Talk:World War Z (2013): Difference between revisions
Talk:World War Z (2013): Difference between revisions - Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Talk:World War Z (2013): Difference between revisions
:::I think what Brooks meant to write is that the SIR was supposedly the XM8 that was stripped down to it's bare basics (the firing mechanism, trigger, etc.) with all the polymer plastics removed (stock, grip, carry handle, etc.) and replaced with wood. Yeah... doesn't exactly make for a pretty picture.--[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] ([[User talk:ThatoneguyJosh|talk]]) 04:43, 25 August 2013 (EDT)
:::I think what Brooks meant to write is that the SIR was supposedly the XM8 that was stripped down to it's bare basics (the firing mechanism, trigger, etc.) with all the polymer plastics removed (stock, grip, carry handle, etc.) and replaced with wood. Yeah... doesn't exactly make for a pretty picture.--[[User:ThatoneguyJosh|ThatoneguyJosh]] ([[User talk:ThatoneguyJosh|talk]]) 04:43, 25 August 2013 (EDT)
:::::: Here is what i came up with when designing Max Brooks' rifle.. kinda sucks. [[User:Heisenberg|Heisenberg]] ([[User talk:Heisenberg|talk]]) [[File:Wwzsir.jpg|500px|thumb|left|ugly much?(credit to [[User:Heisenberg|Heisenberg]])]]
:::::: Here is what i came up with when designing Max Brooks' rifle.. kinda sucks. [[User:Heisenberg|Heisenberg]] ([[User talk:Heisenberg|talk]]) [[File:Maxbrookswwzsir.jpg|500px|thumb|left|ugly much?(credit to [[User:Heisenberg|Heisenberg]])]]
Are those Israeli troops in a couple of screenshots? Spartan198 (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2012 (EST)
Judging from the equipment, they certainly looks like IDF soldiers. I guess they are using Minimi to stand in for the Negev.--Wildcards (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2012 (EST)
They are Israeli troops. In the book Israel is mentioned as being one of the "success stories" of the Zombie pandemic in their efforts to curtail the spread of the "disease". --Charon68 (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2012 (EST)
Cuba is, too. Following the war, IIRC, they emerge as the world's largest economic superpower. Spartan198 (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2012 (EST)
Lets not forget India; where a general named Raj-Singh was defending a evac point using 18th-Century infantry tactics. He refused to fall back even when him and his men were out of ammo, one of his men had to knock him out and drag into a helicopter in order to get him to New Gandhi Park evac.Mr.Ice (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2012 (EST)
Then there's the battle of Yonkers where the military was making a show of their modern advanced technology and tactics for the media and it back fired on them Excalibur01 (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2012 (EST)
Then there is the old Japanese gardener who teams with a computer nerd to fight there way out of an overrun Tokyo(?) using a Kantana from the gardener's days in the IJA. Oh and did I mention that the gardener was blinded by the atomic bombs? Mr.Ice (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2012 (EST
Too bad none of those stories will make their way into this movie...I'm guessing that the Philadelphia by way of Glasgow scenes will be the equivalent of the Battle of Yonkers, but other than that it will probably be Brad Pitt as the hero who single-handedly brings survivors together to save the world. --Markit (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2012 (EST)
You never know Markit. Also is anyone else going to add a story cause Im actually finding it kinda fun.Mr.Ice (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2012 (EST)
As an animal, the human race as a whole is pretty weak. We have no fur for warm, we have problems regulating heat, we have no claws or sharp teeth and we are not very fast and even the strongest of us are hardly as strong as say a bear or lion. We require tools to fight and hunt. Now a good healthy body is good but it is only part. That aside, the zombies, even rage zombies are only as strong as the body that is infected. and realistically a lot of us aren't in that good of shape even if some of us have military/paramilitary training. We're talking about us turning into near well mindless zombies but in this case, more like crazed idiots. So really, I highly doubt even a hundred random people on the streets running at full speed and piling on each other have enough strength to topple a bus like that in one go and climb over it. Even rampaging mobs over a soccer game don't pour into streets like they are the living blob. Excalibur01 (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2012 (EST)
Humans do have one thing for them: Most people have a huge desire to keep on living. -Survivalkid21
The only thing I wish I could see in this is the semi-auto rifle the US military ends up using when they go on the counter-offensive against the Zs. In the book it's described as 5.56 in calibre with interchangeable barrels and wooden furniture and would never jam. --Charon68 (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2012 (EST)
Which shows how little Max Brooks knows about guns because any firearm will jam, no matter how durable and reliable it's touted as. Spartan198 (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2012 (EST)
Well I don't know if you've ever seen the abomination that is "Sons of Guns" but when *gag* Red Jacket *gag* designed the "ultimate zombie gun" Brooks chose a bullpup .22 with a 'printed' frame over an M-16 type weapon. --Charon68 (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2012 (EST)
