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:Redacted: Difference between revisions

From Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
 
(20 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 34: Line 34:
Seriously now, it's way too political. DePalma does basically the exact same thing he did in Casualties of War; suggest that the war is responsible for these soldiers behavior. That's offensive bullshit. People who rape in the military are just like civilians who rape. It's not the army or an unjust war, it's just sickos who would have done it military or not. DePalma's just trying to insert his antiwar message and he shoves it down our throat. And you know what else is hilarious! That ending montage, one of the photos is from the movie. DePalma actually uses a photo from a fictional incident in his movie as "proof" of the heartlessness of the US military. How can he expect anyone to take him seriously after that? -- [[User:Crackshot|Crackshot]] 10:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Seriously now, it's way too political. DePalma does basically the exact same thing he did in Casualties of War; suggest that the war is responsible for these soldiers behavior. That's offensive bullshit. People who rape in the military are just like civilians who rape. It's not the army or an unjust war, it's just sickos who would have done it military or not. DePalma's just trying to insert his antiwar message and he shoves it down our throat. And you know what else is hilarious! That ending montage, one of the photos is from the movie. DePalma actually uses a photo from a fictional incident in his movie as "proof" of the heartlessness of the US military. How can he expect anyone to take him seriously after that? -- [[User:Crackshot|Crackshot]] 10:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


== Disclaimer ==
==Intro==


Why is there a disclaimer on this page? I thought this is an impartial gun-documentation Wiki, yet this disclaimer makes it evidently biase and political. Lets keep politics and personal bias out of here. The film is a released work of fiction and deserves the same treatment as any other film.
I noticed that this page doesn't have an intro ("<insert film> is a <insert year> film starring <actor>, <actor> and <actor>.") Why not just incorporate any objections into the intro? --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 15:27, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
:I have added an intro. [[User:Laqueesha|Laqueesha]] ([[User talk:Laqueesha|talk]]) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (EST)


So what if it insults US Service-members, their portrail as all-good heros insults me and many other people who have family in Iraq and Afghanistan who suffered horrendously because of the wars. Not to mention how most action films here again insult me with their portrayl of Muslims, Arabs and anyone from a country which had political belligerancy with the US at one time or another. Yet I have no right to put any disclaimer on any of those pages, as it would be patenetly ridiculous, just as the disclaimer on this page.
== Page locked ==


I have removed the laughable discalimer, and see no problem in making films insulting to the US Military - infact I'd go as far as saying it's a necessity to show the world some of their most henious acts. If the people who run this place feel that is an offense or breach to the rules of this wiki, then I'd be happy for them to ban me. It just proves this wiki is run by ignorant red-neck gun-lovers who lack the open-mindedness and moderateness to question the actions of their service members.
I noticed that the Type 56 is under the "Kalashnikov variants". I would not call it a "variant", and I am pretty sure neither would Lieutenant General Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov. And since the page is locked, someone with access should move the AKM and the Type 56 apart. Thx. [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 16:22, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
 
:I locked it to keep from having to undo someone else's edits. It will be unlocked later. --[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 17:00, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
Peace. [[User:Tec-9|Tec-9]] 12:21, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
:Try reading the discussion at the top of this page. I reverted your edits.--[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 12:35, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
 
Hi there, thanks for the reply, but most of the discussion on the top of the page seems to revolve around how US Soldiers are somesort of holy entity in themselves who are above any form of criticism. Is this the opinion and mindset of the people who run this site? I am happy to engage in a discussion if I have keep the right to edit this page and put my point across, otherwise it is pointless if the people who run this site have such an opinion. Take care. [[User:Tec-9|Tec-9]] 12:41, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
::Okay user [[User:Tec-9|Tec-9]] The debates on THIS page are the opinions of the people themselves.  That is what the the discussion page is for.  The disclaimer, however, was put there by not just one but TWO Moderators.  You as an infrequent member don't have the authority to remove it.  If it bugs you then feel free to go elsewhere.  :) [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 13:08, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
 
The reason that the disclaimer is on redacted is that it is insulting to those of us who have had friends shot and/ or blown up by IEDs in Iraq and Afganistan. While I am the first to admit that soldiers are only human, movies like Redacted ARE insulting to us as they want to say that somehow a nice well adjusted individual once they see combat becomes a total monster. Have women(and men) been raped? have the wounded been executed? have harmless little puppys been tossed off cliffs? Yes to all three statements and while the first two incidents have happened from the beginning of time. In the US Millitary people who do such things are shunned and prossecuted. It's the same anti-war Bullshit that Hippies used to do when they called returning servicemen "babykillers." Frankly Redacted has little to do with reality and everything to do with Anti-war propoganda. Those of us who have friends and family in the millitary really are insulted by such garbage. [[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 13:38, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
 
Whether we disagree with the message of the film or not, is it right to single this one out? By stating that we disagree with this film, are we then implying that we DO agree with every other film here, since this is the only one with a disclaimer? (As far as I know, this is the only one with a disclaimer. Not even the oft-mentioned [[Casualties of War]] carries such a disclaimer.) --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 14:26, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
 
::OKAY! Once and for all, I will not REPEAT THIS.  [[Casualties of War]] was released in 1987, well AFTER the end of the Vietnam Conflict.  It did not aid and abet the enemy.  It did not affect international politics.  It did not inspire people to join the cause of our enemies.  It happened way after the events occurred.  This film was released primarily to attack our military action in the Middle East and (probably the goal of all Hollywood Liberals to some extent) to make President Bush look as bad as possible in every possible way.  But the real offense of this film was that it purports to be CURRENT aka occurring NOW.  Films like this inspire people overseas to (a) hate the U.S. (b) join the terrorists (c) kill Americans.  If an American filmmaker made a film attacking American armed forces during WW2 and but virtue, extolled Europeans to join the Third Reich against us, that filmmaker would have been brought up on charges of Treason.  The fact that THIS FILM (and other films about Vietnam don't count) actually causes American dead FOR REAL, makes it a special case.  We all know how easily 'enraged' the radical (or non radical but not very educated) Islamic populations are in many countries.  The danger is that propaganda DOES result in violence.  Real life violence NOW.  Many of IMFDB's users are TOO young to fully grasp this. Only some of them (me included) have worn the uniform and served overseas.  I have friends who are veterans of 'full on shooting wars' who would NOT BE so kind to this film as we have been.  At least we allow it.  We must not be seen (even inadvertently) as agreeing with it. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 21:13, 3 June 2011 (CDT)


:I've seen this film, and I was just as offended by it as anyone else here. That being said, while this guy Tec-9 obviously has a bias of his own, I do not think it is necessary to have a disclaimer on this page, or at least not a disclaimer that is so overtly political. IMFDB is a Wiki that exists solely to document firearms in the media, nothing else. Regardless of how any of us stand on the Iraq War or the issue of Hollywood's liberal biases, we should do our best to maintain a non-political tone, and the disclaimer crosses that line somewhat.
== Correction needed ==
The laser module on the second pic of an M4 is a AN/PAQ-4 visible laser. It's too small to be a PEQ-2. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 23:23, 17 June 2011 (CDT)


:''It just proves this wiki is run by ignorant red-neck gun-lovers who lack the open-mindedness and moderateness to question the actions of their service members.''
== Challenger ==


:First of all, if anyone bans you, it won't be for expressing your opinion, it will be for insulting us. You may have a valid point that the disclaimer is unnecessary and too divisive, but talking down to us like this only undermines your argument. Second, you seem to have a bias of your own; while you're entitled to your opinion, don't expect anyone to agree with you on the disclaimer issue if your reason for wanting it removed is that you actually agree with this movie (while we may not be ignorant rednecks, most of us are pretty conservative and support U.S. troops). And for the record, neither I nor anyone else here has tried to claim that all American soldiers are saints; this movie, however, represents precisely the polar opposite view (all American soldiers are thugs and murderers), which is hardly a view that anyone could call "reasonable". -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 16:09, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
Since this was filmed in Jordan, most likely it's a local ''al-Hussein'' rather than a British Chally. They're got about four hundred of them. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 01:52, 3 April 2012 (CDT)


