| 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:Rambo (2008): Difference between revisions
MarineCorps1 (talk | contribs) (→Final shootout Question: new section) |
Spartan198 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
When Rambo is hit in the shoulder during the final shootout does that round penetrate the chicken plate or ricochet 1 and 2 would that round still have enough force to knock a heavy guy like Sly around the turret and almost off the truck?--[[User:MarineCorps1|MarineCorps1]] ([[User talk:MarineCorps1|talk]]) 11:27, 7 September 2013 (EDT) | When Rambo is hit in the shoulder during the final shootout does that round penetrate the chicken plate or ricochet 1 and 2 would that round still have enough force to knock a heavy guy like Sly around the turret and almost off the truck?--[[User:MarineCorps1|MarineCorps1]] ([[User talk:MarineCorps1|talk]]) 11:27, 7 September 2013 (EDT) | ||
:Actually I think the round whipped past the plating because Rambo had slewed the gun around to fire at a different target by that point. I don't think it was so much the force of the round hitting him causing him to take leave of his feet so much as the shock of being hit combined with maybe going for cover to see how bad the injury was. He sits there for a second or two wincing before he gets back up, but it doesn't look like it hit him very solidly. [[User:Atypicaloracle|Atypicaloracle]] ([[User talk:Atypicaloracle|talk]]) | |||
== alternate ending clip == | |||
Here is the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn187skbynQ alternate ending to First Blood where Rambo dies] (as mentioned in the article). [[User:Dudster32|Dudester32]] ([[User talk:Dudster32|talk]]) 11:00, 17 December 2015 (EST) | |||
== Aiming the .50 at the driver == | |||
Would Rambo even be able to lower the gun far enough for that? Don't those mounts have a mechanical stop built in that expressly prevents the gun being angled low enough to his the crew? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 02:18, 16 July 2020 (EDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 06:18, 16 July 2020
(removed the Acog discussion since Orca94 has already post images of new versions of non-fiber optic band Acogs)
The Tallboy Bomb
I'm well aware that the Avro Lancaster was never deployed to the Pacific Theater of Operations; a large force of Lancasters were intended to be sent to Okinawa to support the proposed invasion of Japan, but the war ended before this took place. My main concern with the Tallboy depicted in this film is related with its design and its intended use.
The Tallboy was intended to be used to destroy the thick concrete U-Boat pens in occupied France, which conventional iron bombs were incapable of penetrating. The aerodynamic design of the Tallboy, coupled with its massive bulk and twisted fins (which made it spin like a bullet when dropped) ensured that it could easily smash through concrete or steel; three Tallboys sank the German battleship Tirpitz.
A Tallboy dropped onto a target in the jungles of Burma would likely have punched several feet into the earth (even if it did not explode) and would be entirely buried sixty years later. I don't think it would be lodged on the surface to be conveniently employed by the film's protagonist in the present day. However, writers and directors are entitled to a bit of artistic license and the Tallboy detonation was a neat effect.
