Discord-logo.jpg Join our Discord!
If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here.

Talk:Red Dawn (2012)

From Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Revision as of 21:19, 29 October 2020 by Jcordell (talk | contribs) (→‎Eight years later)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

AK as seen in promo pic

Is that an AKM with black synthetic furniture? Should I take an inventory Movie AKM and put black AK74 style furniture on it and photograph it for this page? Or is the gun something else? MoviePropMaster2008 22:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do.-protoAuthor 01:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it may be something else. It may be something in the AK 100 series or some other varient. We need a better look at the weapons in question.Rockwolf66 01:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Can American armorers actually get AK-103s? I didn't think they could without difficulty. If I had to guess, the weapons in this movie are probably AKMs with synthetic furniture and AK-74 flash hiders. There was another picture posted on the forum which showed the guns more clearly, and they had the ribbed receiver covers (AK-103s come from the factory with smooth). Plus, why would armorers go to the trouble of getting AK-103s? Wouldn't it be more cost-effective to just vismod AKMs? -MT2008 01:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It's more cost effective to modify existing (and registered pre-86) AKMs with AK-103 parts kits ;) Doesn't mean *I* will do it, because it's a lot of work for no current reason, but I can't see a reason why others would not be able to do so. It does NOT look like a 103 but then I have not seen better pics from the production. MoviePropMaster2008 02:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC) (correction) Title II manufacturers (Like CW) can build their own from the numerous AK receivers being built in this country and complete it with Parts kits. Again, I have no definitive indications of what these are, but there are tons of new types of AKs being imported (now only European style guns), which is a BIG change from the 1980s when there were only Chinese guns. MoviePropMaster2008 02:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Here are a few pictures of the rifles for ID(more than likely, these are non-firing props since the muzzle brakes and front sight appear to be filled in):
Those are DEFINITELY resin/rubber castings of AKMS with synthetic furniture and AK74 style muzzle brakes. BTW: those young Asian American Airsofter Extras who look kinda young compared to the hardened look of real PLA soldiers (hahaha) are wearing fake PLA CAMO that looks REALLY GOOD! MoviePropMaster2008 21:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, an AKMSU with an interesting forearm:
I think those are probably AKMs (most likely Maadis) dressed up as AK-103s. The receivers look pretty worn...almost as though they've been in the armory's inventory for 25+ years. Although what MPM mentioned (built-up guns from parts kits) is also possible, the AK-103 resembles the AKM so closely externally (besides the furniture and flash hider) that vismoding the older gun seems like the easiest thing to do. I'll have to ask around and see if anyone knows who supplied the weapons for this show. -MT2008 04:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The Gas block on these guns look a lot like the AK74 style, which is common on a lot of the recent AK rifles being sold in this country now (a lot were built on parts kits from Europe). The straight 90 degree down gas block style of the AK74 is seen on all manner of AKs nowadays. As a note, it's a pain in the butt to remove a gas block on an existing AK only to replace it with another style of gas block for a movie, and I doubt that the production will pay for the hassle, so they may be Title II converted European style AKS (with American receivers). MoviePropMaster2008 21:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure your eye didn't slip? Those guns do not look to me like they have the AK-74-style gas block. And yes, some of them are definitely rubber castings of the live-fire weapons, which is I guess what we'd expect for a production with dozens/hundreds of extras who carry weapons. -MT2008 00:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
AKMSU forearm looks like it might be a KAC AK RAS. Spartan198 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
That's Quad-rail from KCI [1]
This is cool, I hadn't heard about this remake until just now. One thing I noticed was that all these extras have good grip and trigger finger control... Except that guy with the carbine with the odd rails (all AKs with rails look weird to me), he's got his finger VERY on the trigger with with other hand OVER THE MUZZLE. Good job... Alex T Snow 07:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Fan Photos

I have a few photos that show some of the weapons seen during the film's production, but they are all unofficial pictures taken by extras/bystanders on the film set. AFAIK there are no official set pictures that have been released, so would there be any problems if I post them?--Markit 02:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are still unauthorized images. Any person can take pictures on sets. I had my camera confiscated from the set of BTTF2, because there was a lock down on ANY unauthorized images that had not been cleared through the studio. So in answer to your question: I would say not. Also undercover fan pics tend to suck in quality. But posting links to them to aid us in identifying guns is okay. But I don't want ANY movie studio lawyer seeing IMFDB as a place which holds the image on their server (which is what happens when you upload a pic). MoviePropMaster2008 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, parts of this movie were filmed in Royal Oak, MI, and I still have lots of college friends who live there. Lots of them took photos. Theoretically, let's say they were filming on their street, right in front of their house. If they stood on their front lawn, or just opened a window and snapped a photo, is it still an unauthorized image? It's one thing if you go to a set, but what happens when a set comes to you? --funkychinaman 23:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
In that case, Image:Red dawn photos 008.jpg in the main page should be removed because it is an unauthorized picture. I will also post some links on the talk page if anyone is interested. --Markit 03:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Production still of extras posing as PLAGF soldiers armed with an unknown AKM variant.

