Talk:Shooter (2007 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rip off[edit]

I've heard that critics are calling this a 24 rip off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.87.42 (talk • contribs) February 24, 2007

Maybe it can be included. Do you have a citation for the article to reference to? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be curious to see which critics are calling this movie a 24 rip-off, given that it's (from what I can tell, very closely) based on a novel published 8 years before 24 debuted. Ari 18:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing this film have in common with TV-show 24 is that Bob Lee Swagger and Nick Memphis kills 24 blackwater mercenaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rofl, pwnd. And ya, Iamtheari is 100% right, this movie is based on a book that was written before 24 aired. But critics will say anything looks like anything just to make it seem worse. Thus is the life of a critic, people take their words as gold and give them credit for removing from society while they give very little back. DurotarLord 02:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film cans[edit]

Dunno if anyone wants to add it or not, but it's being sent to theatres under the name "Stars". (Get it? Shooting Stars?) I work at a Regal and saw it delievered toady. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeathWeed (talk • contribs) 04:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuality errors[edit]

Did anyone else notice that durring the Africa scene, Swagger repeatedly cocks a Semi-automatic Barret M-82? you can see the cases being automatically ejected yet Swagger still works the bolt after each shot. Paulwharton 17;47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it was an M82? There are bolt-action .50 BMG rifles by Barrett and others, and they do look similar to the M82 in many ways. Ari 20:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The muzzle brake was Barret factory and it had a magazine in front of the trigger.I have had personal experience with the particular weapons system and am making the identification based on that experience and further research. Paulwharton 20;00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Image Toying[edit]

Someone's toyed with the image... google for "shooter" and you'll see he doesn't have such a tricked out rifle 72.66.78.170 02:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the Tricked out Rifle in Question is a Cheytac Intervention M200. one is used in the Movie by Bob Lee Swagger. It is used insted of the Remington M-700 used in the novel the book is based on.Paulwharton 20;00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Wha'ss wi'the weird capitalisation? In regular Engrish, that would be "The tricked out rifle in question is...". (Also, "movie".) What Paul Wharton uses here is basically Teutonic (or perhaps Book-Titleish) capitalisation in what otherwise looks like ordinary (non-Book-Title) English. I have seen this in other places on the Net too, in the last few years -- beginning about, say, the turn of the century -- and almost exclusively from Americans. So, just out of curiosity: Why do you people do this, and where do you get it from? What's it supposed to be good for, and what's wrong with ordinary English sentence capitalisation? --Yours, CRConrad (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed reviews?[edit]

I seem to remember ads for the movie saying "Two thumbs up from Ebert and Roeper" but I just watched the review at [1] and Roeper gave it a "thumbs down." Am I mis-remembering? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.208.110.32 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Athens[edit]

