| 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:Terminator 2: Judgment Day: Difference between revisions
Rockwolf66 (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
I don't mean to criticize the person who "counted" the rotations, but unfortunately that doesn't work. I'm not going to get into details, especially because I wouldn't be able to give the explanation that a physicist would, but it has to do with the frames per second that the camera films at and the way that eyes relate information to the brain...its the same way that a wheel or helicopter blade might appear to be spinning backwards, at an incorrect speed, or not at all. For example say the frame rate is 30 frames per second it essentially takes 1 "picture" every 30th of a second, since the barrels are all uniform if any of the six barrels are in the exact same place a 30th of a second later then in the next "picture" the barrels will look exactly the same as in the first, string a bunch of these together in a video and the barrels will look stationary, or if one of the barrels is at a slightly different position in the rotation in the next shot the barrels might look like they're spinning slowly or backwards. Sorry, that was a really long explanation. -[[User:SoldierofUnfortune|SoldierofUnfortune]] | I don't mean to criticize the person who "counted" the rotations, but unfortunately that doesn't work. I'm not going to get into details, especially because I wouldn't be able to give the explanation that a physicist would, but it has to do with the frames per second that the camera films at and the way that eyes relate information to the brain...its the same way that a wheel or helicopter blade might appear to be spinning backwards, at an incorrect speed, or not at all. For example say the frame rate is 30 frames per second it essentially takes 1 "picture" every 30th of a second, since the barrels are all uniform if any of the six barrels are in the exact same place a 30th of a second later then in the next "picture" the barrels will look exactly the same as in the first, string a bunch of these together in a video and the barrels will look stationary, or if one of the barrels is at a slightly different position in the rotation in the next shot the barrels might look like they're spinning slowly or backwards. Sorry, that was a really long explanation. -[[User:SoldierofUnfortune|SoldierofUnfortune]] | ||
:Also, I just had a quick question, I remember reading or maybe hearing in special features, that in Predator when the M134 was fired, whoever was firing it had to wear some sort of protection from the spent shells, I figured the same was true for Terminator 2, but in the picture of the special features James Cameron is in Jeans and a T-Shirt. Were there any modifications that negated the need for some sort of protection or am I just mistaken that they needed any in Predator? -[[User:SoldierofUnfortune|SoldierofUnfortune]] | :Also, I just had a quick question, I remember reading or maybe hearing in special features, that in Predator when the M134 was fired, whoever was firing it had to wear some sort of protection from the spent shells, I figured the same was true for Terminator 2, but in the picture of the special features James Cameron is in Jeans and a T-Shirt. Were there any modifications that negated the need for some sort of protection or am I just mistaken that they needed any in Predator? -[[User:SoldierofUnfortune|SoldierofUnfortune]] | ||
I've currently got someone who is trying to get more information about the weapon in Question from Dan Shea. He's the guy who sold off alot of the Stembridge guns and might, and I do mean might, currently own the weapon in Question. As far as safty concerns when fireing a minigun. In the experiance of myself and friends in the Class 3 community with a full 6,000rpm minigun all you need is standard ear and eye protection when shooting such a weapon. As far as the film crew goes as they are usually in the path of the muzzle blast from such a weapon they do have to take stronger precations than usual. | |||
==Technically== | ==Technically== | ||
Revision as of 03:12, 3 November 2009
Eventually I will give this page the revamp it deserves. I'll remove my terrible widescreen shots and make this page full. I promise. -GM
- Doing it now :) - Gunmaster45
Finished. But I'm going to add a lot more fun stuff and devote a whole section to Stan Winston, in honor of his passing (since I have just about every movie his animatronics are in, you guys will see shots from those movies here). - Gunmaster45
- I would really prefer if you didn't. Not that I don't respect Winston (having grown up a Jurassic Park fan), but this is IMFDB. Remember, we need to be somewhat careful about how many images and other stuff we upload. -MT2008 18:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well I gave it a try. I think of it as info like MPM adds to his page, similair to the Rambo III page. I tried to keep the Winston section small but heartfelt. How does everything look now that it is done. - Gunmaster45
Handheld Minigun
It's been a while since I saw the Shotgun News article where they sold the handheld Minigun but I do belive that the Minigun was geared down to a very low 1,250 round per minut rate of fire. I'm going to ask a friend in the class 3 community to confirm that with one of the people who owned the Predator.T2 minigun. Rockwolf66 07:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you can find more info on that it would be much appreciated - Gunmaster45
Who cares what an article says? The gun is firing so slow you can see the barrel cluster rotating clearly with no motion blur on camera or anything. It's not hard to count the revolutions the barrel cluster makes with the film in slow motion and use some simple math to deduce that the weapon is only firing about 240 rounds per minute. The special features in T2 even claim that the weapon is capable of firing more than "600 RPM" and that's a direct quote. The weapon may have been firing at 1250 RPM in Predator where you can see Jesse visibly wincing while firing it, but it was slowed WAY down in T2 so that the Terminator could fire it with no reaction whatsoever.
- Frankly it can't be fireing as slow as you said 240 RPM is the rate of fire you find with Semi-automatic weapons.For a full fledged Machinegun it's a rediculous rate of fire. The article was from back when Stembridge went into Liquidation and were selling all there movie guns. Thus it confirms the last known configuration and abilities of that specific minigun. Thus it trumps some uninformed idiot just guessing at something they obviously know nothing about. Your use of the term "Real Steel" Indicates that you are just some Airsofter who rarely if ever deals with real weapons.Rockwolf66 16:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
An article about the gun almost a decade after the movie is released beats empirical evidence? Since when has that ever been a reasonable stance? Why don't you actually watch the movie and see how ridiculously slow the barrels are turning. Then try and tell me that they are spinning at 200+ revolutions per minute, or 3+ per second, which would be what is necessary to achieve that fire rate. Is the gun really making three revolutions per second? You can look visually and tell that it isn't, even without a stop watch.
You could also apply common sense. The gun is obviously firing much faster in Predator than in Terminator 2. So if the gun in T2 is firing 1250 rounds per minute, then how fast must it be firing in Predator? Why is it that Jesse Ventura is almost winching in pain from firing the thing and Arnold has no problem at all?
Let's try using our brain next time before we start insulting random people and posting blatant lies based on a joke someone made on the Terminator Salvation page. For the record I have fired a few machine guns in my time, along with grenade launchers, shotguns, pistols and rifles and even the odd paintball gun. I've never touched an Airsoft weapon though. Nice try. It totally drives your point home when you label someone an "Airsofter" "idiot" "guesser" who "knows nothing" and "rarely if ever deals with real weapons." Next time attack my argument instead of me, and you might make a more convincing case, particularly when the guy you are talking smack about is in charge of an armory. :)
You are makeing claims about weapons that are so blatantly false that guys who have worked on the specific weapon in question laugh. The "information" you post is so inaccurate that they think I'm jokeing at first. While we do not have current access to the T2/Predator minigun I do have a line of contact with the technical advisor to Predator and Dan Shea who liquidated the Stembridge armory back durring the mid 1990s. Dan Shea was the guy who wrote the article stating the rate of fire for the Predator/T2 minigun in it's last known configuration. Given that Stembridge went under shortly after Terminator 2 it's safe to say that the weapon was fireing at 1,250 RPM durring Terminator 2. Not the rediculously slow rate of 240 RPM you have stated. There is a reason that I talk with people who have experiance with specific movie firearms, they are not pulling information out of thin air and are speaking in facts.--Rockwolf66 16:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
What facts? The only fact is that the weapon is not cycling fast enough to fire at the rate that you are claiming. That is the only fact. All you have to do is get over your pride just long enough to put in the movie and skip to that scene. Just to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll have another look at the scene just to verify that I was not completely out of my mind. I recommend you do the same, because appealing to authority is great and all, but when you have video evidence, why not just look at it yourself and make your own judgment?
I just looked at the first second of firing. Looks like it fired about 7 shots in that first second which would be about 420RPM, one third the fire rate you're claiming. I don't know. It looks slow as hell to me. One possibility is that the bursts are fired for such short intervals that the gun doesn't have time to get up to speed. I don't know. But those barrels are spinning ridiculously slow even for a movie Minigun. I strongly urge you to actually watch the movie.
- you mean This Scenewhere the minigun is spitting out brass and link in large quantities? We deal in facts here and not the opinions of those who have nothing to back up what they say. I've done a lot of research about that weapon and I've had to correct friends who've instructed other's in the use of machineguns for 25+ years when it comes to film weapons. With the Predator/T2 Minigun it makes absolutly no sense for the film Armorer to build a gearbox that is so low in RPM and then build the 1,250 round per minute gearbox the weapon was sold with. --Rockwolf66 21:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
You mean other then the fact that weapon is firing at a much higher fire rate in Predator than in T2. The DVD features in T2 Ultimate Edition state the Minigun fires at "over 600 RPM."
In the T2 Extreme Edition DVD, director James Cameron does state in his DVD commentary that the minigun was "detuned" from 6000 rounds per minute to 4000 rounds per minute.