'''Rockwolf66:''' Well the portrayal of US soldiers as all being the 'Good Guys' is personally insulting to me who have had friends blown up by crazed psychopaths for simply being in what they designate as the wrong place in their own country. And for your information, none of the members have either been identified - let alone prosecuted. And no contact has been made with their families who have only been threatened everytime they try to contact the military authorities. Does that give me a right to put a disclaimer on every film that completely neglects to show the bad side of the US military, or the suffering of the Iraq people under them? Or does such rights to aknowledge insults only apply to frequent members and the moderators here? And conversely, censoring anysort of negative portrayal of the US military is the propoganda the pro-war hate-mongering conservative extremists use. So why are we putting disclaimers on the 'Hippie propoganda' but not the 'Redneck propoganda' propoganda?
== Just a question... ==


'''Moviepropmaster2008:''' No, it is the actions of a few psychopaths within the US military which are giving a cause and aiding and abetting your enemies. This movie is simply highlighting them, which is the universal right of ever media outlet - to tell the truth. It is abhorrent how you seem to be a proponent of censoring thr truth for a political purpose, which would make you no better than those 'Hollywood Liberals' you accuse of soing so. Secondly, it is insulting to someone like me who has had innocent friends blown up by US military air-raids and patrols to completely deny and fail to adequately represent such instances within the media. Since most films do that, I feel this is a necessary counter-weight (despite not having seen the entire film myself). And thirdly, such movies put pressure on the US military to discipline their sldiers and take accountability for their actions, as all their negative actions are shown. Without such movies, soldiers will continue to act with impunity and put Iraqi civilians lives at risk. I would much rather put the lives of 10 US soldiers at risk from (well deserved) revenge attacks after their actions are shown than 10 innocent Iraqi lives at risk from crazed US soldiers taking their frustrations out on innocents because they know it wont be shown in the media. In reality though, it will probably prevent the abuse of closer to 100 Iraqis while only marginally putting a few soldier's lives at risk. Oh, and media has ALWAYS affected world politics from the onset - just like those films portraying US soldiers as the benevolent liberators will increase acceptance of Iraqis to have their nation invaded, and the US military counts as the enemy to many Iraqis, so those films are doing the same.
I have never seen this movie, so I just have one question, why is this movie found to be so offensive? Also, Oliveria above stated that he found Platoon and Casualties of War to be offensive to him as well. Please don't dis on me, I've never seen any of these movies, I'm just curious to know why they are so offensive?--Gunner5


'''MT2008:''' Ok, I take back the term 'Redneck', but I am insulted by the use of the term 'Liberal Hippies'. I am a liberal left-winger, but find the term Hippie insulting as I am a hard-working, well-educated individual who will probably end up earning and contributing to society more than most conservative extremists out there. Is anyone gonna get a warning for using that term?
== Please don't hate me... ==


Take care all, and Peace.
First off, I just want to say that I have all the respect in the world for anyone in the military, and appreciate the sacrifices you make. Second, I have never seen this film so I don't know how negative it is to the military. Now (and I know you've hear d it before) do you all seriously need to bash this film, it isn't real. It is one mans view of war and how he believes it affects people in war. If it offends you, just avoid it, bashing on it doesn't help anyone especially yourself. I'm sorry if it offends you, but seriously, constantly bashing it is really childish and extremely unprofessional for a site like this. This site is for the identification of the firearms used in films, not for your hate mail. Go find a forum if you want to talk shit about this movie or any movie that offends you until the day is out, but don't waste your time here, we don't want it and really don't need it. I apologize again if what I have said offends you, I am not defending or attacking this film, I just think that this is the wrong place to argue about this. I repeat, this is a firearms site, not a pro military-red whit and blue-star spangled banner site.
[[User:Tec-9|Tec-9]] 07:22, 4 June 2011 (CDT)


