Battleship the Movie

[MonkeyFinger]

Trailer 3 is up.

The goddamned pegs are in the movie!  Check it out!!

Yah, they've shown them from the get-go, I remember seeing the first teaser / whatever and rolling my eyes.

[Purge]

Ick.

[Isgrimnur]

Trailer 3 is up.

The goddamned pegs are in the movie!  Check it out!!

Yah, they've shown them from the get-go, I remember seeing the first teaser / whatever and rolling my eyes.

And were even mentioned on Page 1 of the thread.

[PR_GMR]

The fucking pegs are in the movie?!   

[hepcat]

The fucking pegs are in the movie?!   

THIS is what you find the most grievous?   

[Covenant]

Glad to see they are staying true to the source material.

[PR_GMR]

I think this one's gonna bomb harder than 'John Carter'. I definetely would watch 'John Carter' before this.

[Covenant]

I'll bet money that Battleship outperforms John Carter at the boxoffice.

No disagreement on the likely "quality" of this film though.

[hepcat]

I'm guessing that Battleship will outstrip the box office for John Carter.  It definitely comes out of the gate with the upperhand due to the time period.  Product placement will most likely be EXTREMELY evident in Battleship.  JC suffered in that lucrative arena due to the fact that it's a period piece set in the 1800's. 

[pr0ner]

I think this one's gonna bomb harder than 'John Carter'. I definetely would watch 'John Carter' before this.

Quoted for later.  Again.

[PR_GMR]

I think this one's gonna bomb harder than 'John Carter'. I definetely would watch 'John Carter' before this.

Quoted for later.  Again.

Your attempts to troll me, proner, will fail. 

[Bullwinkle]

I think this one's gonna bomb harder than 'John Carter'. I definetely would watch 'John Carter' before this.

Quoted for later.  Again.

Your attempts to troll me, proner, will fail. 

But you task him, and he shall have you.

[pr0ner]

I think this one's gonna bomb harder than 'John Carter'. I definetely would watch 'John Carter' before this.

Quoted for later.  Again.

Your attempts to troll me, proner, will fail. 

But you task him, and he shall have you.

 

[CeeKay]

Goldilocks featurette: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HQ2TslEE_DU

[Kagath]

So I just saw my first viewing of the trailer for this. Not what I was expecting. I may have to check it out eventually. Need some cheesy SciFi periodically.

[Blackjack]

I really don't blame Taylor Kitsch, but who are these studio bean counters who think he merits $450 million across two movie budgets?

And director-wise, arguably, if you're James Cameron or Michael Bay, I can understand studios taking that kind of crazy budget risk. But Andrew Stanton (John Carter)? Peter Berg (Battleship)? imho, Stanton was successful at Pixar because, well, it's Pixar. Peter Berg had a hit with Hancock because, well, Will Smith is mostly bulletproof at the box office (and, arguably, it was a reasonably entertaining film). Taylor Kitsch... is not.

What really kills me is think about the good you could do in the world, anywhere, with $200+ million. I love movies, I don't blanche if a fun and/or great film costs $200M+, but when it's spent making forgettable crap that even a spring/summer movie audience won't lap up, it just seems a horrible waste of resources.

[Crux]

I really don't blame Taylor Kitsch, but who are these studio bean counters who think he merits $450 million across two movie budgets?

And director-wise, arguably, if you're James Cameron or Michael Bay, I can understand studios taking that kind of crazy budget risk. But Andrew Stanton (John Carter)? Peter Berg (Battleship)? imho, Stanton was successful at Pixar because, well, it's Pixar. Peter Berg had a hit with Hancock because, well, Will Smith is mostly bulletproof at the box office (and, arguably, it was a reasonably entertaining film). Taylor Kitsch... is not.

What really kills me is think about the good you could do in the world, anywhere, with $200+ million. I love movies, I don't blanche if a fun and/or great film costs $200M+, but when it's spent making forgettable crap that even a spring/summer movie audience won't lap up, it just seems a horrible waste of resources.

Communist bastard.

[gellar]

I really don't blame Taylor Kitsch, but who are these studio bean counters who think he merits $450 million across two movie budgets?

And director-wise, arguably, if you're James Cameron or Michael Bay, I can understand studios taking that kind of crazy budget risk. But Andrew Stanton (John Carter)? Peter Berg (Battleship)? imho, Stanton was successful at Pixar because, well, it's Pixar. Peter Berg had a hit with Hancock because, well, Will Smith is mostly bulletproof at the box office (and, arguably, it was a reasonably entertaining film). Taylor Kitsch... is not.

What really kills me is think about the good you could do in the world, anywhere, with $200+ million. I love movies, I don't blanche if a fun and/or great film costs $200M+, but when it's spent making forgettable crap that even a spring/summer movie audience won't lap up, it just seems a horrible waste of resources.

This just in: Hollywood is not that smart.  Film at 11.

[Bullwinkle]

I really don't blame Taylor Kitsch, but who are these studio bean counters who think he merits $450 million across two movie budgets?

And director-wise, arguably, if you're James Cameron or Michael Bay, I can understand studios taking that kind of crazy budget risk. But Andrew Stanton (John Carter)? Peter Berg (Battleship)? imho, Stanton was successful at Pixar because, well, it's Pixar. Peter Berg had a hit with Hancock because, well, Will Smith is mostly bulletproof at the box office (and, arguably, it was a reasonably entertaining film). Taylor Kitsch... is not.

What really kills me is think about the good you could do in the world, anywhere, with $200+ million. I love movies, I don't blanche if a fun and/or great film costs $200M+, but when it's spent making forgettable crap that even a spring/summer movie audience won't lap up, it just seems a horrible waste of resources.

This just in: Hollywood is not that smart.  Film at 11.

Ooh, I want to see that film.

[Blackjack]

I peeked at a Variety review that deemed it "overlong and underwritten, even by summer movie fare expectations," but expects it to "float" to some degree of box office success on the strength of its razzle dazzle FX sequences.

[Ironrod]

What really kills me is think about the good you could do in the world, anywhere, with $200+ million. I love movies, I don't blanche if a fun and/or great film costs $200M+, but when it's spent making forgettable crap that even a spring/summer movie audience won't lap up, it just seems a horrible waste of resources.

If it were possible to put an optional $1 surcharge on every science fiction/special effects movie ticket with the proceeds dedicated to space exploration, we would have colonies on all the inner planets by now. Most sf fans would cheerfully pay it.

Communist bastard.

Da, comrade.

[pr0ner]

I think this one's gonna bomb harder than 'John Carter'. I definetely would watch 'John Carter' before this.

Quoted for later.  Again.

Your attempts to troll me, proner, will fail. 

Seeing as how Battleship's already made $126.7 million overseas in 12 days, things are playing out in my favor so far.

[metallicorphan]

nothing to do with Battleship,but i am sticking this here

[Isgrimnur]

That's awesome!

[PR_GMR]

I think this one's gonna bomb harder than 'John Carter'. I definetely would watch 'John Carter' before this.

Quoted for later.  Again.

Your attempts to troll me, proner, will fail. 

Seeing as how Battleship's already made $126.7 million overseas in 12 days, things are playing out in my favor so far.

Overseas box office do not count in my equation. Foreign territories will watch any piece of junk Hollywood produces in droves. Again, your attempts to troll me have failed.

[pr0ner]

I think this one's gonna bomb harder than 'John Carter'. I definetely would watch 'John Carter' before this.

Quoted for later.  Again.

Your attempts to troll me, proner, will fail. 

Seeing as how Battleship's already made $126.7 million overseas in 12 days, things are playing out in my favor so far.

Overseas box office do not count in my equation. Foreign territories will watch any piece of junk Hollywood produces in droves. Again, your attempts to troll me have failed.

Moving the goalposts already I see.  Not surprising in the least.

[Jiffy]

Overseas box office do not count in my equation. Foreign territories will watch any piece of junk Hollywood produces in droves. Again, your attempts to troll me have failed.

I didn't realize that American audiences were such paragons of good taste in movies!

Battleship has been playing in NZ for a while now, but I just can't work up the interest to pay $10 to see just how bad it is. I'm amazed that the reviews weren't terrible though. And I do love some stupid action now and then as long as it is pretty.

[Harpua3]

I think it's looks possibly interesting, but will need more trailers.... However, it definately did not need a Battleship license.... They could have called it something else.. (Or maybe even Battleship and remove any references to the game).. Anyway could turn out to be a decent popcorn flic...

I don't know what they paid for the license, but I assure you it was too much!

[Harpua3]

nothing to do with Battleship,but i am sticking this here

Funny shit!

[Jiffy]

I have now sat down and spent 2 hours on this movie. It's been out here in NZ for a while. What can I say, it was a quiet Tuesday.

A little note about my movie tastes before my review - I'm pretty easy going when it comes to movies. I enjoyed stuff like ID4, Transformers 1 & 3 (the second I disliked though), Armageddon, etc. Great movies? Hah. But entertaining in their own right, especially with lots of explosions and characters that don't get in the way of the action.

Now, Battleship. I can't think of a movie I've seen theatres in the last 2 years (and I see quite a bit in theatre) that is worse that Battleship. It is flat out awful. The first 90 minutes of the film is just god-awful bad. Not bad in a fun way, just BAD. I hated the characters and wanted them all to die horrible fiery deaths. The decisions made are truly stupid. The writing is bad. The science involved make Armageddon look like it holds a PhD in physics. And I actually sympathized with the enemies a bit as:

Spoiler for Hiden:

The US fires first and were the aggressors, even if it was a 'warning' shot. Who would want to do that to an unknown alien race?! THAT YOU 'INVITED' HERE.

And then, in the last 3/4, the movie finally hit it's stride. I'm not kidding, it finally found the 'so bad it's funny' region. Really, I couldn't believe that:

Spoiler for Hiden:

the world is pretty much saved by senior citizens and the USS Missouri, a museum ship. That somehow could function still, with a 'skeleton' crew and a surprisingly well stocked armory

I wish I was kidding. It was SO terrible at that point I couldn't help but laugh at the reveal. From there, the movie just went all out at killing as many brain cells as it could, so it's quite fun. The special effects, for the most part, are above average.

For all of those that have waited your entire life for a movie to properly encapsulate playing Battleship (so, nobody), you will be pleased to know that, in some fashion or another, this movie contains:
The pegs
The grid system, calling out shots, along with a 'hit/miss' response.
A reference to the quote 'you sunk my battleship', though not a direct quote. Opportunity, missed.

Seriously, this is a bad, bad movie. How it got made in the first place is beyond me. And how is Taylor Kitsch the selling point of a $200M movie? He is one of the worst parts of the movie. Pretty much replace him with a piece of cardboard and you'll have something that can act better. Rihanna I could say the same thing for, but she wasn't the star anyways.

0.5/4 stars, just for the last 1/4 which provides some laughably bad entertainment value. The rest is just bad. That this movie is sitting around 50% on RT is absolutely baffling.

[Scraper]

And then, in the last 3/4, the movie finally hit it's stride. I'm not kidding, it finally found the 'so bad it's funny' region. Really, I couldn't believe that:

Spoiler for Hiden:

the world is pretty much saved by senior citizens and the USS Missouri, a museum ship. That somehow could function still, with a 'skeleton' crew and a surprisingly well stocked armory

It sound like they stole the plot directly from Battlestar Galactica, only set it on a boat and made it much worse. Almost like what we would get if the SciFi network made a bad movie about Battlestar Galactica and hired the director from Sharktopus.

[Bullwinkle]

And then, in the last 3/4, the movie finally hit it's stride. I'm not kidding, it finally found the 'so bad it's funny' region. Really, I couldn't believe that:

Spoiler for Hiden:

the world is pretty much saved by senior citizens and the USS Missouri, a museum ship. That somehow could function still, with a 'skeleton' crew and a surprisingly well stocked armory

It sound like they stole the plot directly from Battlestar Galactica, only set it on a boat and made it much worse.

Or Star Trek IV.

[Blackjack]

From Ebert's review (keeping in mind he gave the last Transformer film 1 star, he gives Battleship 2.5 stars)
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120516/REVIEWS/120519990

Of course, in the old B-movie tradition, our response to the alien visit is immediately military. There's not one word of discussion about the aliens possibly just making a social call. We invite them, they come and we open fire. This despite the fact that they're remarkably humanoid; when we finally remove the helmet from one alien's spacesuit, he turns out to look alarmingly like James Carville.  

The film is in the tradition of the "Transformers" movies, also based on Hasbro games, and you get the feeling that Hasbro showed director Peter Berg some Michael Bay movies and told him to go and do likewise. To his credit, "Battleship" is a more entertaining film than the "Transformers" titles, because it has slightly more fully fleshed characters, a better plot and a lot of naval combat strategy. The work of Gregory D. Gadson, as the disabled vet, is especially effective; he has a fierce screen presence. Rihanna is as convincing as the character allows, and Taylor Kitsch makes a sturdy if predictable hero.

But the nicest touch is that "Battleship" has an honest-to-God third act, instead of just settling for nonstop fireballs and explosions, as Bay likes to do. I don't want to spoil it for you. ...

[Isgrimnur]

The local mall multiplex has a midnight showing of this.  and What to Expect When Your Expecting.

[Scraper]

The local mall multiplex has a midnight showing of this.  and What to Expect When Your Expecting.

I would say expect a crappy movie. With both options.

[Punisher]

The wife and I saw this in the morning and we both liked it... for us it was a good fun cheesy action movie... yeah, there were parts of the plot that didn't make sense, but it was still a good romp.. quite a few references to the game, but I do think they didn't need the license at all... different title and no license and I think this may have been better received by a lot of people..... but definately a check your brain at the door type thing...

[PR_GMR]

I think this one's gonna bomb harder than 'John Carter'.

And it did: Barely broke $25 mil at the box office this weekend. 'John Carter' made $30.1 mil when it opened.

[Blackjack]

I think this one's gonna bomb harder than 'John Carter'.

And it did: Barely broke $25 mil at the box office this weekend. 'John Carter' made $30.1 mil when it opened.

To be fair (I know it's funny coming from a John Carter basher like me), Battleship is doing gangbusters international business, and they're going to have to hope that's enough to break even once marketing costs are thrown in.

Reviews have actually been far kinder to Battleship than for John Carter. I guess that's Taylor Kitsch progress. 

[hepcat]

I think this one's gonna bomb harder than 'John Carter'.

And it did: Barely broke $25 mil at the box office this weekend. 'John Carter' made $30.1 mil when it opened.

pr0ner will still insist it was a success, don't worry.   

[EngineNo9]

I think this one's gonna bomb harder than 'John Carter'.

And it did: Barely broke $25 mil at the box office this weekend. 'John Carter' made $30.1 mil when it opened.

Hooray, there is still a tiny bit of sanity in this world.