| 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:Zombieland: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
(moved to main page) |
||
| Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
::::LOL. that is technically true, but also not that important. Yes, the cost and logistics makes it cost prohibitive. But it's the government regulations that restrict it at one level. Sure you can spend a lot of money to skirt around the law but then it becomes completely unprofitable. Also as you pointed out, so much of the modern stuff would have to be 'redacted' that it's pointless. remember we're talking about Prop companies, businesses that are in the business of renting to movies, TV etc. Now if we want to comply with fed guidelness and turn into museums, we can. But a lot of us won't purely because it is just too much hassle for the benefit. The problem here is that you don't think the single sentence is accurate. Sure you can spend paragraphs and paragraphs explaining the examples of 'exceptions to the rule and why /how they occured' but that really isn't needed on the page. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 13:38, 1 February 2012 (CST) | ::::LOL. that is technically true, but also not that important. Yes, the cost and logistics makes it cost prohibitive. But it's the government regulations that restrict it at one level. Sure you can spend a lot of money to skirt around the law but then it becomes completely unprofitable. Also as you pointed out, so much of the modern stuff would have to be 'redacted' that it's pointless. remember we're talking about Prop companies, businesses that are in the business of renting to movies, TV etc. Now if we want to comply with fed guidelness and turn into museums, we can. But a lot of us won't purely because it is just too much hassle for the benefit. The problem here is that you don't think the single sentence is accurate. Sure you can spend paragraphs and paragraphs explaining the examples of 'exceptions to the rule and why /how they occured' but that really isn't needed on the page. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 13:38, 1 February 2012 (CST) | ||
:::::I just think it would be more accurate to state that "for a number of reasons" it is nearly impossible (since that covers everything) rather than singling out one specific one, is all. That's all I'd want to change in that paragraph. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 13:58, 1 February 2012 (CST) | :::::I just think it would be more accurate to state that "for a number of reasons" it is nearly impossible (since that covers everything) rather than singling out one specific one, is all. That's all I'd want to change in that paragraph. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 13:58, 1 February 2012 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 17:03, 2 August 2013
- This movie looks promising-76.31.5.208 00:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC) (S&Wshooter)
-woody's gun- Is likely a puma model 92 "bounty hunter" with a standard level installed. It is probably also in 45LC. This is backed up by 44-40 being a semi bottlenecked round, the ones in the movie all looked straight walled.
- Good call, but unfortunately incorrect. Though very similar, the Puma has a longer barrel and longer stock. Tallahasse's gun is definitely a Mare's leg. I've carefully compared images of those guns and movie stills and it is not the Puma M-92 Bounty Hunter. But definitely a reasonable guess. MoviePropMaster2008 06:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Poster error
- I think a double barreled lever gun would be pretty cool-S&Wshooter 00:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's only cool if it works. So how would a lever action double barreled shotgun work? MoviePropMaster2008 03:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- The same way Bob Barker hasn't turned into dust: magic-S&Wshooter 20:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
google remington 1740 for a double barrel pump action.
The rounds form the MP7 are meant for penetration of body armor. wouldn't that be ineffectual against zombies?
- It would be like shooting a person in the head with an AP round-S&Wshooter 01:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I figure that an MP7A1 might be advantageous in a situation such as a zombie outbreak. From what I can remember, the 4.6mm rounds tumble when entering the body, thus increasing the trauma delivered to tissue. Additionally, figure that the recoil of the MP7A1 would be soft compared to a number of other automatic weapons, which would enable more rapid yet aimed semi-automatic fire. the weight of the weapon in conjunction with the balance of the weapon allow it to be used in one hand, albeit with drastically reduced accuracy, but the option is there. The high-capacity magazine is light enough that you could carry a number of them. from what I gather, the weapon is very reliable, and as it is quite likely that production facilities would be abandoned, replacement parts would be limited, thus reliability would be a valued commodity. The weapon has enough accuracy and range to hit a pretty small target at about 200 meters. The optics could be replaced depending on the situation at hand, due to the rail on the weapon. the only downsides that i could think of would be that ammunition and magazines would be limited, given that the round is unique for the weapon at this time. W190009637
- good point
- incidentally, i am in the process of making an informal zombie survival guide that i have been working on for over a year now. it is at 20 pages, and still growing, with almost 200 individual items that i would like to obtain in the wasteland should i somehow survive. W190009637
- Or you could just use a .22 and buy Max Brook's "The Zombie Survival Guide"-S&Wshooter 06:06, 3 October 2009
- Or buy yourself a gun that doesn't require you to stand directly in front of a zombie, say a 9mm or something, and discount the Zombie Survival Guide's firearm section entirely (Which contradicts itself on multiple occasions). - Anonymous
- Hmm, depends on what kind of zombies you're dealing with. Since traditional zombies can only be killed by destruction of the brain, "stopping power" is rather irrelevant (all that's required is the necessary force to penetrate the skull and destroy the brain). The 'zombies' in Zombieland, on the other hand, are probably still alive, they're just mad cannibals because of the 'mutated mad cow disease' they're said to be infected with. If that's the case, they can probably be killed by the same wounds that would be fatal to normal humans (indeed, this seems to be the case) and so stopping power is still relevant.
- Or buy yourself a gun that doesn't require you to stand directly in front of a zombie, say a 9mm or something, and discount the Zombie Survival Guide's firearm section entirely (Which contradicts itself on multiple occasions). - Anonymous
- Or you could just use a .22 and buy Max Brook's "The Zombie Survival Guide"-S&Wshooter 06:06, 3 October 2009
- Also, while Max Brooks' novels are entertaining (I really liked World War Z) I lost all respect for the advice on firearms in the ZSG when I read the passage that stated that the M16 is the worst assault rifle and the AK47 is the best. Okay, he didn't state that viewpoint as fact, but he went the weasel words route and wrote "many consider" that to be the case, which is almost as bad in my opinion, since anyone who is of that opinion is clearly ignorant. --MattyDienhoff 14:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Max Brooks knows jack shit about firearms and Military Equipment. Enough said.--Oliveira 15:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Max Brooks knows jack shit about anything, really. You want a good zombie killing combo? USE WHAT YOU ALREADY HAVE. Unless you have something retarded like a 20MM rifle.--Asmkillr323 20:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Real good point! This probably sounds very stereotypical but I'd probably use a shotgun for the good stopping power, the increased chance to hit a vital area with each shot, their relative ease of use, and shotguns along hunting rifles are the most available guns in my country (Denmark). In the event of a Zombie apocalypse I'd probable raid a hunting store for gear. If you've got a hunting license here you can get rifles and shotguns up to a max of 25. My grandpa has a .22 a .308 an O/U 12 gauge and a Maverick 88 12 gauge pumper.--T.H.M.Christensen 18:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Max Brooks knows jack shit about anything, really. You want a good zombie killing combo? USE WHAT YOU ALREADY HAVE. Unless you have something retarded like a 20MM rifle.--Asmkillr323 20:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
i have the max brooks book and he makes some serious errors in firearms. he says a good rifle is an M1 carbine. yeah maybe... if it were 1944. i would get an mp5, glock and SA80 mainly becausein britain they are standard firearms for police and armed forces
- well, i have a spanish version of the book, and talks about pistols and revolvers like if they were the same, and for example a revolver can´t jam. Many revolvers are made for hunting, like the s&w 460 and 500 or a revolver in .454 casull. I mean, you can use a good pistol/revolver as a carabine. And finally i found hilarious too his way of describe the m1. He talks like if it were The Colt from supernatural!
Continuity error
I don't think that the two 1911s are a continuty error I think he just ran out of 9MM and had another back up pistol, Because it looked like he had more 1911 Magazines than Sig Sauer mags.
- And you're basing this on what? The film never showed him with three guns. They only established him with two. If he did pull out a third handgun, it was not shown in the film. So that is purely a guess based on seeing more M1911 magazines than SIG ones, which he would need to have since the M1911 mags were single stack and the SIGs were double stack. MoviePropMaster2008 02:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Good point but you have to remember he has to fire more 9mm rounds to do the job of a .45acp jk.
- why? this is not bleeding out. It's zombies. You just need to shoot them in the head. 9mm will do the job just as well as 45. All things are equal 9mm would be the better bet. Less recoil, more beans in the gun. In fact the 9mm does the job just as well in non-zombie related self defense shootings. Go read up at http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm and start your education. :) Potentpoefie 15:57, 8 January 2011 (GMT+2)
I think that the Sig is a full sized p226
New images
Are any of these bootlegs? I expect an answer from those members who uploaded them. The DVD is not out yet so anything NOT from the trailer. If I don't get a confirmation that they are not from bootleg, and this includes bit torrent downloads, then they will be Deleted. Only caps from the authorized DVD are allowed. MoviePropMaster2008 04:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't upload them, but I know for a fact that the official DVD has not been released yet. It comes out 2/2/10 here in the US. That Norinco pick looks like it was played off a DVDrip/Torrent, and it needs to get the fuck outta here.--Asmkillr323 20:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. It's gone. MoviePropMaster2008 22:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Mossberg 500 or Maverick 88 shotgun?
Just a thought, is it possible that this could be a Maverick 88 rather than a Mossberg 500? They are both essentially the same weapons except the Mossberg has a top mounted safety on top of the receiver and the Maverick 88 has one mounted on the trigger guard. Taking a look at the 3rd picture, I'm not seeing a receiver mounted safety, also both of the guns are manufactured by the same company and use the same accessories. (Just a thought)
Wichita?
What is the little rifle used by Little Rock? -- Anonymous
It looks like a Winchester Model 1890 22 caliber pump action rifle, but it also looks new so it might be a Taurus Thunderbolt rifle. Which is a larger caliber version of the 1890. It was designed by John Browning. Here is a link to the Taurus version. --Jcordell 21:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
http://www.taurususa.com/Rifles.cfm?toggle=tf
According to the main page, it's a Taurus 62C, which actually seems to be a clone of a Winchester Model 62 that is it's namesake. http://homesteadfirearms.com/cart2/cartimages/product/323win62whole.jpg You're Taurus Thunderbolt seems to actually be a clone of a Colt Lightning rifle.
Talahasse's armoury
In the last showdown talahasse has somethig sheathed between the pair of shotguns on his back. anyone know what it is?, could it just be a knife or a machete? - Captain Snikt
Yes it's a machete. --Crazycrankle 23:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the handle of the knife he was playing with when Columbus was on the crapper
- fixed your caps....lazy bugger scarecrow 04:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Non-Movie Related
Why does Tallahassee spray paint a 3 on every car he recieves? anyone know? im curious. i love this movie btw....Zulu Two Six
Some say it is the age of his Son, but in actual fact he does it in homage to Nas car racer Dale Earnhart as it his number - Captain snikt
little rock and whichita
has anyone else notice that these two only recieve their weapons after they join forces, as before they had to steal the double barrel and the mare's leg? and also we never actually see whichita fire more than eight rounds at once, but we also never see her reload. so this movie could be more accurate than many make it out to be. anon
- Heck, I'm still trying to figure out how--since the characters supposedly take the names of the towns they're from--the two sisters manage to be from two different cities in two different, non-adjacent states. --Euromutt 06:24, 25 June 2011 (CDT)
Cover
Little Rock is carrying a shovel. Not a baseball bat. That is all. --Pump_Shotty_Justice 23:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Norinco
Doesn't the guy shooting the Norico look an awful lot like Nick from Left 4 Dead
- Nah, that guy in the beginning of the film using the Norinco Type 84 looks nothing like Nick from L4D2. --ThatoneguyJosh 12:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Does this picture caption count as snarky/insulting commentary?
Tallahassee glares at Columbus for his unsafe gun handling after they kill two obese redneck zombies in a supermarket.
This comment is on the image where it shows Woody Harrelson's and Jesse Eisenberg's characters are in the supermarket. I just wanted to ask first if this comment counts as being snarky/insulting, and whether or not it should be removed. --ThatoneguyJosh 23:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me, I don't see any reason to change it.--Mr-Jigsaw 00:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- That caption would be fine with me if Tallahassee actually was glaring at Columbus in the movie, but he wasn't. In the scene that still is taken from Tallahassee is momentarily looking past Columbus at the zombies he'd killed prior, he wasn't even looking at Columbus, let alone long enough for it considered to be "glaring". The caption misinterprets the scene in order to be snarky. I say remove it. --MattyDienhoff 06:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- The caption has now been changed to better suit what is going on in the double screenshot(?). --ThatoneguyJosh 03:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- BTW. You guys are right to alter the caption to better describe the scene. BUT.. remember this ... we ban snarky commentary about the ACTOR outside of the context of the film. BUT.... If a "CHARACTER" in the story is annoyed with another CHARACTER in the context of the story for unsafe gun handling or blinking or whatever, it's IN the movie, it's not being manufactured by the writer, so it stays. Don't confuse this with an IMFDB contributor being Snarky about an actor in a screenshot. They are two completely different things. MoviePropMaster2008 05:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I shall keep that in mind MoviePropMaster2008 --ThatoneguyJosh 02:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- BTW. You guys are right to alter the caption to better describe the scene. BUT.. remember this ... we ban snarky commentary about the ACTOR outside of the context of the film. BUT.... If a "CHARACTER" in the story is annoyed with another CHARACTER in the context of the story for unsafe gun handling or blinking or whatever, it's IN the movie, it's not being manufactured by the writer, so it stays. Don't confuse this with an IMFDB contributor being Snarky about an actor in a screenshot. They are two completely different things. MoviePropMaster2008 05:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Abrams
On the page at the moment is this statement:
"Because of the Gun Control Act of 1968, it is nearly impossible to get an M1 Abrams tank for private use (i.e. a movie prop vehicle company)"
I don't think that's entirely accurate (or at least not complete). There's several issues.
- Unlike the Chieftain, there have been no mass-retirements of Abrams tanks; this means no pool of spare parts, no retired mechanics eager to work privately, and no availability of vehicles.
- An Abrams is about ten short tons heavier than a Chieftain at current combat weights. This means you're going to get billed for more busted manhole covers (I imagine cities like doing that to productions involving tanks). However, these two pale in comparison to:
- There's currently one privately owned Abrams in the entire world. It's an XM1 wreck in a museum in Cali, and it's the rejected General Motors prototype design rather than the final Chrysler Defence version. This matters because these prototypes are usually made of mild steel. A current Abrams is not made of mild steel. It's made of a classified composite armour which includes a layer of depleted uranium. In other words, if you wanted to buy an Abrams from the government, they would first have to take off all the armoured surfaces. You'd get a bunch of tank guts and nothing to put them in.
- You also have a nice, friendly diesel on the Chieftain. The Abrams doesn't have one of those, it has a 1,500 horsepower turbine that burns 10 gallons of fuel just by turning over. As well as the thing eating you out of house and home, you have to deal with the fact that gunning the engine can give people standing too close to the rear third-degree burns, since it's effectively a jet engine. I'm fairly sure that's not going to appeal to the production's insurance guys.
- IDENTIFY YOURSELF first. And none of your points disproves the initial premise that GCA-68 bans M1 Abrahms tanks via law, so all of your musings are just that, musings. You just listed other possible points which would make it difficult if it were NOT for the fact that it is ALREADY banned by GCA-68. Interestingly enough, I can tell you're not from the West coast by calling us CALI, which a lot of Californians don't like because it confuses us with Cali, Colombia (aka the Cali Cartel). Also I've seen the one privately own XM1 Abrahms tank at the Littlefield's in Northern California and yes, it has been under 'refurbishment for years' since spare parts are hard to get.MoviePropMaster2008 13:18, 28 January 2012 (CST)
Apparently to be 1968-compliant you'd have to disable the breech or remove the gun; the above issues of burning actors to death and buying a tank with no turret and no hull that you can't buy probably have more to do with it. Evil Tim 04:33, 28 January 2012 (CST)
- Again, only with big gun or weapons platforms made BEFORE 1968. You guys are talking about something made completely irrelevant because the vehicle is already banned by law. MoviePropMaster2008 13:20, 28 January 2012 (CST)
- It's just me. And as far as I'm aware, what you're saying would apply if you wanted a tank with a functional main gun, since while I know the ATF has tried to argue that a piece of string can be considered a machine gun, I don't think they've ever argued that a vehicle with no working weapons can be considered a firearm. People have imported weapons to the US made after that date as long as they were demilled properly (I recall a story about a collector from California importing a pair of 80s-built demilled Czech Scud launchers in 1998 that ended up in the news because one of the missiles was actually live) and all the current decomissioned British vehicles in Hollywood would have been imported in the 80s and 90s. The tank here has Stillbrew armour from what I can tell (it looks like the same one in Walking Dead), which was fitted to the turrets of Chieftains in 1986.
- Museums have different rules with the government. I KNOW personally the collector who had the SCUD (there was only ONE SCUD and it was a bring back from Desert Storm ONE and the warheads were NOT live,, it was typical hysteria). I've seen the collection in person. He got around the Federal ban by having his collection become 'officially' a museum. With that exemption you are required to allow the general public access with either tours or open entry. He opted for guided tours. Either way every post 68 piece of armor was imported in the U.S. under the auspices of being for a Museum. I know a Central California 'tank farm' that got more recent armor because he's considered 'A Military museum' by the Feds. There are tank museums in the South which can receive armor, but again they must be open to the public. A tank museum in California 'loaned' armor to Spielberg for some 2nd unit shots for Saving Private Ryan. Spielberg's people trashed the tanks so the guy vowed never to let any movie production use his armor again (thanks Steven!).
- What I heard of that was there was a second launcher which was Czech, and while it had no warhead the British company that arranged the sale had somehow managed to get hold of a fully functional Scud booster which was impounded and later destroyed. If that's wrong then I guess it's just inaccurate sources, but I do recall it in the news over here. Evil Tim 13:58, 1 February 2012 (CST)
- Museums have different rules with the government. I KNOW personally the collector who had the SCUD (there was only ONE SCUD and it was a bring back from Desert Storm ONE and the warheads were NOT live,, it was typical hysteria). I've seen the collection in person. He got around the Federal ban by having his collection become 'officially' a museum. With that exemption you are required to allow the general public access with either tours or open entry. He opted for guided tours. Either way every post 68 piece of armor was imported in the U.S. under the auspices of being for a Museum. I know a Central California 'tank farm' that got more recent armor because he's considered 'A Military museum' by the Feds. There are tank museums in the South which can receive armor, but again they must be open to the public. A tank museum in California 'loaned' armor to Spielberg for some 2nd unit shots for Saving Private Ryan. Spielberg's people trashed the tanks so the guy vowed never to let any movie production use his armor again (thanks Steven!).
- It's just me. And as far as I'm aware, what you're saying would apply if you wanted a tank with a functional main gun, since while I know the ATF has tried to argue that a piece of string can be considered a machine gun, I don't think they've ever argued that a vehicle with no working weapons can be considered a firearm. People have imported weapons to the US made after that date as long as they were demilled properly (I recall a story about a collector from California importing a pair of 80s-built demilled Czech Scud launchers in 1998 that ended up in the news because one of the missiles was actually live) and all the current decomissioned British vehicles in Hollywood would have been imported in the 80s and 90s. The tank here has Stillbrew armour from what I can tell (it looks like the same one in Walking Dead), which was fitted to the turrets of Chieftains in 1986.
- It also doesn't explain why no prop company anywhere in the world owns a modern tank; that's for the reasons I cite; classified materials, expenses, and with turbine-operated tanks the fact that they're dangerous to operate on set compared to fakes running diesel engines. With a Leclerc, Leopard 2, Challenger I or II, Abrams, or any other current generation tank, a demilled tank would have no hull. That means that even if you could get one with a deactivated main gun or one with no gun that you intended to mount a fake one on, what you'd actually be allowed to buy would be an engine, a drivetrain and a semi truck full of tank bits. The reason no privately-owned modern tanks exist is basically the same as the reason there are no privately-owned F-22s. Evil Tim 12:17, 1 February 2012 (CST)
- LOL. that is technically true, but also not that important. Yes, the cost and logistics makes it cost prohibitive. But it's the government regulations that restrict it at one level. Sure you can spend a lot of money to skirt around the law but then it becomes completely unprofitable. Also as you pointed out, so much of the modern stuff would have to be 'redacted' that it's pointless. remember we're talking about Prop companies, businesses that are in the business of renting to movies, TV etc. Now if we want to comply with fed guidelness and turn into museums, we can. But a lot of us won't purely because it is just too much hassle for the benefit. The problem here is that you don't think the single sentence is accurate. Sure you can spend paragraphs and paragraphs explaining the examples of 'exceptions to the rule and why /how they occured' but that really isn't needed on the page. MoviePropMaster2008 13:38, 1 February 2012 (CST)
- I just think it would be more accurate to state that "for a number of reasons" it is nearly impossible (since that covers everything) rather than singling out one specific one, is all. That's all I'd want to change in that paragraph. Evil Tim 13:58, 1 February 2012 (CST)
- LOL. that is technically true, but also not that important. Yes, the cost and logistics makes it cost prohibitive. But it's the government regulations that restrict it at one level. Sure you can spend a lot of money to skirt around the law but then it becomes completely unprofitable. Also as you pointed out, so much of the modern stuff would have to be 'redacted' that it's pointless. remember we're talking about Prop companies, businesses that are in the business of renting to movies, TV etc. Now if we want to comply with fed guidelness and turn into museums, we can. But a lot of us won't purely because it is just too much hassle for the benefit. The problem here is that you don't think the single sentence is accurate. Sure you can spend paragraphs and paragraphs explaining the examples of 'exceptions to the rule and why /how they occured' but that really isn't needed on the page. MoviePropMaster2008 13:38, 1 February 2012 (CST)
- It also doesn't explain why no prop company anywhere in the world owns a modern tank; that's for the reasons I cite; classified materials, expenses, and with turbine-operated tanks the fact that they're dangerous to operate on set compared to fakes running diesel engines. With a Leclerc, Leopard 2, Challenger I or II, Abrams, or any other current generation tank, a demilled tank would have no hull. That means that even if you could get one with a deactivated main gun or one with no gun that you intended to mount a fake one on, what you'd actually be allowed to buy would be an engine, a drivetrain and a semi truck full of tank bits. The reason no privately-owned modern tanks exist is basically the same as the reason there are no privately-owned F-22s. Evil Tim 12:17, 1 February 2012 (CST)