So according to him a .22 is good enough to kill a zombie because all you need is head shots when before, he thought an AK like weapons is better, in fact, he encourages us to use melee weapons for up close and personal fights rather than longer ranged weapons like spears Excalibur01 (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2012 (EST)
Its nice to know I'm not the person who thinks max brooks is stupid when it comes weapons and guns he said don't use guns cause oh they make noiise but use katana as a primary weapon because taking on like 12 zombies they're totally going line up to get fucking killed the truth is that guy acts as though he's a genius when it comes to weapon and guns and the sad thing is people believe him i swear any of the professional users here like u guys could make smarter books when it comes guns and weapons and when it comes to zomb also Max brooks said grenades wouldn't work because the fragmentation wouldn't damage the zombie/s brains not all grenade rely on fragmentation you Dumb AS5.--Blueboy1600 (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2012 (EST)
I think it's safe to say that Max Brooks is a mall ninja who thinks that AKs and katanas are the ultimate and superior zombie killing weapon. When in reality, the M16 rifle family is just as hard-hitting, accurate, and tough as any AK rifle, and both of them are good tools for any post-apocaylse scenario. The other thing he doesn't understand is that ANY gun (even AKs) can and will jam or malfunction, not just one brand of guns alone. Also, using Katanas or any other close-range 'weapon' in a zombie apocalypse is pretty much a death sentence because all these so-called 'genuine blades' are just cheap, machine-stamped crap metal that was manufactured for the sake of display, not combat. And besides, what's the point of tiring yourself out and getting killed in hand-to-hand combat with zombies when you could just hide in a very high place where the zombies can't get you, with a long range rifle and enough supplies, and pick them off one by one? Seriously folks, if the zombie apocalypse ever happens in real life, I'll be laughing my ass off when Max Brooks is one of the first 'know-it-alls' who gets eaten by the zombies first. --ThatoneguyJosh (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2012 (EST)
Yeah, precisely. Granted, an AK will jam a lot less than an M16 in dirty environments, but if well-maintained, an M16 will easily outgun it in terms of accuracy and range. Plus, .223 and 5.56 are likely to be more common than 7.62x39mm. But the AK is, by no means, a bad rifle and one I would definitely trust my life with if it came down to it. And the thing about katanas is that to effectively employ one requires specialized training. My choice of a bladed weapon would be a machete, or even a khukri, rather than a sword. It's fairly long and heavy enough to lop off limbs, but doesn't require training to become somewhat proficient with. Still, my second line of defense (first would be avoiding or circumventing as many walkers as I could) would be something like an AR-15 or Mini-14 due to their light weight and commonality of ammunition and spare parts. Spartan198 (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2012 (EST)
Jeebus help me but I actually put some thought into what I would use in a Z type situation and I prefer the 7.62 NATO round over the 5.56 mostly due to the range and power so the HK 417 or SCAR-H for me but...each to his own. Additonally, as they do in "The Walking Dead", edged weapons are preferable only in situations where there are a few Zs or when "stealth" is required as to conserve ammo. Personally though what is killing me in all this "zombie enthusiasm" is companies like Hornady are actually making Zombie specific ammo. I mean...come on!!! --Charon68 (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2012 (EST)
The funny thing is that there is nothing different about those zombie ammo are no different to ordinary ammo. They are just painted green instead of red, but what really annoys me is EOtech wasting its money to develop a Biohazard red dot on their sights. Excalibur01 (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2012 (EST)
And I've put just as much thought into it as you have, Charon. A .223 or 5.56, and even a 9mm, will penetrate a human skull just as well as any .308 or 7.62 NATO at typical line-of-sight engagement range, so why would you want to carry the extra weight that comes along with the larger weapon and ammo? One can easily carry double the number of .223 than he can .308 and the weight saved on the lighter weapon can be translated to rations or water. With the weapons you chose, any range increase is going to be negligible due to barrel length and spare parts less than common (aren't consumers of Mk 16S and Mk 17S rifles still waiting for FN to start selling spare barrels and whatnot?). Besides, why would you even bother with any walkers out of your immediate engagement zone? Why not leave them be and save the ammo? Spartan198 (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2012 (EST)
Personally, I would carry a machete of some sort as a last resort but most likely a short stabbing weapon. If I am hold up in a building with walls, I'd make a spear and it would be my daily routine to stab the heads of zombies. Excalibur01 (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2012 (EST)
