Emyr Thy King
Posts: 2153
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: superdan
I mean the battleship. The whole 'grizzled old vets man their stations in defence of the American islands' thing came across as trumpet blowing to me.
Righto...but it's set around Hawaii where an infamous incident occurred. It's sort of seared into the American psyche so it's pretty unavoidable. I thought it worked in a reverential/quirky kind of way.
quote:
Oh. Ok then.
Indeed.
quote:
They gave a warning signal in the form of a horn, which the aliens responded to in a similar fashion. They then fired a shot, which obviously we know it as a warning shot, but that doesn't mean it's a universal thing (it was fucking close after all), so the aliens responded by firing back. It was poorly done if we are meant to see them as aggressive conquerors.
The aliens knew what the navy were doing. They wanted to bait them into a shooting match to see what they were up against...should they have to defend against further attacks. This is a species that relies on identifying threats visually through sub-components etc. Which was shown easily in the film. So it stands to reason they would want to size up the enemy before engaging them. And it's clear from what the navy did first of all, they were not spoiling for a fight. A warning shot is meant to be f-ing close, otherwise it wouldn't be a warning shot would it? What's universal is nature, or as observed on Earth. You know when you see an animal and it roars or whatever, it's posturing and trying to intimidate and scare you off. It's no different here, it was a case of matching what the other was doing and to try and provoke a reaction on their part. It's not poorly done because later on, an alien psychically communicates to Hopper exactly what their intentions are. To conquer the Earth as they've done elsewhere. If you come to an unknown planet with the intention of not initiating hostilities. You wouldn't arrive with a few warships and a barrier erecting vessel to prevent someone from getting close. They were seeking to call reinforcements to finish the job. Plain and simple. Again, tactical posturing.
quote:
Why? They're five massive and manoeuvrable ships after all. It's made immediately apparent that they have vastly more effective weaponry and armour. They have no problem taking out two ships so why leave the third? Because it's no threat? I think anyone would realise that just because an enemy isn't firing on you, doesn't make them less of an enemy. The highlighting in red thing just seemed to confirm that they'll only react to aggression, nothing else. That seems kind of reasonable really.
There's a psychological reason to letting a survivor go. They even make references to Sun Tzu in the film. They'll return to their comrades spreading fear and would 'in theory', persuade the opposition not to try again. Although the barrier was up and no-one else was getting in or out. But they didn't know if anyone else was left (such as a sub). Besides, there's other variables. Saving ammunition (in case the barrier failed) and as I said, their mission was not to piss off the locals but to establish a beachead and a line of communication back home. Risking ships in unecessary combat is not conducive to that end. Their aim was to call reinforcements who would arrive with an intergalactic sledgehammer for a bit of interior decorating. And that reacting to aggression thing is false. They took out a Marine/Navy base which only had helicopters and they also took out the support pillars for an overpass. Hardly threatening, unless they're scared of heights. Furthermore, if an enemy presents no viable threat to you. There's no point wasting time with them if you have more pressing matters to attend to. Such as piggy-backing a signal onto radio telescopes and using only one satellite to beam it back home. As for five massive and manoeuvrable warships, I seem to recall three of them being taken out by one destroyer. That's pretty much half your expeditionary force gone.
quote:
That's an awful lot left to assumption. In the context of the film it just promotes more confusion.
Ironic and amusing considering most will whinge that a film spoon feeds the audience too much. That's hardly a lot to assume. Just basic deduction from what's on-screen. The one thing I didn't think they clarified was the aliens's reason for being here. Are they merely conquerors or were they looking for a new home? From that vision transference, if it was their home planet then they were probably after a new home. In that ship rescue scene, I don't think it promotes confusion, they don't engage what they deem not to be a threat (rather than 'react' to aggression) and it establishes either a) that alien was an important figure or b) they don't leave anyone behind. But that could be because they didn't want us sussing out their weak spots. Although I recall they left behind/missed an alien. So perhaps he was meant to be clean-up.
quote:
I don't see why something being done before would prevent it from being done again (this is an alien invasion film after all), and as it was the movie could have probably used a little jarring. It's an incredibly hollow film as presented.
Because it wouldn't be adding anything new or be saying anything new for that matter. To try and attach an underlying political message about US foreign policy to what is ostensibly a light-hearted sci-fi war film/blockbuster would just be out of kilter with the overall tone of the film.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris
quote:
ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King
No, you misunderstood. I meant as an approach to a naval sci-fi war film/thriller. That blend might be interesting to you. Rather than a 'fire for effect' 16-inch gun extravaganza. And yes of course it's a good film, it's why I mentioned it.
Crimson Tide takes place pretty much within the confines of a nuclear submarine, and is about left versus right, act now versus hold out for later, with the occasional dosage of mutiny & betrayal.
Battleship is Top Gun with aliens & boredom, yet without the homo-eroticism & the fun.
Aside from the fact they are both set predominantly at sea & contain fragments of the US military, I'm not quite sure what the relation is?
Yeah, you don't need to explain the premise of Crimson Tide to me. Although you probably should add responsibility of nuclear arms to that and the chain-of-command. As the central conceit was who's really in charge of launching nucelear weapons, the commander-in-chief or a submarine commander and its implications thereof.
Anyway, there is no direct relation and I made none. My point being seeing as you didn't enjoy Battleship's action antics. Perhaps a more taut and focused approach (i.e. a Crimson Tide type atmosphere but with aliens) would be more your thing. If you need further help from entanglement of sticky keys, I'll gladly load tubes three and four and see if I can do better.
< Message edited by Emyr Thy King -- 26/4/2012 3:56:36 PM >
_____________________________
"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self
|
Printable Version
RE: Battleship - 
. 
.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread