battlefield los angels who's gona go see it ?
- Thread starter timothy
- Start date
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss
Actually I stumbled on to the picture on the web by accident and ended up forgetting what I had been looking for initially myself so i copied the picture and decided to crop it down for an avatar. Nice isnt
Also my take on the nukes when my wife brought that up was pretty much the same thing, especially being an old ground pounder myself once. To even think about retaking the enviroment after such a weapon is used requires a lot more gear then the average troop would have at his disposal and we were losing and supply lines were hardly stable at that point in the movie.
Nukes are hardly the go to solution in such a scenario as the movie plays out, in fact it might actually end up benifiting the surviving alien force if they are immune to the after effects. I mean it might even give the alien survivors a fall back area that we would not easily be able to pursue them into...which mean further use of nuclear weapons that in the long run will hamper us more than the world the invaders came from.
I mean we have to live hear after the war ...and that would also mean nuking 20 city sites all over the world and most of them are vital and important port cities too.
Also its kind of funny....on Encore last night I found myself watching Red Dawn, and was amused to find the similarities between the two movies in how they began and such. I know Red Dawn is now very dated yet it is still a guilty pleasure of mine since I saw it in the theaters when I was a teenager.
I guess that is where Battle : LA is going to fall into for me, a nice escape movie. Though I did find I enjoyed Battle : LA a little more.
Vons
Actually I stumbled on to the picture on the web by accident and ended up forgetting what I had been looking for initially myself so i copied the picture and decided to crop it down for an avatar. Nice isnt
Also my take on the nukes when my wife brought that up was pretty much the same thing, especially being an old ground pounder myself once. To even think about retaking the enviroment after such a weapon is used requires a lot more gear then the average troop would have at his disposal and we were losing and supply lines were hardly stable at that point in the movie.
Nukes are hardly the go to solution in such a scenario as the movie plays out, in fact it might actually end up benifiting the surviving alien force if they are immune to the after effects. I mean it might even give the alien survivors a fall back area that we would not easily be able to pursue them into...which mean further use of nuclear weapons that in the long run will hamper us more than the world the invaders came from.
I mean we have to live hear after the war ...and that would also mean nuking 20 city sites all over the world and most of them are vital and important port cities too.
Also its kind of funny....on Encore last night I found myself watching Red Dawn, and was amused to find the similarities between the two movies in how they began and such. I know Red Dawn is now very dated yet it is still a guilty pleasure of mine since I saw it in the theaters when I was a teenager.
I guess that is where Battle : LA is going to fall into for me, a nice escape movie. Though I did find I enjoyed Battle : LA a little more.
Vons
Last edited:
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss
Besides following the logic of the mission of sending a Marines to Santa Monica to evacuate a few stray civilians, nobody would have risked the collateral damage of nuking cities. After all there may have been other police officers and citizens still around who didn't call for help before the enemy drones and soldiers started hunting down all radio signals
Besides following the logic of the mission of sending a Marines to Santa Monica to evacuate a few stray civilians, nobody would have risked the collateral damage of nuking cities. After all there may have been other police officers and citizens still around who didn't call for help before the enemy drones and soldiers started hunting down all radio signals
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss
Ebert needs to get the fuck over himself. What a joyless fucking windbag.
Ebert needs to get the fuck over himself. What a joyless fucking windbag.
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss
Finally saw it tonight, and absolutely loved it. I was expecting to be disappointed as has been the case with recent films I've seen, but not this time.
Great action that rarely lets up, if you enjoyed Black Hawk Down or Saving Private Ryan for the battle scenes then this is right up your alley.
I liked the fact that it took a grunt eye's look at things. We never learn who the aliens are (though that onscreen comment about fluid water only existing here was cringeworthy but can be chalked up to being one commentator's opinion) and only see one part of the overall war which I found refreshing. In some ways it can be a companion piece to the recent War of the Worlds movie where it focuses on one civilian trying to get to safety. Here is about a platoon of soldiers trying achieve a simple objective in the scheme of things.
Finally saw it tonight, and absolutely loved it. I was expecting to be disappointed as has been the case with recent films I've seen, but not this time.
Great action that rarely lets up, if you enjoyed Black Hawk Down or Saving Private Ryan for the battle scenes then this is right up your alley.
I liked the fact that it took a grunt eye's look at things. We never learn who the aliens are (though that onscreen comment about fluid water only existing here was cringeworthy but can be chalked up to being one commentator's opinion) and only see one part of the overall war which I found refreshing. In some ways it can be a companion piece to the recent War of the Worlds movie where it focuses on one civilian trying to get to safety. Here is about a platoon of soldiers trying achieve a simple objective in the scheme of things.
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss
Sounds like someone who sees his future as an Ace pilot being taken by a Predator drone.
Back to the nuke issue, realize that within one day of first contact with the enemy Marines and Guardsmen who turned off their radios were able to hold their ground. And soon theb regular armies and militias armed with all those excess AK-47s from all over the world would converge on those major port cities
Sounds like someone who sees his future as an Ace pilot being taken by a Predator drone.
Back to the nuke issue, realize that within one day of first contact with the enemy Marines and Guardsmen who turned off their radios were able to hold their ground. And soon theb regular armies and militias armed with all those excess AK-47s from all over the world would converge on those major port cities
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss
Tell me one other place aside from Earth you know of that has liquid water in abundance on its surface for a fact. Not dissolved in dust and dirt, not frozen in ice caps nor hidden under a 2km thick crust of solid ice.
If you can, you might win a Nobel prize.
Tell me one other place aside from Earth you know of that has liquid water in abundance on its surface for a fact. Not dissolved in dust and dirt, not frozen in ice caps nor hidden under a 2km thick crust of solid ice.
If you can, you might win a Nobel prize.
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss
Well there was perhaps an overuse of the Hueys and there seemed to be more destroyed equipment in LA then one Marine Division and the local National Guard could have gotten into the fight that fast.
Well there was perhaps an overuse of the Hueys and there seemed to be more destroyed equipment in LA then one Marine Division and the local National Guard could have gotten into the fight that fast.
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss
Absence of proof isn't proof of absence.
The scientist in the film says "we're the only planet in the known universe with liquid water on it." (emphasis mine)
That's quite a bold statement for someone to make! Considering how limited our sample size is.
Tell me one other place aside from Earth you know of that has liquid water in abundance on its surface for a fact. Not dissolved in dust and dirt, not frozen in ice caps nor hidden under a 2km thick crust of solid ice.
If you can, you might win a Nobel prize.
Absence of proof isn't proof of absence.
The scientist in the film says "we're the only planet in the known universe with liquid water on it." (emphasis mine)
That's quite a bold statement for someone to make! Considering how limited our sample size is.
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss
It's hardly a bold statement. It's a perfectly accurate statement from a human perspective.
Tell me one other place aside from Earth you know of that has liquid water in abundance on its surface for a fact. Not dissolved in dust and dirt, not frozen in ice caps nor hidden under a 2km thick crust of solid ice.
If you can, you might win a Nobel prize.
Absence of proof isn't proof of absence.
The scientist in the film says "we're the only planet in the known universe with liquid water on it." (emphasis mine)
That's quite a bold statement for someone to make! Considering how limited our sample size is.
It's hardly a bold statement. It's a perfectly accurate statement from a human perspective.
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss
Considering what we know of the universe right now, yes, we currently are the only planet in the known universe with liquid water.
I just saw this earlier today, and I really enjoyed it. It was a very entertaining action flick with plenty of fun scenes and pretty good acting. Aaron Eckhart did a great job as the tough-as-nails veteran ("Damn! I was two days from retirement!"
), though I have to wonder how, after twenty years in the Corps, he was still just a Staff Sergeant. He probably should have been at least a Gunnery Sergeant, given his time of service and combat experience. But that's a minor nitpick from a military brat who cares about that sort of thing more than he should. 
I wouldn't mind seeing another movie in this franchise. There's still nineteen more cities to liberate.
Considering what we know of the universe right now, yes, we currently are the only planet in the known universe with liquid water.
I just saw this earlier today, and I really enjoyed it. It was a very entertaining action flick with plenty of fun scenes and pretty good acting. Aaron Eckhart did a great job as the tough-as-nails veteran ("Damn! I was two days from retirement!"
), though I have to wonder how, after twenty years in the Corps, he was still just a Staff Sergeant. He probably should have been at least a Gunnery Sergeant, given his time of service and combat experience. But that's a minor nitpick from a military brat who cares about that sort of thing more than he should. I wouldn't mind seeing another movie in this franchise. There's still nineteen more cities to liberate.
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss
Indeed. But at the rate we are now finding exoplanets, it will only be a question of time.
But the idea that a civilization capable of interstellar travel would have a hard time melting the ice of Europa is ... still ludicrous. C'mon.
I still don't hold it much against the film, though, but it was one of the very few eye-roll moments. I enjoyed it otherwise.
Indeed. But at the rate we are now finding exoplanets, it will only be a question of time.
But the idea that a civilization capable of interstellar travel would have a hard time melting the ice of Europa is ... still ludicrous. C'mon.
I still don't hold it much against the film, though, but it was one of the very few eye-roll moments. I enjoyed it otherwise.
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss
That's sort of like taking a cup of water out of the ocean, seeing no fish in it and declaring that there's no fish in the ocean.
It's ludicrous for someone to state with absolute certainty that we are the only planet in the universe with liquid water on it considering we may not even be the only planet in our own solar system with water on it.
That's sort of like taking a cup of water out of the ocean, seeing no fish in it and declaring that there's no fish in the ocean.
It's ludicrous for someone to state with absolute certainty that we are the only planet in the universe with liquid water on it considering we may not even be the only planet in our own solar system with water on it.
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss
You don't seem to be grasping the "known universe" part. We are currently the only planet in the universe as we know it with liquid water. Therefore it's a completely valid statement, though it could have been phrased better.
You don't seem to be grasping the "known universe" part. We are currently the only planet in the universe as we know it with liquid water. Therefore it's a completely valid statement, though it could have been phrased better.
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss
Since we already KNOW there are fish in the ocean, this is an incorrect analogy.
In the known universe. Known. There may very well be liquid water somewhere in the universe, but so far we don't know about it.
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss
Well, then saying we're the only planet in the "known" universe with liquid water on it is sort of a stupid thing to say when you've just encountered in interstellar, extrasolar, species.
It goes back to my cup of water analogy.
You really don't get what "analogy" means, do you?
Okay, let me spell it out for you.
You're a man, standing on the ocean. You've no knowledge of any other life beyond what is on land, i.e. you know nothing of oceanic life, or life in water whatsoever. You take a glass of water out of the ocean. There's no life in it. None. Not even bacterial/microbial life you've got a glass of pure H2O and some salt. You shrug and say "there's no life in the known ocean."
Comparatively speaking, hell, it'd be more like a single, tiny, drop of water out of the ocean to even begin to compare to the universe and even then your drop probably represents our entire galactic cluster.
And I guess I've always taken "Known Universe" to pretty much mean what we "know" is out there, planets, galaxies, etc. vs. "observable" universe which is everything we can presently "see" or should be able to see but may not "know" about it. (And different than what may lie beyond what is observable.)
Still, my point remains, it's pretty stupid for a scientist to go on TV and say we're the only planet in the whatever-universe with water on it and it's what the aliens are after as if that's why they were focused on our planet for that very reason.
That's like saying, "Well, gee! That guy must have mugged me because I'm the only one I know who was carrying $500 on me!" even when I'm surrounded by countless people all of whom could possibly have money on them and the mugger came from the otherside of the room.
Well, then saying we're the only planet in the "known" universe with liquid water on it is sort of a stupid thing to say when you've just encountered in interstellar, extrasolar, species.
It goes back to my cup of water analogy.
You really don't get what "analogy" means, do you?
Okay, let me spell it out for you.
You're a man, standing on the ocean. You've no knowledge of any other life beyond what is on land, i.e. you know nothing of oceanic life, or life in water whatsoever. You take a glass of water out of the ocean. There's no life in it. None. Not even bacterial/microbial life you've got a glass of pure H2O and some salt. You shrug and say "there's no life in the known ocean."
Comparatively speaking, hell, it'd be more like a single, tiny, drop of water out of the ocean to even begin to compare to the universe and even then your drop probably represents our entire galactic cluster.
And I guess I've always taken "Known Universe" to pretty much mean what we "know" is out there, planets, galaxies, etc. vs. "observable" universe which is everything we can presently "see" or should be able to see but may not "know" about it. (And different than what may lie beyond what is observable.)
Still, my point remains, it's pretty stupid for a scientist to go on TV and say we're the only planet in the whatever-universe with water on it and it's what the aliens are after as if that's why they were focused on our planet for that very reason.
That's like saying, "Well, gee! That guy must have mugged me because I'm the only one I know who was carrying $500 on me!" even when I'm surrounded by countless people all of whom could possibly have money on them and the mugger came from the otherside of the room.
Last edited:
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss
Never mind Europa, just latch onto any passing comet. And isn't it more efficient to melt ice into liquid water rather than expending resources and personnel to attack a planet filled with water?
Never mind Europa, just latch onto any passing comet. And isn't it more efficient to melt ice into liquid water rather than expending resources and personnel to attack a planet filled with water?
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss
Well, that presumes that the so-called expert in the movie knew what he was talking about. It's very possible the aliens weren't interested in our water at all; they simply saw a lot of it on our planet and decided it would be a cheap power source during their attack.
Well, that presumes that the so-called expert in the movie knew what he was talking about. It's very possible the aliens weren't interested in our water at all; they simply saw a lot of it on our planet and decided it would be a cheap power source during their attack.
