Talk:The Boat That Rocked/Archive 1

Archive 1

Johnnie Walker

The original hype for this movie compared its storyline to the real story of Radio Caroline which began broadcasting in 1964. The movie is set in the specific year 1966. The rogue in the movie is a parady of Postmaster General Tony Benn. The factoid opening scenes of the movie are similar to something that CNN began using to set a premise for a news story and the very real link was made to BBC radio programs of 1966. The ship used was not similar to one of two Caroline ships of 1966, but it is the same type, same colour, same mast construction as the MV Ross Revenge that began broadcasting in 1983. The present caretaker staff of the MV Ross Revenge loaned Richard Curtis the actual studio equipment for the film. Initially a second ship was also used in the filming but this vessel is not in the final edit and it appears as if major changes were made to the storyline after filming was completed.

Johnnie Walker is listed in the credits as advisor and yet Johnnie Walker is already on record in The Independent as being disappointed that Curtis decided to abandon the real premise of the introduction for pure fiction and then combine the two. Dave Lee Curtis in the same article is on record as saying something very similar.

The problem with this film is that the opening sequences and all of the pre-release hype convey the impression that what will follow is a true depiction of events, even if poetic license is applied (something that is usual with historical-period-piece movies.) That is not what this movie is. It is a hybrid setting itself up to do one thing and then morphing into something else. This is precisely the issue that has Johnnie Walker (a paid advisor to the film) so upset with the end product - especially since his name has become attached to it.

There are a lot of reviews out there and they all seem to follow the same pattern: this movie is too long, the writing is poor and that it creates a bad impression about real people of 1966 - many of whom are still alive. Since the storyline was changed after the production work began, then the introduction should also have been changed to reflect that this was not a depiction of Tony Benn or any other actual person involved with offshore broadcasting.

This article needs to reflect all sides of opinion, but what it needs to counter-balance is the idea that a Wikipedia article supports a movie that engages in character assassination of people who alive today. See Wikipedia guidelines on biographies about living people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falkirk75 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a source for this? Because I tried to keep up with the information around the release of the film, and I don't recall ever being led on to believe that it was based on anything other than complete fiction. Also, the factoid opening scenes are there to provide context - there is a huge precedent for them in not only non fiction, but also fiticious works. The wholly-fictional RTS PC game C&C Generals, for example, uses them. And despite this I was never led to believe that the game was based on real events. In the case of the film, these set up a picture of British Radio in the decade, for those who didn't live through it, such as myself. --87.194.152.184 (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

'Comedic Rape Scene?'

Maybe I completely missed this scene for some reason or another, but I don't remember any rape scene, comedic or otherwise, in 'The Boat that Rocked'. Could someone enlighten me on this? --Tikkuy (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I watched the film a few hours ago and have absoloutly no recollection of this at all. The reference points to "but after the strangely troubling quasi-rape scene in the first reel this lightening of the tone suits the film much, much better" which offers no real clues either. --Reue (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that 'comedy attempted rape scene' refers to the scene where Dave tries to get Carl to lose his virginity. The girl is in the bedroom and the plan is that Dave goes into the bathroom to switch places with Carl. If the plan had worked then the girl would have had sex with the wrong guy. Technically rape as the girl hadn't given her consent to Carl. All very tedious - like something out of those rubbish "Confessions of ..." films of the 1970's. --Stanley Oliver (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right. Well, I guess that sort of makes sense. Sort of. --Tikkuy (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Setting

Set in 1966, it tells of the United Kingdom pirate radio movement, which used a legal loophole to broadcast to audiences of up to 25 million from ships anchored off the coast of the UK.

This movie is hypothetically set in 1966 because the ship used is a replica of one in use by Radio Caroline after 1983 and there was no "United Kingdom pirate radio movement which used a legal loophole to broadcast ..." The stations of 1966 were commercial ventures run according to commercial company guidelines and they were competitive. There was no "movement". There was no "legal loophole" either. There was no law preventing these stations from operating and that is why a law was passed to prevent British citizens from cooperating with these stations. Unfortunately this movie is pure fantasy and it does not represent any real event or person or even time period! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falkirk75 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this article is pure trash. Did the film ever attempt to portray itself as factual? Did it ever mention even the now over-used "based on true events" strapline? No. If you have a grudge against the film, by all means express this, but not through the main article. If anything, mention it in a controversy section, but only if there has been controversy in the media over this issue. I came here seeking some information on the film having seen it in the cinema. Rather than getting useful information such as a concise plot summary, I get the rantings of a lone idiot. --Cdpilkington (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree this. The only purpose of this articles is to show that the author of said article dislike the film. There may be a section for this but I would normally expect "premise" to follow the premise of the story and the review section to show more than one review of what seems to be a prettty non-professional reviewer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.24.105 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition to having some kind of problem with the film the guy who wrote it also seems to want to tell us how much he knows about pirate radio in the '60s. What a tool... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.175.119 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happened to NPOV? I have to wonder whether this is intended as an article, or as yet another review? As others have stated, the producers have never claimed this to be anything other than an entertaining movie. If we subjected each film produced to the standards of accuracy apparently expected by some here, the movie industry would cease to exist. By the way, as long as everyone is freely expressing POV on this film, it was highly entertaining, if not particularly accurate, and the soundtrack is world class! 206.130.173.55 (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Beg to differ on the "legal loophole" question. The fact that the stations broadcast from international waters meant that they were circumventing national laws, and that to me seems like a perfectly valid definition of "legal loophole". --Lee M (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting a lot of hostility here. Too much emotion, not enough factual debate. --Lee M (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Radio Caroline vs. BBC Light

As one who remembers the 1960s, I was taken aback by the following statement in the article:

• It should be noted that when offshore broadcasting began off England in 1964, the musical output and style of presentation of the first station (Radio Caroline), was very similar to the BBC Light Programme.

Umm, does this comparison sound at all right to anyone else who was alive in those years? Not to this baby boomer! --Nandt1 (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately there's plenty of evidence to hand to back up this claim. Go to [1] and download some Radio Caroline recordings from the spring of 1964. (Zipped files, password is freeradio.) You'll find the station's early output is at least 50% middle-of-the-road rather than the pop hits you'd expect. --Lee M (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm! As one who was around at the time, I recall that the BBC's Light Programme used to spend a good deal of its time keeping the BBC's own studio orchestras busy playing adaptations of light favorites. --Nandt1 (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Organization

This article is a mess. the plot section jumps from event to event, rather than going through the movie. it used to be much better, but it's awful nowadays. Just watched the movie, and I'm gonna start improving the article. --Floorhugger (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't find this much of an article at all, rather a barely legitimate negative review pretending to be an article. Not up to Wiki standards at ALL. The nonstop parade of "proof" that it is a failure, e.g., completely ignores the fact that the film is apparently fast becoming a cult hit. I think this needs a DRASTIC rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.116.11 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What album was in the water?

I just caught a theatrical showing so can't do a lookback/freezeframe. Did anyone take note of which record album the DJ tried to retrieve during the underwater/near drowning scene? At the minimal glance I had it looked familiar, but I can't place it. Thanks --Wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Album is "The 5000 Spirits Or The Layers Of The Onion" by The Incredible String Band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.182.88 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Way too much historical detail

This is supposed to be an article about a movie, not the topic of Pirate Radio. The historical background is far too detailed for this article, and is rendered almost completely moot by Curtis' repeated claims cited within that the film isn't a documentary. This stuff should be removed and a link to the article on the broadcasting format used instead for people wanting more detail. --68.146.81.123 (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There could be a short para detailing major distortions of historical fact. --Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the tone of the article is inconsistent with an article about a fictional film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.199.219 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Songs That Weren't Around in 1966

During one of the more intense scenes as the ship is sinking, there's a snippet of The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again," which struck me as really odd since that song wouldn't be released for another 5 years. Are there any other songs in the movie (on the soundtrack or otherwise) that temporally don't belong? The Soundtrack lists an '83 David Bowie song (Let's Dance), but I'm not familiar enough with the other songs to know. --Zappafrank2112 (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There are in fact quite a few songs in the film's soundtrack that weren't yet released in 1966. "Won't Get Fooled Again" (1971) is in the film, though it doesn't appear on the soundtrack album (although 2 other Who songs do), and "Let's Dance" (1983) is on the album but isn't in the Pirate Radio version of the film. Not wanting to go back to the film's credits to dissect all the songs, the following tracks from the soundrack album weren't yet released in '66 (not counting Duffy's 2009 cover version of the 1966 song "Stay with Me"):