Exactly. Zombies(at least, the general interpretation) do not have generals or "high priority" targets, so you don't need to be sniping them at 500 yards. If they aren't in the immediate vicinity, better off conserving the ammo and ignoring them. My ideal weapon choices would be a scoped rifle(.223/5.56 for availability and weight) for hunting game and defending against other hostile and armed survivors if necessary, a sidearm(9mm, again, weight and availability) as a backup, and a machete, tomahawk, hatchet, or kukri which serves as both a last ditch/"stealth" weapon and an effective tool for bushcraft and outdoor use. DKS01 (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2012 (EST)
Me, I'd stick with an F2000 or an M16 variant as my main weapon to use against zombies and against crazed survivors (cause let's be honest here folks, when the existing law and social order breaks down in a crisis, there will be groups of people that can and will go crazy), an M1911, Glock or a SIG-Sauer as my sidearm, and a machete if the need for close combat using bladed weapons should arise. And maybe for the fun of it, if I happen to come across an abandoned M1 Abrams or an IAV Stryker that still has gas and ammunition, I'd use it too. --ThatoneguyJosh (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2012 (EST)
Oh, and I went ahead an organized some of these screencaps on the main page. The only one I couldn't ID was the one Brad Pitt is using in the final screencap, which doesn't show the receiver area. Spartan198 (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2012 (EST)
There are some more shots in the trailer. I'll screencap them.Mr.Ice (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2012 (EST)
Added another shot of Pitt's rifle. Any ideas? Spartan198 (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2012 (EST)
Dunno but in the second cap is it just a blur or is there something attached to the muzzle? A makeshift suppressor of some sort? --Charon68 (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2012 (EST)
It looks vaguely like a bayonet to me. Spartan198 (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2012 (EST)
Pretty sure it is a bayonet.- Survivalkid21
I can't see very clearly, but is the IDF soldier behind the machine gunner with the Minimi/Fake Negev holding a Tavor?--Wildcards (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2012 (EST)
Could Pitt's rifle be some sort of airsoft type gun as scenes were filmed in Glasgow and it would have been easiest, but not impossible, to use a blank firing replica? I find what appears to be that piece protruding at the front of the bottom of the stock quick interesting? --Rebusdi (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2013 (EDT)
I think the part underneath the stock in the last image is just the shoulder strap.--One shot is all it takes. (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2013 (EDT)
Semi-automatic Rifle in Brooks' Novel
Does anyone else think it's ridiculous that that the U.S. Military would go through the trouble of creating a new rifle to fight the zombies, just because the rifle is semi-auto? All M16 platforms currently in use by the military have a semi-automatic fire setting. They could just instruct soldiers to fire only in the SA fire mode, or even just create a fire selector lock for the rifles, it would be much cheaper than creating a whole new rifle. Also, isn't mankind on the brink of collapse by the time this rifle isn't invented? Where did the military find the time and resources to mass produce these rifles? Then they decide to build the rifles using wooden stocks? It would be much easier to mass produce guns using polymer or plastic stocks like AR-15s which would be plentiful in the military armories. --SmithandWesson36 (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2012 (EST)
I found that to be the most retarded part of the book...especially since this new miracle weapon still fires the same 5.56mm rounds. If you want a weapon that's semi only and sturdy enough for melee combat, they could've just re-issue M14s again...--Wildcards (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2012 (EST)
Yeah, let's say nothing about this whole business of forming two lines of troops to sweep the whole United States of walkers from coast to coast and the logistical and communications nightmare that would be. Spartan198 (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2012 (EST)
It's been a while since I read the book but I think it wasn't so much a dual line as it was a box formation with support and resupply/rearm situated in the middle. They used speakers to draw the Zs in with loud music and then were able to engage on all sides. --Charon68 (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2012 (EST)
Were they special forces if not what branch or were they combined branches also ha charon your comment 11:11 on november 11 that's pretty funny ...--Blueboy1600 (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2012 (EST)
In the book they talk about prioritization of resources. All fighters are grounded but all transports are in the air. Armour is only called out when it is needed to quell an insurrection by humans/separatists as is arty and gunships. The war, on the ground at least, is won by the infantry although special forces do play a part in reporting the movement of the Zs (it's also mentioned SF has some of the highest suicide rates related to PTSD as a result). Oh and Blueboy...it honestly took me half an hour to figure out what you were talking about!!!
