Talk:E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial

Shotgun

Remington Model 31 - 12 gauge

I don't think those are Win 1200s. The mag tube cap is the Ithaca style, which the Winchester doesn't have. Since they are side ejecting, my best guess would be Remington Model 31.--Predator20 13:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree they aren't Win 1200s at least. And they probably are Remington 31s - nothing else I can think of it is closer, anyway. StanTheMan

I agree as well. They are not 1200s. The Rem 31 is the closest. MPM

OKAY. I got it wrong. I just realized that the Model 31 doesn't have a dual slide action assembly, it's a single, and the slide arm is on the OTHER SIDE of the ejection port. The one in the movie has action slide arms on BOTH SIDES like the 870 and few other shotguns. So it can't be the Model 31. It can't be the Stevens 67 either because of the slide action arms (the Model 67 has only one as well and it's on the opposite side as the ejection port). So I'm stumped. Anyone got any ideas? MoviePropMaster2008 03:44, 8 May 2011 (CDT)

Anti-gun BS

I think it's pretty clear there was an anti-gun bias in regards to the new version of the film. It's not only insulting in terms of us gun guys, but it's also to an extent an attack on the realism of the film (All the Feds running around with ONLY radios? come on). I know this is a sort of 'family' film and all that but I don't feel that alone should exclude the guns. I just seems to me like stupid pussy-footing Hollywood shit. What next, getting rid of the guns from the nazis in Bedknobs and Broomsticks? Geez. StanTheMan 19:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should remove all flintlocks from the hands of those evil "Swiss Family Robinson". Old Yeller doesn't get shot at the end, he is killed by global warming, and we must digitally remove all the guns in '20,000 leagues Under the Sea'. After all only those pesky British troops use them when trying to kill Captain Nemo and his crew anyway.... ;) MoviePropMaster2008

I remembered seeing an episode of South Park where they were mocking this new version of ET (I didn't know it was actually true at the time). Later on in that episode they played a new updated version of Saving Private Ryan with GIs storming Omaha beach holding only a radio in their hands and getting their heads blown up... LOL--Wildcards 16:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Stan, Spielberg digitally erased the guns since it was 20 years later and he was now a father. He now felt pretty sensitive that the police would open fire at a group of kids. I do agree though that political correctness sucks the joy out of everything. :P - Swordfish941

• I believe Spielberg is or was a shooter (trap shooting) and would threaten any papparazzo who'd take a photo of him holding a weapon.Foofbun 21:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Spielberg has one of the largest private gun collections in the country. He just doesn't like to admit he's a gun guy. -Anonymous

I thought it was to keep a lower rating, like Lucas editing Star Wars to have Greedo shooting first, especially since the guns were put back for the Blu Ray re-release.. --Maxman (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2016 (EDT)

Listing of firearms

Per Ultimate94ninja's remark - We most certainly do not 'always' list pages with handguns first.. and there are several major pages that prove this in fact. They are not the norm, yes, but they are that way primarily because of one reason: Most prominently featured firearms are typically given top listing in a page and/or respective category. In this case, I'd say the gun actually given a full dramatic closeup (that was removed in a version of the film entirely) as opposed to revolvers barely even seen enough to be definitely ID'd take precedence in that regard. Another reason is that the existing writeups don't make sense in terms of grammar and flow with the S&W Model 36 put first. That all being said I have to say this would be less of a problem had not Maxman took it upon himself to categorize this page, which I personally think is quite superfluous if not wholly unnecessary on a page with only two firearms (even if those two are different types). I'm in favor of removing them as well on top of swapping the two gun listings. I've only done the latter for now.. I'd like some weigh-in before anything else is done. StanTheMan (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2017 (EDT)

Off the top of my head, I don't think there are any rules or guidance regarding categorizing guns on pages. --Funkychinaman (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2017 (EDT)

Well, actually most of the pages with the weapons not listed by type are because we used to present firearms listed by the chronological order they appeared in the movie, but I don't mind something non-standard if it makes more sense: I've done non-standard layouts on Dark Sector and Far Cry 2 because it matches how the game sorts the weapons and so makes it easier to find the one you want, for instance. And yeah, you certainly don't need nested subheadings for something that only has two guns in it. Evil Tim (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2017 (EDT)

First off, I never like comparing films and TV with VG pages in some respects, this being one of them - In the case of video games there aren't many instances of more prominent or 'hero' guns like there are for films and shows that would even merit as much of a debate of how to list them, not that way anyway, at least so I feel. Anyway, yes, there's nothing concrete either way - I'm just going by how I've seen several film/TV pages done. That said, yes, mostly it's chronological (even with categories) which I'm fine with mainly but there seems to be an unstated but often-followed preference given to any pieces shown and/or used prominently getting a topmost listing - I'll grant this is usually more for actual 'hero guns' but it's been done so in a slightly lesser extent elsewhere. In any event there's also no rule stating handguns are categorized first and its certainly not 'always' done - that is a plain wrong claim I wanted to air out. Eh, I don't mean to make that much of stink really, except as said the main trivia note in the case of this page was already written for the Remington so to have it second just seems bad flow to me. I think this wouldn't be an issue if the extra category headings weren't added in the first place, and in retrospect I might have done better to revert that as well.. bah. StanTheMan (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2017 (EDT)

I think we decided on the forums a while back that we were going to sort weapons primarily by type unless there was a good reason not to, I remember MPM told me that when I redid the page for Stealth because he thought it was weird to start with two crew-served weapons (the VADS and the Bofors) as the chronological order would demand. Evil Tim (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2017 (EDT)

The way it got sorted (not putting the weapon type when there's very little of them, etc.) is fine, I guess; and yeah the point about the prominent appearance of a particular gun does make sense. I've got to say for clarification, though (not trying to start a fight either), while I wasn't correct in saying that we always list handguns at the start, in a lot of (if not most) cases we do list them as such. For a quick verification, nearly all of the pages in the "Favorite Movies" section of my userpage are done this way (save for a couple of exceptions like Black Hawk Down and T2: Judgment Day). --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2017 (EDT)

I remember that now Tim, and generally I agree - On pages with several guns/types it makes sense for organization purposes. But one or two guns? Bah. And ninja not always but yes in the vast majority of cases we do start with handguns, which I'm again generally fine with as it seems a logical 'default' start - unless there's reason to do otherwise (and there are cases, many war movies start with rifles as they are more numerous and/or commonly seen, similar with some action movies with special/'hero' guns, the 1887/Shotguns in T2, the Railgun in Eraser, rifles starting in 44 Minutes and Starship Troopers because of the AKs and Moritas respectively, but I grant those are more exceptions than the norm). Ultimately no disagreement right here just in terms of being factual your initial claim wasn't, that's all. StanTheMan (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2017 (EDT)