OT:Battleship the movie(spoiler)
First, let me say this film was craptastic. The plot and acting were "meh", but the CGI was superb. But in having said that, I am going to recommend this movie.
It was entertaining movie. A lot of action with some spectacular images. Granted, there were some silly scenes, but that's to be expected from movies like these.I also thought it was interesting that they had a Japanese naval officer work with a US naval officer to defeat the aliens so near Pearl Harbor. They never explain why the US officer hates the Japanese officer, but whatever. Again, it a pop flick.
But the main reason I am recommending this film is Greg Gadsen, USS MIssouri, and the Missouri's vets. Gadson, an Army vet who lost both of his legs in Iraq, played a supporting role in the movie.
The Missouri is used in the end to combat the aliens. It's use has to come with a suspension of disbelief. They not only get her running within a short time span, but they man a ship that was normally manned by well over a 1000 men, with just a handful of men. Still, it was an awesome sight to see that magnificent ship and her massive guns fire in make-believe action.
They actually had men who served on the Missouri from several different eras.(The scene when they were introduced to the audience was more than a little hokey, but the results made it acceptable.) As an WWII buff I thought this was really cool.
As a movie Battleship was mediocre, but as an ode to the Navy it was terrific. For that reason I give it a thumbs up.
Should probably put "spoiler" in the title. What you said didn't bother me, but it could for someone else.
How big was Rihanna's character and how bad was her acting?
Her acting was wooden, which is what you would expect from a newbie.
Did she get into a fistacuffs with an alien in the movie?
On a side note, Peter Berg took advice from Kevin Costner on how to correctly film on water. Costner did not want to see Berg end up with another Water World.
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/05/10/battleship-peter-berg-kevin-costn…
But considering battleships have been obsolete since 1940 there is no other way they could have a made a Battleship movie.
No one maintains active battleships. Cruise missiles can and are launched from a variety of ships. Destroyers, frigates, submarines....you don't need a battleship to launch cruise missiles.
Now add to that the fact that battleships are slow and are in need of massive protection like carriers do. In fact, carriers of today are considered to be approaching obsolence because they too are slow and in need of a lot protection.
I suggest you look up the Battle of Taranto. That action by the British not only influenced the Japanese assault upon Pearl Harbor, but fundamentally altered naval warfare for every nation capable of fielding a blue water fleet.
Why make the movie? Why not? It is a vehicle to "sell" the Navy while appealing to the male 18-35 crowd that likes the explosions and violence that come with such a film.
Nobody is going to watch that movie and think "hell yeah it's not a job, it's an adventure!"
and think "Hey, that looks like a pretty cool job." It won't make or break a decision, but it plant or strengthen ideas in their head.
"In fact, carriers of today are considered to be approaching obsolence because they too are slow and in need of a lot protection."
Considering that we are currently building a new class of carrier, that will replace the current Nimitz class... I wouldn't say they are approaching obsolescence.
They are designing future carriers to carry planes and drones. I've read that they want one to carry just drones.
there is another class on the horizon, or they are going to use amphibious assault carriers like the Tarawa, as drone carriers. However, the new Gerald Ford class, will have a crew of over 4500. She'll be over 1000ft long, and have a displacement of 100,000t. Her air wing will consist of 90 aircraft, including the new F-35.
The Supercarrier is still an integral part of our defense strategy, and will continue to be for decades to come.
Of course.
Because we would NEVER build military hardware that the military itself claims not to need.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/29/key-congressman-questions-gene…
Lick me
I wouldnt exactly call the Nimitz class carriers slow (>30 knots), I would assume the Ford class will be just as or slighty faster.
Considering the smaller support ships sprint up into those speeds I think the fleet is remarkably nimble.
Your pretense at knowledge of things naval is laughable.
No one maintains active battleships because those ships require crews too big, and too specialized in otherwise unused equipment, to make their retention worthwhile. The latest ones were as fast as any other class of ship. Ditto for the speed of the carriers of today (they are, in fact, the fastest full-sized naval vessals). The argument against the carriers of today is that they represent such a concentraion of power and cost that the loss of one is potentially crippling; it isn't "because they too are slow and in need of a lot protection." All ships bar submarines need a lot of protection. No one argues that all ships bar submarines are approaching obsolescence for this reason.
I suggest you look up the battle in which HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales were sunk, at sea, by Japanese aircraft. THAT was the beginning of the end for the battleship and the fundamental change for "every nation capable of fielding a blue water fleet," not Taranto (in which battleships were torpedoed in a harbor, something that had been done before).
And the idea that Hasbro and Universal Studios spoent $200 million to "sell the Navy" is laughable. The movie was made in order to produce a profit.
I am well aware of the destruction of the HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales off the coast of Malaya during the Japanese campaign to capture Singapore. But if you recall, that occurred some three days after Pearl Harbor. From what I have read the Taranto assualt is considered the "end" of battleships because it displayed their vulnerability to aerial assault without sufficient aerial coverage.The sinkings of the Bismarck, Turpitz, Yamato, and Musashi only confirm this.
I suppose it is more accurate to say that the end of battlships can be seen in quite a few actions. Taranto, Pearl Harbor, the sinkings of HMS Respite and Prince of Wales, etc.
Add to this the fact that large scale deep sea actions were a thing of the past. Carriers could attack other ships hundreds of miles away, thus making the massive guns of battleships irrelevant. This is what I have read.
Now, since you consider yourself to be another Horatio Nelson, I would like to read your criticism of interpretations that come straight from historians. Nothng what I wrote above is my original thought. They came from historians. If they are inaccurate, blame me for buying a book that was lacking in sound diagnosis. This landlubber is no naval expert and does not pretend to be so.
In regards to the reason the movie was made, I was commenting about why the Navy participated, not why Hasbro and Universal Studios made the film. Only a blockhead would say that these corporations did this to "sell the Navy". The Navy obviously is using this movie as a vehicle to sell itself. I don't think there is any doubt about that.
There hasn't been an original creative work since Aristotle.
nope. waiting for The Dark Knight Rises.
Do you have a yearly movie-watching allotment?
I would get drunk and watch that.
However, in Avengers the military would be getting their arsh kicked while in this film they are the ones who save the world. In other words, Battleship makes them look better.
Little did you know they already made it.
Do you get to see Brooklyn Decker's Boobs???
^^Confused does this mean she has four ta ta's???
And rent it via Redbox for $1.30.
Question is, is it now worth it to buy a blueray player vs the standard DVD player i now have?
You tell us the movie sucks and then recommend it because of some cheesey and unbelievable ode to the Navy near the end? No thanks, I'll save my $16
Some, like you, could not care less about odes' to past generations. Others, like myself, appreciate the effort to do so. My recommendation is for those who do appreciate such tributes, cheesy or not.