Talk:Metal Gear Solid: Philanthropy

I was debating doing this...

But I figured since they were all pretty obvious Airsoft weapons, it really didn't feel right.-protoAuthor 00:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's FINE to have it here. It's a legitimate entry in IMDB.com so it can have a page here. I've seen much bigger motion pictures that used mostly Airsoft guns, so that's not a disqualifier. Airsofts have been a godsend for replica guns. I remember the bad old days of the 1980s when there were so few replica NON guns available, but every idiot filmmaker wanted the latest and greatest guns, except in replica form. But they weren't available unless we smuggled them in from Japan (few people were selling the really obscure replicas from Japan. I remember an L85A1 going for $700.00 USD and it was a lousy spring air gun, and this was in 1980s dollars which were worth a lot more than today's dollars). Whether or not it sucks or not (the critics think it sucks) is not up to US to determine. It's fine having a page here. Though Fan made, it was released to the general public and has an IMDB listing.  :) MoviePropMaster2008 02:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally thought Philanthropy was great (I just saw it for the first time a couple hours ago), but take that with a grain of sand (I liked Bloodrayne and Doom, after all...). Spartan198 02:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I hate Doom and Bloodrayne with a passion, mostly cause it's another Uwe Bolle piece of shit. Doom at least tried. Anyway, I am going to watch this MGS fan movie since I saw the trailer and it looked exceptionally good for something made by fans. Excalibur01 04:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

just a note most of them are not air soft. they fire real blanks the 10000 euros spent was mainly for the equipment. also has anyone seen the film yet if so pretty good huhsmish34

Sorry, dude, that's all CG. You can tell.-protoAuthor 02:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

also i was just wandering what you think is it a good page i created here, i have created others (mgs peace walker in particular) but i just wanted to find out what the the users of this fine website think of it. and they are bringing out two sequels philanthropy is part 1 and two more are supposed to be released but i don't know when good ting is they are going to be a quite long as well. smish34

I have this movie on my computer now. I'll see if I can get some better caps. Excalibur01 16:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

yeah i got the images from google images. i couldnt find any others. smish34

I have a collection of screen captures of the movie on my computer. snakevenom56|

LAW Confusion (moved to talk page by Spartan198)

- I believe they just edited out his grabbing a new LAW for the third shot. - Greenwolf

- There were three M72 in dead soldier's backpack, transition from second to third law was cutted ;) - Alberto Vazzola, Hive Division

Thanks for the info, Alberto. Good work on the film. I really enjoyed it and I eagerly await the next chapter. Spartan198 11:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Spartan198

Snake's M4 sight will not help him see anything

I noticed this several times and it's that the red dot on Snake's M4 is mounted on the rail where the carrying handle should be. It's fine, but they should have put it on an M4 with flip up front sights or absent front sights. The post in in the way. Excalibur01 18:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It still works, the dot would just go over the front sight post, basically illuminating it and making it easier to see. It sort of replaces the rear sight and makes the front sight more visible when used that way. - Gunmaster45

No, look closer, the center of the red dot is not aligned with the front sight. It's FLAT on the top. Imagine the Aimpoint sight without the mount and picture it just sitting on the rail. I can imagine that if they have an elevated mount to put the red dot sight up higher, then it'll make you see the front better, otherwise, it gets in the way of the red dot. Excalibur01 22:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how low or high the RDS is mounted, the FSP is irrelevant. You know how you can't see the bridge of your nose without closing one eye? Well, the same principle applies here. Aim with both eyes open, one eye through the sight and the other on the target. Your brain merges the two images into one and it focuses the FSP out of the picture, making it essentially invisible. All you see is the dot on the target. Spartan198 13:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever sight a rifle with the red dot like that? Notice that in all the examples of a red dot on an AR-15 rifle, the Red Dot is either elevated enough so that the front sight post is not obstructing the picture or the FSP has been removed. Looking through a RDS with both eyes open is a basic thing when sighting. It helps you see the entire picture, but if the eye that is doing the sighting is obscured with something, then you can't see the whole picture.

This is what it would look like. I know it's from Call of Duty 4, but this is a good example of what it would look like if the front sight post was removed from the M4, you'd have a clear picture, not a thick black line right down the middle of your red dot. Excalibur01