Talk:Captain Phillips (film)

Redirect/Disambiguation

I am not a fan of the way this is set up. A search for "Captain Phillips" should land here on the film page, which should have the disambiguation link at the the top. The disambiguation page should be named Captain Phillips (disambiguation). Krychek (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Rose George citation

The paragraph in the Rose George book I added to the "Controversies" section states:

"Marius [captain of Maersk Kendall] keeps quiet. Before he transferred to Kendal, he was on a smaller ship doing the run from Salalah down to Mombasa, Kenya. It was a sister ship to Maersk Alabama, which was captured by pirates in 2009 and whose captain was taken hostage and dramatically rescued by U.S. Navy SEAL snipers who killed three pirates in darkness through the doorway of a closed lifeboat. Murderous, but impressive. The sister ship did the same route and was the same size and flag, but its captain was different and so were its tactics. Marius's ship stayed six hundred miles offshore for as much of its journey as possible, as company guidelines dictated. Alabama didn't and was known for sailing only three hundred miles off Somalia's shoreline. When Marius left the ship, he was sure he would see Alabama in the news. He was right. Alabama is still in the news: its crew is suing Captain Richard Phillips, although he became a national hero, for ignoring company policy. Page 116, Chapter 6, "High-Risk Area". 50.200.41.134 (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Controversies

I'll put this question out there for others...

Should this section have so much detailed info on the controversies surrounding both Phillips and the Hijacking?

Or, should;
- controversy surrounding Phillips be directed to the article on Phillips,
- controversy surrounding the hijacking be directed to the article on the hijacking,
- and only controversy surrounding the film, be added this article, about the film?

Thoughts anyone? - thewolfchild 03:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a good point, Wolf child.
Any film article should be just about the film.
Related issues should be no more than briefly referred to.
In my view the answers to your first question is "No", and to each of the three questions is "Yes".
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 07:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Middayexpress (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Time now to do this? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Middayexpress (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm — I thought I would refer back to the OP, Thewolfchild, as s/he put the idea forward, only to have my post there removed without any reason or comment as seen here
On examining the Talk page you will notice some other impolite behaviour.
This speaks volumes too— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Relax. I was working on something else. Perhaps if you had bothered to check my contribs, you would have noted that. But, instead, you come here and complain that I didn't jump, when you said 'jump'.

Then you felt the need to highlight my "other impolite behavior" - which is relevant here... how?

This is not an issue of pressing importance, nor is it incumbent upon me as the OP to address this issue. I pointed it out here almost 3 weeks ago, and what have you done in that time? ... nothing. If no one else can be bothered fixing it, then I will... when I get around to it. - thewolfchild 12:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

changes

I have BOLDly made changes to the Controversies section. I have removed comments that are not related to the film. Comments about the real-life Phillips should be posted to his BLP (if appropriate). Comments about the actual hi-jacking, and subsequent lawsuit, should be posted to the article about that incident (again, if appropriate). I have left the additions, with the AMA interviews with Phillips and Greengrass, although I am not sure how reliable a source Reddit is. - thewolfchild 13:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, Rosemary, if you're gonna revert me, especially on the basis that a discussion for consensus is required, I would appreciate it if you would actually comment here yourself. Anyway, I have posted a comment on this issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Captain_Phillips_.28film.29 - thewolfchild 11:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I have also inquired about the reliability and acceptability of Reddit as a source at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Reddit. - thewolfchild 11:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment I think Thewolfchild made a reasonable edit. The material he removed wasn't directly addressing the film, but simply relaying another version of events that is only tangentially related. As for Reddit, I have reservations about the source since it is unclear how thorough the verification process is. Betty Logan (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Following a suggestion at WP:RS, I brought the Reddit question to WP:RS/N. There has been one response thus far, stating that Reddit/AMA is not reliable. (btw- thanks Betty!) - thewolfchild 18:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

MOSIM

Per WP:MOSIM, I've moved the images of the two principal actors to the cast and development sections, respectively, where each is discussed. The image template also overran the section it was placed in [1]. Additionally, I fixed one overlink. Middayexpress (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Midday Express for sorting this out. I was unhappy with my efforts. Let's hope it is left alone now!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh | Buzzard| — 20:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No prob. Your efforts are certainly appreciated btw. Middayexpress (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ha! This old boy is always learning new tricks. Thank you! – The Welsh Buzzard — 20:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

I am proposing the following changes to the "Dispute over film accuracy" section; Though the story is recent, this film is based on an historical event and it appears that for such films, it is common to have a section titled "Historical Accuracy" (examples: Gladiator, Gangs of New York, 300 & Zero Dark Thirty) I don't see why this film should be any different. I also stand by the point that we should remove content that is not directly related to the film to avoid repetition, undue weight, lack of neutrality, etc. I also propose that items with questionable sources be removed, until the reliability of those sources is confirmed. With all that said, I propose the current section be rewritten as follows;

Historical Accuracy

In a New York Post article, some of the crew members of the Maersk Alabama accused the film of being inaccurate in facts and the portrayal of Phillips.

In a CNN interview, Mike Perry, the Chief Engineer of the Maersk Alabama, claimed that the film does not tell the true story.