The Battle of Athens, Tennessee is an important plot reference in this movie. 1. It was where the "firearms wizard" lived. 2. In many ways the movie is based upon the general concepts of why the Battle of Athens took place. In both the movie and the real event, citizens took up arms against a corrupt govt. after their other options were exhausted. 3. It is conceivable that the man Swagger and Nick visited (fictionally) participated in the Battle of Athens. Rearden9 15:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it seems I need to be even more explicit so others will understand the importance of Athens to the plot of the movie. The Setup: Swagger is a Marine, who swore to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic (explicitly mentioned in the movie) Swagger encounters domestic enemies. He is honor bound to defend the Constitution. The assassination of the Archbishop happens in front of Independence Hall. The location where the US Constitutional Convention was held and the Bill of Rights was enumerated and debated.
The Setup part deux: In the meeting with the AG scene, the AG makes statements to the effect of "Our govt. has a lot of checks and balances; I have done everything I can within those boundaries, sometimes you want to clean the streets with a gun, but I can't" IOW, the AG has done everything he can using the Constitution and BoR to deal with the corruption, but the between the lines text to Swagger is "Invoke the Second Amendment."
The Action: Swagger then does this in the next scene by taking out the corrupt officials; fulfilling his oath to uphold the Constitution. This general line of thinking and what happened during the Battle of Athens is similar. In Athens, GI's used firearms from a NG armory to remove corrupt political officials. Athens, Tennessee was not randomly chosen by the writers as a location to put a character. Knowing the history of the Athens story is key to understanding Swagger's actions and the plot of the movie.
The rest is just Hollywood action flick. Rearden9 17:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you have stated above is clearly original research. The movie may or may have not had such an intention. Unless you can provide reliable sources verifying that this was the filmmakers intention, it remains original research and cannot be included in the article. --Ferengi 19:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not original research. It is purely background information on a key location shown in the movie. Rearden9 20:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with the movie itself. It's original research. The KZA 00:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I disagree. The link to a significant event at a location in the movie is not original research. It is simply providing the reader with another rabbit trail to follow when they are reading the article and seeking to know more about the topic. What I have written in the Talk page could be considered original research. That is why it is on the Talk page, not the article. The link allows the reader to further understand the background of the events depicted in the movie and to come to their own conclusions. Rearden9 14:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You link the words "Athens Tennessee" not directly to the article about the town, but to an event linked with the town. Therefore you are making a implied link between the movie and the event and you prioritize info about the event above general info about the town. The article about Athens, contains an explicit link to the Battle of Athens article, which is more than enough for anyone wanting to research details about the events linked with the town. --Ferengi 17:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave it out, but I think the article is poorer because of it. The reference to the Battle to Athens has been in this article almost since it was created. It was in the Trivia section and the request was made to integrate the trivia section into the rest of the article. The link was my attempt to do this.
I usually do not follow city links in wikipedia because they are so general; the link rarely provides further relevant information to the topic of the original article, or at least it requires significant effort and luck to recognize it. The events in Athens, Tennessee, more likely than not, would be something which the Steven Hunter's readership would understand as a matter of course, like in the movie, the assassination of the Archbishop happening where the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were signed and debated. Understanding the background of the settings in a story, increases the understanding the enjoyment of it, at least for me. As for "research", as soon as "Athens, Tennessee" displayed on the screen, I laughed out loud. Any "research" on my part happened prior to the movie while generally reading about the american gun culture.
If there is a more appropriate location for the reference in the article, then please place it there, if not, well it is just a movie. Rearden9 15:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, man. If you can't find a reliable source that states all that it IS original research. DurinsBane87 15:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Studios seem determined to kill movies. The deleted scenes are gold. "Snipers built this country." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaong (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License Plate[edit]

I think Swagger actually takes a photo of the Serial number on the engine, not the license plate of the car... Could someone confirm this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.4.190 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! VIN numbers can be tracked too, and most people don't change them. They noticed he backed up enough to get the license plate, but not that that wasn't what he was looking for. Counterintel, indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaong (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but in that case, his cell phone camera takes much, much higher resolution photos than mine. C d h (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Serial number on the engine that you can see. There is one place you can see the VIN number and thats on the Emmissions sticker on the underside of the hood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.152.43 (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Glover[edit]

Danny Glovers voice is very raspy in this film. It didn't seem like anything he might have put on for the character. Was or is he suffering from some medical condition or has old age wrecked his voice? -- 87.232.46.247 20:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. The makers of Shooter wanted to point out that insane people speaks "suspiciously". Ive heard Danny in interviews after Shooter and he talked normal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glover has a distinct lisp in this movie, caused by a device placed in front of his lower teeth, clearly visible in this shot, taken from the HD DVD version of Shooter: http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/8186/snapshot20070817092842mx0.jpg I'm not sure if this was for plot purposes or the result of Danny having undergone some dental work prior to shooting (no pun intended) Ferengi 06:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No controversy section?[edit]

