Waisting Taxpayers Money: U.S. Navy Loans 3 Carriers And Cruisers To Film 'Godzilla'

Steve_McGarrett

Gold Member
Jul 11, 2013
19,272
4,370
280
The U.S. Navy is supposed to protect America from our enemies, not mythical made up monsters like 'Godzilla'. I don't want my taxpaying dollars to go to waist on stuff like this. Why would the Defense Department allow something like this? The article explains


Authentic Navy fleet dukes it out with Godzilla | Navy Times | navytimes.com

In the article, the Navy states they want to show how mighty our fleet is to our young kids (and to the world) but according to this new footage released yesterday, they don't seem to be any match against Godzilla and his tail as they try to establish a blockade at the Golden Gate Bridge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have my ticket in hand to see the movie......16th of May. I'll be there, just like I have at all Godzilla movies. Except the one in 1959 with Raymond Burr...
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
I have my ticket in hand to see the movie......16th of May. I'll be there, just like I have at all Godzilla movies. Except the one in 1959 with Raymond Burr...

I would rather watch the patriotic 'The Birth Of A Nation'.
 
Normally the studio does pay a hefty penny for the use of military assets. The Navy doesn't work for free.
 
How much will it cost to replace those naval ship destroyed by Godzilla?

At least a godzillion dollars.

Love the levity.
icon14.gif
:lol:
 
I'm sure this might not come as a big surprise to anyone, but, the US Navy has been allowing for the use of its ships in approved, the key word there is "approved" movies for a long long time. This practice goes back to moves like "Battleship" all the way back to "In Harms Way". The Navy uses these movies as means to recruit new sailors as well as paint the Navy in a good light. If the Navy had to pay to produce, distribute, and sell a full length film , or for that matter material that would reach an audience the size that a feature film would, the COST would exceed far beyond that of the cost of fuel and supplies for ships used in filming. If someone were really interested in how the Navy spends money then starting here is rather like being worried about the pennies under the sofa , while someone is taking your credit card and using it to buy a TV. In other words if your worried about costly programs in the Navy I can sure name you a few, start with LCS ( Littoral Combat Ship) 162B in cost overruns and counting for a ship according to the CNO will not survive more than 28 seconds in surface warfare.
 
If they are using this movie as a recruiting tool, I would have to say that the footage in the op make the Navy look incompetent. They panic and accidently fire at civilians hitting the bridge.
 
From the Navytimes article,

“This film gave us an opportunity to demonstrate how we respond to a crisis,” Coons said. “It really showcases it at the level at our young men and women. Our hope is — the demographics for this audience are roughly 14- to 18-year-old teenagers who are watching movies — they are going to take their family to this film and they’re going to walk out of the theater and say: ‘You know, I never knew the Navy was such a sophisticated, professional organization; I really want to go explore it; they have some amazing UAV’s [unmanned aircraft] and technology and professionalism and honor and courage and valor; I never knew that, and maybe it’s something I want to do with my life.’

I'd say if that is the result then as a recruiting tool it accomplished its mission. Again the Navy allowing the use if its ships,men,aircraft, and facilities has been a long practice in recruiting. This movie is no different.
 

Forum List

Back
Top