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:Reservoir Dogs: Difference between revisions

From Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
(added MT2008 screencap)
Line 57: Line 57:
== A statement for the update war on this page ==
== A statement for the update war on this page ==


Okay, I took this page and brought it to completion, or at least close to it. Gunman69 decided to replace my page with his "better" version. I could have fought this out and kept the original page, but for the site, I converted all my images to .jpegs and used the widescreen format in order to comply. I thought we could end it there, save for maybe a new screenshot had I missed it, which is why I wasn't mad when Gunman69 said he wanted to edit some more. Instead, he wanted to, again "put higher quality images on the page" and maybe some new ones, and knowing the kind of work he produced originally, I had doubts, but I told him to show people instead of telling everyone his images were better, because if there is someone that can make the page look better, I really don't mind them putting their images up. Instead, without producing a sample or stating he was going to redo everything, Gunman69 did all the screencaps over, and then saved them OVER my .jpegs, which I produced to comply with the site and his wishes. He made me do all this work to make the page look "better" and then pasted over all of it, with images that are the same quality, but saturated to the point where the colors don't look right, and only one new image of a holstered gun which is more or less unidentifiable. In other words, he took the page I made and put his, less quality version up, for a second time. The only conclusion I can draw is that he wants his name to be on the page, so he can gloat that he made the Reservoir Dogs page, as his work keeps encompassing the entire page, but badly. To that I say "fuck no, I built it from when it was barely anything, you can't have it".
Alright MT2008 has uploaded his blu-ray images and so there's no reason for Gunman69 and I to keep arguing. I figure to keep the discussion page relatively neat we can delete the walls of semi-flaming text. Glad it's over.
 
Normally I don't think that people should "own" pages, but I mean that in the sense that the entire page should be built and policed by only one person. People can be wrong, which is why we have multiple people on here. It's why I don't mind when someone adds something or points something out for me so I can add it myself. However, when someone tries to redo the WHOLE ENTIRE PAGE with the guise that they are "improving" it, and, in reality, it hasn't improved, or worse, it has lowered in quality, they don't care about the page or correctness, they care about their name being on it. I care about the page, and, yes, my name on it, but only if the page is the best it can be. Until REAL quality comes and overshadows my images on this or any of my pages, I will be the original creator/major contributor, where the majority of credit is due, and if you don't like that, fuck you, it was my work and my name on it is the only reward I get.
 
I've reverted all the new Gunman69 uploads back to the .jpegs I redid back in November 2009. They are of the highest quality that's been presented for the page so far, and, unless you have blu-ray or some space age digital imaging that is far superior to mine, they should not be replaced. Little edits here and there are always welcome, but not unjustified full on reduxes. --[[User:Yournamehere|Yournamehere]] 00:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 
:Ok, let me make this clear. I'm not trying to "wage war" with you or anything. I'm just trying to make this page better quality. I got a new edition this Christmas, and when I watched it, I saw that it was much brighter than the screenshots you had put up. I'm sorry if you think that I'm trying to take credit or whatever, but I'm just improving the page. It would appear to me that YOU are the one who is so obsessed with being able to say "I'm the one who did the screencaps for Reservoir Dogs". I say that because, even though my screencaps are better, you still feel the need to post your above comment in hopes that the IMFDB community will gang up on me in favor of you. I'm not a child, so bragging rights aren't something that I give a shit about. I am allowed to redo the page if I can provide better screencaps (which I have). Furthermore, this is a wiki. Anyone can edit them (providing they don't put in any false information). You really need to chill out and stop acting like a child that someone can do a better job than you have. My pics are the highest quality. Just to prove it, I will put up both pics, and everyone will see that my pics are of higher quality. Again, I'm not trying to take credit, but, frankly, in my experience you have been quite rude to me in the past (the comments above show this), and I've tried to be nice about it, but I can't now. We can let everyone else decide. -[[User:Gunman69|Gunman69]] 03:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 
[[Image:RDSW659.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Yournamehere screencap]]
[[Image:RD-SW659-1.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Gunman69 screencap]]
 
You will clearly see that my screencap is MUCH brighter and clearer. It is clear that I am NOT making up the fact that I wanted to improve the page. -[[User:Gunman69|Gunman69]] 03:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 
I'm mostly irritated that you didn't try to work something out with me, instead you overhauled the page without talking to the major contributor, me, or posting on the forum, moreover, twice. You did post something in the talk page but those tend to go unnoticed. I had problems with how Excalibur built a page, stormed in and changed it, creating a situation like this, but we eventually sat down and resolved it, without doing things on our own. You didn't want to work with me, you just wanted to overhaul a mostly done page, and that's why I made all my assumptions. I'm not being petty or childish, I'm just calling what I see based on past experience. I would have been happy with a comparison of the current screenshots and the ones you say were improved beforehand, but it took me all that typing to get just that.
 
