Tank and "Made for Movie" corrections

Add this message as quote for multiple quotes

Tank and "Made for Movie" corrections

Published 10/10/2024 @ 16:32:27, By Harold B

I found the Made for Movie category recently, and I went through it to see what I could identify. I came away from that confused, because it seems to me that there isn't much of a rhyme or reason when a prop/replica/CGI vehicle gets stuck in Made for Movie versus being treated like it's a real vehicle. Animated vehicles are always treated as though they are real, but they can sometimes be even less accurate to the real thing than a replica/CGI model is.

There are some instances on the site where a prop/replica vehicle is put under the category of the real vehicle it is meant to imitate, while other times those prop vehicles are put under Made for Movie.

There are some instances where a real vehicle is dressed up as another vehicle, and sometimes it is put under the category of the vehicle that it really is, other times under the category of the vehicle it's dressed up as, and other times under Made for Movie.
Example:
SU-76M as fake Chi-Ha - under SU-76M https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_857087-GAZ-SU-76-M.html
FV432* as fake Chi-Ha - under Chi-Ha Replica https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1444391-Mitsubishi-Type-97-Chi-Ha-Kai-Replica-1938.html
SU-76M as fake Chi-Ha - under Made for Movie https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1659413-Made-for-Movie-Type-97-Chi-Ha.html

This happens particularly a lot with tanks, or at least that's where I've noticed it since that is what my interest is in. It would seem logical that all props/replicas (at least the ones which cannot be identified as based on a real vehicle) should go under Made for Movie, since they were not manufactured by the real manufacturer; their manufacturer is "movie". But if that were to be the case, then most German and Japanese tanks that aren't from stock footage would need to be moved, because they're all replicas.

Further, when a prop vehicle can be positively identified, should it be treated as the vehicle it is underneath, or should it be treated as the vehicle it is trying to imitate? In my opinion it should be listed as the vehicle it really is with the vehicle it's pretending to be listed as additional info.
For example, there's a large amount of Chieftain tanks which are dressed up as M1 Abrams (actually it's probably all the same vehicle, but it's used in a ton of movies) https://www.imcdb.org/vehicles.php?make=Made+for+Movie&model=M1+27&model
I think, personally, that these should be listed under Chieftain rather than Made for Movie.

Please advise what should go where. If a thread is needed to identify what are props and what are costumed vehicles, so they can be moved to the correct category, I would contribute to that. Maybe people who aren't as familiar with tanks as I am aren't able to spot them, but they stick out like a sore thumb to me.

Latest Edition: 16/10/2024 @ 03:33:38

"Made for Movie" as a category

Published 10/10/2024 @ 18:07:13, By antp

Originally the rule was to use "Made for Movie" for bad replicas, and the intended make for good replicas.

For a vehicle A modified to look like a vehicle B, we can list either as "A as B" or "B on A", I would say that it depends on which one it looks like the most.

In the movie world, a lot of replicas are used, so having them listed under their intended make rather than the generic "Made for Movie" is often better I think. Otherwise any CGI/drawn vehicle would technically be "Made for Movie" :grin:

There are probably some cases to update to match the "rules" I mentioned, for example those you mentioned in your comment. As I do not know much about tanks, I don't know in which category each belongs.

Latest Edition: 10/10/2024 @ 18:12:16

"Made for Movie" as a category

Published 10/10/2024 @ 19:31:39, By Harold B

Since I used the Chi-Ha as the example, I'll lay out all of my 'issues' with them here if you would like to correct them.

Type 97 Chi-Ha replicas which are built on the chassis of the GAZ SU-76M, currently under various different categories:
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_468490-Made-for-Movie-Mitsubishi-Type-97-Chi-Ha.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1836168-Made-for-Movie-Type-97-Chi-Ha.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1659413-Made-for-Movie-Type-97-Chi-Ha.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_209804-GAZ-SU-76-M.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_209809-GAZ-SU-76-M.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_857087-GAZ-SU-76-M.html
Perhaps when there's a lot of them like with these they should have their own category? "GAZ SU-76M as Mitsubishi Type 97 Chi-Ha"?

