jordanbasset
Well-Known Member
Compared to the other boating film recently about a man taking his wife and children and some animals on his wooden boat, 'All is Lost' was very good
Which Boat - All is Lost ?
- Thread starter bernie_ni
- Start date
Flyboy01
New Member
Don't get me started on "Noah"!! My daughter told me it was "brilliant" but it was another waste of 2 hours of my life. the only good (funny?) bit in the whole film sees Ray Winstone rallying his troops with the cry "Men United are invincible!". Try saying that with a London accent! Priceless!
jordanbasset
Well-Known Member
Yes that was the one, I could not believe how bad it was and then it got worse
Greenheart
Well-Known Member
I'd promised myself the DVD after not seeing the film on the big screen. Bought it for a fiver last week, watched it today.
I couldn't help thinking that the best films don't require us to accept cocktails of doubtful competence from their characters, to allow the seriousness of the situation to increase.
If it had been set several decades ago, perhaps the lack of equipment (and lack of today's widespread basic-minimum of safe-sailing knowledge) would be credible. As it is... :hopeless:
A couple of questions which bugged me, and which I haven't seen this thread remark upon:
1) If the yacht, the container and the sea-anchor were all adrift in the same calm body of water, why would the sea-anchor drift rapidly away from the container? How would the sea-anchor cause any greater tug on the part which was hooked into the yacht? Wouldn't they just float in a sad little trio, moving with the current?
2) Much later when RR goes aboard the yacht from the raft, the water is up to his chest, and the companionway hatch is wide open. Given that perhaps 20 tonnes of water has already gushed in (surely only through massive hull damage) and nothing is trapping air in the cabin, what exactly is keeping her afloat while he wanders around at leisure?
I had high hopes, but I can't say I have a high opinion of the film.
I couldn't help thinking that the best films don't require us to accept cocktails of doubtful competence from their characters, to allow the seriousness of the situation to increase.
If it had been set several decades ago, perhaps the lack of equipment (and lack of today's widespread basic-minimum of safe-sailing knowledge) would be credible. As it is... :hopeless:
A couple of questions which bugged me, and which I haven't seen this thread remark upon:
1) If the yacht, the container and the sea-anchor were all adrift in the same calm body of water, why would the sea-anchor drift rapidly away from the container? How would the sea-anchor cause any greater tug on the part which was hooked into the yacht? Wouldn't they just float in a sad little trio, moving with the current?
2) Much later when RR goes aboard the yacht from the raft, the water is up to his chest, and the companionway hatch is wide open. Given that perhaps 20 tonnes of water has already gushed in (surely only through massive hull damage) and nothing is trapping air in the cabin, what exactly is keeping her afloat while he wanders around at leisure?
I had high hopes, but I can't say I have a high opinion of the film.
Last edited:
Seajet
...
Dan,
I'm afraid unlike the modern american TV productions, when Hollywood gets involved Redford is almost as bad as our Dicky Attenborough...
Top Gun is a good example; Still the best aviation film yet made solely down to the massive co-operation from the US Navy, the likes of which British plebs like me could only dream of, but regarded a comedy in test flying circles.
" We're nearly out of fuel ! " While tapping the TV display ' guage...
" The A-4 doesn't bleed energy and lose speed like the F-14 " - so Why the **** aren't you all in A-4's then ?
" We're in a spin, I can't reach the ejection handle " - so use the handle between your legs fitted for that reason a decade before...
I'm afraid unlike the modern american TV productions, when Hollywood gets involved Redford is almost as bad as our Dicky Attenborough...
Top Gun is a good example; Still the best aviation film yet made solely down to the massive co-operation from the US Navy, the likes of which British plebs like me could only dream of, but regarded a comedy in test flying circles.
" We're nearly out of fuel ! " While tapping the TV display ' guage...
" The A-4 doesn't bleed energy and lose speed like the F-14 " - so Why the **** aren't you all in A-4's then ?
" We're in a spin, I can't reach the ejection handle " - so use the handle between your legs fitted for that reason a decade before...
Ravi
Well-Known Member
1. Wind
2. Foam cored hull. Unsinkable boat.
The more specialist subject that you have on a subject, the harder it is to enjoy drama themed in that area. My secret is to be completely ignorant and have no specialist knowledge.
Greenheart
Well-Known Member
Your final sentiments are pretty smart, Andy. I'll try to adopt that thinking.
But...wind? Are we to infer that a semi-submerged container was bustling across the Indian Ocean, more influenced than wind than by ocean current?
I'll try to adopt that thinking.But...wind? Are we to infer that a semi-submerged container was bustling across the Indian Ocean, more influenced than wind than by ocean current?
Ravi
Well-Known Member
Your final sentiments are pretty smart, Andy.
