Last edited by NeXuS (2011-08-14 18:34:32)
I think the interupter gear is the least of that movies problems.NeXuS wrote:
Btw I don't think shifty would like "Flyboys" that much because he'd turn it on get 46 minutes into the movie, pause it, rewind it, observe in slow motion how the gear ratio in the propeller don't coincide with the machine guns fire rate and bash the movie at how incredibly unrealistic and milspec it would be because the gunfire would shoot off the propellers. Then he would bash it for the rest of his life.
+1-Sh1fty- wrote:
NeXus, I was more concerned with the way the wing fabric was stitched. They NEVER did it like that in WW1, I can't believe how oblivious the directors were.
Seriously though, piss off with your comments like that.
My dad thought the M-16 was a toy when they handed it to him. It did have 'Mattel' stamped on it too which I've always thought was chuckle worthy.rdx-fx wrote:
Know a few 1st Cav Viet Nam veterans. (All with CIB, all airborne, 3/4 Ranger)eleven bravo wrote:
ofcourse they had to throw in that "pea shooter" line so all the guys who fancy themselves military experts could be like "yuyp, thats true, they called a pea shooter! they hated when it was introduced". these are same mentally abled people that call this movie realistic.
To this day, they prefer an M-14 to an M-16.
Never heard them describe it as a "pea shooter". "Mattel Mickey Mouse gun" I've heard though.
2 of them are even Colt Certified M-16 Armorers.
1911 is the One True Pistol, M-14 is the One True Battle Rifle, and a sniper rifle comes in bolt action 7.62x51mm (with allowances made for wayward Marine brothers and their 30-06)
They are maddeningly dense to discuss anything firearms or ballistics related with.
Though they can recite the ballistics drop chart for M118 173gr 7.62x51 from memory... or just dial it into a scope without conscious thought.
Old Paratroopers - 'If it hasn't killed them yet, they are going to keep using it. New things get people killed.'
They held the field at the end of the battle.eleven bravo wrote:
the nva considered it a victory
Seriously though, piss off with your commentary concerning the military. Why do you spend your life obsessing over something you will never do? No member of the military is ever going to call you on the phone asking for your advice.-Sh1fty- wrote:
NeXus, I was more concerned with the way the wing fabric was stitched. They NEVER did it like that in WW1, I can't believe how oblivious the directors were.
Seriously though, piss off with your comments like that.
Just saw that for the first time, my uncle was a motion picture photographer during the Vietnam era (stationed in Germany). He's a film buff, naturally, and he went out of his way to get it for me. Great film, proves that you dont have to have money or Hollywood stars to tell a compelling and realistic story.Reciprocity wrote:
84C MoPic is about the best Vietnam movie I've seen.
Last edited by Spearhead (2011-08-15 00:05:54)
Jay wrote:
My dad thought the M-16 was a toy when they handed it to him. It did have 'Mattel' stamped on it too which I've always thought was chuckle worthy.rdx-fx wrote:
Know a few 1st Cav Viet Nam veterans. (All with CIB, all airborne, 3/4 Ranger)eleven bravo wrote:
ofcourse they had to throw in that "pea shooter" line so all the guys who fancy themselves military experts could be like "yuyp, thats true, they called a pea shooter! they hated when it was introduced". these are same mentally abled people that call this movie realistic.
To this day, they prefer an M-14 to an M-16.
Never heard them describe it as a "pea shooter". "Mattel Mickey Mouse gun" I've heard though.
2 of them are even Colt Certified M-16 Armorers.
1911 is the One True Pistol, M-14 is the One True Battle Rifle, and a sniper rifle comes in bolt action 7.62x51mm (with allowances made for wayward Marine brothers and their 30-06)
They are maddeningly dense to discuss anything firearms or ballistics related with.
Though they can recite the ballistics drop chart for M118 173gr 7.62x51 from memory... or just dial it into a scope without conscious thought.
Old Paratroopers - 'If it hasn't killed them yet, they are going to keep using it. New things get people killed.'
Is that the one where the camerman dies at the end and the camera falls to the ground?Spearhead wrote:
Just saw that for the first time, my uncle was a motion picture photographer during the Vietnam era (stationed in Germany). He's a film buff, naturally, and he went out of his way to get it for me. Great film, proves that you dont have to have money or Hollywood stars to tell a compelling and realistic story.Reciprocity wrote:
84C MoPic is about the best Vietnam movie I've seen.
I'll repeat it because I know no ones ever heard of it: 84 Charlie Mopic. Good shit.
