Just Re-watched "All Is Lost"

[hzcruiser]

Originally Posted by lituya1617

[...] Very rare. So, you have a 50,000 pound boat moving forward at perhaps 1/2 a knot and slowly dipping its bow up and down a couple inches per second.

[...] If you hit the steel corner of a shipping container moving vertically because of the energy of the waves but barely afloat and weighing over 200,000 pounds because it is full of water, you are going to punch a big

Interesting conception of weights there...

[rgranger]

My copy is still in shrink wrap due to the reviews I've read. Maybe I'll give it a watch now.

Thnx

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by lituya1617

. So, you have a 50,000 pound boat moving forward at perhaps 1/2 a knot and slowly dipping its bow up and down a couple inches per second. A waterlogged shipping container is somewhat like a deadhead in that it may bob up and down at a pretty high rate of speed if the waves happen to be at the right frequency to harmonically reinforce the up and down motion. If you hit the steel corner of a shipping container moving vertically because of the energy of the waves but barely afloat and weighing over 200,000 pounds because it is full of water, .

lets see the vessel in question weighs ( fully provisioned and upfitted for cruising)
somewhere around 22,000 pounds. The shipping container likely somewhere around 50,000 ( and not full of water. If it was it would be on the bottom not floating.)


kinda makes me wonder how many posters on this have actually been out there ?

[a64pilot]

If you wanted to, you could figure out exactly what a container weighed based on displacement, I figure one full of tennis balls or shoes may float even if completely filled with water.
One full of bowling balls, maybe not

The Brits used Q ships in both wars I believe that were disguised armed merchant vessels to kill U boats, they were often filled with balsa or cork so that even if knocked full of holes they wouldn’t sink.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

If you wanted to, you could figure out exactly what a container weighed based on displacement, I figure one full of tennis balls or shoes may float even if completely filled with water.
One full of bowling balls, maybe not

The Brits used Q ships in both wars I believe that were disguised armed merchant vessels to kill U boats, they were often filled with balsa or cork so that even if knocked full of holes they wouldn’t sink.

the weight of a 40ft shipping container is 3750 kg or about 8,267 pounds
That is the tare weight .
Max gross is 30,400 kg ( 67,200 pounds)
https://www.containercontainer.com/s...ner-dimensions

[a64pilot]

If you knew the area of one, L x W x H then you could calculate how much water it could displace, assuming it’s just barely floating, then you have its weight.
I am bad with math, or I’d do it. Use a “high cube” container as they are the largest

[a64pilot]

http://www.dsv.com/sea-freight/sea-c...dry-containers
3,036 cu Ft it looks like?
Salt water weighs 64 lbs per cu Ft? If so then 64 x 3036 = 194,000 lbs? That would make it neutrally buoyant I think.
Sounds like a big number, my math is probably wrong or I made an incorrect assumption?

[cyan]

Originally Posted by WingRyder

Sorry, but I searched and couldn't find a thread for this movie... and I am sure that it's been discussed here before. But I wanted to discuss my take on it and why I think most reviews from sailors miss the entire point of the movie.





SPOILER ALERT!!!







Most discussions I've read, sailors seem to be critical of the characters poor decisions. I will leave alone some of the technical errors, but I wanted to discuss why I think most people are missing the point.

I think that Redford's character is a man who is solo sailing, not for the adventure, but to escape his miserable life. "All is lost." He had given up on life, long before the trouble even begins. His boat is somewhat neglected, and he is slow to respond to situations, because he is in denial and doesn't want to deal with it. This is apparent when the big storm is coming and he starts drinking and shaving, instead of making storm preps.

He is reactive to every situation, not proactive. Once his boat sinks, and "all is lost", only then does he begin to sober up, and attempt to save himself. He is out of booze and probably realizing what an a-hole he's been to his family (I get this, from the note he reads at the beginning of the movie.) He figures out his sextant, rations his provisions, plots his course adrift, attempts to get rescued, writes the aforementioned, apologetic note to his family, etc. Once his life raft burns to the waterline and he gives up hope and sinks.... all is lost. But the lights of the rescue skiff shine on him and he realizes that he is finally saved.

I can only assume that he became a stronger person after his ordeal, and realized that he had a lot to live for.


Most sailor reviews I've read are from people who assume that the minute he got hit by the container, he should have sprang from his bunk and immediately taken proactive steps, in the proper order, to save the boat and initiate rescue procedures. If he were depressed and passively suicidal, I think his character is spot on.

Any thoughts?

