When they blast through the room in the ship and rescue one of their soldiers. Instead of killing everybody in the room easily, they just leave. That tells me that they had no intention of taking over the planet. They just wanted to phone home.
shareThe force field around Hawaii proves the aliens were hostile. If you are non-hostile and you just want to phone home, you don't capture a large chunk of territory with thousands and thousands of natives. Explain how the force field is not hostile, and I'll buy that the aliens were good guys. It has to be a reasonable explanation though, that sounds plausible and stands up to logic. Good luck.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
Ok try think of this then. The Aliens heard our signal from deep space, traced it back to us and think hey lets go kick it with these new homies on Earth. They spash down in Hawaii where the signal came from and are instantly greeted by hundreds of war ships in the pacific due to the Rinpac Jamboree or whatever its called. So they go holy *beep* these earthlings are hostile s.o.b's lets put up our forcefields for protection and use their satellite array to call our boys for backup so we can get the hell out of here. And because us aliens have a little honor we wont mess with any of them unless they mess with us first.
There are things that go bump in the night and we are the ones that bump back
Michaeljburnside, I have to congratulate you on a really good effort and if the aliens had moved their ships to a place where there were no hostile earthlings and put up the force field, I would say you were making good sense. However, it is not logical for the aliens to feel threatened and alarmed and put up a force field with thousands and thousands of the alarming humans INSIDE. Sorry, but that scenario just doesn't work.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
I prefer to go with Occam's Razor on these issues.
The explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is that the aliens were a recon/vanguard touching down to form a beach head.. Any other explanation requires more assumptions and reading into spurious details. Basically, what's most obvious is usually what's true.
They came to start a fight. Now that doesn't mean they're evil or individuals among them all want to wantonly destroy humans. Within every military there exists individuals who get a thrill out of power and killing, and those that try to keep the mayhem to a minimum. They could have just been grunts doing their job, and not all hard up to murder people. That doesn't make them the good guys, though, and that doesn't mean they weren't here to prep an invasion. They may just have rules of engagement like we do that preclude massacring civilian populations.
Good post, Darkryder. Very logical.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
Interesting comment. It appears that the aliens were targeting hostile actions (indicated by the red color of the target)and green for non hostile. Also, when an alien confronts the young boy playing baseball, it determines that he is a living creature (beating heart)and does not kill him. Very strange for blood thirsty invaders.
shareIt appears that the aliens were targeting hostile actions (indicated by the red color of the target)and green for non hostile.
Just going to ignore the cops driving on the mountain who didn't do anything hostile to provoke the aliens, aren't you? You're just going to pretend those cops didn't exist, because the aliens killed them before they even saw them coming. And you don't like that, because killing someone who doesn't even see you is a bloodthirsty thing to do.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
I agree there are inconsistencies in the way these aliens behave: blood thirsty towards some but humane toward others. Is this the result of a sloppy screen play or is there some hidden meaning?
shareI think it's the result of a VERY sloppy screenplay. I read a few things about the movie to the effect that the aliens were supposed to be miners, not conquerors, although the humans were only supposed to be miners in Avatar and they were pretty bloodthirsty. And the script wound up having a lot of inconsistency because they could never quite decide how to portray the aliens. I think it's pretty clear the aliens were up to no good, because they didn't try to talk to us, they tried to commandeer our technology, they put up a giant force field around the Hawaiian Islands, and they killed those cops with no provocation. The times they refrained from killing could have been to conserve resources-they were a long way from home. And the alien who let the scientist go is an anomaly, but even in real life, not all soldiers are equally eager to kill. It could also be that this particular alien was not a soldier at all, but a medic or some other non-combatant support person who never wanted to kill anybody.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
They were using machines (driving cars).
Machines appear to be seen as weapons. As threats.
Look at their machines.
As for the forcefield, they set it up to lock in the Hawaiian mountains with the communication dishes. Not for the people or land/resources (i.e. slaves or oil).
In scale to the Earth, it was a small area. Keep out BILLIONS of natives and their machines while limiting the one's inside the 'secure area'.
The aliens were just in a 'Black Hawk Down' situation.
Spielberto, when you come up with a rational explanation as to why you think the aliens had the right to restrict access to OUR technology, you might have a point. As it is, all you're doing is rehashing the same tired old argument that the aliens had the right to kill anybody in the way of them phoning home. Never mind that it wasn't their phone and the people they killed were innocent-just defend the aliens at all costs, is that it?
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
I believe WE blasted ('attacked') a 'sound weapon' at them FIRST. Which they RESPONDED to with their own version. Then WE fired a shell at them. Which they then RESPONDED to with their own.
At this point, they naturally feel that they have landed in a hostile environment with a hostile population. They aren't going to politely ask hostiles if they can use their phone. They are going to secure a perimeter and use/take whatever they can to call for help and get out of there.
Following your logic, the air crew in Black Hawk Down were clearly murderous invaders who wanted to take over Mogidishu and wipe out the indigenous population or they would have simply asked to use the phone after their Black Hawk was shot at by the natives.
Seeing as how they landed in our ocean and sat there with no attempt to communicate for a number of hours, I think it's safe to say they didn't want to talk to us. That's your idea of trying to be friendly? Show up in someone's house and not say a word for hours and then attack them when they try to start a conversation?
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
Think about what you typed.
They landed in the ocean.......AND SAT THERE. They didn't launch an attack on us.
WE came out to them and did what again? Blasted what to them might have been a sound weapon (albeit a very very piddly weak one). Or maybe they didn't realize that their own horn was going to be damaging to our inferior transports. No ill intent. Then we shot an explosive shell at them.
As for us, that's your idea of being friendly? Your car breaks down and when some rednecks drive up blare their horn at you, you honk back, then they shoot their shotguns at you. Yeah, why don't you go ask for a ride to the nearest phone? Why would you interpret these hillbillies to be dangerous and hostile?
Here you were, sitting on the side of the road (ocean/earth) minding your own buisness, trying to figure out how you're gonna get home, how you can call for a ride, and the Ye-haw gang shows up and goes berserk.
"Don't start none, won't be none."
Don't talk like a fool. If they were friendly, they wouldn't just sit there. They would have made some attempt to communicate. And their physiology was approximately similar to ours-same basic biology, so of course they knew their horn would hurt us. I suppose your solution would be to just ignore the alien spaceships sitting around until they decided to do something? You seem to have ignored the aliens killing the cops on the mountain-the cops who did nothing to provoke them and didn't even know they were there. You also seem to have ignored the many innocent people killed on the freeways when the aliens destroyed them.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
Yes, because just sitting there is CLEARLY a hostile act. You should have seen all the hostile people that were in the theater. They all must have been plotting to take over the city!!!!!!
Why didn't they try to communicate with us? Hmmm, maybe because ,AS THEY SAY IN THE FILM, the aliens communication ship was destroyed upon entry to earth? You know, the whole reason they had to acquire OUR communication means?
The cops/humans, again, AFTER OTHER HUMANS ATTACKED them?
By your argument about the people on the bridge, the USA was an evil hostile invading race in IRAQ or Germany because they bombed innocents instead of checking on them each one by one.
Those cops and those people on those bridges in the movie died because the Humans shot at the Aliens, who were just sitting there, first.
Don't start none, won't be none.
The alien communication ship was supposed to communicate with outer space. If the aliens were friendly, they would have made an attempt to communicate. You obviously cannot refute this argument or you would have by now. And you haven't been able to refute that killing the cops, unprovoked, was a hostile action. You also ignore that the aliens were only on the mountain killing cops in the first place because they wanted to use our technology. Using our technology without even trying to ask to use it is a hostile act. I'm not surprised you ignore that.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
So when you have a car accident and are sitting in a ditch on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere, it's YOUR responsibility to reach out to the locals? If you don't then you somehow MUST be hostile and planning to take over the nearest town and wipe out all the locals?
I HAVE refuted your 'points'. You just choose to ignore THAT.
Answer me one question: Who shot at who FIRST?
That's what it all comes down to. Not who tried to contact who first. Not who was sitting doing nothing where.
Who SHOT at who FIRST?
After that everything the aliens did was justifiable self-defense in an effort to leave the backworld-hillbilly-shotgun-shooting world of Earth.
Here's Battleship done without the aliens:
Your car breaks down in the middle of nowhere.
After hours, some hilbillies start driving up.
You stand up and wave.
Hillbillies honk at you.
You honk back. Honk-honk-honk!
Jethro: "Who's he think he is honking at US?! If that there cityboy was so innocent he would have come to a house and asked for help! He's up ta sumptin' a bet! Prolly one of those big city preverts you hear about! Wants yer sister, Jeb!"
