“Capitan Phillips”: Crew Members Denounce Film As A False Account Of The Boarding Of The Maersk Alabama

Captain_Phillips_PosterI took the kids to see “Gravity” last night at a 3D IMAX theater, which was fun. I thought it was an entertaining movie but you had to suspend your disbelief (and any rudimentary scientific knowledge) at a film that is a chain of implausible or practically impossible events. (I also had to suspend my normal dislike for Sandra Bullock as an actress and not constantly hope for a catastrophic airlock failure). However, the scientific barriers to Gravity as a film pale in comparison to the historical barriers presented in the critically acclaimed movie “Captain Phillips” with Tom Hanks. I was always like Hanks as an actor and this film is being cited as one of his very best performances. Yet, there are a few critics: the crew of the Maersk Alabama who say that the film is best on a demonstrably false account and makes the wrong man the hero in the famous standoff at sea.

Crew members are irate over the movie because they insist that Phillips was a major contributor to the boarding of the cargo ship due to his refusal to take the most basic actions to avoid the coast and later to evade the pirates. Crew members describe Phillips as an unpopular captain who was self-righteous and domineering. The most serious allegations came out in a trial where 11 crew members sued Maersk Line and the Waterman Steamship Corp. for almost $50 million — largely due to the alleged failures of Phillip. He was accused of ignoring basic anti-piracy measures and repeated warnings sent to the ship about pirates in the area.

200px-RichardPhillips220px-Surveillance_photo_of_Maersk_Alabama_lifeboat,_hijacked_by_pirates_090409-N-0000X-926The lawsuit documents how Phillips was told not to go so close of the Somali coast but says that Phillips was dismissive and said that he would not allow “pirates scare him.” He is also accused of ignoring an anti-piracy plan on the ship — a common plan used by all ships. This includes a standard measure to cut off lights and power and lock themselves below decks. Phillips is accused of dismissing the plan and taking standard precautions despite the fact that, over this three-week period, 16 container ships in the same region had been attacked by pirates. Eight of those ships had been taken by pirates. This is in stark contrast to Hanks on the film who is yelling out orders to tighten security and take such measures.

It also does not show Phillips ignoring seven emails about pirates in the area and warnings not to get closer than 600 miles of the coast. Phillips reportedly took the ship 235 miles from the coast. Phillips admits it was at least 300 miles from the coast. The movie makes Phillips look like the one who is most concerned when the crew says it tried to show Phillips charts and ship locations that he ignored. They say that Phillips made them do a fire drill as pirates were chasing them and failed to order the lights to be turned off to make it more difficult for them to be followed. After a narrow escape in the first attack, Phillips ordered the ship back to the original route and went downstairs to sleep. They insist that he gave no instructions or a plan for the boarding which occurred later. These are obviously the views of crew members and not Phillips.

Perhaps the worst allegation is that the true hero of the story was relegated to a bit role in the movie. He is Chief Engineer Mike Perry, who led most of the crew downstairs and locked them in. It was Perry, not Phillips, who disabled all of the systems and it was Perry who attacked the chief pirate and used him as a bargaining chip for Phillips.

Sony may have seen the problem with the film. They paid crew members as little as $5,000 for this life rights — and reportedly an obligation to remain silent.

If these allegations are true, would that influence your decision to watch the film? The film is being given international critical acclaim for the reportedly inspired performance of Tom Hanks. Yet, it does appear to bend history to the demands of Hollywood. I have previously written about how movies often defame the dead in order to make for a better story. Of course, everyone in this film is very much alive.

Source: NY Post

29 thoughts on ““Capitan Phillips”: Crew Members Denounce Film As A False Account Of The Boarding Of The Maersk Alabama”

  1. Laser said:

    “And outside of that and the fact the purported dent in the ground hole doesn’t “physically” mesh with the fact.”

    I agree because I saw a photo from 1994 of the shanksville site and that big hole was there THEN too.


    Go to the 2:00 mark in the video. The “scar” in the ground was already there in 1994 according to Google Earth—the only difference between the hole “scar” in 1994 and the 2001 crash site is, it looks like someone just put a bomb inside the scar and detonated it.

  2. Though there’s “THE” issue of the woman out in the woods with the broke down va. And outside of that and the fact the purported dent in the ground hole doesn’t “physically” mesh with the fact. There’s hardly enough evidence to substantiate even the possibility of the purported shot down theory.

    That being said, I’m with “Loose Change” and AE911Truth.org

    We have far too many unanswered questions, with way too many undeniable experts stating that WTC 1 & 2 could not come down by the aircraft impacts.

    Add to those issues the additional compounding conundrum of the fact that = THE ONLY REASONS WE KNOW OF BLDG 7 = are YouTube and other such video details.

    Bldg 7 is a cover up! The very fact that they 9/11 Commission doesn’t even discuss it is telltale of how dumb the powers that be presume America is; and how inadequate the 9/11 Report must be.

    With the further facts that the makers of the plane that purportedly hit the Pentagon are upon the public record stipulating that the residual debris were NOT their parts of the purported impacting aircraft.

    However, what is true of all of this, is not the fact of whether or not large cover ups, nationwide propaganda and other such stunts can be pulled over the eyes of the American citizenry.

    The truth is, we are all a– holes for even sitting idle and debating such.

    It is obvious that “THEY” will do

    Because WE WON”T do

    anything about it!

  3. Doesnt surprise me. It was directed by Paul Greengrass, who also directed Flight 93—-the film that included the complete BULLSHIT official government story of Flight 93 on 9/11. That plane was OBVIOUSLY shot down and there’s a ton of evidence to support this…including a 7-8 mile long debris field of plane parts in the same Shanksville area where the plane “supposedly went down”.

    Also, I personally know a woman who told me that a guy friend of hers who worked for the CIA in 2001 told her the plane was shot down. He asked her not to tell anyone because it was information he wasn’t supposed to know, but he did. You can believe this or reject it.,..doesnt matter. The point is, this woman has NO reason to lie. She’s not a conspiracy theorist.

  4. Taking the discussion on a different pathway;
    yours truly has a unique view on the “verity” film v real life – thingy.

    Several times during our battle versus Romney & Gang, I’ve been approached by this and that film/book/agent/producer for a “deal”.

    Here’s what’s funny.

    I’m in this surreal ordeal, due in no small part, to wayward attorneys. Each and every single one of attorneys we hired for my case – Sold me Out – to get “in” with Goldman Sachs & Bain Capital.

    Though the agents, producers, writers etc., are seeking me out, to (purportedly) do the story; they WON”T deal with me – unless it is through an Attorney at Law (who is registered on some specific database of legal prowess in the entertainment field).

    First of all (I’m told) that insurance is double for “non-fiction” projects; and that in our Romney case – most likely tripled or more. This cost comes OFF the monies they purportedly proffer to you to acquire the rights.

    Next – so that I can assure the film/book/documentary (what have you) stays true to form (for the most part) with what actually transpired – I’m insisting on final edit (the laughter/scorn knows NO bounds when I insist on this).

    Are you Julia Roberts, Tom Hanks, George C, Redford?

    Then they said to me – “even if you were, good luck with getting ‘THAT’ want of final edit”. They claim the only way I can do such, is to fund it myself.

    Anyone can do a film on the saga, if they so desire and babble whatever B.S. they wish. With whatever ‘creative license’ they so desire.

    But NOT with my name on it!

    One counsel I considered hiring said it would go like this. They will do a 2 step or 3 tier on you. You might (depending on how bad they want it) – actually get a promise of final edit. Then, they’ll proceed with the project in a manner helps get you “caught up” in the movie biz. Whether it is Clooney, Hanks, Woods or some new Star wannabe, they’ll have people give you front row chair and promise the moon.

    Meanwhile the project will get funded and sold down the line.

    Then – IF the “completion” insurance counsel team approves of every thing you wish (which they Won’t); they always have a ipso facto clause in there. (If this occurs, then that will remedy it). The standard clause for completion insurance companies basically says everything heretofore applies never/no more.

    You watch the film in the screening room with the big shots. They shake your hand, tell you what a great job you did fighting Goliath. Heck, you may even get laid by the next wannabe starlet.

    But the film going out to the theaters is not the cut you viewed.

    WHOOPS – someone made a mistake.

    So, who are you going to sue. The original agent, agencies, actors, writers, editors, studios?


    His suggestion to me (and he works for The GREATS)

    Is to do a Josh Fox “Gasland” thing.

    On your own.

    Or not at all!

  5. 1st of all, went to see this Friday more (b4 noon cost only $6). If not for Hanks, never would have given the production any consideration.

    Even with the fact that T J Hanks was the central character; I expected the premise to be much less than enthralling.

    Was pleasantly surprised (not as much as we were with Gum {that I previewed at the Studio} – and/or Private Ryan {that was immediately after my 4 children & I had the best Laser Tag battle of all time).

    Not one that I would ever need to see again;
    but well worth the $6 (that also include free popcorn)

  6. If these allegations are true, would that influence your decision to watch the film?

    haven’t seen “0 dark thirty either”

    i might if they had sandra bullock though.

  7. Same for Argo, which was about 95% fiction and it won an Oscar for best picture. The real story is much more interesting, where the Canadians did the grunt work, including setting the caper in motion. The airport scene never happened, in fact there were no real obstacles preventing the hostages from leaving Iran thanks to the planning by the Canadian government. It should have have been an ensemble piece, but egos had to be satisfied and cliches written.

Comments are closed.