Type 97 Chi-Ha replicas which are built on the chassis of the GKN Defence FV 432:
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1444402-Made-for-Movie-Type-97-Chi-Ha.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1444391-Mitsubishi-Type-97-Chi-Ha-Kai-Replica-1938.html

Others:
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_620088-Mitsubishi-Type-97-Chi-Ha.html - This one I'm pretty sure is meant to be a Mitsubishi Type 2 Ho-I. That was an infantry support tank that used the hull of the Chi-He (the tank that replaced the Chi-Ha, which had squared up frontal armor and a rectangular rear hull, which this replica does) with an enlarged turret.
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1529335-Mitsubishi-Type-97-Chi-Ha-1937.html - This is an animated Type 95 Ha-Go, not a Chi-Ha.

There were two versions of the real life Chi-Ha, the early one with a small turret and the later one with a large turret. The later model is normally called Chi-Ha Kai nowadays, "Kai" meaning "improved". "ShinHoTo" used to be more common in Western sources. That means "new turret" transliterated from Japanese. It fell out of favor at least partly because it can be written several different ways, and is more of a slang/informal term.

The large turret models are already listed separately under "Mitsubishi Type 97 ShinHoTo Chi-Ha", except for this one which is listed with the normal small turret models:
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_422175-Mitsubishi-Type-97-Chi-Ha.html

I would prefer if you would move that one plus the ones under "ShinHoTo Chi-Ha" to "Mitsubishi Type 97 Chi-Ha Kai". That would be more correct, and then they will appear under the normal Chi-Ha category as well.

Latest Edition: 10/10/2024 @ 19:41:07

"Made for Movie" as a category

Published 11/10/2024 @ 19:47:21, By antp

Perhaps when there's a lot of them like with these they should have their own category? "GAZ SU-76M as Mitsubishi Type 97 Chi-Ha"?

Well that's a little long if it is supposed to replace the make. Currently there are the following fields:
Make (where we put Mitsubishi, GAZ or "Made for Movie")
Model
Extra info (the part that is displayed in italics on the vehicle detail page, but not visible in the thumbnails listings)

I'll check that in the next days, in case someone else has input about that.

Latest Edition: 11/10/2024 @ 19:47:58

"Made for Movie" as a category

Published 13/10/2024 @ 13:27:21, By Harold B

I thought about it more. How about "[X vehicle] as Replica" as the model, and then put whatever it's meant to replicate as the additional info. So in this case it would be GAZ / SU-76M as Replica / Type 97 Chi-Ha.
That way would work better since it would include all potential replicas built on that chassis. Like the FV432 or AT-P tractor, which were used to make many different types of replica tanks, some not even recognizable as anything specific other than generic "tank".

"Made for Movie" as a category

Published 13/10/2024 @ 19:36:14, By antp

Well then you do not find easily the vehicle it is supposed to replicate :grin:

Sometimes the chassis on which it is made is not very interesting for public, compared to what it is supposed to look like.

"Made for Movie" as a category

Published 13/10/2024 @ 20:03:32, By Harold B

I guess. If you want to put them all in "Made for Movie" under what they're supposed to be that works too. It's your website so you decide. I'm only saying what I would do.

I had a look through the Ha-Go's...