- And any viewer with knowledge of WW2 history that covered the Tallboy would have been thinking the SAME THING. What you are posting is kinda obvious to people with the same knowledge base. I am not sure what your point is. MoviePropMaster2008 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- And any viewer who did not have knowledge of World War II history that included the Tallboy would not have been thinking any such thing, other than wondering "What is with that big bomb?" I don't see what the point is in showing hostility towards someone inoffensively sharing some trivia regarding an unexploded bomb in a movie. Atypicaloracle
- Try reading it again with your happy voice :) The OP didn't see it as hostile, nor did I when I wrote it. I was just curious in that the OP was talking to the rest of us who worked on the page (and thus DID have the same knowledge of WW2 events), so it was a bit perplexing what that entire 'pronouncement' was all about. It was more of a "so? and did we do something wrong? or is this just an announcement of some kind?" If you want, I can retype it with a lot of happy faces :) MoviePropMaster2008 02:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- And any viewer who did not have knowledge of World War II history that included the Tallboy would not have been thinking any such thing, other than wondering "What is with that big bomb?" I don't see what the point is in showing hostility towards someone inoffensively sharing some trivia regarding an unexploded bomb in a movie. Atypicaloracle
- And any viewer with knowledge of WW2 history that covered the Tallboy would have been thinking the SAME THING. What you are posting is kinda obvious to people with the same knowledge base. I am not sure what your point is. MoviePropMaster2008 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- You're quite right. The Tallboy was an "earth quake bomb" designed to explode deep underground. Any Tallboy dropped that failed to go off would be buried under earth about 20 m deep. Also experiments were done to convert a B-29 to carry 2 Tallboy's! But only dummy's were used and no Tallboy's were ever deployed in the pacific theater. Pravda616
- The tailcone of the pictured bomb doesn't look right for a Tallboy, it looks like they either based it on the Grand Slam (5 feet longer than the Tallboy but almost twice the weight) or the even bigger T12. As far as I'm aware B-29s did drop British Earthquake bombs in Europe, but there's no record of any Tallboy or Grand Slam ever even being in the Pacific theatre, let alone being dropped there in combat and being lost, though the USAAF did drop thirty guided Tallboys (ASM-A-1 Tarzon) on North Korea, 1950-51. But the Tarzon was more known for exploding when you didn't want it to than not exploding when you did, and North Korea isn't Burma. Evil Tim 04:43, 29 June 2011 (CDT)
Rambo's M2 Browning
From the trivia section about the M2 Browning machinegun used by Rambo it sounds as if they were live firing the gun during filming. Is this the case or am I misunderstanding the writing for I know live fire is used on rare ocassion in films, however I have never heard of a production doing so with a heavy machinegun. -Anonymous
- No. No live fire is ever allowed on a movie set. I didn't write that. GM45 wrote that, and though I have never heard that trivia note, GM45 would never make that stuff up. He must have heard it somewhere. However, it may not be necessary to the article. The paragraph may be poorly written or the info came from the DVD commentary, and lots of times the guys talking aren't the actual armorers so they use phrases that the rest of us would not. I have wondered about that too, and the only thing I can think of is that the blanks still have to cycle the action and barrel of the 50 cal, and the vibration of the cycling 'must' be stressful to whatever the gun is mounted to. I figure that even blanks will create such a massive 'back and forth' movement within the gun that a mount that is just bolted to the sheet metal of a truck bed will eventually rip out. Stallone fires so much ammo out of the gun that he must have fired thousands of rounds in production. Just a thought. MoviePropMaster2008 05:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks for clearing that up. As for what you said about live fire never being used on movie sets, Phoenixent once told me that prior to the 1950's it was not all that uncommon for live fire to be used under controlled conditions being as certain guns could not be blank adapted at the time. In addition, movies like Face/Off integrate footage of live gunfire into the film even if the guns are not actually fired on set. With regards to Rambo (2008) I thought that they might possibly have taken Stallone and the M2 to a firing range, filmed him shooting live rounds, and then cut that footage into the movie though after reading your explination I doubt that is what they actually did, -Anonymous
- Yes, things were very unsafe over half a century ago. Of course it would be silly to apply those workplace standards now. :) The rights and safety of actors and extras was not priority back then. During a silent movie epic about Biblical times (either RKO or MGM) killed outright dozens of extras when they flooded the movie set with millions of gallons of water to re-create the biblical flood .... without warning ANY of the actors. I found it unbelievable that non of the big movie mogul bosses were ever charged, nor did anyone ever go to jail, nor were reparations paid to the families of those who were killed. But it was a different time. Consider those 'the olden days'. PhoenixEnt may recollect the details of that particular Hollywood tragedy, but I can't. Anyway, in modern day sets, NO LIVE AMMO will ever be tolerated. Not by the Unions, not by the Corporations, and especially not by the Insurance Underwriters. That will shut down a movie set pronto (unless it's a safely done 2nd unit shot or a renegade production in another country). MoviePropMaster2008 19:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- If it wasn't the guns cycling that ripped the gun off the truck bed, it might have been how violently Sly was pulling on it as he was firing, he was dramatically yanking the gun most of the time. - Gunmaster45
