imfdb.org

imfdb.org (http://forum.imfdb.org/index.php)
-   Guns & Movies (http://forum.imfdb.org/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Movies advertising guns (http://forum.imfdb.org/showthread.php?t=1055)

Excalibur 05-13-2010 05:00 AM

Movies advertising guns
 
I just bought the latest May issue of Glock Autopistol Magazine. I don't know WHY I bought a glock magazine since it isn't my favorite gun mag. Maybe because it was 4 bucks. My favorite is Guns & Ammo

Anyway, an article in it was talking about how some movies were pretty much advertisements for Glocks and it listed several.

This isn't the first magazine article that I've read that asks the question, are gun companies asking movie makers to show better shots of their guns to advertise?

What do you guys think? Movies that have guns appearing are clever cover ads for firearms.

Yournamehere 05-13-2010 06:54 AM

I'd call it product placement, not so much advertising, and I could see it going either way. There's plenty of product placememnt in movies, but Hollywood is so anti-gun, I doubt they would allow movies to spotlight gun brands so people will go out and buy them.

MT2008 05-13-2010 03:35 PM

There's a good article about this here (though it's pretty old now):

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,273609,00.html

PersonOfInterest 07-01-2010 11:07 PM

Is there really that much going on in the world of Glock that it requires a monthly publication to keep up with? Even Guns & Ammo is repetitive. I'd bet that more than 60% of their covers are either M1911's or AR15's.

Gunmaster45 07-01-2010 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PersonOfInterest (Post 14966)
Is there really that much going on in the world of Glock that it requires a monthly publication to keep up with? Even Guns & Ammo is repetitive. I'd bet that more than 60% of their covers are either M1911's or AR15's.

Well probably 60% of America buys and loves 1911s and AR-15s more than anything else, so that's not unexpected. :D

FrankDaTank1218 07-19-2010 03:59 PM

I could just see it now...Die Hard five...John mcclaine gets surrounded and says "good thing I have my beretta m92fs with me, available at your local gunsmith!"

Spartan198 07-19-2010 04:57 PM

Beretta 92FS. There's no M in it.

And John McClane's new gun is a SIG 220.

predator20 08-02-2010 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan198 (Post 15713)
Beretta 92FS. There's no M in it.

If you want to get technical there is. On the slide it reads MOD. 92FS.

So calling it a M92FS isn't wrong since it being short for Model 92FS which is what it is. Even though most people like myself refer it as a 92FS.

Just like the M1911 is the Model 1911.

Excalibur 08-02-2010 08:01 PM

M in front of something is usually a military designation. Saying M1911 is correct because it was in the military. Yes it still stands for M, like in M16, but it is incorrect term for shorten the word Model to M for anything not military.

The US military uses the M9 which is the military variant of the 92F, so the M for that makes sense. M in front of 92F doesn't make sense but saying Model 92F is correct.

Spartan198 08-02-2010 11:43 PM

And it even states on the Beretta 92 pistol series page that "M92" is incorrect spelling.


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.