Battle: Los Angeles

[The Big I]

I watched it today and enjoyed it for an alien invasion movie it looked realistic. I felt that the Alien were more like marines going in to capture and expand a beach head for the heavier army units and airbases for their airforce hence why they may have been using drones. Anyway how long would it take for a heavy armour unit to get going after they get the call to head out because you do see on tv(as they were leaving for the helos) the strikers out on the street helping the civilians get out before the asteroids hit, but by the time they have taken off you hear over the radio that they had lost 101 Abrahms.

[Kartr_Kana]

Saw it last week and as a Marine infantryman I loved it. Yeah the camera angles and shaky cam made getting a sense of the bigger battlefield really difficult, but then when you're down there that's how it is. Plus at that level you're not as interested in who's two klicks west you just care what is around the next corner or the top of the roof. As such I didn't have much trouble following what you could get "contact rear!" aliens were on the top of the house behind them. That kind of thing is usually the best you're going to get anyway.

The Marines were amazingly well done and I could easily see them being guys from another company that I didn't personally know. Heck there were a couple guys in the movie who reminded me of buddies I had when I was in. The only thing I noticed was that they were nicer to the "boot", but that's been the trend recently, can't even yell at them when the fuck up or you go to the brig.

There isn't a whole lot of character development on the battlefield. Sometimes guys who talk big and convince everyone that they're the shit, turn into weepy little babies when rounds are coming down range. Other guys who everyone though would be the cry babies because they're not loud mouths wind up being the steadiest under fire. That's essentially all the character development you get in a combat zone, that and them learning to trust the SSgt they felt had history of letting his Marines get killed. IMO there was only as much character development as you can actually get in the battlefield and that was a good thing. Otherwise the Marines would've all been emo and sparkle in the sunlight.

Not going to get into the whole "water for fuel", "radio shouldn't have worked because of EMP" or any of the technical aspects because we all know Hollywood doesn't think those kinds of things through. That being said I do like the way the gunships looked.

As for the tank there was some pretty big chunks of rubble around perhaps they didn't have a lane to get out. Or possibly they'd already been mobility killed and couldn't move anyway so they were acting like a pill box to try and hold open a lane for as long as possible. Things like that have happened in real life and could've easily happened here.

All in all it's my favorite alien invasion movie to date and since I didn't really care for District 9 I have to say I think Battle LA was better.

[Darksider]

ok. I just finished watching the movie, and reading the thread.

No one's going to say anything about the marines basically vivisecting a prisoner of war? Really?

That was kind of a jarring moment for me, especially since no one says anything about it ever again, even the guy who want's to become a doctor. Hippocratic oath? What the hell is that?

The action scenes were good when the camera was steady enough to see what the fuck was going on, but every time someone started a long-winded speech about the U.S. marine corps I found myself rolling my eyes. A good popcorn flick if you turn your brain off, worth seeing at least once.

On another note, there's supposedly and XBOX live arcade game based on the movie, has anyone played it?

[Simon_Jester]

We can make all kinds of philosophical arguments (Hippocratic Oath, et cetera). What it really comes down to is...

I don't think you can assume people will have major hangups about such things while they're caught in the middle of a massive invasion that's burning down one of the largest cities in their nation around their ears. Human beings do not think that way under combat conditions, and I doubt any intelligent mind that evolved to have survival instincts could either. Past a certain point, they're simply not going to worry about the kinds of obligations that might, might become an issue to them if they were ideal utilitarian robots.

There's just not a lot of room in the heads of guys going through something like this for anything but "protect your own, harm the enemy."

[loomer]

And I'm sure American soldiers would never abuse a prisoner, even if that prisoner is a goddamn space communist cyborg from beyond the moon. I mean, when have they ever abused prisoners in the past?

Oh, right. In every war they've been involved in, like pretty much every other military.

[Thanas]

I do not think any of you two understood Darkseider's point - that such portroyals of prisoner abuse are becoming commonplace in US media, meaning that average people might soon assume that it is just a thing heroes do.

[AniThyng]

I do not think any of you two understood Darkseider's point - that such portroyals of prisoner abuse are becoming commonplace in US media, meaning that average people might soon assume that it is just a thing heroes do.