- Yes, things were very unsafe over half a century ago. Of course it would be silly to apply those workplace standards now. :) The rights and safety of actors and extras was not priority back then. During a silent movie epic about Biblical times (either RKO or MGM) killed outright dozens of extras when they flooded the movie set with millions of gallons of water to re-create the biblical flood .... without warning ANY of the actors. I found it unbelievable that non of the big movie mogul bosses were ever charged, nor did anyone ever go to jail, nor were reparations paid to the families of those who were killed. But it was a different time. Consider those 'the olden days'. PhoenixEnt may recollect the details of that particular Hollywood tragedy, but I can't. Anyway, in modern day sets, NO LIVE AMMO will ever be tolerated. Not by the Unions, not by the Corporations, and especially not by the Insurance Underwriters. That will shut down a movie set pronto (unless it's a safely done 2nd unit shot or a renegade production in another country). MoviePropMaster2008 19:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks for clearing that up. As for what you said about live fire never being used on movie sets, Phoenixent once told me that prior to the 1950's it was not all that uncommon for live fire to be used under controlled conditions being as certain guns could not be blank adapted at the time. In addition, movies like Face/Off integrate footage of live gunfire into the film even if the guns are not actually fired on set. With regards to Rambo (2008) I thought that they might possibly have taken Stallone and the M2 to a firing range, filmed him shooting live rounds, and then cut that footage into the movie though after reading your explination I doubt that is what they actually did, -Anonymous
- No. No live fire is ever allowed on a movie set. I didn't write that. GM45 wrote that, and though I have never heard that trivia note, GM45 would never make that stuff up. He must have heard it somewhere. However, it may not be necessary to the article. The paragraph may be poorly written or the info came from the DVD commentary, and lots of times the guys talking aren't the actual armorers so they use phrases that the rest of us would not. I have wondered about that too, and the only thing I can think of is that the blanks still have to cycle the action and barrel of the 50 cal, and the vibration of the cycling 'must' be stressful to whatever the gun is mounted to. I figure that even blanks will create such a massive 'back and forth' movement within the gun that a mount that is just bolted to the sheet metal of a truck bed will eventually rip out. Stallone fires so much ammo out of the gun that he must have fired thousands of rounds in production. Just a thought. MoviePropMaster2008 05:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Reese's M203
Could this be the same Gun used in Transformers by Tyrese Gibson?
It's the same M4 with the Camo Paint and Sight attached to the Carry handle.
I attend to agree in this, after a close examination of the screencap in the main page. --Dangerman 1973 17:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)--
Here's the two for comparison:
From Rambo (2008)
From Transformers (2007)
--Dangerman 1973 17:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)--
- It depends on which armory supplied the weapons for each film. But yes, it is definitely possible (perhaps even likely) that they're the same gun. Guns get reused on different shows all the time, as the armories always rent them out to many, many productions over a long period. -MT2008 17:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good. Eventually I may be able to track down the gun in whosever inventory it sits and photograph it. :) I will put it on my list. --MoviePropMaster2008 20:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the Brit's Mossberg is the same from Transformers, so maybe its the same armorer. -The Winchester
- Looks good. Eventually I may be able to track down the gun in whosever inventory it sits and photograph it. :) I will put it on my list. --MoviePropMaster2008 20:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, if you look at the credits, both movies had different armorers. But that doesn't mean that the armorers couldn't have rented the guns from the same armory (prop house), and thus the weapon could still be the same one. -MT2008
- I don't know what this counts for, but if you look closely, there are a few differences in the camouflaging. For example, the M203 barrel and carry handle on Reese's M4 has small bits of unpainted areas that are painted over on Tyrese's. However it's possible the paint was worn off somehow during the filming of Rambo. Spartan198 19:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, this is kinda late, but I was able to confirm (via one of my contacts in the business) that the M4/M203 used in this movie is indeed the same one from Transformers (actually, it was one gun in a batch of identically-configured weapons built for Tyrese Gibson to use on that show). The differences in the camouflage paint is due to wear from use on Transformers; the paint had to be re-done for Rambo, and so it doesn't look exactly the same. I added this information to the page itself, but forgot to mention it here first.
