| 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:The Rock
Proper Gun Handling
In one of the featurettes on the special edition DVD of The Rock, the film's technical adviser and former Navy SEAL Harry Humphries and actor Marshall R. Teague demonstrate the proper way to draw and fire handguns as opposed to the Hollywood way.
Discussion
I was so green when I made this page. What a long strange trip its been. -GM
Not a soldier
I remember one of the lines that stood out for me at the end when Major Baxter (David Morse) called Darrow a soldier and the man correctly replied that he isn't a soldier, since he's a Marine, but though obviously no one corrected anyone. The script was saying for Darrow to say he isn't a soldier, he's a mercenary because he's turned into a hired gun. Excalibur01 04:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I just cringed at that line, because the whole idea of a Marine calling themselves or another Marine a "soldier" is the kind of thing you'd think any moron would know is wrong. Of course, this is a Michael Bay movie we're talking about. -MT2008 05:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I laughed at that part, too, but I think the word "soldier" is used metaphorically in this case. Spartan198 11:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Spartan198
- Yeah, well I got some buddies who are Marines and they would think differently if being referred to as "A soldier". It's like calling an Airman, a soldier. or a seaman, a soldier. Excalibur01 23:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Why the training an Army soldier goes through is tougher than the Marine', I'm pretty soldier is a broad term.
As I said, I know a some Marines who would say different about being referred to as "a soldier". Training in Marines Boot Camp is harder and longer than Army Excalibur01 20:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC) This will just go on and on I know some Marines and I know some "soldiers" and at the end of the day were all on the same side.
A soldier is a member of the military. By definition. Army, marines, no difference.
- Well, I dunno what country you're from, Anonymous User, but in the United States, Marines get mad at being called "soldiers". Even most people who have never served know this. Regardless of "definition", that's the way things are. -MT2008 22:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- MT2008 you are right Marines do get mad at being called soldiers, it's something to do with the Naval aspect to the Marines. But Excalibur01 as having cross trained with the Marines, I can honestly say that the Armys training is harder. But this is simply my opinion, but at the end of the day each branch has a job and they are all good at it.
The Marines are better shooters because they spend more time than the army training as marksmans and their boot camp is several weeks longer. There's the stigma that they are tougher and they like to keep the thought like that and I believe they are and it's a lot of arrogance, but they have the training to back it up. Excalibur01 04:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
That proves nothing of toughness, I'm not saying that they aren't. The army is better organized, I hate to say it but Marines are called Jar Heads for a reason, a lot of them are your steriotypical Jar Head douche bags. And as for the Marines being better shots, the guy with the most confirmed kills in the Vietnam War was US Army sniper Adelbert Waldron, he just never wrote a book about it like Carlos Hathcock. Adelbert had 109, Hathcock had 93 24guns
Those are snipers. Jar heads are called that, but Army are called grunts for a reason too. And you listed Army SNIPERS. Marines have snipers too and they are just as good. Don't think the army doesn't have its share of rotten apples and lost credibility. Excalibur01 05:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hate to break it to you buddy but Carlos Hathcock was a MARINE SNIPER NOT ARMY 24guns
I see where this is going. I got suckered into this kind of conversation. We're done here. Excalibur01 18:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'll never figure out why people jizz over the Marines. No, they're not the finest, they just do less than the Army and are more effcient than the Navy.
I would like to say that I will be going to Paris Island in the future being in the Marine Corps Delayed Entry Program since September. Training is probabley hard for the Army just as it is for the Marine Corps, Marine Corps is only just about 3 weeks longer. The Marines do require a slightly higher rifle score during basic training with a rifle range at 500 yards compared to the Armies 300, but that doesnt matter. This is just a movie and it shouldn't raise any comments reguarding hate towards any branch. The military works as one even if some can't appreciate that and in the end whether a member of the Marine Corps, Army, Navy, Airforce, Coast Guard, or National Guard, they all fight for 1 purpose, freedom for us. I don't show hate to any branch in the Military, I just chose the Marine Corps.--MarineCorps1 02:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to add another side to this, but are we 100% sure Capts Frye and Darrow are Marines? 1) They wear berets, something ive thought was an Army/Air Force preserve 2) In the credits their fellow captain is described as Marine Captain Hendrix, why if they are Marines too aren't they listed the same? 3) Its clear from the dialogue that they've never served with or under Hummel, not unusual for an outfit as large as the USMC though. 4) The only people that make themselves known to the authorities are Hummel and Baxter, so wouldn't it be understandable that the likes of the FBI and JCoS assume all the hostage takers were Marines?--The Mercenary 18:30, 19 January 2012 (CST)
- I was going to make the same argument, and the Captain Frye does say he wants "to be all we can be". However, Major Baxter does say that the men are Marines (right after they launch the first rocket). --Ben41 18:34, 19 January 2012 (CST)
The fake XM177?