Airsoft rifles guys, they just didn't bother to use the correct 5.45mm magazines.


Oh, great, not the old "movies always use airsoft guns and CGI muzzle flashes" rumors again... -MT2008 05:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Who is the anonymous poster who wrote that? Also movies have and DO use Airsoft for non firing scenes, but I saw shaky, blurry, crappy bootleg video of a shootout and they were DEFINITELY rocking and rolling with blanks during one sequence. MoviePropMaster2008 07:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe I've seen that footage, too. Those definitely aren't airsoft. Spartan198 11:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I wish they kill these occupants in most brutal ways. Like burning, decapitating, riding over with a tank etc.
WTF? User:, you been drinking too much coffee or popping pills or something? MoviePropMaster2008 08:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this movie low budget or something? Because I can't find any trailers for it other than fake crap on youtube using PLA parade footage and GI Joe footage. I can see why they'd use AK-103s though, the airsoft or dummy QBZ-95s are very expensive. Gotta give them credit, at least they used more asians than Last Airbender.

Are asians expensive too nowadays?

Actually these guys are wearing the latest PLA digital camo, that itself cannot be cheap, and they obviously done their research. Don't know why they got AKs...maybe it's suppose to represent Type-03 or something.--Wildcards 21:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

They've AKs because Norinco guns, like the PLA's standard service rifle the QBZ-95, can't be imported into the United States. Spartan198 21:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

To the guy who posted below the pic, you can't put an airsoft 7.62 magazine in an airsoft 5.45 AK any more than you could with a real one. Alex T Snow 07:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding some other pics of the vehicles that are supposedly going to be in the movie, are they at least based on Chinese vehicles or just US Army vehicles with the Chinese flag painted on them? BigD 18:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The Hummer H1's could be a stand-in for the Brave Warrior, which is basically a knockoff of the H1. Try wrapping that around your head --HashiriyaR32 22:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

With airsoft, you can stick the 7.62 mags in a 5.45 gun and vice versa. looks od, but still works fine--Mandolin 23:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

China has its own version of the HMMWV, look up the Dongfeng EQ2050-Ranger01 03:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if the knowledgeable American's gonna know that the EQ2050 is a bona-fied LICENSED clone instead of bashing it as a knock-off? --HashiriyaR32 02:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Are those AK-74M's.--Gunner5 11:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No, they're AKMs with black plastic furniture. - Mr. Wolf 15:48, 7 September 2011 (CDT)

Remaking a great movie is a bad idea

Why is Hollywood making remakes of all the good movies? What's next? A remake of "Apocalypse Now"? - Kilgore 04:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's debatable whether Red Dawn is really a great movie, so a better question might be why a movie that is so reflective of a particular era and its cultural landscape was remade when perceptions and fears about the world have changed. Regardless, I am still interested in seeing how this film turns out, if it ever gets a theatrical release. --Markit 05:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems like 80's movie are always difficult to remake. Movies like Ferris Bueller, Teen Wolf, and Weird Science simply cannot work now. The same applies to horror movies. I'm gonna go see this movie, but my expectations ain't too high. R.I.P Patrick Swayze.

I just know when a movie is going to suck and this is not looking good. - Kilgore 17:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it'll suck, the only trailers I've seen are mockups and fan photos. Was this even mentioned at this year's Comic-Con?

Actually, i thought the movie was pretty good, i was able to see a pre-release showing on base. A perk of being in the military, i guess. Plus they did keep it pretty true to the original story line User Rotncorpse 21:33 29 October

does anyone actually know that the original red dawn was critically panned, so remaking a panned film wouldn't sound like such a bad idead to a studio head, its probably going to have the same reaction as the first one, but with one difference, it won't be people complaining about violence or political issues, it will be the remaking of a cult classic without your permission, sorry but it happens. --Pistolpete (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

Movie Release

The bad news, if you can call it that, is that the release of the flick may be delayed indefinitely. Since it seems MGM is in the midst of possible bankruptcy proceedings and since they are the parent studio of the makers of the movie it may be some time before it sees the light of day. If at all. --Charon68 23:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