:''"the universal right of ever media outlet - to tell the truth. It is abhorrent how you seem to be a proponent of censoring thr truth for a political purpose"''
:As I recall, the main issue with this film is that jihadist recruiters show it to people as if it's a documentary. And it's a one-sentence disclaimer, that's hardly constant bashing. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 02:51, 20 January 2015 (EST)


:It's interesting that when a media outlet you agree with (this movie) says what it believes to be the truth, you regard it as a right, but when a media outlet tells a version of the truth you don't agree with (like, say, this website), you immediately try your level best to censor it and allow only the voice you agree with to be heard. I see you go by the classic double standard that "everyone has a right to my own opinion." Also, un-represented? Please, the highest grossing movie of all time was James Cameron's flimsily disguised anti-Iraq movie about the <s>Arabs</s> magic space cats living on top of <s>oil</s> "unobtanium." [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 07:33, 4 June 2011 (CDT)
:: Given that you admitted you haven't seen the movie, don't see how you can judge against people that have, nor how you can claim to state what the film's viewpoint is - I haven't seen the movie either, but I'm not blindly defending against criticism of the film for the sake of it (nor am I blindly bashing it for the sake of it, either) and won't make any such comments as you have. As for it 'not being real', being fictional doesn't make a film's content more (or less) acceptable on its own. Furthermore, I don't recall asking you, let alone appointing you, to inform me or anyone else on here as to what 'we' on this site want. <br>Now, people are perfectly entitled to their own personal opinions, no matter how negative or harsh, to any piece of media we document here. I will grant you are right that this is hardly the most appropriate place to state such opinions, but they do happen from time to time and on a minor level I don't see the problem with that. In regards to this film, the large amount of criticism of the film has already been said to be to some extent inappropriate, and as far as I can tell, it concluded and that was that - Best I can tell, no one has made any further remarks about the film here. Aside from you. I agree with Tim, the main page is still as professional as any on the site (perhaps even more so than some). The single-statement disclaimer is hardly an all-out attack on the film - It was, as stated, the best possible compromise in regard to some members' views of the film, and is perfectly fine with me. In addition, I've seen other disclaimer-type statements on other films, so I don't see this page being anything particularly special. <br> As for your remarks, all I see here is someone bashing on other people without warrant for comments made years ago on a subject you have admitted to know nothing about. I'm not saying you're wrong, but frankly, your ire has long been moot. If all you wanted to do was to take it upon yourself to arbitrarily tell off other people for comments given and decisions made before you even registered on here, that to my mind, is something that is not needed. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 19:20, 20 January 2015 (EST)


==Intro==
== I really feel bad for the technical advisor(s) and armorer(s) on this film ==
 
Many advisors and armorers are ex-military (Harry Humphries and Dale Dye, to name a couple examples), so I can imagine the ones working on this movie probably fought and fought to keep from pounding De Palma's face into mush. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 19:11, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
I noticed that this page doesn't have an intro ("<insert film> is a <insert year> film starring <actor>, <actor> and <actor>.") Why not just incorporate any objections into the intro? --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 15:27, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
 
== Page locked ==
 
I noticed that the Type 56 is under the "Kalashnikov variants". I would not call it a "variant", and I am pretty sure neither would Lieutenant General Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov. And since the page is locked, someone with access should move the AKM and the Type 56 apart. Thx. [[User:Bozitojugg3rn4ut|bozitojugg3rn4ut]] 16:22, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
:I locked it to keep from having to undo someone else's edits. It will be unlocked later. --[[User:Predator20|Predator20]] 17:00, 3 June 2011 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 23:11, 21 May 2017

What the hell, I thought this was a professional encyclopedic site, to hell with this crap. You guys are children who can't handle a fictional film. I'm sick of the bias on this site, when John Wayne flinches it's a "nice touch of realism" when Mel Gibson does it he's a "chump" and "punk," christ, the worst part of being a gun owner is the other gun owners. You guys want to live in some fantasy world where wearing a uniform means you can do no wrong, be my guest.--Toadvine 21:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