Should we not point out that democrats liked this film while it was hated in the infamous Republican party? That Montana senator is clearly based on real life criminal Dick Cheney. Even the Texas ranch scene is in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you babbling about? If anything it would be the other way around, while I'm independent I'm very conservative and I loved this movie. You got gun's and a patriot going around kicking ass and taking names because the government has gone bad - Not only is that about as conservative as you can get, That's a Democrat's worse nightmare. Dem's want nothing more than take Bob Lee Swaggers ability to do that away. If your saying Dem's liked it because a character based off Dick Cheney gets killed then well, not only is that very disturbing(yet unsurprising) it's quite funny that you would even think to associate the senator character with him.
In fact, why was the political affiliation even listed for the critics? Is that even relevant? It's not a political statement, it's a movie. It would seem someones a little confused as to which banner they should be waving not to mention having grossly misplaced their political energy. "Hey, look at me, I have a political affiliation and my own opinions!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Papajohnin (talk • contribs) 03:11, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
I could ask you the same thing. What are you babbling about? He babbled alot about OIL for starters! ONE VILLAGE!!! Look on imdb.com !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Lee Swagger 2u (talk • contribs) 13:17, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
The movie did have major political undertones and they were not well hidden.
1) Movie plot suggested America fights for corporations and for oil. This is suggested at least 3 times in the film and two more times in the movie cuts. (likely true but we shouldn't worry about corporations but a government that will interfere to protect or enhance them. Dems and Republicans both do this, though Dems seem to have short term memory problems about this).
2) FBI agent wears a Che Guevara t-shirt (unlikely to ever happen. Che Guevara shirts are worn by hippies and college students not Federal agents, clearly a political statement here).
3) Bad guy headquarters have pictures of what appears to be 3 Republican presidents, Bush I, Hoover and Taft. Ironically both Hoover and Taft were big government progressives.
4) The movie also makes comments about gun rights in both the film release version and within the cuts, including the scene (Cut) where they are shopping for guns including a comment about how short it is to do a background check on a gun (32 minutes...for a hunting rifle yes, handgun no. Also, in the cut version he asks for 3 guns, though I saw no shotgun in the Virginia fight scene and there are now two bolt action rifles, besides the .22 plus what must be an AR-15 because you can't buy an M4 off the shelf at a store like that. Not sure what it takes to buy that many guns, in the film version you're just left wondering how the hell he got all those weapons. At least Arnold stole his from a weapons shop in commando leaving us to only wonder where he got all those bullets) and a difficult to assess comment about weapons in the American revolution. Still you can't say the movie is pro-gun, its a military conspiracy theory action flick but it makes slick off hand comments about gun ownership at the same time
Whether you agree with the movie or not, there was a political message. That is very clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.183.177 (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but I see nothing in the Wikipedia entry about 24 (TV Series) that references its right-leaning viewpoint. The lines about the viewpoint of this movie are inappropriate, unusual, and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.20.120 (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia/ Controversy[edit]

Trivia sections are considered harmful to wikipedia, and are supposeded to be incorporated into the flesh of the article. anything that cannot be added to the article is supposed to be removed. As for the controvesy section, there is NO proof that this movie was at all controversial. YOU NEED CITATIONS, you can't just say it is. DurinsBane87 20:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No arguments on the controversy section, it was accidentally re-added when I re-added trivia. Regarding trivia however I disagree. Yes, trivia should be incorporated in the article, however if you cannot think of a way to incorporate them in the article it does not mean that you have to delete them, especially in such a massive way. Info e.g. on the specific weapons used in a movie featuring a sniper as the main hero, would probably interest the majority of this movie's viewers. Ferengi 13:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TRIVIA. If we can think of ways to incorporate the other trivia, it's in the history. Also, it was all unsourced, so we don't know how accurate it was. DurinsBane87 17:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, listen, if you want, we can go through each piece of trivia piece by piece and try to incorporate it into the article, but the trivia sections needs to go. Anything that can't be incorporated needs to be gone. DurinsBane87 17:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting my edits REPUBLICAN[edit]

Or there will be trouble coming miles away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Lee Swagger 2u (talk • contribs) 20:16, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Republicans tries to censor this page[edit]

And the films political message. Please dont do that Republican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Lee Swagger 2u (talk • contribs) 20:20, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has rules, pal. If you can find some sources to back what you're saying, i'll leave it alone. Although I have to note that it's usually Republicans who want everyone to have guns. DurinsBane87 20:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, Republicans are against gun control laws (two years ago congress tried to pass a gun control law, i think 80% of democrats voted for it, and about 4 republicans voted out of the entire congress in favor), while democrats are for them. So don't be saying its republicans that are trying to censor anything pro gun, because its the democrats. GUNS FTW!!!!!! DurotarLord 02:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This movie is very pro gun yes, however evil Republicans wants to downplay its political message and every democrat is not anti gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

media reaction[edit]

this needs a reaction from critics and people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.203.218 (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dog[edit]

are there different versions of the film where swagger lets the dog have some beer and not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunkhead2 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book[edit]

Is anybody gonna write something comparing and contrasting this movie to Point of Impact, the novel the movie is based on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draft quiet (talk • contribs) 01:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - having just watched the film, I was trying to remember the book I'd read with the same plot - I was amazed it wasn't in the article. 81.97.166.238 (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bolt action for use with blanks [heading added 2011-11-26][edit]

Blank bullets don't work very well(or sometimes at all) in semi-automatic rifles. They probably converted it to a bolt action rifle in order to make it easier to use with blanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.231.235.2 (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error In Realism?[edit]

So, Danny Glover and crew have Swagger case out the 3 cities. He happens to pick Philadelphia, which is the city where the Ethopian Archbishop is meeting with the president. What if Swagger picked one of the other 2 cities? Is it reasonable to think that the President and the Ethiopian Archbishop would meet in all 3 cities together? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.208.118.146 (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a forum. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that since they had their own expert sniper, they would have known which of the 3 cities he would have picked. DurinsBane87 17:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett M82-M90 controversy[edit]

There have been a couple of changes to my claim that the Barrett is an M82, converting it to M90, based on the fact that the M90 is bolt action, a mode of operation that Mark Wahlberg is shown to engage in, in the opening scene where the Barrett is being used. However the M90 is a bull-pup rifle, while the M82A1/A3 are not. In this screenshot from the movie it is shown clearly that the Barrett used is not a bull-pup model, therefore it can't be an M90. Also all M90 photos I have seen do not show the weapon to have ventilation holes along the barrel cover, as the weapon used in the movie and as the M80 does. As to why Wahlberg is manually bolting the rifle I can assume that it was either done for added dramatic effect or because the weapon used was jamming. In this screenshot, taken directly after the shooting of the weapon, the slot is shown stuck half open with the spent casing jammed sideways. I am not a weapons expert, so please feel free to show any flaws in my reasoning. --Ferengi 11:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the m82 is a recoil operated weapon. I'm not an expert either, but if he was firing blanks, they would likely not have enough energy to fully cycle the action, forcing him to manually pull the operating handle each time to feed a new round. They actually make Blank-firing adaptors to compensate, but I assume that it would be difficult to disguise it on the end of the gun for filming. Anybody with more experience able to confirm or deny? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.136.240 (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comments in the article regarding the weight of the M82, you should bear in mind that they were expecting to be airlifted out of the site, so it's probable that added weight was not a primary issue that outweighed (no pun intended) the armor piercing properties of the M82. Not looking to open a debate on sniper tactics here, just pointing out that your comment can be debatable, so without any references it shouldn't be in the main article. --Ferengi 18:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that this comment is extremely after the fact, I just want to point out that the picture Ferengi linked to is in fact a picture of the rifle frozen in the feeding stage of the cycle of operation and not a jam as is implied. The round is at an angle because the bolt is pushing the cartridge out of the magazine and up the feed ramp. As the back end of the cartridge clears the retaining lips of the magazine it will move up and into the extractor claw of the bolt as the bolt continues forward into battery. —Preceding unsigned comment added 00:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.56.129.198 (talk)

Remote Controlled Sniper Rifle[edit]

What was the name of the manufacturer for the remote controlled system for the sniper rifle which killed the bishop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickgomez (talk • contribs) 09:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precision Remotes. They get a credit at the end of the film, and their real URL appears in the film. I considered adding this to the article, but don't know where it fits. Anyone? PRI makes the platform. The gun is a standard rifle that is clamped into the platform. - SpareSimian (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other opinions on Cheney-esque character please[edit]

Hi Niteshift36!

Firstly, I should say that I very much appreciate all of your contributions to this article and the many others that I see that you are working on, especially the firearms project, presidential candidates and others. I've found that you make great contributions to articles and are really careful about sources and I'm glad for it!