You mean like how the average person assumes that police detectives routinely get suspended, spit in the face of their inept bosses and violently beat up the bad guys despite being suspended?

I'm not sure that being concerned that "average people" would "assume" that mistreatment of aliens is normal for heroic american soldiers because no one punishes them for it or gives it much thought at the time. Does the movie need to have a scene later on where they are tried in the Hague for war crimes? And if we are going down the line that this represents a trend that actively influences moviegoers rather than being reflective of society's lack of respect for alien rights (in both the terrestrial and extraterrestrial sense of the word) I think we've effectly made the case that these movies are objectively morally objectionable.

[Sarevok]

Given the impact 24 and Jack Bauer had I think there is cause for concern. Alien or not I am not too comfortable with how it is now being seen ok for good guys to torture captives.

I dread to think what kind of lessons the younger generations are taking from it.

[Simon_Jester]

Put simply, I do not think that such a response from higher authority would be plausible in a "the Martians have landed" scenario. There are some important points that could be raised to defend the marines' conduct in a trial, under these specific circumstances, even though it would otherwise be indefensible... but ultimately, I wouldn't expect them to think of it when the Martians have landed and are burning down a major metropolitan area.

I don't think this is in any respect unique to Americans.

Like AniThyng, I also don't think that this instance contributes in any respect to Thanas's statement that "average people [in the US] might soon assume that [vivisecting a prisoner] is just a thing heroes do." Indeed, I think Thanas is very much overreaching to assume people will generalize from what is normal to do during an alien invasion to what is normal to do during the occupation of Sandistan.

[AniThyng]

Frankly if we were going down this route, I'd be already concerned that people are being conditioned to accept war and combat itself as glorious or even *fun*. Should we really be packing ourselves into a movie theater and entertaining ourselves with the destruction of Los Angeles? Does it really make any sense to be outraged that heroic American soldiers might actually perform field vivesection on a alien prisoner of war? Did anyone object to it when it was done in Independence Day in Area 51? This was a popcorn flick, designed to entertain with huge explosions and gratitious displays of military hardware - and also a (on-screen) body count in the dozens, with an implied one of millions. Should the movie also dwell on PTSD, on the morality of carpet bombing a city to deny it to invaders, etc?

Are these the kind of things we want young people to consider "entertainment?"


Perhaps the argument is really that the vivisection scene should just be left out. Let fanfic writers with a taste for injecting grimdark and reality into fiction do it. Why sully the movie with such a scene? Perhaps next we can leave out smoking and drug use in movies as well. Oh, wait.

That all being said, the kind of people whose morality is affected by what they see heroes do in the cinema are also the kind of people that shouldn't be allowed to play computer games. So yeah, perhaps these should all be R rated for mature adults only.

[Thanas]

Like AniThyng, I also don't think that this instance contributes in any respect to Thanas's statement that "average people [in the US] might soon assume that [vivisecting a prisoner] is just a thing heroes do." Indeed, I think Thanas is very much overreaching to assume people will generalize from what is normal to do during an alien invasion to what is normal to do during the occupation of Sandistan.

Am I? Maybe.

OTOH:

Given pro and con arguments, 63 percent in an ABC News/Washington Post poll say torture is never acceptable, even when other methods fail and authorities believe the suspect has information that could prevent terrorist attacks. Thirty-five percent say torture is acceptable in some such cases.

There's more of a division, though, on physical abuse that falls short of torture: Forty-six percent say it's acceptable in some cases, while 52 percent say not.

Majorities identify three specific coercive practices as acceptable: sleep deprivation (66 percent call it acceptable), hooding (57 percent) and "noise bombing" (54 percent), in which a suspect is subjected to loud noises for long periods.

Far fewer Americans accept other practices. Four in 10 call it acceptable to threaten to shoot a suspect, or expose a suspect to extreme heat or cold. Punching or kicking is deemed acceptable by 29 percent. And 16 percent call sexual humiliation — alleged to have occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad — acceptable in some cases.

These are deeply worrying numbers IMO, and depictions of those things without consequence for the perpetrators in any medium should be fought whenever possible.

