Battleship: The Movie (Official Trailer is Out)

[Lord Loss]

No, I'm not joking. (http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/battleship/trailer)

It has Liam Neeson in it. And aliens. And the aliens shoot projectiles similar to those in Battleship. And the people's radars are scrambled so they need to fire at random. I'm really not sure how I feel about this movie.

[ric0]

i must say, i like the look of this, but then im not hard to please when it comes to movies :)

oh and i like the last line of the trailer

prepare to fire!

captain, which weapon?

all of them.........

[Axolotl]

Why are there aliens? Are battleships fighting other battleships not exciting enough?

[The Glyphstone]

[404 Error: Brain Not Found]

[Lord_Gareth]

You're friggin' kidding me, right? What the hell are these people thinking?

You know what, I think the RISK trailer from the last thread like this was a better premise than that movie >.<

[Karoht]

I will go see it for the lulz.
Also, I want to see how they handle it when Liam manages to sink the Alien's battleship. Is he going to call up on the radio and say 'you sunk my battleship' or is that line going to be reserved for Liam?

I haven't watched the trailer, but I'll say that actual real life battleship combat is very much a game of cat and mouse, and could make for a decent movie. But this film? By the sounds of it, not so much.

EDIT: Risk trailer? Oh man, thats even better!
Also, when is the Captain Crunch movie coming out?

[Liffguard]

Awesome. We needed another action comedy in the style of Starship Troopers. Something so ridiculous and cliche-ridden it becomes funny (of course this appears to be unintentional, but as long as I laugh I'm happy).

[Mewtarthio]

I was going to make a snide remark about Hugh Jackman being in Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots: The Movie. Then I watched this trailer and realized that this is really is an adaptation of Battleship. You really can't get any lower, can you?


Why are there aliens? Are battleships fighting other battleships not exciting enough?

The aliens represent cheating. Which always happens.

My actual guess is that they just said, "Screw it. We're doing Battleship: The Movie. Why not?" We're just lucky there aren't any vampires involved.

[Yora]

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lopsuc0AcK1r0ogwbo1_400.jpg

[Weezer]

Just when I thought Hollywood couldn't sink any lower, this appeared...
Also when did Liam Neeson become an actor who does mostly crappy action films? I am sorely disappointed in him.

[The Glyphstone]

Oh, and looking at Wikipedia, the entire movie doesn't even happen at sea:


Filming is taking place in the United States on the Hawaiian islands of Maui and Oahu, as well as in Sherman Oaks, California to do a few apartment scenes and in Playa del Rey, California where they will film a driving scene along with a shootout.[10

Why does a movie about BATTLESHIP need a SHOOTOUT?

Though it's amusing that James Cameron, of all people, is criticizing it for being an example of bad storytelling and lack of originality in movies:


“We have a story crisis. Now they want to make the Battleship game into a film. This is pure desperation. Everyone in Hollywood knows how important it is that a film is a brand before it hit theaters. If a brand has been around, Harry Potter for example, or Spider-Man, you are light years ahead. And there lies the problem. Because unfortunately these franchises are become more ridiculous. Battleship. This degrades the cinema.”

[ThePhantasm]

What on earth is Liam Neeson doing in this movie? Why oh why oh why? :smalleek:

[Gamer Girl]

Um......WHAT?

Why not just make a movie about Battleships? Why aliens? Sigh, more Hollywood PC crap as they don't want to show 'bad guy humans', especially from other countries. And guess they want to grab the Transformer fans with the same computer animation...


But why not make Battleship the movie about WW2, or even WW1?

[arguskos]

...how did they sign Liam Neeson to this? That's what I want to know.

Also, how many drugs did the producers have to take to think this was a good idea? :smallconfused:

[Reverent-One]

...how did they sign Liam Neeson to this? That's what I want to know.

Paycheck, most likely. Many good actors take some roles soley for the money.

[Murdim]

This actually reminded me of this parody trailer for Minesweeper: The Movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l24k_KQg84k). Except it has more stars in it, and it looks even crappier. Oh, and it's for real.

"I'm here because I'm bored!" "Don't you ever forget that."

[Karoht]

For the lulz isn't all the explanation people need?

Why was Liam in A-Team? He was a fan, and it was fun.

Why is he in this? Fun factor?

[Metahuman1]

Come to think of it, aren't we also getting Hugh Jackman in Rock'em Sock'em Robots The Movie?

Oh, wait, they changed the title for that one, called it Real Steel. And tried to knock of the plot for Rocky in a way that MIGHT actually surprise us and work.





Ya know, part of me is wondering when Magic: the gathering and Warhammer 40K will get there own movies.

[Force]

... *facepalm* Have these people never heard of sonar? Or using reconaissance fighters? Or, heaven forbid, using Harpoons on passive radar acquisition mode to take out jamming platforms? Not to mention that the USN mothballed its battleships almost 18 years ago.

[Karoht]

Come to think of it, aren't we also getting Hugh Jackman in Rock'em Sock'em Robots The Movie?

Oh, wait, they changed the title for that one, called it Real Steel. And tried to knock of the plot for Rocky in a way that MIGHT actually surprise us and work.

Ya know, part of me is wondering when Magic: the gathering and Warhammer 40K will get there own movies.

Real Steel-Looks like a fun movie to go watch. Funny how CG robots can sometimes be such superior actors to real people. Though Hugh Jackman is pretty cool.
Magic: The Gathering-Hollywood will likely never touch Wizards of the Coast after the debacle that was the Dungeons and Dragons film. WotC was notoriously difficult to work with, from Hollywood's perspective. Or so I hear tell.
Warhammer Fantasy/40K-Been stuck in Development Hell for years. Also, they aren't sure if they can make it as dark as the film would need and still have the rating they want. Hollywood wants it PG. Fans want it PG-13 at minimum I'm sure.
Warcraft-In production very soon. Script is worked out, director is on board.
Starcraft-Blizzard will make a Starcraft movie after the Warcraft film, even if the Warcraft film tanks. I'll bet anyone a wooden nickle.

[ThePhantasm]

But why not make Battleship the movie about WW2, or even WW1?

That would be far far more interesting.

[Karoht]

But why not make Battleship the movie about WW2, or even WW1?But then there wouldn't be aliens to explain all the shoehorned in poorly thought out game-mechanics-as-special-effects.


Seriously, if they just took the tale of the sinking of the Bizmark, and really amped up the cat and mouse aspect, THAT would have made for a better Battleship film.

[Karoht]

But why not make Battleship the movie about WW2, or even WW1?But then there wouldn't be aliens to explain all the shoehorned in poorly thought out game-mechanics-as-special-effects.


Seriously, if they just took the tale of the sinking of the Bizmark, and really amped up the cat and mouse aspect, THAT would have made for a better Battleship film.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Or a wargame/training exercise between two task forces that turns deadly serious when, I don't know, some North Koreans show up, sort of like how Top Gun's plot ran. Or would have, if Top Gun attempted to have a coherent narrative.

Still wouldn't explain a battleship-centered task force, admittedly.

[tyckspoon]

Battleship. The Movie.


BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.....HAHAHA....HAHAHAHA HAHAhaha..aaa..ah. *out of breath*

Hehe. :smallbiggrin:

[JadedDM]

That's nothing. Thanks to the popularity of Transformers and G.I. Joe, Hasbro is not only making this Battleship movie, but also movies on Clue, Monopoly, Ouiji Board and Candyland, as well.


Why are there aliens? Are battleships fighting other battleships not exciting enough?

I read about that, way in pre-production. See, they were worried if the enemy were any real nation (like Korea, Russia, China, etc.) the movie would not perform as well in the international markets. So they went with aliens, so as to not offend anyone.


Not to mention that the USN mothballed its battleships almost 18 years ago.

Yep, this is important to point out. There have been no battleships in the navy for nearly two decades.

[Weezer]

That's nothing. Thanks to the popularity of Transformers and G.I. Joe, Hasbro is not only making this Battleship movie, but also movies on Clue, Monopoly, Ouiji Board and Candyland, as well.



Well they actually already did a Clue movie, in 1985, and it was surprisingly really funny in a very campy, british way.

[JadedDM]

Well they actually already did a Clue movie, in 1985, and it was surprisingly really funny in a very campy, british way.

Oh, I'm aware. This new Clue movie will not be a comedy, though. This new version is being described as "A global thriller and transmedia event that uses deductive reasoning as its storytelling engine."

That's right.

It's set for release in 2013.

[Tyrant]

Though it's amusing that James Cameron, of all people, is criticizing it for being an example of bad storytelling and lack of originality in movies:
That was good for a laugh considering the source.

Magic: The Gathering-Hollywood will likely never touch Wizards of the Coast after the debacle that was the Dungeons and Dragons film. WotC was notoriously difficult to work with, from Hollywood's perspective. Or so I hear tell.
This is one of those situations where Hasbro needs to step in. I think most outside observers at this point realize WotC has a few short comings in the management. Hasbro has proven that Transformers was a gold mine and apparently G.I.Joe did well enough to get a sequel. They need to bypass WotC management and try to use their own leverage to get a deal done. I'm thinking more for D&D (it would have to be world specific, which probably means either FR or Dragonlance if they want to copy an existing plot, or Eberron if they want the "everything and the kitchen sink" approach) than Magic, but really either one being a success would help the other to get made. I can't fathom how we are getting a Battleship movie before they take another real stab at a D&D movie. Wait, I forgot, we are getting The Book of Vile Darkness (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1733125/)...

Warhammer Fantasy/40K-Been stuck in Development Hell for years. Also, they aren't sure if they can make it as dark as the film would need and still have the rating they want. Hollywood wants it PG. Fans want it PG-13 at minimum I'm sure.
PG Warhammer????? How? Why?

[Fri]

They might make this into the coolest action movie in the world, with awesome storyline, amazing cgi, and everything, but at the end, you won't be able to stop thinking that "...I'm watching a blockbuster movie about Battleship..."

[smuchmuch]

B
..B..Bluh ?
battleships ? seriously, Battleships ?!

*Please wait why my brain try to pocess the enormity of the thing*

Okay maybe I'm exagerating, maybe it will be an awesomme movie (well for those who like those kind of movie anyway. but from what I saw int hat railer it sounded mosntruously cliche.), but I can't help but feel it's very silly. like they are scrapping the bottom of the barrel somewhere.

Hell the CGI doesn't even look that good from what I can tell. the alines look like soiethign out of Crysis. except what is imppressive on a computer is not necerilly on a cinema screen.

(Am I the only reminded of this (http://www.collegehumor.com/video/2200127/elephant-larry-minesweeper---the-movie) ? i though it was a good joke, now I wonder if it's not a vision of the future)


That's nothing. Thanks to the popularity of Transformers and G.I. Joe, Hasbro is not only making this Battleship movie, but also movies on Clue, Monopoly, Ouiji Board and Candyland, as well.

er just to be sure.. you are serious, aren't you ?

Surely there still must be somme realisators with somme original ideas out there..

[Pokonic]

Huh, they realy HAVE run out of ideas. Didnt they have a few more movies to remake before they started going this low for ideas. If this keeps going the way it is, we will get a Pokemon live action film by 2014.


Well they actually already did a Clue movie, in 1985, and it was surprisingly really funny in a very campy, british way.

Now I must admit, I saw this once and I liked it. The many multible endings where a nice touch.

[Maxios]

I heard Brooklyn Decker is going to be in it, playing Liam Neeson's daughter.

[JadedDM]

er just to be sure.. you are serious, aren't you ?

Dead serious.

Other things that they are making movies from:

Where's Waldo?
Family Circus
Bazooka Joe Bubblegum
Magic 8-Ball


I heard Brooklyn Decker is going to be in it, playing Liam Neeson's daughter.

This is correct. She is the main character's love interest. Rhianna is also in it. Yes, the singer. I've seen pictures of her on the set, in her navy outfit. She looks as ridiculous as you are probably imagining. She does most of the soundtrack, as well.

[The Glyphstone]

Well, 'making movies' and 'have purchased the rights to movies' aren't necessarily synonymous. A lot of those projects will likely never see the light of day if these first few (Battleship, Asteroids) utterly bomb.

[Weezer]

Oh, I'm aware. This new Clue movie will not be a comedy, though. This new version is being described as "A global thriller and transmedia event that uses deductive reasoning as its storytelling engine."

That's right.

It's set for release in 2013.

... *sigh*

[JadedDM]

Well, 'making movies' and 'have purchased the rights to movies' aren't necessarily synonymous. A lot of those projects will likely never see the light of day if these first few (Battleship, Asteroids) utterly bomb.

Oh gods, I almost forgot about the Asteroids movie (yes, Asteroids, as in the 1979 arcade game where you play a triangle shooting asteroids).

But yes, this is our only hope. These movies must bomb so badly that Hollywood buries the rest forever.

[Maxios]

Oh gods, I almost forgot about the Asteroids movie (yes, Asteroids, as in the 1979 arcade game where you play a triangle shooting asteroids).

But yes, this is our only hope. These movies must bomb so badly that Hollywood buries the rest forever.

Or, you know, they could be good and start off a wave of board-game related movies. Monopoly, Candy Land, Mouse Trap, Scrabble, Talisman...the list goes on.

[Pokonic]

Honastly, I am surprised there isnt a candy land movie yet.




Other things that they are making movies from:

Where's Waldo?
Family Circus
Bazooka Joe Bubblegum
Magic 8-Ball


Gah.

Magic 8-Ball


My childhood is being defiled a little more each year.:smalleek:

[Gamer Girl]

I read about that, way in pre-production. See, they were worried if the enemy were any real nation (like Korea, Russia, China, etc.) the movie would not perform as well in the international markets. So they went with aliens, so as to not offend anyone.

Yep, this is important to point out. There have been no battleships in the navy for nearly two decades.

Right, especially after the reaction Captain America has gotten in some places for being too 'pro-American'.

But really why aliens?

It could have been fine with computers/robots.
Like how about this plot:

They create a military super computer(aka Skynet/M5/W.H.O.M.P.) and give it command of an old Battleship armada. Then have the real life, multinational naval troops fight the computer in a simulated war game. Right up until the computer blows a fuse and makes the war game real. Then it's the real navy vs the computer. And you can even use the catchy line ''It not just a game anymore"!

[Klose_the_Sith]

Right, especially after the reaction Captain America has gotten in some places for being too 'pro-American'.

Funny, that was my exact thought when I saw the trailer :smallamused:

(I know, I know, I know, that's the damned point. But America is a bit of a bully, so I get to hate the poster child :smalltongue:)

[0Megabyte]

That was good for a laugh considering the source.



Yeah, the guy who directed Aliens, the two Terminator films, Titanic, Avatar... totally someone who should be dismissed. I mean, what does he know? He's only made some of the best science fiction films around, broke records for top selling movies, and made 3-D the "in" thing. It's not like he knows anything about movies.

[Axolotl]

Yeah, the guy who directed Aliens, the two Terminator films, Titanic, Avatar... totally someone who should be dismissed. I mean, what does he know? He's only made some of the best science fiction films around, broke records for top selling movies, and made 3-D the "in" thing. It's not like he knows anything about movies.But the comment in question was about storytelling and originality. Neither of which has ever been Cameron's strong points and I say this as somone who likes alot of his films.

[Yora]

Terminator. Okay. But that was almost 20 years ago.

Then he produces Avatar and claims it's so unbelievably original, while it's a boring retelling of an old story that never was actually any good. Just with lots of CGI.
And that movie had a tie-in cideo game produced at the same time, so he really should keep quiet on such things.

[Axolotl]

Terminator. Okay. But that was almost 20 years ago.If you mean that it was original then I'd point out that later prints of the film were legally forced to aknowledge that it was a total ripoff from some of Harlan Ellison's work on the Outer Limits.

[Liffguard]

But the comment in question was about storytelling and originality. Neither of which has ever been Cameron's strong points and I say this as somone who likes alot of his films.

He wasn't talking about plot originality, but rather concept/premise originality. His point of contention was that Hollywood seems to find it very difficult to come up with films that aren't already based on existing franchises or brand names.

[Parra]

Im oddly quite looking forward to this. Its going to be face palmingly cheestastic.

[chiasaur11]

Paycheck, most likely. Many good actors take some roles soley for the money.

Sadder story, rumor goes.

Wife died not that long ago, and he's dealing with grief by working. Continually.

And if it helps him, I'm all for it. Some good out of the mess, at least.

[Axolotl]

He wasn't talking about plot originality, but rather concept/premise originality. His point of contention was that Hollywood seems to find it very difficult to come up with films that aren't already based on existing franchises or brand names.It is hypocritical to complain about other peoples films not being based on origninal material when your "original" films are just other peoples ideas given a very shiny paintjob.

Besides it's not true that Hollywood has difficulty coming up with films that aren't already based on existing franchises or brand names. It has difficulty selling films that aren't already based on existing franchises or brand names.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Am I the only one who thinks an Asteroids movie could be good? Just like this could have been good?

Picture it - the story of brave, if cocky, spaceship pilots in the future using advanced single-man craft in a team to break up a dangerous cloud of space debris and save the Earth from a swarm of things that were popular to make movies about saving the Earth from in 1998. The plot of Armageddon with the feel of Star Wars space battles.

Or if you want to set it further in the future, the asteroids aren't a threat to Earth, the heroes are just regular joes clearing the space trade lanes of dangerous debris, when suddenly, while they're clearing out a new hyperspace bypass or whatever, mysterious unidentified machines appear and start to attack...

[ThePhantasm]

Am I the only one who thinks an Asteroids movie could be good? Just like this could have been good?

Picture it - the story of brave, if cocky, spaceship pilots in the future using advanced single-man craft in a team to break up a dangerous cloud of space debris and save the Earth from a swarm of things that were popular to make movies about saving the Earth from in 1998. The plot of Armageddon with the feel of Star Wars space battles.

Or if you want to set it further in the future, the asteroids aren't a threat to Earth, the heroes are just regular joes clearing the space trade lanes of dangerous debris, when suddenly, while they're clearing out a new hyperspace bypass or whatever, mysterious unidentified machines appear and start to attack...

Asteroids could be cool... if they name it something other than Asteroids.

Why can't there just be unique movies anymore that aren't tied to a toy, old film, or something else in the past? Why not just say "lets make an awesome new space movie" instead of "hey, an Asteroids movie would be cool!"

[Nerd-o-rama]

Asteroids could be cool... if they name it something other than Asteroids.

Why can't there just be unique movies anymore that aren't tied to a toy, old film, or something else in the past? Why not just say "lets make an awesome new space movie" instead of "hey, an Asteroids movie would be cool!"

Because Hollywood won't make anything they don't think is guaranteed to sell, and the easiest way to guarantee a sell is name recognition and nostalgia. Simple as that.

[Tengu_temp]

I don't know if this movie is going to be any good (and it probably won't), but I approve of it just for the reactions it causes.

[ThePhantasm]

Because Hollywood won't make anything they don't think is guaranteed to sell, and the easiest way to guarantee a sell is name recognition and nostalgia. Simple as that.

But nostalgia doesn't really apply here, I don't think. For example, the Battleship movie has almost nothing to do with the Battleship game, other than they both have battleships in them. I suspect it will be the same with Asteroids. You'd think that this would be an obvious bad marketing move because it is so clearly contrived.

[JadedDM]

But nostalgia doesn't really apply here, I don't think. For example, the Battleship movie has almost nothing to do with the Battleship game, other than they both have battleships in them. I suspect it will be the same with Asteroids. You'd think that this would be an obvious bad marketing move because it is so clearly contrived.

But it is getting people to talk about it. Think of it. If this was just some movie about aliens, it would largely be ignored. But everyone is talking about it. "They're making a movie on Battleship? How absurd!" Same deal with Asteroids. I guess marketing feels negative publicity is still better than no publicity at all.

[Prime32]

Funny, that was my exact thought when I saw the trailer :smallamused:

(I know, I know, I know, that's the damned point. But America is a bit of a bully, so I get to hate the poster child :smalltongue:)Thing is, Cap hates America being a bully and does everything he can to stop it.

[Tyndmyr]

But the comment in question was about storytelling and originality. Neither of which has ever been Cameron's strong points and I say this as somone who likes alot of his films.

Granted...but when HE says you need more originality, you know you've hit a new low.

[The Succubus]

Well, they may not have sunk my battleship with this but I'd bet a few careers have been torpedo'd.

[ThePhantasm]

Well, they may not have sunk my battleship with this but I'd bet a few careers have been torpedo'd.

Liam Neeson's career survived The Phantom Menace. It'll probably survive this one too. He's got gravitas, he'll do ok.

The rest of the folks... not so sure about them.

[MikelaC1]

Also when did Liam Neeson become an actor who does mostly crappy action films? I am sorely disappointed in him.

To quote James Earl Jones. Sometimes you get to do art, and sometimes you just have to pay the bills.

[JadedDM]

Sadder story, rumor goes.

Wife died not that long ago, and he's dealing with grief by working. Continually.

And if it helps him, I'm all for it. Some good out of the mess, at least.

That's incredibly sad, if true.

Not that I will see or support this movie in any way, mind you, but still sad.

[Grif]

This promises to be incredibly bad.

[thegurullamen]

Because Hollywood won't make anything they don't think is guaranteed to sell, and the easiest way to guarantee a sell is name recognition and nostalgia. Simple as that.


But nostalgia doesn't really apply here, I don't think. For example, the Battleship movie has almost nothing to do with the Battleship game, other than they both have battleships in them. I suspect it will be the same with Asteroids. You'd think that this would be an obvious bad marketing move because it is so clearly contrived.

I forget where, but someone on this forum once aptly summed up the investors' behavior when it comes to these types of movies:

Take any IP with a built in fan following, make a solid script for it, gain the creators' approval and begin early marketing. Then panic because it looks nothing like the blockbusters for that year. Engender resentment with the creators as you force them to change their idea while making them smile and build it up in front of the press. Slowly whittle away the pieces that the fanbase enjoys and replace them with pieces that look like Transformers/Avatar/Twilight/bubblegum-piece-of-crap-du-jour in the name of mass appeal. Water down the IP by tying it so closely together with the movie that the latter eclipses the former altogether. Alienate the original fanbase by making anti-elitist comments and insinuating that they live with their parents and are virgins/(wo)manchildren. Release.

Wonder why it failed for all of half a second before blaming the fans, the IP, the IP's creators and the talent.

Find new IP.

Of course, with something like BS, there's not much to work with in the fanbase department (or story, or style, etc.). Which makes it so truly amazing: somehow, they managed to water that down.

[bloodtide]

They create a military super computer(aka Skynet/M5/W.H.O.M.P.) and give it command of an old Battleship armada. Then have the real life, multinational naval troops fight the computer in a simulated war game. Right up until the computer blows a fuse and makes the war game real. Then it's the real navy vs the computer. And you can even use the catchy line ''It not just a game anymore"!


This plot does not sound so bad......lol

[Tyrant]

Funny, that was my exact thought when I saw the trailer :smallamused:

(I know, I know, I know, that's the damned point. But America is a bit of a bully, so I get to hate the poster child :smalltongue:)
All I can say is you need to learn more about the character if that is how you feel.

Yeah, the guy who directed Aliens, the two Terminator films, Titanic, Avatar... totally someone who should be dismissed. I mean, what does he know? He's only made some of the best science fiction films around, broke records for top selling movies, and made 3-D the "in" thing. It's not like he knows anything about movies.
So, he's known for a sequel (Aliens), the Terminator (which he had to later aknowledge the work of Harlan Ellison was a major contribution to it), T2 which is a bigger budget remake of part 1 (he's remaking his own movie), a movie based on a historical event (by definition this can't be that original), and one of the most unoriginal movies to come out in years. Yeah, he is quite the expert on plot originality. I like most of his movies, and they are well made, but original they are mostly not. If he wants to talk about effects or underwater cinematography or making massively overhyped movies I'm all ears. I don't question his ability to make good movies. I question his ability to come up with original ideas.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Even the trailer shows critical research failure it seems.

You see a CIWS firing and hitting targets. You are told radar is gone. CIWS works on radar.

I think this alone gives me about the level of this movie's plot.

Other predictions:
-Hollywood tactics at their finest. In particular expect ships to be sailing in close formation. Heck I won't be surprised if two (or more) collide.
-An aircraft carrier will die. So the absence of air-power can be "justified" in story.
-Pearl Harbor will be bombed with possibly somewhat offensive references to IRL event.
-The Iowa-class is the Missouri now a museum ship in Hawaii. Not to defend the movie but the ship was used as recently as the First Gulf War and several battleships still in existence are supposed to be capable of reactivation.
-The Missouri comes to the party late for a climatic final battle after an unrealistic period taking it from museum to battle ready after the modern Navy is totally trashed in the initial fight.
- Lt. Maincharacter is some kind of ex-SEAL gone officer and will lead a commando raid on the apparently disabled alien ship to bring down its shields. Yes just like Independence Day, only probably even less sensible.
- Not even Liam Neeson will be able to deliver a "sunk my battleship" line without horrendous helpings of Narm. Yet he will say it, and you will cringe.

I agree with Cameron incidentally, this makes Avatar look brilliant and original. This movie is a bad bad horrible demonic lovechild of Transformers and Battle:LA.

Seriously where was the Only Sane Man trumpeting making this a comedy a la Down Periscope. Without aliens.

[Fjolnir]

This will be a movie I will see in theatres and feel bad about enjoying later.

[WNxHasoroth]

{Scrubbed}

[chiasaur11]

Yeah, Cameron's recent stuff ain't my style, but anyone who made Aliens?

They get some massive points in my book.

(As for the Ellison thing? He's a cantankerous and lawsuit happy fellow, and standard legal procedure is to pay just to shut people up. Wouldn't hold it as meaning much.)

[Renegade Paladin]

Oh, and looking at Wikipedia, the entire movie doesn't even happen at sea:



Why does a movie about BATTLESHIP need a SHOOTOUT?
If this shootout is conducted with anything smaller caliber than five inch naval artillery, I will be extremely disappointed.

:smalltongue:

[WampaX]

I'm personally waiting for Axis and Allies: The Movie
3 hour film, most of it will be about getting all the units into their starting positions.

Also, a couple of curious quotes taken form the Candyland project
"We don't see it as a movie based on a board game, although it has characters from that world and takes the idea of people finding themselves in a world that happens to be made entirely of candy where there are huge battles going on," Berger tells EW. "We are going for real comedy, real action, and real emotions at stake."

I don't seem to recall HUGE BATTLES when I played Candyland (except over who got to be a certain color piece). . . maybe they introduced that in a later expansion?

[Dr.Epic]

This promises to be incredibly bad.

What are you talking about? They have the pegs! THE PEGS!!!:smallbiggrin:

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I'm personally waiting for Axis and Allies: The Movie
3 hour film, most of it will be about getting all the units into their starting positions.

Sign me up.

[Mercenary Pen]

If this shootout is conducted with anything smaller caliber than five inch naval artillery, I will be extremely disappointed.

:smalltongue:

Can we at least allow as low as 4.5in guns, just in case they have (for some inexplicable reason) got a British ship to do that job.

[Techhead]

I actually showed the trailer to my brother without telling him the name of the movie. It was so hard to keep a straight face while we watched it.
So hard.
His reaction when he finally saw the title was worth it, though.

[Grif]

What are you talking about? They have the pegs! THE PEGS!!!:smallbiggrin:

I never said it was actually a bad thing. :smalltongue:

This will be my annual movie to watch because it's hilarious bad and logically broken.

(Kinda like the kick I got when I saw Avatar mount machine-gun nests ON a frigging flying ship.)

[Soras Teva Gee]

If this shootout is conducted with anything smaller caliber than five inch naval artillery, I will be extremely disappointed.

:smalltongue:

I'd like to submit mounted .50 calsand 50mm as well as CIWS all smaller but giving a very satisfying sound:

DakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakka DakkaDakkaDakkaDakka

Though the thunderous roar is a fine alternative why not have everything. That said pistols should be banned from this movie

[Killer Angel]

I'm personally waiting for Axis and Allies: The Movie
3 hour film, most of it will be about getting all the units into their starting positions.


It would still be better than Pearl Harbor (2001)... :smalltongue:

[Fjolnir]

I'd like to submit mounted .50 calsand 50mm as well as CIWS all smaller but giving a very satisfying sound:

DakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakka DakkaDakkaDakkaDakka

Though the thunderous roar is a fine alternative why not have everything. That said pistols should be banned from this movie

Anything that a human could conceivably carry under its own strength and also reach the firing mechanisms that isn't a remote control to a larger gun or something should be immediately banned from being fired in the movie unless it is during that small initial investigation scene, or a mutinous gunfight on the battleship itself.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Anything that a human could conceivably carry under its own strength and also reach the firing mechanisms that isn't a remote control to a larger gun or something should be immediately banned from being fired in the movie unless it is during that small initial investigation scene, or a mutinous gunfight on the battleship itself.

You carry and set up a .50cal but its on its own tripod, and nobody fires it while carrying it.

And that's the biggest thing I'm aware of the Navy using not entirely fixed to the deck. Though I suppose an amphib actually doing its actual job would have all kind of Marine weapons and men to fire them from.

[The Glyphstone]

Howbout a flat ban on anything that doesn't need its ammunition loaded individually? Of course, they've already broken that with the anti-missile gatling gun in the trailer, but meh - it'll keep our 'heroes' hands off anything smaller than an RPG.

[nihil8r]

don't worry everyone, this movie will sink at the box office

[Alchemistmerlin]

don't worry everyone, this movie will sink at the box office

You sank my profit margins!

[The Glyphstone]

Liam NeesonEveryone involved: "You sank my career!"

[Killer Angel]

Liam NeesonEveryone involved: "You sank my career!"

Nah, that's a typo of the script, in place of "You sank my carrier!".

[Tiki Snakes]

Oh gods, I almost forgot about the Asteroids movie (yes, Asteroids, as in the 1979 arcade game where you play a triangle shooting asteroids).

But yes, this is our only hope. These movies must bomb so badly that Hollywood buries the rest forever.

Funny you should mention, but if you scroll down this page (http://www.digitpress.com/dpsoundz/mp3.htm) you can find the four part Asteroids audio-drama, from back in the day.
As well as Super Breakout and Yar's Revenge. No, really.

[Alchemistmerlin]

I was actually really excited when I heard about the Joust movie.


Knights riding flying ostriches/vultures in a battle to save a magic lava-filled kingdom? Yes please.

[Athaniar]

This looks so incredibly bad and clichéd. Which means I'm definitely going to watch it. It'll probably awful, but I can still hope it will be so bad it's good.

Also, on the subject of originality: I don't care. Originality is not the least bit connected to quality. Avatar, for example, is my all time favorite movie, and I admit the main plot has been done before (the giant blue catgirls was original, though). Star Wars is something most of us like, right? Based on (among other things) Flash Gordon and Japanese samurai movies. Does knowing that make it worse for any of you?

[Tyrant]

This looks so incredibly bad and clichéd. Which means I'm definitely going to watch it. It'll probably awful, but I can still hope it will be so bad it's good.
I'm sure I will watch it for the same reason. I went to Cowboys and Aliens expecting a trainwreck. I was let down on that front because it actually wasn't nearly the catastrophe I thought it would be and ended up being reasonably entertaining.

Also, on the subject of originality: I don't care. Originality is not the least bit connected to quality. Avatar, for example, is my all time favorite movie, and I admit the main plot has been done before (the giant blue catgirls was original, though). Star Wars is something most of us like, right? Based on (among other things) Flash Gordon and Japanese samurai movies. Does knowing that make it worse for any of you?
At least for my part, the comments weren't a "hey let's take another chance to bash the unoriginality of Avatar" moment. It was, given that his most well known movie is considerably unoriginal, he's got some nerve talking about the lack of originality in Hollywood. Honestly, on my list of things I dislike about Avatar unoriginality is pretty far down the list. It's only on the list because of the other parts of the list. As you and others have said it's hard to be original, but if I dislike a movie for several other reasons I begin to notice other things that I usually let slide if I am entertained (like originality, or lack thereof). I like Star Wars, but I know it's not really that original. The difference, to me, was that Star Wars entertained me enough for me not to care. Maybe it's like someone else in the thread said, if even he is calling it unoriginal then you know you've got problems.

Anyway, enough about Avatar. I saw the preview for this movie in front of Cowboys and Aliens. I got the same feeling I got when I saw the previews to The Core. I knew it would have to be awful, but I just had to see it. Unlike the previews I see for Rise of the Planet of the Apes, to me that just looks plain awful*. I can live with humans winning due to bad science and logic, but I guess I don't care for them losing to the same.

*And I think I will always prefer the time travel loop of the original Apes movies.

[Karoht]

I saw Cowboys and Aliens this weekend, and the Battleship trailer played.
I liked Cowboys and it was a good film.
But the Battleship trailer was a riot.
All three of us have a pact to go see that film when it releases. Why?
Because of it's sheer audacity.

Sure, it will likely be a bad film. It will probably flop. But I don't think it will disappoint me.


========
Until I saw it in theatres, I thought the trailer was the work of a very good troll. I figured it was a mash-up of a mockbuster combined with a real movie. I'm actually a bit curious if the trailer was made that way intentionally.

[Carry2]

Yep, this is important to point out. There have been no battleships in the navy for nearly two decades.
What astonishes me is that it took the navy that long to retire 'em. We've known that battleships were essentially obsolete since the end of WW2. (And if the War Nerd is to be believed, we now know aircraft carriers are obsolete...)

[Soras Teva Gee]

What astonishes me is that it took the navy that long to retire 'em. We've known that battleships were essentially obsolete since the end of WW2. (And if the War Nerd is to be believed, we now know aircraft carriers are obsolete...)

The Iowa-class ships used in the 80s early 90s were decommissioned before being brought back under Reagan. They were brought back to freak the bejeezus out of the enemy in a shore bombardment. And because hey they would still be tougher then anything else out there with all that armor.

Until the Navy starts deploying railguns in 40 years I'd be willing to argue there's still a role for those lovely 16" guns to be had. Not one that survives budget considerations, but hey.

(And that War Nerd article rests on a fairly flawed premise though it has some reasonable points)

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I dunno, there's still nothing quite so intimidating as a battleship off the Golden Horn to deter piracy...

[Klose_the_Sith]

Battleships would still have a major role if there was any call for the kind of firepower they could deliver, but seeing as we no longer need to do things like establish beach-heads via bombardment, I can't imagine any use for them save for the sheer sake of it.

I always imagined the Super Star Destroyers were a bit like that, utterly unwieldy and useless in combat but built to terrify the pitiful rebel scum.

[Carry2]

Battleships would still have a major role if there was any call for the kind of firepower they could deliver...
To my understanding, the main problem with this is the same problem you get with aircraft carriers- they're very intimidating up to the point where an enemy starts firing back with guided missiles, against which they have no reliable defences. (Hell, the original advantage of the aircraft carrier was that fighter planes *were* how you guided your missiles.) Nowadays, microchips do it cheaper and faster.

The major world powers have been studiously avoiding direct confrontations for decades now, so for better or worse it's mostly been Industrial Juggernaut X vs. piss-poor peasants, or simply piss-poor peasant X versus piss-poor peasant Y. Not much of a threat to a battleship, even if were obsolete.

[The Succubus]

*Move Trailer Voice* They were trapped in what was supposed to be the world's safest skyscraper. A bio-warfare experiment gone badly wrong, resulting in gargantuan monsters crawling between floors. Their only hope of rescue - an abandoned helicopter on the roof.

Their only escape - WAS TO CLIMB.

Snakes and Ladders - The Movie (c) trololololol

[Athaniar]

Die Hard meets Snakes on a Plane? Awesome.

[Tyrant]

To my understanding, the main problem with this is the same problem you get with aircraft carriers- they're very intimidating up to the point where an enemy starts firing back with guided missiles, against which they have no reliable defences. (Hell, the original advantage of the aircraft carrier was that fighter planes *were* how you guided your missiles.) Nowadays, microchips do it cheaper and faster.

The major world powers have been studiously avoiding direct confrontations for decades now, so for better or worse it's mostly been Industrial Juggernaut X vs. piss-poor peasants, or simply piss-poor peasant X versus piss-poor peasant Y. Not much of a threat to a battleship, even if were obsolete.
From the numerous comments in that article it sounds like they do have reasonable, if imperfect, defenses and that the weapon in question was (at least up through the early 2010 responses where I stopped reading) largely fictional. It relied on a weapon that would have very limited guidance ability once it began it's descent (straight down) towards it's target, a moving target that they have to find first. The only sure fire payload to do the job is the one they absolutely would not want to use because of the inevitable and overwhelming counter attack it would trigger. The carriers are being used as you say in your second paragraph, not to fight other major powers (who also happen to be nuclear powers), so the threat is superficial because to use it is to invite nuclear retaliation at which point the defenses of a carrier don't really matter.

[The Glyphstone]

*Move Trailer Voice* They were trapped in what was supposed to be the world's safest skyscraper. A bio-warfare experiment gone badly wrong, resulting in gargantuan monsters crawling between floors. Their only hope of rescue - an abandoned helicopter on the roof.

Their only escape - WAS TO CLIMB.

Snakes and Ladders - The Movie (c) trololololol


Die Hard meets Snakes on a Plane? Awesome.

I want to see this movie now.

[Tyndmyr]

From the numerous comments in that article it sounds like they do have reasonable, if imperfect, defenses and that the weapon in question was (at least up through the early 2010 responses where I stopped reading) largely fictional. It relied on a weapon that would have very limited guidance ability once it began it's descent (straight down) towards it's target, a moving target that they have to find first. The only sure fire payload to do the job is the one they absolutely would not want to use because of the inevitable and overwhelming counter attack it would trigger. The carriers are being used as you say in your second paragraph, not to fight other major powers (who also happen to be nuclear powers), so the threat is superficial because to use it is to invite nuclear retaliation at which point the defenses of a carrier don't really matter.

Meh. Finding and hitting a carrier is like targeting a small city. They are probably the least stealthy warship in existence by quite a lot.The maneuverability of such a beast is mostly irrelevant compared to the speed of a missile. They will not be reasonably dodging such things.

And it takes very few explosions to neutralize a carrier. Sink, sure, they're big, it takes a bit. But if the flight deck isn't functional, the carrier is an expensive waste. I agree with his assessment, even if not for exactly the same reasons.

[Carry2]

From the numerous comments in that article it sounds like they do have reasonable, if imperfect, defenses and that the weapon in question was (at least up through the early 2010 responses where I stopped reading) largely fictional. It relied on a weapon that would have very limited guidance ability once it began it's descent (straight down) towards it's target, a moving target that they have to find first. The only sure fire payload to do the job...
You don't need a sure-fire method. An aircraft carrier has a pricetag in the billions and a crew complement to match. Even if their defences were 99% effective- which is unlikely- you can launch a few hundred guided missiles at a carrier for a fraction of the same price and virtually guarantee 1 dead carrier (particularly if you launch them all at once.) Economically, the math doesn't add up.

The phalanx (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-15.htm) is an interesting piece of kit, but however smart you can make a defensive targeting system, it can't keep up with offensive targeting systems packed inside smaller, cheaper hardware that doesn't need a runway. And carriers have big radar signatures that are hard to minimise, making them easy targets.

[Karoht]

*Move Trailer Voice* They were trapped in what was supposed to be the world's safest skyscraper. A bio-warfare experiment gone badly wrong, resulting in gargantuan monsters crawling between floors. Their only hope of rescue - an abandoned helicopter on the roof.

Their only escape - WAS TO CLIMB.

Snakes and Ladders - The Movie (c) trololololol I also would watch this film.


Hmmm, board games turned into films. Mousetrap anyone? Grape Escape? Operation? Trivial Pursuit?

[Weezer]

I also would watch this film.


Hmmm, board games turned into films. Mousetrap anyone? Grape Escape? Operation? Trivial Pursuit?

How about Risk. A group of powerhungry madmen determine a way to set nations of the world at eachothers throats.

[Karoht]

How about Risk. A group of powerhungry madmen determine a way to set nations of the world at eachothers throats.Oh I'm all over that.

[The Glyphstone]

How about Risk. A group of powerhungry madmen determine a way to set nations of the world at eachothers throats.

Sadly, it's going to be an action-thriller.

http://screenrant.com/risk-board-game-movie-john-hlavin-sandy-119165/

[Weezer]

Sadly, it's going to be an action-thriller.

http://screenrant.com/risk-board-game-movie-john-hlavin-sandy-119165/

Wait. That exists? I was joking :smalleek:

[Karoht]

Oh well. Board game films were inevitable. Sometimes you get some good stories come out of those games, especially if you use your imagination just a bit.

Example-Risk
The Urkutskian Sniper Team.
Urkutsk is a country on the board. Any time a friend of ours plays, he makes a B-line for capturing this territory.
It holds no majorly signifigant tactical position.
But any time Urkutsk is under attack, he rolls nothing but 6's. Hence, Urkutsk clearly has the highest accuracy of any nation, and as such, he really loves his Urkutskian Snipers. This guy has stopped entire armies with not but a handful of troops stationed at Urkutsk. 100 VS 20? No problem, 12 of the Urkutskians will walk away alive, and none of the other guy. 200 VS 20? No problem, the Urkutskians got it covered. 300 VS 10? Okay, it's going to come down the last man, but the Urkutskians will probably have at least one guy standing.

Epic stories like that come out of these games from time to time. I could see a film come from such inspiration no problem.


But lets be honest, no film will ever measure up to a night of Risk with your buddies.

[Joran]

So, we can blame Pirates of the Caribbean, right?

After all, a movie based on an amusement park ride somehow spawned into a billion dollar IP with 4 movies and tons of licensed product.

[Karoht]

So, we can blame Pirates of the Caribbean, right?

After all, a movie based on an amusement park ride somehow spawned into a billion dollar IP with 4 movies and tons of licensed product.You know, I wasn't looking for someone to blame. But, that is an excellent comparison/observation.
Yeah, blame them. Grrr. Darned Disney and their darned Pirates. Making money all over the place. The nerve.

[Tyrant]

Meh. Finding and hitting a carrier is like targeting a small city. They are probably the least stealthy warship in existence by quite a lot.The maneuverability of such a beast is mostly irrelevant compared to the speed of a missile. They will not be reasonably dodging such things.

And it takes very few explosions to neutralize a carrier. Sink, sure, they're big, it takes a bit. But if the flight deck isn't functional, the carrier is an expensive waste. I agree with his assessment, even if not for exactly the same reasons.
Again, unlike a city, it's moving. If you don't directly hit the carrier with a non nuclear ballistic missile, all you have done is show where your launch site so the owners of the carrier can blow it to dust. If it's nuclear, then, again, the defenses of the carrier don't matter because whoever attacked it will be glowing in the dark in short order.

Are there flaws in the defenses, sure. Does it matter? Not really. A non nuclear power who sinks or severely damages one will be bombed into the stone age. A nuclear power that does it is trying to kick start the apocalypse. That doesn't leave many viable entities that can get their hands on ballistic missiles with great guidance systems, and the ability to track a carrier group in real time (that requires orbital surveillance because planes and boats will be destroyed before they are ever in sight of a carrier group). So, for their intended mission which is more or less to provide air power against enemies that have no real hope of striking back, they aren't in any real danger.

No weapon is perfect and able to withstand every conceivable attack so I'm not really sure why anyone is worried about a scenario that will have the attacker reduced to either dust or radioactive dust in short order. Not to mention, the owners of the missile in question, are building their own carriers. They must not be too worried.

[INDYSTAR188]

I had been stationed at Pearl Harbor for the last three years and last year while I was at Quarters my Lead Petty Officer announced that my Command was looking for volunteers to take a week of leave to be extras in a movie being filmed on the USS Missouri (you know where Japan signed the treaty to end WWII).

Now I assumed that this movie would be a historical or at least set in reality type movie because they asked us to wear our dress white uniforms, the Navy is really strict about what movies they endorse (for example they didn't ok the Annapolis movie to use real uniforms and ribbons). And I was thinking about doing it because they said everyone who goes gets 250 bucks/day plus your leave pay AND you got to meet Rhianna and Liam Neilson. Having just found out that its a weird board game, turned live action movie I'm pretty glad I didn't waste my time (plus I was saving all my leave to get out of the Navy as early as possible so I could move my family back to Indy).

[Soras Teva Gee]

Meh. Finding and hitting a carrier is like targeting a small city. They are probably the least stealthy warship in existence by quite a lot.The maneuverability of such a beast is mostly irrelevant compared to the speed of a missile. They will not be reasonably dodging such things.

And it takes very few explosions to neutralize a carrier. Sink, sure, they're big, it takes a bit. But if the flight deck isn't functional, the carrier is an expensive waste. I agree with his assessment, even if not for exactly the same reasons.

Yeah while carriers do dominate other warships in size, but warships are pretty small. Common as dirt container ships and tankers are normally of comparable where not larger size. And they vanish next to the vast scope of the ocean.

Small city, not hardly. A carrier is comparable to a football stadium, if stadiums were skinny. Now then its not that a football stadium is hard to miss, but a moving one at scales were even 1% off means a total waste of effort is another creature entirely. Its one thing to talk about capability but another for actual performance.

There's a more then fair possibility that anything able to spot for the a ballistic missile would be killed upon finding its target rendering at best the missile off target by the time it gets there. And whats left can be handled by AEGIS.

I'll freely admit there is a big "improvement" over carriers being invulnerable super fortresses, but being able to be attacked is not close to being obsolete.

And hopefully none of this is ever conclusively settled.


I had been stationed at Pearl Harbor for the last three years and last year while I was at Quarters my Lead Petty Officer announced that my Command was looking for volunteers to take a week of leave to be extras in a movie being filmed on the USS Missouri (you know where Japan signed the treaty to end WWII).

Now I assumed that this movie would be a historical or at least set in reality type movie because they asked us to wear our dress white uniforms, the Navy is really strict about what movies they endorse (for example they didn't ok the Annapolis movie to use real uniforms and ribbons). And I was thinking about doing it because they said everyone who goes gets 250 bucks/day plus your leave pay AND you got to meet Rhianna and Liam Neilson. Having just found out that its a weird board game, turned live action movie I'm pretty glad I didn't waste my time (plus I was saving all my leave to get out of the Navy as early as possible so I could move my family back to Indy).

Why am I sadly not surprised (yet still dismayed) that you would have to take leave for something like that? I know I wouldn't spend any of my thirty days a year to stand around in dress whites.

[Klose_the_Sith]

Sadly, it's going to be an action-thriller.

http://screenrant.com/risk-board-game-movie-john-hlavin-sandy-119165/

How the devil was the original game set in the cold war? :smallconfused:

[WampaX]

How the devil was the original game set in the cold war? :smallconfused:

I was doing a bit of digging to make some glib comment and Holy Moley.
Based on the type of pieces in the box at my parent's house (wooden cubes), they have the 1959 version of Risk, first one released in the States.

[Renegade Paladin]

The Iowa-class ships used in the 80s early 90s were decommissioned before being brought back under Reagan. They were brought back to freak the bejeezus out of the enemy in a shore bombardment. And because hey they would still be tougher then anything else out there with all that armor.

Until the Navy starts deploying railguns in 40 years I'd be willing to argue there's still a role for those lovely 16" guns to be had. Not one that survives budget considerations, but hey.

(And that War Nerd article rests on a fairly flawed premise though it has some reasonable points)
Modern anti-shipping missiles would have a tough time sinking a battleship, but they'd mission-kill (that is, render it unable to fight effectively) one in minutes, from outside the guns' kill envelope, which is just as good as far as the person shooting is concerned.

The trouble with battleships is that while nothing exists within a twenty mile radius of one without its express permission, the same is true of an aircraft carrier only adding an order of magnitude. And the War Nerd has no idea what he's talking about; he's not worth reading.

[mangosta71]

Meh. Finding and hitting a carrier is like targeting a small city. They are probably the least stealthy warship in existence by quite a lot.The maneuverability of such a beast is mostly irrelevant compared to the speed of a missile. They will not be reasonably dodging such things.
Aircraft carriers are actually faster than most of the other ships in the US Navy. Missiles are fired from far away, which means that they have to target the area that the attacker thinks the target will be when the missile arrives. Unless it goes completely undetected (which is next to impossible, due to the radar patrol aircraft that are always in the air around the carrier) the carrier can turn around and go to flank speed, which results in it being miles away from the target area when the missile arrives.

Even if it can't avoid the missile entirely in such fashion (some missiles are, admittedly, too fast for this to work), the carrier has numerous defenders (escort ships and fighter squadrons) trying to shoot any incoming missiles down. The point defense systems don't even come into play until all of those other screens have been breached.

As for battleships themselves, they were obsolete before WWII started. The reason we weren't totally crippled by the attack on Pearl Harbor was that all of our aircraft carriers were at sea. The loss of the battleship fleet was a setback, but we proved that the aircraft carriers ruled the seas within six months of war.

[JadedDM]

So, we can blame Pirates of the Caribbean, right?

After all, a movie based on an amusement park ride somehow spawned into a billion dollar IP with 4 movies and tons of licensed product.

Nope, actually, we can blame Transformers. When it did so well, Hasbro decided it wanted to make movies on all of its IPs, such as G.I. Joe, Battleship, Candyland, Monopoly, Clue and the Ouija Board.

But not D&D. Guess they learned their lesson last time.

[Athaniar]

Aren't they making a new D&D movie for the 4E setting? I know I read about that.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Modern anti-shipping missiles would have a tough time sinking a battleship, but they'd mission-kill (that is, render it unable to fight effectively) one in minutes, from outside the guns' kill envelope, which is just as good as far as the person shooting is concerned.

The trouble with battleships is that while nothing exists within a twenty mile radius of one without its express permission, the same is true of an aircraft carrier only adding an order of magnitude. And the War Nerd has no idea what he's talking about; he's not worth reading.

I'd personally be somewhat less then sure about that depending on how stringently you want to apply mission-kill. Assuming you don't sink it you'd need at least a good hit aft and a at least one but I'd want two up forward, each lucky enough to take out the 16" guns entirely. And there's' no reason that comes to my mind why a modernized battleship would not include point defense systems. While I can't comment off the top of my head on the AP qualities of modern weapons, I will cross reference Operation Crossroads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads) for batteships versus nuclear weapons.

Now then as you note the real reason carriers are consider superior is their range. However for that at the end of the day shells are going to be cheaper then missiles or planes. So in something like shore bombardment there's some tantalizing possibilities. Which is what I was noting initially, but now that I sit back I have to consider how (if we were in WWIII) a converted BBG that exchanged a turret for a launcher might do in a super-heavy destroyer/cruiser role with a ship running AEGIS support for them.

[Weezer]

Is it just me or does it seem likely that many of these movie adaptations will turn out like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_the_Spy).

[The Succubus]

Is it just me or does it seem likely that many of these movie adaptations will turn out like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_the_Spy).

http://www.xkcd.com/633/

[sentaku]

Hollywood is biased against actors who are spherical, legless and covered in brightly-coloured feathers and seeks to replace them with animation. (http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/games/868354-angry-birds-movie-actually-being-made-really)

[Lord Loss]

The real tragedy is that they wanted to work with George Lucas, even after the tragedy that was the prequels. I spent hours scrubbing the animated clone wars that which I shall not name from my mind.

[mangosta71]

I have to consider how (if we were in WWIII) a converted BBG that exchanged a turret for a launcher might do in a super-heavy destroyer/cruiser role with a ship running AEGIS support for them.
The Iowa class battleships have already been fitted with VLS tubes so that they carry a full complement of long range cruise missiles. The major things that they would need in order to serve as a super-heavy cruiser/destroyer are 1) a completely overhauled sensor suite and 2) anti-air capability (aside from point defenses). It's much cheaper to just send out a Ticonderoga than it is to refit a massive battleship so that it can fill the same role. And the Tico will be cheaper to operate and maintain, too. Can't take as much punishment, but its defenses are so superior (barring the hypothetical refit) that it's actually harder to sink.

[Alchemistmerlin]

The real tragedy is that they wanted to work with George Lucas, even after the tragedy that was the prequels. I spent hours scrubbing the animated clone wars that which I shall not name from my mind.

Both of the animated clone wars shows are fantastic. :smallconfused:

[Lord Loss]

I was referring to the movie. Which I haven't seen, mind you, but I've heard terrible things about.

[Cristo Meyers]

*Move Trailer Voice* They were trapped in what was supposed to be the world's safest skyscraper. A bio-warfare experiment gone badly wrong, resulting in gargantuan monsters crawling between floors. Their only hope of rescue - an abandoned helicopter on the roof.

Their only escape - WAS TO CLIMB.

Snakes and Ladders - The Movie (c) trololololol

And there's the state of Hollywood, folks.

It probably took months to iron out this thing for Battleship, and in 15 seconds some random poster on the net came up with a better premise with a children's game :smallbiggrin:

[Alchemistmerlin]

I was referring to the movie. Which I haven't seen, mind you, but I've heard terrible things about.

How did you spend hours scrubbing something you haven't seen out of your mind? :smallconfused:

[MammonAzrael]

How did you spend hours scrubbing something you haven't seen out of your mind? :smallconfused:

Effectively.

AKA he saw it, but was successful at removing the memories.

As for Battleship...I may see it if it becomes available on Netflix. I will not see it in theaters purely because I don't want to fund the idea that movies like this are desired.

Someone mentioned movies based on Magic: the Gathering a few pages ago, and I sadly suspect that it will never happen. There is a large opportunity there, as the stories built around the game are quite extensive (many many books are out there). And some of them are actually really good.

And if a Warhammer movie is anything less than rated R, I will be enormously disappointed.

[Alchemistmerlin]

Effectively.

AKA he saw it, but was successful at removing the memories.

As for Battleship...I may see it if it becomes available on Netflix. I will not see it in theaters purely because I don't want to fund the idea that movies like this are desired.

Someone mentioned movies based on Magic: the Gathering a few pages ago, and I sadly suspect that it will never happen. There is a large opportunity there, as the stories built around the game are quite extensive (many many books are out there). And some of them are actually really good.

And if a Warhammer movie is anything less than rated R, I will be enormously disappointed.

If they made a movie based on MtG, it would not be based around any of the lore or stories written about the game world. It would be about a spunky but misfit teen who gets pulled into his card game and has to save the world by using his cardgame skills, while also making friends and learning to be comfortable in his own skin along the way.

[Wardog]

Also, how many drugs did the producers have to take to think this was a good idea? :smallconfused:

All of them.

[The Glyphstone]

All of them.

Is it too early to start suggesting lines for the Rifftrax? Because that fits in perfectly.:smallbiggrin:

[Soras Teva Gee]

The Iowa class battleships have already been fitted with VLS tubes so that they carry a full complement of long range cruise missiles. The major things that they would need in order to serve as a super-heavy cruiser/destroyer are 1) a completely overhauled sensor suite and 2) anti-air capability (aside from point defenses). It's much cheaper to just send out a Ticonderoga than it is to refit a massive battleship so that it can fill the same role. And the Tico will be cheaper to operate and maintain, too. Can't take as much punishment, but its defenses are so superior (barring the hypothetical refit) that it's actually harder to sink.

With respect they did not have a VLS. There isn't room to put that system as it consumes as lot of space. They had several ABLs which were four Tomahawks apiece, and I don't know if they would be interchangeable with the SM-2, VLAs, and SM-3s but my instinct says no. Putting a full VLS in a turret's slot would be another animal entirely (Oh and the 1980s refit included Harpoons too but they can be put on any open deck space really)

Once you have SM-2 (and SM-3 for BMD) you have the same functional defense as modern small-boys plus all that armor.

Sensors are not particularly problematic because the sensors themselves don't take up much space. And much of what the 1980s refit included would have that anyways, its by no means unusual to be using the 70s tech of the 80s in the "modern" navy.

Of course the big exception is SPY. Which on Destroyers and Cruisers is a major space investment. Though there are smaller versions, but it would be a major project to install. However feeding data from other sources is also increasingly practical.

I'm not going to get into costs much because this is a WWIII major war scenario so price wouldn't be much of an problem.

(Also cruisers have been abandoned by the Navy, it hasn't built one since the front end of the mid-90s but has been building a lot of destroyers. And cruiser slated replacement are the newest version of destroyer)

[Mercenary Pen]

(Also cruisers have been abandoned by the Navy, it hasn't built one since the front end of the mid-90s but has been building a lot of destroyers. And cruiser slated replacement are the newest version of destroyer)

Honestly i don't expect cruisers and battlecruisers to make a comeback until the railgun becomes a practical weapon- and only then because they'd need space for a nuclear powerplant to actually power the guns- because 32 Megajoules a shot doesn't come cheap if you're trying to keep enough power for manoeuvres and operations as well.

At that stage, however, I would expect Battlecruisers to come back big time, with the ability to be among the fastest things afloat (nuclear power plant again) and to threaten their target area more effectively than a cruise missile launching warship (due to the higher launch velocity of a railgun by comparison with cruise missiles)

[Lord Loss]

How did you spend hours scrubbing something you haven't seen out of your mind? :smallconfused:

The previews :smalltongue:

[Soras Teva Gee]

Honestly i don't expect cruisers and battlecruisers to make a comeback until the railgun becomes a practical weapon- and only then because they'd need space for a nuclear powerplant to actually power the guns- because 32 Megajoules a shot doesn't come cheap if you're trying to keep enough power for manoeuvres and operations as well.

At that stage, however, I would expect Battlecruisers to come back big time, with the ability to be among the fastest things afloat (nuclear power plant again) and to threaten their target area more effectively than a cruise missile launching warship (due to the higher launch velocity of a railgun by comparison with cruise missiles)

Well the difference between a Navy cruiser and navy destroyer is.... redundancy with the VLS and 5" systems. Cruisers have two forward & aft while destroyers have one. The Navy cruisers are even built on an old destroyer hull. So the line is very very blurry. I can't speak to the comparative costs but it has seemed a touch odd to me given how close in size and capablity the two are why not veer toward the more heavily armed cruiser? But the Navy maintains frigates which are currently glorified helo pads and missile sponges so whatever.

Now while what the power requirements of the railgun will be in 40 years I'd be suprised though if its with nuclear power. That raises a whole host of issues, from purely practical to political.

Most ships don't run off some central reactor, the power generation is largely separate from propulsion. For that matter you don't fight at top speed either. Fuel consumption would be the biggest concern I think, but that's longer term. A dedicated generator would not be implausible either.

And there's still certain issues with using any sort of ballistic projectile over a guided missile. However in forty years when the railgun gets deployed there's certainly potential to revitalize surface combat for more then lobbing missile. It will depend on how accurate it actually gets. It its accurate enough to be used defensively for example....

[nanobot_swarm]

What I'm dissapointed about, is not that they've made Battleship into a movie, oh no, I'm dissapointed that the antagonists are aliens. This could have been a fun camp movie if they just made the enemy into the Russians or Chinese, and added a Cold War motiff or something. Then it would have had the chance to be the Red Dawn of our generation, not necessarilly a good film, but fun as hell

[Jimorian]

This seems relevant to this thread. Hollywood Makes a Cake (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNs2FdmiPyo).

"Does it have to be a cake?"

[Gamerlord]

*sigh* This is going to suck....though I probably will see it due to the "So Bad It's Good" effect.
...on DVD.

As for the final lines of the trailer, this youtube comment pretty much says my opinion....

How many weapons? All of them...

Aliens:miss, miss, miss, miss, miss, wow...you never did play the game did you?

[Mercenary Pen]

Well the difference between a Navy cruiser and navy destroyer is.... redundancy with the VLS and 5" systems. Cruisers have two forward & aft while destroyers have one. The Navy cruisers are even built on an old destroyer hull. So the line is very very blurry. I can't speak to the comparative costs but it has seemed a touch odd to me given how close in size and capablity the two are why not veer toward the more heavily armed cruiser? But the Navy maintains frigates which are currently glorified helo pads and missile sponges so whatever.

You'll note that I was talking in terms of a Battlecruiser, which is by definition a size category or two larger than a Cruiser or destroyer, also generally having more main turrets (though modern warfare being what it is, space will have to be found for a helo pad).

Also, being a Brit, I know what you mean about the role of Frigates as missile sponges (the falklands war provides a few good examples of this)- though I would instead use the term "Dubiously armed floating coffin".


Now while what the power requirements of the railgun will be in 40 years I'd be suprised though if its with nuclear power. That raises a whole host of issues, from purely practical to political.

Most ships don't run off some central reactor, the power generation is largely separate from propulsion. For that matter you don't fight at top speed either. Fuel consumption would be the biggest concern I think, but that's longer term. A dedicated generator would not be implausible either.

And there's still certain issues with using any sort of ballistic projectile over a guided missile. However in forty years when the railgun gets deployed there's certainly potential to revitalize surface combat for more then lobbing missile. It will depend on how accurate it actually gets. It its accurate enough to be used defensively for example....

I'll admit here I was bearing in mind the existing tendency to use Nuclear power in the bigger ships (aircraft carriers and submarines for example), and merely factoring in its potential to provide the excess required for running power hungry railguns. Also, it was not my intent to suggest that the ship would have all guns blazing whilst at flank speed in normal engagement- rather drawing on the design doctrine of the original dreadnoughts, which were able to outrun any other ship afloat (when first built) as well as outgunning them.

I'll admit there is a possibility for defensive use of railguns, though I doubt that metallurgy is going to provide rails capable of withstanding the rate of fire common in a CIWS system for at least a few years into the period where railguns of larger caliber are practical.

Concerning the issues with ballistic projectiles versus guided missiles, to some extent these are already offset by the tendency of large naval guns to have a more rapid rate of fire than land based artillery (possibly to counteract the rocking of the waves) and stabilisers could be fitted similar to those fitted to carriers. Also, if that did not prove sufficient, then the guns could be further assisted by the presence of forward observers to relay precise targeting data back to the ships gunners.

In the favour of ballistic weapons over guided missiles is the fact that they won't be thrown off course by the presence of GPS-jamming equipment in the target area (which I have been led to understand can cause distinct last minute inaccuracy in cruise missiles).

[Wardog]

The Navy cruisers are even built on an old destroyer hull. So the line is very very blurry.

Interesting. In the (British) Royal Navy, there are no cruisers any more, but destroyers have been getting bigger and bigger until they are now basically cruiser size.



And there's still certain issues with using any sort of ballistic projectile over a guided missile. However in forty years when the railgun gets deployed there's certainly potential to revitalize surface combat for more then lobbing missile. It will depend on how accurate it actually gets. It its accurate enough to be used defensively for example....

Wouldn't the biggest problem with a rail gun be that it is line-of-sight only? And so useless if the enemy is over the horizon or on the wrong side of an island. So no matter how good they get, you'll still need missiles/aircraft/drones do deal with targets that are further off or behind cover.

[Maxios]

I heard the movie won't even have battleships. Because of this, and the fact that Aliens are in it, I suspect this is Battleship: In Name Only.

[Dr.Epic]

I never said it was actually a bad thing. :smalltongue:

This will be my annual movie to watch because it's hilarious bad and logically broken.

(Kinda like the kick I got when I saw Avatar mount machine-gun nests ON a frigging flying ship.)

That film was just stupid stupid. Battleship looks stupid awesome!:smallbiggrin:

[Soras Teva Gee]

Also, being a Brit, I know what you mean about the role of Frigates as missile sponges (the falklands war provides a few good examples of this)- though I would instead use the term "Dubiously armed floating coffin".

Yeah I think that description applies to American ones too. Funny thing is you can still find the same class of frigate better equipped in foreign navies because it still has the missile launcher and deserves to be call an FFG still.



I'll admit here I was bearing in mind the existing tendency to use Nuclear power in the bigger ships (aircraft carriers and submarines for example), and merely factoring in its potential to provide the excess required for running power hungry railguns. Also, it was not my intent to suggest that the ship would have all guns blazing whilst at flank speed in normal engagement- rather drawing on the design doctrine of the original dreadnoughts, which were able to outrun any other ship afloat (when first built) as well as outgunning them.

Subs are small ships. The USN uses nuclear power on them because it has the virtue of not needing oxygen for combustion which in turn allows you to deploy a globally while still underwater. If there were battery capacity up to a six month cruise I've little doubt the current designs would be abandoned in a heartbeat. If only because that option would have the virtue of being even more silent

(Fun side note Hunt for Red October is based on a Dan Browned premise)

Anyways back on topic, my point was that I don't think there will be quite the power shortage as that. Back when the railgun was first reported I remember seeing the plan was for it to be used with current systems. I understand its not using the power all at once but using capcacitors so the biggest problem with any power system would be how long you needed to recharge it.

Ultimately I doubt they'd go with nuke designs to power it.


I'll admit there is a possibility for defensive use of railguns, though I doubt that metallurgy is going to provide rails capable of withstanding the rate of fire common in a CIWS system for at least a few years into the period where railguns of larger caliber are practical.

I was thinking that if accurate enough you wouldn't need the CIWS rate of fire for a spray and pray solution. Rather relying on shock-waves from the tungsten round having a proximity effect. And shooting fighter jets with it from 100 mi away.


Concerning the issues with ballistic projectiles versus guided missiles, to some extent these are already offset by the tendency of large naval guns to have a more rapid rate of fire than land based artillery (possibly to counteract the rocking of the waves) and stabilisers could be fitted similar to those fitted to carriers. Also, if that did not prove sufficient, then the guns could be further assisted by the presence of forward observers to relay precise targeting data back to the ships gunners.

In the favour of ballistic weapons over guided missiles is the fact that they won't be thrown off course by the presence of GPS-jamming equipment in the target area (which I have been led to understand can cause distinct last minute inaccuracy in cruise missiles).

Yes there's ways to compensate, but they can only go so far too. A ship is ultimately on a random and unstable fluid. That routinely joggles the ship about by measurable amount even in good weather.

Ultimately your point about jamming though is good. And it goes beyond just this matter, truly effective and inexpensive jamming is the biggest potential killers of modern warfare. (Though possibly also conquerable with laser sat relays...)


Wouldn't the biggest problem with a rail gun be that it is line-of-sight only? And so useless if the enemy is over the horizon or on the wrong side of an island. So no matter how good they get, you'll still need missiles/aircraft/drones do deal with targets that are further off or behind cover.

Gravity. As steady and predictable as it is absolute.

A rail-gun is still a ballistic projectile like every piece of artillery has fired for centuries. Only because of its high velocity it take the round longer to come down, so you have much greater ranges. Note Battleships can fire over the horizon and used spotter planes historically. Though depending on how precise the mechanics can get, certain ranges might offer advantages.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

A rail-gun is still a ballistic projectile like every piece of artillery has fired for centuries. Only because of its high velocity it take the round longer to come down, so you have much greater ranges. Note Battleships can fire over the horizon and used spotter planes historically. Though depending on how precise the mechanics can get, certain ranges might offer advantages.

Naval encounters haven't been within sight-levels since WWII, and even then...

[Jimorian]

Subs are small ships. The USN uses nuclear power on them because it has the virtue of not needing oxygen for combustion which in turn allows you to deploy a globally while still underwater. If there were battery capacity up to a six month cruise I've little doubt the current designs would be abandoned in a heartbeat. If only because that option would have the virtue of being even more silent

Most modern subs are some of the larger craft in the Navy. Ohio Class is around 16,000 ton displacement, compared to a Ticonderogo class cruiser of just under 10,000 tons.

[
(Fun side note Hunt for Red October is based on a Dan Browned premise)

A Tom Clancy novel. Dan Brown was only 20 when it came out.

[The Glyphstone]

Most modern subs are some of the larger craft in the Navy. Ohio Class is around 16,000 ton displacement, compared to a Ticonderogo class cruiser of just under 10,000 tons.

[

A Tom Clancy novel. Dan Brown was only 20 when it came out.

Dan Browned (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DanBrowned), not Dan Brown.

Which bits of the premise are Dan Browned anyways? You may be misinterpreting the normal use of the phrase.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Dan Browned (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DanBrowned), not Dan Brown.

Which bits of the premise are Dan Browned anyways? You may be misinterpreting the normal use of the phrase.

Basically the titular sub's caterpillar drive is meaningless. I mean aside from being fictional it wouldn't matter. Because it still has a nuclear reactor on board, and just like the existing Typhoon-class ones given its quick ID and tracking. Prop noise (which the fictional drive replaces) isn't how subs are heard underwater. Diesel-electric subs are considered vastly quieter then nukes when submerged on battery, and still have propellers.

So the whole 'magma displacement' malarky would never even have come up. It would have been more or less as detectable as any other sub. Which is still pretty damn stealthy.

And to be fair it might be a marginal improvement, but not "B2 bomber for Sonar" levels either. (Also this is mostly for the movie which I've seen a lot more then I've read the book)

[mangosta71]

Most modern subs are some of the larger craft in the Navy. Ohio Class is around 16,000 ton displacement, compared to a Ticonderoga class cruiser of just under 10,000 tons.
The Ohio is an SSBN. An SSN, such as the Los Angeles, is significantly smaller (under 7000 tons). SSNs are also far more numerous (62 LAs as opposed to 18 Ohios).

[Mercenary Pen]

Interesting. In the (British) Royal Navy, there are no cruisers any more, but destroyers have been getting bigger and bigger until they are now basically cruiser size.

Not quite true, the UK's current generation of Aircraft carriers were originally classified as through-deck cruisers, on the grounds that the RN was forbidden to construct new aircraft carriers at the time (and yes, I know I'm splitting hairs on that).

The main reason why the RN doesn't have Cruisers these days is due to budget constraints and the fact that, at various times, money has been saved quickest by decommissioning and scrapping orders for the biggest ships in the fleet- and thus we only have midget aircraft carriers, our SSBNs are shorter than their american counterparts and we have no true cruiser presence (nor any proper amphibious landing capability apart from a pair of ships that should been mothballed years ago due to their age and the fact that they are almost guaranteed to break up if they have to beach themselves to put troops and equipment ashore).

[The Glyphstone]

Basically the titular sub's caterpillar drive is meaningless. I mean aside from being fictional it wouldn't matter. Because it still has a nuclear reactor on board, and just like the existing Typhoon-class ones given its quick ID and tracking. Prop noise (which the fictional drive replaces) isn't how subs are heard underwater. Diesel-electric subs are considered vastly quieter then nukes when submerged on battery, and still have propellers.

So the whole 'magma displacement' malarky would never even have come up. It would have been more or less as detectable as any other sub. Which is still pretty damn stealthy.

And to be fair it might be a marginal improvement, but not "B2 bomber for Sonar" levels either. (Also this is mostly for the movie which I've seen a lot more then I've read the book)

Fair enough, and interesting. Clancy's fairly well known for actually heavily doing the research (back before he sold the rights to his last name, at least), to the point where there's ancecdotes on his Trope page about copies of Red October circulating the USN sub crews with highlighter marker applied to the bits he wrote about that violate security clearances, and where he was visited by the FBI trying to learn how he worked that stuff out...so it's interesting he would botch a crucial detail like that.

[INDYSTAR188]

I would just like to remind everyone especially the ones who are talking about class specific capabilities to please use OPSEC here. Just because you know the specs on a boat or ship does not mean you should blab it to the world.

[The Glyphstone]

I would just like to remind everyone especially the ones who are talking about class specific capabilities to please use OPSEC here. Just because you know the specs on a boat or ship does not mean you should blab it to the world.

The feds are here - Let's scram, boys! Meet up at the hideout later.

[Tebryn]

I would just like to remind everyone especially the ones who are talking about class specific capabilities to please use OPSEC here. Just because you know the specs on a boat or ship does not mean you should blab it to the world.

Honestly? The capabilities of most ships that are being discussed aren't that difficult to find with a google search. I think, quite frankly, demanding anyone to use OPSEC on a gaming website is a step way to far in the wrong direction. I also think perhaps that it boarders on politics...though that might just be me worrying needlessly.

[The J Pizzel]

I didn't bother reading through all 6 pages and I have no idea where the conversations is currently. I also have no idea if this has been brought up before or not but...

Peter Berg is the Director. And he's an amazing Director. His best, IMO, is the NBC/DirecTV series Friday Night Lights and the film The Kingdom.

While the preview looks much more 'blockbuster' style filming than I'm used to seeing from him, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and probably watch it. The plot, dialogue and acting might suck, but I'm hoping for some good directing at least.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Honestly? The capabilities of most ships that are being discussed aren't that difficult to find with a google search. I think, quite frankly, demanding anyone to use OPSEC on a gaming website is a step way to far in the wrong direction. I also think perhaps that it boarders on politics...though that might just be me worrying needlessly.

This. (Nothing said has been anywhere close to specific enough)

My biggest influence was thinking about the diesel-electric subs and the Kitty Hawk incident (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/13/20061113-121539-3317r/) a matter of public record. Originally because of how absurdly plausible it made Down Periscope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DownPeriscope).

[Ralcos]

best ending for this movie:
Two kids are shown finishing a game of Battleship.

End of story.

[Gamerlord]

best ending for this movie:
Two kids are shown finishing a game of Battleship.

End of story.
Bonus points if one of them is complaining about the fact the other kid gets aliens.

[Karoht]

Bonus points if one of them is complaining about the fact the other kid gets aliens.

OR just at the climactic finish...

Mom: "Jimmy? Sally? Time to go to the pool!"
Jimmy: "Marco Polo?"
Sally; "You're on!"

[Mando Knight]

Someone mentioned movies based on Magic: the Gathering a few pages ago, and I sadly suspect that it will never happen. There is a large opportunity there, as the stories built around the game are quite extensive (many many books are out there). And some of them are actually really good.
Yeah, but this

If they made a movie based on MtG, it would not be based around any of the lore or stories written about the game world. It would be about a spunky but misfit teen who gets pulled into his card game and has to save the world by using his cardgame skills, while also making friends and learning to be comfortable in his own skin along the way.
has already been done. Didn't get the rights to MtG for a cameo, so the guy invented his own card game. Then that overtook the series, and from then on card games were SERIOUS BUSINESS.

[Renegade Paladin]

I heard the movie won't even have battleships. Because of this, and the fact that Aliens are in it, I suspect this is Battleship: In Name Only.
Ummmm... There's one in the trailer. Did you watch it? :smallconfused:
(Fun side note Hunt for Red October is based on a Dan Browned premise)
That would be difficult, since it was published in 1984 and Dan Brown didn't start publishing until 1998.

[Soras Teva Gee]

That would be difficult, since it was published in 1984 and Dan Brown didn't start publishing until 1998.

Yes funny but I said Dan Browned not Dan Brown. We went over that.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Yes funny but I said Dan Browned not Dan Brown. We went over that.

Hey, you use some obscure term that I've never heard of before now, expect to get misunderstood. Especially when it's two letters away from the author's name, I thought you had just made a typo, and had already clicked the multiquote button when I saw the explanation.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm not going to get into costs much because this is a WWIII major war scenario so price wouldn't be much of an problem.

With all due respect, cost is ALWAYS a factor. Having a larger overall budget doesn't mean wasting resources is ok.

A WW2 example is that a Tiger tank was frequently claimed to be able to take on ten shermans. Problem is, we were able to put that 11th sherman on the field. Sometimes, inexpensive quantity really is the way to win.


You'll note that I was talking in terms of a Battlecruiser, which is by definition a size category or two larger than a Cruiser or destroyer, also generally having more main turrets (though modern warfare being what it is, space will have to be found for a helo pad).

Also, being a Brit, I know what you mean about the role of Frigates as missile sponges (the falklands war provides a few good examples of this)- though I would instead use the term "Dubiously armed floating coffin".

Eh, frigates are cheap. Yeah, they don't stand up to a huge amount of a beating, but the point is that you can't reasonably use battleships(or other big, expensive ships) everywhere. Small patrol boats have essentially always been a part of the navy, and the frigate is pretty solid when you consider the ratio of weapons to ship size.

After all, sometimes a glorified helo and missile station is all you need. Quite frequently. And when you need more, using LOTS of glorified helo/missile stations is a viable option.


I'll admit here I was bearing in mind the existing tendency to use Nuclear power in the bigger ships (aircraft carriers and submarines for example), and merely factoring in its potential to provide the excess required for running power hungry railguns. Also, it was not my intent to suggest that the ship would have all guns blazing whilst at flank speed in normal engagement- rather drawing on the design doctrine of the original dreadnoughts, which were able to outrun any other ship afloat (when first built) as well as outgunning them.

I love the railgun research as much as the next guy, but tbh, it's not likely to be practical. At least, not in the near future. There's just some serious technical issues, and even an oversupply of power only fixes one of them. Sort of. Still need some serious electrical systems set up specifically for them.

And the biggest problem is that actually engaging your opponent within line of sight is far behind the curve of modern warfare. Missiles are already doing over the horizon shots, and have been for several decades. Surface engagements were obsolete before WW2, and drones/missiles are already replacing aircraft. Railguns are extremely unlikely to result in the resurgence of gunboats.


I'll admit there is a possibility for defensive use of railguns, though I doubt that metallurgy is going to provide rails capable of withstanding the rate of fire common in a CIWS system for at least a few years into the period where railguns of larger caliber are practical.

This is especially true. The amount of advancement before they are superior to current ballistic firepower is...immense.


Concerning the issues with ballistic projectiles versus guided missiles, to some extent these are already offset by the tendency of large naval guns to have a more rapid rate of fire than land based artillery (possibly to counteract the rocking of the waves) and stabilisers could be fitted similar to those fitted to carriers. Also, if that did not prove sufficient, then the guns could be further assisted by the presence of forward observers to relay precise targeting data back to the ships gunners.

Rate of fire is not really the discriminator it used to be. Precision is dominating modern weapon system design, not volume. That said, the typical fleet o' missile boats can typically dump it's load much, much faster than an equivalent dollar value in carriers, battleships, or whatever. It's also much more easily divisible between multiple smaller targets, if necessary.


In the favour of ballistic weapons over guided missiles is the fact that they won't be thrown off course by the presence of GPS-jamming equipment in the target area (which I have been led to understand can cause distinct last minute inaccuracy in cruise missiles).

I would presume that any cruise missile worthy of the name doesn't rely solely on GPS. Inertial guidance systems seem a lot more likely.

I have no problem with the general Opsec reminder...definitely don't want to see anyone get in trouble for posting something they shouldn't. That said, I'm air force. My knowledge of ships comes from google and books.

[Mando Knight]

Hey, you use some obscure term that I've never heard of before now, expect to get misunderstood. Especially when it's two letters away from the author's name, I thought you had just made a typo, and had already clicked the multiquote button when I saw the explanation.
We are sorry. We had not anticipated the possibility of beings remaining disconnected to the TVTropes matrix. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage)

[Soras Teva Gee]

Hey, you use some obscure term that I've never heard of before now, expect to get misunderstood. Especially when it's two letters away from the author's name, I thought you had just made a typo, and had already clicked the multiquote button when I saw the explanation.

A trope term... obscure? I must be on the wrong forum and never noticed! Get learned you Welsh heathen!

Here I'll even make killing the next twelve hours easy: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage

(Remember Tropers: tvtropes.org does not eat or drink but you do, we hate to loose valuable tropers that way! Sleep is always optional.)

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Eh, I used to interested in that whole troping thing, until I realized that it was making watching and reading things less fun. So I stopped.
And d'you expect me to know every single trope on tvtropes? I know many of them, the main ones, but not all!

[INDYSTAR188]

Honestly? The capabilities of most ships that are being discussed aren't that difficult to find with a google search. I think, quite frankly, demanding anyone to use OPSEC on a gaming website is a step way to far in the wrong direction. I also think perhaps that it boarders on politics...though that might just be me worrying needlessly.

I'm not demanding anything. I am trying to ask politely to please think about what your posting. That's all. I read earlier some one posted about a carriers basic missile defense strategy, someone mentioning CIWS, Carrier group capabilities...ect. I'm sure your right, you can find an alarming number of details via the internet, but as someone who is in the US Navy I'm just asking for a little discretion. I am in no way referring to politics and am not trying to offend here!

[Karoht]

I'm not demanding anything. I am trying to ask politely to please think about what your posting. That's all. I read earlier some one posted about a carriers basic missile defense strategy, someone mentioning CIWS, Carrier group capabilities...ect. I'm sure your right, you can find an alarming number of details via the internet, but as someone who is in the US Navy I'm just asking for a little discretion. I am in no way referring to politics and am not trying to offend here!
That is a reasonable request.
But the other poster is pointing out that the information is mostly already in the public view, hence it is perhaps irrelivant. The real life weapons and armor thread discusses these things into far more detail already.
Either way, you aren't asking much IMO. My grandmother grew up in the war, she grew up in the age of "loose lips sink ships" and I've heard many a tale from my great uncle about his time on the front. I empathize with you completely.

[Hawriel]

Battelship the movie!! Ware the main character is the commanding officer of an aircraft carrier. When the U.S. has not used battleships sence the gulf war. When sailers do not ware standard safty gear when in little rubber dingies. IE life preservers.

[mangosta71]

Nothing posted here even goes as far in-depth as wikipedia does, but okay.

As for the trailer, I think the most disappointing part is that, in the end, it's about a guy proving his worth to some girl's father. I was expecting an action movie from the premise, not a contrived, cliche love story. :smallsigh:

I wish Red Storm Rising had made it onto the big screen before world events made it completely irrelevant. It's the best of Clancy's novels by a fair margin. Of course, it would have been about as long as the entire LotR trilogy combined...

[Leliel]

You know, I have a gift. A very special gift.

For you see, I have the ability...TO SEE THE FUTURE

I'm getting a vision now...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*An aged, cybernetic Douglas Walker*: HELLO. I'M THE NOSTALGIA CRITIC 4000. I BACKLOG IT SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

THIS DAYCYCLE, LET'S TALK ABOUT SHIPS. NO, NOT PIRATE SHIPS, BATTLESHIPS. NO, I'M NOT STEALING FILM BORG'S OLD EPISODE INVOLVING A FAT MAN WITH AN INFINITE SUPPLY OF STUNT CLONES, I'M TALKING ABOUT BATTLESHIP.
.
.
.
Are you not amazed?

[Eric Tolle]

And the biggest problem is that actually engaging your opponent within line of sight is far behind the curve of modern warfare. Missiles are already doing over the horizon shots, and have been for several de arecades. Surface engagements were obsolete before WW2, and drones/missiles are already replacing aircraft. Railguns are extremely unlikely to result in the resurgence of gunboats.

Hell, even manned aircraft are becoming more limited on their usefulness. An air force pilot I was talking to the other night compared the number of drones an aircraft carrier could carry, compared to the number of manned planes. He also made a comment to the effect that the only real use for say, an F-22 would be as a command aircraft with 20 drones slaved to it. That would give the pilot 26 missiles to play with, rather than 6. Of course that's getting huge resistance from the fighter pilots....

[Saintheart]

A WW2 example is that a Tiger tank was frequently claimed to be able to take on ten shermans. Problem is, we were able to put that 11th sherman on the field. Sometimes, inexpensive quantity really is the way to win.

I'm sorry, but it is obligatory to link to tvtropes on that comment. (http://http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ZergRush)

On topic, sort of, does anyone have the feeling Liam Neeson's just been "Ah, to hell with serious acting, I'm getting old, I've lost the love of my life, I couldn't give a rat's behind about artistic integrity anymore"? I mean, look at his movie selections since Amanda Richardson passed on. Personally, Taken was about the last decent film he did in my personal canon.

EDIT: Taken, of course, being better known by its alternate title: Ra's Al-Ghul tears the city of Paris several new orifices.

[Tavar]

I'm pretty sure it's confirmed that he's taking on any acting project so as to continue working to avoid the grief.

[Saintheart]

Poor sod.

He's got young kids. Given movie work this must be like being orphaned for them.