There are two shots of armored vehicles on that site. One looks like a fake M1 Abrams, and the other is some Red Chinese armored car. The M1 looks like it might be the same fake M1 from Courage Under Fire, or at least is also based on the Centurion. (Notice the number of wheels, and the gap between the second and third wheels.) As for the armored car, I have no idea, although the turret looks really fake. --funkychinaman 23:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)



The Abrams is definitly a fake. However, it looks more like it is based on a Cheiftain chassis, mainly due to the curvature of the front hull/glassis plate, the placement of the six roadwheels, and the height of it. The armoured car...your guess is as good as mine, because unlike the Abrams, this isn't a former peice of Brit kit reconditioned.

Now that you mention it, yes, I agree. The Chieftain has the same gap between the second and third wheels, and the Chieftain turret is flatter as well, which would make it easier to adapt into an Abrams. But I had always heard that Chieftains were a pain in the butt mechanically, and you'd think productions would prefer something that was easier and thus cheaper to maintain over something that looked more right for the part. --funkychinaman 18:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
IIRC, the "Abrams" is actually a modified Centurion tank, one of several ex-Australian examples which were originally created for use in Courage Under Fire. The armored car is made by General Purpose Vehicles of Michigan (who usually build armored vehicles for law enforcement use) and is only lightly modified with the addition of a turret. --Markit 23:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't think it's a Centurion, the drive sprockets look wrong. Also notice the fake Abrams fume extractor is mounted way too far forward on the gun; they'd only need to do that if they had to hide the fume extractor of the Chieftain's gun, which is there. Looking at images from Courage Under Fire, those fake Abrams mount theirs roughly where it should be on an Abrams, nearer to the tank than to the muzzle. Look here: link and you can see the drive sprocket on the Courage Under Fire tank is almost the same size as one of the roadwheels, much bigger than the one on the pictured fake Abrams. It's almost certainly a Chieftain. Vangelis2 08:00, 27 March 2011 (CDT)