- Also, my source tells me that the ACOG scope is not an airsoft replica. He said they tried the airsoft ACOGs on other movies, and they break too easily. The ACOG used on this M4 is a real one that has been gutted of its internals. -MT2008 13:10, 29 June 2011 (CDT)
Arrows
What kind of arrows does he use?
- You're kidding, right?
Ahhhh hahahahah! Gunner313
lol Spartan198 16:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The bow
The page for this movie incorrectly identifies the bow Rambo uses to fish as a compound bow. Rambo actually uses two bows in this film. The fishing bow with a reel attached is a longbow. From the photo provided it's difficult to see but in the film it's obvious that there are no cam wheels on the bow. The bow he uses later is the same custom Hoyt compound bow he used in Rambo Part II. It may be the same in Part III as well, only with the on-board quiver removed.
- Go ahead and update that info. I wasn't the one who created the "bow" entry, so if it is incorrect, then by all means please put in the correct information. thanks. MoviePropMaster2008 23:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Never mind, scratch my previous comment here. Anyway, bow entries separated and named appropriately. ;) Spartan198 (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
M1 Carbine.
The kid with the guide has what I think is an M1 carbine with a 30 round mag and some kind of underfolding stock. Any screenshots?--153.106.4.94 23:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Jake
Rambo's Machete
Unless I'm misreading the description, the info you have about Sly making the knife himself is wrong. The Knife was once again made by Gil Hibben, you can read the full story here http://www.hibbenknives.com/JRDev.htm
- I didn't write that. GM45 did and I cannot vouch for any info I didn't put on the page. If you have contrary information, please edit the page to reflect the new info. Thanks. MoviePropMaster2008 00:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- From what i know, which includes info from the DVD's extras plus many detailed interviews with Stallone, Stallone made the blade of the machete on a forge. He went through nearly a dozen heat proof gloves as the metal used needed to be that hot to make it workable and he did'nt have time to let it cool. The knife master on the film, Gil Hibbon, designed it and produced the prototypes and more than likely finished off the work started by Stallone to the finished model we see in the film.--The Mercenary 17:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't write that. GM45 did and I cannot vouch for any info I didn't put on the page. If you have contrary information, please edit the page to reflect the new info. Thanks. MoviePropMaster2008 00:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
In the DVD special features sly talks about making the knife himself, and the director I think talks about him slaving away at it over night. The reason he made the knife is because the knife he still had from the Rambo 2 was lost when they filmed the scene in which he threw it onto the burning boat
Schoolboy's Combat Knife
I'm just wondering what kind of knife Schoolboy had when he killed the guy in the watch tower. You get a good view of it before he goes up the rest of the way.
Any idea?
Its supposed to be Rambo's knife from Part II, although there is a deleted scene were Rambo throws his knife onto the burning pirate boat. As far as i know for certain, no-one has spoken about the knife Schoolboy uses nor has there been any articles written. All the scenes were Schoolboy uses his knife are set at night so identifying has proved difficult, though i think i can just make out what seems like a knuckle guard on the grip.--The Mercenary 15:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
In the DVD special features it shows that they actually lost the knife from first blood part two when filming the aforementioned boat scene, and that silvester himself then built the golock he uses throughout the film as he no longer had a knife. I would find it unlikely that they would have a knife of the same model sitting around, or they could have just used that. Having said that however the knife does look somewhat similar, it's been a while since I've seen the film but i remember his knife being smaller than rambos
Question
Is it just me or did Rambo fire 10 shots from his 1911s 7 round clip?
- You mean magazine?
1911's can hold 8 in the mag and one in the pipe...so maybe it was 9.--Spades of Columbia 12:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Explains that.
- I counted six. And if I ain't mistaken, the M1911 holds 7 rounds +1 in the chamber. 67.187.27.89 01:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
You're half mistaken. They have 8-round mags. That equates to 8+1. Hell, they have 15 round mags. -SasquatchJim.