The personal invective aside, we obviously have a different idea of "better". I'll admit your image is brighter, but I don't think the colors are at all better, the image is too saturated. What I think would be best is if I just adjusted the brightness of all the images I have and uploaded them to the page. Here's an example:
 
[[Image:RDSW659.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Yournamehere screencap; head to head, it isn't as bright as the one below.]]
[[Image:RD-SW659-1.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Gunman69 screencap; it's brighter, but the color saturation is a little high]]
[[Image:RD-S&W659-1.jpg|thumb|none|600px|MT2008 screencap]]
[[Image:RDSW659colortest.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Yournamehere screencap adjusted for brightness]]
 
Is that alright with you? --[[User:Yournamehere|Yournamehere]] 04:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 
You've missed something. If you look at the post above "Mr. White's S&W 659", I told you that I might redo the page, unless you had the 15th anniversary. You told me you had the 10th anniversary. I know I sound like I'm nit-picking, but I really honestly think that my screencaps look brighter. The difference between the 10th and the 15th actually DOES make a noticeable difference. Adjusting them to brightness, like you have shown, looks better than your originals, but I honestly think that mine look better.
 
You also stated something about the "personal invective". I'm not trying to make this personal here. I've got nothing against you at all. As Mr. Pink would say "I'm acting like a professional". It's not like we are posting on each other's talk pages "You're an ass" like a couple of little kids. I don't feel like I have made this a personal quarrel and I hope you feel that way as well.
 
Like I said, I personally think that, despite you adjusting the brightness, my screencaps are better. I think what you mean about the color saturation being high is incorrect. It looks more realistic and not as dark as the original movie was. At this point, however, I think we should let the other users decide which is better. Sound good? -[[User:Gunman69|Gunman69]] 05:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 
:I'm curious: how long do you want to leave that poll up on the forum? -[[User:Gunman69|Gunman69]] 03:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:05, 30 January 2010

Thaddeus nice ID on the Jetfire. I'll try and get a screenshot of it in the movie. I added that the Smith & Wessons were 5946s and made a page for that gun and updated the Jetfire page with the movies its been in. Do you know if you see Tarantino as Mr. Brown with a gun? Bunni 10:18, 11 June 2007 (PDT)

This movie is like porn for S&W lovers-S&Wshooter 05:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality

Is it just me or are the screencaps in this page really low quality?--Oliveira 14:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I just finished re-doing this page. They're much better quality than what they were before. Even so, I don't think they are low quality. -Gunman69 00:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Come on, look at this screencap.
File:RD-SW659-1.jpg
This is ugly.

That's just low quality as hell. It looks like it was taken from a bootleg copy from Shanghai for christ sake.--Oliveira 14:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

File:RES-00084.jpg
mine looks marginally better

Here is quick snap I took. Mine is from the 15th Anniversary Edition. The film was done for like 1.5 million, pretty low budget. So I don't think you can expect HD quality. --Predator20 22:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Predator's screecap looks better. No offense, Gunman.--Oliveira 22:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, well, I'm sorry its so low quality. I took it from a DVD. Not the 15th anniversary like Predator, but it was still a DVD. Not a bootleg. I will say that even though you guys think mine looks bad, it was still better than the pics that were on here before. It's just a bit irritating that I wasted 4 hours on this thing. So if one of you wants to redo it, go ahead. -Gunman69 00:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to redo it, because the pics would be only marginally better. It would be a waste of my time. Gunman, I wasn't saying yours looked bad. I threw up that pic as a comparison to show that there wasn't nothing really wrong with your pics. Someone would really have to like the movie to spend the time recapping it and the result wouldn't be all that better and probably go unnoticed. The page looks fine to me. --Predator20 00:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Also Oliveira, I will be redoing Predator 2. --Predator20 00:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, Predator. I'm not blaming you or anything. I didn't know that you were just putting up my pic to show there wasn't anything wrong with it, so thank you. I appreciate that very much. :) -Gunman69 02:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Gunman, I should have said "threw up my pic". Oliveira put your pic on the page and said it was ugly. Mine was just to show yours wasn't. --Predator20 02:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for backing me up. -Gunman69 03:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

LAPD

I'm pretty sure that the film takes place in Los Angeles ( The police officers uniform). the film was made in 1992, many years after they introduced the Beretta 92fs but they officers chasing Mr. pink wield Smith & Wesson model 19's.

Yeah the movie takes place in Los Angeles. A lot of LAPD officers were still carring revolvers in the 1990s, though.--Oliveira 14:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Weren't LAPD officers who were issued revolvers allowed to carry them after the Beretta was introduced if they wanted to? I'm pretty sure the NYPD was like that, so maybe LAPD too. But most likely the reason is due to the films budget. --Predator20 14:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Only old timers were allowed to keep their revolvers. The YOUNG officers as seen in the film would not have revolvers, nor would have been allowed to ask for one. MoviePropMaster2008 04:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this movie was made in 1992 and the LAPD switched to semi-autos in 1988, so only officers who were on the force for about 5 years would be allowed to carry revolvers. MPM is right, these officers are definitely rookies, and therefore shouldn't be carrying revolvers. But, yes, Predator, this movie was very low budget. In fact, several of the actors wore their own clothes (Chris Penn is wearing his own personal track suit, Steve Buscemi wears his own black jeans in lieu of suit pants) and the Cadillac Michael Madsen gets gasoline out of was actually his own Cadillac. So I'm assuming that revolvers were just easier to get because semi-autos were much more innovative and, therefore, more expensive, whereas revovlers have been around for a while and were still pretty popular at the time. At least, that's what my guess is.

BTW: Although, in the past, LADP officers were allowed to carry .357 magnum revolvers as long as they carried them loaded with .38 special ammo, by 1992 only .38 special revolvers were allowed (some officers loaded their sixguns with .357 ammo, regulations notwithstanding). Therefore, cops carrying a S&W 19 and a Colt Trooper is another (minor) mistake of the movie Rafa

So I'm assuming that revolvers were just easier to get because semi-autos were much more innovative and, therefore, more expensive, whereas revovlers have been around for a while and were still pretty popular at the time. At least, that's what my guess is.
Cost has nothing to do with it. Movie guns are always rented, not bought, and I'm pretty sure that the rental fees for handguns are relatively uniform, regardless of type. I'm guessing that the cops carry revolvers because this makes them outgunned by the robbers with their high-capacity S&W autos. If the LAPD officers who chased Mr. Pink had been carrying 15-shot Berettas instead of revolvers, he wouldn't have been able to hold them off while making his escape nearly as easily. -MT2008

Mr. White's S&W 659

I disagree with the fact that Mr. White's S&W 659 is his "issued weapon". I believe that both his S&W 639 and S&W 659 are his personal weapons. In a deleted scene where Freddy Newandyke (Mr. Orange) is reading Larry Dimmick's (Mr. White) criminal record, it states that Dimmick is known for using TWO Smith & Wesson 9mm pistols. One as his primary sidearm, the other as a backup (and he always carries a back up, it states). Furthermore, his nickname, according to his record, is "Two Guns". Now, while it is clear that the 639 is his primary, it is more likely that the 659 is his backup, not an issued weapon for the heist. Although there is the possibility that there are no issued weapons given to the thieves, and that they just all happen to opt to carry S&W 659s, there isn't any strong evidence to back this up (except in Mr. White's case). -Gunman69 23:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a very interesting point. Someone had posted that in the deleted scene, white carried only one S&W 9mm. That and the fact that everyone had a 659 was all I had to go on the "personal gun" theory. I've never seen the deleted scene so I don't know what it includes or how to interpret it myself. I seriously doubt absolutely everyone prefers a 659 though and has one for theirslef, and stick to the theory that they were issued. For example, we have an ex-con (Blonde) who was more than likely given the gun by Joe, and Orange who already had guns, but ended up having a 659 also. The thing about the deleted scene evidence too is that.... it's a deleted scene, and it's not included in the actual movie, and whether it was deleted for what I'm saying or another reason entirely, it doesn't really count as far as the final cut goes, so therefore, White, for whatever reason, has a 639, which has to be a personal gun as no one else has one, and everyone else has a 659, and Whites may or may not be personal, but it's equally possible it's either one, and since everyone has a 659 and not a 639, we can more easily lean toward the theory that they were all issued. Also, Pink's holstered gun when he gets punched is a 6906, not a 669, please stop changing it. --Yournamehere 19:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as the 6906 goes, I thought maybe it'd be a 669 just because all the other guns were 2nd gen, so it would make sense, but I'm not going to pursue that argument. But in the deleted scene it specifically states TWO S&Ws, not one like someone previously stated. I suppose there is also the possibility that Mr. White carried TWO S&W 639s, as well as his issued weapon. That actually makes sense if it wasn't a coincidence that Mr. White carries the same gun that is issued by Joe Cabot. Something to think about. Also, I got the 15th anniversary edition of the movie, and I wasn't sure if you used that for your screencaps. If you didn't, I'd like to upload these pics from MY movie because they are WAY clearer than my old ones (and they look brighter than the ones currently up). If you used the 15th anniversary too, then there were going to be a couple screencaps I was going to add. Just thought I should let you know. :) -Gunman69 00:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and the scene where they say he carries two was deleted, and therefore doesn't matter as far as the plot goes. I already stated this.....

I used the Tenth anniversary version for my caps, and they look fine. You said yours were better before, and after a vote they were considered worse, so don't say that they are better, show everyone. If you do add anything, make sure it's sized like the rest of them.

And with the 6906, it has a one piece wraparound grip, and the red dots that indicate that the safety is off are on the frame and not on the slide as seen on 2nd gen models. It's a 6906.

A statement for the update war on this page

Alright MT2008 has uploaded his blu-ray images and so there's no reason for Gunman69 and I to keep arguing. I figure to keep the discussion page relatively neat we can delete the walls of semi-flaming text. Glad it's over.

Retrieved from "https://www.buildlogs.org/index.php?title=Talk:Reservoir_Dogs&oldid=229921"