Talk:The Boat That Rocked

Coming-of-age film

I edited the lead sentence to describe this film as a coming-of-age comedy film, but my edit was reverted. That this film is a coming of age film can be well-sourced, [1] [2] [3] [4] and if anyone has seen this movie they would know that it is really more of a coming-of-age film than it is a comedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mice never shop (talk • contribs) 02:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Mice has a fair point. I've tried a rewrite of the synopsis. Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The primary genre is clearly comedy. The film is billed as an ensemble comedy: The poster says "a new comedy from Richard Curtis" and it is classified as a comedy by Allmovie, Rotten Tomatoes, and IMDb. "Coming of age" is not even a prominent genre like "comedy", "horror", or "science fiction". It's more of a descriptor of a character arc. This was pretty well-covered at Talk:Scott Pilgrim vs. the World#Lead genre as well. Per the coming-of-age film article (which is a 1-sentence article created by Mice never shop, by the way, with 80% of the sentence being original research), such a film "focuses on the psychological and moral growth of the protagonist from youth to adulthood". The only character in this film who comes even close to that description is Carl, and the story is much more about the station itself and its wacky cast of characters, and "from youth to adulthood"? The whole story takes place in a matter of months. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I wouldn't link coming-of-age in any case. Article does suffer from overlinking a bit, wouldn't you say. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. I've only worked on the lead, plot, & cast sections really. Given the above sources, I think it'd be appropriate to mention the coming-of-age plotline in the reception section, as most seem to comment on how thin that framework story is, and probably to put it in a corresponding category. But I don't think it bears mentioning in the lead, as the defining characteristics of the film are that it's an ensemble comedy about a British pirate radio station in the '60s. The primary narrative of the film is the station itself and the government's attempts to shut it down, and what happens because of that. Carl's story is quite secondary to this, and covered in the plot, so I don't think we need to describe it as a coming-of-age story in the lead as that's not the primary plotline. It's not like this is Stand by Me or Almost Famous. (Seriously, if this is a coming of age story, then so is Animal House). --IllaZilla (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to be honest and state that I haven't seen the film myself, so I'm reading between the lines somewhat. However it does seem that "Set in 1966, the film tells the story of the fictitious pirate radio station "Radio Rock" and its crew of eclectic disc jockeys, who broadcast rock and pop music to the United Kingdom from a ship anchored in the North Sea while the British government endeavors to shut them down." is not entirely accurate. The film is better described as the story of a young man's coming of age in the environment of a fictitious etc etc. Certainly, as the synopsis now stands, that very much appears to be the case. It's pretty plain the film-makers introduced Carl to give the film a protagonist, and the whole thing centers around his story, and figuring out who he is, exemplified by the search for his father. I'd guess that the sinking of the ship is allegorical in that respect, that he is now his own man. To just state quite simply that the film is a comedy about pirate radio clumsily overlooks that aspect. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Having seen the film several times, I can tell you that's not really the case. The film begins with a description of pirate radio in the '60s and The Count broadcasting rock & roll to Britain. Carl is then introduced, and he sort of serves as a projection for the viewer: he's just coming onto the boat, so through him the viewer gets to meet all the characters. From there it doesn't really "center around his story", insomuch as he even has a story...significant chunks are given over to other characters and non-Carl-related events, such as Simon's marriage, The Count's feud with Gavin, and Dormandy's mission to shut pirate radio down. It's the conflict between Radio Rock and Dormandy that forms the major arc of the film. Carl's "psychological and moral growth" consists of getting laid and meeting his father, which happens coincidentally, by the way...it's not a "search for his father", in fact the subject only comes up about halfway through the film and is answered a few scenes later.

I'm not saying that Carl's story shouldn't be mentioned, just that it's not the crux of the film's plot and thus shouldn't be emphasized as the second sentence of the lead. It's like Animal House: There are 2 protagonists introduced in the beginning (Kroger and Dorfman) who serve as means for the viewer to meet all the other characters, and their experiences are part of the story, but the film's an ensemble comedy with a number of major characters and primary plot is about the fraternity vs. the rest of the college. Same with this film: Carl's arc is part of the story, but it's an ensemble comedy with several major characters who are given focus and the primary plot is Radio Rock vs. the government. That's the arc that drives the story. The sources that Mice gave above reinforce this:

• [5]: "While Carl is living out his flimsy coming-of-age story (the closest thing to a narrative arc the film has), on land the stiff, totally square UK government is occasionally coming up with ways to shut the station down."
• [6]: "A bit of coming of age -- as if this collection of misfits and ne'er-do-wells ever considered growing up -- providing a thin observer-as-stranger plot as a thread through the anti-radical politics of the time."
• [7]: "Mainstream audiences are given the tried-and-tested tale of a young man coming of age among the outrageous cast of characters and the musical ensemble is often used to move the story along. However, it’s the backdrop of living on a fishing liner converted to a floating radio station, one separating them from the millions of fans listening in, is what sets the true tone of the story and where we find wind for the sails.
• [8]: "His script is as straightforward as they come: Eight DJs literally rock the boat, creating an Animal House-like atmosphere as they pull pranks, get high, and bed an endless procession of women who are ferried out to their location. As with any good frat-house comedy, there's a villain: In this case, Kenneth Branagh playing the greasy-haired Dean Wormer role of G-man Sir Alistair Dormandy, who wants nothing more than (wait for it) to shut down these blasted pirate radio stations. [...] And of course there's the coming-of-age portion of the film, which is largely structured around the arrival of Carl (Tom Sturridge) and his subsequent experiences on the ship, sent to the boat by his mother after he's kicked out of school for smoking."

I think these sources reinforce the fact that the major plot of the film is the story of Pirate Radio vs. the government, and that Carl's story (described as "flimsy", "thin", and "the closest thing to a narrative arc the film has") is secondary to this. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the omission of the coming-of-age aspect of the film in the lead appropriate?

As will be seen in the discussion an editor suggested that the description of the article's subject - the film Pirate Radio - as a comedy is not entirely accurate. He posits that the major theme of the film is the coming-of-age of its young protagonist, to which the comic pirate radio activity provides a backdrop. The opposing editor suggests that coming-of-age aspect of minor importance - both as a factor in the film and, indeed, as a film genre at all. My attempt to carve middle ground was reverted. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• The sources offered by Mice never shop in the above discussion are fairly weak, and IllaZilla's argument against it is solid. If more reliable sources can't be brought to the table, then I would suggest that IllaZilla's edits remain. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• See my responses above: the primary story of the film is the radio station vs. the government. That's the focus of the plot and the advertising, and backed up by Mice's sources. I also think an RfC is a bit much, seeing as how this is currently-under-discussion topic concerning a minor bit of wording in 1 sentence. I think a bit more time could have been given to the above discussion before an RfC was deemed necessary (I don't think a day is enough time to decide that we couldn't come to a consensus in that discussion). --IllaZilla (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the long and detailed response IllaZilla. As mentioned I could only go by the description in the article, which appears to validate, to some extent, mice's point. I didn't feel qualified to argue it much further and, as you note, he/she appears to have an axe to grind in that direction. Hence my appeal for others to to take a look. It's also a little test for me of the RfC process, which I've not used before. I'm happy that some consensus appears to be arising. I'd like to give it another day or two before closing it. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• I reviewed Google News Archive Search for the term, and it appears to be used sparingly. Since the term is not used so readily in reliable sources, it would be an exaggeration to use it in the lead section. I would not have any issue with a lesser mention of this term in the article body, perhaps in the "Cast" section beside Tom Sturridge's name. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  I think the best place to discuss this aspect of the story would be the reception section, since several of the sources comment on how thin/weak that aspect of the plot is. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• It looks like you don't need additional comments on this any more, but I thought I'd add my thoughts on the issue anyway: Wikipedia is based in verifiability, not truth. The genre(s) of a film should reflect what reliable sources say, regardless of personal interpretation of the plot. If multiple genres are backed up by multiple sources, list them all. You mentioned above that some of your sources may be unreliable, in which case you should seek out reliable sources to confirm which genre is commonly accepted. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  Just an addition to my comment. IllaZilla, you mentioned that sources indicate a particular genre is weak in the storyline? If so, I think it should still be included in the lede section. A comedy that is critically panned and regarded by most as utterly unfunny would still be marked as a comedy. Whether a film succeeds at a particular genre isn't necessarily an indication of whether it can be classed in that genre. As always, what the sources report is what should be included. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

TS thus validates Illazilla's contention that the coming-of-age mention belongs in the reception section. I stand down and have removed the RfC tag. Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

A film does not necessarily carry the genre that the producer has labeled it with. Or in other words, a movie that is universally received as not funny is not a comedy. I have seen too many DVD covers that read "Very Funny!" only to find out by watching that it is a drama. If reliable independent sources say that this film is a "coming-of-age film" (which they do), then it is proper to include that genre in the article. Fages (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This film is universally labelled a comedy, though. Each source given above calls it so, and remarks on how flimsy the coming-of-age aspect of the story is. I would be thoroughly surprised if one could find a source that gave this film's primary genre as something other than comedy...it's Animal House at sea, for pete's sake. Certainly the coming-of-age aspect of the story bears mentioning, but not in the opening sentences of the lead, as that's not the primary genre (the article coming-of-age film is a single sentence and barely makes the case for this being a "genre" anyway...it's more a story descriptor). The place to discuss that part of the story is in the reception section, as the sources about this consist of critics critiquing that part of the story. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Differences between The Boat that Rocked and Pirate Radio

There's been a dispute (in which I've taken part) over the plot section concerning when Marianne comes back and has sex with Carl. In the Pirate Radio version, it takes place after The Count and Gavin have their game of chicken, and before Carl's mother visits for Christmas. According to Chitchatjf, in the original The Boat That Rocked version the scene takes place after the midnight deadline on 1/1/67, but before the ship sets sail. I admit that I've only seen the Pirate Radio version, but it doesn't seem to make any sense plot or flow-wise that it would occur there: The fake "final" broadcast takes place at midnight, but then the DJs continue to play, and Twatt sails out to arrest them only to find a fishing boat in their place, the Radio Rock ship having fired up its engines and set sail. The scene with Marianne arriving clearly shows the ship sitting still, and of course at that point they haven't told anyone they're relocating so how would she have found it? And the morning after they sleep together she and Margaret depart in the morning quite calmly with a bit of a send-off...this hardly makes sense if the Radio Rock ship is sailing around the North Sea on an undisclosed path trying to avoid capture. And of course the ship's engine explodes scant hours after setting sail, which wouldn't fit with the amount of time shown for Carl and Marianne's scene and subsequent send-off.

Anyway, this ties into a larger discussion of the differences between the UK & US versions of the film that isn't really explored in the article. There are quite a few deleted scenes on the Pirate Radio Blu-ray disc, one of which is pictured in the article (the scene where the characters have come ashore and have shenanigans around London, including the scene in front of the National Gallery). It would be pertinent to note whether these scenes were cut from The Boat That Rocked version, as the film was trimmed by ~20 minutes when it was re-edited as Pirate Radio. We could have a paragraph discussing what was changed, and why those changes were made, but we'd need adequate primary and secondary sources to write such a section. Does anyone know of any sources discussing these changes that could be used? --IllaZilla (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There's also a big mood change that occurs in the Pirate Radio version after Marianne and Mum are aboard. The mood darkens as government screws are tightened. It seems that having Marianne pop up after the change in the law is proposed would be out of place structure-wise. Perhaps that's why the sequences were altered in the following North American version. Speculation on my part, though. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Difference between fiction and documentary

The writer-director Richard Curtis has publicly made clear that this is a work of comedic fiction not an historical telling of the story of British pirate radio. The article should not fall into lazy way of using the film distributor's descriptives of the film being about UK pirate radio. And implying that the milieu is depicts is historically accurate. If the film's maker doesn't claim it - then neither should this article. There used to be a paragraph flagging certain points that are at variance with the history of pirate radio. Not to criticize the film (which personally I enjoy vey much) but in order to note for the encyclopedic record where the film differs from the era it portrays. That should be reinstated. Davidpatrick (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's a work of comedic fiction. The lead says it's a comedy film. The article in no way states that the film makes any claim to historical accuracy. The section that you refer to ("flagging certain points that are at variance with the history of pirate radio") was (A) completely unreferenced, and (B) gave undue weight to an idea that is never advanced by the film: namely, that it's supposed to be historically accurate. It's a comedy, not a work of historical fiction. I don't understand this need people have to overemphasize the differences between the film and reality: Radio Rock didn't exist, that particular ship didn't exist, none of the characters really existed, yet you feel such a strong compulsion to emphasize that it's fiction? The lead already says that the station and events are fictitious; we don't need overemphasize this by saying it's "set in a comedically stylized milieu very loosely based on the phenomenon of pirate radio in the United Kingdom during the 1960s", any more than we need to declare that Animal House is "set in a comedically stylized milieu very loosely based on the phenomenon of American college life in the early 1960s". You also made several unexplained changes to the plot section and re-inserted claims into the "North American release" section that the sources don't directly support. There is no POV here, you inserted the POV. I should also remind you of BRD. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Richard Curtis info box

I looked at the Richard Curtis info box at the bottom of the article. The first few categories are straight forward ("Screenplays", "Director", "Producer"), but then we get to "Television" and "Other works". "Television" / "Other works" what? Production? Direction? Screenplays written? Something else? I find those categories unclear as labeled. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Response is a bit late, but it is fairly straightforward throughout. The categories before "Television" refer to work in cinematic feature films. "Television" refers to television series work (he is generally creator/co-creator, executive producer and head writer for all of these, although more recent additions to the category subvert this somewhat). The four projects under "Other works" include his work generally for various Comic Relief charity projects, a radio series, and two short films. Perhaps the labels could be more explicit, but they are not particularly vague. Improve them if you can. 12.233.147.42 (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Labeling the deception scene as "attempted rape"

I've removed the use of the word "rape" in the description of the scene. This almost exactly mirrors the discussion with a similar scene in Revenge of the Nerds. After much discussion at that article's talk page and the Wikipedia village pump, the conclusion was to use non-inflammatory NPOV descriptions for the scene, and include any criticism in a dedicated section (provided they're sourced). —Torc. ^(Talk.) 18:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)