| 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:Speed: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Gunmaster45 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
StanTheMan (talk | contribs) |
||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==Detonator?== | ==Detonator?== | ||
Someone added the detonator as a weapon in the film. Not to cut it down but detonators aren't firearms and even though we don't always stick to firearms only (grenades, etc.), no companies really produce detonators and slap their name on them. Imagine "Heckler & Koch Detonator". XD. - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]] | Someone added the detonator as a weapon in the film. Not to cut it down but detonators aren't firearms and even though we don't always stick to firearms only (grenades, etc.), no companies really produce detonators and slap their name on them. Imagine "Heckler & Koch Detonator". XD. - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]] | ||
==The SP89== | |||
:That's odd...what was LMO selling about 5 years ago, then? They said it was the gun from this movie; had it been re-converted and they sold it? Also, who were the armorers on this movie? | |||
::Yeah, notice that the armorers aren't even listed? We don't get no respect. The Craft services girl gets a credit and we don't. I will check with Syd when I get a chance. During the filming of this movie I saw the Nickel plated SP89 (mocked up to be an MP5K, primarily because they didn't want to screw up a REAL MP5K and also the SP89 has a full metal lower receiver and since you can't nickel plate the plastic lower trigger assembly of the real MP5K, the SP89 was the gun to be 'customized'). I asked Syd directly what this nickel plated "fake MP5K" was all about and he said that Jan De Bont really wanted the gun to be nickel plated and that 20th Century fox was willing to '''pay''' for the cost of nickel plating the guns and then the full cost of reconverting them back to original condition as well as a 'special handling fee' and the standard armorer and weapons rentals fees. I didn't see the gun after that, so it was assumed that the gun was converted back being that FOX paid for it. If Stembridge didn't reconvert it, then they still had the right to charge 20th Century Fox for the cost, since they would have it financially covered if they had to, in the future. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 23:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:You guys should riot. "You damn liberals don't get any of our guns until we get the credit we deserve." I'm glad to see I made the right call and said it was nickel plated. A lot of people said it was chrome plated. Was there any reason why Jan De Bont wanted this gun nickel other then to be a pain in the ass? It's a shame the gun was reconverted back, it'd be cool if we could have at least had a picture of it. Thanks for your knowledge MPM, it always helps. - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]] | |||
::I saw the gun once in 1994, but all my info is just from casual conversation at the time. :) Satin nickel looks WAY better than chrome and the cinematographers HATE chrome, because you can see the mirror image of the camera crew if it's too shiny. ;) [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 02:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Yeah, it is kinda stupid to me that armorers don't get credited, especially in movies like this. Think how important guns are to movies like this...if a movie didn't have guns, it couldn't really have exciting action. I don't see why armorers are considered so unimportant by the people who make up the credits. I've seen movies that had dozens of weapons, and then I go to IMDB or Yahoo Movies and see that they don't list any armorers (even though I know there must have been some). Stupid...I agree with GM. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 01:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Actually it appears that one of the armorers that was closer to the movie than I was, corrected my info :). which is good. Ellis Mercantile did provide tons of guns for movies in the 1980s and 1990s. I just know that the production was charged the cost of conversion and reconversion BACK to factory original .... I don't want to create any controversy here ;) But if they decided NOT to reconvert the gun (and still took the $$) it's their right to do so. I assumed that Long Mountain Outfitters bought all their guns from Stembridge. If this was an Ellis gun, then they bought from Ellis as well? I just know that when I started in the 1980s, there were 35-50 armorers and at least a dozen weapons rental places in California. Now you can count them on 1 perhaps 2 hands ...The Anti gunners have wiped out most of them. But don't get me ranting on that bit of political history :( [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 02:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::Yeah, LMO handled the sale of the Ellis Mercantile's assets back in 1999-2000. Phoenixent just posted the link to the list of guns that LMO sold from the Ellis inventory, here: http://www.longmountain.com/movieguns/ellisgunlist And I appreciate fully how much it sucks to be an armorer in California these days. I imagine the worst part must be watching all of the productions that are filmed in Canada, and the armorer jobs going to guys like Frenchie Berger. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 02:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:: In California we have 20 to 30 Armorers but only about 5 gunsmiths in the industry myself being one of those 5. Also we are down to 3 armories right now with the closing of Gibbons Ltd in 2008. -[[User:Phoenixent|Phoenixent]] | |||
''the closing of Gibbons Ltd in 2008.'' | |||
::::Say '''what'''? I never heard about that! -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 03:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:: Yeah said to say Gibbons closed. He sold out to another armory in the fall 2008. There are only 2 large armories left and one medium size in LA. I finished some items for Gibbons to use in [[Public Enemies]] and that was their last major show. -[[User:Phoenixent|Phoenixent]] | |||
== Smith & Wesson 6904 == | |||
Is this 6904 really an "older model"? It seems to have the rounded trigger guard. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] | |||
:The 6904 was bought new in 1994 and I converted it to blanks for the movie Speed. It did have a rounded trigger guard and came with a Novak style rear sight which denotes it as a later model. -[[User:Phoenixent|Steve]] | |||
:: Text on the page still seems to note it as an older-model - I've changed it. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 19:46, 9 November 2014 (EST) | |||
==The Mossberg== | |||
It appears to have the flatter tube cap which makes me think it's actually a 500 instead of a 590. That and the page for ''[[Virtuosity#Mossberg_500_Mariner|Virtuosity]]'' states it has what is likely to be the same gun (and it does seem so), and it's clearly a 500 in the screencap provided there. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 18:29, 11 January 2014 (EST) | |||
: EDIT - It seems the weapon was originally listed as a 500 but changed to a 590 by [[User:Ben41|Ben]], anyway, is it a correct edit? Would be nice if we could get Phoenixent on here to confirm for us. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 18:34, 11 January 2014 (EST) | |||
::Years ago, we talked about this on the forum, and I remember him saying it was a 500. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] ([[User talk:MT2008|talk]]) 18:56, 11 January 2014 (EST) | |||
::: Seems Ben has changed it back, so I guess thats that. Very good. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 16:48, 12 January 2014 (EST) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:46, 10 November 2014
These are prety low res and I don't think these are screenshots from this user. Maybe taken from another site? If so, does it sound alright if I re-did this page, since I bought Speed, unaware it had been filled out. Also, I know mine will come out higher res than these shots. -GM
- Anyone? At all? -GM
You can just go ahead and redo it, some of these users upload screenshots, and then just disappear. No one should mind if you replace the screenshots, especially when they're higher quality.--Alienqueen11 02:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Detonator?
Someone added the detonator as a weapon in the film. Not to cut it down but detonators aren't firearms and even though we don't always stick to firearms only (grenades, etc.), no companies really produce detonators and slap their name on them. Imagine "Heckler & Koch Detonator". XD. - Gunmaster45
The SP89
- That's odd...what was LMO selling about 5 years ago, then? They said it was the gun from this movie; had it been re-converted and they sold it? Also, who were the armorers on this movie?
- Yeah, notice that the armorers aren't even listed? We don't get no respect. The Craft services girl gets a credit and we don't. I will check with Syd when I get a chance. During the filming of this movie I saw the Nickel plated SP89 (mocked up to be an MP5K, primarily because they didn't want to screw up a REAL MP5K and also the SP89 has a full metal lower receiver and since you can't nickel plate the plastic lower trigger assembly of the real MP5K, the SP89 was the gun to be 'customized'). I asked Syd directly what this nickel plated "fake MP5K" was all about and he said that Jan De Bont really wanted the gun to be nickel plated and that 20th Century fox was willing to pay for the cost of nickel plating the guns and then the full cost of reconverting them back to original condition as well as a 'special handling fee' and the standard armorer and weapons rentals fees. I didn't see the gun after that, so it was assumed that the gun was converted back being that FOX paid for it. If Stembridge didn't reconvert it, then they still had the right to charge 20th Century Fox for the cost, since they would have it financially covered if they had to, in the future. MoviePropMaster2008 23:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- You guys should riot. "You damn liberals don't get any of our guns until we get the credit we deserve." I'm glad to see I made the right call and said it was nickel plated. A lot of people said it was chrome plated. Was there any reason why Jan De Bont wanted this gun nickel other then to be a pain in the ass? It's a shame the gun was reconverted back, it'd be cool if we could have at least had a picture of it. Thanks for your knowledge MPM, it always helps. - Gunmaster45
- I saw the gun once in 1994, but all my info is just from casual conversation at the time. :) Satin nickel looks WAY better than chrome and the cinematographers HATE chrome, because you can see the mirror image of the camera crew if it's too shiny. ;) MoviePropMaster2008 02:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is kinda stupid to me that armorers don't get credited, especially in movies like this. Think how important guns are to movies like this...if a movie didn't have guns, it couldn't really have exciting action. I don't see why armorers are considered so unimportant by the people who make up the credits. I've seen movies that had dozens of weapons, and then I go to IMDB or Yahoo Movies and see that they don't list any armorers (even though I know there must have been some). Stupid...I agree with GM. -MT2008 01:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually it appears that one of the armorers that was closer to the movie than I was, corrected my info :). which is good. Ellis Mercantile did provide tons of guns for movies in the 1980s and 1990s. I just know that the production was charged the cost of conversion and reconversion BACK to factory original .... I don't want to create any controversy here ;) But if they decided NOT to reconvert the gun (and still took the $$) it's their right to do so. I assumed that Long Mountain Outfitters bought all their guns from Stembridge. If this was an Ellis gun, then they bought from Ellis as well? I just know that when I started in the 1980s, there were 35-50 armorers and at least a dozen weapons rental places in California. Now you can count them on 1 perhaps 2 hands ...The Anti gunners have wiped out most of them. But don't get me ranting on that bit of political history :( MoviePropMaster2008 02:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, LMO handled the sale of the Ellis Mercantile's assets back in 1999-2000. Phoenixent just posted the link to the list of guns that LMO sold from the Ellis inventory, here: http://www.longmountain.com/movieguns/ellisgunlist And I appreciate fully how much it sucks to be an armorer in California these days. I imagine the worst part must be watching all of the productions that are filmed in Canada, and the armorer jobs going to guys like Frenchie Berger. -MT2008 02:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- In California we have 20 to 30 Armorers but only about 5 gunsmiths in the industry myself being one of those 5. Also we are down to 3 armories right now with the closing of Gibbons Ltd in 2008. -Phoenixent
the closing of Gibbons Ltd in 2008.
- Say what? I never heard about that! -MT2008 03:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah said to say Gibbons closed. He sold out to another armory in the fall 2008. There are only 2 large armories left and one medium size in LA. I finished some items for Gibbons to use in Public Enemies and that was their last major show. -Phoenixent
Smith & Wesson 6904
Is this 6904 really an "older model"? It seems to have the rounded trigger guard. -MT2008
- The 6904 was bought new in 1994 and I converted it to blanks for the movie Speed. It did have a rounded trigger guard and came with a Novak style rear sight which denotes it as a later model. -Steve
- Text on the page still seems to note it as an older-model - I've changed it. StanTheMan (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2014 (EST)
The Mossberg
It appears to have the flatter tube cap which makes me think it's actually a 500 instead of a 590. That and the page for Virtuosity states it has what is likely to be the same gun (and it does seem so), and it's clearly a 500 in the screencap provided there. StanTheMan (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2014 (EST)
- EDIT - It seems the weapon was originally listed as a 500 but changed to a 590 by Ben, anyway, is it a correct edit? Would be nice if we could get Phoenixent on here to confirm for us. StanTheMan (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2014 (EST)
- Years ago, we talked about this on the forum, and I remember him saying it was a 500. -MT2008 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2014 (EST)
- Seems Ben has changed it back, so I guess thats that. Very good. StanTheMan (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2014 (EST)
- Years ago, we talked about this on the forum, and I remember him saying it was a 500. -MT2008 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2014 (EST)