International Harvester M5 High-Speed Tractor as Replica Type 95 Ha-Go
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_380121-Made-for-Movie-Type-95-Ha-Go.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_226159-Mitsubishi-Type-95-Ha-Go.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_226161-Mitsubishi-Type-95-Ha-Go.html

Misidentified, this is a Hino Type 97 Te-Ke
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_247198-Mitsubishi-Type-95-Ha-Go.html

Misidentified, this is a Mitsubishi Type 89 I-Go, called Type 89 Chi-Ro on this site (Not trying to get off topic but, essentially: Tanks built by Japan are ordered after the Iroha, a poem that organizes the Japanese language like an alphabet. The first three tanks were called I-Go, Ro-Go, and Ha-Go. They changed the naming scheme after this and the I-Go retroactively became the Chi-Ro, but no one calls it that, everyone still called it I-Go. So it being listed as Chi-Ro is not wrong per se, but it's weird.)
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicles_make-Mitsubishi_model-Type+89+Chi-Ro.html

Misidentified, this is Ishikawajima Type 92 Heavy Armored Car (model code TB)
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1540623-Mitsubishi-Type-95-Ha-Go-1935.html

Made for Movie Type 95 Ha-Go
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_305496-Mitsubishi-Type-95-Ha-Go-Replica.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1508437-Mitsubishi-Type-95-Ha-Go-Replica.html

I would like to use this thread (or another thread if you prefer) as a place to organize these correction lists for different models of tank as I work through them.
I will stop for now though

"Made for Movie" as a category

Published 14/10/2024 @ 16:36:28, By antp

Misidentified, this is a Hino Type 97 Te-Ke
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_247198-Mitsubishi-Type-95-Ha-Go.html

For cases like that, it is good to leave a comment on the site, so we know why it is named that way (i.e. depending on who identified it, we know if the info was reliable or not if someone else provides a conflicting identification).

Made for Movie Type 95 Ha-Go
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_305496-Mitsubishi-Type-95-Ha-Go-Replica.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1508437-Mitsubishi-Type-95-Ha-Go-Replica.html

Aren't they good enough to be listed as Replicas?

I still have the links in previous post the check, I don't forget them :wink:

Latest Edition: 14/10/2024 @ 16:40:30

"Made for Movie" as a category

Published 15/10/2024 @ 08:54:43, By antp

I updated the vehicles in the links posted in earlier messages here above

For example, there's a large amount of Chieftain tanks which are dressed up as M1 Abrams (actually it's probably all the same vehicle, but it's used in a ton of movies) https://www.imcdb.org/vehicles.php?make=Made+for+Movie&model=M1+27&model
I think, personally, that these should be listed under Chieftain rather than Made for Movie.

Indeed, it is better to use the original model than "Made for Movie", which should be used only in last resort (unknown base or really bad replicas).
The debatable case is for good replicas: original model or intended model. That can be also chosen case by case.

For these Chieftains you mention (the forum messes up with parenthesis and quotes in URLs), I updated https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle.php?id=1897619
Is it correctly listed now?
There are probably still others to update the same way among these then: https://www.imcdb.org/vehicles.php?resultsStyle=asImages&sortBy=0&make=Made+for+- Movie&model=M1&modelMatch=1&modelInclModel=on

Latest Edition: 15/10/2024 @ 08:57:02

"Made for Movie" as a category

Published 16/10/2024 @ 03:08:34, By Harold B

Thank you.
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_620088-Mitsubishi-Type-97-Chi-Ha.html This is a made for movie though, there are no real ones left
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1529335-Mitsubishi-Type-97-Chi-Ha-1937.html and you made a typo here, should be Type 95 not 97 :icon_smile:

"The debatable case is for good replicas: original model or intended model. That can be also chosen case by case."
I have no problem considering those two Ha-Gos as replicas. If I didn't know better I would believed they were real. The problem is where to draw the line on what is good enough? What is convincing to one person may not be to another.

Another correction here, should be "Type 94 TK". Te-Ke was the Type 97. TK was an abbreviation of its purpose, rather than a name. I actually think "Te-Ke" being the following model was kind of a joke in that regard, or a play on words.
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicles.php?make=Mitsubishi&model=Type+94+Te-Ke&modelMatch=1&modelInclModel=on

