| 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:The Hurt Locker: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
::::Um, excuse me Mr. Anonymous User...first of all, at the time I wrote that comment, I had only seen the movie once in theaters and did not have the DVD. So yes, I concede I was wrong. But as Markit has pointed out, it seems that not all versions of the film shown in theaters made this clear, and I might have been mistaken for this reason. Second, watch your tone with me. If you are going to be a dick to administrators (yes, I am an admin), I have no problem giving you a time-out (read: temporary ban) until you learn how to behave. Act like a child and you'll be treated like one. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 16:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC) | ::::Um, excuse me Mr. Anonymous User...first of all, at the time I wrote that comment, I had only seen the movie once in theaters and did not have the DVD. So yes, I concede I was wrong. But as Markit has pointed out, it seems that not all versions of the film shown in theaters made this clear, and I might have been mistaken for this reason. Second, watch your tone with me. If you are going to be a dick to administrators (yes, I am an admin), I have no problem giving you a time-out (read: temporary ban) until you learn how to behave. Act like a child and you'll be treated like one. -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]] 16:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
Piss on your fucking bullshit. Like I care if you give me a temporary ban. I'm shaking in my boots. | Piss on your fucking bullshit. Like I care if you give me a temporary ban. I'm shaking in my boots. I talk to who I want to HOWEVER I WANT TO. DEAL. | ||
== I removed bootleg images == | == I removed bootleg images == | ||
Revision as of 18:26, 9 March 2010
M4A1 pics
Aren't some of the M4A1 pics a little unnecessary. Like five of the publicity stills barely show guns and the ones with stamps on the lower right look like crap. I vote to have them removed. - Gunmaster45
- Well, if you won't do it, I will.-protoAuthor
The helmet covers
I know the military seems awesome and all, but they screw up sometimes too. They don't always issue the right shit, like the Marines in Generation Kill were issued the wrong camo for desert operations. Especially helmet covers. They are really bad on those. So it doesn't designate that hes EOD, it just shows that the Army screws up -The Winchester
- Except that the Marines in the 2003 were issued woodland camo because the USMC already were replacing the desert camo and the woodland camo with MARPAT. Hence that Iceman was wearing MARPAT and so were the officers. The Army replaced the Desert Camo and the Woodland camo in 2005 so it's unlikely that in 2007 (the year the movie takes place) there would be still camouflage needed replacing. It's most likely that the Prop Department didn't have enough UCP helmet covers. The Prop Department also screwed up by giving a lot of soldiers PASGT helmets. By 2007 the MICH TC-2000 Combat Helmet had completely replaced the PASGT helmet.-Oliveira 14:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the USMC was issued MARPAT in 2003, but per the Army, the Woodland and DCU were officially no longer regulation at the end of October 2006. Even from that time, it took months for soldiers to get gear completely replaced. A rule of thumb ever since the American Civil War and one that applies today is that it takes about a YEAR from an official change to filter down to all soldiers in a theatre of operations.MoviePropMaster2008 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- The woodland cover is probably just a stylistic choice on the part of the director to make Sergeant James more distinctive from the other members of the team and to enhance his "outsider" status. As for the PASGT helmets, The Hurt Locker is an indie film that was produced on a limited budget by most action movie standards, so it is far cheaper just to outfit everyone in the background with the existing PASGT helmets rather than to purchase genuine or replica MICH helmets. Markit
- I agree. Makes more sense.-Oliveira 01:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I can't remember where the movie specifies when it takes place.-protoAuthor
- Definitely right about the military screwing up, or sometimes new kit taking longer to get in service. I worked with US troops in 2007 that were still using mixed camouflage and ALICE gear. Out of a whole battalion I think like 5 guys had all the new stuff. Hell, sometimes it depends on what base you get issued your kit at. I got my tans in Winnipeg and got the old desert boots, everyone who kitted in Edmonton got the new ones. - Nyles
- Sometimes they don't even issue people the correct sidearms due to limited supplies. For example, My cousin was issued a very old M1911 when he joined the Navy (He now has a privately owned Desert Warrior)and many of the people that he was with ddn't get the M9 either-S&Wshooter 20:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Could be worse, we've used the Inglis Hi Power so long we don't have anything else in stores but 1050 Sig P225s we bought for MPs in the 90s. I wasn't even supposed to get one until they dug up a few more spares - I was literally last on the list to get one, the two guys in my section with names later in the alphabet didn't! Couldn't even get a shoulder holster because all the senior officers got them all.
- Alright, I found out that this movie is set in 2004. Won't UCP be a inaccuracy?--Oliveira 13:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- This movie isn't set in 2004; it's set in 2007, the same year it was filmed. I'm not sure why people think it's set in 2004. -MT2008
- Well, rotten tomatoes seems to agree with me. RottenTomatoes page .
- This movie isn't set in 2004; it's set in 2007, the same year it was filmed. I'm not sure why people think it's set in 2004. -MT2008
"In the summer of 2004". Mark Boal was also in Iraq in 2004.--Oliveira 17:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Rotten Tomatoes could be wrong, too. They aren't exactly the official source. It's possible that whoever wrote the entry just assumed that because Mark Boal was in Iraq in 2004, the movie was set at the same time. -MT2008 14:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- NPR agrees with me too. [1].--Oliveira 15:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Saw it again today. Yeah, it's set in 2004.-protoAuthor 05:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- The reviews indicate 2004, but iirc there is no explicit reference to that year in the movie, unless there was a scene that I forgot.--Markit 07:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
How about the beginning caption when the movie opens that says "Baghdad 2004". Maybe if you pay goddamned attention when you watch the movie, you'd know this!
- Little off question. Why most hi-speeds ignore helmet covers? Pimpin'?
- After seeing the DVD I will concede this, but also point out that the version of the film shown at movie festivals only said "Baghdad". Maybe if you used more civil language you wouldn't sound like an idiot.
- Little off question. Why most hi-speeds ignore helmet covers? Pimpin'?
- Maybe if you pay goddamned attention when you watch the movie, you'd know this!
- Um, excuse me Mr. Anonymous User...first of all, at the time I wrote that comment, I had only seen the movie once in theaters and did not have the DVD. So yes, I concede I was wrong. But as Markit has pointed out, it seems that not all versions of the film shown in theaters made this clear, and I might have been mistaken for this reason. Second, watch your tone with me. If you are going to be a dick to administrators (yes, I am an admin), I have no problem giving you a time-out (read: temporary ban) until you learn how to behave. Act like a child and you'll be treated like one. -MT2008 16:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Piss on your fucking bullshit. Like I care if you give me a temporary ban. I'm shaking in my boots. I talk to who I want to HOWEVER I WANT TO. DEAL.
I removed bootleg images
I deleted the bootleg images that were on the page. The user admitted to me that they were bootleg, being truthful and forthcoming is nice, but I have to delete them. Any images taken from a screener or a bootleg are illegal and thus cannot be on IMFDB. MoviePropMaster2008 22:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
WHY
why has someone deleted someof the pics.for exmple the beretta 92sb, the glock and the m16a4. someone should delete some M4 pics there is wayto many
- Look at the post right above yours.-protoAuthor 00:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- oh sorry. but with the beretta it showed a perfectly clear pic. you could ID the guneasily. the glock pic was a good pic anyway
Watermarked pic
Putting this picture here until I can find one that doesn't have the watermark on it.
--Ben41 23:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Rank Issue.
I believe Renner's character wore Sergeant First Class (E-7 - Three stripes up with two rockers below) chevrons. This is a rank that is one grade higher than Staff Sergeant. Also, SSGT is not an abriviation used by the US Army as SSG is used instead.
- SSGT is Marine Corps abbreviation. Spartan198 23:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
SSGT may be a USMC designation but this movie is about US Army Soldiers, not Marines.
Glock?
Is that a Glock 23 or 19? im so bad with glocks :(
- It's always hard to tell Glock models based on bore diameter, but IMFDB's rule of thumb is to assume that a pistol is a 9mm model unless we have inside information that the gun is another caliber, or unless there is a close-up of the slide where we can see caliber/model number markings. We do know that historically, movie armorers have tended to use 9mm pistols because this caliber is the easiest and most reliable to convert to blank-fire. So it's a safe bet that this Glock is probably a G19. -MT2008 16:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)