You seem to have undone an edit that I made to this article though without giving much justification, which is a bit frustrating to me. For the convenience of other users, the second version of the phrase that you've removed from the article twice now was this one:

... who numerous reviewers have pointed out was likely intended as a loose fictional rendition of United States Vice President Dick Cheney.[1][2][3][4][5]

The first time that you removed the sentence, your comment was "Opinion piece from a biased publication based on nothing factual".

In the original version that you removed, I simply said that "some have commented" to this effect and I cited two blogs, the Huffington Post, and "Grump Factory." It's true that these sources do not present detailed factual arguments for why the character is like Cheney, though they do present a number of details why they make the assertion.

I decided to add three additional sources for a total of five (amongst many more that I could have selected), including reviews by the BBC and the New Yorker, more mainstream publications. I want to note that I am not trying to say here that the opinion of wikipedia is that the character is definitively a "loose fictional rendition" of Dick Cheney, but rather that many people think this to be the case. If you could cite some sources that argue otherwise, maybe we could settle on saying that "there is controversy as to whether or not the character is or is not intended to represent Dick Cheney" and then we could cite the sources that argue both ways, getting towards a better NPOV. I could not find any sources that argue to this effect though.

Since you have now undone my edit twice, rather than my going in and simply reverting it a second time myself, I would ask that you please give some rationale for your second revert and I would also ask that some other users please register their views on this situation. I'm a fairly inexperienced wikipedian myself and I'm excited to see how a small dispute like this can be resolved.

Again, much thanks Niteshift36 for all of your great contributions to this any many other articles! --Dave (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words Dave.
With the exception of the BBC, all are pretty left-wing magazines (yes, even the New Yorker). These amounted to nothing more than the opinion of the author. There wasn't anything from the movies producer, writer etc., just their opinion that this Senator seemed like the Vice President to them. Then it employed a lot of "weasel words"....sort of, kinda, could possibly resemble type of stuff. It's not surprising that the Huffington Post, whose owner is very outspokenly anti-Bush/Cheney would see that. Personally when I watched it, I saw simply a stereotype of a generic evil politician. But I didn't have an agenda to find Cheney.
I'd feel much better about making this assertion if someone like the writer, producer, director etc. would say that they had Cheney (or someone else) in mind when they came up with the character. Otherwise, I look at it as a writer doing nothing more than taking a guess. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the politics (actual or perceived), more than one reviewer from notable sources saw this and commented on it. To simply state that some had such an opinion, is completely appropriate with sources. —MJBurrage(T•C) — Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 9 August 2009

References

  1. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-de-zengotita/must-see-movie-shoot_b_45406.html
  2. ^ http://grumpfactory.wordpress.com/2007/07/29/shooter-dick-in-your-face/
  3. ^ http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=016269
  4. ^ http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2007/04/02/070402crci_cinema_denby
  5. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2007/04/09/shooter_2007_review.shtml

More Trivia[edit]

In the first scenes from Swaggart's hideout/home in the mountains he has the 9/11 Commission Report lying on his desk beside the laptop. The laptop's startup sequence looks like it might be running some linux OS (Operating System) distro, with a bootloader first. The (first) internet site/page he visits is Znet, a left/liberal site started by the journalist David Barsamian which used to contain a lot of Harvard Professor and government critic Noam Chomsky's work. Nunamiut (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire "DVD extra" "expert" explanation of the shot that killed the archbishop ought be deleted!!!!! The author of the article cites the DVD extras, and the supposed sniper-advisor, wthout any understanding about how stupid the DVDS extra is re simple ballistics. The claims for the "arc" of the bullet (it "drops 30 to 40 feet depending on the shot") is totally wrong. We all know it's 32ft/sec2. [1] Further, the claim that at 1100 yards the bullet would be "coming nearly straight down" on the victims head is specious. The muzzle velocity of a Barret M82 (or any similar) is 2800 ft/sec. [2] So, the time to target is about 1.79 seconds. Let's call it a full 2 seconds to allow for drag of atmosphere and the arc. That's a drop of about 61 feet. [3] No sniper makes a shot at that distance that comes down "almost straight down". Ridiculous. It is not even remotely possible to site the scope to make a shot that must come almost stright down!!! Further, the author passes on as fact the assertion that the impact would have "limbs flying 200 feet away". Total trash. And even IF it were coming nearly straight down, then it would be "spent" and traveling at no more than terminal velocity, which is not going to blow limbs 200 feet away. You ballistics experts can clean up this comment but any 8th grader should know the article is WRONG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveO1951 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barret_M82
  3. ^ http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mofall.html