Oh dude Im sorry about the half an hour I said your comment but i guees coincidences like that aren't funny to others like they are to me thanks for all the info though sorry bout the half n hour hope you ain't mad ... --Blueboy1600 (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2012 (EST)
They even made a new cartridge for the SIR called "NATO 5.56 PIE" (PIE standing for Pyrotechnically Initiated Explosive). A round that exploded on contact to ensure destruction of the brain.Mr.Ice (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2012 (EST)
I guess that the PIE rounds are some kind of hollowpoint filled with something like Potassium that has been annealed over. When the bullet strikes, the slug expands and the Potassium react with the water in the brain, igniting. -Survivalkid21
America did all that work of designing a new rifle, because they couldn't make the plastic parts in California(If I remember right) and a new bullet. But What did the Russians do? They broke out all of the leftover PPSHs from WW2 and went to town. --insertjjs
Personally I think it's because Max Brooks have very little understand of how guns work and in his Zombie Survival Guide book, he wrote how useless the M16 is when it would be an awesome weapon. Also I just don't think he understands ballistics Excalibur01 (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2013 (EDT)
They do give a somewhat slight description of what the semi automatic rifle is and where it came from. As quoted from the novel; "...I'm not sure where the SIR supposedly came from. I've heard it was a modcop of the AK. I've also heard it was a stripped down version of the XM8... It might have kicked hard, and it only fired on semi, but it was super accurate and it never, ever jammed! You could drag it through the mud, leave it in the sand, you could drop it in saltwater, and let it sit there for days. No matter what you did to this baby, it just wouldn't let you down..." So with that description Max Brooks wrote for his novel, and where in his previous one where he highly praises the AK rifle family as being the 'superior' zombie killing weapon, I'm going to just go ahead and say that the 'SIR' in the book is a modified version of an AK rifle... but if anyone else has a better guess, feel free to add. --ThatoneguyJosh (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2013 (EDT)
A stripped down XM8? What does that even mean? Excalibur01 (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2013 (EDT)
I think what Brooks meant to write is that the SIR was supposedly the XM8 that was stripped down to it's bare basics (the firing mechanism, trigger, etc.) with all the polymer plastics removed (stock, grip, carry handle, etc.) and replaced with wood. Yeah... doesn't exactly make for a pretty picture.--ThatoneguyJosh (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2013 (EDT)
I've read his Zombie Survival Guide and I just chuckled when he called the M16 the worse assault rifle in the world...yeah, I know a couple hundred thousand Marines who swear by their M16s. He makes it sound like the M16 is this finicky piece of crap with an easily breakable stock and the temptation to go full auto is in everyone's blood. If you tell someone to even use full auto on zombies...they won't use full auto ever. The Marines don't shoot their M16/M4s in burst and the Army doesn't train using the Burst at all. Brooks' logic about the M16 is misinformed and he thinks the AK is the be all and end all assault rifle. Excalibur01 (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2013 (EDT)
It's also contradicting in his Survival Guide that he talks down on the .22LR because it might not have enough power to penetrate the brain and do much damage when in Sons of Guns, he designed a whole need gun with a stupid bayonet that fires the very caliber he talked down in his book. Excalibur01 (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2013 (EDT)
kalashnikov variant V ar15 variant
look i openly admit i am going to get a kicking over this
but in the zombie survival guide they spoke highly about the chinise copy the type 56 and the m1 carbine over the m16 as the flaws of the rifle (dirt sensitive, fragile, when using as a club, political interferance to adopt it) look i have studied the weapon it has no piston (Direct impingement en.wikipedia.org/wiki/kalashnikov variant )this would make the weapon "problematic" you would need to clean it more often and if your in the middle of the fight you might not always have that luxury.
while the kalashnikov is designed with a piston and to be maintained by the most dumb thick stupid person you ever had the misfortune to come across it also can be used as a club unlike the m16 i heard of stocks snaping after trying to cave the enemy soliders heads in in hue city in 1968. the only thing that goes against the kalashnikov are the rubbish sights that round goes to the mi6
but i can see where brooks went fot the kalashnikov it has a rep for reliability that has to be seen to belived a friend of my father had to give his ak up after the hungerford massacre in 1988 he desided to distroy his he hammered the rifle up to the pistol grip into the ground and with the aid of some string pulled the trigger the kalashnikov blew it self clear of the soil and was good to go he repeated this over 10 times before he took a hack saw to it
personaly i would us an fn fal good mechisim, accurate enough, can be used as a blunt instrument widespread ammo
--Seekerdude (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2012 (EST)
If you have to take more than one zombie in close combat you're already screwed 9 times out of 10. And isn't it important to get headshots so again m4/16/ar15, besides the ak bayonet is horrendous it sticks in sandbags imagine tissue --Iceman (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2012 (EST)
Here we go again with the "...in Vietnam" arguments against the AR-15 platform. Can anyone ever take into account the improvements that have been made to it in the last 50 years, like, for example, stronger materials (a modern fixed AR buttstock can and will crack a skull if swung hard enough) or do people still think AR-15s are still manufactured to pre-M16A1 standards? The jamming issues in Vietnam were due to the type of powder the military was using and exacerbated by the lack of training on how to properly maintain it, lack of a chromed barrel and chamber, and lack of a forward assist, none of which had shyte to do with the DI system (which you don't need to link to Wikipedia for, because the biggest part of us here already know how both DI and a short-stroke piston works). Once they switched back from stick to ball powder, instituted a maintenance training program, chromed the hell out of the barrel and chamber, and added a forward assist (i.e., upgraded to the XM16E1), the vast majority of jamming issues disappeared overnight. But, by all means, go ahead and use outdated arguments to pick at my preference of an AR-15 type weapon for a zombie pandemic (note I also mentioned the Mini-14, which has an excellent reputation as a good, reliable rifle) and see how far it gets you. :) Spartan198 (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2012 (EST)
in defense of the ar-15 varient many of my friends have joined the british royal marines purely on the grounds that they use a version of the m16 i asked "why" because of the stories of the sa80 now lets us say bad things about that weapon --Seekerdude (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2012 (EST)
In that case they are in for a big disappointment. The only people in the Marines that use an AR-15 variant (specifically Diemaco C8 variants) are the Brigade Patrol Troop which consists of around 30 guys, and the team from the RM police that provide close protection for the brigade commander, so their chances of being a role where they get an AR-15 are pretty slim. Regardless, among serving troops the general consensus is that there is no problem with the current incarnation of the SA80 weapons, and that H&K sorted most of the stuff with the A2 upgrade. --commando552 (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2012 (EST)
A lot of the so called jamming issues that happen today on the battlefield has much to blame on the old magazines that are being issued to troops.
Go to youtube and type up "AR-15 Reliability Demonstration" by Sturmgewehre and he'll show you a realistic torture test of an AR-15 that is as close as military spec a civilian can get. Excalibur01 (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2012 (EST)
I notice this scene is somehow edited out in the new trailer released hours ago. Are you sure that the new scene is just for the trailer for mayber the old scene above will be in the final movie? Dangerman1973 (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2013 (EDT)
What new trailer?--Mr.Ice (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2013 (EDT)
OMG, it's the infamous "replace gun with walkies-talkie"...lol. Hopefully that's only a trailer edit. --Wildcards (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2013 (EDT)
Take a look at the Iron Man and Cop Out pages. US trailers with the "Green Band" are not allowed to show weapons being pointed at other people in the same frame (even if the people are already zombies).
If anyone is going to see this movie, tell me if the rifles are restored or it's the trailer edit in the final film. Dangerman1973 (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2013 (EDT)
I'm intending to see it Monday. But I'm pretty sure it's only a trailer edit. Spartan198 (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
I got a question
At the risk of sounding like a jackass. What about their black garb soldiers' attire confirms that they're Navy Seals? DarkSamuraiX1999 (talk) 0213, 09 April 2013 (PST)
He is wearing a Jolly Roger patch, which I think is an unofficial patch worn by SEAL VBSS teams. Don't think it necessarily makes them SEAL's as anyone can wear a Jolly Roger patch, but I'm assuming this is what the person who made the ID was going on. --commando552 (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
Not gonna get mad over the obvious changes from source material
Initially I was disappointed when I first heard about the plot details of the film and saw how the actual film looked when the trailers came out. But thinking it over. Really can't blame them for changing it up to that point. I mean if you read through the whole novel. Then you know that it is not an action packed adrenaline pumping story. It is a semi-documentary style story hearing about what all the characters did during the World Wide Zombie outbreak in the past tense. Although I was hoping that the film have been something along the lines of the main character flying all over the world post Z War, he'd narrate and see how some parts of the world are still rebuilding after taking the land back from the dead while others live in the dark ages. Meet the survivors for interviews and as they talk the scene would shift to their memory how it all went down. Too bad that idea would be better suited for a epic TV Mini-series then a movie.
So what I'm trying to get about with the dramatic changes in the Zeds and plot. Well let's face it World War Z obviously has a target audience. But it's more broad then expected. Cause Zombies are still the in thing right now. People wanna see a zombie flick but they aren't die hard or know too much about the various media done about the undead. They're not gonna be interested in a film about a Zombie War that has already happened. And slow moving zombies with a 24hour conversion rate to infected is not gonna instill a true sense of panic, urgency or set up a real end of the world scenario. Cause the novel essentially explained that the global outbreak happened through a combination of factors that had been planted into separate corners of the world that was allowed to slowly grow and fester. And by the time we realized what was upon us it was too late. And each country suffered their mass outbreaks at separate times it wasn't a consecutive dead will rise all at once moment.
The zombies need to be fast and the infection needs to quick, it needs to spreading super fucking fast or else people watching won't be as entertained, wowed and even frightened. Now my reasons to look forward to this film despite my initial disappointments. The scope and scale, hopefully despite the primary focus going to Brad Pitt. We see plenty of the world collapsing to the waves of fast moving undead. I hope that unlike the other zombie films of the past we will see the front lines of the war and struggle against the Zeds. Cause I'm tired of seeing Joe Civilian and his gang of stereotypical screaming expendable meatbags with pretty faces go running to the mall or police station or safe zone. I want to see the grunts and the military hardware be stacked fully against the massive waves of super monsters. I just wanna see an all out brawl lol. Call me an idiot for thinking all this but that's just how I see things for this film right now.
--DarkSamuraiX1999 (talk) 1632, 31 May 2013 (PST)
If they didn't like how the actual source material was like then make a different movie and name it something else, don't name the movie after a book that is nothing like it including the zombies. The slow lumber zombies were supposed to be slow for a reason. We know why they named it World War Z. It's because calling it anything other than a best seller wouldn't have put asses in seats. The whole point of the slow virus slowly turning the world into hell had a point to it. There's a lot of politics in the book that the movie most likely throws out for stupid action scenes. This movie was a way for a studio to make a quick buck on what really is the dying zombie fad.
Brooks’ book explored among other things how the world would or wouldn’t be able to cope with a massive disaster like a zombie apocalypse. The sci-fi/horror premise was a great allegorical frame for a lot of relevant political, social and moral questions. This movie is basically your tried-and-true (and often failed) race-against-time action/thriller. You probably wouldn’t even bat an eye if were to lie and say that Roland Emmerich was directing.
This “tweaking” of the story is also a massive change to the character of Pitt’s U.N. employee, who in the book is a man trying to research the global catastrophe to try and gain some perspective on it and what it has done to humanity. In this movie, he’s basically the reluctant hero who must overcome insurmountable odds to save the world cliche. Excalibur01 (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2013 (EDT)
That's the movie business for you. Hows that old saying go? "The trouble with movie making as art is it's a business. The trouble with movie making being a business is it's art." And despite all of our bitching and sniping we are contributing to a site dedicated to indentifying the use of firearms in movies and other .......visual mediums I guess. I try not to get to upset about such things anymore. Life is to short and this is a way that I relax and have some fun. I own the book by the way and I thought the movie wasn't to bad. Just take it for what it is. --Jcordell (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2013 (EDT)
I agree wholeheartedly, and I am also a pretty big fan of the book, although I'll also admit that it's not the greatest literary work of all time. I think I remember reading somewhere that when the final version of the script was released (if the movie is that finished version), and Max Brooks read it for himself, he said that he liked it, which confuses me as all hell because he stated a long time ago that he's against the idea of zombies being 'runners', and now he's suddenly accepting of the idea of his book being adapted into a movie where the zombies are now 'runners'? I'm confused. Oh well, as another old saying goes; 'they were interested in the NAME, and not the SOURCE MATERIAL'. --ThatoneguyJosh (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2013 (EDT)
the AR-15 isn't an M4 as it has a shorter barrel and an A2 upper. I don't know what to call it though as it doesn't match anything, closest match is an XM177-E1 with an A2 upper. Was this part filmed in Israel, as the IDF does/did tend to use some pretty random cobbled AR variants. Also it looks like there is a Tavor on the right, I think a CTAR-21 but not sure. --commando552 (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2013 (EDT)
I think the weapon is a M733 with a XM177-style flash hider, but it being a movie gun means that it could made out of a combination of parts. The whole Israel sequence in the film was shot in Malta (which has stood in for Israel before in Munich). I agree with your guess that the weapon on the right is a CTAR-21. --Markit (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2013 (EDT)
The M733 has an 11.5" barrel, this one is a 10" barrel. It's a frankengun cobbled together from different components. The closest match is like Commando said, an XM177 with an A2 upper receiver component. Spartan198 (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2013 (EDT)
Well it's accurate since the IDF did use a mix of mismatched AR-15s for their military. They still use older M16A2s while some use M4s and some use old CAR-15s Excalibur01 (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2013 (EDT)
I don't think they tended to use the A2 upper or XM177 style moderator though, most of the mix and matching I have seen was fitting different barrel lengths so "A1" guns, kind of like whast the USAF did to upgrade their XM177s with 14.5" barrels. Also, on the subject of the Israeli weapon use I don't think the Minimi is necessarily inacurate, as the Minimi was used and tested in the early 90s by the IDF and it lingered on in use by special forces. If zombies started attacking, I imagine that they might take them out of mothballs. --commando552 (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2013 (EDT)
Wouldn't it make more sense to takeout the "mothball" weapons after about say 9 months in the apocalypse when most of the then standard issued weapons would be left behind by soldiers fleeing for their lives, broken in the field, scavenged by civilians, and so on.Mr.Ice (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2013 (EDT)
With the way the IDF works they have a reserve force that is about 3 or 4 times the size of the standing army which can be called up quickly in a time of crisis. I doubt Israel keeps 5 times the stock of "current" weapons that it needs for its army, hence why retired weapons may quickly see action. Regardless I highly doubt this was the film makers intent and was much more likely just because the didn't have a Negev, but just thought I'd point out that they could possibly have been accidentally correct. --commando552 (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2013 (EDT)
I just went ahead and listed the frankengun in question under its own entry as a "Custom CAR-15 variant" since carbines of this same configuration (sans optic type) were featured prominently in Blood Diamond and are called that on its page. Spartan198 (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
Small Point
Saw the movie the other night. At one point you clearly see the markings on an American soldier's M-16 and they clearly say "ARMALITE" in white letters. --Charon68 (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2013 (EDT)
Did the markings look like this? If so then I would guess an Airsoft Classic Army Armalite M-15, as no real guns that would be marked Armalite (either the original 60s guns or the modern M-15 rifles) would have painted on white markings. --commando552 (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2013 (EDT)
Segen's pistol is chambered
It's interesting to note that when Segen draws her pistol to defend the plane, it was already chambered with a round. Would have been interesting to see her do the Israel draw one handed Excalibur01 (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2013 (EDT)
IDF Helicopters
Slightly off topic, and I do apologize, but what were those helos? I thought maybe they were 206s but the fuselage had a different shape. Anyone have any ideas? --Charon68 (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2013 (EDT)
It looks like an Older version of the Eurocopter AS365 Dauphin fitted with skid landing gear. For comparison, one with wheeled landing gear was used in Delta Force 2. The ducted tail rotor is a good indicator of a Eurocopter design, not 100% but a good indicator for many of their designs --Insertjjs
I think it's a Eurocopter EC130 Ecureuil. Not actually used by the IDF by the way.--Wildcards (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2013 (EDT)
I don't think so, the EC130 is a single exhaust, but if you look on the section for the M240 on the WWZ page, you get a clear view of twin exhaust. This points to a twin engine helicopter. Take a look at the SA365 on the Delta Force 2 page
The trigger guard doesn't look right for the Mossberg 500.
Think it's a Benelli Supernova Tactical without the retractable stock:Error creating thumbnail: File missingBenelli Supernova Tactical - 12 gaugeThe shape of the trigger guard is pretty distinctive.--commando552 (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2013 (EST)
.jpg){kind=link}