In this thread, those XM177 are regarded as fake......As some of you may think that a real XM177 should come with a 10" barrel , a A1 style upper receiver and a XM177-style flash hiders(in 3.5")......
Unquestionably, some of the 'XM177s' are not the real XM177s....they are with 11.5" barrels,A2 style upper receivers and some civilian-type-lower receiver....
Well, Actually, Some of the XM177s in the movie are Pure/Real XM177E2..... XM177E2 comes with a 11.5" barrel,A1 style upper receiver,XM177E2-style flash hiders(in 4.5" or 4.25" )........ I deem that we can separate these guns as "Real XM177E2" and "AR-15 variation"(those fake XM177 which are not true/pure)
P.S Can someone tell me what's the exact length of the XM177E2-style flash hiders? 4.5" or 4.25"? Because some of the websites indicated the length is 4.25" while the others indicated that's 4.5"
- If you've ever read our section on the M16 page for the XM177 carbines, we explain that pretty much all of the XM177s seen in movies are fakes. Regardless of whether they have correct receiver style, barrel length, and flash hider design, all of the XM177s you see in movies are actually other AR carbine variants (in many cases, civilian versions converted to auto) with chopped barrels and fake XM177-style suppressors fitted to them. I'd reckon probably 99% of movie XM177s are of this type. In The Rock, it seems that the armorers who worked on this film were probably short on AR carbines with A1-style receivers (or, at least, A1-style uppers), so they used whatever they had in inventory. And some of them had either A2-style receivers or the 715-style (meaning, forward assist and brass deflector but no A2-style rear sight). Point being, there's no sense distinguishing between the "real" and "fake" ones in this movie.
- I believe the length of the flash hiders is 4.5". -MT2008 04:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The fake XM177 problem again.....
well.....recently there are some new edits......claiming that all of the XM177s used in the film were having 10 inch barrels...What I would like to say is that not all XM177s were equipped with 10 inch barrels.... There were some XM177s got 11.5"barrels..... Trust me, I watched it over hundreds times...... User:76.199.197.40
Yes, in fact MOST XM177s that fired all throughout the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s were 11.5 inch barreled guns. Most of them were either Colt 733s or Other manufacturers (Bushmaster 11.5" barreled A1 uppers) with the aftermarket 4.5" XM177 Style flash hider (this had NO sound suppression capabilities as the real one did). Many FAKE XM177s were shown with 10" barrels and a surprising number of them were MGC replicas (which of course, would never fire anyway). I've seen shows where the actors carried the 10" barreled FAKES (probably replica) and then fired with a gun that magically became an 11.5" barreled version. MoviePropMaster2008 02:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- As a note, see that notch ring on the flash hider? That's indicative of a civilian AFTERMARKET XM177 flash hider that was COMMONLY sold in the 1980s. The real XM177 combo suppressor/flash hider didn't have that. So even THIS pic is a fake XM177 MPM
you can see the Surefire Flash light is clamping under the front barrel,not below the gas block
Friendsever 02:49, 2 August 2009 (GTM+8)
I also wonder why none of the Navy Seals in this movie were given XM177s???
- The NAVY did use XM177 variant carbines in the role of short carbine capable of taking an M203 launcher (look at Navy SEALs) before the advent of the M4 platform. The number actually used was small, in comparison to the huge number of standard M16s and M16/M203 combination seen in all of the branches of service from the early 1970s to now. 02:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe they just ran out of fake XM177s Excalibur01 16:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think it has more to do with the fact that Michael Bay just wanted each side to use different types of weapons. Also, the SEALs did use MP5s in real life (back when 9mm subguns were more fashionable than they are now). -MT2008 02:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hummel's 1911
I don't think that the slide of Hummel's 1911 is a standard Government version. The distance by the beginning of the slide and the vertical grooves is to wide to be a normal 1911.
I'm assuming that a gun with slanted grooves (like a Gold Cup National Match or a Dan Wesson 1911) has been modified to look like a normal 1911. To confirm this theory, you can see in this brighter screen cap that the grooves appear to be deeper than usual.
I don't think that is a National Match slide. In the picture above we can see a tipical government style incision under the ejection port. May be wrong, but I've never seen incision in that point on a GCNM. However the ejection port and the sights of a GCNM are different.
