Godzilla (2014)- Thoughts? (Spoilers)

[Tsyroc]

There weren't any LCSs in the bay; just a bunch of Arleigh-Burke class destroyers. Specifically, I was pissed to see both the John S. McCain and Fitzgerald in another damned movie.

I thought I had only seen Arleigh-Burke's but wasn't sure if I had missed something or not.

I am curious why they went with Saratoga for the carrier name. I am hopeful that the Ford class will get back to the classic carrier names after Enterprise. Maybe the USN hinted that they would like that as well when they consulted on the movie?

[Borgholio]

I am hopeful that the Ford class will get back to the classic carrier names after Enterprise.

Agreed. There are some ship names just as legendary as Enterprise that go back to the old Continental Navy which do not belong on something as mundane as a landing ship or cruiser. Hornet, Constellation, Bonhomme Richard, Saratoga, Lexington, Yorktown, Ranger, Ticonderoga... Plenty of good names for a capital ship, unlike USS George W Bush or USS Gerald R Ford... *puke*.

[AniThyng]

I know what I'm talking about. There aren't many situations where you need to go that fast (most of ones that call for it involve Uncle Kim doing something stupid in North Korea); but when they absolutely need to, a Burke can sustain 50+ knot speeds for a couple of days.

So basically what you are saying is that the official top speed of >30 knots is fudged by being 20 knots slower than the actual top speed? I mean, maybe this is a incredibly minor nitpick but you seem very sure about something that is remarkably easy to contradict. Even the LCS's are reported to be able to top 44 knots for some hours and this is considered remarkable, yet you say that Burkes can maintain 50 for "days"?

Regarding Saratoga, supposedly it's because the WW2 era Saratoga was used as a target ship during the Bikini tests. Sounds as good a reason as any...

[SilverDragonRed]

I know what I'm talking about. There aren't many situations where you need to go that fast (most of ones that call for it involve Uncle Kim doing something stupid in North Korea); but when they absolutely need to, a Burke can sustain 50+ knot speeds for a couple of days.

Allow me a moment to wipe the egg off my face. It turns out that I was overestimating the distances involved, and come to find out anything past 35 knots wasn't necessary for the travels stated. I guess, just chalk it up to me not paying attention when I was puking out body wieght when we went full speed through 20-to-30 foot swells.

I am hopeful that the Ford class will get back to the classic carrier names after Enterprise.

Agreed. There are some ship names just as legendary as Enterprise that go back to the old Continental Navy which do not belong on something as mundane as a landing ship or cruiser. Hornet, Constellation, Bonhomme Richard, Saratoga, Lexington, Yorktown, Ranger, Ticonderoga... Plenty of good names for a capital ship, unlike USS George W Bush or USS Gerald R Ford... *puke*.

Too bad the naming convention for the Ford-class supercarriers is former presidents.

[Borgholio]

Too bad the naming convention for the Ford-class supercarriers is former presidents.

Maybe, maybe not. While Ford is not exactly the kind of president we all think of as a great leader (he wasn't a bad president, just not great), CVN 79 is going to be John F Kennedy...who WAS such a president. So that's not too bad. CVN 80 is going to be Enterprise. After that, they have not decided yet. So there's still time.

[Sea Skimmer]

The resistance curves for conventional hull forms almost completely rule out a ship shaped like a Burke reaching even 40 knots with any sort of load. By load I mean like having the superstructure fitted. This is why both LCS have less then traditional naval hulls, and absurd amounts of engine power. LCS 1 has the same pair of main turbine engines as DDG-1000 does, the later being FOUR times as large. LCS 2 is slower and has about three quarters of the power of a Burke, while one third the size.

If you want a 50 knot surface ship you have to get the hull out of the water via planing, LCS or using a hydrofoil or cushion SES/hovercraft type of configuration. LCS 1 uses a planing hull, LCS 2 is exploiting the low drag of her trimaran hull, but this only works in very specific configurations (cannot scale up and down at will) and has not worked out as well in service as desired. Actually both are slower then expected, if still faster then any conventional hull.