[SylasGaunt]

ok. I just finished watching the movie, and reading the thread.

No one's going to say anything about the marines basically vivisecting a prisoner of war? Really?

That was kind of a jarring moment for me, especially since no one says anything about it ever again, even the guy who want's to become a doctor. Hippocratic oath? What the hell is that?

Most of those niceties go out the window when you're basically dealing with an enemy with superior tech, superior numbers, an unknown biology which has show itself to be highly resistant to being shot in the place we normally shoot people and, and I feel this is the most important bit, seems intent on genocide. The aliens are basically shooting every human they see, no quarter asked or given, and we hear about them lining up civilians to be shot.

Part of the reason for treating prisoners well beyond the morality of treating a fellow member of our species with at least a little respect, is that by doing so you give the other side a reason to treat your prisoners well because if they don't you might not either. This does not exactly apply in a situation where the other side isn't taking prisoners and just wants to kill the shit out of everyone they find.

[Simon_Jester]

Like AniThyng, I also don't think that this instance contributes in any respect to Thanas's statement that "average people [in the US] might soon assume that [vivisecting a prisoner] is just a thing heroes do." Indeed, I think Thanas is very much overreaching to assume people will generalize from what is normal to do during an alien invasion to what is normal to do during the occupation of Sandistan.

Am I? Maybe.

OTOH:

Given pro and con arguments, 63 percent in an ABC News/Washington Post poll say torture is never acceptable, even when other methods fail and authorities believe the suspect has information that could prevent terrorist attacks. Thirty-five percent say torture is acceptable in some such cases.

There's more of a division, though, on physical abuse that falls short of torture: Forty-six percent say it's acceptable in some cases, while 52 percent say not.

Majorities identify three specific coercive practices as acceptable: sleep deprivation (66 percent call it acceptable), hooding (57 percent) and "noise bombing" (54 percent), in which a suspect is subjected to loud noises for long periods.

Far fewer Americans accept other practices. Four in 10 call it acceptable to threaten to shoot a suspect, or expose a suspect to extreme heat or cold. Punching or kicking is deemed acceptable by 29 percent. And 16 percent call sexual humiliation — alleged to have occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad — acceptable in some cases.

These are deeply worrying numbers IMO, and depictions of those things without consequence for the perpetrators in any medium should be fought whenever possible.

So: Americans are split 35% for and 65% against on "torture is acceptable under some conditions." Note that the definition of "some conditions" was not checked; "some conditions" could mean "whenever the hell we feel like it," or it could (more likely) mean "the bomb is ticking, where is it?" Which is, yes, an unrealistic brainbug that's crept into... looking at the numbers, the heads of a distinct minority of Americans.

Then you've got the other two thirds-plus who are totally against practices such as beating captives, let alone vivisection. Who you kind of ignore in your estimation.

In this movie we have vivisection* of a single Martian, when said Martian is of a completely unknown species, which has come to Earth while making no attempt at communication and is simply razing everything within their reach. The perpetrators are combat troops trying to figure out if the thing has any body parts that it can take a lethal wound to, since all previous encounters left them with the impression that the creatures were practically bulletproof.

I would very much like to see a viable argument for how the idea that such a thing might be tolerable under those highly fictional circumstances generalizes to abuse of real prisoners under real circumstances. It's not as if there's any need to examine Iraqi insurgents to figure out where their critical organs are before US soldiers are physically able to kill them in battle; that's something all humans everywhere have known about each other since prehistoric times.

While you have your reasons for caring about this issue intensely, it's become something of a hobbyhorse for you in recent months, and I think you're letting it carry you into unreasonable places here.
__________

*I repeat that the main reason this became a vivisection is that the aliens in this movie don't die when you stab them. They can survive injuries to almost any part of their body without any obvious, serious immediate-term effects, making them extremely resistant to anything less than heavy weapons. There was no particular sign of calculation or sadism in the decision to do this; all evidence from the film suggests that it was something of a desperation measure because the Marines in question were at a complete loss as to how to kill the aliens without having to use high explosives.