GunMaster45 did an excellent job with the disclaimer, since this is such an insulting film to current and former veterans, that many don't even want to acknowledge it's existence. The next ASSHAT who removes or disparages this disclaimer will either get a tonguelashing from me (Especially those who either never served their country in uniform or are from a foreign country) or a ban if they persist. This was the best compromise and it satisfied people who are deeply offended by this film. MoviePropMaster2008 03:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to tell you something MPM, this movie offended me too. So did Platoon and Casualties of War. I'm going to Serve the United States when i start to live there. I completely understand the bullshit Oliver Stone and his buddy De Palma are spitting out. Like i said, they are bullshit. They are horrible movies even if they weren't hippie propaganda. I removed the disclaimer because we have various pro-hippie movies on this site. This movie, along with Platoon and Casualties of War is Fictional. They are Made up bullshit that the AMPAS and other retarded movie "academys" eat up. Besides, who the hell would think we support De Palma and his bullshit crusade pf filmmaking against the US Military? We are historians, gun nuts and conservatives. Anyone with a Brain knows we don't support this crap. Also, just because some people aren't from America, doesn't mean they don't know shit about the United States. A lot of times, people that weren't born in the United States, understand more about American than a lot of Americans themselves. Remember that.-Oliveira 14:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Platoon wasn't so bad, mainly because Stone was there [and decorated for it, in fact] and couldn't bring himself to outright say the guys he'd fought alongside were evil. You want a really and truly, totally insane hippie propaganda, try any of Tom Laughlin's Billy Jack movies or any time someone was stupid enough to let Seagal near a director's chair. Vangelis 15:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
At least those are more pro-peace movies with Kung Fu moves and guns mixed in. Which is insane and totally hipocrital by the way and less Fuck the Troops anarchy bullshit.-Oliveira 15:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Platoon wasn't as offensive since it was based in real life incidents that Stone himself witnessed, plus the overall film wasn't an indictment against the entire U.S. military. It also was filmed some 12-13 years after we pulled out so there was no risk of backlash or violence against OUR forces, something DePalma doesn't realize. Casualties of War was again based on a real life incident and it again was made YEARS after the end of the war. Redacted is NOT, though it is loosely based on an actual incident, but we are still involved in that conflict and it is ridiculously irresponsible to foment hatred and violence against our own people during time of war. These are technically NOT pro hippie movies, or at least guys who are WAY OLDER THAN YOU don't see them that way. This was exceptionally offensive and I HAVE served, not just 'intend to serve when I get old enough' so take it from me. There is a vehement animosity against this film. So speak your peace. I'm glad you intend to serve the U.S. But don't fuck with the disclaimer on this particular movie. MPM20008
You are gonna pull the Age Call, man? Shit. And those movies are hippie bullshit. Code Pink and the Like parade those around like they are goddam masterpieces of truth. and journalism. I ain't gonna fuck with the disclaimer.
Talk to me after you've pulled your DD-214. Your view of Redacted may have changed regarding it's potential to harm and offend. And some Nam Vets were offended back in the 1980s, but I know of NO Vets that are raging against those films (platoon, casualties of war) now. They're so 1980s. And yes, but Code Pink doesn't have a MOVIE on imfdb. :) MPM2008
I hate Platoon and the like because they disperse misinformation. Especially in countries other than America. For Example, Here in Brazil, there are Two types of people that that know about the Vietnam War:

1. They don't know about, Don't know it happened or Doesn't care about. 2. Knows about it.

The ones that know about think shit went down in Vietnam Like in Platoon with War Crimes commited by the US all over the place. Think that ALL US troops were addicted to drugs. Most don't know shit about the South Vietnamise and the Other Foreign armys that fought in the War. If they don't think like that then they are like me, they understand what happened. They are mostly Teachers and historians but there are a few that are young like me that know about stuff.-Oliveira 20:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but come on, every character in Platoon is a US soldier, good or bad. They don't all take drugs. They don't all commit war crimes. You can't blame Stone for what stupid people see in his movie. It's not like, say, Tigerland where the directors outright said the psychotic recruit was the "kind of guy the Army wanted" because he'd be good at killing. Because, you know, a psycho would be perfect for filling out after-action reports or standing in a guard box all day or any of the myriad other duties a soldier has that don't involve shooting everyone he doesn't like, friend or foe. Vangelis 20:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
That's a good argument there, Vangelis. Of course, my Platoon DVD doesn't have the DVD commentary so he may say that shit we see in the Movie was kinda of bullshit. Who knows. I still hate the movie because if i have to Listen to Adagio for Springs again, i'm blowning my fucking head off.-Oliveira 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
And incidentally on what you said about the Billy Jack movies earlier; in The Trial of Billy Jack, Laughlin seriously suggested that the My Lai massacre was ordered by Washington. Say what you like about Stone, at least he lives in approximately the same reality as the rest of us. Vangelis 20:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh....Seriously? I read the Plot of the second Billy Jack movie and i though it was like i said. Equality and Free Love mixed in with Kung Fu and Guns. Now that...that...i...i just don't know.-Oliveira 20:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
http://jabootu.net/?p=647 is Ken Begg sitting through the whole thing. Among other things, Laughlin suggested that, plus that campus shootings during that era were officially endorsed and considered of entire national guard squads firing repeatedly at students, resulting in a scene so ridiculously manipulative it's hard to describe it with a straight face. They shoot a one armed boy. While he's clutching a bunny rabbit and trying to protect his burro.

No, I did not make that up. They might as well have been shown to be commanded by Megatron and Skeletor. Vangelis 21:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
That's....That is....That is just INSANE. Holy Shit. Now Platoon seems Slightly better. Jesus. I'm sure De Palma and the Code Pink assholes would believe that shit.-Oliveira 21:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


I find it funny how you describe "Casualties of War" as "bullshit hippie propaganda" even though it only describes an incident comitted by US troops, told from a US war veteran. I mean, after all you can't deny that there were war crimes in Vietnam, at both sides; and I think one thing the United States is standing for is free speech and free criticizing--WhiteSlift 21:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

when i saw this film in on DVD in the shops i thought it looked like a good action film with guns and explosions like hurt locker. thought that without reading the back. i saw it on TV (on at like 1 in the morning on channel 30-something). i was shocked and couldnt beleive this could be made. the climax-ish part with salazar made me feel physicaly sick. it was horrible. see i liked platoon and it was made after the war had endded. this war is still going on and things like this do occour .--Smish34 21:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is this disclaimer here? Were people calling for this page to be deleted just because they don't like the movie? Who is this disclaimer aimed at? BurtReynoldsMoustache

Casualties of War, but set in Iraq

Hah! Just watched this movie, and realized that it's pretty much Casualties of War but set in Iraq. You've got a normal group of generally un-homicidal soldiers except for a few who are basically Trombley from GK. Then a beloved comrade is killed in an ambush, they basically go homicidal rapist and hunt down the girl and her family as revenge. The big bad army tries to cover up the crime but in the end, justice is served! Yay!

Seriously now, it's way too political. DePalma does basically the exact same thing he did in Casualties of War; suggest that the war is responsible for these soldiers behavior. That's offensive bullshit. People who rape in the military are just like civilians who rape. It's not the army or an unjust war, it's just sickos who would have done it military or not. DePalma's just trying to insert his antiwar message and he shoves it down our throat. And you know what else is hilarious! That ending montage, one of the photos is from the movie. DePalma actually uses a photo from a fictional incident in his movie as "proof" of the heartlessness of the US military. How can he expect anyone to take him seriously after that? -- Crackshot 10:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Intro

I noticed that this page doesn't have an intro ("<insert film> is a <insert year> film starring <actor>, <actor> and <actor>.") Why not just incorporate any objections into the intro? --Funkychinaman 15:27, 3 June 2011 (CDT)

I have added an intro. Laqueesha (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (EST)

Page locked

I noticed that the Type 56 is under the "Kalashnikov variants". I would not call it a "variant", and I am pretty sure neither would Lieutenant General Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov. And since the page is locked, someone with access should move the AKM and the Type 56 apart. Thx. bozitojugg3rn4ut 16:22, 3 June 2011 (CDT)

