| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Collateral: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (102 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown) | |||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
According to the DVD commentary, Tom Cruise used a serpa holster for the USP. So maybe he used one for the movie as well. | According to the DVD commentary, Tom Cruise used a serpa holster for the USP. So maybe he used one for the movie as well. | ||
Those mag carriers are nice, Got 3 of them because of this movie and love them.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 21:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
What mag carriers are those? | |||
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 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) | |||
::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== | ||
| Line 27: | Line 37: | ||
*Originally, in the script, he actually WAS to have another mag, but fumbled. That was changed, though.-protoAuthor 04:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | *Originally, in the script, he actually WAS to have another mag, but fumbled. That was changed, though.-protoAuthor 04:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
well if he did fumble on that reload , wouldnt there be two magizines on the floor . the only one that hits looks like the one he had spent .[[User:simmons 8492|simmons 8492]] | |||
I always thought that Vincent picked up the guards gun cause he lost his in the car crash. when he emptied it in the shootout he instinctively reached for another mag to reload but realized he didnt have mags for that gun. - EVNASH | |||
that is why he took the guards gun, but i think he realised he was wounded, was out of magizines, and gave up--[[User:simmons 8492|simmons 8492]] | |||
It's a little hard to catch, but if you listen to the scene, you can hear the empty magazine hit the floor before just before he reaches for a new one and the scene cuts. So, he does have one more magazine in his holders, and he does fumble the reload, but the armorers for the film left the last mag empty, probably as a safety precaution.--[[User:GLOCK10mil|GLOCK10mil]] 18:34, 4 August 2011 (CDT) | |||
That was movie editing, he would have been diving for it if he had one. You can see him check both holders and come up surprised he | |||
didn't have a spare. I've done it myself at the range once. (Same magazine holders too.)--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 23:05, 3 December 2011 (CST) | |||
Wow, I forgot about this little discussion. I have to politely disagree FIVETWOSEVEN. I will explain why. Michael Mann is a director who has developed a notorious reputation for paying attention to every minute detail. For instance, in Collateral, as Vincent dies, the train passes a very large tree. This was added in purposely for dramatic effect, the real train route never passes such a tree. This is something that almost no one will ever consciously know the dramatic effect of. So, why would Mann, who actually oversee's the edit of the film, leave such a mistake? I'm not trying to start an argument, as in reality is doesn't really matter. The dramatic effect of the scene remains the same no matter if he dropped his last full magazine or he didn't have another left. The unstoppable Vincent has been bested by the average nobody Max.[[User:GLOCK10mil|GLOCK10mil]] 22:48, 6 March 2012 (CST) | |||
Oh, guys! Your great discussion now makes me wanna buy this movie in my small collection, also I want to watch it again. Thanks! :) [[User:Littlesoldier1|Littlesoldier1]] 23:37, 6 March 2012 (CST) | |||
== Just bought the movie == | == Just bought the movie == | ||
| Line 36: | Line 61: | ||
:Well, seeing as the 5906 is a 9mm and the USP45 is a .45, he must have gotten the MAGAZINES (not clips) from the security guard. That's an interesting point about the Ruger, though. -[[User:Gunman69|Gunman69]] 17:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC) | :Well, seeing as the 5906 is a 9mm and the USP45 is a .45, he must have gotten the MAGAZINES (not clips) from the security guard. That's an interesting point about the Ruger, though. -[[User:Gunman69|Gunman69]] 17:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
:He didn't ever reload the S&W. He only fires 1 mag. He didn't take any mags.-protoAuthor 03:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC) | :He didn't ever reload the S&W. He only fires 1 mag. He didn't take any mags.-protoAuthor 03:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
Plus he uses one at Fever and loses the other after the car wreck. You can see it fall off.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 21:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
I think that the magazine that drops is a spare magazine. Why would a well trained assassin take someone's gun but not spare ammunition for it just in case? The magazine doesn't look empty that drops and he is shot on the side of the body which his hand he uses to get the spare magazines from is on. Plus the way it is edited makes me think that it slipped out of his hand. He isn't a robot, if he didn't take spares he would know that he doesn't have any spare magazines and would not try to reload. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 20:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
That mag that dropped was from the gun and was empty, also there are alot of people that don't carry a spare magazine and this guard may have been one of those. http://www.kyimports.com/images/smw15rd5906.jpg--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 21:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
Well Vincent is a bit stupid then, but then again he did get killed by a cab driver lol. That to me is poor editing as well, surely if they would have meant that to be the ejected magazine the shot of it hitting the floor should have come before the one of him reaching for another one. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 00:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Final shoot out. == | == Final shoot out. == | ||
| Line 52: | Line 85: | ||
Just because he's skilled at killing people doesn't mean Vincent is indestructable, and just because Max never touched a gun doesn't mean he's going to fall over and die at the first stiff breeze to come along. People die all the time and they don't go out in a blaze of glory, it just happens, that's life. Besides, the whole scene at the end was about Vincent not changing his routine. The way he still reaches for magazines even though he's carrying a different weapon, how he goes for the mozambique drill even though there's a big steel train door between him and Max instead of shooting through the glass, etc. For all his talk of improvisation he was too set in his ways and couldn't prepare for a cab driver. | Just because he's skilled at killing people doesn't mean Vincent is indestructable, and just because Max never touched a gun doesn't mean he's going to fall over and die at the first stiff breeze to come along. People die all the time and they don't go out in a blaze of glory, it just happens, that's life. Besides, the whole scene at the end was about Vincent not changing his routine. The way he still reaches for magazines even though he's carrying a different weapon, how he goes for the mozambique drill even though there's a big steel train door between him and Max instead of shooting through the glass, etc. For all his talk of improvisation he was too set in his ways and couldn't prepare for a cab driver. | ||
i agree with what the aformentioned says. in stead of adapting to the situation, he went with what he knew. which was the mozambique drill , which turned out to be his downfall in the end.[[simmons 8492|simmons 8492]] | |||
It goes along with what Vincent was preaching to Max about earlier; to adapt and evolve to your surroundings. Vincent relied on the Mozambique drill he had perfected, even when he didn't have a clear shot on Max. Max clumsily shot around in multiple directions, increasing his chances to hit his unseen target. Max was able to evolve, Vincent wasn't. There's also some argument to the idea of a chaotic outcome, in that in the movie when Max steps out in front on the train for the last time to face Vincent, he closes his eyes as well as fireing the weapon with no regard for his aim other then the single direction towards Vincent. This is confirmed by the director Mann in the movies commentary, in fact Mann goes on to say the only reason Max succeeds is because the character closes his eyes and throws the dice so to speak. Again going back to the idea of improvisation, Max was willing to take the gamble where as Vincent played the safe bet, and the outcome was in Max's favor. | |||
I'd say Vincent got something called "paralysis by analysis". When you have the mechanics of something well figured out its best to just let it happen. Choking occurs when people who know better start thinking too hard about what they need to do. The added pressure forces your brain into a state called "paralysis by analysis" where the "working memory" part of your brain literally stops working, and the more talented you are the more working memory you have meaning the harder the failure. --[[User:Devang.dn|Devang.dn]] 23:23, 22 March 2011 (CDT) | |||
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 == | ||
| Line 89: | Line 132: | ||
probably a decision made by the sound guys. Most people want to hear that distinctive chirp so they know, "oh hey, his gun had a silencer on it." Just playing into the audience's preconceptions. | probably a decision made by the sound guys. Most people want to hear that distinctive chirp so they know, "oh hey, his gun had a silencer on it." Just playing into the audience's preconceptions. | ||
Question for everyone: take a close look at the picture with the street thug holding the pistol to Max's head. It looks more like a Walther PPK or PPK/s. I own a couple so I'm familiar with the details on the rear of the slide and this photo looks more Walther than SIG. Could be just the way it looks, but it seems that way to me. | |||
Its a SIG, look at the extractor. --[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 21:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
Not to mention the cocking serrations. -- K [[Special:Contributions/98.118.59.244|98.118.59.244]] 23:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
What does Vincent finally do with the SIG ? I'm pretty sure he retrieves it from the thug. Does he lose it along with the rest of his belongings ? - Devang | |||
He didn't pick it up, he picked up Max's wallet.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 23:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
In my experiance, Micheal Mann doesn't dubb the gunshots. All of the gunshots are very realistic in this film. Also regarding the supressed shots, they were in an open club. I think the sound of his head smahing the plates would have been more suspicious than three small sounds. A waitress would have gone to pick up a broken glass or plate, so I think Vincent was more interested in how much ground he could ut between himself and the club before someone realizez that Dainel didn't just pass out from a drin or something like that. --[[User:Yo dawg 111|Yo dawg 111]] 17:24, 29 February 2012 (CST) | |||
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." | |||
--[[User:MichaelH43ID|MichaelH43ID]] 18:13, 18 Feb 2014 (PST) | |||
==Fanning== | |||
How come when Detective Fanning enters Ramon's apartment he draws his gun one handed and clears the entire apartment one handed? Wouldn't most trained cops clear a room with both hands on their weapon? | |||
One word, Preference.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 01:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
He was still undercover at the time, so he didn't want to look like a cop. -[[User:nkingman|nkingman]] | |||
actualy he wasnt undercover . Ramon was an informant . i agree with 527.-[[User:simmons 8492|simmons 8492]] | |||
Hes actually a Detective.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 05:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
My problem is that his finger is on the trigger the whole time. Seems unsafe if you are looking for an informer. --[[User:Westernman1987|Westernman1987]] | |||
No, Fanning's not the informant, he's going to the home of the informant who Vincent just shot and sent through a window. The trigger on the finger thing is a bit unprofessional but in a stress induced situation, you sometimes forget [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 02:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
Ramon was a Federal witness. It's been a while since I've seen the film but I got the impression that Fanning was an undercover narcotic's officer judging by the fake accent when he is asking for Ramon and his appearance. I assumed he was undercover trying to bust Ramon. Like I said though it's been a while since I watched it. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 17:12, 3 April 2011 (CDT) | |||
Hes Not a witness, Hes An Informant, Fanning Is LAPD, If He was A Federal witness, He Would Be In Witness Protection With The U.S. Marshals. Fanning When To See His CI (confidential Informant), Saw Signs Of A Strugel, IE The Door Being Left Open, No Answer After Repeted calls of His NAme, And Claered The House. He Should Have Kepy His Finger Off The Triger Since There Were No Signs Of exigent circumstances. and Going In One Handed Could Be One Of Two Things. It Was To Hide The Fact That He Is LAPD And Keep Ramon Safe, As [[User:nkingman|nkingman]] Pointed Out, Or, And This Is More Likely, He Just Pulled, And So He Could Pop His Head, And His Gun Hand Out, And Have Hib Body Remain In Cover, Like He Does In The Second To Last Photo.--[[User:simmons 8492|simmons 8492]] | |||
