" sound. While popular, this sound is very unrealistic. --[[User:ColonelTomb\|ColonelTomb]] 22:23, 25 March 2012 (CDT)

			There is so much misinformation in this section, it's absurd. To start off, unlike the vast majority (if not all) of the people talking about suppressors, I actually own some. In this case the relevant one is my AAC Element 2, which I host on a Ruger Mark III 22/45 and a Savage FV-SR. To go down the list of inaccuracies...

			ColonelTomb: A bolt action is quiet primarily because all of the gas is being forced out the barrel, and thus through the suppressor, not because the action isn't moving. When you fire a suppressed handgun, the action does make some noise but the noise heard is primarily due to the gas escaping from the ejection port. Also, the noise of a suppressed gunshot is considerably quieter outdoors. Indoors it's much louder because it's bouncing against the walls and back at you. Hardwood floors? Even louder. Easily hearing safe, and still impressive, but definitely louder than the ptew ptew sounds you see on TV. This leads me to my next point -- the suppressed gunshots would've been louder than the head hitting the table. No doubt about it. The "slight click" you referenced is totally inaccurate, which isn't surprising given your limited experience. It's also worth pointing out that it couldn't have been CBs, because they will not cycle the action properly... not enough powder. Plus there'd be no reason to use them as they're not only weaker, but they're not any more quiet than a standard .22lr.

			Everyone: All of this talk about the sound barrier is meaningless. He wouldn't need to use special "subsonic" ammunition, as CCI Standard Velocity is subsonic through pretty much anything so long as the temperatures are above about 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Hell, I shoot CCI MiniMags (1235 fps) through my suppressed pistol and it's always been subsonic as well, because the velocity on the box is usually based on a 16"-18" barrel. (In higher calibers, the velocity tends to be based on a 22"-24" barrel. Sometimes longer.) It's subsonic out of my handgun, and supersonic out of my rifle. There's no need to modify springs, which tends to just make the gun less reliable. And, even if he DID need to use special subsonic rounds... they cycle a Ruger just fine. Now if he was using a Walther P22, it might be a different story.

			Not only does a suppressed .22 pistol make a louder sound than the one portrayed in the film, but it also sounds different. It's hard to describe, but in terms of the type of sound it is... I'd say it's more like a nail gun. More "airy" and less "metallic," if that makes any sense. The best way to illustrate this is by pointing everyone to the YouTube video titled "Shooting suppressed handguns in a house."

	==Fanning==		==Fanning==

Excalibur01: /* Final shoot out. */

2013-02-28T02:53:45Z

Final shoot out.

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:53, 28 February 2013
Line 89:		Line 89:

	During the movie, the lights went out when they both opened fire, Vincent shot his first two using the Mozambique Drill, then he fired off the last few rounds in the magazine.--[[User:Yo dawg 111\|Yo dawg 111]] 17:19, 29 February 2012 (CST)		During the movie, the lights went out when they both opened fire, Vincent shot his first two using the Mozambique Drill, then he fired off the last few rounds in the magazine.--[[User:Yo dawg 111\|Yo dawg 111]] 17:19, 29 February 2012 (CST)

			Depending on the story, I would side with particular characters. Yes, Jamie Foxx's character is supposed to be the unlikely hero, but with Mann's ability to make realistic story telling with very dynamic characters and action scenes, it just has never sit well with me that Foxx's character won the duel out of sheer dumb luck. I wish they made an alternate ending where despite Jamie Foxx's character hampering Cruise's character in the end, he still ended up dead, Cruise kills his final target, leaves the train like nothing happened and we cut away to him entering the city again, picking up a new taxi driver and doing this all over again. Then his final line before the movie ends is telling the cabbie about the dead man on the train and no one noticing...because he's had that happen to him before. He was telling the story not from something he's heard but because he actually was the one who killed the man and left him on the train [[User:Excalibur01\|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01\|talk]]) 21:53, 27 February 2013 (EST)

	== Slight comment overhaul ==		== Slight comment overhaul ==

Excalibur01: /* Briefcase Scene */

2013-02-28T02:47:15Z

Briefcase Scene

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:47, 28 February 2013
Line 245:		Line 245:
	When Vincent retreives his Briefcase and shoots the Thug one last time, did Tom Cruise really shoot at gun at such close range? Was the final shot done with a Flashpaper Gun, Trick of the Camera, or a CGI muzzle flash? [[User:Thomas\|Thomas]] ([[User talk:Thomas\|talk]]) 04:48, 27 February 2013 (EST)		When Vincent retreives his Briefcase and shoots the Thug one last time, did Tom Cruise really shoot at gun at such close range? Was the final shot done with a Flashpaper Gun, Trick of the Camera, or a CGI muzzle flash? [[User:Thomas\|Thomas]] ([[User talk:Thomas\|talk]]) 04:48, 27 February 2013 (EST)

	It actually did look like the trick of the camera. ~~But in~~ the behind the scene, we did see him draw his weapon at close range and hear bang from the set but no bright muzzle flash. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8-P8sJNHk0 [[User:Excalibur01\|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01\|talk]]) 13:32, 27 February 2013 (EST)		It actually did look like the trick of the camera with CGI. In the behind the scene, we did see him draw his weapon at close range and hear bang from the set but no bright muzzle flash. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8-P8sJNHk0 [[User:Excalibur01\|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01\|talk]]) 13:32, 27 February 2013 (EST)

			In the behind the scenes 1:55 mark, you see him performing the draw in front of a black screen that produced the muzzle flash and again with a different gun that isn't a blank firing. That might explain why the muzzle flash in the final product and where he's aiming at the bald guy is a bit off. [[User:Excalibur01\|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01\|talk]]) 21:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Excalibur01: /* Briefcase Scene */

2013-02-27T18:32:46Z

Briefcase Scene

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:32, 27 February 2013
Line 244:		Line 244:

	When Vincent retreives his Briefcase and shoots the Thug one last time, did Tom Cruise really shoot at gun at such close range? Was the final shot done with a Flashpaper Gun, Trick of the Camera, or a CGI muzzle flash? [[User:Thomas\|Thomas]] ([[User talk:Thomas\|talk]]) 04:48, 27 February 2013 (EST)		When Vincent retreives his Briefcase and shoots the Thug one last time, did Tom Cruise really shoot at gun at such close range? Was the final shot done with a Flashpaper Gun, Trick of the Camera, or a CGI muzzle flash? [[User:Thomas\|Thomas]] ([[User talk:Thomas\|talk]]) 04:48, 27 February 2013 (EST)

			It actually did look like the trick of the camera. But in the behind the scene, we did see him draw his weapon at close range and hear bang from the set but no bright muzzle flash. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8-P8sJNHk0 [[User:Excalibur01\|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01\|talk]]) 13:32, 27 February 2013 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:47, 28 February 2013
Line 245:		Line 245:
	When Vincent retreives his Briefcase and shoots the Thug one last time, did Tom Cruise really shoot at gun at such close range? Was the final shot done with a Flashpaper Gun, Trick of the Camera, or a CGI muzzle flash? [[User:Thomas\|Thomas]] ([[User talk:Thomas\|talk]]) 04:48, 27 February 2013 (EST)		When Vincent retreives his Briefcase and shoots the Thug one last time, did Tom Cruise really shoot at gun at such close range? Was the final shot done with a Flashpaper Gun, Trick of the Camera, or a CGI muzzle flash? [[User:Thomas\|Thomas]] ([[User talk:Thomas\|talk]]) 04:48, 27 February 2013 (EST)

	It actually did look like the trick of the camera. ~~But in~~ the behind the scene, we did see him draw his weapon at close range and hear bang from the set but no bright muzzle flash. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8-P8sJNHk0 [[User:Excalibur01\|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01\|talk]]) 13:32, 27 February 2013 (EST)		It actually did look like the trick of the camera with CGI. In the behind the scene, we did see him draw his weapon at close range and hear bang from the set but no bright muzzle flash. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8-P8sJNHk0 [[User:Excalibur01\|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01\|talk]]) 13:32, 27 February 2013 (EST)

			In the behind the scenes 1:55 mark, you see him performing the draw in front of a black screen that produced the muzzle flash and again with a different gun that isn't a blank firing. That might explain why the muzzle flash in the final product and where he's aiming at the bald guy is a bit off. [[User:Excalibur01\|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01\|talk]]) 21:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)