Talk:The Hurt Locker

M4A1 pics

Aren't some of the M4A1 pics a little unnecessary. Like five of the publicity stills barely show guns and the ones with stamps on the lower right look like crap. I vote to have them removed. - Gunmaster45

Well, if you won't do it, I will.-protoAuthor

The helmet covers

I know the military seems awesome and all, but they screw up sometimes too. They don't always issue the right shit, like the Marines in Generation Kill were issued the wrong camo for desert operations. Especially helmet covers. They are really bad on those. So it doesn't designate that hes EOD, it just shows that the Army screws up -The Winchester

Except that the Marines in the 2003 were issued woodland camo because the USMC already were replacing the desert camo and the woodland camo with MARPAT. Hence that Iceman was wearing MARPAT and so were the officers. The Army replaced the Desert Camo and the Woodland camo in 2005 so it's unlikely that in 2007 (the year the movie takes place) there would be still camouflage needed replacing. It's most likely that the Prop Department didn't have enough UCP helmet covers. The Prop Department also screwed up by giving a lot of soldiers PASGT helmets. By 2007 the MICH TC-2000 Combat Helmet had completely replaced the PASGT helmet.-Oliveira 14:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the USMC was issued MARPAT in 2003, but per the Army, the Woodland and DCU were officially no longer regulation at the end of October 2006. Even from that time, it took months for soldiers to get gear completely replaced. A rule of thumb ever since the American Civil War and one that applies today is that it takes about a YEAR from an official change to filter down to all soldiers in a theatre of operations.MoviePropMaster2008 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• The woodland cover is probably just a stylistic choice on the part of the director to make Sergeant James more distinctive from the other members of the team and to enhance his "outsider" status. As for the PASGT helmets, The Hurt Locker is an indie film that was produced on a limited budget by most action movie standards, so it is far cheaper just to outfit everyone in the background with the existing PASGT helmets rather than to purchase genuine or replica MICH helmets. Markit

I agree. Makes more sense.-Oliveira 01:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't remember where the movie specifies when it takes place.-protoAuthor

• Definitely right about the military screwing up, or sometimes new kit taking longer to get in service. I worked with US troops in 2007 that were still using mixed camouflage and ALICE gear. Out of a whole battalion I think like 5 guys had all the new stuff. Hell, sometimes it depends on what base you get issued your kit at. I got my tans in Winnipeg and got the old desert boots, everyone who kitted in Edmonton got the new ones. - Nyles

Sometimes they don't even issue people the correct sidearms due to limited supplies. For example, My cousin was issued a very old M1911 when he joined the Navy (He now has a privately owned Desert Warrior)and many of the people that he was with ddn't get the M9 either-S&Wshooter 20:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Could be worse, we've used the Inglis Hi Power so long we don't have anything else in stores but 1050 Sig P225s we bought for MPs in the 90s. I wasn't even supposed to get one until they dug up a few more spares - I was literally last on the list to get one, the two guys in my section with names later in the alphabet didn't! Couldn't even get a shoulder holster because all the senior officers got them all.

Alright, I found out that this movie is set in 2004. Won't UCP be a inaccuracy?--Oliveira 13:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This movie isn't set in 2004; it's set in 2007, the same year it was filmed. I'm not sure why people think it's set in 2004. -MT2008

Well, rotten tomatoes seems to agree with me. RottenTomatoes page .

"In the summer of 2004". Mark Boal was also in Iraq in 2004.--Oliveira 17:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes could be wrong, too. They aren't exactly the official source. It's possible that whoever wrote the entry just assumed that because Mark Boal was in Iraq in 2004, the movie was set at the same time. -MT2008 14:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

NPR agrees with me too. [1].--Oliveira 15:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Saw it again today. Yeah, it's set in 2004.-protoAuthor 05:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The reviews indicate 2004, but iirc there is no explicit reference to that year in the movie, unless there was a scene that I forgot.--Markit 07:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

How about the beginning caption when the movie opens that says "Baghdad 2004".

Little off question. Why most hi-speeds ignore helmet covers? Pimpin'?

