Quote:
Originally Posted by AdAstra2009
Honestly though pages like the BFG in my opinion are the types of heaping piles of crap that need to be prioritized in their elimination from this site more than any other page.
|
Sure. Much worse than, say, an article about
an anime series dedicated to showing panty shots of underage girls while simultaneously insulting the memory of more or less every major ace fighter pilot of the Second World War. The one in the last two M1919 shots is supposed to be
twelve, for Christ's sake.
Ask yourself, though: what is someone going to want to see when they click on a link to a page about the BFG? Answer: more information about the BFG. It happens there is a
lot more information about it than could sensibly be contained in a movie article, and of the things I'd imagine most people would be interested in is comparison of the original to the prop; the BFG is unique in that there are
six previous versions, which all work differently. While it's closer to one of Gunmaster's trivia articles than a regular gun article, documenting the incarnations leading up to the one seen in the movie provides context for the prop version; if I get around to getting a couple of extra screencaps of the movie version actually firing, it can also be used to explain one of the errors in the movie depiction [that either
Doom BFG would have killed Reaper even if he dodged as depicted].
Really, expanding on influence, history and construction is the best thing to do on fictional weapon pages, since very few of them appear directly in any other movies [let alone have animations lifted verbatim from one game to another one in an entirely seperate series made by another company, as per the
Half-Life: Opposing Force Displacer using the BFG explosion animation]. Since this one started out in a videogame it's rather backwards compared to most, but certainly it's within the scope of good article construction to show the various things that the movie prop is supposed to be another version of, and describe how they work compared to it.
I should also add that the first BFG was apparently
also a prop, though I haven't been able to find a picture of it;
Doom's weapons were digitised from photographs of the chief animator, Kevin Cloud, holding them. The pistol and shotgun were toys they got from their local Toys 'R' Us, the chainsaw was real [it belonged to Creative Director Tom Hall's girlfriend], and the rest mock-ups. This is the real
Doom chainsaw, in fact.
John Romero says they kept it in a bowl because it leaked oil.
Also, MPM
did say
Einhander should stay, I thought I remembered that right. From my talk page:
Quote:
I would err on the side of caution. I would probably NOT delete the page if there is ONE verified real gun on it. We can't seem like hypocrites. There are movie pages on IMFDB which have only ONE gun on them, but they're still there. As long as the page look decent I wouldn't worry about that particular one.
RE: fantasy weapons in general ....... The author of Einhander, should, realize though that IMFDB strives to identify REAL GUNS, not fake guns. I had a list of the criteria of fake guns that we accept (a) it must be something based in real life (b) It must be realistic enough to confuse the general public who might 'wonder' of it is based on a real gun (c) It must be a fantasy weapon with a real gun inside (movies/tv only) or (d) there must be something about the weapon which will make the public think it's real or possibly real. That is why we have an entry for ERASER's rail gun. Too many idiots in the general public kept on asking us "Is that for real?" But something like a Star Trek phaser is off limits. No one in their right mind would think that's real or based on a real weapon. Hope this helps. MoviePropMaster2008 19:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
|
I'm fairly sure if the
Eraser EM-1 passes the 'might be confused' inclusion test, the movie BFG does too, and there appears to be some consensus that this could be considered the case for the BFG prop. The rest is trivia related to it; it's neither inaccurate nor misleading, and is therefore at worst harmless fluff, not the kind of thing worthy of crusading against.