• "Elenore" by The Turtles (1968)
• "Judy in Disguise (With Glasses)" by John Fred & His Playboy Band (1968)
• "This Guy's in Love with You" by Herb Alpert & the Tijuana Brass (1968)
• "Crimson and Clover" by Tommy James and the Shondells (1968)
• "Hi Ho Silver Lining" by Jeff Beck (1967)
• "I Can See for Miles" by The Who (1967)
• "The Letter" by The Box Tops (1967)
• "Silence Is Golden" by The Tremeloes (1967)
• "The Wind Cries Mary" by The Jimi Hendrix Experience (1967)
• "A Whiter Shade of Pale" by Procol Harum (1967)
• "The Happening by The Supremes (1967)
• "Father and Son" by Cat Stevens (1970)
• "Nights in White Satin" by The Moody Blues (1967)

As you can see, most of these are from '67–'68, so the implication is that the filmmakers were using rock & pop songs of the late '60s to set a mood for the film (and perhaps to play on nostalgia), rather than going for absolute historical accuracy by restricting the soundtrack to songs from 1966 and earlier. This isn't all that uncommon in period films. If the DJs in the film are actually shown playing these songs over the air, then yes there is some historical inaccuracy being depicted (I don't recall which ones are actually played on Radio Rock in the film as opposed to which were used as background/scene music, though the DJs are definitely all singing "Elenore" during the wedding scene when that song wouldn't even have been written for 2 more years). As you can see from some of the above discussions and some of the article content, the soundtrack is hardly the only historically inaccurate element of the film. But remember that this is a fictional story that merely uses 1966 as its setting; as a work of fiction it's not that surprising that it takes some historical license with the music. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Album Covers List

I believe there should be a list of the album covers towards the end credits of the film, for when i watched it i missed a lot of them, and i would really appreciate it. --Bobbutcher (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As I was able to come up with by running the end of the DVD in slow motion (some covers appear more than once):

Extended content

BEATLES Sgt. Pepper PAUL SIMON Graceland BLACK EYED PEAS Elephunk JAMES TAYLOR Sweet Baby James SIMON AND GARFUNKEL Bookends KANYE WEST The College Dropout AMY WINEHOUSE Back to Black R.E.M. Automatic for the People BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN The River LEFTFIELD Leftism RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS Blood Sugar Sex Magik EMINEM The Eminem Show JONI MITCHELL Blue DON McLEAN American Pie DUFFY Rockferry CAT STEVENS Tea for the Tillerman DURAN DURAN Rio TOM PETTY Highway Companion TEARS FOR FEARS Songs from the Big Chair BOB DYLAN Love and Theft BLONDIE Parallel Lines BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN Born to Run ELVIS COSTELLO My Aim is True QUEEN A Night at the Opera 2 covers I couldn't quite identify VAN MORRISON Astral Weeks MEATLOAF Bat Out of Hell NIRVANA Nevermind STEVIE WONDER Songs in the Key of Life DUSTY SPRINGFIELD The Look of Love TAYLOR SWIFT Fearless (No, I'm not making that up...) INXS Kick PETER GABRIEL (??) JIMI HENDRIX Electric Ladyland PUBLIC ENEMY Fear of a Black Planet ANNIE LENOX Diva U2 War SCOTT WALKER 2 LAURYN HILL Miseducation of... THE KILLERS Sam's Town THE KINKS Face to Face LILY ALLEN Alright, Still LOU REED Transformer SANTANA Abraxas THE PROCLAIMERS This is the Story DE LA SOUL 3 Feet High and Rising KATE AND ANNA McGARRIGLE Kate and Anna McGarrigle KING CRIMSON In the Court of the Crimson King FLEETWOOD MAC Rumours SUPERTRAMP Breakfast in America ROBERT PALMER Pressure Drop SANDY DENNY Like an Old Fashioned Waltz MARVIN GAYE What's Going On? TOM WAITS Rain Dogs JIMMY CLIFF The Harder They Come.. EURYTHMICS Touch MASSIVE ATTACK Blue Lines THE CLASH London Calling CROSBY, STILLS AND NASH CSN ELTON JOHN Goodbye Yellow Brick Road KINKS album, did not recognize cover BILLY JOEL The Stranger THIN LIZZY Jailbreak JOAN ARMATRADING Joan Armatrading THE JAM All Mod Cons An album I couldn't identify JIMI HENDRIX Axis: Bold as Love GRACE JONES Island Life ROLLING STONES Let it Bleed BECK Odelay KRAFTWERK Man Machine ROD STEWART Every Picture Tells a Story NICK DRAKE Bryter Layter GUNS 'N' ROSES Appetite for Destruction JACKSON BROWNE The Pretender DEF LEPPARD Hysteria SONIC YOUTH Dirty DIDO Life for Rent BLUR Parklife MANIC STREET PREACHERS Generation Terrorists ABBA Abba THE ORB U.F.O. KEANE Hopes and Fears THE POLICE Reggatta de Blanc JAY-Z The Bluerint OASIS (What's the Story) Morning Glory THE WHO Tommy EMINEM Encore SIGUR ROS Hvarf/Heim JIMI HENDRIX Are You Experienced? SNOW PATROL Final Straw BON JOVI Slippery When Wet DIRE STRAITS Brothers in Arms U2 The Joshua Tree PORTISHEAD Dummy THE STOOGES Raw Power THE SMITHS The Smiths CULTURE CLUB Kissing to Be Clever GEORGE MICHAEL Faith Didn't recognize cover RAMONES Ramones RON SEXSMITH Ron Sexsmith HUMAN LEAGUE Dare BJORK Post BOB DYLAN Nashville Skyline ELBOW The Seldom Seen Kid PHIL COLLINS No Jacket Required PULP Different Class KYLIE MINOGUE Light Years BOB DYLAN Blood on the Tracks PETER GABRIEL So

