More rules for IMFDB (including foreign entries)

[Gunmaster45]

He means refrence like Wikipedia has, where you have to fill out a bunch of crap in order to prove you didn't steal the image you upload. I tried to upload an image of Sgt. Strank from Flags of our Fathers for the Reising M50 page but it was removed in record time because I "stole" it from the movie. He wouldn't respond when I asked how to NOT steal it. It's a publicly released DVD, so why the hell is it considered stealing when I credit the movie?

I prefer IMFDB to wikipedia any day because it doesn't take a half-hour to upload an image only to have removed instantly.

Oh, if you didn't know, I hate wikipedia.

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Originally Posted by Gunmaster45

He means refrence like Wikipedia has, where you have to fill out a bunch of crap in order to prove you didn't steal the image you upload.

Well I've been trying to get IMFDB our own LICENSED images for a long time (350+ original images and counting), but I'm drowning against the WAVE of jacked images. I bust pirates for stealing my stuff on Wikipedia all the time, but it makes us look kinda hypocritical when there is so much jacked photos that OTHER people took for their own uses on IMFDB.

But I'm trying.....

[Alcatrazz]

Originally Posted by Gunmaster45

He means refrence like Wikipedia has, where you have to fill out a bunch of crap in order to prove you didn't steal the image you upload. I tried to upload an image of Sgt. Strank from Flags of our Fathers for the Reising M50 page but it was removed in record time because I "stole" it from the movie. He wouldn't respond when I asked how to NOT steal it. It's a publicly released DVD, so why the hell is it considered stealing when I credit the movie?

I prefer IMFDB to wikipedia any day because it doesn't take a half-hour to upload an image only to have removed instantly.

Oh, if you didn't know, I hate wikipedia.

You don't understand wikipedia. Do you own the rights to that movie? The only pictures from the movie that can be put on the page, according to That Other Wiki are pictures released to the internet by the creators of the film.

[Gunmaster45]

Meh, I still don't like that though. That's why the gun pages are so hard to make. You either need to get the rights to use the gun pic (which is very difficult) or take your own gun picture (you'll notice a lot of the pics are ones taken by owners).

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Originally Posted by Gunmaster45

Meh, I still don't like that though. That's why the gun pages are so hard to make. You either need to get the rights to use the gun pic (which is very difficult) or take your own gun picture (you'll notice a lot of the pics are ones taken by owners).

I'm confused. who are you talking to?

[Gunmaster45]

Alcatrazz. Sorry for the confusion...

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

What do you mean? Please clarify.

For the record, before IMFDB was started ... there WAS NO RECORD of much of the information here. Many of the original pages were created by film & gun enthusiasts. There is TONS of information here that you will never find anywhere else, ever. Why? Because this is a specialized field of interest.

Most gun publications couldn't give a rat's ass if a specific movie used a chopped and Converted HK94 instead of an MP5 for example. They're only interested in gun history. Movie trivia sites are only interested in movie history and are notorious for knowing NOTHING about guns.

In fact this site was created to CORRECT much of the erroneous information on the net.

There is a lot of first hand information, or face to face second hand information that is being chronicled here. I and the other armorers on the site put in information 'from the field' per se. In the beginning, I was regularly inputting information that I got first hand from industry vets like Syd Stembridge and Mike Papac. We now have first hand information from guys like Al Vrkljan and Steve Karnes that is found nowhere else! I also documented 'on the set' information from guys like Larry Merrril and Harry Lu (though as we've discovered, sometimes even experienced armorers 'remember it wrong'. eh MT2008? ) But IMFDB has grown ALOT from a year ago. So I am not sure where other publications can give attribution, nor would I trust them to know what the hell they're talking about anyway. Ignorance about weapons in films abounds (I still have to explain to 99.99% of the public that we use REAL GUNS in movies). You're NOT going to get accurate information from other sources unless they're from the armorers (or MG brokers like Dan Shea) or other people associated with the industry.

Hi brother, first of all I do agree with you that it does have tons of information and this is a specialized field of interest. But when ever any one will ask you about authenticity of any article, you will need to say that " when we started ... there was no record ... blah blah blah ... so we have experienced armorers ... and blah blah blah". Hang on a second, I dont know any of those experienced armorers. With all due respect, they may have expertise on firearms and they may have first hand information. However, did they take any responsibility that 90% of the information of IMFDB is CORRECT which in turn, aims to CORRECT much of the erroneous information on the net. Who takes the responsibility that what IMFDB says is even 90% true. Reference does not always mean "wikipedia style reference". Articles can be cited in a different way also.

As far as I know that, every gun has some sort of morphological peculiarity (otherwise they could have trapped in copyright issue). When some one identifies the gun by looking at the screenshot he basically looks for those identification marks/characters in the gun. He finaly compares the gun in the screenshot with the possible original image of the gun in his mind and then comes into conclusion. But he only writes about the conclusion, and hardly tries to establish the fact with enough reason. What if he writes about the identification marks one by one and also writes about the comparisn which he made, along with the reference that the real gun does have these external features. This reference can be of the manufacturer or any other authentic website. And if no other websites have any clue about the identification marks then please ask any of the experienced armorers to publish their own blogs and write about it. Those blogs can be used as reference. For the chopped and Converted guns, I think more reason (both for and against) to identify the gun, is required.

Finally, if you realy want IMFDB to be appreciated internationally, then there has to be absolute transparency in the articles. Most of the people in this world live outside the US, and most of them dont know those experienced armorers. Either you have to keep in touch with experts from every film industry around the globe who can take responsibility of the articles based on films made in their native film industries , or make the articles systematic so that they can be self contained with enough reason to establish the facts. Add transparency and concrete reason, so that in future if any scholarly articles publised in this specialized field, can cite IMFDB without any confusion.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by ManiacallyChallenged

... exactly what he said.
This stuff could count as general knowledge because it is generally acquired through experience as opposed to, say, research.

Usually the spotting of an HK 94 versus MP5k is done by the viewer and contributor looking closely and figuring it out, not by reading a rental invoice.

So you dont figure it out by reading a rental invoice, thats good. It is needless to say that it could have been the best reference, but for a sixty year old movie finding an invoice is next to impossible. By the way, how do you spot the difference between HK94 and MP5k? You mentally calculate everything and finally post that it is HK94 and not the other one, right? Why dont you describe your analysis so that every one can go through the flow chart and agree with your conclusion?

[Gunmaster45]

Well telling an HK94 from an MP5K is easy because they are different weapons (I think he means HK94 and MP5).

You can tell and HK94 from an MP5 because many movie armorers used to "chop and convert" civilian 16" barrel HK94s to resemble MP5s by cutting down the barrel and converting it to full auto.

Here's the images so you can see some of the differences I list:


This is a genuine Heckler & Koch MP5A3 with an S-E-F trigger group. Note the push pin in the lower reciever behind the magazine well, the paddle magazine release behind the magazine well, and the three lugs on the barrel.


This is a "chopped and converted" HK94. It has the 0-1 trigger group with a 2 added to convince the audience it has a full-auto selection. Note how it lacks the barrel lugs, the push pin lower reciever, and the paddle magazine release.

Now, I sense something negative in what you've been writing. Have I mis-read your writing or do you have an attitude?

You have mis-read my writing for sure(My first language is not english). I dont know why do you sense something negative or think that I have an attitude. But if I had an attitude I could have left the forum. By the way, do you expect that people will always post positive criticism here? I dont think you do.

Now, don't you think that the above difference between HK94 and MP5 along with the analysis that you have given can be very systematic to identify chopped and converted HK94 ?