Talk:Punisher: War Zone

This is a quote from an interview with the military advisor of the film about how he outfitted Frank

"We used weapons based on need and back-story and nothing made up. All of the Punisher’s weapons currently exist and are being used in modern combat! The Punisher originated out of Vietnam, so his primary weapon in the film is an M-4 which he would feel the most comfortable with. To that I mounted a mini grenade launcher using thermo baric grenades for point detonations. I followed that up with the most powerful revolver on the planet, a Knight’s Armament/Smith&Wesson custom Model 500 .50 cal, in a breakaway leg holster as his back-up! We created two fully automatic Beretta 92f handguns for close quarter combat. In the opening of the film he uses ultra reliable H&K custom MP5’s in fully automatic that he carries in the small of his back, and for speed draws a H&K USP compact .45. I also had a custom mini 13” Bolo machete combat knife created that he carries on a leg holster for hand to hand. The result was modern weapons used in the modern time, but in full Punisher style!"

Not a very good advisor, is he? The Smith & Wesson 500 is the most powerful production revolver, certainly not the most powerful on the planet. The .600 Nitro Revolver made by some guy that weighs about 12 pounds is the most powerful. Sounds like he's a little too excited about his decisions. Personally, this movie looks like it will suck, but I'll give it a chance. -GM

The Pfeifer Zeliska .600 Nitro Express revolver is more powerful but it IS NOT a "production revolver" so sorry to break to you chief and your expertise.. but SW 500 "most powerful production revolver in the world today" so the Military Advisor is right.-D

You are aware I'm the one who said it's athe most powerful production revolver right? He said it was the most powerful in the world, but it isn't. I said the Pfeifer Zeliska was, but it isn't a production gun. Read more carefully next time. - Gunmaster45

Actually, in the comics Frank Castle states he hates the M16 and M4 rifles. He also always carries a m1911 and a pump gun in his coat and has a M249 on the backseat of his Hummer.-S&Wshooter 22:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For me, I might not watch this movie really because Thomas Jane isn't in it and it looks like a bad generic action movie. I like how the first one showed how the Punisher really can do things we believe, but the moment I saw the trailer of the Punisher dropping from the ceiling, and spinning around with double MP5Ks...it makes it look like the action style is trying to be John Woo, but even that is over the top. The weapon of choices they give the Punisher movie, in my opinion, doesn't fit for how the Punisher should be. I understand the M4 with the grenade launcher and even the USP as the backup, but apparently, he carries all that in one action sequence. Seems a little too much stuff to carry, but hey, I'll give this movie a chance to JUST because I have to really see it to really critize it. -Ex

Full auto Beretta Inoxs are very tactically stupid. A S&W 500 is not a back up gun, it's a primary. You don't carry an ankle gun that can down a bear. Personally, I thought the original Punisher comics sucked ass, too "comics" like. Have you ever read a seventies comic? They are terrible. Like a bad '50s safety video. Personally I liked the "Welcome Back, Frank" story which the 2004 film was based on. Thomas Jane was going for the "descent into madness" sort of look like DeNiro in Taxi Driver, which is an interesting idea (although the punisher should not be a physchopath, that's bad). Castle's attachment to 1911s was one of my favorite elements of the story. And my LEAST favorite part of the old comics was the costume. The new story made it a sweet T-shirt, this one brings out the lame ass tights. I just don't have much faith in it. - Gunmaster45

Are they INOXs or 92FS? I tried to distinguish what I thought was right on the page, but why would they switch Beretta models like that?-UW

I want to know who this military adviser for the film is and tell him that most of his suggestions for a modern day Punisher arsenal is very stupid. Except the M4 with the GL. The S&W 500 and auto Berettas dual wielding and dual wielding MP5ks while spinning from a chandelier is very stupid and he's watched too many John Woo movies and even John Woo never had his actors spin around a chandelier like that... Excalibur01 06:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I followed a lot of the details about this movie for a while before it came out. I think the military advisor was mostly responsible for teaching the handling of the weapons. While it's definitely possible he advised some of these weapon choices, it's more likely director Lexi Alexander made the final calls. I can't say I agree with her vision, but I enjoyed the film for its action and cheesy performances. The 04 version was a serious film that was marred by a lot of stupid stuff and a lack of action. The 08 version was a campy attempt that didn't even try to be serious but had the brutality that the 04 movie lacked. It's sad that a film hasn't yet been made that's done the Punisher justice. I don't know how to post pictures, but put Punisher revolver into a search engine and it will bring up the sweet Knight's Armament custom piece that was made for the final fight, no matter how impractical it may be. A lot of stuff in War Zone was done simply for the sake of theatrics. -- ZG

(I followed a lot of the details about this movie for a while before it came out. I think the military advisor was mostly responsible for teaching the handling of the weapons. While it's definitely possible he advised some of these weapon choices, it's more likely director Lexi Alexander made the final calls.)

Well said, and not to burst anyone else's bubble but the ARMORER or Military Advisor doesn't make the final call on weapons ... EVER. It's the director. Period. I've had to bite my tongue several times (as the other armorers here can attest as well) when a Director picks a weapon that I would not have. But it's their decision to make. So stop blaming the advisors or armorers, when it's probably the director you need to yell at. Just a note! :) MoviePropMaster2008 07:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Punisher '04 was plenty bloody and brutal, better constructed and better acted. Tom Jane's Frank Castle, quite frankly, would stomp mudholes right into the Jason Voorhees wannabe that Ray Stevenson either chose to portray or HAD to portray. And frankly, no amount of theatrics can act as an excuse for the absolute tripe that went down in this movie. Seemed like the man was holstering and drawing his pistols every other kill; I'm sorry, isn't he supposed to be former frickin' Special Forces? And for all of the whole "We're more faithful to the comics" crap, I'm not seeing it. I can't remember a single one of the MAX comics being as horrible as this movie ended up being. Total dreck. And I've got a few choice words for the military advisor on the movie, but I'm afraid that they're not suitable for even this little corner of the Internet. --Clutch 09:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The theatrics, I think, were just another one of the films downfalls. I agree the 04 version was better acted. As for the construction of the films...eh, I've got too many thoughts to list. I'm glad you liked the 04 movie. The fact that both films have so many fans AND detractors just means there's so much territory still to cover, though I think the fans have been part of what tears these movies apart. I'm much more lenient on the film because I have no definitive view of the Punisher and I really have no particular need for material to come directly from the comics. I think we need to step away from the comics and focus on what makes a good movie, instead. Though I was just thinking earlier that War Zone was so goofy and flamboyant, if they were going to drop the Punisher into the Marvel Universe with the likes of Spiderman and Iron Man, this would pretty much be the Punisher I would expect them to use.

^Do we have comments from a film maker here? Please comment more. - Gunmaster45

They destroyed The Punisher

The advisor said that the guns are full punisher style! Bullshit! they ruined the whole thing like the dropping from the ceiling with to SMGs part. And the real punisher doesn't use extremely modern looking weapons and dress up like that! This movie might have lots of action and all that but the style of the punisher is gone. The 1911s are a trademark of Frank Castle, so to Lionsgate, bring Thomas Jane back or the next Punisher suffers!-GunnutHk

Thomas Jane was completely onboard for the second Punisher movie, but when the producers took too long getting a script up and changing actors, he decided to drop out. I think this movie would have been better if Thomas Jane was in it. And speaking of the 1911, we do see in the movie the Punisher taking a 1911, disasemebling it and cleaning it, but never use it. Excalibur01 10:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Thomas Jane's take on Castle was far superior to Ray Stevenson's (no diss to Ray, though, as he's one of my favorite actors). And I also agree that the weapon selections (save for the M4A1, the SL8, and the MP5Ks) sucked. They should have given him 1911s instead of Beretta 92s or that 500 and put an M203 on the M4 instead of that AGX. Spartan198 17:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi everybody i was just wonering wher did he keep his usp compact?

the Punisher seems like a Vigilante slowly going down hill then a action hero rex095

Better than the Thomas Jane one there reason is Castle has no super powers but he has one that could be a super power his incredible pain tolerance he just doesn't care about pain he is a pure killing machine no regrets whatsoever and that's why this movie nailed it, Jane was a pussy with his t shirt and getting beaten all the time in this movie even though he got the shit kicked out of him by Jigsaws brother he didn't even flinch he didn't hesitate to kill micro cause that was what he had to do Punisher doesn't care about life if it can't be saved he wont try

The Jane Punisher getting the shit kicked out of him by the Russian was straight out of the comics and very faithful to how it played on film. The fight with LBJ was frankly anemic, and boring. Also, if he doesn't care about a life that he knows can not be saved, then why the hell did he tell the ex-gangbanger who was missing limbs and had an axe in his chest not to die on him? That is a very un-Punisher thing to say.

And that one shot in the 2004 film of Jane shooting a thug lying wounded on the ground without given him any notice or care, says a lot more about the character than killing 50 criminals in one scene.173.88.129.35

My weigh in on the Russian fight is that I just wasn't a big fan of Castle getting beat up. I didn't like how it was done in the comic and the movie recreation was just so-so. If you've ever played the PS2 or Xbox Punisher game, that scenario plays out with Frank kicking the crap out of the Russian and tossing him out a window. I'd have liked that better. As for the injured ex-gangbanger, to me that showed a bit of character development from Frank, who had previously shown his distaste for the man, but after working with him had come to view him as an ally. This is something we'd probably never see in the comic, and I liked it. I did really like the shootout in the 04 Punisher, especially when he finished off the wounded guy, but I also felt we got the same type of brutal Punisher mindset when Stevenson threw McGinty onto an iron fence before jumping down on his neck. What I liked the most about the Dolph Lundgren and Ray Stevenson films is that they showed that the Punisher can viciously murder criminals and still be a GOOD GUY without dealing with all that anti-hero moral conundrum bullcrap. -- ZG

Regarding the gangbanger thing, you may have liked but it was a completely out of character thing for him to say, even to an ally. They went for a cliched moment that was out of character.173.88.129.35

Also, scenes being constantly neonlighted got pretty annoying fast. I'm sure the idea sounds cool in paper, but is quite the opposite in practice. -AlkoTanko

Ok, tho i might not be the biggest military buff, i did a few years in the royal marines, but i do know comics and i know the punisher, bitch all you like about the stupid MP5 cieling deal , cus that was retarded, but this is garthe ennis's marvel max punisher, the punisher comics every tru punisher fan swears by. The 2004 tom jane job was based loosely on welcome back frank and punisher year one. Garth ennis wrote welcome back frank as a tester to get punisher made into a serious adult title and he self proclaimed hating the stupid bits in the comic such as the russian. Now you can say that tom janes version was any less tactially aware than stevensons, i mean he took a 40mm lancher into a nightclub and didnt even cover up his arms. Im not sayin i dont like the 2004 version, but it wasnt the punisher. Just angry op the movie, wrong actor, wrong location and a shity villain. So im gonna defend stevensons monosyallabic rough house, and dont forget kiddies, this is based on a comic book movie --Captain Snikt 03:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, anyone who has read Punisher knows he loses a lot of fights, it creates dramatic tension. If he won hands down every fight it would get boring, there needs to be a challenge. That's why every one of the Ennis stories had an epic fight with someone of Frank's aptitude. Second, Frank rarely gives a shit when people die, especially gangbangers reformed or not. The only one in recent memory was O'Brian. Third, they screwed up every villain from the comic. Pitsy was supposed to be an old tough bastard with a "Fuck you you fuckin fuck!" attitude, in this he was more a tag-along fuck-tard. McGinty was a torture loving psycho out for money, not a meth addict free-runner looking for a fun time. Tiberiu Bulat was an irredeemable rapist war criminal, not a kindly old man who had rules who you could make a deal wit. Where should i start with Jigsaw? That being said Stevenson was a pretty good Castle, and Wayne Knight was a pretty good Micro. the movie around them was what sucked, the over the top Jigsaw, the ceiling shooting, and Nicky Cavella the undercover cop instead of the maniac from the comic ruined this film. It talked a good game in the locker room but was shaky when it was time to put on the cleats.

What they should've done was just adapt some Punisher: Max stories, seriously, those're awesome. In fact, wouldn't it be great if directors could just get their head around the fact that they could simply take the comic DIRECTLY into a movie? Of course, then you have their egos to deal with, and then all hell breaks loose... I noticed someone said above that Frank doesn't like the M16/M4. This is true, but he actually does use it, because he likes the M203. And speaking of firearms, would a suppressor on a .50 cal revolver even do anything? I mean, don't revolvers have that gap between the barrel and cylinder, making supporessors useless besides hiding muzzle flash? And another thing; he puts a scope onto the smaller 500, but doesn't put one onto the longer 500, which has a picattiny rail built into it just for scopes? Holy shit, that's just sad. Will there ever be a movie that has a bunch of firearms, but doesn't screw them all up? Huh...you know, imagine that, if some director asks for advice from a site like this to make sure he knows what the hell he's doing. Now that I think about it, why don't the armorers ever tell them about that stuff? Whatever...--Zblayde 02:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 "would a suppressor on a .50 cal revolver even do anything? I mean, don't revolvers have that gap between the barrel and cylinder, making supporessors useless besides hiding
  muzzle flash?"-- Zblayde|Zblayde

On a normal revolver, no. It is possible to build a revolver tight enough to be effectively suppressed. For an example, look up the Nagant R-1895m though from what I understand the way that the Nagant works is quite different from an ordinary revolver. One of the biggest advantages to suppressing a revolver is that you don't leave behind any shells.

Mini Crossbow

In the beginning of the movie, the Punisher uses a very small fold-out crossbow to take down a guard at the docks. Is this even a real weapon?

- Wade Wilson

Before the weapon is unfolded it has similar shape and structure of a glock pistol or a Sig Sauer

it could be the same model but customized

moviemaster1993

unknowns

[moved from main page] --AdAstra2009 06:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mircrochip's gun racks

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Right side, very top is a (very) shorty G3. -Spartan198 22:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

it is a airsot replica produced by Tokyo Marui model company labled the g3SAS

Yep, correct, that's a G3 SAS from Tokyo Marui. Coincidentally, I held one not too long ago (although the one I held was fitted with a fixed stock). -MT2008 13:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

there is an L86 LSW

         (nope sorry it's a L85a2)

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Guns in this pic?

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Steyr TMP?

• m1911 pistol
• mp5
• beretta 92 two tone( maybe a elite II)
• m4a1
• rare.22 type suppresed pistol

Unknowns

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

I see the MP5Ks with removed foregrips, Springfield XDs, M1911s and a full size MP5.-GunnutHk

Actually I think the one on the bottom right is a Smith & Wesson M&P.

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

probaly a Charter Arms Snub

i don't think charter makes a hammerless.

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Micro/Mini Uzi? That looks like an Uzi stock

It's a Smith & Wesson M76. You can see the stock and the hand grip. If your smart.

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Ruger Mk II?

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Ruger Mk II pistol with a standard heavy barrel - .22 LR

.

looks like it. Rockwolf66 18:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  that is a 44 or 357 automag-Doomsayer64

Revenge or Punishment?

Okay, the Punisher punishes people right? He began punishing them as a form of revenge, but still, why would they write "Vengeance has a new name" on the dvd cover? That's kind of inaccurate...does anyone agree? --FirearmFanatic 14:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC) I think they meant that vengeance has a new name which is Frank Castle

I disagree. There was alreay a Punisher film made. I think they meant Ray Stevenson, since he's replacing Thomas Jane as the Punisher. As a side note, I believe TJ's Punisher could kick the crap outta RS's Punisher. Agree or disagree?

So? M4 or not?

Reading the comments, I never found a streight answer. Everyone seems to call it an 'Ak47' when it may be a chinese copy. So, when the armourer says 'M4' I doubt he means it. It's definatly an HK416. Please change it. I beg of you.

Tell me your evidence that it is an HK416. Unfortunately none of the screen caps on the page gives us the lower receiver. It could be a Colt M933, the shorter barrel version of the M4 with a flat top. So point out please how you've come to the conclusion that it's a 416. Excalibur01

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4Xi5mYXi0g watch the behind the scenes that talks all about the weapons. You get a pretty good look at the whole rifle the armorer holds up for you. You can see that the top rails are interrupted unlike the 416 which has an uninterrupted top rail. You can also see that on the KAC quad rail system, the holes are big circles instead of small slits. So this is in fact an M4 system with a short 10in barrel, but it could be called the M933 because of the shorter barrel. I know the lighting makes it harder to see the rails and the receiver and on top of that in the semi-dark you can almost see an uninterrupted top rail. Excalibur01

And what do you mean "Everyone seems to call it an 'Ak47' when it may be a chinese copy." ? Someone on the discussion calling the M4 an AK? Excalibur01

No, he means "like when we see on other pages people calling a gun the "AK-47" when in reality it is a Norinco Type-56", i.e. the example of technically mis-identifying a gun as a generic type when at IMFDB, we ID as close to the real platform as possible. That's all.

I have this movie on Blu Ray, and the Punisher's rifle is not an HK416. The lower receiver lacks H&K markings, and the production model 416 does not have a tan-colored "LE" six-position buttstock. The upper receiver make is harder to identify, but the quad-rail is definitely not the same type that comes standard on the 416. That being said said, this does appear to be a short-stroke piston upper, which is the same type of system used by the 416, but H&K is no longer the only company manufacturing such weapons.

Also, yes, it is true that the armorer might just be using "M4" as a generic term, but I don't think so. Actually, in the past few years, we've had a problem on IMFDB where everyone seems to think that any fancy-looking AR-type weapon which lacks a front sight post is an HK416 (I remember when the Live Free or Die Hard page used to say that the Mark 12 Mod 0s in that movie were HK416s). -MT2008 14:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember when people also assume a fancy looking AR-15 to be a Barret M468 or the REC-7 as it is called now. Oh MT, how can you tell if it is using a stroke piston upper? Excalibur01

I'm not 100% sure, but it looks like it. -MT2008 03:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Castle firing his M4A1

The Magazine on the 416 is shaped slightly differently than the M4. Also, it being fitted with the AG36 Grenade Launcher and not the M203. This makes it look like the HK416.

I'm sorry, but you CLEARLY have no clue here. A 416 can take regular AR mags, and vice-versa. And the AG36 can be mounted to ANY AR model rifle (there are pictures of Canadian SF units using AG36s on their C7s and C8s). Furthermore, as our page says, the AG36 used on this movie was actually a Madbull AGX airsoft replica. This is not an HK416; the receiver has no H&K markings (when I watch my Blu-Ray copy), and the quad-rail handguard is clearly not the HK-style. -MT2008 03:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And as I said earlier, if you go to the link to watch the special features of the weapons by the armorer, he holds it up and you can see the quad-rail handguard and the holes are not the same as the 416 and the top rail is interrupted unlike the 416. Excalibur01

Considering the barrel length, wouldn't it be more accurate to classify it as a Mark 18 CQB-R instead of an M4? I mean, unless someone can identify the suppressor and determine how much barrel it fits over (some suppressors simply screw onto the threads or the flash hider/muzzle brake itself, whereas others, like the OPS, Inc. 12th Model for the Mark 12 SPR, covers a good portion of the barrel when attached, making it seem shorter than it actually is). As most of the regulars here know, most M16A2s in movies have full auto lowers which would technically make them M16A3s, but we still classify them as M16A2s because that's what they're mimicking. And for all intents and purposes, the "M4" in this movie seems to be mimicking a CQB-R. Spartan198 16:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that it should be relabeled as an M4A1. This weapon is obviously an M4 that was highly customized for CQB, and not a Colt 933-PunisherDave

I dunno if we can call it the Mark 18 CQBR, since the Mark 18 has a standard DI upper with the triangular front sight post. If anybody can identify the specific make/model of the upper receiver (because I can't), then it would be perfectly fine to re-label the weapon on the page. But what I do know for sure is that this gun is not an HK416, so it would be inappropriate to label it as such. Until we know for sure what it is (and until I see credible proof), "M4A1" is the appropriate generic description. -MT2008 17:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The standard FSP on an M4 can easily be changed out with another front sight design or even just a gas block. Why would the Mark 18 be any different? Spartan198 08:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing with the punisher is, he could have changed out the barrel and removed any markings, but whatever it is it is NOT an M4, at least not an off the rack version. I thought it was an HK416 after playing army of two. Certainly does look a hell of a lot like it.

First of all, use ":" to separate your entries; don't bleed into Spartan's. Second, it's not an HK416. -MT2008 04:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at a weapon made by Bushmaster called the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S, it is an M4 Carbine copy and the image i found had the same stock as this weapon, and to had the top stroke piston, the only difference between the movie and this image is the shorter barrel. I definitely think that the weapon used is the XM-15 E2S

AK74U is NOT an SMG

Somebody put this rifle in the SMG section most likely because he played too much call of duty. Excalibur01

grenade launcher minimum detonation range

how come there is a huge stink kicked up about the use of weapons, and no body has made a section about the use of the grenade launcher in the last major fight scenes in the movie. i distinctly remember a scene where frank punches his grenade launcher through a door, and fires it into a room, where it detonates not 5 meters from where it was fired. this hardly seems accurate, as the explosion took out almost all of the occupants of the room, and yet did no harm to the punisher. -turtle

For 2 reasons. One, in all action movies, grenade launchers have NO minimum detonation range and 2...He's the freaking Punisher. He bathes in fire and washes his mouth in bullets Excalibur01 02:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)