The list apparently came from a list of 180 albums that someone "loved" from the commentary (I'm guessing it was director Curtis) but the ones that actually made it were ones they got clearance for. --GBrady (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the list of album covers from the article as it is trivial and superfluous; there are literally dozens of album covers shown during the closing credits montage, and listing them has little to no value to encyclopedic coverage of the film. Hoops gza (talk · contribs) has repeatedly reverted me on the grounds that "it's part of the film" and "it adds to the article". On that grounds we would be justified in having complete lists of every song that appears in the film's soundtrack, every background actor including extras, and every member of the film crew including interns & caterers on the grounds that all of these things are "part of the film". This is not IMDb; simply mentioning that there is a closing montage, and finding a source for GBrady's statement above about how the covers were selected, would suffice for encyclopedic coverage. I invite other editors, including Hoops gza, to weigh in on the value of having this "list of album covers" in the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. It's over-the-top and unnecessary. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Negative tone

I don't know why this article is so negative, just watched the film and really really enjoyed it. Enjoyed it enough to look it up on wikipedia. 68.175.59.239 (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the tone of the article is decidedly negative and perhaps POV as well. I was especially struck by the financial failure of the film being so prominent in the lead paragraphs, especially in such detail. Should that be down further in reception or the like? There are other examples of not NPOV in the article as well. Whether one likes the film or not..I personally came to the article to check the historical nature of the film. It is a fictional comedy, that's fine. But the tone seems to be written by someone who has take personal offence at the film. Bill Nighy was delightful as always. And THAT last comment is my POV. :) Gingervlad (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A film's financial performance is a pretty common topic to touch on in an article lead. I think you'll find that most GA/FA film articles make some mention of the film's earnings, as well as critical reception, in the lead, particularly if the financial earning was significantly high or low. In the case of The Boat That Rocked the gross was significantly low, with the film taking in only ~⅓ of what it cost to make, despite being re-edited & re-released in North America under a different title in an attempt to address the complaints of UK critics. That's a significant financial shortcoming, possibly even in the category of box office bomb. It's pretty significant that a major film by a high-profile director with a successful track record, starring a number of high-profile actors, was such a flop at the box office. Whether the film was enjoyable (I personally enjoyed it very much, DVR'd it & have re-watched it several times & even bought the soundtrack album) isn't all that relevant to its financial success or failure, and the financial failure of this film was pretty steep. So I disagree that the lead paragraphs present a negative tone, as the financial figures speak for themselves and the "Reception" section is full of negative critical opinions. I'm probably biased, though, since I wrote the lead :)

That said, I do agree that there is a negative tone in the "Historical setting" section, which consists mostly of a long complaint that the North American trailer presented a somewhat different premise than what the film itself presented (the trailer frames Philip Seymour Hoffman as the star of the picture, when—having seen the Pirate Radio version several times—his role isn't any more prominent than most of the other major players ie. Nighy, Ifans, & of course Sturridge who plays the primary protagonist). There is certainly a lot of improvement to be made in that area. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)