MovieChat Forums > CG23Sailor > Replies
CG23Sailor's Replies
Have you seen Kelly lately?
Times hasn't been kind to her in the Hollywood looks department.
She looks her age.
Tom Cruise would look like he's making out with his grandmother.
The real dead giveaway isn't the nuclear enrichment plant... But the fact that there is only one country in the world with flyable tomcats remaining.
Having personally known a number of TOPGUN grads to include a former TOPGUN XO....
Your opinion is not based on reality.
"The example you put, the USS Borie proves my point. When the U-boat surfaced for action it was already damaged by the destroyer's depth charges. Not so in the movie under consideration."
Wrong, exactly the same. You cannot know it only by the trailer but the sub in the film was forced to the surface by previous depth charges. This just goes to show your ignorance and arrogance on what you are discussing.
Also regarding the guns missing. The sub was in too close and the guns could not depress low enough to hit. They were intended as anti-aircraft mounts.
Fucking retard.
Who the fuck are you talking about?
The alteration to the title should have been your first clue there Quasimodo.
The story is Hansel and Gretel, not Gretel and Hansel.
You goin to start adding 'hana' to the end of every sentence again troll?
No it really doesn't unless you are one of those overly sensitive fear mongering chicken littles screaming ignorantly about catastrophic climate change.
There are no IMDb boards. They were shut down years ago.
Both yours and the OP's premise is false.
No one guilt trips you for not liking the film claiming it means you don't support the troops. We guilt trips you for talking shit about the troops.
Guess who one of the biggest haters of many military films are?
THE MILITARY!
No one claims we don't support the troops. We ARE the troops.
When a Military film is truly bad, you'll find no greater haters than among active duty and veterans.
So lay off the lame excuses for the grief you get for hating on a great film.
This film is not intended to be a hollywood blockbuster. It isn't and never tried to be. You and the OP are lambasting it because it is not.
It does do what it was intended to very well and thus it is a great film, and that is to honor the fallen in combat. Thus criticism of the film is taken as criticism of the military. Of the fallen.
The OPs comment is especially egregious because he suggests it would be better if Lt. Col Strobl (He couldn't be bothered to get his name right, calling him Strobe) had questioned the war. No the film would not have been better by injecting leftist bias. This film is not about the war, any war, nor any reasons or justifications for any war.
It is about those that fell in combat regardless of which war or the reasons for it.
You want a bad military movie? Look no further than films like the recent Midway remake by Roland Emmerich, or Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor. Or the Hurt Locker or Behind Enemy Lines.
All four of those films were horrific and roundly panned by nearly everyone in the military or who has ever served. But then, you and the OP probably loved them because of the fashy CGI eyecandy.
If that's the case, I would respectfully suggest that neither you nor the OP have the understanding or experience to know what makes a good military film or not.
My head's not in my ass.
You however still don't know WTF you're talking about and are just spewing crap.
CGSailor, not CSG, and yes.
At least I hope I am related to myself.
I was originally CG-23 Sailor on IMDb too when I first started but after a period of no internet access, and a forgotten password, they wanted to send my password reset to an email I no longer had. So I became CGSailor meaning I served on Cruisers (CGs) not that I was a Coast Guard Sailor which everyone kept mistaking.
Then get you shit straight or don't act like an expert on a subject you are clueless about
5. Again, more hollywood BS, but not because of your reasoning which is just as wrong.
You are confusing modern subs with old WW2 type subs. What you see on a modern sub is the pressure hull. The ballast tanks are internal. On old WW2 subs the ballast tanks were external in what was called saddle tanks along the side. Also there was an external superstructure deck with the pressure hull below that.
Not the case with modern subs.
Notwithstanding the hollywood BS of point 4 previously, a modern sub going past crush depth is not going to show incremental crinkling and dumpling prior to failure. It will be sudden and catastrophic failure. Over in an instant.
6. Not a technical point of the film, so no comment.
The replies you've gotten so far are from people who don't know any more than you and you're asking the question. Thus they aren't qualified to answer. They're talking out their ass and don't know themselves.
1. It was quite clear what happened to the mystic crew. They were aboard Arkansas. They docked with Arkansas aft escape trunks, got the president and themselves aboard, then cut the Mystic loose from the Arkansas. It was then destroyed by a direct hit from an RBU mortar. I don't u know what your confusion was, the film was quite clear on this point.
2. The answer as to why, is because the movie is stupid. The DSRVs had a test depth much much greater, several times greater, than any US or Russian war submarine. USS Arkansas is a Virginia class SSN. The class has an acknowledged unclassified test depth of 800+ feet. The suspected actual classified depth is somewhere in the rough ballpark of 1500-1700 feet. The DSRV Mystic had a test depth of 5000+ feet.
The reason it happened in the film is.... Hollywood bullshit.
I keep saying had, past tense, when talking about mystic because that is another film fuckup. There is no Mystic. Both Avalon and Mystic were retired in 2008.
3. The Russian captain was not on the side of Durov's military coup. He thought he was acting on legitimate orders from proper authority. He still thought so even when Captain Andropov spoke on the radio addressing his crew. But when the Russian president began speaking, he learned what was what and his loyalty was to the President, Not Durov who is now exposed as the traitor.
4. Again, more hollywood bullshit, not reality. Polyarnyy is a deep water harbor. That does not mean the water is oceanic deep beyond the crush depth of subs, it mean it can handle deep draft vessels on the surface without grounding on the bottom. In fact even outside the harbor, the Barents Sea itself is rather shallow.
Mystic was (it was retired in 2008) a DSRV.
That stands for Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle.
The test depth if the mystic is in fact greater than any active naval warship submarine. It's test depth is 5000 ft.
The unclassified test depth of the Virgina class is 800+ ft with the suspected actual test depth somewhere in the ballpark of 1500 to 1700 ft. No where near 5000.
None of you guys trying to answer this man's question have a damned clue what you are talking about, you're just guessing at what sounds good to you.
Oh for fucks sake... Hunter Killer is not some official class name for a specific sub. It's an informal general use category for a type of sub based on mission use.
There are two primary types of subs (and a myriad of lesser variants)
The two primary types are SSN and SSBN.
These are Attack subs and Ballistic missile subs. The attack subs are those that are colloquially referred to as Hunter Killers
Class names are official names for a class of a specific sub design. Los Angeles is one such class. So is Seawolf and Virginia classes. Ohio is a class of SSBN. SSBNs are colloquially referred to as "Boomers" in the same was Attack subs are called Hunter Killers
What you referred to in your answer is Class Names vs Nato Reporting code names. None which has Fuck-all to do with "hunter killer".
There's more than one way to become an officer. Annapolis is not the only route to a commission.
One of our CNOs (Chief of Naval Operations and the highest military position in the entire Navy (everything higher is civilian), started his Navy career as an E1 Seaman Recruit.
Michael Boorda dropped out of High School and enlisted in the Navy as an E1 Seaman Recruit at the age of 17. An outstanding enlisted sailor, he was selected to attend OCS (Officer Candidate School) at newport Rhode Island .
Commissioned as an Ensign he rose through the ranks to Admiral and was the Chief of Naval Operations.
Of course you'd think it great.
Dunning-Kruger.
You don't know enough about the topic to understand just how bad it was.