Jeb: "Yeah! Teach 'im a lesson, Jethro!"
Jethro and Jeb start shooting at you.
You think, "What da @#*&!!!" and get the gun out of your trunk and shoot back.
Oh look YOU'RE the BAD GUY!
You head into the woods and see other loud ATVs with ye-haws being yelled from them. Do you A: let them continue to hunt you, or do you B: push some boulders or logs down the hills at them?
You come to a shack with a cell phone. You see more dirty barely dressed hillbillies inside. Do you A: ask politely if you can use the cell phone? or do you B: bust in, hold them at bay with your gun, use the phone to call for help so you can get the ef out of this hostile environment and leave these apes to kiss their sisters?
Following your logic, those hillbilies are heroes and you, the city guy, is an evil murderous conquorer who has no goal less than the mass murder of every backwoods person in the state.
You make no sense at all. Coming up with elaborate scenarios about car wrecks and hillbillies does not refute the point that the aliens came to this planet and made no effort to contact the native intelligent life forms. You only come into someone's house and don't try to talk to them if you're up to no good.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
Zanza, did you rewatch the movie. I am sure the Aliens tried many times to communicate, yet failed to do so given the fact that the only intelligent people in charge in front of them (the good brother) got killed, leaving only the stupid reckless brother and the crazy japanese officer facing them.
Official Sock Puppet of Harry_Plinkett™
I have seen the movie several times. The aliens landed in the ocean and just sat there, making no attempt at all to communicate. Do you come to an alien world with peaceful intentions and make no attempt to communicate?
The aliens put up a giant force field encompassing the Hawaiian islands when Alex touched their ship. If you have arrived at a planet with peaceful intentions, do you capture a large chunk of territory when a native knocks on your door?
The aliens ripped the cops on the mountains apart. If you are peaceful and you need to call home, do you kill people to get to the phone-a phone that you've made no attempt to ask to use?
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
OK OK. I got your point about that.
I just want to make a try, OK. I'll defend your point of view and you try to defend mine, if you agree.
So, I begin. We have aliens coming to Earth, apparently after they caught the signal we humans sent towards their planet. Even the scientists knew it was a bad idea given the fact that every alien race capable of travelling to our planet would be like colonization of america, this time humans impersonating the indians (and the americans know what they did to the natives in america).
One of their 5 ships kamikaze on Hong Kong, killing 30 000 people, which is considered an hostile action by the world leaders. I mean, you cannot be a good guy if your first action is to kill humans as soon as you arrive !
4 alien ships arrive unhurt to the ocean and land close to Hawai, where the signal originates from. One boarding party is sent and is electrocuted at the arrival, which shows aggressive protection measures for the alien ship. So it's clearly established they do not want to establish contact with the Humans. They also establish a defense shield around their ships which goes all around Hawai and isolates the people inside of it.
After the american destroyer tries to establish contact, they send their sound wave that damages the ships systems and injures many sailors.
After the american ship sends a warning shot, they blow up the canon, which is an agressive action. When 2 of the ships open fires with all their guns, they destroy both completely, killing hundreds. Clear hostile action.
Then, they send a small armed force to capture the antenna to send a phone call to home (supposedly). They destroy the local military and communication infrastructures at the same time, killing many people in the process, including the cops in the mountain heading towards the communication coumpound.
So we have as agressive actions :
- Destruction of Hong Kong.
- Sinking of two out of three of the Destroyers
- Destruction of the aircrafts on Henderson Field with visible casualties.
- Destruction of one CV aircraft, killing the pilot.
- Destruction of the Highway with very probable casualties.
- Killing of two police officers in unknown cicumstances.
- Capturing Hawai and trapping all what is inside.
It's definitely an aggression, even though their motives are unclear.
- Do they want to establish a beachhead ?
- Do they come for our "oil" ?
- Are they a scouting party ?
What we know is they definitely want our comsats. They show that they are ready to take any action to avoid their project to get stopped. They even end up destroying the third destroyer, killing again hundreds. These aliens are dead serious in their action and have to be considered as threats, and therefor needs to be annihilated.
OK, now, your turn. I've presented all the agressions seen on screen that justifies your point of view, and I agree they can be interpreted that way. Please, play the game with me and try to interpret it the way I see it. Do you agree ?
Please, try to think about all what is shown on screen that might be interpreted the other way around.
Official Sock Puppet of Harry_Plinkett™
Tragent, I do appreciate your effort but I honestly cannot think of anything that shows the alien force was anything but hostile. Although I would have to disagree that the destruction in Hong Kong was hostile-that was an accident from the aliens hitting the satellite. How they could fly light years with no problem and then run into a satellite is beyond me, but it was an accident.
I do think not all the aliens were "on board" with the invasion. The small alien who let the scientist go was clearly not a bloodthirsty killer, and it makes me wonder if perhaps the aliens are engaging in a conflict that their people are not in agreement with. I think it's possible that these particular aliens were marauders-perhaps the vision Hopper saw was them attacking their own world and escaping. Maybe they're a space version of pirates, and the alien who let the scientist go is a prisoner forced to work for them. I know I'm speculating wildly here, but perhaps that particular alien has valuable skills, like a doctor, and they were captured and now they're stuck. And they're not going to kill anybody, because that's not who these people really are.
I think it would be a great sequel if it turns out the alien civilization is actually a peaceful one, they've been plagued by these marauders too, and they come to Earth because we successfully fought them off. Maybe we're the first people who succeeded in defeating a group of these aliens, and the peaceful civilization wants our help in getting the rest of them.
Well, that's my speculations. I'm sorry I can't find anything in the movie that can be interpreted differently than a hostile force, but I do think the alien who let the scientist go was a completely peaceful person. That one was not only not hostile, but opens up all kinds of possibilities about why these bloodthirsty invaders would have such a person with them. And if there was one who was not hostile, there were probably others in the force who weren't hostile.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
Well, I noticed other "limited hostile" aliens : the rescue party to save the captured alien did not kill anybody.
And that Alien in armor wandering through the ship with his blowtorch, trying to neutralize the ship. He didn't kill anybody either if I remember correctly.
I am really surprised WHY ?
Official Sock Puppet of Harry_Plinkett™
I think the rescue party is ambiguous at best. They didn't kill anyone because their focus was to save their friend. And the alien trying to destroy the engine-he started out with sabotage and went into kill mode pretty quick when he was stopped in his destructive purpose. I'm not saying they were insane killing machines. I'm saying I can't find very much about them that was not aggressive towards humans, except for the alien who let the scientist go. This opens up larger possibilities about the civilization, not the force that landed on Earth.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
Lol "intelligent life forms". Really?
shareOMG!!! I loved the analogous hillbilly scene! This afternoon, I was feeling down in the dumps and started watching "Battleship" just to distract myself. It had already started, however, and the scene with some guys pulling off an alien helmet had just started. I watched until fellow aliens rescued him.
The fact that the aliens didn't kill the sailors was intriguing, so I decided to stop and catch a later showing of the movie on HBO so that I could see it from the beginning. I came to IMDB to check out reviews and after reading a few reviews I changed my mind. However, your very funny post cheered me up so much that I was no longer feeling down, so thanks!!! ;)
Too bad it's such a flawed analogy, but if it cheered you up, then it finally had a purpose.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
If the aliens were friendly, they would have made an attempt to communicate.
If you think Star Trek 1 is an acceptable way to explain away aliens sitting around for hours and making no attempt to communicate, more power to you. Every movie has to stand on its own merits-this movie showed aliens coming to Earth and violently attacking the humans. This is not a movie about miscommunication. This is a movie about violent intruders being fought off by brave natives.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
that's not really hard to explain away. Ever seen Star Trek 1?
Cops carry guns. Alien scans see guns. Aliens don't like guns. Cops get killed. Very simple.
shareCops carry guns. Alien scans see guns. Aliens don't like guns. Cops get killed. Very simple.
We've seen in the movie that they can be done very quickly and from a distance and that the aliens haven't really attacked before using the scan so it's very likely they did use the scan.
shareNuclearrWessels:
Cops carry guns. Alien scans see guns. Aliens don't like guns. Cops get killed. Very simple.
What a foolish thing to say. The aliens charged at the police car BEFORE they saw the people inside, so they certainly didn't see any guns.The response you received to what can only be called a fair comment is very interesting indeed, NuclearrWessels. I, too, (as you've done), would ignore the reference to your having made a foolish comment. But rather than rising to his bait I'd focus instead on his next sentence.
It’s plausible that the cars, rather than the humans, were the actual targets.My point was that the cars were the targets, not the cops.
No, it's not. They were able to see humans were in the police cars.
Since we didn't see them using the scan, it's an open question whether they bothered to scan. In any case, whether or not they used a scan is immaterial. They violently attacked the cops and tore them to pieces before the cops even knew they were there. It was an unprovoked attack purely for the sake of protecting the satellite station, a station the aliens had no right to protect because it didn't belong to them.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
Since we didn't see them using the scan, it's an open question whether they bothered to scan. In any case, whether or not they used a scan is immaterial.
They violently attacked the cops and tore them to pieces before the cops even knew they were there.Well, we didn't see the aliens tearing "the cops to pieces," either.
It was an unprovoked attack purely for the sake of protecting the satellite station, a station the aliens had no right to protect because it didn't belong to them.
Cops carry guns. Alien scans see guns. Aliens don't like guns. Cops get killed. Very simple.
The problem is that your razor assumes two completely different species have the same set of assumption attached to them. It was bad enough when Native Americans and Europeans occam razored each other, and then wondered why there was conflict. Apply that to two completely different species, and, well...
but it was a good effort.
The force field around Hawaii proves the aliens were hostile. If you are non-hostile and you just want to phone home, you don't capture a large chunk of territory with thousands and thousands of natives. Explain how the force field is not hostile, and I'll buy that the aliens were good guys. It has to be a reasonable explanation though, that sounds plausible and stands up to logic. Good luck.
If the force field was not around Hawaii, what was it around? Are you perhaps trying to say that it was out in the open ocean and no humans were inside at all? Sounds like you're terribly confused if you've forgotten that the force field surrounded the Hawaiian Islands.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
The force field was around at least one of the islands. It was also around several of the surrounding Navy ships that were already out in the water. Why assume they were non-hostile? They fired first.
shareThe force field was around at least one of the islands. It was also around several of the surrounding Navy ships that were already out in the water. Why assume they were non-hostile? They fired first.
Exactly, Zabbree. I guess Brumby058 imagines that by saying the force field was not around Hawaii, the force field will just go away. That force field is a real problem for the aliens-were-warm-and-fuzzy crowd. It was an undeniably hostile action, it can't be refuted, and it proves the aliens came here with bad intentions. They can't argue it away, so now we have a psychotic post saying that it wasn't around Hawaii, like we're all blind and couldn't see where the force field was. I'm surprised they don't just say there wasn't a force field-I suppose that will be next.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
The force field was around at least one of the islands. It was also around several of the surrounding Navy ships that were already out in the water. Why assume they were non-hostile? They fired first.
Metaphorically speaking, they DID fire first. They landed in the water and employed some sort of stealth technology. They also erected a force field that encompassed at least one of the islands.
What film were YOU watching if you don't see either of those as hostile intent?
Good post, Zabbree. Like Chief says, we've got to beat back the crazies.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
I've already said a lot about this in another thread, and I'm getting tired, so I'll make this quick.
The aliens' mission went wrong with the loss of their com-ship. They are now stranded in potentially hostile territory, and quickly move to secure the area and the equipment they need to get in touch with home. Their discision seems questionable but stressed. The human officers in the movie (and probably in reality) would likely have made similar calls.
I'll consider the field somewhat hostile, yes, but understandable and non-violent.
I would also like to point out that they likely lost their means to communicate with us, when they lost their communications ship. The rest of the ships might be ill equipped to do anything but violence. Like the human ships who's solution is to honk the horn.
I'll consider the field somewhat hostile, yes, but understandable and non-violent.
Totally confused now. How can it be hostile AND non-violent? In any case, the Navy has a duty to respond to such a threat. Is it really the best thing to sit around and hope the aliens don't mean any further harm than temporarily cutting Hawaii off from the world and imprisoning everyone on the islands under a massive force field? If they are peaceful, nothing bad will happen, but if they are hostile, they will destroy us and we won't even have tried to fight back. Is it really something a reasonable person would do, when threatened? Wait and hope nothing worse will happen?
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
Hostile as in diplomatic nightmare. non-violent as in nobody got hurt. (except for that pilot obviously)
Your point is they captured thousands of people.
My point is the presence of said people were irrelevant to their actions. Had the Hawaii islands been deserted of people, they would still have brought up the field.
I think you need to get your facts straight prior to posting.
1. The force field was not "around Hawaii."
If the force field was not around Hawaii, what was it around?
Are you perhaps trying to say that it was out in the open ocean ...Yes.
and no humans were inside at all?
Sounds like you're terribly confused if you've forgotten that the force field surrounded the Hawaiian Islands.
@zanza862
Did the force field around Hawaii kill anyone? perhaps the force field is to keep us from getting hurt by trying to hurt them? You also are projecting human emotions and/or logic into the minds of aliens. maybe what you think are aggressive actions by the aliens is not how the the aliens think of it.
they might be on a level that is far above us, such as how we are on a level above household pets. let's say for example a human needs to take their pet to the vet, so they put their pet into a pet carrier which the pet might think is a hostile action when it is just to protect the animal during transit to the vet. the animal puts up a fight because it doesn't understand what the human's intention is. so in the end a peaceful non aggressive action is taken as hostile.
now you might ask: why don't the aliens try communicating with the humans? perhaps they are trying to, just as we can talk to animals, it doesn't mean the animal is going to understand us. the same thing goes for humans not being able to understand how the aliens communicate. maybe the humans should have tried harder to communicate with the aliens, instead of thinking that all intelligent life speaks English. how about using the universal language of mathematics or by showing no aggression since actions speak louder than words? just get out of their way and observe, but no, humans think that every life form is just like us, aggressive and looking for trouble. you see, the important thing is to have an open mind. if the aliens were hostile why not just destroy all of our major cities and areas of population? they didn't do that for some specific reason, the reason of which no one is sure so the best action is non action until it can be determined what the aliens' intentions are. could the reason the aliens didn't destroy all of our major cities or even one major city be that maybe, just maybe, they aren't here to destroy us because they are not hostile? You mentioned that they killed a police officer. perhaps they saw him as a threat and felt they had no other choice but to kill him before the police officer kills one of them. you do understand that the aliens have the right to protect themselves too, right? it looked like from the mind meld the one alien did that the aliens' world is under some kind of attack. so maybe the aliens are under some kind of deadline and unfortunately due to lack of time and that their whole world is at stake, the aliens had no other recourse but to kill the police officer or do whatever they have to do to save their world. It makes perfect sense to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_BbtXj2P4g
You're talking nonsense.
Did the force field around Hawaii kill anyone? perhaps the force field is to keep us from getting hurt by trying to hurt them?They were killing humans inside the force field, including dozens of humans in cars on the freeway who were no threat to them at all.
maybe what you think are aggressive actions by the aliens is not how the the aliens think of it.More nonsense. Killing intelligent life forms IS hostile and if the aliens don't see it that way, they are too dangerous to be allowed to interact with humanity.
they might be on a level that is far above us, such as how we are on a level above household pets.When's the last time you tried to use a piece of technology created by your household pet? The aliens wanted to use the technology WE created to call home. That proves they know we are intelligent life forms. Incidentally, they didn't even try to communicate with us to ask to use the phone. They attacked first. They captured the Hawaiian Islands, killed humans who weren't threatening them, targeted a military base and a freeway that linked with the base, and commandeered a satellite base. All hostile actions.
why don't the aliens try communicating with the humans? perhaps they are trying to, just as we can talk to animals, it doesn't mean the animal is going to understand us. the same thing goes for humans not being able to understand how the aliens communicate. maybe the humans should have tried harder to communicate with the aliens, instead of thinking that all intelligent life speaks English. how about using the universal language of mathematics or by showing no aggression since actions speak louder than words?So you think Hopper showed such massive aggression by touching the outside of the alien ship with his hand that they had to respond by capturing Hawaii, killing civilians, destroying a military base and part of a freeway, and taking over a satellite station? That makes no sense at all.
just get out of their way and observeNot that I expect a reasonable answer, but at what point would you concede humans have a right to defend themselves? You don't seem to think that capturing a state or killing people is the point at which we can defend ourselves. What would the aliens have to do to convince you they are hostile?
if the aliens were hostile why not just destroy all of our major cities and areas of population? they didn't do that for some specific reason, the reason of which no one is sure so the best action is non action until it can be determined what the aliens' intentions are.It was only five ships and they were down a ship. In other words, a recon force, down one fifth of its strength, trying to call in reinforcements. You honestly can't look at capturing a state, commandeering the station, and killing civilians as hostile intentions? Again, if mass killing of non-combatants doesn't communicate hostility to you, what would?
You mentioned that they killed a police officer. perhaps they saw him as a threat and felt they had no other choice but to kill him before the police officer kills one of them.They killed the cops before the cops even knew what hit them. How is a person a threat if he doesn't even know you are there? That killing shows how determined the aliens were to protect the technology they had stolen.
you do understand that the aliens have the right to protect themselves too, right?You do understand that they have no rights on our planet, don't you? If somebody breaks into your house and kills one of your kids on the way to the phone, do you believe they have the right to protect themself if you try to get them out of your house? Or do you believe that in YOUR house, YOU have the right to protect your life? This was a home invasion and the aliens gave up any rights they might have earned by killing our people to steal our technology.
it looked like from the mind meld the one alien did that the aliens' world is under some kind of attack. so maybe the aliens are under some kind of deadline and unfortunately due to lack of time and that their whole world is at stake, the aliens had no other recourse but to kill the police officer or do whatever they have to do to save their world. It makes perfect sense to me.It makes perfect sense to you because you are looking at it from the viewpoint that aliens have more rights on this planet than the indigenous people. They don't. And you are assigning your own feelings to the mind meld. It is equally plausible that the alien was showing Hopper what they do to worlds they conquer, as a threat to make him give up the fight.
LOL, Zanza, you seem to have shut down this thread. Kolchak and Brumby seem to have no response. What I don't get is why actions considered "hostile" by humans are considered "good self preservation" by aliens. THE SAME STANDARD must apply to both species or the comparison is meaningless. If we apply the same standard to both species, no one with any sense of objectivity can claim the aliens were "more restrained." Yet, somehow, the argument always comes back to "humans should have been more understanding of the poor, innocent, destitute aliens."
Brumby has still never had the intellectual honesty to say he would endorse the actions of humans in the same situation on an alien planet. Unless you can say that you would support humans treating aliens on their planet the same way aliens treated humans on our planet, your logic is utterly flawed. Brumby has never attempted to make this argument. Simply because he can't. For at least the third time, Brumby, tell me how the actions of the aliens would be defensable as actions by humans on an alien planet. Go ahead. Please. I have asked you on other occasions, you have failed to even attempt such an explanation. I am still waiting.
Awww, shucks, Chief, I wasn't going for to shut down the thread! It's just that Brumby and Kolchak don't have any critical thinking skills, so when they're confronted by logic, they have no rebuttal. And you're wasting your time asking them to apply an equal standard. They can't. They think the aliens are superior beings, by virtue of being aliens, and they will never ever ever admit that the aliens were wrong. If humans went to an alien planet and did what these guys did to us, the humans would be wrong, but you see that they will say humans are wrong no matter what. Don't hold your breath asking Brumby a question about how the actions of the aliens would be defensible as actions by humans on an alien planet. They will never answer you.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
I didn't read every single post in this thread, but you seem only to focus on the aggressive acts.
How do you explain the scenes where they clearly avoided fighting or killing?
Were they hostile to begin with, they wouldn't be so "careful" by explicit avoiding certain targets.
Well, I'm not sure what their intention were, especially the "mind-mend" scene indicated that they are probably an invading force. So I'm rather on the "hostile invader" side.
But just for the sake of arguing, here's my scenario for the other side.
1. The alien race is at war (Either with themselves or some other race, shown in the mind-mend scene. This is a big uncertainty since the scene can be interpreted in many ways, supporting both theories). But would explain why they had so many "war ships".
2. They received signals from earth.
3. They send a scouting party to the planet, maybe for finding new allies or resources for the war.
4. While landing, they lost their communication-ship, together with their commanding officer/communication/ diplomatic personnel. Which would leave them with a military officer and his military staff, maybe even one with no experience (similar to the human ships).
5. On landing they were confused and tried to stay hidden until a plan is formed.
6. Upon being found, they try to minimize the force they would need to deal with (a whole planet), by creating a force field.
7. Still unsure what to do, they wait and see what the native species gonna do.
8. Upon being shot at, they responded with lethal fore, to intimidate the rest.(This is why they didn't attack the last ship. Would they be purely aggressive, why should they leave the last warship intact, or even stop after destroying the first one?)
9. After the first encounter, the alien officer decides to act and decides to call for backup or communicate with HQ for new instructions, he tries to minimize the force he has do deal with, while minimizing(not avoiding) the causalities. For this he cripples (not wipes out) the military forces and main transport routs, while trying to avoid civil causalities and declares the communication antennas critical for the mission. Which means that everyone around the current mission goal is being considered a threat (This is why they killed the police and science-guy).
And some general ideas that support this:
If they tried to established the area inside the forcefield as some sort of bridgehead, it would be logical to destroy every single threat inside the area and not just to wait until the thread comes to them. Especially if they don't have any defensive technology, aside from the huge forcefield.
In general a shield is always considered a defensive move, you cripple your own maneuverability. The shield didn't look like something that could be easily moved (a reason more to exterminate every threat inside the shield).
I think at an early stage the filmmakers tried to make it ambiguous if they are a invading force or not, but the producers probably wanted a more "stupid" action movie, like transformers. Which is why it's not 100% clear what their motives are, since a few elements of the early script are still present.
I didn't read every single post in this thread, but you seem only to focus on the aggressive acts.That is because there WERE no non-aggressive acts on the part of the aliens, with the exception of the alien that let the scientist go.
How do you explain the scenes where they clearly avoided fighting or killing?Very simply, by the logical inference that this was a recon force, not a full-scale invasion. A recon force is going to conserve its resources until reinforcements arrive.
But just for the sake of arguing, here's my scenario for the other side.Problem with your scenario is that the aliens did not hide, they responded to a human touching the side of the ship with a massive force field and captured the Hawaiian Islands AND they zeroed in on the one piece of technology on our planet that would allow them to phone home. Another problem (and this is just an inference, but I believe it is a logical inference) is that an alien force is not likely to be so confused by losing their communication ship that they have no idea what to do. Finally, they were not shot AT. There was a warning shot, and they had already responded with a sonic blast that caused damage to the Navy ships and some minor injuries. Since the aliens were so similar in physiology to us, it is also logical to infer that the sonic blast was not just a horn but actually a weapon of some kind. As to why they didn't destroy the last Navy ship, it had broken off the attack and was in retreat. Again, trying to conserve resources by not pursuing and destroying a retreating enemy. They went all out at that last ship when it put in a reappearance.
1. The alien race is at war (Either with themselves or some other race, shown in the mind-mend scene. This is a big uncertainty since the scene can be interpreted in many ways, supporting both theories). But would explain why they had so many "war ships".
2. They received signals from earth.
3. They send a scouting party to the planet, maybe for finding new allies or resources for the war.
4. While landing, they lost their communication-ship, together with their commanding officer/communication/ diplomatic personnel. Which would leave them with a military officer and his military staff, maybe even one with no experience (similar to the human ships).
5. On landing they were confused and tried to stay hidden until a plan is formed.
6. Upon being found, they try to minimize the force they would need to deal with (a whole planet), by creating a force field.
7. Still unsure what to do, they wait and see what the native species gonna do.
8. Upon being shot at, they responded with lethal fore, to intimidate the rest.(This is why they didn't attack the last ship. Would they be purely aggressive, why should they leave the last warship intact, or even stop after destroying the first one?)
If they tried to established the area inside the forcefield as some sort of bridgehead, it would be logical to destroy every single threat inside the area and not just to wait until the thread comes to them. Especially if they don't have any defensive technology, aside from the huge forcefield.Yeah, this idea keeps coming up, that the shield was defensive. Obviously the shield was not defensive. A defensive shield for a ship would be small (as in surrounding the ship and not miles and miles of territory) and it would be maneuverable. This shield was neither of those things-it was more in the nature of establishing a perimeter around territory the aliens wanted to capture and they wanted to capture that territory because they wanted to use the satellite to phone home. Again, it would not be logical to attempt to destroy every single threat inside the force field, because they needed to conserve their resources until reinforcements arrive. Obviously the aliens did their best to destroy everything they considered a threat, including Navy vessels, a military base, the freeway that supplied the military base, and the cops on the mountain. Incidentally, the civilians on the freeway and the cops on the mountain were not a threat, so the claim that the aliens didn't kill uneccesarily doesn't hold water.
In general a shield is always considered a defensive move, you cripple your own maneuverability. The shield didn't look like something that could be easily moved (a reason more to exterminate every threat inside the shield).
I think at an early stage the filmmakers tried to make it ambiguous if they are a invading force or not, but the producers probably wanted a more "stupid" action movie, like transformers. Which is why it's not 100% clear what their motives are, since a few elements of the early script are still present.I think you're right.
Problem with your scenario is that the aliens did not hide, they responded to a human touching the side of the ship with a massive force field and captured the Hawaiian Islands AND they zeroed in on the one piece of technology on our planet that would allow them to phone home. Another problem (and this is just an inference, but I believe it is a logical inference) is that an alien force is not likely to be so confused by losing their communication ship that they have no idea what to do. Finally, they were not shot AT. There was a warning shot, and they had already responded with a sonic blast that caused damage to the Navy ships and some minor injuries. Since the aliens were so similar in physiology to us, it is also logical to infer that the sonic blast was not just a horn but actually a weapon of some kind. As to why they didn't destroy the last Navy ship, it had broken off the attack and was in retreat. Again, trying to conserve resources by not pursuing and destroying a retreating enemy. They went all out at that last ship when it put in a reappearance.
Obviously the aliens did their best to destroy everything they considered a threat, including Navy vessels, a military base, the freeway that supplied the military base, and the cops on the mountain. Incidentally, the civilians on the freeway and the cops on the mountain were not a threat, so the claim that the aliens didn't kill uneccesarily doesn't hold water.
I can't explain every aspect of the alien's timetable, nor do I believe it is necessary to do so in order to see that they were a hostile force. The forcefield was put up, not to shield their own ships but to capture our territory. Physiology is not technology, true, but physiology is closely related to technology, i.e. the average hammer is not so heavy that only an Olympic weight lifter can lift it; the average table, chair, car, etc is sized to humans in a certain height range and not designed for giants and midgets; the average horn is not so loud that it will shatter glass. YOU may be happy with your assessment of the aliens just honking at the ships. My inference, supported by the damage done, is that they knew the horn would do damage, they meant to do damage. Likewise, you may not consider my explanation a reasonable one but I am quite satisfied that the aliens were trying to conserve their resources in not attacking anything they didn't consider an immediate threat. A logical thing to do when your reinforcements are light years away. I don't have much interest in continuing this discussion-I'm very tired of the attitude that the aliens were not hostile. They were, and the ambiguous elements in the script don't change that.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
Ok, didn't expected that you would give up so fast.
And no, I didn't say that the sonicwave was just honking, so please don't twist my words. I said that this was a warning shot with a non-lethal weapon(if you remember, Hopper and Raikes got hit point-blank and got out without any serious injuries).
Well, I didn't see any of my points proven wrong. But since you are not willing to continue this discussion, there is nothing I can do.
Good day Sir.
You're not going to bait me by saying that I'm giving up. Try reading this whole thread, which you say earlier you didn't, and you'll see why I'm not about to go twenty rounds AGAIN with someone determined to see the aliens as cute and fluffy. Although I will say, since you ask for words not to be twisted, that you should not twist my words. Nowhere did I say the horn was a lethal weapon, just that it was a weapon.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
I'm not saying they are cute and fluffy, they are humanoid alien soldiers.
The only thing I liked to discuss was the reason(s) for why they had to fight.
Yeah, I read several posts and wasn't satisfied with the arguments. I hoped for a fun discussion, but discussing with someone that is annoyed by my arguments, usually tend to end in name-calling. So its maybe be better to stop now.
let me say again:
Good day, Sir.
[deleted]
The force field was around at least one of the islands. It was also around several of the surrounding Navy ships that were already out in the water. Why assume they were non-hostile? They fired first.
Exactly, Zabbree. I guess Brumby058 imagines that by saying the force field was not around Hawaii, the force field will just go away.
That force field is a real problem for the aliens-were-warm-and-fuzzy crowd. It was an undeniably hostile action, it can't be refuted, and it proves the aliens came here with bad intentions.
They can't argue it away, so now we have a psychotic post saying that it wasn't around Hawaii, like we're all blind and couldn't see where the force field was. I'm surprised they don't just say there wasn't a force field-I suppose that will be next.
The Hawaiian Islands were included within the barrier, agreed; but, as I said in my original post, the force field is not �around� Hawaii.
Do you know how crazy it sounds to say the Hawaiian Islands were inside the force field but the force field is not around Hawaii?
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
LOL, what up Zanza, gotta beat these crazies down.
Brumby, dude, really.
You made 4 statements
1. The force field was not "around Hawaii."
Factually incorrect.
The forcefield was absolutely "around Hawaii" if you meant the force field was not CENTERED on Hawaii, you would be correct, as it is you are completely and irrefutably wrong.
PS - No. No. No. How could you possibly be misled by the factually correct statement that the fore field was around Hawaii. There was no statement they targeted Hawaii. They DID put up a force field that included Hawaii. Your statement that is was not "around Hawaii" is UNDENIABLY misleading.
2. It did not "capture" anything, let alone "a large chunk of territory."
Whatever, semantic hair splitting. If you don't understand the intent of saying "captured a large chunk of territory" do some critical thinking, you can figure it out.
3. It did not contain "thousands and thousands of natives." Unless you're referring to fish.
Factually incorrect.
It absolutely did. Both the facts of the movie and your own post (The Hawaiian Islands were included within the barrier, agreed) show this.
PS - dude, really, you were confused by the term "natives?" How is that even possible? Lets make it really simple, think about the definition of the word "alien." If you don't know it, look it up. Therefore not alien = native. Clear enough?
4. A force field is not hostile. It is a protective barrier against unwanted intrusion. A car's windscreen also acts as such a barrier, and is hardly "hostile."
Uhhhhhh..... Very illogical.....
So if I come to your house and erect a wall (also a barrier and a much closer parallell for our purposes) completely around your property with no way for you to leave, you would not consider this a hostile action? Really? I mean, really?!?!?!?!?!? Look up the definition of the word hostile while you're at it.
Quit playing fast and loose with facts and words, man up, and admit you were wrong.
LOL, what up Zanza, gotta beat these crazies down.
Doing my best, Chief. Thanks for the assist!
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
Did no one else see the "psychic connection" when Hopper was tangling with the captured alien? It gave him visions of the aliens taking over the earth. I'd say that's hostile.
shareI saw it, Adam, but the aliens-were-warm-and-fuzzy crowd pretends it didn't happen, or it meant something entirely different. They also deny the force field, so there's some pretty bad critical thinking going on here.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
The aliens never fired unless they being threatened or attacked this was seen multiple times in the movie. The most hostile thing I saw them do without first being attacked was destroying the highway.
shareSee what I mean? Another oh-the-force-field-around-Hawaii-was-not-hostile poster. And there were PEOPLE on the highway, but they were only humans so I suppose it was okay to kill them.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
You of course forget the slaughter of police officers who had no idea what they were facing.
sharei agree with everything brumby's saying. zanza and his supports need to **** off
___
Movies i hope are made:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2eb5puu.jpg
The Aliens were non-hostile. This is why:
Alien home planet where at war. (shown in a vision) They escaped it and followed our signal. They had no ways of steering their space ship. It was a pure crash landing. Thats why they collided with a satelite.
Their communication device crashed and got destroyed.
We honked at them, they honked at us, only their honk was louder, breaking our windows (oops). We shot at them. A varning shot.
The alien saw this as a hostile move so they shot at us. And so war begun.
The aliens put up an escape plan to phone home. They put up a barrier for safety. To block any intrusions as well as communication by hostiles. They go for our big antennas to phone home.
As a strategic move, they destroy our military devices as well as our roads to hinder us.
None of the Aliens were carrying guns. Only some sort of engineer tool on their arm.
Fine, Kitsune. Explain the force field. I notice in your whole post you never once mention how the force field is not a threat. You act like they had a perfect right to use our equipment and satellite for a call home. They didn't. Your "strategic move" also resulted in the deaths of cops and a grad student on the mountain, as well as deaths and injuries on the highway. If someone came to your neighborhood and built a wall around it and wouldn't let anyone in or out and then killed people on the way to the phone, I guarantee you would think they were hostile.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
[deleted]
I see. So somebody comes up and knocks on the outside of the hull and the aliens respond with a giant force field that surrounds the state of Hawaii and imprisons all the thousands of people on those islands inside. But you think, hey, that's a peaceful thing to do. All the humans have to do is wait and the aliens will go away. Your whole argument is dishonest-you think the aliens had a right to come here and they are justified in capturing the Hawaiian islands and everyone inside. They didn't have that right. The humans, on the other hand, had every right to defend themselves against such a threat.
I suppose if someone came to your house and built a wall around it and wouldn't let anyone in or out, you would just sit quietly in your living room and wait for them to go away?
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
[deleted]
If the aliens were only interested in protecting themselves, they would not throw a force field around the state of Hawaii and all the people inside. Their ships were undamaged and able to move freely on the water. If they were not hostile, they would have moved out into the open sea and put up the force field where it would only surround their ships and no humans would be inside. The force field capturing the state of Hawaii proves the aliens had hostile intentions-you only capture territory and people if you mean harm.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
[deleted]
I don't think you're reading my point...The force-field was the base in this movie. It covered the crash site and the area they needed to phone home.
I understand your point perfectly. You have decided that the aliens had a perfect right to use our technology to phone home without ever asking us. You also seem to think that the aliens might equate us with monkeys, or some kind of lesser life forms, yet that assumption is not compatible with the idea that we could create technology that they could phone home with. Clearly, we are some kind of intelligent life if we can create such technology, and logically, if large numbers of our species are imprisioned inside the alien "base" we are going to view that as a threat. At a minimum, the aliens threatened us by capturing our territory and citizens. It is appropriate to respond to a threat by defending yourself. As for considering the force field a group-hug, that is the most absurd suggestion yet about the force field. Trapping large numbers of people you have not said one word to is not a friendly or peaceful thing to do. It is a frightening and threatening gesture and the humans responded appropriately. The very fact that no one can refute the force field without making silly assumptions that were not presented in the movie proves the force field was hostile.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
If we got a transmission from another planet, light years away, and we had the technology to send a fleet of ships and arrive there that quickly... we would easily be advanced enough to simply return their call. We would attempt to find a common means of communication so that both sides could clearly state their intentions. We wouldn't launch a task force, we would start with unmanned probes, after making contact we might send manned ships. Upon arrival we wouldn't just land and start doing our own thing, we would loiter in the outer solar system and make contact from there. If we received any sort of hostile response, we would leave.
The aliens arrived in the outer solar system with all their ships intact, they could have attempted to make contact then. They didn't. What the aliens did was use an essential military tactic of creating a foothold. Send in an advanced force to seize territory and establish an area where supplies and reinforcements can arrive.
It looks to me like some people in this thread don't understand military tactics
shareIt is way to far a stretch to expect some of these posters to understand military tactics when they cannot even understand logic and common sense.
I fully agree with the "Hostile establishing beachhead as a vanguard force for an invading army".
But also there is "SOME" credence to the non-hostile theory, though most of the common sense portions floated by the non-hostile camp of posters got lost amid a bunch of claptrap being posted at the same time.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
They had no ways of steering their space ship. It was a pure crash landing. Thats why they collided with a satelite.
They couldn't steer their space ships... but they could fly in formation?
They couldn't steer their space ships... but they could put down right next to the island where the transmissions that reached their planet was sent from?
Yeah, I"ll buy that.
I will too-when donkeys fly.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
Not to disagree with you specificly Zanza.. or you Lupin, but this one actualy might be quite true. As I understand spaceflight, it's like firing a gun and hitting a fast moving target lightyears away (in this case). Everything, down to their actual landing coordinates, depends on how they set out. They were unlikely to have much chance of correction upon arrival. Their course were set when realesed from the sling. If that course made them hit at sattelite (which were an extremly unlikely event) there would have be little they could do about it.
shareKasper, I think you're a little off when you compare spaceflight to firing a gun. A bullet cannot correct in mid-course. A spaceship can. Now, I think you are completely correct when you say that a trajectory must be calculated so that a target many light years away can be hit accurately. I completely agree with you on that. But the idea that the pilots would just sit at the controls and not try to correct their course when they see they're going to run into a satellite just boggles the mind.
Not that I find that completely unbelieveable, not when I've seen news stories where cars have driven into rivers and muddy fields because the GPS gave them directions to do so. Anything is possible and real world examples of stupid driving abound. I do not find it beyond possibility that the pilots were incompetent. In fact, considering they ran into a satellite, I would say that something must have been wrong with the aliens, to successfully pilot themselves many light years and then run into a satellite.
That said, once they arrived on Earth, they seemed to be able to handle their ships, weapons, and technology with a degree of competence. If they were not hostile, their choices were, to say the least, poorly considered. They made no attempt to contact us, and they presented a threat the Navy was duty-bound to respond to. My personal feeling (no evidence from the film to support it but it's how I took it) is that the aliens were intergalactic marauders who wanted to use the resources on Earth and move on, and that possibly their incompetence in a number of areas is explained by them being outlaws and not official representatives of their civlization. In fact, I rather like the idea of a sequel in which the alien civilization proved to be friendly and formed an alliance with us after they learned we had wiped out a force of pirates.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
"A bullet cannot correct in mid-course"
Actually they can now ^_^ They use them to intercept other bullets.
But that's obviously beside the point. (no pun intended)
Last minute corrections could led to disaster, and would probably widely scatter them. You are right ofcourse, but it would be very risky considering their velocity. That perfect formation of their's was likely to have been part of their original escape trajectory. (Hence the reference to a bullet) Any corrections would also have impact on fuel reserves, which is a big thing in spaceflight.
I like your idea about marauders :D , but I think the impact was probably due to...
A) They simply didn't see it in time. It's quite a "small" target and they were flying pretty fast.
B) They had no way of making course corrrections, since the ships was naval vessels, unable to perform self-propelled spaceflight.
p.s. This post, btw, has nothing to do with my posts elsewhere Zanza. I've been playing "Orbiter" for the last week, and I'm getting tired of people with romantic notions about space-navigation. After firing that last acceleration burst, you feel quite helpless.
Oh, I know nothing about video games, Kasper. I like tangrams, and the closest I get to a video game is when I play cards on my phone. And it's not a smart phone, so even those games are very basic. I wonder if NASA has any information on this topic? No offense, but I'd rather get something more concrete than what happens in a video game. Although I have heard they can be very realistic and sometimes are used for training purposes.
Anyway, I like the idea of marauders. Imagine the aliens who came to Earth this time being brigands who escaped their planet and have been raiding across the galaxy. And their government finds out we defeated them and they want to join with us to fight the rest. It could be so cool to have our first contact with aliens as a joint task force to take out some bad guys. They always show humans as being helpless and needing guidance-I'd love to see a story where we're technologically inferior but we still bring something to the table.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
[deleted]
Funny how no one on this board seems to remember the empathic link that showed the aliens true intentions. You know the scene where is shows the aliens bombardment technique for taking over a planet. The alien intention was made perfectly clear in that one scene. As for some of the other comments about old battleships, you have to remember our battleships carried enough firepower to level a mountain. They are nowhere near helpless even in today's military one of those ships would turn the tide of any war.
shareAntony, dude, c'mon.
No. Battleships would absolutely not "turn the tide of any war."
Do you even realize not one navy in the entire freaking world has an active battleship? I love battleships. I enjoyed this movie. It was stupid and made no sense from any point of view. But it was fun. Battleships are outdated, too big, too expensive, and not suited to modern warfare. Aircraft carriers have been the dominant naval power since 1942.
Everybody stop trying to debate whether the aliens were hostile or not. We have no idea. We do know these aliens are either the most incompetent species ever at first contact or warfare.
This movie was idiotically written and directed from either point of view.
However, based on the "facts" of the movie, we would have been irresponsible and stupid to assume anything other than hostility until we had reason to believe otherwise.
I suppose I would know a bit about battleships having actually served in the NAVY. Aircraft Carriers are good ships but they are sitting ducks in terms of self defense. You need a armada just to defend one. The only reason we don't have a active Battleship today is because of the Aircraft Carrier. The both require thousands of people to man them our Navy would be huge just for few ships. In terms of strength there is not a ship in the world today that would stand up to our "OUTDATED" battleships. P.S. our Battleships were used in the first Gulf war and retrofitted with Missile bays making them even more deadly.
sharealonzolopez916 wrote:
i agree with everything brumby's saying.
zanza and his supports need to **** off
You're the one who should be ashamed, Brumby. I have not cursed at anyone, or called them an idiot. I haven't tried like you to intimidate people into leaving this board, or told anyone to shut up. You make it sound like asking someone to defend their viewpoint using material that was presented in the movie is some horrible thing to do, or like wanting a logical response to a question is so hurtful it drives people off the board. And that simply isn't true.
You talk about subjective interpretations like simple logic is open to multiple interpretations. If there were logical rebuttals to my points, those rebuttals would have been made. Instead there have been multiple posts along the lines of, "Well, but you have to make these assumptions about the aliens in order to understand my viewpoint." Which is fine, if people could just accept that when there are two viewpoints, the one supported by the facts is the valid viewpoint and the one supported by numerous assumptions that are not based in reality is not valid. There are people who believe the Earth is flat. I respect their right to think so, but not that opinion. It is not supported by the facts. Neither is the viewpoint that the aliens are friendly peaceful visitors.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
When alonzolopez916 said he agreed with everything I said, and that “you and your supporters need to **** off,” I responded that
“They're entitled to their opinions. The sad thing, though, is that not only are their opinions based on subjective interpretations of what's shown in the film, but their absolute certainty that these interpretations are the only true and honest ones leads them to treat people who dare to suggest alternative interpretations as if they're idiots.
Zanza862’s toxic replies to reasonable questions have driven quite a few people away from a number of threads here.
His supporters, thankfully few in numbers, should hang their heads in shame, too.”
You're the one who should be ashamed, Brumby. I have not cursed at anyone, or called them an idiot. I haven't tried like you to intimidate people into leaving this board, or told anyone to shut up.
You make it sound like asking someone to defend their viewpoint using material that was presented in the movie is some horrible thing to do, or like wanting a logical response to a question is so hurtful it drives people off the board. And that simply isn't true.
You talk about subjective interpretations like simple logic is open to multiple interpretations. If there were logical rebuttals to my points, those rebuttals would have been made.
Instead there have been multiple posts along the lines of, "Well, but you have to make these assumptions about the aliens in order to understand my viewpoint."
Which is fine, if people could just accept that when there are two viewpoints, the one supported by the facts is the valid viewpoint and the one supported by numerous assumptions that are not based in reality is not valid.
There are people who believe the Earth is flat. I respect their right to think so, but not that opinion. It is not supported by the facts. Neither is the viewpoint that the aliens are friendly peaceful visitors.
While they could have simply been cautious (or even apprehensive) about landing on a new planet, it�s clear (to me, if not to you) that they made no overt agressive acts until fired upon, and when given the choice of killing or not killing organic life forms (i.e. humans, horses), they chose the latter. The issue of whether or not they were �peaceful� or �friendly� is actually moot. The aliens were given no opportunity to demonstrate their intentions, peaceful or otherwise.
Completely untrue and you know it. I don't know what category you put cops and grad students into, but since they're not horses, I'm going to call them humans. And the aliens killed both because they were in the way of the satellite station. They had all the opportunity in the world to attempt some kind of peaceful contact while they were sitting there in the water after they landed. They did not attempt to contact us, and they threw a giant force field around the state of Hawaii and all the inhabitants. Just because none of this bothers you doesn't mean that it's non-threatening. The force field was a threat, whatever the aliens' intentions were.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
While they could have simply been cautious (or even apprehensive) about landing on a new planet, it’s clear (to me, if not to you) that they made no overt agressive acts until fired upon, and when given the choice of killing or not killing organic life forms (i.e. humans, horses), they chose the latter. The issue of whether or not they were “peaceful” or “friendly” is actually moot. The aliens were given no opportunity to demonstrate their intentions, peaceful or otherwise.
Completely untrue and you know it. I don't know what category you put cops and grad students into, but since they're not horses, I'm going to call them humans. And the aliens killed both because they were in the way of the satellite station. They had all the opportunity in the world to attempt some kind of peaceful contact while they were sitting there in the water after they landed. They did not attempt to contact us, and they threw a giant force field around the state of Hawaii and all the inhabitants. Just because none of this bothers you doesn't mean that it's non-threatening. The force field was a threat, whatever the aliens' intentions were.
"shown no rationality at all when you bring up what you want to believe, so I must conclude you are either a troll or just not too good at critical thinking. In either case, you've lost this argument by refusing to deal with the actual facts of the movie and I will leave it at that.”
[The aliens] put a giant force field around one of our states and thousands of our citizens. I am hardly the only person to point out that this was a hostile action. If you think it was okay to do this, explain why it was okay. Explain why the force field should not have been viewed as a threat. And do so without making assumptions about the aliens drawn from your own desires, Peter Berg interviews, and possible anti-American sentiment.
The force field around Hawaii proves the aliens were hostile. If you are non-hostile and you just want to phone home, you don't capture a large chunk of territory with thousands and thousands of natives. Explain how the force field is not hostile, and I'll buy that the aliens were good guys. It has to be a reasonable explanation though, that sounds plausible and stands up to logic. Good luck.
Brumby, you can cut and paste and stalk me on this board as much as you like. I'm not going anywhere. And I have only stated what is logical according to what the facts presented in the movie are. If you could refute the logical fact that a giant force field around Hawaii is a threat, you would have long ago. And every time you attack me personally, you just make it more abundantly clear that I am right and you are wrong. Attack the points, not the person, if you expect your viewpoint to be respected.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
Brumby, you can cut and paste and stalk me on this board as much as you like.
I'm not going anywhere.
And I have only stated what is logical according to what the facts presented in the movie are.
If you could refute the logical fact that a giant force field around Hawaii is a threat, you would have long ago.
And every time you attack me personally, you just make it more abundantly clear that I am right and you are wrong. Attack the points, not the person, if you expect your viewpoint to be respected.
Brumby, I'm going to have to put you on Ignore. I'm starting to feel guilty about you. It is not mentally healthy to obsess over a poster on a movie forum. It's not mentally healthy to follow another poster around, and keep a file so you can cut and paste a wall o' text of their responses. I didn't realize you were sick, and I'm sorry for aggravating you. I'm not going to bother you any more, and I hope you'll feel better in the future.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
Personally, I saw the aliens as advance scouts-- sent to determine the level of threat and to establish a beachhead. Their course of action was to come here, determine the worth and threat level and send a message back to their planet giving them the go ahead to send an actual invasion force. Why send the whole force right away if its not worth it or if the natives are too advanced to take out?
I believe their intention was conveyed telepathically in that one scene.
They were not there to kill everyone- there was no point in actually engaging anyone who wasn't hostile. Their mission was to establish a base of operations and get the message back to their people. They took out what they saw as a threat at the time and also took out infrastructure when taking out the highways and bridges.
They chose this area because they need to communicate and that was how they were going to communicate.
I never got the feeling that they weren't hostile. Only that it wasn't their job at this time to kill all people. Their job was to set up base and call in the troops. (It also made me wonder if they had future plans for humanity.)
Anyways-- thats my feelings on it. If they were peaceful- they sure weren't very smart in how they went about it. And I don't think they saw people like monkeys or anything either- they were drawn here by a message and knew that there was a somewhat advanced race here.
Personally, I saw the aliens as advance scouts-- sent to determine the level of threat and to establish a beachhead. Their course of action was to come here, determine the worth and threat level and send a message back to their planet giving them the go ahead to send an actual invasion force. Why send the whole force right away if its not worth it or if the natives are too advanced to take out? I believe their intention was conveyed telepathically in that one scene.
I believe you're right.
They were not there to kill everyone- there was no point in actually engaging anyone who wasn't hostile. Their mission was to establish a base of operations and get the message back to their people. They took out what they saw as a threat at the time and also took out infrastructure when taking out the highways and bridges. They chose this area because they need to communicate and that was how they were going to communicate.
I think you're right about this too. No use wasting time, effort, and resources on people who weren't actually a threat at the time.
I never got the feeling that they weren't hostile. Only that it wasn't their job at this time to kill all people. Their job was to set up base and call in the troops. (It also made me wonder if they had future plans for humanity.)
I wonder about that too. The fact that they didn't kill humans who weren't actually threatening them doesn't mean anything. Slave owners didn't kill their slaves when they considered them valuable commodities. Ranchers don't kill cows until they're ready to eat them. It's just as plausible there was some bad reason for keeping humans alive as a good reason. We just don't know, because the aliens' ultimate goal in coming here was never made known. We can only look at their actions, which were threatening to humanity.
Anyways-- thats my feelings on it. If they were peaceful- they sure weren't very smart in how they went about it. And I don't think they saw people like monkeys or anything either- they were drawn here by a message and knew that there was a somewhat advanced race here.
I agree. If this was a peaceful first contact, it was the most stupidly handled first contact imaginable. And it's only logical to reject the suggestion that the aliens didn't know we were intelligent life forms. They knew we sent out a message and they knew we built technology they could use to phone home. Even if they were some haughty race of super beings who saw us as little more than white mice, they knew we were some kind of intelligent life because we developed technology they could use.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
When I watched it I just went with what the characters in the movie were saying...made sense to them that the aliens were bad so whatever....
However, reading these posts, I want to point out a few things that I think people are missing.
The force field: totally makes sense that if they just wanted to call home, regardless of to call for a ride home or reinforcements, they would use it to keep everything else out. They had some good technology, but without that force field, our airforce crushed them in seconds. So yes, they needed the field to cover the island that had the radio towers so they could do what they had to do without us interrupting by killing them or destroying the tower. They didn't care what was going on outside of the field, just inside.
The attack in the bridge: didn't look at a map, but it seems logical that these were destroyed to prevent ppl from having access to the towers...at one pt an officer did say that all roads leading up to the mountain were cut off.
Hostility: their first shot was after we fired a warning shot at them that barely missed... Before that, they horned at us after we horned at them. It scared our guys though bc it broke the windows and made glass fly everywhere. The force field also freaked our guys out. However until we fired, they really didn't do anything violent. They could have...easily. And if they had, then the movie would h ave been over fast. They could have wrecked all three ships in seconds at that lint but chose not to.
What kind of a sick b*tch takes the ICE CUBE trays out of the FREEZER?
The force field: totally makes sense that if they just wanted to call home, regardless of to call for a ride home or reinforcements, they would use it to keep everything else out. They had some good technology, but without that force field, our airforce crushed them in seconds. So yes, they needed the field to cover the island that had the radio towers so they could do what they had to do without us interrupting by killing them or destroying the tower. They didn't care what was going on outside of the field, just inside.
And that is a totally valid argument if the aliens were using their own technology. They were using our technology to phone home. They didn't even try to contact us to use the technology, and they killed some of our people to get to it, including two cops who didn't so much as blink at them. It's true that some people will see the aliens as good no matter what they do, but in this movie, the aliens were bad.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
Wow, Brumby, you make no sense again. If the aliens were simply cautious or apprehensive, they still would have to be either "peaceful" or "hostile." You cannont be neither "peaceful or hostile," lack of hostility IS PEACE. Simply being cautious or apprehensive in no way precludes their intentions.
Anything short of "peaceful" requires a rational response from the "natives" of the planet. Aggression twoards a race that shows no interest in communication and draws first blood (yes, they did! Your interpretation of warning shot or no or whatever, the aliens killed first, no interperatation necessary (not even counting the loss of life in China) the first to die in the naval encounter were humans.) ONCE AGAIN SINCE YOU SEEM HARD OF INTELLIGENCE [:)] IF YOU ARE IN AN ALIEN ENVIRONMENT AND YOU NEED HELP, TRY YOUR ASS OFF TO GET IT. IF YOU DON'T, YOU DESERVE WHAT HAPPENS. You have never offered a response to my query: What it humans were in the same situation you postulate? Would you say they could kill anything that stood in their way just because they were scared? TELL ME YOU ARE OK WITH HUMANS ON AN ALIEN WORLD ACTING THE SAME AS THESE ALIENS..... OR SHUT THE F UP FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brumby, I've been very harsh with you. You have never answered one of my posts with anything resembling a cogent opinion, so I feel justified referring to you as I see fit.
Antony, thank you for your service. I am in your debt. However, I fail to see the point of your response. No, no surface ship could compare to an Iowa class battleship. An aircraft carrier full of outdated A-6's, 7's, F-14D's, and F-18A's would however totally kick it's ass. This aircraft carrier was state of the art in 1990. How an outdated surface ship would be effective against an alien race capable of intersteller travel was in no way addressed in your post. I look forward to a cogent reply from you.
Brumby, I'm going to have to put you on Ignore. I'm starting to feel guilty about you. It is not mentally healthy to obsess over a poster on a movie forum. It's not mentally healthy to follow another poster around, and keep a file so you can cut and paste a wall o' text of their responses. I didn't realize you were sick, and I'm sorry for aggravating you. I'm not going to bother you any more, and I hope you'll feel better in the future.
Zanza, point proved, I believe.
Brumby, based on your previous responses, or lack therof, Zanza has intellectually bested you on every occasion. Please seek professional help. I really do care. Please seek professional help.
Zanza, point proved, I believe.
Brumby, based on your previous responses, or lack therof, Zanza has intellectually bested you on every occasion. Please seek professional help. I really do care. Please seek professional help.
Thanks, Chief. Brumby, I second what Chief said. Please, seek help. It's out there.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
Okay, so explain why they opened fire in the first place.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
The aliens were clearly the good guys, as proven many times throughout this thread. After they landed and saw how their destroyed ship (which no doubt carried many of their own) damaged Hong Kong they did the smart thing and did nothing instead of doing something that could be interpreted as hostile. They only attempted anything hostile AFTER THEY WERE FIRED UPON. Even then they clearly made an attempt to avoid unnecessary casualties like not killing the soldiers after they rescued their own guy.
This is all ignoring the absolutely pathetic arsenal they had, which was clearly meant for mining, not warfare. This is also ignoring the absolutely minuscule chance that they actually hit an orbiting satellite, which made me hate the movie from the start.
What do you call the cops the aliens ripped to pieces on the mountainside, Very Very Lazy Thinker? What did the cops do to provoke them? What did all the civilians on the freeway to do provoke them? Come to think of it, what did the Hawaiian Islands do to deserve getting captured?
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
You really love making fun of people's internet handles, that just makes you look dumber by the way. Why are you capitalizing "very" twice? Is that to add emphasis? Because that just you look even stupider. I guess it explains why you just ignore every argument against you position. Well, either that or you're a troll.
shareAnd yet you're the one avoiding the argument.
He asked you about attacking the cops, and you sidetrack by getting personal.
The aliens were clearly the good guys, as proven many times throughout this thread. After they landed and saw how their destroyed ship (which no doubt carried many of their own) damaged Hong Kong they did the smart thing and did nothing instead of doing something that could be interpreted as hostile. They only attempted anything hostile AFTER THEY WERE FIRED UPON. Even then they clearly made an attempt to avoid unnecessary casualties like not killing the soldiers after they rescued their own guy.
This is all ignoring the absolutely pathetic arsenal they had, which was clearly meant for mining, not warfare.
Clearly they think if they use the word clearly it will make it clear that they are clearly right. Well, Abuhin, this is why it's so frustrating to try and talk about what the facts were in this film-there is such a lack of critical thinking about what happened. What's interesting to me is that you have TWO movies about violent miners from outer space and natives fighting them off and in one movie, the miners are in the wrong and in the other the miners are in the right.
I speak of course of Battleship and Avatar. And the only difference that I can see in the essential point of why the miners are wrong in Avatar and right in Battleship is that in Avatar, they are humans and in Battleship, they are aliens. Seems like some folks will side with aliens no matter what they do.
The thing that gets me is it's not such an academic discussion. If there is intelligent life out there and it pays us a visit, I truly believe people like the weak-minded alien worshippers are going to get us in a lot of trouble. Even if the aliens are friendly, I can't believe they would all be exactly alike. Get people like Brumby and Lazy out there, slavering to be subservient to the advanced alien race and it might tempt some of the aliens to take advantage of us. And what if the aliens are less than friendly? Technology is not civilization and people advanced enough to travel the stars might be very brutal in nature-starships and friendliness don't necessarily go hand in hand. The Brumby and Lazy crowd will be bowing and scraping and trying to keep us subservient when we should be thinking of security and defense.
By the by, thanks for the link of the "peaceful" aliens. I would have left a comment but I don't have an account at YouTube.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
If there is intelligent life out there and it pays us a visit, I truly believe people like the weak-minded alien worshippers are going to get us in a lot of trouble. Even if the aliens are friendly, I can't believe they would all be exactly alike. Get people like Brumby and Lazy out there, slavering to be subservient to the advanced alien race and it might tempt some of the aliens to take advantage of us. And what if the aliens are less than friendly?
Technology is not civilization and people advanced enough to travel the stars might be very brutal in nature-starships and friendliness don't necessarily go hand in hand. The Brumby and Lazy crowd will be bowing and scraping and trying to keep us subservient...
when we should be thinking of security and defense.
You really love making fun of people's internet handles, that just makes you look dumber by the way. Why are you capitalizing "very" twice? Is that to add emphasis? Because that just you look even stupider.
I guess it explains why you just ignore every argument against you position.
Well, either that or you're a troll.
The aliens were clearly the good guys, as proven many times throughout this thread.The "good guys/bad guys" way of thinking when talking about films tends to involve extremes, and leaves no room for other qualities (even in film noir) but I know what you mean.
After they landed and saw how their destroyed ship (which no doubt carried many of their own) damaged Hong Kong they did the smart thing and did nothing instead of doing something that could be interpreted as hostile.I agree with you that their behaviour, once the four ships had crashed into the ocean, was non-hostile.
They only attempted anything hostile AFTER THEY WERE FIRED UPON. Even then they clearly made an attempt to avoid unnecessary casualties like not killing the soldiers after they rescued their own guy.Agreed.