if you look at the screencap you can see that dean isn't holding the colt from 120. neither of them has the embroidery-stuff (or is it just on one side and/or i'm getting something totally wrong?). I'm so confused. my guess would be they took two unfireable props for this shot, thinking nobody would look too close? I know that Americans are pretty strict when it comes to safety and props being labeled as such and so on. So my guess would be since they look pretty real they (had to?) removed the triggers to make sure they are props and couldn't be fired. Might be legal issues? I dunnoe, really.
(good point... but they're filming in Canada, yo, your rules might not apply :P although, being canadian, i'm not sure about our prop laws myself XD a lot of our laws aren't as strict. but then again we're probably more strict about guns than we are about other weapons, given that we have gun control here, i dunno. (and also shit like nunchukas and throwing stars and butterfly knives and switchblades, which are all illegal here but aparently not over there :P) but then again, i don't know how on earth they decide when those prop-weaponry rules apply and when they don't; when i watched Spiderman 2 i was totally WTF at this one scene because the dagger Harry grabs in his dad's house and gets pretty close to Peter's face with was the EXACT SAME CHEAP FANTASY REPLICA DAGGER i bought *2 years earlier* at a fantasy convention - and the blade was not replaced, it had the same weird starting-an-inch-up shaped cut - it is a cheap weapon, probably worth about 20$ US, but defenitely not a prop *blade* - you could still totally cut meat with the thing, or successfully stab yourself in the heart and bleed to death (albeit with slightly more pain than a high quality blade ;p), i'm sure. so that kinda weirded me out :P)
buuut.. yeah. this is defenitely interesting, this gun thing. :P
no subject
Date: 2006-04-29 06:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-30 06:16 am (UTC)buuut.. yeah. this is defenitely interesting, this gun thing. :P