Man, I would have thought you guys would have been cheesed more that the movie may not see the light of day any time soon!!! --Charon68 23:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm not terribly excited by this movie. I'm against remakes in general, I really can't understand how you can remake Red Dawn, considering the Cold War has been over for about twenty years now. Back in the eighties, the Soviets were waist deep in Afghanistan, we were slinging Olympic boycotts back and forth, and the president actually referred to them as the Evil Empire. To the kids growing up back then, the Soviets WERE evil. They oppressed the freedom loving mujahadeen of Afghanistan, they shot down our airliners, they teamed up with the Iron Sheik against Hulk Hogan, they held our POWS in Vietnam, and dammit, they killed Apollo Creed (IT WAS ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE AN EXHIBITION! THROW THE GODDAMN TOWEL!) And that was just the eighties. The Berlin Airlift, Korea, Vietnam, Prague Spring, the Cuban missile crisis, Khrushchev promising to bury us, duck and cover drills, those were just chapters in our history books. Now, I'm the last man to defend Red China (the fact that I still refer to them as Red China should tell you something.) But let's face it, what's the worst thing they've done to us? Cheat in women's gymnastics? Sell us lead-laden toys? Give the Houston Rockets false hope? They downed one of our planes, sure, but the only person who actually died was one of their guys. Tiananmen square was twenty years ago, and they've been oppressing Tibet since before anyone here was born. They need us and we need them. Like it or not, we are economically dependent on them, and they are on us. As much as I'd like to see American troops roll into Beijing and tear down that red flag, war makes absolutely no sense, from an economic, political, or security standpoint. The only ally that they're threatening is Taiwan, and we're such a good ally, we won't even recognize them as a country. In summary, the perceived threat of a Soviet invasion was real, as Soviet aggression was real. Our government and the media, backed with forty years of history, fed our hysteria over the Soviet Union. There's no perceived threat from Red China. That same government and media are bending over backwards to accommodate the reds. They might as well remade Red Dawn with us being invaded by Belgium. --funkychinaman 23:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I ran across this article today. Apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way. Twenty years after the Cold War ended, Russians are still the boogeymen! [4] --funkychinaman 14:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Um...tell us how you really feel?!?--Charon68 00:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I would've been excited if the remake was still set in the 80's, and all the politics were the same. You can update the cast, crew, film technology, but you can't update the politics. Another film that can't be remade today: The Day After. --funkychinaman 00:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
You know, to be fair, the last Jack Ryan book by Tom Clancy did have China as the main military villain with a credible nuclear threat. Granted the possibility of a Chinese/Russian alliance is slim to none but the original movie was a stretch in and of itself --Charon68 00:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, Clancy also had a novel that had us going to war with Japan, so yeah. The original was a stretch, but the threat of Central America falling to the reds was very real back then, or at least we were made to believe it was. Whether is was truly realistic or not is not relevant, it was our believe that it was realistic that counted, and it's that culture of fear and antagonism that can't be reproduced by replacing the Soviets with Red China. Not only would a remake set in the 80's work better, I think it would be more popular. There's a lot of 80's nostalgia. I think people would rather relive the good old days rather than face the fact that the Red Chinese are a power to be reckoned with. --funkychinaman 01:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem with that though is the Chinese were not as big a threat in the 80s as they are today. Their military was less advanced then, as was their economy, and we still had our massive Cold War arsenel. -Anonymous
No, I meant using the Soviet Union of the eighties rather than the Red Chinese of today. --funkychinaman 03:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, nevermind. -Anonymous
Well having been a teenager in the 80's (born 1968) and enlisting the first time in 86 (when the Soviets seemed like or were still a very real threat to the U.S.A.) I have to admit that I miss the old U.S.S.R. Hell I and many others were actually happy in the late 70's and early 80's when the U.S. and Red China began to have a thaw in their relationship. Gave us a nice counterweight to the Soviets. Anybody remember that? sure there was that whole nuclear armageddon hangin over our heads, but now I realize that there was more clarity in the world. Now it's just a fucking muddled mess. Oh well. I'm going to watch my Chinese made television. --Jcordell 20:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I was born in the Soviet Union in 1969. In 1970-80 years it was impossible - the production in the USSR the film about how the U.S. attacked us. A man who would propose to make such a film would be called simply an idiot. And in years when the authorities Khrushchev or Stalin, the man who proposed to make such film is simply put into prison. I think that the Soviet government feared the U.S. more than the U.S. feared the Soviet Union. But even the Communists did not humiliate himself in front of their own people so stupid movies. And what we have now? Russian men 20 years ago gave a kick the communists ass (which, I remind you, did not create a crappy movie about the Americans). But it turns out that our country is in the minds of Americans remain almost the same threat as before (at least - in the minds of the creators of Red Dawn 2, as well as those people on whom it is targeted). What idiot came up with a scenario in which Russia may team up with China against the United States? What idiot did not spare the money to create this wretched film? We have only one common enemy - it is Islamic terrorism. Just do not need to shit in the peoples heads in the 21 century… I apologize for my bad English Flexo 16:55, 1 October 2011 (CDT)

Movie Release Update

Was just checking out a web site for movie trailers and the release date for this is now listed as April 2011. --Charon68 14:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

So the title should be changed to 2011 Excalibur01 16:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Even the IMDB page now refers to it as Red Dawn (2011). --Charon68 06:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

First Cast Photo Released

The new Wolverines in a promotional image from Red Dawn (2011).

I wish I had that kind of trigger discipline in high school. On other notes, it looks like they're using the generic airsoft AKs that the Chinese extras are using, and who the hell is that third female? --ZeoRanger5 18:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The girl on the left is Julie, who is played by Alyssa Diaz. It also looks as though Chris Hemsworth is holding an AKMSU and Josh Hutcherson (kneeling on the right) is holding a M249 SAW. --Markit 23:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey! It's the rejects from the cast auditions for Firefly! Hughjefender.

Really? Is that Josh Peck standing next to the blond?-Gunner5

Bad guys now North Korean

Apparently MGM is changing the bad guys in this film to North Korean rather than Chinese, so as to not miss out on the Chinese market. Apparently they need to change the opening voice over, two scenes and CG Korean logos over the Chinese on the vehicles. [5] What is the main infantry weapon of the North Korean army, is it an AK-74 copy? If so, then this change actually makes the weapons used make slightly more sense, albeit accidentally. --commando552 13:01, 16 March 2011 (CDT)

It's actually more funny that Homefront had the same idea. So people who don't want to do research would wonder is Homefront a game adaption of the remake. The Homefront developers early on stated they didn't think China is "that scary" at all and they picked a more modern and powerful Korean military and they don't even us AKs. Excalibur01 01:32, 18 March 2011 (CDT)

Coincidentally, John Milius wrote the original Red Dawn and worked on Homefront. Animalmenace (talk)

I can only imagine the pain in the ass that the writers of the remake now have to do to change this all up. And now the special effects guys have to digitally erase all references and symbolism to China and re-paint over with North Korean symbolism (And the end result will look like crap because the original enemy was the Chinese, and now all the Chinese actors that they got for the filming process won't even match the modified North Korean symbols). But if you ask me, I think they need to drop this project right now, and put it off for a later release date to fix up these new changes a little bit more. Especially since the studios are so eager to change everything from Chinese to North Korean just to be "politically correct" and to not offend China since they are a "trading partner" to the United States...