Simmons did you even watch the film? Everyone that Vincent killed was a Federal witness for the prosecution. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 18:30, 8 August 2011 (CDT) | |||
I Did Watch The Film, But The Term Federal Is Being Thrown Around To Much. The One Witness I Would Call A Federal Witness Would Be The One At Fever, Because The FBI Was Watching Him. Just Because Your A Witness, Doesnt Mean Your A Federal One. Not To Mention, Fanning Calls Him An Informant.--[[User:simmons 8492|simmons 8492]] | |||
They were all witnesses in the same trial. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 20:42, 13 August 2011 (CDT) | |||
Ramon was an informant. Not a witness. The man in fever was a witness. No one said ramon was going to testify.--[[User:simmons 8492|simmons 8492]] | |||
YES THEY DID! In the scene where Fanning meets the FBI outside Felix's club he tells them about Ramon and Pedrosa says that's 3 witnesses so far. Just because you don't pay attention doesn't make what you think so. Nothing annoys me more is people who don't pay attention and then try to tell people who did that they are wrong. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 11:36, 14 August 2011 (CDT) | |||
Fanning isnt involved in that case. Ramon is still fanning CI. Thats what ties him into this case. Hes trying to find out what happened to his CI. I will admit that ramon was also a witness, if he was a federal witness, i dont understand why he and clark were not being watched by the U.S. marshals or the FBI (which i have no clue why there watching witnesses). When fanning went to see him, it wasnt to see him as a witness. It was to see him as his informant.--[[User:simmons 8492|simmons 8492]] | |||
Yeah but he was still a witness. Fanning looked undercover to me. How many times do you see in films that local cops are investigating criminals who the Feds have as a witness? The Feds weren't watching the guy in club fever they just knew where he hung out. The guy in club Fever was being watched by his own men that's why it took the Feds so long to get on the scene. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 15:52, 14 August 2011 (CDT) | |||
The reason i think he wasnt undercover is because he had to keep ramons identity as a CI intact, and he doesnt change how he looked or anything. Also if hed had his badge. I dont know if he did because he is never really seen drawing it from his waist. So in a way he is undercover. And if you are a federal witness, even if you do NOT go it to witness protection, the Marshals watch you. Now that i think about it, not only was the FBI actually watching felix and doing the right thing, but no branch of law enforcement was watching these witnesses.--[[User:simmons 8492|simmons 8492]] | |||
If there had been it would have been a very different film as Tom would have had to kill the Marshals at each hit and word would have gotten out. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 03:50, 15 August 2011 (CDT) | |||
Well he handled the guards at fever very well. Id like to think that a former special forces soldier turned private sector mercinary would be able to handle himself in a situation like that.--[[User:simmons 8492|simmons 8492]] | |||
Yeah but word would have gotten out about Marshals being killed and the Feds would have secured the guy in Fever a lot sooner I imagine. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 09:21, 15 August 2011 (CDT) | |||
True, But i would imagine that vincent would know that they would be there, and be prepaired to deal with the marshals moving the witnesses. I just would have liked to see how it would go down. your from the UK. What do they do with witnesses?--[[User:simmons 8492|simmons 8492]] | |||
No idea. Knowing how screwed up our government is probably just leave them alone until they get murdered. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 11:58, 15 August 2011 (CDT) | |||
That is a great way to deal with witnesses.--[[User:simmons 8492|simmons 8492]] | |||
Well they dealt with the riots by sitting back and just waiting for people to obey the law again. I feel sorry for the police in my country because no matter what they do they get chastised for it. They shoot a drug dealer who was illegally carrying a handgun and they murdered an innocent man. A guy breaks loose with a shotgun and goes on a killing spree and they aren't using enough force. They are always been called facists by people who don't have a clue about how the world works. I'd love to dump all the people who think the police in my country are corrupt, violent facists in somewhere where the police will kidnap and torture random people at the behest of the dictatorship government and then see what they think of our police. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 05:33, 16 August 2011 (CDT) | |||
It would be great if the righters all wore [[V for Vendetta| the "V" masks]].Do the poliece in the UK carry handguns? Because i know that when on high alert, they jump right to the MP5, and does the UK have a SWAT/HRT?--[[User:simmons 8492|simmons 8492]] | |||
The rioters weren't making any political point it was just a bunch of pricks who wanted to kick up a fuss. And we have specialised armed response units that are armed. The normal everyday cop on the street isn't armed. The UK has CO19 which is a specialist armed response unit. Normal everyday people did more to stop the rioters than the police did, but it's not the police's fault really it's the government refusing to allow them to do what was necessary until it was too late. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 05:53, 18 August 2011 (CDT) | |||
Thats the down side to being in law enforcement. If you have to use dealy force, its excesive force, but if the suspect does kill an officer, your not using enough force. The world is such a backwards place. inn the words of [[Jack Nicholson]] as Col. Nathan R. Jessep in [[A Few Good Men]] "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."--[[User:simmons 8492|simmons 8492]] | |||
Good quote. It's a shame that Jessop ends up being a bit mental. --[[User:Cool-breeze|cool-breeze]] 18:26, 18 August 2011 (CDT) | |||
At least he isnt a scientoligest.--[[User:simmons 8492|simmons 8492]] | |||
Umm, you mean scientoLOGIst, right?... --[[User:Warejaws|Warejaws]] 15:16, 19 August 2011 (CDT) | |||
I mean crazy.--[[User:simmons 8492|simmons 8492]] | |||
Now ''that''... I can agree on --[[User:Warejaws|Warejaws]] 18:26, 19 August 2011 (CDT) | |||
Good man. But what did the rioters want?--[[User:simmons 8492|simmons 8492]] | |||