[Thanas]

So: Americans are split 35% for and 65% against on "torture is acceptable under some conditions." Note that the definition of "some conditions" was not checked; "some conditions" could mean "whenever the hell we feel like it," or it could (more likely) mean "the bomb is ticking, where is it?" Which is, yes, an unrealistic brainbug that's crept into... looking at the numbers, the heads of a distinct minority of Americans.

One: A third is a significant minority. Which turns into half the population when it comes to "psychological torture is acceptable". These numbers are frighteningly high and I would expect to see them in fascist dictatorships, but not in the USA.

Second: I was not aware that they were still in a combat situation and that the Martian was still resisting. It sounded like they were doing this to a POW. If this happens in a battle and the Martian had not given up, then that reduces my objections considerably.

[Darksider]

after considering it, I withdraw some of my objection to the scene in question. This wasn't a POW at a camp taken to a medical facility for a Mengle-style dissection. It was a combat situation where the seemingly un-killable aliens were literally banging down the doors of the police station that they were defending, and the Marines had every reason to believe they would kill everyone including the civillians and children they were there to rescue. They needed to figure out how to kill the things right fucking now. It's still a bit unsettling, but understandable.

[Balrog]

Second: I was not aware that they were still in a combat situation and that the Martian was still resisting. It sounded like they were doing this to a POW. If this happens in a battle and the Martian had not given up, then that reduces my objections considerably.

The situation is that the Marines have just reached their objective, a police station, with orders to help evacuate civilians. Except the station is a blasted shell, there are a handful of civilians still alive, oh and their evac chopper just got shot outta the sky and the aliens are advancing on their position. Prior to this they had just fought their way through the suburbs, expending ridicules amounts of small arms fire or resort to grenades just to kill individual alien soldiers. So they find a wounded alien outside in the parking lot, drag it back in, and with the help of one of the civvies (who happens to be a veterinarian), they start cutting it open so they can find its vital organs and know how to kill the damn things. Putting this situation into context, the aliens have invaded the entire world, starting with major population centers, and going by news reports are attempting genocide by rounding up every human they see and shooting them without mercy.

Given all of that, I would not call this a worrisome positive depiction of unwarranted cruelty. Jack Bauer ripping a terrorist's fingernails out to find the location of the bomb this is not. The Marines need to find out the best way to kill the aliens, otherwise they die, and they have very few options to do that.

[Simon_Jester]

So: Americans are split 35% for and 65% against on "torture is acceptable under some conditions." Note that the definition of "some conditions" was not checked; "some conditions" could mean "whenever the hell we feel like it," or it could (more likely) mean "the bomb is ticking, where is it?" Which is, yes, an unrealistic brainbug that's crept into... looking at the numbers, the heads of a distinct minority of Americans.

One: A third is a significant minority. Which turns into half the population when it comes to "psychological torture is acceptable". These numbers are frighteningly high and I would expect to see them in fascist dictatorships, but not in the USA.

In a fascist dictatorship I would expect to see the numbers a good deal higher.

I think the key thing in the question is the "some conditions." A lot of Americans have been infected by the "ticking bomb" brainbug: what if there's a guy who planted a bomb and you need to get the location out of him? Things like that. This is an extremely unrealistic scenario in cases where torture is actually used, but it's probably the main thing responsible for those disturbing minorities you mention.

Second: I was not aware that they were still in a combat situation and that the Martian was still resisting. It sounded like they were doing this to a POW. If this happens in a battle and the Martian had not given up, then that reduces my objections considerably.

The sequence of events is as follows:

The marines, got into a firefight against the aliens in which they came out much the worse for wear. As I recall, the only confirmed kill they got was one where they emptied a magazine of 5.56mm NATO into the thing, then emptied several more magazines into the thing, then it fell into a pool, which they tossed a grenade into. Lots of overkill.

They found the civilians they'd been sent to rescue and pulled back to a large building, keeping a nervous eye out for more aliens. This building was assaulted, and further aliens were killed or disabled by hits from 40mm grenade rounds. One of these aliens, still twitching, was dragged into a back room. With a comment along the lines of "we need to find out where its vulnerable areas are," the squad leader and a couple of people with medical training started cutting into it with combat knives, eventually finding an organ important enough that a stab wound would be quickly fatal.

On the one hand, the alien was no longer fighting back to any real effect. On the other hand, this was during the battle, and the alien had not "given up" in the sense of "communicated surrender." Indeed, no alien in the film ever made any attempt to communicate with humans, so far as I can remember; they simply killed everything they could get their gunsights on.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

It doesn't seem like the Martian even could "give up". During the 'vivisection', they could not find any recognizable brain or nerve center, and the creature seems to have been bred as a drone soldier from the context (such as the surgically-grafted weapons and armor, their behavior). The whole scene could be summed up as "Stab it here. ...Nope. How about if we stab it over there? ...Nope."

And, yes, I still found the scene disturbing. I think it was meant to be.

[Simon_Jester]

I wouldn't go that far; the inability to find a brain, even when they know what a terrestrial brain would look like (they do), under those conditions, is hardly surprising. If those things don't keep their brains in their heads and/or have a strong "twitching and thrashing" reaction to loss of brain function, the Marines might have actually nailed the thing in the brain without realizing it during that scene.

So there's no reason to assume the alien soldiers are incapable of surrender- I believe we see them signalling each other and such, in ways that would be pointless if the things were just remote controlled meat-puppets. Though if they have surrender gestures, they don't use them in the movie.

But yeah, the scene boils down to "stab it there... nope. Stab it there... nope." Bob's got it, and yes it's pretty clearly meant to be disturbing as hell.

[AndroAsc]

I don't get it why the alien vivisection is suck a big fucking deal. Disturbing? Immoral? OMG it's torture! ROTFLMAO!!! WTF??? SERIOUSLY???

Hello... imagine if you were in that situation. You got a fuck tons of alien bad guys that you can't kill. You have an alien prisoner, a specimen. YES, the logical thing to do is to find their weakspot by stabbing the shit out of them and seeing which part works. Admittedly, the methodology is crude, and maybe there is another more efficient way to do it, but who cares? It got them the intel they need. Hell, I even said to myself the Sarge was smart. If I were in that situation I would probably shoot the crap out of that alien shit.

Why the fuck are you guys worrying about the finer points of morality when the fucking Earth is under a fucking invasion? All that matters is who lives and is victorious. If you guys really walk your talk, you'll probably end up the first ones dead in such a scenario. Stop being a bunch of pussies. War is war. The fact that there are "rules" for engagement and conducting warfare is a fucking joke!!! They are artificial man-made ideologies that should be thrown out if it is preventing us from achieving victory. In fact, I would say most "rules" in warfare needlessly cripple one's action by limiting one's ability to engage a proper war. You do what you need to do to win. Anything and everything.

[Simon_Jester]

Why the fuck are you guys worrying about the finer points of morality when the fucking Earth is under a fucking invasion? All that matters is who lives and is victorious. If you guys really walk your talk, you'll probably end up the first ones dead in such a scenario. Stop being a bunch of pussies. War is war.

Why do I get the feeling you'd apply this argument to any other war, including ones where who wins is far less important than how the war is conducted?

The fact that there are "rules" for engagement and conducting warfare is a fucking joke!!! They are artificial man-made ideologies that should be thrown out if it is preventing us from achieving victory. In fact, I would say most "rules" in warfare needlessly cripple one's action by limiting one's ability to engage a proper war. You do what you need to do to win. Anything and everything.

You know, you're right to compare yourself unfavorably to the sargeant in this movie. In that yes, you're not as smart as a good noncom. Certainly not smart enough to figure this stuff out.

There are a lot of very good arguments for the laws of armed conflict, and I suspect you're perfectly capable of grasping them- you're just trolling because you get your jollies by making someone smarter and better educated than you waste time telling you things you already know.

But someone else will probably take more of the bait than I did; you can let them lecture you on the details of why this is a fucking stupid argument, one that could only be advanced in good faith by someone who is almost totally ignorant of the history of armed conflict.

[AndroAsc]

But someone else will probably take more of the bait than I did; you can let them lecture you on the details of why this is a fucking stupid argument, one that could only be advanced in good faith by someone who is almost totally ignorant of the history of armed conflict.

Really? Why don't you provide some examples then? I do admit I am not well versed in historical armed conflicts and the "rules of engagement" in warfare is if you ask me downright illogical.

And even if the "rules of engagement" make sense, it is obvious that the aliens from the movie have violated many of them, for e.g. attacking civilian population centers. Under such situations, playing "by the book" is just dumb. If this were a contest, and you know your opponent has "cheated", why hold back and follow the rules?

And for god's sake the enemies in the movie were not even human. If you wanted to base your arguments on idealistic high-minded principles of "human rights", I'm sorry but that is totally thrown out from this argument.

[AndroAsc]

Let's just do a quick point-for-point on the wiki entry on "laws of war" shall we?

Some of the central principles underlying laws of war are:
Wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (e.g., territorial control) and should not include unnecessary destruction.
This fundamental premise behind this assumption is that the invader wants the infrastructure intact, so that they can use it to tap the resources more quickly (i.e. less reconstruction effort). This would also suggest that a "neutron bomb" that kills all organic life and but leaves all infrastructure intact would conform to the laws of war, but I doubt the squeamish ones would agree.

Wars should be brought to an end as quickly as possible.
Agreed. So if vivisecting the alien prisoner helps the marines kill the aliens more effectively, this would arguably bring the war to an end sooner. However, if you have 101 rules on what you can and cannot do, you may inadvertently limit yourself from using the most efficient means to end the war.

People and property that do not contribute to the war effort should be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship.
In theory, a good argument, but what happens if the the innocent bystanders cannot be distinguished from the true aggressors? For e.g. using civilian meat shields, we've seen that many times in science fiction yeah? Cardassians stationing Bajoran civilians on every military outpost.

To this end, laws of war are intended to mitigate the hardships of war by:
Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering.
Again, idealistic but not practical. What happens if the combatants start masquerading as civilians? How do you determine friend from foe? Best to shoot first, ask questions later.

Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians.
I doubt this applies to aliens in the movie. And let's say we generalize to "sentient rights", it is all idealistic arguments. Remember that the objective of the war, is to win, and not how "honorable" your conduct is (please let's not go off the top with Battletech's Clan honorable combat). Preventing collateral damage is always desirable, but not so if it impedes your ability to win the war in an efficient manner or not if it greatly increases the risk to your troops.

Facilitating the restoration of peace.
This assumes that the purpose of the warfare is not to wipe out the opposing side entirely. The only true peace would be the total elimination of one side (if you ask for my opinion). Any other peace runs the risk of a "resurgence" of conflict.

[Simon_Jester]

AA, you do not deserve such insults as "savage," "barbaric," "animalistic," or "murderous," because all these things imply a certain red-blooded ferocity, strength, and even a degree of violent courage. A willingness to do and dare, kill or be killed, and so on.

You don't have that. You're not even an animal. You're a bloody-minded little git who gets off on prating about vile behavior from an armchair, where you're safely protected from the well known and obvious consequences of waging war in the fashion you advocate.

The combination of your sociopathy, your historical ignorance, and your breathtaking illiteracy when it comes to understanding the arguments you have cited is such as to place you beneath my disgust- though not beneath my contempt.

[Kingmaker]

AndroAsc, nearly all your points can be refuted by the simple fact that indiscriminate violence in war will make things harder, not easier. Civilians that fear extermination will take up arms, enemies will feel little compunction about employing reciprocal tactics against your civilians, and third parties will be far less inclined to tolerate a barbaric neighbor.

The fact that there are "rules" for engagement and conducting warfare is a fucking joke!!! They are artificial man-made ideologies that should be thrown out if it is preventing us from achieving victory. In fact, I would say most "rules" in warfare needlessly cripple one's action by limiting one's ability to engage a proper war. You do what you need to do to win. Anything and everything.

And sometimes the cure is worse than the cancer. You want to see warfare without rules? Look at some of the tribal conflicts in Africa that have been going on for decades. Look at the Thirty Years War in Germany (I'm sure Thanas will correct me if when I'm wrong). Lawless wars do not end quickly or efficiently, except when a greater power is exterminating a lesser one. They end when the combatants are too exhausted to continue, because to surrender is to court annihilation. The peculiar circumstances of BLA are not generalizable to all warfare. Suffice it to say that the laws of war have developed for a reason.