--Ben41 10:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to criticize the person who "counted" the rotations, but unfortunately that doesn't work. I'm not going to get into details, especially because I wouldn't be able to give the explanation that a physicist would, but it has to do with the frames per second that the camera films at and the way that eyes relate information to the brain...its the same way that a wheel or helicopter blade might appear to be spinning backwards, at an incorrect speed, or not at all. For example say the frame rate is 30 frames per second it essentially takes 1 "picture" every 30th of a second, since the barrels are all uniform if any of the six barrels are in the exact same place a 30th of a second later then in the next "picture" the barrels will look exactly the same as in the first, string a bunch of these together in a video and the barrels will look stationary, or if one of the barrels is at a slightly different position in the rotation in the next shot the barrels might look like they're spinning slowly or backwards. Sorry, that was a really long explanation. -SoldierofUnfortune
- Also, I just had a quick question, I remember reading or maybe hearing in special features, that in Predator when the M134 was fired, whoever was firing it had to wear some sort of protection from the spent shells, I figured the same was true for Terminator 2, but in the picture of the special features James Cameron is in Jeans and a T-Shirt. Were there any modifications that negated the need for some sort of protection or am I just mistaken that they needed any in Predator? -SoldierofUnfortune
I've currently got someone who is trying to get more information about the weapon in Question from Dan Shea. He's the guy who sold off alot of the Stembridge guns and might, and I do mean might, currently own the weapon in Question. As far as safty concerns when fireing a minigun. In the experiance of myself and friends in the Class 3 community with a full 6,000rpm minigun all you need is standard ear and eye protection when shooting such a weapon. As far as the film crew goes as they are usually in the path of the muzzle blast from such a weapon they do have to take stronger precations than usual.
Technically
Even though Mail Call has the most guns at 98 currently, this page is technically the largest on the site. It has the most pictures and written information of any page on IMFDB, even check largest pages section on Special pages. - Gunmaster45
- Just to bring up that some of the guns on Mail Call are repeats. Don't think it counts if you repeat some of the guns just because they appear again in a different season. I mean, Garand, M16, BAR. Repeated 3 times and you count them to the weapons count? That's cheating. You're supposed to just list the different kinds of guns shown and say if they appear in other seasons than to repeat them again. Excalibur01 06:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I guess that's a good point. Still, it took just as long to do the page as any other huge page, even though there are repeats. And I liked my format, I document the guns in each season individually, so no gun pic is weeded out do to excessive screencaps (which I've been ragged on about quite a bit). Even if the guns repeat, the time put into it and the amount of information would still make it the largest page, but I couldn't necessarily say it has the most guns. Once I get the rest of the seasons (which Ebay has now failed me on so finding the DVDs will be harder) the page will be too big to hold it all and likely split into sections. Anyway, it was dumb to make a competition out of page making. My bad. If The Unit has just a little more format correcting (image sizing and linking) it will be a great page. Right now it seems a little "rough draft". No offense of course. - Gunmaster45
- Just to bring up that some of the guns on Mail Call are repeats. Don't think it counts if you repeat some of the guns just because they appear again in a different season. I mean, Garand, M16, BAR. Repeated 3 times and you count them to the weapons count? That's cheating. You're supposed to just list the different kinds of guns shown and say if they appear in other seasons than to repeat them again. Excalibur01 06:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Dirt bikes in this film are Hondas.
The dirt bike used by Jon Connor was not a Yamaha DT50. The bike used by Edward Furlong was a 1990 Honda XR80, while the one used by his stund double was a XR100 of the samed year. Both bikes had their front and side number plates removed, and were dirtied up to give them an older look.
Dirt bikes in this film are Hondas.
The dirt bike used by Jon Connor was not a Yamaha DT50. The bike used by Edward Furlong was a 1990 Honda XR80, while the one used by his stund double was a XR100 of the samed year. Both bikes had their front and side number plates removed, and were dirtied up to give them an older look.
Too long?
This page is really, really, really long. I think its cool how there is some Stan Winston stuff on here but I just think the bloopers and some other stuff kinda overkills it. Whoever worked on this did a very good job, but should this be page be trimed a little? --Mauser 05:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with that statement, the trivia takes up almost half the page. --AdAstra2009 19:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- The Stan Winston stuff could be moved to its own page. That would take out some of it. It's an extremely popular page, so the extra trivia stuff makes it nice, besides if you don't care about that stuff, you don't have to scroll down that far. -Predator20 21:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Predator. The trivia makes the page really interesting.--Oliveira 21:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- The Stan Winston stuff could be moved to its own page. That would take out some of it. It's an extremely popular page, so the extra trivia stuff makes it nice, besides if you don't care about that stuff, you don't have to scroll down that far. -Predator20 21:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, no doubt that its interesting....but you have to remember that this is IMFDB. --AdAstra2009 21:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not to mention that people will use this page as justification for making pages full of irrelevant/uninteresting crap.(not that I think the trivia on this page is uninteresting, but it is sort of irrelevant) --AdAstra2009 22:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that it is very nicely down. The one reason I wouldn’t want to see it changed is because I know whoever added that info had to have worked pretty hard on it. But I also agree to the fact that it is pretty much irrelevant, although cool at the same time. Thats why I suggest just trimming it. So I dont know what comes next, maybe we all agree to disagree lol.--Mauser 02:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think the entire section except maybe the Stan Winston Memorial should be cutted and pasted into the discussion page. That way it will not be cluttering the main page with irrelevant info but it will also preserve GM45's work. --AdAstra2009 02:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)