Movie studios have no backbone these days. Seriously MGM, STOP this project now, put it off for a later release date, and fix it up a little so that way it doesn't look like crap in the long run, and show us all that you can do the original Red Dawn justice with this remake. --ThatoneguyJosh 19:04, 19 March 2011 (CDT)

Especially since the studios are so eager to change everything from Chinese to North Korean just to be "politically correct" and to not offend China since they are a "trading partner" to the United States...
From what I have heard, "political correctness" had nothing to do with the decision. It was simply because China is now one of the major market places for American cinema, and obviously, releasing a movie with the Chinese as the bad guys isn't going to go over well in that market. Although I read a blog post by somebody who pointed out that if MGM had just added a new ending in which the Chinese won (and maybe some scenes that made the PLA look less "bad"), that would have been a huge hit in China.
I doubt Red Dawn was ever planned to be released in China, since their government has a strict quota on the amount of Hollywood movies that get released each year. MGM and Sony (the distributor) were probably more concerned that the Chinese government would respond to their portrayal in Red Dawn by not allowing one of their major money makers like Bond 23 to be released there. --Markit 22:11, 26 March 2011 (CDT)
Chances are that this film and Bond 23 will never see the light of day until MGM fixes their financial issues (If they haven't already). --ThatoneguyJosh 22:51, 28 July 2011 (CDT)
What is the main infantry weapon of the North Korean army, is it an AK-74 copy? If so, then this change actually makes the weapons used make slightly more sense, albeit accidentally.
The North Korean defense industry manufactures AK-47 (Type 58), AKM (Type 68), and AK-74 (Type 88) clones. All of them are in the KPA inventory and remain in use with different units. Of course, the fact that the North Koreans still have such outdated weapons in inventory should demonstrate how unlikely they are to be able to invade the U.S., but I guess that's another story. -MT2008 19:10, 26 March 2011 (CDT)
Far as I can tell, just invading the US, to say nothing of conducting an occupation, would be practically impossible. Aside from their nuclear weapons, the majority of the military hardware fielded by the DPRK is obsolete and defunct Cold War-era hardware that would be completely outclassed by that used by the US. Furthermore, you're talking about occupying country several times their own size on the other side of the world's largest ocean, which would be a significant logistical hinderance. In short, North Korea attempting an invasion and occupation in the US would be a fool's errand at best, and utter suicide at worst. Orca1 9904 04:56, 27 March 2011 (CDT)
Yep, exactly, I agree 100%. The DPRK invading the U.S. would be impossible. Actually, due to the United States' geography and power projection abilities (mostly due to its Navy), nobody (including China and Russia) can invade us. -MT2008 14:13, 27 March 2011 (CDT)
Unless the North Koreans were to try and make their way though Alaska and Canada like how the Soviet Union did in the original Red Dawn. But even then, that's a bit of a stretch since Alaska is home to many U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard bases, other assorted military bases for the Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard (I'm assuming), and nearly everybody in the state owns a gun for either sporting purposes, self-defense, collecting purposes, or hunting. So I guess that probably couldn't be a good idea... Unless North Korea is supported by other nations allied to them like how the Soviet Union had several other allies helping them in the original Red Dawn... Or like how in the videogame Homefront where they had the backing of Japan and the Southeast Asian community... I don't know, I'm over-thinking this subject way too much... Anyone else want to weigh in on this topic? --ThatoneguyJosh 22:51, 28 July 2011 (CDT)

Initially I was excited about this movie, but now I think they need to just put the nail in the coffin now and cancel it. I did run upon a magazine website that got an advance screening of the original version with China as the enemy, which I figure some of you might be interested in reading (it does have spoilers, so beware). [6] Spartan198 23:20, 27 October 2011 (CDT)


They were Russian, then it was Chinese, then it was Chinese and Russian, now it's North Korean? WTF? Was that done because of Homefront? No wonder this movie is taking so long to come out. They keep changing the script. It also has Josh Peck, that pretty much killed my chances of wanting to see it.--Gunner5

The reason it has been delayed is not because of the changes but because of MGM's financial situation. The invaders are an Asian coalition, but the changes were to make North Korea the leaders of it rather than China, and to push them into the background. The changes were done after shooting was finished, and all that was required was the rerecording of an intro sequence, a bit of editing and CG-ing the emblems on vehicle from Chines to North Korean. --commando552 16:57, 7 September 2011 (CDT)
Even then, the original plot of China invading to "liberate" us from our "corrupt" leaders and economic crisis, was far more interesting and identifiable for me. I doubt it would have been as good as the original, but it sounded like a good movie. Now I can't even take it seriously anymore. At least China is a legit military power with a blue water navy, unlike North Korea. Spartan198 (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2012 (EDT)


Saw this, hope it means it will finally hit the theaters.


