Talk:At Bay: The Sequel to Offshore

Is this a genuine film, or some self-published short? Because those are the crappiest-looking airsoft guns I've ever seen in a movie.--PistolJunkie 06:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Though it is a SELF PUBLISHED SHORT, it got listed on IMDB. IMDB lists many indie shorts, some of them not even completed. IMDB is weird that way. I know of a dozen so called 'films' which are listed, but were never completed. (which is different than completed, but unavailable due to being sold out or distribution issues). So having an IMDB listing qualifies this entry, though I suspect that the film's maker is the page maker. MoviePropMaster2008 15:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank God for IMFDB. It's pages like these that make it all worthwhile. User:Blokhed 28 Sept. 2010

I'm sorry, but when you can see the freakin' nozzles on the P99s and the screws on that MP5K... thing, that's not good.--PistolJunkie 19:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they are supposed to be real. It looks like it's a film about games. Look at the graphics on the caps, like it's a video game.

This thing is on Amazon too... for $12. Why anyone would pay $12 for something like this I do not know, although reading the reviews, it seems that 12 year old stoners are the only people watching it.-Ranger01 20:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when do we add junky, airsoft-using home movies? It looks like total junk and I'd rather watch Left Behind than this junk. I really don't think this site should bless junk that looks like a bad video game with a page. How had is it to make an IMDB page? The page has no information at all except for a plot synopsis (stupid) and a list of no-name "actors". Please, we have standards here! Delete this junk!--Mandolin 14:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

IF MPM says it stays, then I'm going to try and bring it as close to decent as possible. But I'd rather he do what you suggested and delete this POS. I can only polish a turd so much.--PistolJunkie 15:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not the grand Poobah of IMFDB. I'm just reiterating the rules. According to the rules, it qualifies if it is a recognized title that is listed on IMDB. Being both on IMDB and available for purchase on Amazon.com makes it qualify. But I hate the page and the creator doesn't respond to any queries or questions. He just blithely goes along doing his thing. This DOES bring up a point, does IMFDB need a minimum standard of TYPE Of project? This is for other MODS and Bunni to decide as well, not just me. But count me in as voting for a minimum standard of page allowed on IMFDB and I'm not talking about quality of the page, but the quality of the project the page is for. I think that SHORTS should not be allowed, since there are literally THOUSANDS of them in obscure film festivals all over the world. Once we open that can of worms, every single SHORT SUBJECT that has been made by film students or amateurs in Latvia will end up on IMFDB. Now there are some spectacular shorts, but I think we should have an enhanced rule that any short MUST have real firearms period. Any kid can make a home movie with Airsoft guns. Now when they have REAL guns blasting away on a larger budget short, that might be interesting. MoviePropMaster2008 21:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I DO think we need to allow certain projects that used airsoft guns, if they have a minimum standard of quality, budget(?), and run time(?). MGS: Philanthropy comes to mind as a project that uses airsoft replicas but is actually of good quality.-Ranger01 23:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only was Philanthropy well done, it had decent (for their budget) special effects and the guns were only obviously fake to those already familiar with guns, mainly because they avoided any extreme closeups of them (unlike this movie, which appears to consist entirely of shots of airsoft guns close enough to the camera for the trademarks to be readable). And Philanthropy was and still is free to view. These guys charge $12 for 28 minutes of footage that it looks like could be done with a camcorder and some video-editing freeware.--PistolJunkie 00:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite...

... and ask the obvious question: it says it's a sequel to Offshore. Is Offshore a game, another movie, a book? Wikipedia doesn't have anything, nor does IMDb. --funkychinaman 04:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You might should ask the guy writing the page, as it seems that they mention it in the DVD commentary (dear god, they actually have a commentary track for this... thing.) Although you'll probably have to post on his user talk page; he seems oblivious to this talk page.--PistolJunkie 13:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Fake Toy Guns

Sorry, but I'm gonna start taking pics of obvious TOY guns because that's what all of these guns are. Obviously very cheap Spring powered airsoft weapons. If we're going to be accurate, we should identify these exactly as to what they are.....MoviePropMaster2008 04:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it e easier to just identify them as being toys rather than taking new pictures for this POS page? Anyways, the FAMAS is either a Tokyo Marui or a Jing Gong "FAMAS Super Version" modeled after the FAMAS G1, and the shotgun is an old Maruzen "CA870 CQB". Judging from the compensator and rail, the Glock looks like a Marui "G26AV" (the same one that was featured as a tie-in as the "Glock 33AV" in Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex).--PistolJunkie 05:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone seen it?

....No offense, but have any of you actually watched the movie? I saw it off amazon and, quite surprisingly, it was better than everyone's been saying. I certainly didn't notice, or give a hoot that the guns were fake, and I was definitely more entertained by this movie than I was from "Inglorious Basterds". Reminded me of the game Riven. Which I should go play now.

delete

IAW with the ongoing discussion on the forum this doesen't seem to meet our criteria. So I'll step up and delete it.--Jcordell 22:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)