Not the correct you sasquatch but i own a M1911 similar to Rambo's. the regular 1911 as most of us know hold 7+1. its the more modern variants like Kimber or Nighthawk that hold 8+1. and although a movie i doubt he keeps a round in the chamber with a 1911 which i find very unsafe, and 2. im sure if its his personal 1911 hes had it for a while and doesnt reload it everyday so its possible that the 6 or 7 in the gun was it.
It's fine. However, I wasn't really saying that Rambo's gun in particular will hold 8. The guy before me just said that the M1911 holds 7 rounds. I simply meant that there ARE 1911s that hold 8.
ALL 1911's will hold a 8rd mag, it has nothing to do with when the gun was made it all comes down to how the mags spring was cut. Kimber and Nighthawk have nothing to do with it because I can take the 8rd out of my kimber and put it into my springfield then put it into a colt with the same effects...and YES rambo carries one in the chamber because he draws the gun and fires, he never racks the slide before he kill everyone. So Obviously Mr.Anonymous know very little about guns and even less about action movies.--Spades of Columbia 00:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
First off I do know a lot about guns and about action movies. Second Yes I do relize he had one in the chamber. Third, I wanted to know how many rounds did he fire.
I don't find anything un-safe about carrying a 1911 with a round chambered as long as the safety is on. In fact condition one will be something that Rambo was taught as he was Special Forces in Vietnam. The only way keeping a 1911 with a round chambered is if you're dumb enough to not engage the safety. --cool-breeze 11:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Moved from main page. --Ben41 04:13, 29 June 2011 (CDT)
Mortar
I really don't think the mortar on this page is an M29, but I haven't had much luck figuring out what it might be instead. Compare:
I can't find any images of an M29 with a smooth tube like that, and the visible part of the stand doesn't look right either. Evil Tim 07:23, 29 June 2011 (CDT)
M82CQ?
The page says the Barrett is an M82CQ, but in one of the images here the barrel looks a fair bit longer. Compare:
Is it just a trick of perspective, or does this one have a slightly longer barrel than the one pictured as the reference image? Evil Tim 23:45, 4 July 2011 (CDT)
- Don't look at me. Even though I built the page, that ID belongs to GM45. :D I cheerfully confer your questions to him. :D I really don't have anything to contribute on that matter since I have not researched the variants of the Barretts like others have. MoviePropMaster2008 01:07, 5 July 2011 (CDT)
They talk about the Barrett in great detail on the special features on the DVD. Might be a few better shots of it there. --cool-breeze 06:30, 5 July 2011 (CDT)
It does look slightly longer. The barrel also doesn't have the fluting that the CQ's barrel does. I'm guessing it was a full-size Barrett that was just chopped down. Spartan198 (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2013 (EST)
I have to say
This is probably THE most graphically violent movie I've ever seen. The sheer brutality of the Burmese Army raid on the village even makes ME cringe. Spartan198 (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2013 (EST)
Final shootout Question
When Rambo is hit in the shoulder during the final shootout does that round penetrate the chicken plate or ricochet 1 and 2 would that round still have enough force to knock a heavy guy like Sly around the turret and almost off the truck?--MarineCorps1 (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2013 (EDT)
- Actually I think the round whipped past the plating because Rambo had slewed the gun around to fire at a different target by that point. I don't think it was so much the force of the round hitting him causing him to take leave of his feet so much as the shock of being hit combined with maybe going for cover to see how bad the injury was. He sits there for a second or two wincing before he gets back up, but it doesn't look like it hit him very solidly. Atypicaloracle (talk)
alternate ending clip
Here is the alternate ending to First Blood where Rambo dies (as mentioned in the article). Dudester32 (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2015 (EST)
Aiming the .50 at the driver
Would Rambo even be able to lower the gun far enough for that? Don't those mounts have a mechanical stop built in that expressly prevents the gun being angled low enough to his the crew? Spartan198 (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2020 (EDT)