| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Battleship (2012): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Commando552 (talk | contribs) |
Commando552 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
:According to Navweapons, the Navy uses [http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_30-cal_GAU17.htm M134Ds]. It may be the first one on [http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_30-cal_GAU17_pics.htm this page.] --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 18:05, 18 November 2011 (CST) | :According to Navweapons, the Navy uses [http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_30-cal_GAU17.htm M134Ds]. It may be the first one on [http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_30-cal_GAU17_pics.htm this page.] --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 18:05, 18 November 2011 (CST) | ||
::The first one on that page is a regular Dillon M134D. Note how the barrels on a DIllon have 1 thick ring in the middle and a flash hider on the end, as opposed to the movie gun which has the thick ring, two thinner rings and then the flash hider, like the M134G pic above. I have never seen anything apart from a single clamp Dillon or a GAU-17A being used by the real US Navy, so this gun caught my eye. Could be a standard GE M134 barrel clamp with a fake (and by fake I mean armourer made, will serve the same purpose as it is just a cylinder) flash hider attached. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 18: | ::The first one on that page is a regular Dillon M134D. Note how the barrels on a DIllon have 1 thick ring in the middle and a flash hider on the end, as opposed to the movie gun which has the thick ring, two thinner rings and then the flash hider, like the M134G pic above. I have never seen anything apart from a single clamp Dillon or a GAU-17A being used by the real US Navy, so this gun caught my eye. Could be a standard GE M134 barrel clamp with a fake (and by fake I mean armourer made, will serve the same purpose as it is just a cylinder) flash hider attached. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 18:28, 18 November 2011 (CST) | ||
:::Also, just checked the Garwood website, and it isn't the early models that have the 4 flanged barrel clamp but it is a standard option for better heat dissipation. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] 18:37, 18 November 2011 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 00:37, 19 November 2011
...Really? So, how long until that Minesweeper movie comes out? Evil Tim 01:24, 18 August 2011 (CDT)
Wow. Just wow. I realize Hollywood is running out of original ideas, but have they run out of movies to remake and video games to base on so quick that they're basing movies on board games? What's next? Chutes & Ladders? Sorry? Scrabble? Spartan198 16:07, 22 August 2011 (CDT)
- Are you talking about the same people who made a four movie, billion dollar franchise from an amusement park ride? (Pirates of the Caribbean.) --Funkychinaman 16:14, 22 August 2011 (CDT)
- At least the PotC ride had some personality. Battleship is a two-sided tray where you try to "sink" tiny plastic ships by guessing grid numbers. And they're making an alien invasion flick of it! Battleship had zilch whatsoever to do with aliens. It's like making an Iraq War movie and calling it Xbox: The Movie. Spartan198 17:09, 23 August 2011 (CDT)
- Mind you, PotC is still around because it worked. Disney also tried Country Bears and Haunted Mansion movies, and they didn't. I'm with you, when I heard that they wanted to make a movie out of the game Battleship, I thought it was ludicrous, but if you just think of it as an alien attack movie that just happens to involve a battleship, it's not as silly anymore. --Funkychinaman 17:55, 23 August 2011 (CDT)
- Wait, wait, wait... A thought just stuck me here about this upcoming film, folks. Usually when a movie gets made about a children's board game, it is rushed out on a direct-to-video/DVD release, and a majority of the time, it's all cartoony, campy, silly, and targeted at the children that are under 7 years old, very much like how the Candy Land films from the 90s during that board game's popularity peak were all campy, cartoony, and for the kids under 7. But from what I got when seeing this trailer, is that this film is an updated version of the board game, and it's appealing to the grownups who played and were fans of this board game when they were kids (like me for instance). It doesn't look like a film that's appealing to the 7 year old audience, but rather, to the grownups who want to take a trip down memory lane and see a more 'modernized' and 'cooler' version of their favorite board game when they were children. --ThatoneguyJosh 09:18, 26 August 2011 (CDT)
- Here's the thing though: I don't see any connection to the actual game itself other than the fact that they went out of their way to put a battleship in it. They probably could've gotten away with calling Under Siege "Battleship" if they really wanted to. Unless there's actually a scene where someone fires the battleship's guns by sticking a little peg in a hole, I don't see how it's related to the game. (And I think this has cartoony down pat.) --Funkychinaman 09:53, 26 August 2011 (CDT)
- Wait, wait, wait... A thought just stuck me here about this upcoming film, folks. Usually when a movie gets made about a children's board game, it is rushed out on a direct-to-video/DVD release, and a majority of the time, it's all cartoony, campy, silly, and targeted at the children that are under 7 years old, very much like how the Candy Land films from the 90s during that board game's popularity peak were all campy, cartoony, and for the kids under 7. But from what I got when seeing this trailer, is that this film is an updated version of the board game, and it's appealing to the grownups who played and were fans of this board game when they were kids (like me for instance). It doesn't look like a film that's appealing to the 7 year old audience, but rather, to the grownups who want to take a trip down memory lane and see a more 'modernized' and 'cooler' version of their favorite board game when they were children. --ThatoneguyJosh 09:18, 26 August 2011 (CDT)
- Mind you, PotC is still around because it worked. Disney also tried Country Bears and Haunted Mansion movies, and they didn't. I'm with you, when I heard that they wanted to make a movie out of the game Battleship, I thought it was ludicrous, but if you just think of it as an alien attack movie that just happens to involve a battleship, it's not as silly anymore. --Funkychinaman 17:55, 23 August 2011 (CDT)
- At least the PotC ride had some personality. Battleship is a two-sided tray where you try to "sink" tiny plastic ships by guessing grid numbers. And they're making an alien invasion flick of it! Battleship had zilch whatsoever to do with aliens. It's like making an Iraq War movie and calling it Xbox: The Movie. Spartan198 17:09, 23 August 2011 (CDT)
This is what I'm hoping
(a) There is some sort of explanation why the US Navy UN-retires one or more battleships for a military exercise. (b) Based on the trailer, the alien device creates a force field bubble that encompasses a huge portion of the Pacific (including the entire state of Hawaii if I'm not mistaken) (c) The aliens force the US Navy into some sort of 'duel to the death' under gladiator type restrictions (why I don't know). (d) Ultimately after conventional battle, some sort of event occurs where the ships are blinded from seeing each other and each ship has to launch a salvo based on where they 'think' the enemy is. (e) The film ends when the hero ship ultimately sinks the last Alien war machine ... but then this assumes that we've lost thousands of Naval and Marine Corp personnel from all the other ships that were destroyed, which would SUCK. Just some musing that's all. In all probability, knowing Hollywood, NONE of the obvious explanations will be offered and fans will be annoyed by the lack of logic in the script, but what else is new? MoviePropMaster2008 13:22, 26 August 2011 (CDT)
- Well MPM, you are correct on the part where the trailer showcased the forcefield encompassing a huge portion of the Pacific including Hawaii. And I guess as far as everything else is concerned with this film, chances are it will be in the same vein as the Transformers films (since both Transformers and Battleship are owned by Hasbro); a 2 hour toy commercial. However, instead of it being about giant robots fighting, it'll be about naval warships blowing the shit out of each other. I just hope they include the classic line that the boardgame is known for ("Aargh! You sunk my Battleship!"). Also, if my assumptions serve me right, this movie is gonna be a giant advertisement tool that the U.S. Navy might use to get more and more people to enlist in that branch of the United States military. Just wait and see, there will probably be a huge increase in enlistment for the U.S. Navy after the debut of this film ;) --ThatoneguyJosh 10:49, 16 September 2011 (CDT)
- cough*TopGun*cough* Orca1 9904 13:26, 16 September 2011 (CDT)
- Exactly! --ThatoneguyJosh 21:42, 16 September 2011 (CDT)
- Didn't Battle: Los Angeles also cause an influx in recruit numbers for the Marine Corps? I vaguely remember reading something about this, but I don't recall where or when. Spartan198 08:48, 19 September 2011 (CDT)
- Nope, I believe it was in your overactive imagination! LOL! jk But in the case of Top Gun, the U.S. navy did have a huge spike in recruitment. What I found funny was that there were guys I knew who enlisted in the Navy to become 'Top Gun' pilots, without realizing that (a) you have to get into the Naval Aviator program, which is damned hard to do, (b) you have to be really good, in fact, tops in your field and (c) it's a total crapshoot whether or not you get picked to be sent to Top Gun in the first place, even if you fulfill the first two requirements. A lot of guys with 'stars in their eyes' ended up being either logistical support in the bowels of an aircraft carrier or a minor logistical job at a land based Naval Air Station. ;) Doh!!!!!! MoviePropMaster2008 15:04, 19 September 2011 (CDT)
- Didn't Battle: Los Angeles also cause an influx in recruit numbers for the Marine Corps? I vaguely remember reading something about this, but I don't recall where or when. Spartan198 08:48, 19 September 2011 (CDT)
Minigun
I don't think the minigun is a Dillon, as it has the wrong berrel set-up. I think it might be an earlier Garwood Industries M134G. The earlier versions had the triple barrel clamp with solid flash hider unlike the Dillon which I have only ever seen with the single barrel clamp. Or does anyone know if the earlier Dillon barrel clamps were the same design as the Garwoods?
- According to Navweapons, the Navy uses M134Ds. It may be the first one on this page. --Funkychinaman 18:05, 18 November 2011 (CST)
- The first one on that page is a regular Dillon M134D. Note how the barrels on a DIllon have 1 thick ring in the middle and a flash hider on the end, as opposed to the movie gun which has the thick ring, two thinner rings and then the flash hider, like the M134G pic above. I have never seen anything apart from a single clamp Dillon or a GAU-17A being used by the real US Navy, so this gun caught my eye. Could be a standard GE M134 barrel clamp with a fake (and by fake I mean armourer made, will serve the same purpose as it is just a cylinder) flash hider attached. --commando552 18:28, 18 November 2011 (CST)
- Also, just checked the Garwood website, and it isn't the early models that have the 4 flanged barrel clamp but it is a standard option for better heat dissipation. --commando552 18:37, 18 November 2011 (CST)
- The first one on that page is a regular Dillon M134D. Note how the barrels on a DIllon have 1 thick ring in the middle and a flash hider on the end, as opposed to the movie gun which has the thick ring, two thinner rings and then the flash hider, like the M134G pic above. I have never seen anything apart from a single clamp Dillon or a GAU-17A being used by the real US Navy, so this gun caught my eye. Could be a standard GE M134 barrel clamp with a fake (and by fake I mean armourer made, will serve the same purpose as it is just a cylinder) flash hider attached. --commando552 18:28, 18 November 2011 (CST)