.jpg){kind=link}
I ask this only because the space that I note before the vertical grooves is very large and I've never seen that on any standard 1911 and wanted to know if anyone can help.--Charly Driver 15:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Beretta 92SB
Even though Tony Todd does have huge hands. Could the Beretta he uses be a 92SB-C lower and full size upper? --Predator20 02:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good catch. The bottom screw on the grip and the emblem in the middle are too close to each other. --funkychinaman 02:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so. The 92SB-C has both a shorter grip and a shorter receiver length. I think it's really just that Tony Todd's hands are huge. I've seen him in other movies and TV shows where he handles guns, and I've always noticed how tiny even full-size pistols look in his hands. -MT2008 02:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I do say the upper is from a full size 92. But the lower I don't see it. This pic below is supposed to be him (could be a stand-in) with a Hi-Power from 24. The grip length on the Hi-Power and the Full size 92 are roughly the same. His pinky finger doesn't look to be falling off the grip like he does with the Beretta in The Rock. --Predator20 02:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I just popped out the DVD again, and I realized something else: I'm suddenly not 100% sure it's Tony Todd holding the gun. I think I even mentioned this to John back when the page was under construction. It might be Private McCoy (Steve Harris), the other huge black Marine in the movie. -MT2008 02:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- That could be true since you don't really see his face. I still say it's Tony because the black gloves that he wore throughout the movie.--Predator20 03:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I just saw this film named "Shadow Puppets." In the film, Tony Todd is wielding a beretta 92 series model (i can't get a good look at the trigger guard to identify the specific model), but there is a scene where he is holding the weapon in a manner where you can see his hand around the grip, and indeed, his pinky is off the frame. He just has massive hands.
HK Slap
Mason (Sean Connery) commandeers Shepherd's (Danny Nucci) "MP5" after Shepherd is killed, and uses it for about 1/3 of the film until he heads off to confront Hummel and stop him from killing the civilian (N.B. After the massacre in the shower room, Mason is shown loading the weapon and performing the classic "HK slap" to release the bolt, as if he is well familiar with the weapon. Although Mason is an ex-SAS commando, this is hard to credit, since he has been in prison since 1962, and the MP-5 was not produced until 1966. However, it is possible that he recognizes the similarity to the mechanism of the H&K G3 rifle, which was produced during his active service).
It's possible he's seen them around as he transfers from prisons throughout his life, or got a chance to watch a movie in prison, which is allowed. From a mechanical stand point, the slot to hold the charging handle back isn't unique to the HK series weapons, though the slap might be made famous by the HK products, in particular the MP5. I just think the guy who did whatever amount of training for Connery just didn't know he was THAT old in the movie. Realistically, I've seen the HK slap done in movies more than in real life. Even HK spokesmen and guys from HK actually rarely do the slap anymore from the demo's I've seen over the years. Excalibur01 (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2016 (EDT)
Hornets
I do not think that they are mock ups, they are way too detailed for that. Here is an image of a Hornet from almost the exact same angle and all the parts seem to match. The weird thing is the markings though, as the planes in the film have the markings of the USMC squadron the Black Knights (VMFA-314), but the have that big U.S. AIR FORCE over the front. If this is a real operational Hornet that is being used with cooperation from the Marines, I doubt they would let them depict it as a USAF fighter. And even if they would, why would the production want to do that? The whole movie is about Marines anyway and it would be more meaningful if they were Marine fighters. --commando552 (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2016 (EDT)
- If I recall, the Pentagon refused to help because the villains were active duty Marines. --Funkychinaman (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2016 (EDT)
- Looking at photos of their mock up it is far less detailed than the one in the film, and regardless, their mock up is only the nose and cockpit. These are used for internal cockpit shots or close up exterior shots of just the cockpit. The main thing that makes me not certain about this one being a mock up is the landing gear. They are really complicated and appear to be correct, in a way that I am not sure a mock-up for a 90s movie would bother being. Its also kind of weird that this is missing its ejector seat, but not sure if this points to it being a mock up, or instead it being a decommissioned museum aircraft or something. --commando552 (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2016 (EDT)
- According to Wikipedia, VMFA-314 was also Will Smith's squadron in ID4, which came out the same summer. Maybe they used the same plane and didn't repaint it all the way? --Funkychinaman (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2016 (EDT)
- Looking at photos of their mock up it is far less detailed than the one in the film, and regardless, their mock up is only the nose and cockpit. These are used for internal cockpit shots or close up exterior shots of just the cockpit. The main thing that makes me not certain about this one being a mock up is the landing gear. They are really complicated and appear to be correct, in a way that I am not sure a mock-up for a 90s movie would bother being. Its also kind of weird that this is missing its ejector seat, but not sure if this points to it being a mock up, or instead it being a decommissioned museum aircraft or something. --commando552 (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2016 (EDT)
It looks like it. --Ben41 (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2016 (EDT)