But...wind? Are we to infer that a semi-submerged container was bustling across the Indian Ocean, more influenced than wind than by ocean current?
(I was going to say that the container would have less windage than the plastic thing with the big flappy sticky up things but, when I used to race, the flotsam and jetsam did seem to have the sailing edge over me.)
My pet hate with films is people sitting down and saying "I'll just hack into the mainframe" and voila!, 10 seconds later, they are in.
However, I am quite willing to accept that Clint can shoot the buttons off a bandido at 200 yards using a 19th century pistol. ;-)
xyachtdave
Well-Known Member
Yep - the basic problem with Lost at Sea for us is we know too much about the subject.
I however have no problem with Top Gun. Even the beach volley ball scene....!
Neil
Well-Known Member
The worst, not-hanging-together-film, with a boaty subplot was 'Waterworld'
With the only land an isolated hidden island, where did he get the charcoal to grill his sea-monster fish?
That a floating community of boats could survive on a couple of lemon trees in pots?
Can we really believe a process of rising sea levels culminating in a waterworld, could happen so quickly that there were still smokable cigarettes?
Or so slowly that there was sufficient time for the hero and his antecedents to evolve gills?
That a complete absence of technological industry could maintain the systems on his boat for the eons required for such evolutionary change, including a reverse osmosis water (urine) purifier?
If I was tied to a chair and my eyelids stitched open so I was forced to watch it again, I'd probably notice more inconsistencies............
I did like the heroine's fish skin dress, though......
With the only land an isolated hidden island, where did he get the charcoal to grill his sea-monster fish?
That a floating community of boats could survive on a couple of lemon trees in pots?
Can we really believe a process of rising sea levels culminating in a waterworld, could happen so quickly that there were still smokable cigarettes?
Or so slowly that there was sufficient time for the hero and his antecedents to evolve gills?
That a complete absence of technological industry could maintain the systems on his boat for the eons required for such evolutionary change, including a reverse osmosis water (urine) purifier?
If I was tied to a chair and my eyelids stitched open so I was forced to watch it again, I'd probably notice more inconsistencies............
I did like the heroine's fish skin dress, though......
Last edited:
Ravi
Well-Known Member
I have seen two separate criticisms of the film.
1. That he made lots of mistakes. (e.g. Not hanking on the storm jib, in advance.) Not really a fair criticism since RR is not meant to be an accomplished sailor in the film. History is full of people of limited or questionable competence who undertook ambitious voyages. There are many at sea as we speak.
2. Then, there are the 'technical' criticisms. (e.g. GRP repair). These flaws exist in the film, but are fairly esoteric. As with the top gun example, only a few specialist 'geeks' will notice these and they will not spoil the enjoyment of 99.9% of the viewing public. It would have been nice if we had got a private YBW forum preview and they had reshot the scenes that looked wrong but I reckon that they would reckon it wasn't worth it for .1% of the viewing audience.
One tale on a similar theme ....
When they were making some big Hollywood space scifi film (?Star Wars?), they called in an eminent space scientist as a consultant. He looked at the first rushes and spotted an immediate major flaw. The space ships were flying along with stars in the background. Apparently, there are no stars visible in space. ????? (I still can't get my head around that).
Anyway, they edited out the stars and it looked rubbish. Without the stars in the background the spaceships, speeding through space on their urgent mission, looked stationary. So, despite the scientific inaccuracy, they put the stars back in. It must be true. It was on Radio 4!
Can you all the astrophysicists' forums going apoplectic about those bloody stars!
ValleyForge
Well-Known Member
We watched it last night courtesy of 'Lovefilm' and although the wife was a bit put out by me shouting at the screen on many occasions I can say it was a film worth watching if only to ponder on those 'what if' moments. Nothing like as good as 'Dead Calm', infinitely better than that Noah film - a good read of Patrick O'Brians books is however far superior still.
RichardS
N/A
Stars (suns) emit light which is visible to the human eye. Why would they not be visible if the human was in space and the ambient lighting was not so bright that the pupil was closed too much?
Richard
Cruiser2B
Well-Known Member
Sounds like nonsense to me. Apparently the stars weren't readily visible from the surface of the moon, but that was because they were in daylight. By the same logic, if bathed in sunlight, the stars might not stand out, but in the darkness of deep space they would be visible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs
SailorBill
Well-Known Member
This discussion is beginning to make my brain hurt. I may have to come back to it after a glass of wine or two this evening...
SHUG
Well-Known Member
It seems they should have called this film "Marmite ...at sea""
Buck Turgidson
Well-Known Member
RKJ on five live this morning was rather dismissive
Ravi
Well-Known Member
Yes, it had me scratching my head! I just asked a boffin that I know about it and he said that you can see them with ythe naked eye but that they don't show up in photographs. I don't know if that leaves me more, or less, baffled.:nonchalance:
