Wait a minute . . . - Down Periscope (1996) Discussion

[–] XLCH1000 17 years ago

It's just a movie. Lighten up. Hollywood is in the business of asking you to suspend your sense of realism for the sake of entertainment.
Things happen in a movie because they're SUPPOSED to happen that way, not because they really would. e.g. Dukes of Hazzard. When you see the General Lee drive off after making one of those spectacular jumps, you dont really believe it would happen that way in real life, do you? Of course not.

reply

[–] amazon423 17 years ago

The Dukes of Hazzard went through something like 600 Challengers during the run of the show. One jump and the frame was history. They had people taking down license plates of every Challenger they saw in Californis. It is a wonder any are left in Southern California now. The problem with people is that they can't seem to separate fact from fantasy. It is the same reason actors get attacked on the street when they play bad guys/girls on TV and the movies.

reply

[–] mlodewijk 16 years ago

Still, to add a little to this subject. Modern nuclear submarines, radar (above water), sonar (below), stationary sensors such as hydrophones, satellites etc. don't rule out the possibility that a rogue captain or perhaps even a rogue nation can pull off something serious.

I don't mean to sound all 'doomsday scenario like' but operating a piece of machinery such as a diesel sub, combined with skillfull operators (crew) and determination can go a long way. Diesels can be very stealthy for example.

The slightly more modern diesel subs, but even the older ones (e.g.: German type XXI) and even with outdated weaponry such as straight running torpedoes (as opposed to modern homing torpedoes) can wreak havoc when in the right (perhaps I should say wrong) hands.

Just my two cents.

reply

[–] ChakatBlackstar 16 years ago

Actually it was just over 300 Chargers between the series and later movies.

reply

[–] williamhastings2007 17 years ago

The premise is that the complacent naval heirarchy believe that the ports are secure. One admiral feels otherwise. And in true hollywood fashion, he proves himself correct. Which is preferable?

reply

[–] CGSailor 12 years ago

The premise is that the complacent naval heirarchy believe that the ports are secure.

In real life the upper echelons of the Naval Hierarchy are just that stupid.

The embarrassment and future Sailor deathtrap that is the LCS is a shining example.

1) interchangeable mission modules.
The Idea is to customize the LCS for the mission. you need an anti-air defense platform, there is a module for that. Need and Anti-Submarine ship? there is a module for that too etc..etc...
But the frigging enemy is not going to take a timeout and wait while LCS sails home to swap out modules when confronted with the wrong threat!

2) Automation reducing crew size and thus operating overhead.
Great, now when something really goes wrong like taking a hit in combat... there is not enough crew for damage repair and run the ship. Crews now on the LCS are taxed to the breaking point in peacetime sailing.

3) New weapons systems are behind schedual and still have significant technological obstacles that may not get solved.

4) corrosion.
Damned thing simply sailed from the East Coast to the West coast in transferring from where it was build and tested to it's homeport. In doing so.. this brand spanking new vessel arrives in a very sorry state of affairs looking for all the world as though it had been on constant patrol for 20 fraking years.

5) and far far too many systems problems and many other things to go into.

LCS is a deathtrap. yet the higher ups vying for political consideration to Congressmen whose districts are where many of the systems are being built, tout it as though the LCS program is the untouchable supership of the future.

LCS cannot fight it's way out of a wet paper bag.
Perfect example of stupidity at the top.

No one in the US Navy except for those at the top want, or believe in the LCS.
For them, LCS does not stand for Littoral Combat Ship.
it stands for Little Crappy Ship.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/littoral-combat-ship/

In less than two months, the Navy will send the first of its newest class of fighting ships on its first major deployment overseas. Problem is, according to the Pentagon’s chief weapons tester, the Navy will be deploying the USS Freedom before knowing if the so-called Littoral Combat Ship can survive, um, combat. And what the Navy does know about the ship isn’t encouraging: Among other problems, its guns don’t work right.

That’s the judgment of J. Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department’s director of operational test and evaluation, in an annual study sent to Congress on Friday and formally released Tuesday. Gilmore’s bottom line is that the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is still “not expected to be survivable” in combat. His office will punt on conducting a “Total Ship Survivability Test” for the first two LCSes to give the Navy time to complete a “pre-trial damage scenario analysis.” In other words, the Freedom will head on its first big mission abroad — maritime policing and counter-piracy around Singapore — without passing a crucial exam.

The systems the LCSs will carry, from their weapons to their sensors, compound the problem. The helicopters scheduled to be aboard the ship can’t tow its mine-hunting sensors, so the Navy is going to rely on robots instead — only the robots won’t be ready for years. And the faster the ship goes, the less accurate its guns become.

Gilmore’s new report stands by the 2011 assessment, though it sands down the rough edges. “LCS is not expected to be survivable,” it finds, “in that it is not expected to maintain mission capability after taking a significant hit in a hostile combat environment.” Additionally, Gilmore discloses that the Navy has “knowledge gaps related to the vulnerability of an aluminum ship structure to weapon-induced blast and fire damage,” but that it won’t conduct tests for those vulnerabilities until later this year or next year.

It might also not be able to depend on all of its weapons in a fight. The 30mm gun on board the Freedom “exhibit[s] reliability problems.” The 57mm gun on both the Freedom and its sister ship, the differently designed USS Independence, is apparently worse: “Ship operations at high speeds cause vibrations that make accurate use of the 57 mm gun very difficult,” Gilmore finds. Worse news for the Freedom: Its integrated weapons systems and air/surface search radar have “performance deficiencies” that affect the ship’s “tracking and engagement of contacts.”

Fighting close to shore is only one of the missions that the LCS, a ship designed so the Navy can “plug and play” different sensors and weapons systems as technology improves, is expected to perform. Another is mine-hunting — which the Freedom won’t do in Singapore. Problem is, the Pentagon’s weapons testers gave the LCS’ mine-hunting package a failing grade last year, and this one isn’t much better.

This time around, Gilmore’s office found that the MH-60 Seahawks intended to launch from the LCS minehunters can’t “safely tow” the sonar suites that scan for underwater mines. So the Navy has scrapped the plan to put the “underpowered” helicopters aboard the LCS for minehunting. That’s left a “gap in organic mine sweeping capability” on the LCS, the report states.

The Navy’s plan to address that gap depends on the Unmanned Influence Sweep System, a semi-autonomous undersea robot that will spoof the acoustic and magnetic signals of big ships to compel the mines to detonate when Navy ships aren't in range. Problem is, as Danger Room reported earlier this month, the Navy is just getting ready to solicit industry bids to build the robot. That gap in mine-sweeping capability is likely to last years — and that’s if the robot successfully speeds through the development and acquisition process.

Here is a video of LCS. It is BRAND NEW and all it did was transfer from Norfolk to San Diego. Compare it's corrosion to the Carrier behind it which is 37 years old.
http://youtu.be/D0Glx90w-Pw

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] ChakatBlackstar 16 years ago

The test showed that the Navy ports were vulnerable. But it's better that the one that gets through is a US testing vehicle, rather then some rogue with a Russian sub. It's like how car companies crash test vehicles to find out what safety features work and what doesn't. They hope the features are never needed but it's better to know if they'll work, or not work as the case may be. In this situation there is no looser(except for the Admiral Graham fellow), just information that will help improve the Navy's defense. That's the whole point of wargames in general. You figure out what doesn't work now, so you can alter your strategy so you can kick butt later.

reply

[–] CGSailor 16 years ago

Lets ignore the FACT that this is a fictional COMEDY for a moment and examine the real world basis behind the plot and your concerns.

The US Navy was wargaming this scenario to determine IF their ports were vulnerable from this type of threat. According to the movie plot... they were and therefore Dodge won. Now keeping with this... The Navy would now take steps to close and remove those vulnerabilities that allowed him to win. That was the point of the exercise.

Now in real life can this happen?
who knows.
I don't know for certain as I am not privy to all the highly classified equipment and measures that are being taken to protect against this threat.

But I can tell you this.
No matter how good the technology is
No matter how well trained the crew is.
the Crew is human and humans make assumptions and mistakes.
Even in the best of circumstances.

Orlando's Sonar detected the Stingray right off the bat at the very beginning.
But because the crew did not expect a Diesel Sub, and because most Diesel subs have two screws and Stingray was running on one, and because they were on the surface in bad weather at night, and showing a navigation light configuration of a fishing boat rather than running under "Darken Ship" conditions, The Orlando's crew made an error and deduced that the contact was a Fishing boat. The Captain concurred and compounded the problem.

It is called Scotoma, The mind sees what it expects to see rather than what is.

I have personally seen this happen aboard my ship where we were administratively "killed" by two Exocet Anti-Ship Missiles fired from less than 9nm away all because an Ensign standing AAWC, decided a low/slow radar contact was a CNN News Chopper despite the fact that I had been warning him ever since the contact was over 50nm out that I had an ORB-32 Fire Control radar from that contact (I was an EW)
Note to landlubbers: Civilian News Choppers dont carry fire control radars

The Ensigns sole basis for his deciding it was a News chopper and ignoring my input... We were told in the scenario brief that SOMETIME during the excercise there MIGHT be a News chopper that will do a flyby to get some stock video footage of a US Warship.

The very first low/slow contact evaluated as a Helicopter, this guy aoutomatically assumes was the Civvie despite warnings and indications to the contrary.

Now my example was in training. My ship at the time was actually tied up to Peir 4 at 32nd st. Naval Station, San Diego.

But another realworld event resulted in a terrible tragedy that cost 290 civilian lives.
1988, Persian Gulf
USS Vincennes CG-49

Equipment limitations, an Enemy that was attacking from small boats, an expected air threat to back up the boats, confusing indications from IFF, Lack of radio response from the target, miscommunications and the Scotoma effect I mentioned, all lead the crew of the Vincennes, including Captain Rogers and even Admiral Less in Bahrain to wrongly conclude that the Air contact that was relentlessly closing the Vincennes while she was under attack by Iranian Boghammers, was an Iranian F-14 Tomcat on an attack run.
It wasn't.

It was Iran Air Flight 655 (an AIRBUS A300) with 290 souls aboard enroute from Bandar Abbas Iran to Dubai, UAE.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] Chaophim 11 years ago

Hey, fellow squid... Ever been on base during a SEAL training mission where they take control of the barracks as a 'wargame' to test security?

I have.

I remember once when our standing watch failed to check IDs and waved a handful of 'generic' sailors, both in uniform and civvies plus a pizza delivery guy through to the lounge while chatting up a couple of girls.

I was on my way out as they were on their way in, the sailors and the pizza guy revealed themselves to be the SEAL team we had been all but warned to expect and announced that everyone in the lobby was dead.

Like you said, the weakest link in the security chain is the one made of meat.

*shrugs*

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

Actually I have, but not for a shore based barracks. Seals would from time to time attempt shipboard infiltration of warships at the Naval Station piers.

We would even be notified in advance and allow us to set up additional security measures (and to insure no one gets shot for real in a mistake).

One thing I saw our command do was to put additional "anti-swimmer" lights around the side. The Anti-swimmer lights are probably the most idiotic thing I have ever seen and I wonder if they ever got around to changing them.

The Antiswimmer lights I speak of was a small florescent bulb and weather shield on the end of a 3 foot pole that attached to and stuck out from the side of the main deck. It had the effect of lighting up the side of the vessel and the water's surface near it's placement. A series of such lights placed around the sides of the ship was to prevent a swimmer from approaching the ship and climbing aboard without being spotted.

The problem is the light just reflects off the glassy and often oily surface of the waters found in the harbor. This precludes any spotting of someone or something approaching UNDERwater.

A better Idea was to place the lights in waterproof housings and place them just beneath the waters surface. This would light up the surrounding waters much as a pool light will light up a swimming pool. It would still illuminate the surface for any approaching enemies as well as light up the underwater environs against those approaching by SCUBA.

When the SEALS did their raids, they always succeeded.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] Doc80 9 years ago

Yeah, the reason he wins is due to luck as much as it is strategy.

reply

[–] CGSailor 9 years ago

Yeah, the reason he wins is due to luck as much as it is strategy.

In real life, Luck plays a HUGE role in the outcome of battles.

When charging into battle, don't worry about the bullet with your name on it. Worry about the one addressed, "To whom it may concern."

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] garrisonaw 12 years ago

It seems to me that the whole point of the exercise actually had nothing to do with defending against a diesel sub. The whole thing was a ruse.

Admiral Graham made it quite obvious right from the start that his trying to prevent Tom Dodge from acquiring his own command was a personal matter, and it became even more obvious and more personal throughout the movie, as Graham behaved progressively more and more unprofessionally. Admiral Winslow merely concocted the most ridiculous exercise possible to demonstrate what he himself obviously already knew - that despite being a bit unorthodox, Lt. Cmdr. Dodge was more than ready and able to take on the responsibility of command. He even allowed Admiral Graham to personally choose for Dodge the worst possible collection of crew members - even including a woman on a submarine as an added distraction for the men - so that it would be that much more embarrassing when Dodge came out on top.

And Admiral Winslow's smirk at Admiral Graham at the end kind of said it all... "There, you wanted to make it a personal matter? Fine. It's personal - your person."

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 12 years ago

The thing is, the threat is quite legitimate. Diesel subs really do pose a threat to us, and are becoming increasingly common even among non-state actors like the drug cartels.

"You feel the way the boat moves? The sunlight on your skin? That’s real. Life is wonderful."

reply

[–] garrisonaw 12 years ago

Don't misunderstand me - I'm not disputing that the threat is a very real possibility. Particularly because they really can pick up old diesels pretty cheap with the right connections.

However, if the point of the exercise in the movie had been the detection and elimination of a diesel sub, then wouldn't Cmdr. Knox have been given a little more to go on than just "an unknown submarine that will try to invade the harbour"? It just seems to me that it was Adm. Winslow's way of showing Adm. Graham that a little unorthodox can be a good thing. If you always go by the book, some guy's gonna come along that doesn't go by the book, and he's gonna blow your azimuth right out of the water.

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

However, if the point of the exercise in the movie had been the detection and elimination of a diesel sub, then wouldn't Cmdr. Knox have been given a little more to go on than just "an unknown submarine that will try to invade the harbour"?

Absolutely not.
That would skew the test unfavorably and not be realistic.

The test was not about detecting and sinking a diesel submarine.
It was about our ability to detect and sink an UNEXPECTED threat.
If they were to tell Knox it was a Diesel sub, it would not then be unexpected now would it?

YOU can see this bias at work when Sonar tells him that it was classified as a diesel motor and Knox responds with, "Well if it's a diesel then it's not a submarine"
Knox was not thinking outside the box against all possibilities and was instead relying upon his own internal assumptions. That is EXACTLY what the test was working to reveal.

And as I have noted before in other posts that is a VERY REAL assumption as I have personally watched it happen under similar but different circumstances.

During a training scenario aboard my ship (USS Halsey CG-23) We were going through a defensive exercise. The exercise is that we were underway in the Persian Gulf. NO expected threats, no intelligence on any particular hostile units. Typical day in the gulf.
The only piece of hard intel we were given was that a Civilian News Chopper was going to come by later in the day to get some stock B-roll footage of our ships in the gulf for their news stories.

Not 10 minutes into the scenario we pick up on radar a low and slow contact coming from the Al Faw Peninsula. We were receiving no IFF modes and codes from it. Based on it's flight profile of low and slow, it was tentatively labeled as a helicopter. The radar contact was a long ways out but closing with our vessel.

This fresh Ensign was in training as AAWC (Anti-Air Warfare Coordinator, Pronounced A-wick). He immediately designated it as a friendly air, assuming this was the News Chopper we were told to expect.

A few minutes later after no radio contact with the helo and no IFF (which a Civilian flight MUST have)... I, in my capacity as the EW, picked up radar emissions from what I evaluated as an ORB-32 Fire Control radar. the bearing line of the transmission was exactly the same as the "Friendly" Helo. No other radar contacts were on the same line of bearing (LOB)

The ORB-32 FCR is carried on a couple of different Military attack helicopters, both in the Iraqi inventory and both capable of carrying Exocet anti-ship missiles.

Me: "TAO, AAWC... EW. new ESM contact bearing 348, ORB-32 Fire Control radar. Possible correlation to track number (The "friendly" helo). Track is possible Iraqi Super Frelon or Super Puma. Be advised, both are possible Exocet carriers."

AAWC responded back in the negative. That the contact was a civilian. He completely discounted our ESM contact.

Despite later maneuvers that showed the ESM bearing remained constant to the bearing of the track. Despite our reporting of the ORB-32 changing from search to targeting mode. He continued to base his actions on his assumptions from earlier intel rather than what we were directly reporting to him. I even went so far as to "inform" him that Civilian choppers do not carry fire control radars.

No avail, his mind was made up.
We were administratively "Killed" by two Exocets fired at less than 9 nautical miles range. Zero reaction time for defensive measures.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] Cairo-5 11 years ago

However, if the point of the exercise in the movie had been the detection and elimination of a diesel sub, then wouldn't Cmdr. Knox have been given a little more to go on than just "an unknown submarine that will try to invade the harbour"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely not.
That would skew the test unfavorably and not be realistic.

The test was not about detecting and sinking a diesel submarine.
It was about our ability to detect and sink an UNEXPECTED threat.
If they were to tell Knox it was a Diesel sub, it would not then be unexpected now would it?

YOU can see this bias at work when Sonar tells him that it was classified as a diesel motor and Knox responds with, "Well if it's a diesel then it's not a submarine"
Knox was not thinking outside the box against all possibilities and was instead relying upon his own internal assumptions. That is EXACTLY what the test was working to reveal.

I didn't see this one despite the subject matter.

But don't tell me they had a submarine operating on diesel while submerged!!!!!

***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

It wasn't while they were submerged but running on the surface.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] Cairo-5 11 years ago

Okay. Valid points all around.

Valid about running the diesel while surfaced.

Valid about structuring the exercise so there are some elements that are not just given to the surface guys and they'll have to figure out for themselves.

Valid about how it really does happen in real life that some people can't think outside their personal bias about how things are supposed to be.

I just assumed that if you're going to use a submarine to try to "invade" a harbor you'd want to utilize the special capabilities that make it an effective weapon.

It's not much of a challenge to detect and eliminate a submarine that's running on the surface.

But then, when we were doing exercises with the ASW aviators from VA and NC they always loaded the dice against us and wouldn't allow us to do some of the things we were capable of doing to avoid detection.

***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

But then, when we were doing exercises with the ASW aviators from VA and NC they always loaded the dice against us and wouldn't allow us to do some of the things we were capable of doing to avoid detection.

Because if they didn't handicap you bubbleheads, it'd be like clubbing baby seals for you guys. The point of the exercise was to train the ASW guys. For you, it was just another day at the office.

You know how most Surface ASW exercises are concluded?

"Bridge, Port lookout. Green flare bearing 242, 600 yards"

It's not much of a challenge to detect and eliminate a submarine that's running on the surface.

Sure... If you know you are looking for a Diesel sub on the surface.
If you are expecting to go up against another nuke sub.... Any surface traffic with diesel motors is going to be ignored other than as a potential hazard to navigation in case you had to emergency surface.

I just assumed that if you're going to use a submarine to try to "invade" a harbor you'd want to utilize the special capabilities that make it an effective weapon.

You know full well (or you should) an old diesel boat cannot remain submerged indefinitely, not even for a few days at a time. 24 hours tops, and that's if she is nearly lying to. Making bare steerageway and conserving her battery. Balao and all your other WW2 Fleet Boats were in reality Surface vessels designed to submerge for the attack or to evade. Not like your modern subs which are true submarines only coming up to the surface to enter port or for some special evolution.

Though in a comedic way, I think he used the sub's "special capabilities" just fine to evade and approach. You'd want to have the batteries topped off as much as possible (which meant running on the surface) so that you had a full can when it came time to pull the plug and sneak into the harbor.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] Cairo-5 11 years ago

Okay, I still have the disadvantage (which I intend to retain) of not having seen the movie, and therefore not being aware of exactly what was portrayed.

As far as the ASW exercises go, we always had a couple of aviators riding with us to observe things from our side. They would usually arrange a bull session with us in the crew's mess at some point. They were nice guys who knew their business and those sessions were interesting and informative.

But there was a little bit of frustration on our part when they would brag about how they could locate and track us almost 50 percent of the time. We really did want give them the full treatment of what we could do and then see what their percentage would be.

Now for the sake of not arguing but just stating my position I'm going to explain to the readership some things that I'm sure you already know.

As for the diesel boats their operations were built around one all important imperative--keep the battery fully charged as long as you can. For that you need the diesel generator. And the diesel needs lots of air. So you run on the surface or at periscope depth and deploy the snorkel mast. Then when enemy ships or planes appear you shut down the diesel and crash dive.

That's why diesel boats had a knife shaped hull, which was very inefficient for underwater propulsion, but had the essential advantage of being able to dive very quickly.

By keeping the battery fully charged by running on the surface or at periscope depth when it is safe to do so, you ensure that when you do have to dive you will have the maximum possible time available to stay submerged.

But the question for an operation that involves penetrating an enemy harbor is when do you need to be submerged? If you don't care if the other guys know you're coming and can detect you before you get there, then you might as well just send a surface ship and back it up with enough fire power to duke it out with whatever they throw at you.

But if you want to sneak in undetected, which I presume is the reason for sending a submarine, you might want to submerge before they know you're in the vicinity, and you might want to do some prior planning to ensure that you will be able to what you have to do to achieve success. Like being able to do what you have to do in the amount of time that will be available for remaining under water.

It's not advisable to try to win by being luckier than the other side. Maybe their man thinks if you detect a diesel it can't be a submarine. But it's better to do everything you can to make sure he doesn't even detect the diesel.

***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

Okay, I still have the disadvantage (which I intend to retain)

Trust me, if you are a former Dolphin wearer, you are doing yourself a disservice.

You'll love it in the same way Cops LOVE Reno 911 and Super troopers.
It is a comedy and not meant to take itself seriously. It is F'ing hilarious.

It's not advisable to try to win by being luckier than the other side. Maybe their man thinks if you detect a diesel it can't be a submarine. But it's better to do everything you can to make sure he doesn't even detect the diesel.

As you said, you haven't seen the movie.
They did more than just cross their fingers and hope the other guy makes a bad assumption.

They used deceptive lighting techniques among other things to trick them into thinking they were a fishing trawler.

It was dark, overcast and heavy rain and swells on the surface.
They light up the navigation lights as well as rigged a worklight strung from the top of the raised periscope.
They intentionally lit off ONE Diesel Engine (A Balao has four) and trailed a screw. Then he got the whole crew together and as loudly as they could, started singing like drunken revelers at a party.

They heard a single screw diesel powered surface ship, Periscope saw only the lit up and altered lighting configuration through the dark and the squalls. And Passive sonar overheard the yelling and reveling.

Based upon all the information he had, the CO assumed he came across a bunch of "Beered up fishermen"

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] Cairo-5 11 years ago

I appreciate the information. It does sound interesting.

My movie preferences are what they are and one of the factors with me is that I don't trust Hollywood. When they get their hands on a subject matter that is special to me my instinctive reaction is that I don't want to see what they did with it.

But what you describe does sound good.

I have one request and I think you will agree it's a very reasonable and understandable request.

If in the future we have a discussion that falls along similar lines I would very much appreciate it if you would say, "since you are a former Dolphin wearer" and not "if you are a former Dolphin wearer."

***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

If in the future we have a discussion that falls along similar lines I would very much appreciate it if you would say, "since you are a former Dolphin wearer" and not "if you are a former Dolphin wearer."

That came out wrong and was taken wrong. I did not intend to cast doubt upon you. My apologies.
If you reread it with "you" being used in the non-specific plural, you'll see what I was trying to say, not "you" as in YOU you.
Poor choice of wording on my part.

I Agree with you concerning:

and one of the factors with me is that I don't trust Hollywood. When they get their hands on a subject matter that is special to me my instinctive reaction is that I don't want to see what they did with it.

One of the reasons I tear to shreds the series "Last Resort"

Hollywood does screw it up. And insultingly so.
But that is for dramas attempting to be "realistic" and serious.

A well done comedy on the other hand is INTENTIONALLY a caricature of the real thing. It is intended that you look at it and laugh at yourself.
In this... Down Periscope captures the fun and insanity of life in the Navy.
It's worth it.
http://youtu.be/u_Mx1kA3irk

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] CGSailor 9 years ago

Old thread but I came across it again and a better choice of wording came to me concerning your concern over Hollywood screwing it up..

I mentioned that Down Periscope is a Caricature..

When it comes to dramas you are spot on. A Drama tries to emulate real life and when it doesn't, the mistakes are glaring. It's like having a Portrait painted and the artist screws up the nose.

But No one is expecting a Caricature to be a portrait, to be an imitation of real life.
A Caricature by it's very nature is an unrealistic drawing.

But what makes a good caricature... is the exaggerated TRUTHS revealed in that very unrealism.

It's why Cops Love Reno 911 but Hate CSI
It's Why Doctor's love Scrubs but Hate Grey's Anatomy
And it is why I and a great many other Veterans love Down Periscope, McHale's navy, Mr. Roberts... and other Comedies, but Cannot stand shows like Last Resort, or The Last Ship.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] iagrmc 9 years ago

You're dead on with your assessment. As a cop, my favorite film ABOUT cops is Super Troopers. By far.

reply

[–] CGSailor 9 years ago

My brother, A Texas Law Enforcement Officer, actually pulled the Meow game during a traffic stop with a cadet in tow.

My brother was an FTI.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] CGSailor 9 years ago

He also gasses his car at the same station Deputy Goforth did.

He was driving the lead car in the procession playing Taps on the PA.

You stay safe out there.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] iagrmc 9 years ago

Will do man. Appreciate it.

reply