Your main driving force behind backing we were soldiers over the others was that it was a first hand account based on a real story. The book may well be a real story, but the movie deviates from it so much (I haven't even read it yet and it's clear the ending is MASSIVELY different) that it losses it's only selling point.FEOS wrote:
I'm only bothered by people who think the only ones who have a right to an opinion about a movie about the Vietnam War are those who "lived in the same hooch as the guys did" but 40 years later. Seriously? Get over yourself. I lived in the same hooch in the Colombian jungle as SOF dudes about a week after they left...does that make me uber-qualified to comment on SOF-related topics now?eleven bravo wrote:
reasons why we were soldiers was a terrible movie
1) incredibly corny
When the asian trooper tells the dude that his son was born just that morning, you know who is going to die next. sure enough he gets hit with napalm and says some corny shit thats been said in every single corny war movie ever made. maybe youre easily inspired and saddened by such portrayals of "USA is number one" in your movies but I prefer a more realistic approach. oh yeah and the black wife standing proud for her husband as they fight segragation and the NVA, please. fucking pathetic.
2) only officers fight?
every single back story in that film dealt with officers and their families and relationships with one another. sure, it was written by the the commander of 1/7 but c'mon. as an enlisted man, i took personal offense at that considering how enlisted does the vast majority of fighting and dying in every single conflict we've had.
3) mel gibson is a douchebag
I hate the patriot too. bad casting. bad acting. bad writing. really shitty dialogue. last good movie he did was braveheart.
4) they focus almost entirely on 1/7 cav
which is fucking bullshit. complete bullshit. anybody who reads the book or watchedd the movie would think that 1/7 cav was pretty much the only unit that fought that engagement.
thats just what i could think of right now without having to remind myself how bad the movie is by watching it again.
also, garryowen is not a division you pog. its a regiment. dont comment on things you have little knowledge about. As a former garryowen trooper and a person who lived in the same barracks that many of those guys came back too after their stint in nam, I take personal offense. why the fuck does that bother you so much? someone who is just as divorced from real combat as the average movie goer.
It doesn't matter that Gibson is a douchebag. He's a talented filmmaker. The focus on that unit is because that is the unit the author commanded in the engagement. Gee, I wonder why the focus would be on them? It's who the book, and therefore the movie is about, ffs. That's like saying there's too much focus in Platoon on that unit. Or too much focus in Apocalypse Now on riverboats.
And get over the "I've been in combat, you haven't" nonsense. You haven't a clue what my background is or isn't. I just don't feel the need to wave it around on an Internet gaming forum to feel like a man.
True.jord wrote:
So is there actually a cliche sgt major that refused to use a rifle and entered combat with a 1911, or is that not true?
Fair enoughJay wrote:
True.jord wrote:
So is there actually a cliche sgt major that refused to use a rifle and entered combat with a 1911, or is that not true?
apocalypto is goodeleven bravo wrote:
3) mel gibson is a douchebag
I hate the patriot too. bad casting. bad acting. bad writing. really shitty dialogue. last good movie he did was braveheart.
Why does anybody ever have any hobby? I like reading gun magazines, I like shooting, and I think military related things are cool. You wouldn't say a damn thing if I liked cars, read car magazines and enjoyed driving, but wasn't spot on about every fucking screw and wire in a car.Jay wrote:
Seriously though, piss off with your commentary concerning the military. Why do you spend your life obsessing over something you will never do? No member of the military is ever going to call you on the phone asking for your advice.-Sh1fty- wrote:
NeXus, I was more concerned with the way the wing fabric was stitched. They NEVER did it like that in WW1, I can't believe how oblivious the directors were.
Seriously though, piss off with your comments like that.
Last edited by -Sh1fty- (2011-08-15 13:33:02)
Shifty i dont hate you or dislike you. I think it's great you want to serve your country, i really do. Doesn't mean i'm not going to fuck with you tho. If you can't handle a little internet fucking then I feel bad for when you join the big boy Army. You'll get it a hundred times worse. Especially if you reply to people in real life like you do to us. I actually thought you were joking around when you said, "NeXus, I was more concerned with the way the wing fabric was stitched. They NEVER did it like that in WW1, I can't believe how oblivious the directors were." But then i realized you were serious... Then I was like "what... why... ok..."-Sh1fty- wrote:
Why does anybody ever have any hobby? I like reading gun magazines, I like shooting, and I think military related things are cool. You wouldn't say a damn thing if I liked cars, read car magazines and enjoyed driving, but wasn't spot on about every fucking screw and wire in a car.Jay wrote:
Seriously though, piss off with your commentary concerning the military. Why do you spend your life obsessing over something you will never do? No member of the military is ever going to call you on the phone asking for your advice.-Sh1fty- wrote:
NeXus, I was more concerned with the way the wing fabric was stitched. They NEVER did it like that in WW1, I can't believe how oblivious the directors were.
Seriously though, piss off with your comments like that.
You are such a smart person, and I hate reading your comments for me because it says "Dickhead" all over it. You're constantly being a big douche to me.
You get pissed when I say something wrong. You have serious issues, get over yourself.
-Sh1fty- wrote:
No I was joking around when I said that.
Edit: But see how i ACTUALLY believed you? I couldn't detect that you were being sarcastic because you nit pick on little teeny weeny things like that.NeXuS wrote:
Then that was actually funny. I'll give you that