| 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:Jarhead (2005): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StanTheMan (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
::- I'm not absolutely positive, but I am fairly sure. Granted I am going more by today rather than 20 years ago and I'm not personally familiar with training so I can't be certain, perhaps Jcordell or someone else on here with military background can enlighten us. But, I have read a little bit about training exercises, and on a basic practical analysis, it makes sense. Safety is of course the prime concern, not just of recruits but of others; they would have to make sure that rounds won't affect other personnel in the area in addition to the recruits, lest something like what is described happening in the film happen, or worse. Of course they can have bulletproof stops/sand-bags, etc but those are certainly not fullproof. Of course blanks aren't fullproof either but they are an easier and considerably far safer way to handle it. Also, on a lesser note, I have read/heard that environmental and fiscal concerns limit the use of live ammunition considerably in training, especially these days. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 02:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC) | ::- I'm not absolutely positive, but I am fairly sure. Granted I am going more by today rather than 20 years ago and I'm not personally familiar with training so I can't be certain, perhaps Jcordell or someone else on here with military background can enlighten us. But, I have read a little bit about training exercises, and on a basic practical analysis, it makes sense. Safety is of course the prime concern, not just of recruits but of others; they would have to make sure that rounds won't affect other personnel in the area in addition to the recruits, lest something like what is described happening in the film happen, or worse. Of course they can have bulletproof stops/sand-bags, etc but those are certainly not fullproof. Of course blanks aren't fullproof either but they are an easier and considerably far safer way to handle it. Also, on a lesser note, I have read/heard that environmental and fiscal concerns limit the use of live ammunition considerably in training, especially these days. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 02:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
Actually I didn't mean this scene I meant the one at the end this one could very well be true they fire in the distance and as long as no one gets up, I doubt they would do it at the start but by the end of the training I'm sure they would be good enough not to get up like idiots | |||
Revision as of 06:32, 11 October 2010
I'll try to buy this movie sometime this month to screencap it. I saw it one HBO at my uncle's house and I gotta screen it ASAP. P.S. Thanks to the anonymous user who deleted my comment. -GM
- I GOT IT! Have it on this week. -GM
- I know this isn't terribly relevant for the purposes of this site, but...I thought this movie sucked. -MT2008
- I think it was okay at best. It was based on a true story so I give it the respect it deserves. It was originally a book written by Anthony Swofferd, who is the main character in the movie. I just finished screening the movie, I'll have it on soon. -GM
- Yeah, but in the hands of Sam Mendes (one of the most liberal directors working in Hollywood...no small feat!), it becomes essentially an anti-war, anti-military movie. Not that I'm saying you shouldn't screencap it (plenty of people I know, including some enlisted GIs, liked it), just saying that's how I felt. -MT2008
- I don't know about anti-military but I don't think I've ever seen a pro war movie. Some stuff has come up, I'll have to add the shots tommorow. -GM
- How's it look? Did I get everything right? I'm not a helicopter or tank pro so I may have goofed in that field. -GM
P.S. Thanks Orca for fixing the tank I.D.s. btw, what makes him using the M60E3 wrong? I don't think the M240 was issued yet and their are indeed two hatches for two gunners.
- In this instance, the M60 machine gun would be erroneous as the Loader's hatch on the real Abrams is already fitted with an M240. As I mentioned on GM's page, no versions of the Abrams have ever had an M60 installed on them, so the Loader having an M60E3 at the ready would be incorrect. I'm not trying to start any fights, just pointing out a goof in the film.Orca1 9904 08:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Orca1_9904
- ORCA, You're right. 240s were the guns next to the .50s on the top of the M1A1s. I never really thought about it since we used the M60 still in the 80s and early 90s, but I asked a Armored Div. buddy from the Gulf and he confirmed what you said. No fights here :) Arggh. Even my memory is fading!
The tanks
I must emphasize again that the fake Abrams tanks in this movie were built on Centurions, not Chieftains. Go to http://armytrucks.com/ and click on "Inventory" and you can see pictures of the company's fleet of fake "M1 Abrams". -MT2008
- Ahhhhhh yes, ever been there? ;) California sucks ass as a state, but we got a lot of cool stuff! ;) MPM2008
- I had changed it yesterday as soon as you said it. -GM
- Yep, it was just the one under the Browning M2 entry that need fixin'. -MT2008
- I had changed it yesterday as soon as you said it. -GM
M16A3
This is definitely not an M16A3, as it does not have a removable carry handle. (unknown Author)
M16A3 is simply an M16A2 with Full Auto instead of Burst Fire, it is not a Full Auto M16A4. User:AdAstra2009
Tape method
I have a stupid question. What's the tape method? - Shooter
- Taping up the front of the scope (leaving a small opening so it isn't rendered useless) so the glass won't glint in the sun and you won't be countersniped-S&Wshooter 00:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks - Shooter
Rock Galotti cameo?
I know "Rock" Galotti worked on Jarhead, but is this him firing the M60E3?--Ben41 09:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
firing in the air Isn't it kinda reckles since the bullets can fall down and kill someone
- Yeah but thats for really far away targets, they were what, 10 metres far way. dont think its gonna fall that close. --Smish34 20:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- - Sequences like those are often seen in war films - I'm fairly certain they actually do it in real training at times. However they do NOT actually do it with 'live' rounds though, for that very reason (among other lesser reasons). StanTheMan 23:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Really? because I remember this scene being mentioned in the audio commentary as being based on the actual training experiences of one of the Marine technical advisors. Pravda616
- - I'm not absolutely positive, but I am fairly sure. Granted I am going more by today rather than 20 years ago and I'm not personally familiar with training so I can't be certain, perhaps Jcordell or someone else on here with military background can enlighten us. But, I have read a little bit about training exercises, and on a basic practical analysis, it makes sense. Safety is of course the prime concern, not just of recruits but of others; they would have to make sure that rounds won't affect other personnel in the area in addition to the recruits, lest something like what is described happening in the film happen, or worse. Of course they can have bulletproof stops/sand-bags, etc but those are certainly not fullproof. Of course blanks aren't fullproof either but they are an easier and considerably far safer way to handle it. Also, on a lesser note, I have read/heard that environmental and fiscal concerns limit the use of live ammunition considerably in training, especially these days. StanTheMan 02:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually I didn't mean this scene I meant the one at the end this one could very well be true they fire in the distance and as long as no one gets up, I doubt they would do it at the start but by the end of the training I'm sure they would be good enough not to get up like idiots