| Posted by: Giftzwerg at May 28, 2004, 6:52 pm | | Topic: UK's GCHQ Whistle-blower case also impacts Greenpeace protes Forum: groupsrv | | In article <2hp97sFfstnvU1@uni-berlin.de>, rhyfelwr@msn.com says... Quote:AFIAK muskets were the only type of longarm *made* in Japan. Nonsense. British - among others - arms merchants had been supplying That's different from "MADE in Japan", no? <G Who cares where they were made? Quote:anti-Tokugawa (later Meiji...) forces in Choshu and Satsuma provinces - among others - with modern European firearms for years, Sigh. Let me clarify what I was trying to say.... Regardless of the fact that "modern firearms" were available in Japan IN REAL LIFE, the original poster (and several websites on "bloopers", which were probably his source for the comment) have Id'd the muzzle-loaders in one scene of the movie as muskets, not rifles. I would be somewhat suspicious of this, as the only practical difference between "rifles" and "muskets" is the characteristics of the inside of the barrel. Kinda hard to see that in a movie. [Of course, the filmmaker could have screwed up and used a specific weapon which could *only* have been a musket ... but here we're hard- pressed to label such an esoteric complaint a "blooper," aren't we?] Quote:You said that the filmmakers depicted them using outdated weapons, then replacing those outdated weapons with more modern ones. My recollection is that the early scenes, where Ahlgren was commanding the raw Imperial troops, depicted the soldiers employing muzzle-loading weapons. My suspicion is that these were *supposed to be* rifles, as I believe they were using paper cartridges, typical of Minie-type rifles. Later on, I noticed that the Imperial troops were using bolt-action magazine rifles. I don't recall if they were using such weapons in the scene where Katsumoto escapes from the Emperor, but either a breechloader or a magazine rifle would explain the high rate of fire the original poster was complaining about. Quote:To clarify my response, I meant that if the filmmaker's aim was to show them replacing outdated weapons (rather than using the latest and greatest as John's reply implied), it was more likely that the outdated firearms depicted *could* have been muskets - not that it was more likely that real life soldiers *would* have been carrying muskets. Muskets were terribly obsolete in 1876. European armies had been employing breechloading rifles with metal cartridges for some time - and magazine rifles were clearly the wave of the future, if not the present. What I thought the filmmaker was trying to depict was the replacing of the muzzle-loading rifle by more advance breechloading or magazine firearms. This would be entirely in keeping with history, but I have no idea whether they got it right or not. Whether they got it right, though, is open to question. <shrug> Quote:My original- and still unanswered <G>- question is, "How could someone watching the movie tell which type of muzzleloaders the actors are carrying/firing in that scene?", Feh. I know gun nuts who'll visit Fort Ticonderoga and patiently explain how the ignorant museum curator has mislabeled an *obviously* Dutch-pattern personal weapon as a military musket carried by the Black Watch. Yeah. Whew. Obvious. -- Giftzwerg *** "Here?s a good question to gauge whether you?re sane or not. Which would you prefer: four more years of Bush, or a military coup that put Kerry in power? If it takes you more than 2 seconds to reply, and you follow your answer with any sort of amplification that contains the word 'but,' seek help." - James Lileks |
|
Shared Movies
Over 80 Million Movies and TV-Shows to choose from
Categories:
Divx Movie Drama Movie Movie Review Movie News Comedy Movie Movie Trailer Adventure Movie Horror Movie DVD Releases Lord of the Ring Movie Quote Spoiler Great Movie Harry Potter Film Festival TV Series Anime Romance History Movie Fantasy Movie
Links:
Forum Extractor
|