I locked it to keep from having to undo someone else's edits. It will be unlocked later. --Predator20 17:00, 3 June 2011 (CDT)

Correction needed

The laser module on the second pic of an M4 is a AN/PAQ-4 visible laser. It's too small to be a PEQ-2. Spartan198 23:23, 17 June 2011 (CDT)

Challenger

Since this was filmed in Jordan, most likely it's a local al-Hussein rather than a British Chally. They're got about four hundred of them. Evil Tim 01:52, 3 April 2012 (CDT)

Just a question...

I have never seen this movie, so I just have one question, why is this movie found to be so offensive? Also, Oliveria above stated that he found Platoon and Casualties of War to be offensive to him as well. Please don't dis on me, I've never seen any of these movies, I'm just curious to know why they are so offensive?--Gunner5

Please don't hate me...

First off, I just want to say that I have all the respect in the world for anyone in the military, and appreciate the sacrifices you make. Second, I have never seen this film so I don't know how negative it is to the military. Now (and I know you've hear d it before) do you all seriously need to bash this film, it isn't real. It is one mans view of war and how he believes it affects people in war. If it offends you, just avoid it, bashing on it doesn't help anyone especially yourself. I'm sorry if it offends you, but seriously, constantly bashing it is really childish and extremely unprofessional for a site like this. This site is for the identification of the firearms used in films, not for your hate mail. Go find a forum if you want to talk shit about this movie or any movie that offends you until the day is out, but don't waste your time here, we don't want it and really don't need it. I apologize again if what I have said offends you, I am not defending or attacking this film, I just think that this is the wrong place to argue about this. I repeat, this is a firearms site, not a pro military-red whit and blue-star spangled banner site.

As I recall, the main issue with this film is that jihadist recruiters show it to people as if it's a documentary. And it's a one-sentence disclaimer, that's hardly constant bashing. Evil Tim (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2015 (EST)
Given that you admitted you haven't seen the movie, don't see how you can judge against people that have, nor how you can claim to state what the film's viewpoint is - I haven't seen the movie either, but I'm not blindly defending against criticism of the film for the sake of it (nor am I blindly bashing it for the sake of it, either) and won't make any such comments as you have. As for it 'not being real', being fictional doesn't make a film's content more (or less) acceptable on its own. Furthermore, I don't recall asking you, let alone appointing you, to inform me or anyone else on here as to what 'we' on this site want.
Now, people are perfectly entitled to their own personal opinions, no matter how negative or harsh, to any piece of media we document here. I will grant you are right that this is hardly the most appropriate place to state such opinions, but they do happen from time to time and on a minor level I don't see the problem with that. In regards to this film, the large amount of criticism of the film has already been said to be to some extent inappropriate, and as far as I can tell, it concluded and that was that - Best I can tell, no one has made any further remarks about the film here. Aside from you. I agree with Tim, the main page is still as professional as any on the site (perhaps even more so than some). The single-statement disclaimer is hardly an all-out attack on the film - It was, as stated, the best possible compromise in regard to some members' views of the film, and is perfectly fine with me. In addition, I've seen other disclaimer-type statements on other films, so I don't see this page being anything particularly special.
As for your remarks, all I see here is someone bashing on other people without warrant for comments made years ago on a subject you have admitted to know nothing about. I'm not saying you're wrong, but frankly, your ire has long been moot. If all you wanted to do was to take it upon yourself to arbitrarily tell off other people for comments given and decisions made before you even registered on here, that to my mind, is something that is not needed. StanTheMan (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2015 (EST)

I really feel bad for the technical advisor(s) and armorer(s) on this film

Many advisors and armorers are ex-military (Harry Humphries and Dale Dye, to name a couple examples), so I can imagine the ones working on this movie probably fought and fought to keep from pounding De Palma's face into mush. Spartan198 (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://www.buildlogs.org/index.php?title=Talk:Redacted&oldid=1107801"