![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Battleship has... many problems. I mean, like... a lot of problems. Severe case of Privilege Power, with the implied racism that leaves in its wake, and no small amount of stupid. I'm not going to get into any of those. I'm going to focus on one, small, comparatively petty problem, because I think that it was part of what lead to the others. Battleship is not based on the board game.
Someone, once upon a time, might have had an idea for a movie based on the classic board game. If that were the case, corporate interference would have had to have its way. "Good, I like it. Only, let's have aliens and massive explosions and sound design that goes 'Zwooom' and, you know those Transformers movies... that."
And, great potential was squandered. But, that potential doesn't have to languish forever. Let's try again.
A ground rule: The opposing sides must be of equal technology and resource availability. Battleship, along with the vast majority of board games I'm aware of, simulates a conflict between equal sides... at least first. That means we can't have one side being the plucky underdogs.
I'm going to propose setting this at the end of the Cold War. But, if this needs to be in space, as there was a version of battleship that was set in space, let it be two space-faring sides. The story can adapt, but the equal sides are important.
As I said, I'm proposing the final years of the Cold War. Russia was seeing the failure of communism. America was losing faith in Reaganomics. Both sides see a decline in nationalism. Not everybody, but some people, including some, but not all, naval commanders are uncomfortable with a world that's changing. They'd built up not only their careers, but their personal and cultural identities around the other side being the enemy.
A Russian commander sees the fall of communism, the entreaty to America for assistance, as the beginning of the end of his nation. An American commander sees Russia as pretending to weakness, a ruse that could spell the end of his country. Either's view of their own nation is very restrictive, seeing change as degredation that will open up to destruction by the enemy.
Though neither will admit it, a large part of their response is to the fact that their current identities don't fit into the changing world as well as they once did.
The catalyst for the conflict could be something actually harmless. Some natural event or action by a third party nation that they mistake for aggressive action on the other side. That might be going a bit far, though.
On the other hand, one can, in seeing the degradation of their own nation, illegally take action and take a battleship, a submarine, and a couple smaller boats out to invade. This captain, acting illegally, would have to hide the truth of the matter from his subordinates, immediately imposing radio silence, except through himself.
The other captain would respond similarly, radio silence necessary due to potential listening in, commandeer a similar group of vessels. The standoff would begin.
Here's where the science fiction scenario might be the easier option. This would allow for the two teams to communicate among themselves or for the two leaders to communicate with each other without giving away position. It would also be more clear that the technology to sense the others would give themselves away.
But, I think that's also a challenge that could be met with some research and some creativity. And, some stretches of silence would be a welcome difference from many movies today.
The conflict, much like the game itself, would be a matter of guesswork and survival. During the conflict, the subordinates on either side would, with clues brought about, gain some kind of understanding. One side would learn that their commander's justifications were false. The other side would learn that the one's side isn't as universal on the matter as their own commander believes.
Either commander would use the imposing threat of the close enemy as a means of safeguarding their position.
The conflict and the story would come to a head when one of the aggressive team disobeys their commander and vocally surrenders, disarming themselves in a risk. The non-aggressive commander, showing how little of this is actually about defending the homeland, orders his team to fire upon the surrendering ship.
The only way anybody truly wins in this movie is by both sides refusing to follow illegal orders. Both commanders will see this as mutiny. Both teams will see this as ending the sacrifice of lives in the name of already dead conflicts.
Now, the Cold War or Space Opera options each have their benefits. Maybe the space opera would be the better way to go. But, my instinct leans toward Cold War. Either way, the identity based on an other enemy would be the killer, and refusal to accept that identity would be the only means of winning.
To my thinking, a good board-game-based movie should find a way to subvert the conflict of the game.
Someone, once upon a time, might have had an idea for a movie based on the classic board game. If that were the case, corporate interference would have had to have its way. "Good, I like it. Only, let's have aliens and massive explosions and sound design that goes 'Zwooom' and, you know those Transformers movies... that."
And, great potential was squandered. But, that potential doesn't have to languish forever. Let's try again.
A ground rule: The opposing sides must be of equal technology and resource availability. Battleship, along with the vast majority of board games I'm aware of, simulates a conflict between equal sides... at least first. That means we can't have one side being the plucky underdogs.
I'm going to propose setting this at the end of the Cold War. But, if this needs to be in space, as there was a version of battleship that was set in space, let it be two space-faring sides. The story can adapt, but the equal sides are important.
As I said, I'm proposing the final years of the Cold War. Russia was seeing the failure of communism. America was losing faith in Reaganomics. Both sides see a decline in nationalism. Not everybody, but some people, including some, but not all, naval commanders are uncomfortable with a world that's changing. They'd built up not only their careers, but their personal and cultural identities around the other side being the enemy.
A Russian commander sees the fall of communism, the entreaty to America for assistance, as the beginning of the end of his nation. An American commander sees Russia as pretending to weakness, a ruse that could spell the end of his country. Either's view of their own nation is very restrictive, seeing change as degredation that will open up to destruction by the enemy.
Though neither will admit it, a large part of their response is to the fact that their current identities don't fit into the changing world as well as they once did.
The catalyst for the conflict could be something actually harmless. Some natural event or action by a third party nation that they mistake for aggressive action on the other side. That might be going a bit far, though.
On the other hand, one can, in seeing the degradation of their own nation, illegally take action and take a battleship, a submarine, and a couple smaller boats out to invade. This captain, acting illegally, would have to hide the truth of the matter from his subordinates, immediately imposing radio silence, except through himself.
The other captain would respond similarly, radio silence necessary due to potential listening in, commandeer a similar group of vessels. The standoff would begin.
Here's where the science fiction scenario might be the easier option. This would allow for the two teams to communicate among themselves or for the two leaders to communicate with each other without giving away position. It would also be more clear that the technology to sense the others would give themselves away.
But, I think that's also a challenge that could be met with some research and some creativity. And, some stretches of silence would be a welcome difference from many movies today.
The conflict, much like the game itself, would be a matter of guesswork and survival. During the conflict, the subordinates on either side would, with clues brought about, gain some kind of understanding. One side would learn that their commander's justifications were false. The other side would learn that the one's side isn't as universal on the matter as their own commander believes.
Either commander would use the imposing threat of the close enemy as a means of safeguarding their position.
The conflict and the story would come to a head when one of the aggressive team disobeys their commander and vocally surrenders, disarming themselves in a risk. The non-aggressive commander, showing how little of this is actually about defending the homeland, orders his team to fire upon the surrendering ship.
The only way anybody truly wins in this movie is by both sides refusing to follow illegal orders. Both commanders will see this as mutiny. Both teams will see this as ending the sacrifice of lives in the name of already dead conflicts.
Now, the Cold War or Space Opera options each have their benefits. Maybe the space opera would be the better way to go. But, my instinct leans toward Cold War. Either way, the identity based on an other enemy would be the killer, and refusal to accept that identity would be the only means of winning.
To my thinking, a good board-game-based movie should find a way to subvert the conflict of the game.