--Charon68 18:21, 27 September 2011 (CDT)

Well it's about time! --ThatoneguyJosh 01:51, 29 September 2011 (CDT)
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/1143265/red_dawn_remake_finally_has_release_date.html--Charon68 19:54, 29 November 2011 (CST)

Good weapon skills

I'm not going to spoil the movie too much, but I will say that the actors seem to know how to handle their weapons. I admit I'm not the greatest judge of such things, but I didn't see any fingers on triggers when not firing, the proper stances were used (as seen in one of the trailers, even the SAW is aimed like a rifle, not hip-fired), there were few instances of shooting from the hip (and when they did happen, it was shown to be inaccurate as it should be), not too much flinching, and they even demonstrate very good CQB skills in some scenes. I'm not sure what kind of training they were put through, but both the instructors and the actors themselves deserve props for a job well done.

 BigD 11/27/2012 13:23
No offense, but nearly all of the things you've said are pretty common in movies and TV shows nowadays. In the last 10-15 years, it's become very common for actors playing roles that involve lots of gun handling to seek out instruction, either from firearms instructors at ranges or from technical advisers hired by the producers. Watch almost any behind-the-scenes footage and you'll often see the actors training with firearms, sometimes even live-fire. And this practice isn't just limited to movies directed by Michael Mann; it's even common in over-the-top fantasy films like Sucker Punch, as you can see on our page for that movie. So I'm really not sure it matters all that much that Red Dawn features (semi) realistic gun handling, given that it is, by all accounts, a pretty bad movie. -MT2008 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2012 (EST)
There was nothing really remarkable about the gun handling in this movie, other than how Jed is supposed to be a Marine yet he sprays his AK constantly like any straight up action hero. Excalibur01 (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2012 (EST)

Tec 9 is trash accuracy

There's a scene where Jed was trying out a Tec 9 like weapon in bursts and had to adjust how far he was to the target to get good effect and ended up saying they need better guns Excalibur01 (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2012 (EST)

Yeah, I remember in the first movie where he says not to shoot twice so that they cant figure out where they are but in this one has no problem with unloading into a tree. Mpe2010 (talk)


Is he a Lieutenant Colonel or a Sergeant? The M4A1 statement says one thing and the first caption says another, which is it?

In the movie, he announced himself as Sergeant Major formally retired in the Marine Corps. Excalibur01 (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2012 (EST)

I put Lieutenant Colonel as a presumption based on the original film. Spartan198 (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2012 (EST)

lever action

one of the guns they find at the hunting cabin i cant tell if it a Winchester 1894 or a Marlin 336 can anyone identify it?

Actually preferred this over the original

As someone who is actually rather fond of 80s films, I thought the 1984 film was absolutely boring (save for the beginning act). - User:1morey September 19, 2014 11:35 PM (EST)

You must be of the younger generation. Because the old classic is miles better and it isn't because of the action. It was made during the height of the Cold War where a situation like this was actually dreaded because it MIGHT happen. Today with North Korea? HA. The story is very bland, the characters have no real character and they actually made a COD Modern Warfare reference being pointless. Tanner had more character development and screen time. There's a respect between the main bad guy character in the original and a stand off point during the fight at the end. There's a lot of insight in what an actual occupation would be like. The original had more with how no one had military experience to learn how to survive and fight. There's no real tension or substance to the remake. It had a LOT of potential but doesn't hold up Excalibur01 (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2014 (EDT)
Exact opposite response. The original was chuck-full of cliches, full of unlikeable or stupid characters, and was generally terrible (there's also the fun racism angle where the one non-white character was a traitor -_-). The remake made logical sense, didn't feel like a BS 80s action movie, the characters actually seemed to know how to handle the weapons, and they didn't have an Air Force pilot telling them how to fight a land war. This was a much better movie pretty much all the way around. --That's the Way It's Done (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2015 (EST)
In retrospect, the original is a very formula but mostly because we're kinda spoiled in that kind of plot. It's more on the theme was bold because it came out at the peak of the Cold War where a Soviet invasion was a scary thought. North Korea....yeah, they are the nation equivalent of the short bus. Comparing setup. In the original we have a very grim dark moment where Russian paratroopers immediately fired on a school of unarmed kids, no reason, or cause, ignoring the rules of warfare but it was a bold point to start the show - telling us you don't fuck with the Russians. They are here to conquer. In the remake, we didn't get much of the chaos of the initial invasion. Excalibur01 (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2015 (EST)