Despite complaints of inaccuracy with how the film portrays the events surrounding the hijacking, the film's director, Paul Greengrass has publicly stated that he "stands behind the authenticity of Captain Phillips". He went on to write "At the end of the day, it is easy to make anonymous accusations against a film. But the facts are clear. Captain Phillips’ ship was attacked, and the ship and the crew and its cargo made it safely to port with no injuries or loss of life. That’s the story we told, and it’s an accurate one"

This proposal is based on the content of this section as it is currently written, and does not preclude any additional, appropriate entries. Thanks. - thewolfchild 19:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This looks fine but lacks the comments by Phillips and Greengrass. Why not include these? If we don't want to cite Reddit directly, I found this easily enough to validate the director's comments. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This from Slate could also be used. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've been more clear... I don't have a issue with the actual comments cited in the AMA. I just didn't think it appropriate to add any comments from a dubious source. Thanks. - thewolfchild 20:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

(note: I have edited my proposal, using one of Erik's suggested refs - thewolfchild 21:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC))

I don't have big concerns about the reliability of the AMA (i.e. I doubt that the subject was an impostor), but it's a primary source, and great caution must be exercised with such sources, as it's difficult to avoid engaging in original research. Far better to rely on secondary sources like the NYPost and CNN as Thewolfchild has done above. Pburka (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I prefer his original edit. I don't see any harm in leaving in the comments by Phillips and Greengrass if Reddit is indeed considered reliable because it helps to clarify their own views on the authenticity of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thewolfchild's suggestions that "we should remove content that is not directly related to the film to avoid repetition" and that "items with questionable sources be removed, until the reliability of those sources is confirmed" seem reasonable. The draft box above looks alright. Remarks on the film's historical accuracy by Greengrass, Phillips and his crew would all seem notable, provided that they adhere to the aforementioned conditions on relevance and reliable sourcing. They would also have to be given due weight and phrased neutrally. Middayexpress (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The box seems fine to me. Like I mentioned on WP:RSN, where this issue seems not to have drawn much commentary, I would prefer to avoid the Reddit interview, as it's an unverifiable, self-published primary source. We're not even sure about the authenticity. It could have been an enthusiastic fan speaking for his idol or a PR rep. Back a long time ago, when the net was more naive and gullible, one of my friends used to have a hobby of impersonating John Kricfalusi. Anyway, I think the box sums up the situation fairly well. If more unambiguously reliable sources can be located, I see no reason why they can't be added. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Betty, I read your comments about Reddit. If you notice, I went with the idea of using a better source, and we still get Greengrass's comments in there in defence of the film. The section size is now scaled back somewhat, but we still have the idea that the accuracy of the film has been both challenged and defended. I don't think this issue should overshadow the entire article. I'll wait another 24 hours, if no one objects, then I'd like to put this proposed edit in, and hopefully be done with it. - thewolfchild 02:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little bit late to the show, but I very much favor this proposal, especially now that Reddit has been weeded out. Nice work, Thewolfchild! Krychek (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, praise is never too late, and always appreciated. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 01:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Genre

I don't agree with this movie being labeled an action thriller. While there are some action scenes in the movie, there are very few. I did a Google search, and while some sources do describe it as an action thriller, majority of them either consider a drama or a thriller. While I won't argue it being in the action thriller category, I do feel that the lead should be changed to either thriller or drama because that is what it is most often called. Personally, I prefer thriller. JDDJS (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Box Office Takings

Is it really sensible to quote box office figures to the nearest dollar when the amount is well above $100 million? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erriene (talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

box office

In the box office section, it says:

"Captain Phillips grossed $107.1 million in North America and $111.7 million in other countries for a worldwide total of $218.8 million, against its budget of $55 million"

I like this. I mean you could just say the film sold 218 million dollars worldwide but breaking down the total into regional sales is fine too and more informative. But the ending of this statement, where it says "against its budget of $55 million", sounds a bit braggy or you know biased in favour of the movie and the sales it made, or at the very least, it doesn't sound as neutral as something like "it cost 55 million dollars to make the movie" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.88.181 (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The budget figure is included not to be "braggy" but to give context, this is standard in film articles. Grossing over a hundred million is not impressive if a film cost even more than that to make. Then there are the added complexities of Hollywood accounting and even if it might seem like a film is profitable, studios might still claim it was loss making. -- 109.77.193.6 (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Captain Phillips (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150405230601/http://hamptonroads.com/2013/10/change-puts-navy-woman-facetoface-tom-hanks to http://hamptonroads.com/2013/10/change-puts-navy-woman-facetoface-tom-hanks

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Captain Phillips (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102162352/http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film-critic-top-10-lists-best-movies-of-2013 to http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film-critic-top-10-lists-best-movies-of-2013
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213063338/http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131209/ENT02/312090098/Detroit-Film-Critics-Society-nominates-top-films to http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131209/ENT02/312090098/Detroit-Film-Critics-Society-nominates-top-films
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006093242/http://phoenixfilmcriticssociety.org/article/208/phoenix-film-critics-society-2013-award-nominations.html to http://phoenixfilmcriticssociety.org/article/208/phoenix-film-critics-society-2013-award-nominations.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Captain Phillips (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20131009035208/http://www.kare11.com/news/article/1041730/391/4-Mpls-men-co-star-in-Tom-Hanks-film-Captain-Phillips to http://www.kare11.com/news/article/1041730/391/4-Mpls-men-co-star-in-Tom-Hanks-film-Captain-Phillips

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Censored in China

The film could not be screened in China because its content would not /was not acceptable to the government there (https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Directed%20by%20Hollywood%20Edited%20by%20China.pdf). Is this worthy of mention in the article? 37.99.49.197 (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added a note to the same effect based on an article from Reuters.[2] I have not taken the interpretation that it was censored exactly but I have made a more neutral statement that the film was unable to secure a release (since only a limited number of Hollywood films are given a release slot in China) and that as a result Sony were then worried about the profitability of the film. -- 109.77.193.6 (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)