I removed bootleg images

I deleted the bootleg images that were on the page. The user admitted to me that they were bootleg, being truthful and forthcoming is nice, but I have to delete them. Any images taken from a screener or a bootleg are illegal and thus cannot be on IMFDB. MoviePropMaster2008 22:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WHY

why has someone deleted someof the pics.for exmple the beretta 92sb, the glock and the m16a4. someone should delete some M4 pics there is wayto many

Look at the post right above yours.-protoAuthor 00:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

oh sorry. but with the beretta it showed a perfectly clear pic. you could ID the guneasily. the glock pic was a good pic anyway

Watermarked pic

Putting this picture here until I can find one that doesn't have the watermark on it.

James and Sanborn open fire with their M4A1's at a pair of insurgents attempting to hold Eldridge prisoner. They manage to kill the pair, but Eldridge is hit in the femur thereafter.

--Ben41 23:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Rank Issue.

I believe Renner's character wore Sergeant First Class (E-7 - Three stripes up with two rockers below) chevrons. This is a rank that is one grade higher than Staff Sergeant. Also, SSGT is not an abriviation used by the US Army as SSG is used instead.

SSGT is Marine Corps abbreviation. Spartan198 23:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

SSGT may be a USMC designation but this movie is about US Army Soldiers, not Marines.

Yes, we already know that. I was pointing out that SSGT is the Marine Corps abbreviation for the rank, not that the soldiers in the movie were Marines. And sign your posts by typing four ~ symbols at the end of it. Spartan198 20:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Glock?

Is that a Glock 23 or 19? im so bad with glocks :(

It's always hard to tell Glock models based on bore diameter, but IMFDB's rule of thumb is to assume that a pistol is a 9mm model unless we have inside information that the gun is another caliber, or unless there is a close-up of the slide where we can see caliber/model number markings. We do know that historically, movie armorers have tended to use 9mm pistols because this caliber is the easiest and most reliable to convert to blank-fire. So it's a safe bet that this Glock is probably a G19. -MT2008 16:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Think about it: If a contractor in the middle east is carrying a Glock, would it be a 19 or a 23? How easy do you think it is to find some 40sw there?

Right, but that would be real life, whereas this is a movie. Since this is a site about guns in movies, what's relevant to us is what caliber pistols are most likely to be in the inventory of Hollywood's prop houses. The movie armorers who are readers/members of this very site have told us that prop houses tend to stock mostly 9mm pistols. Sometimes, I feel that trying to explain this stuff to people is like spitting into the wind. -MT2008 20:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I just removed some commentary by another person who actually tried to make the argument using a reference to the real-life availability of Glock 19s in Iraq. It's not that I disagree the pistol is probably a Glock 19 - but I find it unfathomable that anyone could fail to understand that there's a difference between real and life and what armorers bring to a movie set. Am I just too OCD, or is it downright retarded to use real life to argue what guns are used in a movie? How is it that people can't grasp the difference? -MT2008 02:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not unfathomable to think that the film makers might have actually done research and asked themselves what kind of weapons a British contractor might use in Iraq. I feel this is especially so because he is also using an AK. If they didn't do any research why not just give him an AR or SA80? I personally know British contractors who carry Ak's and Hi Powers or Glock 19's because they are reliable,easy to get ammo for, and readily available. Since movies are meant to mirror real life in some ways, maybe you are retarded to not realize that it might be relevant to the film maker what would be available and likely for a character to carry. -User:Captain America

Yes, of course the directors are going to ask for weapons that match the characters as accurately as possible, and they will ask the armorers (the people who supply and handle the weapons on the show) for advise on the correct weapons. One would, for instance, expect U.S. Army personnel in Vietnam to have XM16E1s or M16A1s, not the modern-day M4 used by today's troops. That being said, when it comes to something as minor as the particular caliber of a weapon (which looks identical to the same weapon in a different caliber), there isn't some iron law that the exact variant of a weapon in a movie (i.e. Glock 19 vs. Glock 23) absolutely has to accurately mirror what it would be in real life.

If you ever look at some of the pages on this site for WWII movies, you will notice that the Colt MK IV Series 70 in 9x19mm has often been used to stand-in for the M1911A1 (which was the correct service pistol for the U.S. at the time). The reason for this is that for years, movie armorers had difficulty converting .45 ACP pistols to reliable blank-fire, so they used 9mm 1911 stand-ins (some of which are historical anachronisms) because they knew audience was not likely to recognize the difference. The same applies to Glocks - most armorers use (and still use) 9mm Glocks because that's what they had in stock. So they often use 9mm Glocks regardless of what the model should be in real life, because they know that even gun experts will not be able to tell the difference. That is the point I am making here. If your sole reference for a specific weapon in a movie is what it should be in real life, then you are thinking the wrong way. As our own MPM2008 (who is a movie armorer) has told us many times, the reality of movie gun use differs from the reality of real life very often. -MT2008 14:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand the difference between movie guns and real guns completely. I just don't understand why someone would make an assumption that the Glock in this movie was a 23 when, as you said, people who are familiar with movie guns would know that they tend to be 9mm. Add to that the context of the movie, and again, why would someone even guess it was a 23? I wasn't disagreeing with you, just stating that sometimes the "movie" gun used does not necessarily represent what the character is "supposed" to be carrying in the movie. Much like the Browning Hi Power used in Raiders of the Lost Ark. In the original script and artwork, Indy is "supposed" to be carrying a Colt 1911. But as we all know it back in the day it was hard to get .45's to function with blanks, so a BHP was used, thus still creating debate between what "was used" and what was "supposed to be" used. That was my only point about what a "real life" PSC would have used.-User:Captain America

I was the guy who originally stated it may be a G23. For the record, all I did was comment on the bore size, and said it looked kinda big for a 9mm. Someone took that to change the page.-AC

Movie Connections

Does this sucessful movie have any connections with the Matt Damon movie "Green Zone"?

Doubt it. --Crazycrankle 10:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside from taking place in Baghdad, it's doubtful. Spartan198 16:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I just saw Green Zone recently, and I can say that there is zero connection, besides the fact that both movies had the same cinematographer (according to one review I read). -MT2008 20:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Green Zone had a lot more Matt Damon shaking the camera during the action scenes Excalibur01

Blood covered rounds??

Would the blood on the Barrett rounds really be enough to jam them in the chamber? I could maybe see it if the blood were dried on & formed any sort of crusty residue (ICK!!)... Tommyt 03:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if there was a lot of blood and it congealed within the magazine. --Funkychinaman 06:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like there was that much time for the blood to coag, but it does sound plausible actually. There wasn't much of a time element to the scene I guess... thanks for the theory tho! Tommyt 03:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at the condition of that Barret with all the dust and sand, I would think that just that would be enough to jam the weapon.--MarineCorps1 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC) I assumed the sand that was kicking about would stick to the blood on the round, and tats what would cause a jam. Tho i also thought it would have been easier to empty the mag, and load the rounds into the breech directly, one shot at a time - Captain Snikt

Taking it a bit further...

If I may dork out a little more, it looked like he was using a SOG Power Plier multitool in the beginning, but later switched to a Leatherman Wave. --Funkychinaman 06:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Barrett Shells

When Sanborn is using the barrett, as he reloads you can see the magazine is loaded with (live?) rounds in one shot, and then in another shot, as he is inserting the magazine, the shells have no bullets in them. And right after this, they show another shot of the mag and it is loaded with live rounds again. WTF? --FirearmFanatic 14:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You sure they are live rounds? Excalibur01

What I mean is that they have the appearance of live rounds. They have the slug in the shell casing. But when Sanborn reloads, they show two different shots. In one, he holds a loaded magazine, but in the other he has what looks like just empty shell casings. Watch the part again if you can and tell me what you think. --FirearmFanatic 12:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Airsoft?

Ok, who put the Airsoft M4 there and what proof is there that there are Airsoft M4s? Excalibur01 23:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In some scenes, Sandborn and Eldridge have Classic Army M15A4 airsoft rifle replicas. Like this one - http://shop.georgiaairsoft.com/ProductImages/CA%20M15A4%20CARBINE%20RIS%20AEG%20NEW%20MODEL%20WEBSIZE%20IMAGE.jpg - If you look closely at recievers of their guns, you would see the white "Armalite" logo partially covered with black paint and Save - Semi - Auto highlighted with white paint on the fire selector. As far as I know, no real AR-15 manufacurer (apart from the HK and their HK-416) does not highlight markings on AR-15 recievers with white paint.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1981/hurtlockerm15a4.jpg

[Ragnar - unregistered viewer]

M 136.

One of the soldiers near the end, that has cordoned off the forced suicide bobmer has an M-136 on his back. It can be seen fairly clearly, when he pulls the interpretor behind cover.