Location section is not accurate.[edit]

I live in New Westminster where the escape was filmed, the bridge they show is the pattullo bridge and the skytrain bridge crossing the fraser river. Swagger is heading right down 6th ave when he impacts the semi and back up into the river. so these scenes were not filmed in philly. --Reddog2240 (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

used weapons[edit]

One of the weapons used is not a CheyTac Intervention. It seems more to be a E.D.M. Arms Thor XM408. Look here: http://www.knesekguns.com/commercial/Rifles-EDM-Arms/c2_209/p115/THOR-XM408/product_info.html You can see the E.D.M. Arms logo on the weapon in the movie. There may be similarities but on a CheyTac weapon won't stand E.D.M. Arms. 137.193.113.184 (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Buddy but you are wrong about that it is a CheyTac Intervention. The weapon in question was confirmed by the film's Armorer to be a CheyTac. Paulwharton (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
also sorry, but this wasn't wrong. strange what the armorer is saying but in the scene when the shooter is removing the firing pins you can see the e.d.m. arms logo on this weapon. just press stop while viewing and you'll see it clearly. 88.74.155.134 (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early Cheytac Interventions were made with E.D.M. parts. Due to Quality control issues the latter models are made by Cheytac themselves. The rifle in Shooter is one of the early models. When you combine what the Films Armorer has stated with a little bit of research(Airborne Combat Engineer has a good discussion on the topic.) you would have realized this fact. Paulwharton (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency in the plot[edit]

On the main article, it's written that Johnson COMMITS SUICIDE after revealing why he killed the archbishop. However, he's mentioned later on and still clearly alive. Now, I've never seen the movie, so I didn't edit the article to fix it, but somebody should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.68.113 (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone here read the book?[edit]

I remember it being rather inaccurate to the Book, particularly the fact that The Bad Guys didn't die on the Mountain, and the deletion of Bob Lee's more famous one liner: "I deal in Lead, Friend." Granted, it was a reference to The Magnificent Seven, but I distinctly remember it being in the Book.

2601:40D:4400:A4DC:29E5:D98F:6C70:9D1A (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article suffers from Recentism[edit]

Wikipedia defines WP:Recentism as articles that have been inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events without the aim of considering the long-term, historical view.

My point being that over two thirds of this talk page is people's opinions well over a decade ago. Which is reflected in the tone of the film article, I mean if it's that bad how come it's got a 7.2 rating on IMBD from more than 300,000 people's reviews. That's pretty good going so when I see the critics sections it just reads like a load of out of touch haters.

Furthermore all the rubbish about it being a "left leaning" film is just rubbish because if Swagger was around today he's got all the traits of being a supporter of QAnon or Proud Boy (fighting the deep state for Trump et al). No one ever notice he's got a 9/11 conspiracy book next to his computer in one of the opening scenes? And in the same scene, he says "I wonder what lies they're telling us today" as he looks at the main stream news on the internet (fake news anyone?).

This article is out of date and out of touch. I watched it other day and as action films go (just suspend belief it's not a documentary about Scout Snipers FFS!), I enjoyed it for a 14 year old film. The story is tight, the action stuff is well shot, and there isn't any of the annoying shaky camera work that became popular following the Jason Bourne film series. It's obviously been a sleeper hit - mediocre and lukewarm reception when it first came out but time and attitudes change. However, the article has not been updated to reflect the public's reappraisal which makes it just another crap WP article.81.141.32.36 (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Treat[edit]

The plot says, "covered the treat of the contractors". What does that even mean? Is it supposed to be retreat or tracks? 65.130.195.13 (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooter_(2007_film)&oldid=1205282456"