Another part I didn't like is how Jed had no reactions to fellow Marines coming to help them out. He wasn't even a discharged Marine. It is implied he was still active and on leave. He should have told Tanner who he was and formed a better connection with the other Marines, which were probably the best part of the movie to me. Excalibur01 (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2015 (EST)

I think the reason Jed didn't try to connect with the Marines is to show he's no longer a Marine, he's a Wolverine. While it does I agree seem a little odd that he doesn't even mention it, I suspect that's because it'd set him apart from his "men" and like a good commander, he doesn't want to do that. They're all Wolverines. As for the scene with the Russians shooting up the school, I honestly didn't like it because it was pointless vilification; basically it was easier to do that than actually write multifaceted protagonists. Granted, the Koreans aren't especially three-dimensional either, but I always got the impression they were there doing their jobs. Interestingly, they don't start executing civilians on screen until the Wolverines start doing their thing. As for the Koreans themselves being the antagonists, that's mostly executive meddling; it was supposed to have been China but they didn't want to piss off the Chinese. It's also stated in the film Korea has formed something along the lines of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, suggesting it isn't just them; also, considering the way this administration has handled ISIS I don't think it's implausible at all something like this would happen. It's considerably less unbelievable than the Russians somehow wiping out every single American base in the Pacific (including Japan and Hawaii) and then somehow sneaking that many wide-bodied aircraft past our RADAR; the Koreans, probably with the assistance of China's very well known cyber warfare school, were able to hack our logistical software and shut everything down.
The idea that the Chinese want to help bring down the US is a bit stupid. The US holds billions of debt to the Chinese. One way or not, we're funding the Chinese communist party and their government through business. Any act of war on the US, and that debt is null regardless of who wins. The idea of large countries conquering others through sheer force of strength doesn't really work like in the old days. In the original, the reason why the US got invaded was mostly because of how the world was starting to collapse on itself and the US was vulnerable. In the remake, it doesn't explain how the US got such an ass kicking from North Korea. Sure, it pretty much retells how NATO is weaken and some sort of economic collapse of the EU but it doesn't explain how North Korea became powerful enough to invade the US. In the original, it is basing on the fact that Russia was already powerful. Excalibur01 (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2015 (EST)
Except Russia wasn't and it's never explained how Russia managed to completely subdue NATO and South Korea, China, and Japan, and still have enough gumption to attack the US...without anyone noticing. In the remake, it's the PRoK, PRC, and Russian Federation all three. If it's plausible for the USSR by itself (well, with Cuba, but then again, it's Cuba) to defeat America, why is implausible for them to do the same thing with another tier one power and North Korea?--That's the Way It's Done (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2015 (EST)
Eh, 1980s Japan the answer would be "look at them funny" given Russian forces were individually superior to what the Japanese had (80s Japan had a scandal where a defecting MiG-25 managed to land at a Japanese airbase without even being challenged, remember?), China might sit it out back then if the USSR gave them a deal where they kept Southeast Asia since they didn't really like the Soviets (Marxists vs Maoists and all) but weren't hugely fond of the US either, and South Korea is a regional power and certainly not in a position to take on the entire Soviet Union at the height of its power. The main issue with the original was that the Russian military simply wasn't set up to project power on the kind of scale needed to launch an invasion of a country they couldn't reach by land (they preferred to focus on their boomers and let the US have the Pacific, and thanks to their belief that Turkey could not successfully identify an aircraft carrier their closest thing to an Atlantic fleet was basically stuck in the Black Sea).
Modern China isn't going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg and would almost certainly move to screw over any attempt by NK to become a regional power because it's dangerous to their interests. Russia now has even less ability to project power than before and the US is the only country to keep its defence spending anywhere near Cold War levels (ask a French soldier about having to buy equipment like holsters and mag pouches out of his own salary sometime), so having an invasion happen is even sillier. Evil Tim (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2015 (EST)

