Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Battleship

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Battleship Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Battleship - 15/4/2012 6:15:31 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44
As for the tech at the end - yes the old ship wins the day. But modern tech does a lot of work in the film to get them to that point in the finale. I don't think it is that black and white.


But the whole point is that it happens at the end! Thats how resolution works!

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 61
RE: Battleship - 15/4/2012 6:17:29 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Where is the satire?

Old technology has benefits we don't appreicate - theme
Our romantic look at our past military victories is silly, and we are mocking it - satire.

I for one don't believe that Berg would be nasty enough to want audiences to laugh at the old crew and ship. There is warmth in the ACDC scene. I think he wants us to laugh along with them, and tap into the old war spirit.


The satire is in the manner in which Berg presents his film. The old man scene is essentially a typical macho action flick montage, albeit with one component changed to heightened (humorous) effect. He's commenting on the action cinema form. (There's also a sense of this in the manner in which the aliens are presented - they don't want to harm humans, and only act in retaliation to threat, which could in itself be read as a commentary on American foreign policy)


See, I don't think that is satire but rather saying that "these guys are the real heros" - a moment for audiences to cheer. It is funny, I agree, but that is comedy which comes from these old sea dogs showing the young guys how it is done. There is love in those scenes.

I won't even get started on the aliens attack/non-attack/writers needed a solution policy. Not exactly the greatest military minds pulling that together.


_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 62
RE: Battleship - 15/4/2012 6:19:18 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44
As for the tech at the end - yes the old ship wins the day. But modern tech does a lot of work in the film to get them to that point in the finale. I don't think it is that black and white.


But the whole point is that it happens at the end! Thats how resolution works!


Yes, but you previously said it was a theme which ran through the whole film. I disagreed that it is in the whole film - because there are moments where it does help our heroes.

Now, the anti-science thing is an interesting theme...

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 63
RE: Battleship - 15/4/2012 6:32:30 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

I won't even get started on the aliens attack/non-attack/writers needed a solution policy. Not exactly the greatest military minds pulling that together.




Apparently they cut a massive section out of the film explaining more fully that the aliens weren't actually a threat (unless provoked). Think the provocation line might have proven too much for Hasbro (it still makes me wince to think of them as major players in the film biz).

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 64
RE: Battleship - 15/4/2012 6:36:07 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

I won't even get started on the aliens attack/non-attack/writers needed a solution policy. Not exactly the greatest military minds pulling that together.




Apparently they cut a massive section out of the film explaining more fully that the aliens weren't actually a threat (unless provoked). Think the provocation line might have proven too much for Hasbro (it still makes me wince to think of them as major players in the film biz).


The Borg in Star Trek do a similar thing. But there is ignoring a things that aren't a threat, and letting a ship that was part of an attack force just sail away. Still, at least there was some awareness about the problems within this concept.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 65
RE: Battleship - 15/4/2012 8:20:40 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Stop me where I'm wrong as I've not seen this, but are you guys telling me they kept a subplot about going up and down a cliff but left out something as important to the characterization of the aliens AS THAT?!

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 66
RE: Battleship - 15/4/2012 9:40:35 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Stop me where I'm wrong as I've not seen this, but are you guys telling me they kept a subplot about going up and down a cliff but left out something as important to the characterization of the aliens AS THAT?!


Yep. Although to be fair, the going up and down the cliff bit is necessary to the plot. And rubbish.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 67
RE: Battleship - 16/4/2012 10:19:32 AM   
Wild about Wilder


Posts: 1652
Joined: 9/4/2010
From: Hertfordshire
Not as bad as was led to beleave (Just leave your brain at the door).
Could've done without Al Murray (standing in for Simon Mayo?) on Radio5's Friday afternoons movie review show blurting out a major spoiler .
On the whole a mildly entertaining 3/5 (& at least they did try & play battleships!)

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 68
RE: Battleship - 16/4/2012 7:50:57 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2348
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet
Has Kermode reviewed this yet? Im always up for one of his rants.

_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to Wild about Wilder)
Post #: 69
RE: Battleship - 16/4/2012 9:08:55 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12151
Joined: 30/9/2005
I wonder if he'll say anything about it not being in 3D?

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 70
RE: Battleship - 17/4/2012 12:48:23 PM   
CORLEONE

 

Posts: 4695
Joined: 2/11/2005
From: Nakatomi Plaza
Enjoyed this immensely. Most fun I've had at the flicks in ages. The special effects seemed even more special with the fact they were in the daylight and out at sea. By no means perfect but great fun. I'm a sucker for alien invasion films so I'll bump this to 4 stars.

_____________________________

Al Swearengen: "Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back".

(in reply to Hood_Man)
Post #: 71
RE: Battleship - 18/4/2012 4:27:46 PM   
Stuntgoat


Posts: 670
Joined: 7/10/2005
Glad to see I wasn't the only person who actually liked it. Am a big Friday Night Lights TV fan so was glad to see riggins and Landry back together.Feel a bit of a tit though that I only just realised the shape of the alien artilllery this morning, liked how they got the map co-ordinates into the film as well.

_____________________________

We're gonna need a bigger boat!
PSN: Stuntgoat

(in reply to CORLEONE)
Post #: 72
RE: Battleship - 19/4/2012 9:45:43 AM   
Wild about Wilder


Posts: 1652
Joined: 9/4/2010
From: Hertfordshire
He'll probably do his usual oh I was away & I've to many films too catch up on just like Planet Of The Apes.

(in reply to Hood_Man)
Post #: 73
RE: Battleship - 19/4/2012 12:55:35 PM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 3971
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild about Wilder

He'll probably do his usual oh I was away & I've to many films too catch up on just like Planet Of The Apes.


But at least he had a reason to catch ROTPOTA.

Aside from a projecting another kermodian rant, there is no reason to sit through this.

_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph

(in reply to Wild about Wilder)
Post #: 74
RE: Fun! - 23/4/2012 1:21:41 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8221
Joined: 31/7/2008
I don't know why, but I expected to quite enjoy this film, and for the first 20 or 30 minutes I did. It was quite funny and jovial in a Emmerich-at-his-best kind of way. After that, though (and just when it should be getting really good) it just nosedives. The biggest reason for this is that it starts taking itself waaaaay too seriously, and ladles on the cheese. I mean, it becomes unbelievably cheesy and chest pounding to almost Bay-like levels. It also becomes slightly muddled and confusing, which I assume is the result of what feels like either a rushed or just generally pisspoor edit. Are we meant to believe the aliens are a real menace? Because I didn't, they kind of seemed like they were just doing their thing. The only reason I knew they were the bad guys was because we are told they are - most of the time it seemed like they were acting in self defence. And don't get me started on Kitsch's character, who is an utter dickhead who we're expected to believe still manages to achieve high rank in the US Navy.

On the positive side the effects were good if familiar, but that's about all I can say. An utter waste of everyone's talent, it says a lot when Rihanna isn't the worst thing about this movie.
Post #: 75
RE: Battleship - 25/4/2012 2:12:45 PM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2177
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
*Will contain spoilers*

I saw the film on Friday and I quite enjoyed it. Like CORELEONE, I do like my alien invasion films and if you're partial to that sort of action platter, then you will like the film.

Before I go on, I want to share my amusement at some people spitting feathers over not liking a film that they most likely suspected of being a dud anyway. I think there's a certain someone here who certainly needs to be treated for sticky keys syndrome: "it's awful!!" *tears one's hair out*..."aargghhhh!!" "oh my god! oh my god!" *sharp intakes of breath* "give me a paper bag! A ventilator! Or a flannel!". I think even Dr. Lenera would have trouble treating that one . Whilst he has his panic attack, I'll carry on with my pseudo-review.

This film wasn't going to be and certainly isn't original when it comes to characters. You don't need a character sonar to know that Hopper is going to 'find his way' at some point in the film. You know that Hopper's brother will bite it after having tried to steer his brother on the straight and narrow. You know there's going to be friction between Admiral Shane and Hopper and of course the rivalry between Hopper and the Japanese captain has been done before. So already, the character landscape doesn't feel fresh and original, but it's done in a functional manner. I thought Rihanna did fine actually, not as bad as I expected. Taylor Kitsch was good, not outstanding but he does sort of ease into the role as the film moves along. I thought Liam Neeson was criminally underused.

However, for me one aspect at which the film excels is the naval combat with aliens. Visually it feels new and at least not so familiar. When you look at Arleigh Burke-class destroyers exchanging potshots with those alien hydrofoils, you can imagine Michael Bay banging the table saying "why didn't I think of that!". There are some clever moments within the action and I thought using tsunami buoys to zero-in on the aliens was very clever. Someone here complained that at one point they basically used a boardgame model to plot what they were going to do. Why wouldn't they? Any military force, even special forces who are out on operations would create a rough model using sticks and stones. Yes it's a nod to the game, but it's hardly going to ruin the film is it? Effects wise, this film does a very good job and somehow, for a film that's meant to be an action spectacle, it's fairly light on the action. When we get the naval battles, they're quite entertaining and you sort of get into the navy's mindset in terms of tactical positioning etc. But then it's interspersed with long scenes of "what do we do here" type things. And I think the island scenes should've been cut down and the majority of the action should've stayed at sea. Despite the plot point of the islands.

I thought the characterisation of the aliens was a bit of an afterthought, I felt as though something may have been 'chopped' about their history and motives. For instance there's a scene where an alien 'mind melds' with Hopper, and he has a vision of the aliens engaged in total war. Yet this isn't elaborated nor expanded upon, it's just left there which felt a bit odd. Their technology was interesting (pegs!) and again the magnitude of the sun's brightness being too much for them has been done before (a la Cowboys and Aliens) but it works nonetheless.

The music was mostly low-key, which I thought was disappointing and unusual seeing as Steve Jablonsky (of Transformers infamy) likes his bombastic themes. There's flashes of something interesting but then it just becomes plain sailing again.

I think they missed an opportunity by not having a 'fleet action' film rather than just a few destroyers and a battleship. I think that's why the action felt a bit sparse. In addition, the pacing is a bit uneven. We have quite entertaining bouts of action then a sort of lull in the middle then back into the fray again. There's also a question of plotting. We see a team of scientists sending a signal to Planet G in 2005, which I presume is when Alex Hopper first met Sam Shane but then later we see him having gone from enlisted to an officer without a time reference. I presumed that the later scenes were 2012 or something.

I really don't get this "chest beating" that's supposedly in the film. Some reference would be nice. In fact, they at least tried to a show an international front as it was a multi-national wargames exercise. Not to forget a Japanese captain was instrumental in fighting the aliens. And the aliens were not acting in self-defence, that's a total misreading of what the film shows (admittedly not quite clear at times). The navy destroyers attempted radio communication, then they sounded the foghorn and finally fired a warning shot. The aliens interpreted it as a hostile action and decided to get in the first blow (1). That stand-off was merely tactical posturing on part of the aliens. Trying to get the other side to make the first move and make a mistake. And given what they were doing, I think we could deduce they were here to establish a new home and not hand out an olive branch. The aliens came with a very minimal expeditionary force. It would be in their interest not to engage in combat at every turn (seeing as it's not 'mission critical'). Because their mission is to establish a small beachead and line of communication back to their home planet. E.T phone home, and brings some guys with intergalactic swinging bats and other nasty things. Another thing, the only reason the alien ships didn't finish off the USS John Paul Jones is because they could see it went to pick up the survivors and disengaged. There's also an advantage in letting them go as they'll retreat with their soiled underpants. Still, I didn't see that as a kind or benevolent act. It's more of an act in expediency.


quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82
The rejection of modern technology and the reliability of the old is quite a clear underlying message. It runs through the film too, with logic going out of the window in favour of technologically-at-odds instinct on several occasions.


Rejection would be the wrong word. More of an over-reliance on it as shown with the aliens. In a sort of "you still need to be able to navigate with a compass and a map" type thing.

1. Reminds me a little of Babylon 5: In the Beginning and the whole thing with the open gun ports

Anyway 3/5 for me.


< Message edited by Emyr Thy King -- 27/4/2012 2:09:21 PM >


_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 76
RE: Battleship - 25/4/2012 11:30:27 PM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 3971
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

*Will contain spoilers*

I saw the film on Friday and I quite enjoyed it. Like CORELEONE, I do like my alien invasion films and if you're partial to that sort of action platter, then you will like the film.




Well I love my alien invasion films, yet seriously disliked this.



_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph

(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 77
RE: Battleship - 26/4/2012 12:13:53 AM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2177
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
It wasn't mean in a guaranteed manner, instead it should appeal more to the type that like a fair bit of action in their alien invasion films. In addition, I can overlook the failings of the film if the 'action quotient' was enough. If looked on in isolation, you don't enjoy the tactical engagements?

_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 78
RE: Battleship - 26/4/2012 12:27:48 AM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 3971
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh
By tactical engagements, do you you mean 'alien ship targeting system locates & targets human ship / fires missiles / missiles land on ship / few seconds / BOOM!' - a sequence which is repeated excessively during the second act both it terms of action and in terms of camera angle. The last time I saw a film regurgitating a sequence so frequently was The Room with Johnny & Lisa's love scenes - and that's arguably the worst film of all time.

I have to be honest, I was dying for the Japanese guy to start decrying "F6" - JUST FOR SOME GOD DAMN VARIATION!


_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph

(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 79
RE: Battleship - 26/4/2012 11:19:52 AM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2177
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
All right, their arsenal wasn't very expansive but clearly they're were milking the whole pegs on your ship thing. Besides, I liked seeing the Phalanx in action. Good to see it actually hit its targets (1) . Although for me the best bits were the first engagement as they had no idea what to do and there was a fair bit of chaos. And later on when they used anti-material rifles to smash the alien's observation deck window (followed by a 'frontside')...c'mon at least give points to it there. You can't compare this film to The Room - if I saw Hopper trying to have intercourse with Sam's belly button on the beach then fair enough. "Oh häi Hopper, how's your sex life?"

1. During the Gulf War of 1991. The Iraqis fired a Silkworm anti-ship missile at an allied flotilla. The Phalanx guns of the USS Jarrett (frigate) opened fire but locked onto the USS Missouri (battleship) instead because it released chaff/flares. So the Royal Navy's HMS Gloucester (destroyer) had to shoot it down with a Sea Dart missile. A bit of trivia for you there .

_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 80
RE: Battleship - 26/4/2012 12:03:09 PM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 3971
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

You can't compare this film to The Room - if I saw Hopper trying to have intercourse with Sam's belly button on the beach then fair enough. "Oh häi Hopper, how's your sex life?"



Much better flm - RIGHT there!


_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph

(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 81
RE: Battleship - 26/4/2012 1:02:27 PM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2177
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
How about Crimson Tide (minus the officer conflict) with aliens?

_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 82
RE: Battleship - 26/4/2012 1:17:39 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8221
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King
I really don't get this "chest beating" that's supposedly in the film. Some reference would be nice.

The minute they get on the battleship I could practically hear The Star Spangled Banner playing.

quote:


In fact, they at least tried to a show an international front as it was a multi-national wargames exercise. Not to forget a Japanese captain was instrumental in fighting the aliens.

He's the only one though, everything else is lip service. It's not that big a deal, it's just cheesy is all.


quote:


And the aliens were not acting in self-defence, that's a total misreading of what the film shows (admittedly not quite clear at times). The navy destroyers attempted radio communication, then they sounded the foghorn and finally fired a warning shot. The aliens misinterpreted it as a hostile action and decided to get in the first blow (1). That stand-off was merely tactical posturing on part of the aliens. Trying to get the other side to make the first move and make a mistake. And given what they were doing, I think we could deduce they were here to establish a new home and not hand out an olive branch. The aliens came with a very minimal expeditionary force. It would be in their interest not to engage in combat at every turn (seeing as it's not 'mission critical'). Because their mission is to establish a small beach head and line of communication back to their home planet. E.T phone home, and brings some guys with intergalactic swinging bats and other nasty things. Another thing, the only reason the alien ships didn't finish off the USS John Paul Jones is because they could see it went to pick up the survivors and disengaged. There's also an advantage in letting them go as they'll retreat with their soiled underpants. Still, I didn't see that as a kind or benevolent act. It's more of an act in expediency.


It's unbelievably ambiguous, and you shouldn't need intimate knowledge of military procedure to understand the motivations or actions of a popcorn movie's antagonists. Everything that happens in the first contact comes across as the aliens reacting in kind rather than being aggressive. There are several moments throughout the film where we're given the impression that they aren't openly hostile (such as when they rescue their comrade and leave the sailors alone, or when that alien confronts the scientist but doesn't harm him). Contrasted with being told that they are killing other scientists (which we don't see) and being told that they're here as a beach head, it's incredibly muddled. I actually thought the idea that they were relatively benign but simply reacting to aggression was an interesting comment on US foreign policy, but it turns out it was just an excuse to have navy vessels blow shit up.

(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 83
RE: Battleship - 26/4/2012 2:08:14 PM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 3971
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

How about Crimson Tide (minus the officer conflict) with aliens?


You joking? Crimson Tide's actually a good film.

_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph

(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 84
Boatswain's call....a bit too high pitched - 26/4/2012 2:08:23 PM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2177
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan
The minute they get on the battleship I could practically hear The Star Spangled Banner playing.


I must not have had my hearing aid on the 'T' setting. You mean the actual battleship at the end or the destroyer? I seem to recall it being RIMPAC and seeing a multi-national set of flags. Admittedly there's a heavy American presence but it never came across to me as trumpet blowing America is great.


quote:

He's the only one though, everything else is lip service. It's not that big a deal, it's just cheesy is all.


But he does give them a lot of assistance and he's a senior commander...just saying. If it's cheesy, it unremarkable and not really worthy of note.


quote:

It's unbelievably ambiguous, and you shouldn't need intimate knowledge of military procedure to understand the motivations or actions of a popcorn movie's antagonists. Everything that happens in the first contact comes across as the aliens reacting in kind rather than being aggressive. There are several moments throughout the film where we're given the impression that they aren't openly hostile (such as when they rescue their comrade and leave the sailors alone, or when that alien confronts the scientist but doesn't harm him). Contrasted with being told that they are killing other scientists (which we don't see) and being told that they're here as a beach head, it's incredibly muddled. I actually thought the idea that they were relatively benign but simply reacting to aggression was an interesting comment on US foreign policy, but it turns out it was just an excuse to have navy vessels blow shit up.


I didn't draw that conclusion from some supposed intimate knowledge of military protocol. It's plain to see, they came here armed and with a plan to dominate. That first contact is the two sides sizing the other up. As I said, and as it's clear in that scene or context. They were testing the resolve of the navy warships and basically trying to get them to make the first move, probably because they wanted to see what weapon systems the warships had so they can identify them and counter them. They even highlighted them in red hehe. If the navy were the aggressive ones, they would've gone in straight away all guns blazing. They didn't, they made attempts at communication and giving warning signals which the aliens failed to reciprocate. The aliens reacted aggressively to a warning shot and decided to sink the two destroyers. Which in my book gave the navy carte blanche to respond in kind.

I still don't see how that equates to aliens being care bears though? They had a limited force, (about five ships). They can't afford to engage every single target unless absolutely necessary. It's tactical expediency, nothing else. And if you've rescued a crewmember (perhaps he's an engineer of sorts), there's no real need to simply shoot and kill everyone if you don't deem them a threat. Particularly as the destroyer seemed to be out of action. There seemed to be a strange curiousity with some of the aliens, perhaps not all of them were soldiers. If they've never seen us then they would be curious, even if they viewed us as insects. And frankly if the film had been some sort of commentary on U.S foreign policy, which has been done before anyway. It would've just jarred with the overall tone of the film and been incredibly lame. And in a film where subtlety isn't a strongsuit anyway, I'd rather not have a Tim Robbins inspired Ogilvy-esque "occupations always fail" type comment.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris
You joking? Crimson Tide's actually a good film.


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.


< Message edited by Emyr Thy King -- 26/4/2012 2:13:15 PM >


_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 85
RE: Boatswain's call....a bit too high pitched - 26/4/2012 2:53:49 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8221
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan
The minute they get on the battleship I could practically hear The Star Spangled Banner playing.


I must not have had my hearing aid on the 'T' setting. You mean the actual battleship at the end or the destroyer? I seem to recall it being RIMPAC and seeing a multi-national set of flags. Admittedly there's a heavy American presence but it never came across to me as trumpet blowing America is great.

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.

quote:


quote:

He's the only one though, everything else is lip service. It's not that big a deal, it's just cheesy is all.


But he does give them a lot of assistance and he's a senior commander...just saying. If it's cheesy, it unremarkable and not really worthy of note.

Oh. Ok then.

quote:


It's plain to see, they came here armed and with a plan to dominate. That first contact is the two sides sizing the other up. As I said, and as it's clear in that scene or context. They were testing the resolve of the navy warships and basically trying to get them to make the first move, probably because they wanted to see what weapon systems the warships had so they can identify them and counter them. They even highlighted them in red hehe. If the navy were the aggressive ones, they would've gone in straight away all guns blazing. They didn't, they made attempts at communication and giving warning signals which the aliens failed to reciprocate. The aliens reacted aggressively to a warning shot and decided to sink the two destroyers. Which in my book gave the navy carte blanche to respond in kind.


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.

quote:


I still don't see how that equates to aliens being care bears though? They had a limited force, (about five ships). They can't afford to engage every single target unless absolutely necessary. It's tactical expediency, nothing else


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.

quote:


And if you've rescued a crewmember (perhaps he's an engineer of sorts), there's no real need to simply shoot and kill everyone if you don't deem them a threat. Particularly as the destroyer seemed to be out of action. There seemed to be a strange curiousity with some of the aliens, perhaps not all of them were soldiers. If they've never seen us then they would be curious, even if they viewed us as insects.

That's an awful lot left to assumption. In the context of the film it just promotes more confusion.

quote:


And frankly if the film had been some sort of commentary on U.S foreign policy, which has been done before anyway. It would've just jarred with the overall tone of the film and been incredibly lame. And in a film where subtlety isn't a strongsuit anyway, I'd rather not have a Tim Robbins inspired Ogilvy-esque "occupations always fail" type comment.


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.

(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 86
RE: Boatswain's call....a bit too high pitched - 26/4/2012 3:03:48 PM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 3971
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh

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?

_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph

(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 87
RE: Boatswain's call....a bit too high pitched - 26/4/2012 3:38:33 PM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2177
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

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 88
RE: Boatswain's call....a bit too high pitched - 26/4/2012 3:55:47 PM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 3971
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King


Yeah son, 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.


Indeed, but that's a specific element.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King
Anyway, there is no direct relation and I made none.


Well actually you did, but nevermind....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King
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.


Well yeah, wouldn't it be more your thing too?

And I've no problem with action antics - if they're exciting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King
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.


Well if you need a hand climbing down from that high horse of yours, I'm afraid I can't help.

_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph

(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 89
RE: Boatswain's call....a bit too high pitched - 26/4/2012 4:17:06 PM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2177
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris
Indeed, but that's a specific element.


Yes, but plot elements withstanding. There's also a certain claustrophobic and tense atmosphere within the film. Such as when they engage that Russian hunter killer sub. Which is what I was aiming for...(tubes three and four)

quote:

Well actually you did, but nevermind....


No I didn't. I simply asked whether that style of film or approach would've been more your kind of thing. With more action of course. I made no comparison. Perhaps I should've elaborated but it's nothing major.

quote:

Well yeah, wouldn't it be more your thing too?

And I've no problem with action antics - if they're exciting.


But I enjoyed this film, you didn't. Just curious to know how else you would've liked it. and yes I'd like that approach as its original and hasn't really been attempted as far as I recall.

quote:

Well if you need a hand climbing down from that high horse of yours, I'm afraid I can't help.


Haha oh come now, no need to deploy countermeasures and be defensive. I merely pointed out the comical nature of having to explain something a few times. Lighten up Ralph.

Although I would need a hand down seeing as though even a booster seat would be a bit much.

_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Battleship Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.063