| 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
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
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. | 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. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
==I liked these caps== | ==I liked these caps== | ||
Revision as of 06:26, 4 February 2010
(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)
I liked these caps
They cluttered up stuff but I figured I'd put them here for the heck of it.
- I don't think the first and third screencaps cluttered the page. They are pretty nice and the first one is intersting since it shows the fake muzzle flash.-Oliveira 01:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Rambo fishes with a recurve bow, and kills with the compound later--=>draco333
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)
- 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