In reality a Burke is more like a 32 knot ship with a full load, 35 knots should thus be possible lightly loaded, as might be the case after an extended high speed transit burning off all the ships fuel. It also depends a lot on sea conditions, mono hulls have to be optimized for specific wave conditions. The Burke was designed to maintain speed in bad weather, which costs it some speed in a flat calm, most USN vessels prior to her went for the flat calm max ever possible speed. Speeds over about 35 knots get really, really power demanding even on a long ship, length counts above all else for a ships speed. Destroyers aren't all that long compared to say, SS United States.

That's also why say heavy cruisers could need half the power of battleships four times as large to go only a few knots faster. This also means just dumping more power into a hull will quickly hit diminishing returns. Horribly diminishing ones, to the point cases exist of warships having had longer sterns and bows grafted on because this cost less money then upgrading the engines to get more speed. Though usually they did both at once. Bad enough hullform and no amount of power will make you go faster, it will just turn into cavitation.

[Tsyroc]

Regarding Saratoga, supposedly it's because the WW2 era Saratoga was used as a target ship during the Bikini tests. Sounds as good a reason as any...

That's a good enough reason. I always think of that when I see the Bikini footage with the ships but I didn't put it together as a reason for naming the ship in the movie. I get distracted by having been on the later Saratoga and my hopes that carrier naming conventions will drift back towards the classic names.

I have the National Geographic issue where they took photos as they dove around the Saratoga and other ships sunk during the tests. The bit talking about the Saratoga even says, "It's like Godzilla stomped on the Flight Deck". Apparently a whole lot of water and sediment got thrown up in the air and came down on top of the Saratoga during the Baker test.



For people who might be interested.

National Geographic Vol. 181, NO.6 June 1992

[Borgholio]

Apparently a whole lot of water and sediment got thrown up in the air and came down on top of the Saratoga during the Baker test.

She quite literally got HAMMERED into the seafloor by several yards by the force of the blast. Rather impressive that she held together as well as she did.

[Tsyroc]

Apparently a whole lot of water and sediment got thrown up in the air and came down on top of the Saratoga during the Baker test.

She quite literally got HAMMERED into the seafloor by several yards by the force of the blast. Rather impressive that she held together as well as she did.

You can see her in some of the photos of the blast. Parts of the side facing the bomb were dented in as much as 6 feet.

[Sea Skimmer]

She quite literally got HAMMERED into the seafloor by several yards by the force of the blast. Rather impressive that she held together as well as she did.

Umm that seems less then physically possible considering the depth of the water, ~200ft, and the fact that she did not sink for something like eight or nine hours after the blast. The navy actually tried to beach her and several other ships, but found the water around them too radioactive to approach before she was clearly lost. Surely she was pushed down by the weight of water landing on her, but not into the seafloor.

The dished in side is only sort of impressive, since she did after all have an extensive TDS designed to crush under impacts. Much deeper gouges were made in some ships at Pearl Harbor without piercing the holding bulkhead. Nuke blast has no integral fragmentation so a TDS will hold up against it really well. Some of the battleships held up so well to both tests it was thought had they been manned they could have steamed away from the blasts without repairs, though pretty much everyone above the armor deck would die from radiation.

[Channel72]

Finally got around to seeing this...

I am actually quite pleasantly surprised. It wasn't particularly outstanding, but I feel like they tried to do all the right things, like postpone revealing Godzilla until there was a sufficient dramatic buildup, etc. And contrary to what a lot of other people are saying, I think postponing the real monster vs. monster action until the end was a very good dramatic decision.

The standard complaints about the vanilla main characters are all justified - we really didn't need yet another "perfect American family" as the emotional fulcrum here. Yes, Bryan Cranston would have been a better lead, if there was only some way to get him involved in the action.

I wonder why Hollywood never tries to just remake the original Godzilla. They don't have to set it in Tokyo, obviously - for an American audience they can change it to San Francisco or whatever. Basically, you have the first hour or so of the movie dealing with Godzilla as some sort of shrouded, mysterious force that is wreaking havoc among remote islanders or whatever, and then you have the second hour or so revolve around Godzilla all-out attacking a major city, with the major drama centered around how the human characters react and respond. It seems like a really great formula, and I don't understand why both the horrible 98 version, as well as the much better 2014 version instead opted to go with an entirely different plot structure. We really didn't even need the MUTOs at all - at least for the first movie in a franchise.

[Adam Reynolds]

Oddly, despite the fact that the military does nothing of value within the movie, apparently it had full support from the DOD and Navy.

In making the changes, Cole would often ask himself, "if there were giant lizards and monsters out there, how would the United States Army support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic? If this could really happen, how would we do that?"

I'm sure it would involved transporting a nuclear weapon on a train so that it can be stolen by a monster than can apparently track radiation leakage from a shielded warhead. It would also include parking M1 tanks on the Golden Gate Bridge so that they can shoot at Godzilla and cause him to crash through it and kill a large number of civilians in the process.

EDIT: It makes me wonder what was changed that would have shown the military in a worse light.

[Lord Revan]

Tbh I think the reason the US military supportd this movie is that unlike other similar american movies the military isn't criminally incompetent or outright evil. Sure the military actions cause things to go worse but it doesn't feel like anyone in a uniform has a negative IQ or they're actively and intentionally trying to make things worse, it's just that Gozilla and the MUTOS are so above anything they've faced before that they're not sure how to deal with them.

[SilverDragonRed]

I wonder why Hollywood never tries to just remake the original Godzilla. They don't have to set it in Tokyo, obviously - for an American audience they can change it to San Francisco or whatever. Basically, you have the first hour or so of the movie dealing with Godzilla as some sort of shrouded, mysterious force that is wreaking havoc among remote islanders or whatever, and then you have the second hour or so revolve around Godzilla all-out attacking a major city, with the major drama centered around how the human characters react and respond. It seems like a really great formula, and I don't understand why both the horrible 98 version, as well as the much better 2014 version instead opted to go with an entirely different plot structure. We really didn't even need the MUTOs at all - at least for the first movie in a franchise.

Because the monster doesn't mean the same thing as he did in the original. Godzilla was an allegory for the atomic bomb made by a people who directly suffered from it twice. Such context can not be duplicated by Hollywood. Not to metion that studios seem to have an allergy to characters like Dr. Serizawa, so you won't see someone as conflicted as him in the film. So the best that could be hoped for is a movie like the 2014 one where Big G represents a force of nature.

[Adam Reynolds]

Tbh I think the reason the US military supportd this movie is that unlike other similar american movies the military isn't criminally incompetent or outright evil. Sure the military actions cause things to go worse but it doesn't feel like anyone in a uniform has a negative IQ or they're actively and intentionally trying to make things worse, it's just that Gozilla and the MUTOS are so above anything they've faced before that they're not sure how to deal with them.

The real reason has more to do with the fact that it makes the military look suitably heroic and cool which boosts recruiting as well as their public image. It is the same reason why they backed Transformers. "Realism" has nothing to do with it.

[Adam Reynolds]

Because the monster doesn't mean the same thing as he did in the original. Godzilla was an allegory for the atomic bomb made by a people who directly suffered from it twice. Such context can not be duplicated by Hollywood. Not to metion that studios seem to have an allergy to characters like Dr. Serizawa, so you won't see someone as conflicted as him in the film. So the best that could be hoped for is a movie like the 2014 one where Big G represents a force of nature.

That is always a truth of monster movies in that the monster always represents the current threat as viewed by the society that it was created for. The use of nuclear weapons is now so far removed from the minds of most (especially in America) that it is on the verge of being lost from living memory. The current threat that seems to be replacing it is environmental ones which fits this movie fairly well with the issue of it being a force of nature.