Some prat got himself shot and some more prats decided that it was a good excuse to go rioting for no obvious reason --[[User:Taurus96|Taurus96]] 08:04, 15 October 2011 (CDT) | |||
== hk 45 == | |||
Where can You find the new pics of tom cruise hk 45? | |||
Its a USP 45, not a HK45, also it looks like any other USP.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 15:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Fanning's pistol == | |||
Fanning is not carrying a S&W 4516 in this movie. If you notice in the first screenshoot of him as he enters the apartment, the frame is contrasted sharply with the slide and guiderod. It has a duller "gray" color. The frame is not stainless, it is anodized alloy. There are no 3rd gen compact 45 guns made by S&W with allow frames other than the TSW and Recon versions (performance center). Fanning's gun doesn't have a rail or a "tactical" or "recon" billboard on the left side of the slide so that rules those out. The shadow of the first screenshot makes the bore look larger than it is but the second screenshot shows it's true size. That is a 9mm bore. Unless someone has some inside knowledge of this film and this is a specially made alloy framed, non-TSW compact 45, it should be changed to a S&W 3913.--[[User:Luckyluciano|Luckyluciano]] 05:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
Yes, the gun is alloy framed and a non-TSW compact. It could be a 3913, but then it could also be a single stack non-TSW 4013. This verison of the 4013 is identical to the 4516, but in .40S&W and with an alloy frame. Also, Fanning's gun has a larger "beavertail" than what a 3913 would have. | |||
The beavertail could be indicative of a 4013 but that would really depend on the size of the actor's hands since we don't have a plain view side shot of the gun itself. The other thing to note is that the magazines he carries (as seen when they first investigate Ramon's murder and the cab crime scene) have staggered holes in them. The 4013 magazine holes are in a straight vertical line but the 3913 magazines have staggered holes. That might not mean anything as the could easily have a 4013 as a prop gun and magazines from any other gun on his hip. --[[User:Luckyluciano|Luckyluciano]] 14:57, 16 March 2011 (CDT) | |||
== Officer from near the end of the movie == | |||
We see the picture of the cop, who is an actual LAPD Officer, holding his issue Beretta, but we can see his thumb layered over his dominant hand. Thats just asking for slidebite. It seems like a poor grip for an actual LAPD officer. -MissySummers- | |||
It all varies on the training. Some guns you can do that all day without slide bite.--[[User:FIVETWOSEVEN|FIVETWOSEVEN]] 23:10, 3 December 2011 (CST) | |||
Fair enough. A friend of mine just took classes to obtain his firearms license and they were teaching cup and saucer method as "the best method to control recoil" as i quote from the teacher. -MissySummers- | |||
:lol. XO - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 00:22, 5 December 2011 (CST) | |||
Yea, the officer is probably an "old timer", that grip was commonly taught back when revolvers were still standard issue.-[[User:Ranger01|Ranger01]] 02:15, 9 December 2011 (CST) | |||
His thumb was on his other hand at first, but then he moved it to along the side of the Beretta. Not the best we would expect from the LAPD, but acceptable. | |||
== Briefcase Scene == | |||
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 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) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:59, 6 May 2014
Colt 9mm SMG
Can't speak to it's use in the US but Mexican tourist police carry them. - Nyles
- They are issued to DEA agents from what I know. Some police stations are issued them as well. -GM
- If you ever find pictures of Department of Energy security teams from immediately after 9/11, you will see quite a few of these in use. As best I know, though, they've mostly replaced their 9mm subguns with M4s, same as most LE tactical units nowadays. -MT2008 16:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Vincent's Holster
With many people wondering what Vincent's holster is, I took some shots to help everyone out.
Hope this helps someone I.D. them. - Gunmaster45
It sure helped me ID that Tom Cruise wore some tight freaking pants!
According to the DVD commentary, Tom Cruise used a serpa holster for the USP. So maybe he used one for the movie as well.
Those mag carriers are nice, Got 3 of them because of this movie and love them.--FIVETWOSEVEN 21:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
What mag carriers are those?
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.--GLOCK10mil 18:39, 4 August 2011 (CDT)
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 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. --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 here including a shot that shows some detail of the "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. --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? --Funkychinaman (talk) 16:59, 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 here including a shot that shows some detail of the "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. --commando552 (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2014 (EDT)
The Train Scene
when the lights come back on after the shootout, vincent, who has lost so much blood that his fine motor skills are beginning to deteriorate, does appear to have a full mag in his holders. when the movie cuts to the mag hitting the floor, even in stadard definition one can see that there are bullets in the mag. i am fairly certain that the cut is not of an empty mag hitting the floor, but vincent has dropped his last full mag and realizes that that he has been beaten. i know that this is a gun info site however i thought showing the correct sequence of events might be of some importance.
- You can see the plastic red follower on the top of the magazine, an obvious indication it is empty. He also searches his belt for a long time to find a spare magazine. You should keep in mind he took the guards 5906 but no spare mags, so he didn't have anything to reload with anyway. I believe Mann commented on this in the DVD commentary but I might have to go back and check. - Gunmaster45
- I always thought that Vincent had been going to reload, but dropped his one spare as a result of involuntary loss of control of his support hand, because he looks like he's got something in his hands right before he pitches forward and the camera cuts to the magazine hitting the floor. --Clutch 00:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Gunmaster for pointing that out. at the time i wrote my original comment, i was unaware of the red followers as my S&W 1006 has white ones and my 4506 has black followers. looking at the frame and watching the movie again i can see the follower, not a cartridge.
- Originally, in the script, he actually WAS to have another mag, but fumbled. That was changed, though.-protoAuthor 04:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
well if he did fumble on that reload , wouldnt there be two magizines on the floor . the only one that hits looks like the one he had spent .simmons 8492
I always thought that Vincent picked up the guards gun cause he lost his in the car crash. when he emptied it in the shootout he instinctively reached for another mag to reload but realized he didnt have mags for that gun. - EVNASH
that is why he took the guards gun, but i think he realised he was wounded, was out of magizines, and gave up--simmons 8492
It's a little hard to catch, but if you listen to the scene, you can hear the empty magazine hit the floor before just before he reaches for a new one and the scene cuts. So, he does have one more magazine in his holders, and he does fumble the reload, but the armorers for the film left the last mag empty, probably as a safety precaution.--GLOCK10mil 18:34, 4 August 2011 (CDT)
That was movie editing, he would have been diving for it if he had one. You can see him check both holders and come up surprised he didn't have a spare. I've done it myself at the range once. (Same magazine holders too.)--FIVETWOSEVEN 23:05, 3 December 2011 (CST)
Wow, I forgot about this little discussion. I have to politely disagree FIVETWOSEVEN. I will explain why. Michael Mann is a director who has developed a notorious reputation for paying attention to every minute detail. For instance, in Collateral, as Vincent dies, the train passes a very large tree. This was added in purposely for dramatic effect, the real train route never passes such a tree. This is something that almost no one will ever consciously know the dramatic effect of. So, why would Mann, who actually oversee's the edit of the film, leave such a mistake? I'm not trying to start an argument, as in reality is doesn't really matter. The dramatic effect of the scene remains the same no matter if he dropped his last full magazine or he didn't have another left. The unstoppable Vincent has been bested by the average nobody Max.GLOCK10mil 22:48, 6 March 2012 (CST)
Oh, guys! Your great discussion now makes me wanna buy this movie in my small collection, also I want to watch it again. Thanks! :) Littlesoldier1 23:37, 6 March 2012 (CST)
Just bought the movie
Man(n), this movie is awesome. -protoAuthor 18:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Ruger Mark II
The Ruger mark II is used t kill Daniel the club owner. After that it is never seen again, so I'm assuming Vincent put it in his briefcase which Max threw off the bridge, which is why it's never seen again. This became clear when in the train scene Vincent reaches for a magazines off his holders but he is fresh out, if he had his Ruger he could of used that. Also Vincent must of reloaded his Smith & Wesson 5906, so I guess it must use the same ammunition as a USP-45 either that or the security guard must of had spare clips. Could someone please verify this- thank you.
- Well, seeing as the 5906 is a 9mm and the USP45 is a .45, he must have gotten the MAGAZINES (not clips) from the security guard. That's an interesting point about the Ruger, though. -Gunman69 17:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- He didn't ever reload the S&W. He only fires 1 mag. He didn't take any mags.-protoAuthor 03:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Plus he uses one at Fever and loses the other after the car wreck. You can see it fall off.--FIVETWOSEVEN 21:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that the magazine that drops is a spare magazine. Why would a well trained assassin take someone's gun but not spare ammunition for it just in case? The magazine doesn't look empty that drops and he is shot on the side of the body which his hand he uses to get the spare magazines from is on. Plus the way it is edited makes me think that it slipped out of his hand. He isn't a robot, if he didn't take spares he would know that he doesn't have any spare magazines and would not try to reload. --cool-breeze 20:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
That mag that dropped was from the gun and was empty, also there are alot of people that don't carry a spare magazine and this guard may have been one of those. http://www.kyimports.com/images/smw15rd5906.jpg--FIVETWOSEVEN 21:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Well Vincent is a bit stupid then, but then again he did get killed by a cab driver lol. That to me is poor editing as well, surely if they would have meant that to be the ejected magazine the shot of it hitting the floor should have come before the one of him reaching for another one. --cool-breeze 00:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Final shoot out.
In this article, it offers what appears to be a very assured explanation of the final shootout at the end of the movie. It claims that Vincent lost the battle because of his failure to change his killing pattern, blindly following the same method he uses to kill all his targets. I think that this theory is incorrect. Don't you think a hitman as experienced and capable as Vincent would know enough to change his method when it is clear it wouldn't work? While Vincent prefers to shoot his victims with the two-in-the-chest, one-in-the-head method, I'm sure that this tactic is used when he deems it appropriate, and I'm sure a man like Vincent, as intelligent as he is, would not stupidly follow this pattern when it obviously wouldn't work. When a metal door is blocking a clear shot of his target, I'm sure Vincent would know better than to shoot at the door itself, and take advantage of the situation and try to shoot through the windows.
How can a trained hitman like Vincent, lose against Max who has no training what so ever shooting single-handed when Vincent used both hands and fired with a good grip on the gun ? (AceV)
- Lucky shot? But yeah, I get it, that last scene was a bit stupid when clearly a trained professional wouldn't just shoot at a metal door. He should have waited for Max to shoot and empty his gun since Vincent knows Max is an untrained taxi driver. I'm also wondering since Vincent lost his primary weapon, shouldn't he have a back up? He is an ex-military, special forces kind of guy after all. Excalibur01
well, vincent had (kind of) a back up gun, his ruger markII. It was in the bag, which max threw down the bridge and was crushed by the truck.
