|
|
| Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) (795768) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (796286) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jun 14 00:57:43 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Howard Fein on Sat Jun 13 08:16:19 2009. Yeah, looks like 1575 did a cameo there. Heh. Travolta was an embarassment. As to the foamy stuff, my own attitude was that it wasn't shot on the LA red line nor in Toronto ... good enough. Although I had to chuckle at them passing Shea on the lex. And ELEVATED at that. Heh.But I didn't go to foam. The "Roosevelt" station was a genuine hoot tho'. |
|
|
| (796289) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Jun 14 01:07:22 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jun 14 00:52:15 2009. I saw it at the Arclight in Hollywood at 1610 and it was about 2/3 full. |
|
|
| (796290) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by South Ferry on Sun Jun 14 01:10:36 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jun 14 00:41:09 2009. unless you're one of those sick freaks whom do all-stop Ultimate Rides in the NYC Subway....... twice. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (796291) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jun 14 01:11:41 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Easy on Sun Jun 14 01:07:22 2009. Yeah, Smallbany isn't a good test market for "urban fare" ... but remarkably, Smallbany IS used to "see how it plays in Peoria" ... we're kinda "midwestern bland" here generally and if a product or service does well here, it'll be a blockbuster in "God's country." Heh.But yeah, house was pretty empty and that surprised even me ... I'll be curious to see what the "weekend BO tally" turns out to be when added up tomorrow for this flick. Truth be told, I was REALLY pissed off at the price. :( |
|
|
| (796293) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by South Ferry on Sun Jun 14 01:15:35 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jun 14 00:57:43 2009. I thought "school car" rather than 1575 but tis def worth a second look. The thought of the 6 going to Coney is what blew it for me. |
|
|
| (796294) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jun 14 01:17:27 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by South Ferry on Sun Jun 14 01:10:36 2009. Yeah, but they've got a cure for that now. :) |
|
|
| (796295) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jun 14 01:20:18 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by South Ferry on Sun Jun 14 01:15:35 2009. Feh, that wasn't what the movie was for ... Since 1575 was one of my "evil stepchildren" from the old days, might have been an arten. I can tell you (since I *was* paying attention) that the bulkhead was all one dark color, not the "original arten livery", that it could well have been a non-motored arten wreck shoved into place there. I'm only guessing 1575 because they'd have to move a car that wouldn't fall off its trucks to get there, and all I know of that was moveable at the time would have been 1575 ... dunno for sure, I'm not terribly foamy. But seeing what looked like an arten parked there was a bit of a surprise. Dumpy rustbird on the other track wasn't. :) |
|
|
| (796296) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Jeromeline on Sun Jun 14 01:36:06 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Jeromeline on Sat Jun 13 14:57:47 2009. That's funny, I know a console disp. that says otherwise. |
|
|
| (796297) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jun 14 01:53:56 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Jeromeline on Sun Jun 14 01:36:06 2009. He's got some 'splaining to do then for lying to you. |
|
|
| (796309) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Transit Jeff on Sun Jun 14 05:42:10 2009, in response to Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by peppertree5706 on Fri Jun 12 16:50:06 2009. After reading the posts on this thread, I wonder why the producers didn't consult with some NYC subway rail fans. Any good rail fan worth his salt would have explained the finer points of NYC train routing, rolling stock, stations, control center, etc. I'm not saying that it had to be an exact, factual documentary. I fully understand that it was a fictional movie directed towards regular movie goers.But it makes me wonder who the technical advisors were on the original 1974 version of Pelham 1-2-3. There were things in that movie that a Hollywood producer or director would have no way of knowing. |
|
|
| (796313) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Jun 14 06:45:15 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Transit Jeff on Sun Jun 14 05:42:10 2009. ** I wonder why the producers didn't consult with some NYC subway rail fans. **LMAO! |
|
|
| (796317) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Sun Jun 14 07:26:39 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Howard Fein on Sat Jun 13 08:16:19 2009. I also though it was laughable when the movie showed a satellite view of Manhattan and the location of the RCC is pointed to Midtown Manhattan, then the next shot where the RCC is supposed to be located is 1 NY Plaza. The SI Ferry terminal is clearly shown next to 1 NY Plaza.The camera work with the Mayor at the corner of 60th and Lex is unnecessary and stupid, dizzying around like 4 times. The hostages are not really shown their characters unlike the original. However the movie does have quite a few laughs in the spirit of the original and Denzel Washington's acting is amazing. The film does capture the essence of NYC unlike the horrible Toronto remake, however it would have been more watachable without the stupid camera tricks, like it OD' on Valium. One more item, you can tell the car was stuck outside Church Ave Culver portal, one R46 F train passed by on the local track. I still enjoyed this |
|
|
| (796341) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jun 14 09:02:01 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Transit Jeff on Sun Jun 14 05:42:10 2009. Um, I'm sure they consulted with plenty of knowledgeable people. I'm sure they had their reasons for what they ultimately chose to do. |
|
|
| (796349) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Sun Jun 14 09:35:55 2009, in response to Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by peppertree5706 on Fri Jun 12 16:50:06 2009. i think they go 60 in other systems :) |
|
|
| (796383) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jun 14 10:45:27 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jun 14 01:20:18 2009. 1575 has been a model subway car on museum runs. Runs flawlessly now. |
|
|
| (796384) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jun 14 10:47:46 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jun 14 01:17:27 2009. Do it for a living!:) |
|
|
| (796387) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jun 14 10:49:40 2009, in response to Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by peppertree5706 on Fri Jun 12 16:50:06 2009. And what would a movie with NYC subway footage be without Hoyt-Schermerhorn disguised as another station? It played 42nd St./6th Ave. in Nighthawks. |
|
|
| (796429) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Jun 14 12:11:39 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Broadway Buffer on Sat Jun 13 23:45:07 2009. I agree. Good points. |
|
|
| (796723) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jun 14 19:19:30 2009, in response to Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by peppertree5706 on Fri Jun 12 16:50:06 2009. This thread is famous now.Commuters Say Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 Is Outlandish 
|
|
|
| (796731) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun Jun 14 19:30:59 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jun 14 19:19:30 2009. LOL, that is 150%your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (796740) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jun 14 19:46:35 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Fred G on Sun Jun 14 19:30:59 2009. Adds up perfectly! |
|
|
| (797076) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Mon Jun 15 14:06:08 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by South FERRY on Fri Jun 12 17:41:49 2009. Personally I thought the idea of the "abandoned Roosevelt Spur under the Waldorf-Astoria" was very imaginative. That "spur" idea was loosely based on fact, too. I couldn't tell if that was an R-12 or an R-10 at the beginning of the scene though.--Mark |
|
|
| (797077) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Mon Jun 15 14:08:08 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by jabrams on Fri Jun 12 21:37:10 2009. The subway scenes were shot too fast to actually see them properly.This is actually the part of the film I did not like. Why all the special effects whenever the train was filmed in motion? --Mark |
|
|
| (797080) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Mon Jun 15 14:10:06 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Broadway Buffer on Sat Jun 13 19:21:40 2009. IAWTP! (Though the first thing that my mind registered before seeing this scene was the Roosevelt Ave - Jackson Heights 2nd System station).--Mark |
|
|
| (797081) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Mon Jun 15 14:17:39 2009, in response to Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by peppertree5706 on Fri Jun 12 16:50:06 2009. I think it was wayyyy cool to see the hijacked subway car on both the Culver and Brighton levels at West 8th Street just seconds apart, the car approaching the upper level of West 8th passing a Q train of R-68s and the car being tripped in what also looked like the upper level of W 8th St.Also, the Lexington Ave line running to Coney Island is planned for the 2016 - 2020 Capital Plan. What you saw was just a pilot program - kinda like the jerome Ave rush hour express to Manhattan. :) --Mark |
|
|
| (797092) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Howard Fein on Mon Jun 15 15:11:45 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Mark S. Feinman on Mon Jun 15 14:08:08 2009. What bugged me was that during the opening credit sequence, the sound of a diesel horn was heard regularly. NYC subway train horns do NOT sound like that- except maybe the odd diesel-powered work car. So obviously the sound editors were dealing with abstractions.What WAS wonderful was that the very found audible sound heard in the picture was the distinctive R142A/143 acceleration sound under the Columbia Pictures logo- in effect, a music cue. It was heard several over times during the opening, but fit the orchestration pefectly. And the subject subway line of the movie. |
|
|
| (797098) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jun 15 15:28:51 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Howard Fein on Mon Jun 15 15:11:45 2009. Better than that ... CANADIAN rule diesel horn ... honk-honk-honk ... :) |
|
|
| (797107) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Mon Jun 15 16:29:11 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Howard Fein on Mon Jun 15 15:11:45 2009. Oh, please. Nothing tops David Shire's CLASSIC theme to the original. I hum it sometimes when I'm in the subway and it still fits, 35 years later!There is nothing, NOTHING, about the current film that outshines or even approaches the original. The original is the Citizen Kane of subway movies - its magic cannot be recaptured. |
|
|
| (797148) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by R68A - 5200 on Mon Jun 15 19:27:09 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Mark S. Feinman on Mon Jun 15 14:08:08 2009. Because if they showed you the footage as it was ACTUALLY shot, you'd see how slow the trains were actually moving. |
|
|
| (797172) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Jun 15 20:33:26 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jun 15 15:28:51 2009. I couldn't help but think, who are they trying to kid? |
|
|
| (797173) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Jun 15 20:36:02 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Mark S. Feinman on Mon Jun 15 14:10:06 2009. That's what I thought except there are no station signs except for the tilework. Then the private entrance to the Waldorf came to mind. |
|
|
| (797197) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jun 15 21:14:44 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Jun 15 20:33:26 2009. Maybe it reminded Travolta of his Ferrari? Or maybe Denzel wanted to mess with the heads of foamers ... :) |
|
|
| (797320) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Jun 16 11:04:44 2009, in response to Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by peppertree5706 on Fri Jun 12 16:50:06 2009. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this yet (unless they did on one of the other threads)--the T/O, later Ramos, and finally Garber driving on the LEFT HAND SIDE!!!Did they think they were in L. A./Miami/Baltimore, etc?!? I am so banging that in as a goof on IMDb. (Actually, considering modern heavy rail systems, BART and WMATA also drive on the right). |
|
|
| (797637) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Wed Jun 17 11:03:11 2009, in response to Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by peppertree5706 on Fri Jun 12 16:50:06 2009. Seen it last night, when I seen a few friend employees in the Movie, i had 20 heart attacks! It was an awesome movie! |
|
|
| (797744) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Ken S. on Wed Jun 17 16:59:23 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Wed Jun 17 11:03:11 2009. 20 heart attacks? Get yourself to a doctor now.My Site & Forum. Please use your SubChat or NYCTF handle when signing up for the forum to avoid being denied registration. Everyone is welcome to join the forum. |
|
|
| (797780) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by kawasakir142 on Wed Jun 17 19:15:25 2009, in response to Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by peppertree5706 on Fri Jun 12 16:50:06 2009. it was mostly filmed on the 7 line |
|
|
| (797816) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by R42 4787 on Wed Jun 17 21:07:19 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Jun 16 11:04:44 2009. They drive on the left in the UK as well. |
|
|
| (797901) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Wed Jun 17 23:32:15 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Jun 16 11:04:44 2009. They had to set it up this way because a real Train Operator was operating the train from the correct side, ducking below the window. It also helped since they filmed the initial hijacking at Grand Central - 42 Street on the (7), with its island platform. |
|
|
| (797903) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Wed Jun 17 23:33:17 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Wed Jun 17 11:03:11 2009. ^_^ |
|
|
| (797907) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Wed Jun 17 23:38:06 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by G1Ravage on Wed Jun 17 23:33:17 2009. :-) |
|
|
| (797923) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Mr. MTA on Thu Jun 18 00:08:42 2009, in response to Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by peppertree5706 on Fri Jun 12 16:50:06 2009. I love how the movie starts with the R142a engine start up sound! I was afraid before seeing the movie that the trains wouldn't sound very realistic but after the fact I think they did a very good job on that. |
|
|
| (798874) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 21 12:14:17 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by peppertree5706 on Fri Jun 12 17:17:28 2009. Since they recently did open a command center in midtown a few years ago, I assumed that it looks like what was depicted in the movie. |
|
|
| (798883) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jun 21 12:17:54 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 21 12:14:17 2009. You assume wrong. Much has been said about the differences between the movie and the real Command Center. Do a search and read all the threads on the subject of the new Pelham movie. |
|
|
| (798884) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 21 12:18:39 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by South Ferry on Sat Jun 13 02:14:35 2009. But nowhere near as good as the original. |
|
|
| (798889) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 21 12:20:18 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Mark S. Feinman on Mon Jun 15 14:08:08 2009. Agreed. Not necessary. |
|
|
| (798893) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 21 12:25:36 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jun 14 00:41:09 2009. Have you seen the website that shows pictures of what is outside at the terminus of every subway line for those who only use one line or two and never get to the ends? Can't find the link right now. |
|
|
| (798899) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 21 12:34:13 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Sun Jun 14 07:26:39 2009. The hostages are not really shown their characters unlike the original.Agreed. You didn't get to know any of the hostages. Also the only hijacker with any character development at all was Travolta's character. The hostage kid with the computer was awful. Didn't like Densel Washington's acting at all. Some of the people in smaller roles looked very realistic, like the conductor, Ramos, etc. The inconsistancies you have to expect, but the dizzying camera tricks throughout the movie and unrealistic car chases and shooting sequences were annoying and unnecessary. The movie could have been a lot better. |
|
|
| (798901) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 21 12:34:48 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Sun Jun 14 07:26:39 2009. The hostages are not really shown their characters unlike the original.Agreed. You didn't get to know any of the hostages. Also the only hijacker with any character development at all was Travolta's character. The hostage kid with the computer was awful. Didn't like Densel Washington's acting at all. Some of the people in smaller roles looked very realistic, like the conductor, Ramos, etc. The inconsistancies you have to expect, but the dizzying camera tricks throughout the movie and unrealistic car chases and shooting sequences were annoying and unnecessary. The movie could have been a lot better. |
|
|
| (798908) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 21 12:42:38 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Transit Jeff on Sun Jun 14 05:42:10 2009. But it makes me wonder who the technical advisors were on the original 1974 version of Pelham 1-2-3. There were things in that movie that a Hollywood producer or director would have no way of knowing.At the time, Don Harold told me he spent six months full time working on nothing else but Pelham 123. At that time the TA was very reluctant to even allowing filming on the subway, because they were afraid of panicking passengers into thinking that this could really happen. Certain technical points were intentionally wrong so as not to provide too much knowledge of how the system works. I'm sure that was the intention this time too. Forgot to check the credits this time but last time there was a statement saying something to the effect that the producers do not thank the NYCTA for their cooperation, which I'm sure was put there for legal reasons. |
|
|
| (798912) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by d_mind on Sun Jun 21 12:46:20 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 21 12:42:38 2009. Certain technical points were intentionally wrong so as not to provide too much knowledge of how the system works.Security through obscurity. I love it. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
