Talk:Shooter (2007 film)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Rip off

message: 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)
thread_title: Film cans

message: I seem to remember ads for the movie saying "Two thumbs up from Ebert and Roeper" but I just watched the review at  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)
thread_title: Mixed reviews?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: License Plate

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Danny Glover 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Trivia/ Controversy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Republicans tries to censor this page

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

message: 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)
thread_title: dog

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Book

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bolt action for use with blanks [heading added 2011-11-26] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Error In Realism? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Barrett M82-M90 controversy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Remote Controlled Sniper Rifle

message: 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)
thread_title:  More Trivia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Location section is not accurate. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: used weapons

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inconsistency in the plot 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Has anyone here read the book? 

message: 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)
thread_title: This article suffers from Recentism

message: 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)
thread_title:  Treat