Here is the list of fake M1's which I picked out as being based on Chieftains:
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_709663-Made-for-Movie-M1--Abrams-.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_807506-Made-for-Movie-M1--Abrams-.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1246906-Made-for-Movie-M1--Abrams-.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1250135-Made-for-Movie-M1--Abrams-.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1263376-Made-for-Movie-M1--Abrams-.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1265609-Made-for-Movie-M1--Abrams-.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1733364-Made-For-Movie-M1--Abrams-.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_829946-Made-for-Movie-M1A2--Abrams-.html

"Made for Movie" as a category

Published 16/10/2024 @ 03:31:52, By Harold B

https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1183419-Ishikawajima-Sumida-M2593.html - Chiyoda Type 91 So-Mo [model code: QSW]

https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_186884-Chiyoda-Armoured-Car.html - This was identified as a So-Mo (using the wrong name, but I know what was meant), but it isn't, and I'm not certain what it is. The closest match is the Chiyoda Type 92. It could be the poor photo quality and strange lighting that is making it look weird. I would put it as Type 92 but I will continue to look and let you know if I come up with something better.

Related to this topic is the only other Sumida vehicle on this site, this Sumida Type M bus. https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_498935-Ishikawajima-Sumida-1929.html It's listed under Ishikawajima. As I explained in the thread I made about the armored cars, Sumida was a marque of Ishikawajima, as Chiyoda was a marque of TGE. So since Chiyoda is listed as its own manufacturer, Sumida should be too.

Tank and "Made for Movie" corrections

Published 16/10/2024 @ 07:17:05, By antp

https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_186884-Chiyoda-Armoured-Car.html - This was identified as a So-Mo (using the wrong name, but I know what was meant), but it isn't, and I'm not certain what it is. The closest match is the Chiyoda Type 92. It could be the poor photo quality and strange lighting that is making it look weird. I would put it as Type 92 but I will continue to look and let you know if I come up with something better.

Type 92 or 93? (as you wrote 93 on the site)

Thanks for the other links, I updated them

Tank and "Made for Movie" corrections

Published 16/10/2024 @ 20:15:01, By Harold B

Quote From: antp

Type 92 or 93? (as you wrote 93 on the site)

Thanks for the other links, I updated them

Chiyoda Type 92. In my comment I was saying the Ishikawajima Type 93 (no real ones of those on the site, yet) has a low-slung body like the one in the picture, but it's definitely not a Type 93 because it doesn't have the roller behind the front tires.

I will make a list for you of my corrections from when I went through the made for movie section as soon as I have time.

Tank and "Made for Movie" corrections

Published 16/10/2024 @ 22:43:15, By Harold B

I noticed there are two different vehicles listed under Mitsubishi Type 73, there's these ones, the Type 73 Armored Personnel Carrier, and the rest are the Type 73 Light Truck. I would recommend changing the names of these four to "Type 73 APC".
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_707793-Mitsubishi-Type-73.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1099168-Mitsubishi-Type-73.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1302636-Mitsubishi-Type-73.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1864020-Mitsubishi-Type-73.html

https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1905170-Mitsubishi-Type-74.html - This isn't a Type 74. The Type 74 has a smooth, rounded turret and gun mantlet; this has an angular turret. It's just a generic tank.

https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_219415-Mitsubishi-Type-74.html - Type 61 not Type 74

The Type 74 had different upgrades throughout its life, called Type 74B, 74C, and so on, ending with Type 74G. Only some of them like the D and G are easy to identify because of external differences. For the D onward that is a thermal sleeve on the cannon barrel, and for the G that is sideskirts.

Type 74D (or E, but there's no external difference between the two)
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_218045-Mitsubishi-Type-74.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_218103-Mitsubishi-Type-74.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_722579-Mitsubishi-Type-74.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_873513-Mitsubishi-Type-74.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1073894-Mitsubishi-Type-74.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1249645-Mitsubishi-Type-74.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1866179-Mitsubishi-Type-74.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1521059-Mitsubishi-Type-74-1974.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1704175-Mitsubishi-Type-74-1974.html