As for character development, there's actually quite a bit. Darryl chooses not to collaborate like his father (he's even willing to kill him during the bombing scene) and by the end of the movie is willing to sacrifice himself for his friends. Matt stops being a self-absorbed punk and finally grows up, taking over the Wolverines after his brother's death. And Jed, of course, finally grows to respect his brother as a man. I don't remember there being much of this in the original, though to be fair it's been a while since I've seen it. --That's the Way It's Done (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2015 (EST)

As for the COD reference, I thought that was amusing. "We're living Modern Warfare and it sucks." --That's the Way It's Done (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2015 (EST)

I know guys who used to be in the Marines and the mentality is that they are still Marines regardless if they are in the corps or not. Jed should have bonded with other Marines like that right off the bat despite leading the resistance. There was a line where he said "Marines don't die, they just go to hell and regroup" pretty much tells us he still thinks of himself as a Marine. Excalibur01 (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2015 (EST)

Well, I don't know about the Marine Corporation, but where any of the Marines you knew later members of a resistance movement? If Jed plays up the fact he's a Marine then he's setting himself apart from the Wolverines, which they could intemperate as him saying he's better than them, or at the very least makes him something they can never be. It's a tribal thing at that point.--That's the Way It's Done (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2015 (EST)
Just because you're part of another group doesn't completely set you apart from a previous group you were formerly. The Marine mentality is very strong. If you're going to use the "how many insert name were this?" logical fallacy to prove that point, then the counter response logical fallacy would be "you're not a Marine, so you wouldn't know what it's like." The movie built up how Jed is a Marine and he used the training and experience he got as a Marine to create the Wolverines compared to the original who had no military training. They made a big point about it at the beginning of the movie. The movie even established that Jed collected USMC memorabilia in his room, which is very realistic since I've seen that in a lot of the Marines I know. It isn't a nit pick that they did no connection scene or even scenes of Jed standing apart from his fellow Marines when they showed up at the end of the movie. Excalibur01 (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2015 (EST)
If Jed makes it a point of pointing out he's a Marine, it's more or less like he's saying he doesn't want to be just a Wolverine, because that's not good enough. It's obvious you aren't a Marine either (since you refer to it as the Marine Corporation and not the Marine Corps). I agree, there should've been some sort of recognition of this, but at the same time, there probably wasn't time to do so. And I think Jed being a Marine and that teaching him how to fight makes a whole lot more sense then him being some random asshole with zero training, like he was in the original. Marines just have a mystique to them, and the filmakers admittedly didn't tap into that, but he's still a more likeable character than the original, who spent most of the film being unrealistically macho and yelling at everyone; this is a drill sergeant stereotype and is how someone who's never actually met a veteran thinks all soldiers behave. The writers improved this immensely for World in Conflict about twenty years later, but they still didn't know how to really write soldiers. --That's the Way It's Done (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2015 (EST)
'Marine Corporation'? What the hell does that even mean? Where did that even come from? If you're talking about how Excalibur previously said 'corp' instead of 'corps' that could have been a simple typing error. I think everyone who comes to this site knows what the 'Marine Corps' is. I also don't like the implication behind you stating who someone 'obviously' is or isn't in that context. Bottom-line, don't start ridiculing people to get your point across. Especially when your point is ultimately only your own opinion which cannot inherently be right or wrong. StanTheMan (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2015 (EST)
With that said, maybe someone should put a stop to this, it's discussion that seems to go nowhere and certainly serves no purpose in terms of the main page. If those conducting this wish to continue, perhaps it should be done on the forums or something. StanTheMan (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2015 (EST)
Understood.--That's the Way It's Done (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2015 (EST)

Eight years later

It's not too bad. Eight years after it was released I have finally watched it and it's okay. There are more Wolverines than in the 1984 movie and they're prettier. Special effects are way better IMHO but this movie might have had a bigger budget and technology has come a long ways over the twenty-five years separating the two productions. Still, the first one has something (je ne sais quoi?) that this very slick remake lacked. However I was sixteen when the movie came out and viewed it at the theater. In 1984 such a scenario seemed very plausible and terrifying. It also seemed exciting to my sixteen year old self; a men's action novel for teenager. Could be my fifty-two year old sensibilities just don't respond the same way anymore to such stories. --Jcordell (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2020 (EDT)

Type 67

I took a closer look at the machine gun on top of the KPA tank, and I think it's more like simple FN MAG / M240 just put there to stand in for Type 67, as it looks like it's fed from the left side, has different stock, and something that could be M145 Elcan scope. I could be wrong though. --CnC Fin (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2015 (EDT)

Do Not Sell My Personal Information