Posted on 10/14/2013 6:27:25 AM PDT by the scotsman
'It’s made for Hollywood: the story of an average American family man, captain of a cargo ship in dangerous waters, his vessel overtaken by armed Somali pirates demanding ransom, saving his crew by allowing himself to be removed from the boat and taken hostage.
All of this is the basis for “Captain Phillips,” starring Tom Hanks as the titular, real-life hero. The only problem, say some members of the real Capt. Phillips’ crew, is none of it is true.
Capt. Richard Phillips, they say, is no hero, and the film is one big lie.'
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
‘Based on a true story’ is Hollywood marketing jargon. It means nothing except that the drama in the film was inspired by actual events. A documentary is bound by historical fact to be valid - a drama is not. Dramatists are not historians. Films as great as Lawrence of Arabia and Schindler’s List were also inspired by actual events but took huge steps away from what ‘actually happened’ which is a matter of record.
The fact that Phillips took his ship on a route 300 mmiles off the course ordered by Maersk and he ignored all their other warnings lends credence to the crew’s lawsuit, IMHO.
See #22. Your comment adds an interesting dimension to ponder.
I saw the real Capt. Phillips interviewed on Fox last week. He struck me as an arrogant SOB.
i believe the movie PEARL HARBOR was based on actual events too.
hell ya i remember. he refuaed to okay snipers order to shoot. it was at least a day or more before Owimpo said go.
OMG... he really said that? Thanks for the reminder to NOT see any movies that Tom Hanks is associated with...
Remember when Hanks made that movie about a homosexual with AIDS “Philadelphia” and won an Oscar for it? In the movie only one lawyer is willing to take his case. In reality, there would have been scads of ambulance-chasers climbing over each other to take Hanks’s case. Think the lawyer Saul Goodman in Breaking Bad.
Yes, he really said that within the last 2 weeks. I didn’t even know about the Phillips movie when I heard it. But, when the other 3 members of our regular movie going group wanted to see Capt. Phillips, I objected strenously. I even threatened to slip out of the multiscreen and slip into romeo & Juliet, but the tickets had already been purchased, so it would have done no good.
The movie was OK, but I sat there mad at that fool, Tom Hanks, throughout the whole thing.
In the movie, they gloss over that stubborn little fact and make it the order of the Navy Commander who would not allow them to shoot.
To be fair to Hanks, he WAS joking.
Was he? I heard it on the radio and he didn’t say he was joking. He sounded dead serious.
Besides, that kind of ‘joke’ is like saying that a 13 year old victim of statutory rape was ‘asking for it’. We’ve seen that posted here too. I don’t think that it is very funny. I couldn’t get the words, ‘third term’, out of my mouth without choking regarding Obama.
I didn’t see the movie, but I have a devious mind, and the article really made it sound as though there was something fishy here. A captain who receives and ignores repeated directives on how to avoid routes where pirates prey, does not allow his crew to prepare, makes boarding easy, voluntarily goes off with the pirates sounds as though he’s more than just incompetent and arrogant. The Somali pirates may sound like an unsophisticated lot, but the hundreds of millions of dollars those ships represent might make it worthwhile for somebody to make an offer to a captain. The involvement of the SEALs and the result for the pirates was a complication he must not have anticipated.
And of course, we know whose side Obama is always on. Not a surprise that he wouldn’t give the SEAL sniper permission to shoot for a long time. When he finally got backed into a corner and had to give the order, a man who had so little knowledge of our military must have been surprised at the sniper’s ability to make a perfect shot in those conditions.
(Someday we will have a president and a functioning republic again, an it please God.)
The movie didn’t show him disobeying orders — the article claimed that he did. I suppose this will be decided in court. But there was enough in the movie (foggy/glossed over) that this article has the ring of truth to it.
If Maersk ordered him to remain 600 miles, or feet — I forget which) off shore, why was he at 240? And why did he hold at 240 after 2 previous pirate raids — a sitting duck for the 3rd one?
The movie showed him practicing for securing the ship against a pirate raid, yet the crew says they were in a fire drill when they were boarded. Hmmmm.....
The movie made him look like a selfless hero, while it portrayed the crew as whimpering cowards.
I would not sail with this captain, if I were a seaman, and I would not hire him if I owned the boat.
I am no fan of Hanks (find him grossly overrated as an actor and there are stories about him which contradict the idea hes the modern everyman Jimmy Stewart type actor and celeb). But I have heard the clip and imo he was joking. He knows Obama cant go again. Obviously he’s a fan and would want him to, but he wasn’t either suggesting he should or could.
I have seem him interviewed and his humour is usually quite dry. Which is why some might think he was serious. I have seen him talking about politics and he comes across as someone clued up enough . No scholar, but no dummy either.
Far and away, the biggest lie in all of Hollywood is: “Based in real events.”
I heard him on the radio. ometimes you miss the nuances with just the audio. He sounded too serious for me.
She then what is the real story? What was the lie? I’m just curious. The Navy confirmed he was kidnapped and take aboard the lifeboat. The movie is based on that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.