Type 74G
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_975301-Mitsubishi-Type-74.html

https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_218044-Mitsubishi-Type-78.html - Misidentified, Komatsu Type 75 MLRS (Multiple-Launch Rocket System). The Mitsubishi one is the Type 75 SPH (Self-Propelled Howitzer).

https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1453090-Mitsubishi-Type-90.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1919735-Mitsubishi-Type-90.html
Misidentified, these are M1 Abrams

https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_583757-Nihon-Nainenki-Type-95-1937.html - This Kurogane Type 95 is listed under "Nihon Nainenki" (日本内燃機) which was Kurogane's parent company. The rest of them are listed under Kurogane, so this one should be too https://www.imcdb.org/vehicles.php?make=Kurogane&model=Type+95& This one is specifically the pickup truck version. The rest are the staff car version.

These two vehicles are the same thing. They should be called "TGE Type 92A Ni-Ku", as opposed to the other artillery tractor introduced in the same year, the Type 92B I-Ke.
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_377454-TGE-Type-92-1932.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_373166-TGE-Type-92-Ko-1932.html

There are Type 82s listed under Mitsubishi, Komatsu, and Isuzu. Mitsubishi designed it but Komatsu built them. I don't think Isuzu even had anything to do with it.
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicles.php?make=Mitsubishi&model=Type+82&
https://imcdb.org/vehicles.php?make=Komatsu&model=Type+82&
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicles_make-Isuzu_model-Type+82.html

https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_1763296-Isuzu-Type-73-Truck-SKW-440-1973.html - This Isuzu Type 73 is listed separately by mistake. It is "Type 73 Truck" while the rest are only "Type 73".

These are Isuzu Type 97s. The TX40 was an earlier design. I'm not entirely sure what the model code of the Type 97 was, if it had one. Isuzu may have considered it a TX, just the military version of it, but the design of the Type 97 is closer to the TX60 and TX80 than it is to the TX40.
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicles.php?make=Isuzu&model=TX+40

The Isuzu Type 94's model code was TU10
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicles_make-Isuzu_model-Type+94.html

After these I am happy with the Japanese vehicles. There is nothing else I can find wrong, for now at least.

Latest Edition: 17/10/2024 @ 00:15:40

Tank and "Made for Movie" corrections

Published 17/10/2024 @ 04:15:51, By Harold B

Latest Edition: 17/10/2024 @ 04:17:23

dhill_cb7

Tank and "Made for Movie" corrections

Published 17/10/2024 @ 05:00:48, By dhill_cb7

We appreciate the help. I know that I have mentioned to Mike962 in the past that for these obscure names sometimes it helps to link ones that are already established in the database in your comment to make it easier for the admin updating the entry.

Obviously if they are all listed wrong then it’s better to have antp do it in one fell swoop then manually doing one by one.

Normal admins do not have the right to do a mass update (many entries). That is one feature antp (owner/main admin) has exclusive rights to do :grin:

Tank and "Made for Movie" corrections

Published 17/10/2024 @ 08:02:37, By antp

Thanks for the list of fixes
I already processed the post from 22:43, I'll do the next one later today.

edit: that's a longer list that I thought :grin:

Still have to do Reo XM453E3 and next ones

Latest Edition: 17/10/2024 @ 16:29:47

Tank and "Made for Movie" corrections

Published 17/10/2024 @ 22:21:55, By Harold B

I actually talked to the owner of the XM453E3 recently, they still have it. He told me that one is serial number 1, out of 3. I had learned only a few weeks ago about the other two surviving XM453s, one Ford and one GMC, so I was really happy to find out through this site that a Reo version still exists as well. I have an interest in preserving oddball, prototype military vehicles, so I was letting him know I was interested in it. He said he would keep me in mind for if they sell it. I'd love to be able to reunite all three of them and have them on display. I'm working on getting a building for the vehicles I already have.

Tank and "Made for Movie" corrections

Published 18/10/2024 @ 14:09:44, By antp

I won't have time to continue renaming things posted on the forum until Monday or Tuesday, but don't worry, it is not lost, I'll process these later :wink: