[ Login ]

Advertising

Last completed movie pages

Annem; Clown Motel: Spirits Arise; Mr. Jingles; About Time, Too: Ivy's Story; Stitches; Hope Springs; 劇場版 美少女戦士セーラームーン Eternal; 美少女戦士セーラームーンCrystal; โคลนนิ่ง คนก๊อปปี้คน; We Visit an Airport; Three Into Two Won't Go; Wings to Bermuda; Судьба диверсанта; Irish Wish; Flash(s); (more...)

1960 Mercedes-Benz 220 S [W111]

1960 Mercedes-Benz 220 S [W111] in The Blood of Heroes, Movie, 1989 IMDB

Class: Cars, Sedan — Model origin: DE

1960 Mercedes-Benz 220 S [W111]

[*] Background vehicle

Comments about this vehicle

AuthorMessage

garco NL

2007-07-21 14:31

Used as roof...
So no actual car.

Keep it or delete the whole movie?

-- Last edit: 2007-07-21 14:34:48

Tönz DE

2007-07-21 15:27

Keep it :)
Grill belongs to a 1960/1961-1968/1969 W110/W111/W112, they all used the same frame.
I cannot tell from the bonnet if it was mounted on a sedan, coupé or convertible.

antp BE

2007-07-21 18:40

I'd keep it too.

G-MANN UK

2007-10-09 13:08

This is not a car, it's just one part from a car (the bonnet/hood). I'd say delete it. I remember Alexander posted a Land Rover windscreen and that got deleted in the end.

-- Last edit: 2007-10-09 13:28:35

CarChasesFanatic ES

2007-10-09 13:27

we dont list separate parts of cars or do we :??: we list cars, at least the whole chassis, so we can see that it is a car and recognise it but this??

I'd say delete as well.

antp BE

2007-10-09 16:33

G-MANN wrote I remember Alexander posted a Land Rover windscreen and that got deleted in the end.

No, it is still there: /vehicle_3447-Land-Rover-Series-II-1958.html
And that windscreen is not a background one, it is involved in the movie [:ddr555]

For the case of this Mercedes, I think that it is still useful to mention it, considering what it represents in the movie ("a movie in which all human technologies are vanished from earth" as Garco said), as it is well visible and maybe symbolic?
Else what is the limit for listing a car? We have few half-cars listed... is that the limit? 50% of the parts of the original car? :lol: At least this hood has a link with a real car, unlike many "made for movie" cars, e.g. /movie_110366-.html
(but I do not say either that we should list all car parts!)

-- Last edit: 2007-10-09 16:35:53

CarChasesFanatic ES

2007-10-09 19:40

I didnt know about the Land over window, it is pathetic, as well as this hood, they definetly should not be listed, because honestly, if we list this parts of cars ill accept Sixcyl background vehicles, at least they are cars although sometimes they are not very visible...

antp BE

2007-10-09 20:47

I wonder what is the link between not visible background cars and well visible parts of cars :D Those are two completely different subject.
When you disagree with others on a point like that, you seem to really say strange things :??: (I remember previous discussions about movies without cars, etc...)

-- Last edit: 2007-10-09 20:48:29

CarChasesFanatic ES

2007-10-09 21:18

I dont say strange things, if we accept parts of cars, i will accept Sixcyl background vehicles as at least he lists full cars... im not saying im going to accept im just saying that if we accept parts of cars that show nothign we can accept other background vehicles, at least they are the full car...

And what does movies without car have to do with all this...?

antp BE

2007-10-09 21:55

This one is well visible, and probably for some time in the movie.
Those background cars mentioned are usually seen only for a fraction of a second ("blink and they are gone", as G-MANN said)

carchasesfanatic wrote
And what does movies without car have to do with all this...?

It was just another discussion where you seemed to want to persuade people that we should do as you want :p

CarChasesFanatic ES

2007-10-09 22:18

i never try to persuade people to do what i want, its incredible i have to be hearing this things when you are the first one on persuading people such as sixcyl to remove all his background vehicles.

G-MANN UK

2007-10-09 22:33

antp wrote
No, it is still there: /vehicle_3447-Land-Rover-Series-II-1958.html
And that windscreen is not a background one, it is involved in the movie


I don't believe it [:kiki]

carchasesfanatic wrote I didnt know about the Land over window, it is pathetic, as well as this hood, they definetly should not be listed


I'm afraid I have to agree with this, it truly is pathetic. If anything can't this kind of thing be restricted to the comments (I think if there are no cars in the movie then IMHO the movie isn't worth listing, but at least this would be a compromise)? Antp, I respect you I really do, but in this case I can't believe you are bothering to argue in favour of listing something like this (don't take the word "argue" too literally, that word has very negative connotations with a lot of people). Sorry mate, but that's my opinion. :/ That's all I have to say, I'm not angry of anything, I won't do anymore moaning here.

-- Last edit: 2007-10-09 22:58:44

CarChasesFanatic ES

2007-10-09 22:36

No G-MANN dont agree with me please or "someone" will think im trying to persuade you to it :o

G-MANN UK

2007-10-09 22:39

It's OK, I am thinking for myself here.

CarChasesFanatic ES

2007-10-09 22:41

I know but apparently that's what i do for "others" [:kiki] i cant believe either that Antoine is also in favour of listing such parts of vehicles, its a window and a hood, jsut that, i dont see the point of listing them..

Neptune US

2007-10-09 22:43

Not to be rude, but that man’s face looks like he’s been banging his head against the Mercedes grille (!) ...

G-MANN UK

2007-10-09 22:44

Here's a little idea, if some kid steals the badge off a Merc and puts it on his bedroom shelf, does he then have a Mercedes in his room? I know this radiator grille and bonnet is more than that but it's still a long way from being a car.

Raul1983 FI

2007-10-09 22:55

It may not be a whole car but it is still nice to have it here. It's good to have it on our database if someone wants to search for this movie.

CarChasesFanatic ES

2007-10-09 23:02

Yes but then it is nice to list anything we like from a movie, just for someone that looks for the movie, if we have rules we have rules, and i like them, they prevent us of having such problems, but hold a second, we have stated, or some of us have, some new rules for background vehicles and one of those was something like not adding a car if its not fully visible or if its not more than two quarters visibl right? which is ok, so then? we cant add the front end of a car if thats only what we see of it but we can add a hood or a door or even a widescreen :??: and i dont mind if anybody thinks this has nothign to do, it does for me.

antp BE

2007-10-09 23:46

About the Land Rover windscreen, it is not me that want to have it: it is Alexander :p I just found that this simple entry does not harm the database (unlike hundreds of non-visible background cars), was quite funny, and as there was a scene with it in the movie (i.e. not truly background) I accepted to include it. But if it is removed, I would do not care.

About this car hood, what should be done then? Move it to comments? But then there is no car in the movie. Then you will say "you cannot list movies without cars". Then we do not mention that on the site though that it is related to a car in a movie and may interest some people.

carchasesfanatic wrote i never try to persuade people to do what i want, its incredible i have to be hearing this things when you are the first one on persuading people such as sixcyl to remove all his background vehicles.

Sure. Like if I was the only one to disagree with these background vehicles. I never mentioned "all background vehicles", there are just few on each movie (i.e. the worse ones).

carchasesfanatic wrote but hold a second, we have stated, or some of us have, some new rules for background vehicles and one of those was something like not adding a car if its not fully visible or if its not more than two quarters visibl right?


These are just draft and discussions in progress. It was also said that it was maybe too strict, and that in some cases some less visible cars could be accepted (cf comments I made above + Garco's comment on main page).

Endless discussions like that + these useless discussions about background cars because some will still do what they want ignoring other's comments, wow, that really makes me wanting to continue that site :o

-- Last edit: 2007-10-10 00:01:59

Bebert FR

2007-10-10 07:40

Je comprends ton "ras-le-bol", Antoine. Mais ce serait dommage que tu quittes le site. Pour son avenir, mais aussi pour toi. Ce serait un aveu de faiblesse. Si quelqu'un doit partir, ce n'est certainement pas toi. Je l'ai déjà écrit. Tu es ici chez toi, et nous ne sommes que tes invités. Je n'ai jamais vu un maître de maison fuir devant ses invités sous prétexte que ceux-ci montent sur les tables, salopent la moquette, ou déchirent les rideaux. Ce sont en général les mauvais coucheurs qui prennent la porte...
Pour en revenir au sujet, le cas de la Land Rover est simple puisqu'il s'agit d'un véhicule "deux étoiles". Donc on le garde.
Pour la photo ci-dessus, c'est un peu plus "vicieux"... Si ce n'est que la grille, donc une partie de la voiture, moi je la virerais. Même si on la voit bien. Sinon, demain, on listera, un bout de portière, un essieu, une roue ou que sais-je...
Ce débat illustre aussi la nécessité d'avoir des REGLES claires, ou seules quelques exceptions pourront être tolérées après débat et vote. Tout autre cas de figure engendrera de sempiternelles discussions sans fin et sans décision, dont tout le monde ressortira frustré...

antp BE

2007-10-10 10:20

Ne t'inquiète pas, c'est plus un ras-le-bol sur le moment que sur le long terme (à part comme je le disais ces discussions sans fin qui reviennent à chaque occasion), a priori je n'ai pas de raison de tout laisser tomber comme ça.
Les règles n'aideront pas pour des cas comme celui-ci, vu qu'il y a toujours des cas où ce qui dépasse les règles est plus ou moins justifiable (c'est d'ailleurs écrit dans les règles qu'il peut y avoir des exceptions :D)

-- Last edit: 2007-10-10 10:21:38

chris40 UK

2007-10-10 10:27

My old headmaster used to say that rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men ...

Bebert FR

2007-10-10 11:33

Yes, I understand what you mean. But what do we do when fools spoil thoroughly wise man's life?.. :whistle:

chris40 UK

2007-10-10 13:55

Faut s’en décharger, je ne sais comment :(

Add a comment

You must login to post comments...

Advertising

Watch or buy this title - Powered by JustWatch

Advertising