[Lord Revan]

Tbh I think the reason the US military supportd this movie is that unlike other similar american movies the military isn't criminally incompetent or outright evil. Sure the military actions cause things to go worse but it doesn't feel like anyone in a uniform has a negative IQ or they're actively and intentionally trying to make things worse, it's just that Gozilla and the MUTOS are so above anything they've faced before that they're not sure how to deal with them.

The real reason has more to do with the fact that it makes the military look suitably heroic and cool which boosts recruiting as well as their public image. It is the same reason why they backed Transformers. "Realism" has nothing to do with it.

when did I say anything about realism, all I stated that Gozilla depicted the US military as being part of the solution even if only a minor part, instead of the typical big monster movie where the military is part of the problem either due to imcompetence or outright malice. So what you stated dispite your wording trying to do so, does not in fact counterdict my point, but rather enforces it, after all it's kind of hard to look heroic and cool if you're the main cause of the problems in the first Place.

[Lonestar]

I thought I had only seen Arleigh-Burke's but wasn't sure if I had missed something or not.

There was a Tico as well at the entrance.

For everyone going "hurr, the CVN could keep pace with Godzilla at that speed easy" Here is Stuart Slade commenting that the top speed for the Enterprise is around 33kts and more like 31 for the Nimitz classes.

[AniThyng]

Tbh I think the reason the US military supportd this movie is that unlike other similar american movies the military isn't criminally incompetent or outright evil. Sure the military actions cause things to go worse but it doesn't feel like anyone in a uniform has a negative IQ or they're actively and intentionally trying to make things worse, it's just that Gozilla and the MUTOS are so above anything they've faced before that they're not sure how to deal with them.

The real reason has more to do with the fact that it makes the military look suitably heroic and cool which boosts recruiting as well as their public image. It is the same reason why they backed Transformers. "Realism" has nothing to do with it.

when did I say anything about realism, all I stated that Gozilla depicted the US military as being part of the solution even if only a minor part, instead of the typical big monster movie where the military is part of the problem either due to imcompetence or outright malice. So what you stated dispite your wording trying to do so, does not in fact counterdict my point, but rather enforces it, after all it's kind of hard to look heroic and cool if you're the main cause of the problems in the first Place.

You mean aside from the whole "let's use a train to deliver the MUTO's wedding present" bit?

[Lord Revan]

You mean aside from the whole "let's use a train to deliver the MUTO's wedding present" bit?

I didn't say mistakes weren't made, just that in general the military wasn't depicted as criminally stupid or outright evil, after all we don't know if the MUTOs would have survivied the bomb blast.

[Tsyroc]

I thought I had only seen Arleigh-Burke's but wasn't sure if I had missed something or not.

There was a Tico as well at the entrance.

For everyone going "hurr, the CVN could keep pace with Godzilla at that speed easy" Here is Stuart Slade commenting that the top speed for the Enterprise is around 33kts and more like 31 for the Nimitz classes.

Personally I think that 33+ official rating is fairly accurate. I've never seen anything that would convince me that 50 knots is possible. I think he makes a good point about "transit speeds" giving people the idea that the ships are faster than they are. That's when I've seen the more wonky calculated speeds for specific distances covered. I've never been sure of the accuracy of those higher speeds or whether they take into consideration winds or sea currents.

The Forrestal class carrier I was on probably couldn't do 33. I think it had to strain a bit to keep it in the low 30s. It did have some pretty good acceleration though.

I'm not familiar enough with how surface search radars work to be confident that a radar on one moving surface ship can accurately read the speed on another moving surface ship without getting readings from another source to compare/calculate with. I once saw a surface radar reading on a PHM showing it doing 101 knots, which is much more than double the speed they were supposed to have been capable of. I wouldn't be surprised if people were screwing around and either putting fake contacts into the system or jacking around with the speed readings. Just the sort of thing that gets rumors going.

[Lonestar]

We would drag race with Burkes and we'd start to shake-rattle-roll at around 30kts. The Hull form of a Tico is probably more efficient than the hull form of a Burke, but the Buruke superstructure might be more aerodynamic..so take from that waht you will.