Well, Vincent was pretty pissed off at the end, what with being shot in the head and all. That may have clouded his judgment of situation a bit. --AlkoTanko 19:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Well it pissed me off, Vincent spent the whole movie, killing people, people who have actually at least touched a gun and then all of a sudden an untrained cab driver just comes and kills him, in a a shoot out, not from behind or anything a shoot out, that was dissapointing. (AceV)
Just because he's skilled at killing people doesn't mean Vincent is indestructable, and just because Max never touched a gun doesn't mean he's going to fall over and die at the first stiff breeze to come along. People die all the time and they don't go out in a blaze of glory, it just happens, that's life. Besides, the whole scene at the end was about Vincent not changing his routine. The way he still reaches for magazines even though he's carrying a different weapon, how he goes for the mozambique drill even though there's a big steel train door between him and Max instead of shooting through the glass, etc. For all his talk of improvisation he was too set in his ways and couldn't prepare for a cab driver.
i agree with what the aformentioned says. in stead of adapting to the situation, he went with what he knew. which was the mozambique drill , which turned out to be his downfall in the end.simmons 8492
It goes along with what Vincent was preaching to Max about earlier; to adapt and evolve to your surroundings. Vincent relied on the Mozambique drill he had perfected, even when he didn't have a clear shot on Max. Max clumsily shot around in multiple directions, increasing his chances to hit his unseen target. Max was able to evolve, Vincent wasn't. There's also some argument to the idea of a chaotic outcome, in that in the movie when Max steps out in front on the train for the last time to face Vincent, he closes his eyes as well as fireing the weapon with no regard for his aim other then the single direction towards Vincent. This is confirmed by the director Mann in the movies commentary, in fact Mann goes on to say the only reason Max succeeds is because the character closes his eyes and throws the dice so to speak. Again going back to the idea of improvisation, Max was willing to take the gamble where as Vincent played the safe bet, and the outcome was in Max's favor.
I'd say Vincent got something called "paralysis by analysis". When you have the mechanics of something well figured out its best to just let it happen. Choking occurs when people who know better start thinking too hard about what they need to do. The added pressure forces your brain into a state called "paralysis by analysis" where the "working memory" part of your brain literally stops working, and the more talented you are the more working memory you have meaning the harder the failure. --Devang.dn 23:23, 22 March 2011 (CDT)
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.--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 Excalibur01 (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2013 (EST)
Slight comment overhaul
I did some work praising the good gun work on the movie, you guys like it?-protoAuthor 04:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
No
Ralph pls go.--AlkoTanko 11:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice.--Spikemonkey 18:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
"the first gun we see"
It says "Detective Fanning (Mark Ruffalo) draws the first gun we see, a Smith & Wesson 4516 in .45 ACP". This is not true. the First gun we see is Vincents USP when he pulls it on max after el gordo falls out the window onto the taxi and max freaks out.
Ruger Mark II
Why would the suppressed shots be louder than the guys head hitting the table? In case you didn't know, suppressors were made to make guns quieter. Even in a confined space, a silenced .22 with sub-sonic rounds (that's probably what Vincent would have used anyway, condidering that he's a hitman and cared enough to use a silenced pistol anyways) is very quiet. I have also shot a silenced .22 (a Ruger 77/22 bolt action, although this was outdoors so maybe the sound didn't travel as much, but that's not the point) and it was very quiet. With a bolt action gun it's even quiter since the bolt doesn't move with each shot. But anyways, the only sound a suppressed Ruger mark II would make (and made in the movie) is a slight click when the action cycles. This would have been quiter than a slamming head, unless he had a really fatty forehead. --ColonelTomb 22:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Also, if the guy's head had hit the table, he would have knocked over glasses, and knocked the table to the ground, which is MUCH louder than any suppressed gunfire.--Pølaris 22:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
A sub-sonic round in a .22 cal would not be able to cycle the action of a semi-auto, so if he shot more then once he wasnt using sub-sonic, ergo, the bullet would be over the sound barer and create that ol' classic crack of the round discharging. But for movie sake they we're probably just making the gun sound cooler. Spades of Columbia
- My Ruger Mk II cycles fine with sub-sonic rounds, and I didn't modify it at all. --funkychinaman 17:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Making Vincent is so resourceful he has a modded Ruger that has a weaker spring that cycles when shot with sub sonics. --FIVETWOSEVEN 17:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The point was to explain why the "suppressed" gun was loud, not how it could in some way or another shoot a sub-sonic round. If that was the case a person could easily argue that he was using a 1050fps sub-sonic rd which in some guns can feed without modifacation instead of the normal 710fps round. Spades of Columbia
Yeah but (and correct me if I'm wrong) wouldn't he have shot him from such a close range that the bullet wouldn't have been able to break the sound barrier? Also, I agree with FIVETWOSEVEN on the theory of the modified spring. --ColonelTomb 02:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
You've been corrected because your wrong...the powder burn would have been spent by the end of the barrel which uses the twist rate to fully bust its velosity, meaning, its pretty much going its top speed by the end of the barrel and the crack noice is usually signifying the bullet has left the firearm...combined with the noice of a all-steel action clanking together as it cycles the next round make a "Silenced" pistol, not so silent. Spades of Columbia
What do you mean the "normal" 710 fps round? That would be a CB Long or Short, not a normal round. Also watch this vid of a guy using an integrally suppressed Ruger Mark II with standard velocity ammo; I hear no crack. http://suppressorbuyersguide.com/Articles.php?action=detail&g=content1235373509s And note that this suppressor is even shorter than the one that Vincent had, making it even less effective and yet still cycling and being very quiet with standard velocity ammo. --ColonelTomb 03:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
You are very much correct sir. You did indeed prove me wrong on that one...but originally i was trying to explain why it might have been so loud in the movie for being silenced...any thoughts on that.--Spades of Columbia 18:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
probably a decision made by the sound guys. Most people want to hear that distinctive chirp so they know, "oh hey, his gun had a silencer on it." Just playing into the audience's preconceptions.
Question for everyone: take a close look at the picture with the street thug holding the pistol to Max's head. It looks more like a Walther PPK or PPK/s. I own a couple so I'm familiar with the details on the rear of the slide and this photo looks more Walther than SIG. Could be just the way it looks, but it seems that way to me.
Its a SIG, look at the extractor. --FIVETWOSEVEN 21:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention the cocking serrations. -- K 98.118.59.244 23:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
What does Vincent finally do with the SIG ? I'm pretty sure he retrieves it from the thug. Does he lose it along with the rest of his belongings ? - Devang
He didn't pick it up, he picked up Max's wallet.--FIVETWOSEVEN 23:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
In my experiance, Micheal Mann doesn't dubb the gunshots. All of the gunshots are very realistic in this film. Also regarding the supressed shots, they were in an open club. I think the sound of his head smahing the plates would have been more suspicious than three small sounds. A waitress would have gone to pick up a broken glass or plate, so I think Vincent was more interested in how much ground he could ut between himself and the club before someone realizez that Dainel didn't just pass out from a drin or something like that. --Yo dawg 111 17:24, 29 February 2012 (CST)
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. --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." --MichaelH43ID 18:13, 18 Feb 2014 (PST)
Fanning
How come when Detective Fanning enters Ramon's apartment he draws his gun one handed and clears the entire apartment one handed? Wouldn't most trained cops clear a room with both hands on their weapon?
One word, Preference.--FIVETWOSEVEN 01:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
He was still undercover at the time, so he didn't want to look like a cop. -nkingman
actualy he wasnt undercover . Ramon was an informant . i agree with 527.-simmons 8492
Hes actually a Detective.--FIVETWOSEVEN 05:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
My problem is that his finger is on the trigger the whole time. Seems unsafe if you are looking for an informer. --Westernman1987
No, Fanning's not the informant, he's going to the home of the informant who Vincent just shot and sent through a window. The trigger on the finger thing is a bit unprofessional but in a stress induced situation, you sometimes forget Excalibur01 02:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Ramon was a Federal witness. It's been a while since I've seen the film but I got the impression that Fanning was an undercover narcotic's officer judging by the fake accent when he is asking for Ramon and his appearance. I assumed he was undercover trying to bust Ramon. Like I said though it's been a while since I watched it. --cool-breeze 17:12, 3 April 2011 (CDT)
Hes Not a witness, Hes An Informant, Fanning Is LAPD, If He was A Federal witness, He Would Be In Witness Protection With The U.S. Marshals. Fanning When To See His CI (confidential Informant), Saw Signs Of A Strugel, IE The Door Being Left Open, No Answer After Repeted calls of His NAme, And Claered The House. He Should Have Kepy His Finger Off The Triger Since There Were No Signs Of exigent circumstances. and Going In One Handed Could Be One Of Two Things. It Was To Hide The Fact That He Is LAPD And Keep Ramon Safe, As nkingman Pointed Out, Or, And This Is More Likely, He Just Pulled, And So He Could Pop His Head, And His Gun Hand Out, And Have Hib Body Remain In Cover, Like He Does In The Second To Last Photo.--simmons 8492
Simmons did you even watch the film? Everyone that Vincent killed was a Federal witness for the prosecution. --cool-breeze 18:30, 8 August 2011 (CDT)
I Did Watch The Film, But The Term Federal Is Being Thrown Around To Much. The One Witness I Would Call A Federal Witness Would Be The One At Fever, Because The FBI Was Watching Him. Just Because Your A Witness, Doesnt Mean Your A Federal One. Not To Mention, Fanning Calls Him An Informant.--simmons 8492
They were all witnesses in the same trial. --cool-breeze 20:42, 13 August 2011 (CDT)
Ramon was an informant. Not a witness. The man in fever was a witness. No one said ramon was going to testify.--simmons 8492
YES THEY DID! In the scene where Fanning meets the FBI outside Felix's club he tells them about Ramon and Pedrosa says that's 3 witnesses so far. Just because you don't pay attention doesn't make what you think so. Nothing annoys me more is people who don't pay attention and then try to tell people who did that they are wrong. --cool-breeze 11:36, 14 August 2011 (CDT)
Fanning isnt involved in that case. Ramon is still fanning CI. Thats what ties him into this case. Hes trying to find out what happened to his CI. I will admit that ramon was also a witness, if he was a federal witness, i dont understand why he and clark were not being watched by the U.S. marshals or the FBI (which i have no clue why there watching witnesses). When fanning went to see him, it wasnt to see him as a witness. It was to see him as his informant.--simmons 8492
Yeah but he was still a witness. Fanning looked undercover to me. How many times do you see in films that local cops are investigating criminals who the Feds have as a witness? The Feds weren't watching the guy in club fever they just knew where he hung out. The guy in club Fever was being watched by his own men that's why it took the Feds so long to get on the scene. --cool-breeze 15:52, 14 August 2011 (CDT)
The reason i think he wasnt undercover is because he had to keep ramons identity as a CI intact, and he doesnt change how he looked or anything. Also if hed had his badge. I dont know if he did because he is never really seen drawing it from his waist. So in a way he is undercover. And if you are a federal witness, even if you do NOT go it to witness protection, the Marshals watch you. Now that i think about it, not only was the FBI actually watching felix and doing the right thing, but no branch of law enforcement was watching these witnesses.--simmons 8492
If there had been it would have been a very different film as Tom would have had to kill the Marshals at each hit and word would have gotten out. --cool-breeze 03:50, 15 August 2011 (CDT)
Well he handled the guards at fever very well. Id like to think that a former special forces soldier turned private sector mercinary would be able to handle himself in a situation like that.--simmons 8492
Yeah but word would have gotten out about Marshals being killed and the Feds would have secured the guy in Fever a lot sooner I imagine. --cool-breeze 09:21, 15 August 2011 (CDT)
True, But i would imagine that vincent would know that they would be there, and be prepaired to deal with the marshals moving the witnesses. I just would have liked to see how it would go down. your from the UK. What do they do with witnesses?--simmons 8492
No idea. Knowing how screwed up our government is probably just leave them alone until they get murdered. --cool-breeze 11:58, 15 August 2011 (CDT)
That is a great way to deal with witnesses.--simmons 8492
Well they dealt with the riots by sitting back and just waiting for people to obey the law again. I feel sorry for the police in my country because no matter what they do they get chastised for it. They shoot a drug dealer who was illegally carrying a handgun and they murdered an innocent man. A guy breaks loose with a shotgun and goes on a killing spree and they aren't using enough force. They are always been called facists by people who don't have a clue about how the world works. I'd love to dump all the people who think the police in my country are corrupt, violent facists in somewhere where the police will kidnap and torture random people at the behest of the dictatorship government and then see what they think of our police. --cool-breeze 05:33, 16 August 2011 (CDT)
It would be great if the righters all wore the "V" masks.Do the poliece in the UK carry handguns? Because i know that when on high alert, they jump right to the MP5, and does the UK have a SWAT/HRT?--simmons 8492
The rioters weren't making any political point it was just a bunch of pricks who wanted to kick up a fuss. And we have specialised armed response units that are armed. The normal everyday cop on the street isn't armed. The UK has CO19 which is a specialist armed response unit. Normal everyday people did more to stop the rioters than the police did, but it's not the police's fault really it's the government refusing to allow them to do what was necessary until it was too late. --cool-breeze 05:53, 18 August 2011 (CDT)
Thats the down side to being in law enforcement. If you have to use dealy force, its excesive force, but if the suspect does kill an officer, your not using enough force. The world is such a backwards place. inn the words of Jack Nicholson as Col. Nathan R. Jessep in A Few Good Men "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."--simmons 8492
Good quote. It's a shame that Jessop ends up being a bit mental. --cool-breeze 18:26, 18 August 2011 (CDT)
At least he isnt a scientoligest.--simmons 8492
Umm, you mean scientoLOGIst, right?... --Warejaws 15:16, 19 August 2011 (CDT)
I mean crazy.--simmons 8492
Now that... I can agree on --Warejaws 18:26, 19 August 2011 (CDT)
Good man. But what did the rioters want?--simmons 8492
Some prat got himself shot and some more prats decided that it was a good excuse to go rioting for no obvious reason --Taurus96 08:04, 15 October 2011 (CDT)
hk 45
Where can You find the new pics of tom cruise hk 45?
Its a USP 45, not a HK45, also it looks like any other USP.--FIVETWOSEVEN 15:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Fanning's pistol
Fanning is not carrying a S&W 4516 in this movie. If you notice in the first screenshoot of him as he enters the apartment, the frame is contrasted sharply with the slide and guiderod. It has a duller "gray" color. The frame is not stainless, it is anodized alloy. There are no 3rd gen compact 45 guns made by S&W with allow frames other than the TSW and Recon versions (performance center). Fanning's gun doesn't have a rail or a "tactical" or "recon" billboard on the left side of the slide so that rules those out. The shadow of the first screenshot makes the bore look larger than it is but the second screenshot shows it's true size. That is a 9mm bore. Unless someone has some inside knowledge of this film and this is a specially made alloy framed, non-TSW compact 45, it should be changed to a S&W 3913.--Luckyluciano 05:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the gun is alloy framed and a non-TSW compact. It could be a 3913, but then it could also be a single stack non-TSW 4013. This verison of the 4013 is identical to the 4516, but in .40S&W and with an alloy frame. Also, Fanning's gun has a larger "beavertail" than what a 3913 would have.
The beavertail could be indicative of a 4013 but that would really depend on the size of the actor's hands since we don't have a plain view side shot of the gun itself. The other thing to note is that the magazines he carries (as seen when they first investigate Ramon's murder and the cab crime scene) have staggered holes in them. The 4013 magazine holes are in a straight vertical line but the 3913 magazines have staggered holes. That might not mean anything as the could easily have a 4013 as a prop gun and magazines from any other gun on his hip. --Luckyluciano 14:57, 16 March 2011 (CDT)
Officer from near the end of the movie
We see the picture of the cop, who is an actual LAPD Officer, holding his issue Beretta, but we can see his thumb layered over his dominant hand. Thats just asking for slidebite. It seems like a poor grip for an actual LAPD officer. -MissySummers-
It all varies on the training. Some guns you can do that all day without slide bite.--FIVETWOSEVEN 23:10, 3 December 2011 (CST)
Fair enough. A friend of mine just took classes to obtain his firearms license and they were teaching cup and saucer method as "the best method to control recoil" as i quote from the teacher. -MissySummers-
- lol. XO - Mr. Wolf 00:22, 5 December 2011 (CST)
Yea, the officer is probably an "old timer", that grip was commonly taught back when revolvers were still standard issue.-Ranger01 02:15, 9 December 2011 (CST)
His thumb was on his other hand at first, but then he moved it to along the side of the Beretta. Not the best we would expect from the LAPD, but acceptable.
Briefcase Scene
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? Thomas (talk) 04:48, 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 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. Excalibur01 (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2013 (EST)