This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
Aquino, John T. (2005). "The Perfect Storm". Truth and Lives on Film: The Legal Problems of Depicting Real Persons and Events in a Fictional Medium. McFarland. pp. 53–68. ISBN0786420448.
Can someone please clarify WHAT about the movie the crew members' families did not like? They didn't
I don't have the source, but the big thing was because the movie made the fisherman look greedy to the point that were willing to risk their lives. Ennisj (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were though... weren't they? Syko Conor (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
reads like a review / refueling helicopters mid-air[edit]
This article reads like a review or a school student's media essay.
it is very poor, please can someone change this?
thanks. Philbuck222 (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This film is so goddamn awful. By the way, what the hell was that ludicrous scene where a helicopter is supposed to be refueling from a plane in midair? How on earth (or rather, sky) is a heli supposed to keep up with a plane, even if the plane was flying at its slowest (and nevermind the weather)?
Anyone knows though if this is actually done in severe storms? It seemed rather pointless from the start, and I wonder if anyone ever tried to refuel a helicopter during this storm... and if they really did/tried, if it had anything to do with its going down? Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Marine buddy married the daughter of the pilot of the refueling plane (Sue Hornung). She says that her dad did, indeed, attempt to refuel the chopper during the storm because the crew was adamant about not leaving the sailors to die (something along the lines of 'we all live, or we all die'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.32.179 (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The author is so wrapped up in the movie plot that the tree is very little correlation with the facts until the section discussing the Florida lawsuit. In that section, the boat is discussed as the Satori although there is nothing in the previous sections to indicate that Satori was the true name of the boat depicted as the "Andrea Gail." The references also show no reason why the lawsuit was brought and decided in Florida when all relevant events occurred in and around Massachusetts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.81.255 (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone knows of any evidence indicating whether the "broken ice machine" plot element from the movie actually happened. When I first saw the movie I assumed that it was true, but I've researched and can't find any evidence of such. If the ice machine was fine then the boat could've maneuvered to avoid the storm AND preserve the fish catch, and I find it incredible that the captain might've risked running the storm anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.148.226 (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the book, the ice machine wasn't working properly, but there is no evidence that it had any effect on the fishing boat's course. The film takes a lot of liberties with the facts.
84.203.73.129 (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence does the book base that upon? And if the ice machine didn't have any effect on course, does the book set out why they might've run the storm, if not to save the catch? The article about the book doesn't.137.186.149.160 (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.149.160 (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thomas Blomberg has twice removed the description of this film as a disaster film. I originally reinstated it on the grounds that the linked article itself listed The Perfect Storm as a disaster film, whereupon Thomas removed the film from that article (I reversed his edits to that article with a request to discuss them at the Talk page, though here or there makes little difference to me). I see nothing in that article that precludes this film being a disaster film, and a Yahoo search showed several links described this film as a disaster film. Please weigh in on whether or not that is an appropriate descriptor for this film. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Below information was tagged as possible original research in 2010. Feel free to reinsert with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Authenticity
The film is based on Junger's non-fiction book of the same title. The book itself has sometimes been accused of factual errors (e.g., misspelling of a person's name), one-sided research (e.g., initially not interviewing the skipper and owner of the yacht Satori) and bias against the fishing industry (e.g., role of drinking among fishermen); the author and, according to him, also fishermen, have defended the book. The film omits many of the book's technical details, like the prominent role of the Canadian Coast Guard, as well as contested parts about the Andrea Gail 's stability (resistance to capsizing).
The film only claims to be "based on a true story". It differs in many ways from the book, starting with the fictionalization of the material into a "story". The film also continues to narrate the story of the Andrea Gail after its last radio contact. As the boat and the bodies of the crew were never found, these final events (e.g., the decision to change course, the 180° knockdown, etc.) are entirely speculative.
The district court held that the defendants' First Amendment right to freedom of speech barred the suit. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which could not decide how to interpret the Florida law at issue and certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court. On April 21, 2005, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the district court's interpretation of Florida law and remanded the case to the 11th Circuit, which then affirmed the district court's original decision to dismiss the case.
An exception is the portrayal of the yacht whose crew was taken off-board by the US Coast Guard. Its story is clearly based on the events surrounding the Westsail 32Satori, which are also dealt with in Junger's book; Junger's version of the event, however, is contested by the owner and skipper of the yacht, who was not interviewed for Junger's book, but is supported by the two crewmembers on the Satori and the Coast Guard rescuers. The film highly fictionalizes the story of the Satori; it renames the boat Mistral, and leaves its crew anonymous, making no explicit claim about the "true" identity of the boat.
I feel like this section needs qualified a bit. Despite the heading, only one side is given, and it reads like established fact. Perhaps this could be balanced by adding the perspectives of the two crew members and the Coast Guard rescuers, all of which contradict Ray Leonard's (source: Junger's The Perfect Storm). Maurer kg (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are some mathematical troubles in here, but I'd prefer someone with actual sailing knowledge correct them. The article as written calls a knockdown 180 degrees and a capsize 360 degrees. A knockdown (mast/sails flat against water) is a 90 degree rotation. A boat fully upside down (a.k.a. capsized) is a 180 degree rotation. A 360 rotation would see the boat flip over, keep rolling, and end up right way up again. This needs fixing! 144.131.184.25 (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading it right, then according to Capsizing, if the boat was on its side then technically it did capsize in any case; whether or not it did a 360 is then irrelevant. In any case, since capsize seems like a slight case of jargon and the article clearly describes what occurred in any case, I've removed the term. DonIago (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Name of deceased National Guard member from downed helicopter[edit]