I think you are missing one big reason that many sailors give this movie such poor reviews. We sailors see so many technical/logical flaws that we have to look elsewhere for artistic redemption.
1. He must have been drunken/depressed to react so poorly.
OR:
2. This was all simply a metaphor for life's struggles.

Okay, cool, one sailor in the audience can find redeeming qualities in the movie, albeit the second viewing. Fine. What about the NON sailors?? You know, the land-lubbers who think that sailing is quite deadly?

The depressed/drunken man theme is NOT a factor to the non-sailor. The layman does not see the character's sailing mistakes and the plot's technical flaws. Non-sailors see someone who APPARENTLY knows what he is doing. They see a guy who does mysterious stuff like mixing up 2-part epoxy for a hull repair and disassembling a VHF radio. Redford's character does so many things that are mysterious to the layman, that said layman simply assumes that he knows stuff. Lots of stuff. Yet, the sea gets the better of him.
"See, Cy? Dangerous, I tell you, this sailing-thing!"

THAT is annoying to me. SAILORS can invent artistic reasons for the silly plot and its holes. NON-SAILORS think they see a portrayal of realistic life at sea, because they don't know any better. They cannot question the lack of an EPIRB, zip-lock for the sat phone, impossible physics, or bad seamanship.

My land-locked friends recently visited and we planned on a nice coastal day-sail in 10 knots/3 ft, clear skies, good forecast. That is, until one of the women said; "Cy, my friend told me not to go, because ANYTHING can happen out there."
She was serious.
Ugh.
Of course there was only one thing to say...
"If it's gonna happen, it's gonna happen out there."
(She chose not to go.)

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by cyan

I think you are missing one big reason that many sailors give this movie such poor reviews. We sailors see so many technical/logical flaws that we have to look elsewhere for artistic redemption.
1. He must have been drunken/depressed to react so poorly.
OR:
2. This was all simply a metaphor for life's struggles.

Okay, cool, one sailor in the audience can find redeeming qualities in the movie, albeit the second viewing. Fine. What about the NON sailors?? You know, the land-lubbers who think that sailing is quite deadly?

The depressed/drunken man theme is NOT a factor to the non-sailor. The layman does not see the character's sailing mistakes and the plot's technical flaws. Non-sailors see someone who APPARENTLY knows what he is doing. They see a guy who does mysterious stuff like mixing up 2-part epoxy for a hull repair and disassembling a VHF radio. Redford's character does so many things that are mysterious to the layman, that said layman simply assumes that he knows stuff. Lots of stuff. Yet, the sea gets the better of him.
"See, Cy? Dangerous, I tell you, this sailing-thing!"

THAT is annoying to me. SAILORS can invent artistic reasons for the silly plot and its holes. NON-SAILORS think they see a portrayal of realistic life at sea, because they don't know any better. They cannot question the lack of an EPIRB, zip-lock for the sat phone, impossible physics, or bad seamanship.

My land-locked friends recently visited and we planned on a nice coastal day-sail in 10 knots/3 ft, clear skies, good forecast. That is, until one of the women said; "Cy, my friend told me not to go, because ANYTHING can happen out there."
She was serious.
Ugh.
Of course there was only one thing to say...
"If it's gonna happen, it's gonna happen out there."
(She chose not to go.)

true it will happen out there .
You sure wouldn't see this sunrise in winter on the beach

[Monkeyfist]

I almost always miss the metaphorical aspects of movies and books until someone points them out. That said, I think "All Is Lost" was just one more in a long list of movies made by people who don't know much about sailing. If they did, or had hired someone who did, the story could have been portrayed much more accurately. Redford did fine with the script he had (is there actually a script when there's next to no dialog?) He just didn't have a believable one to those of us who actually sail - metaphorically or otherwise.

[jmorrison146]

Second dumbest movie ever, beat only by "Eyes Wide Shut".

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

Second dumbest movie ever, beat only by "Eyes Wide Shut".

So that means you think these two movies are dumber than "Dumb and dumber"?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by lestersails

So that means you think these two movies are dumber than "Dumb and dumber"?

dumb and dumber did have some comedic entertainment value.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by kmcshane

"All Is Lost" director lured Redford from Sundance Film to do this film on the strength of his prize winning "Margin Call" (Demi, Spacey, Jeremy Irons, Stanley Tucci...riveting performances).
Trigger for the screenplay: director (Chandor) promoting Margin Call was riding trains up and down the East Coast past acres of boatyards, each boat representing someone's dreams...voyaging, freedom, meticulous planning and ultimately facing the vagaries of wind and sea.
Yet, all these boats setting on hard ground, mostly going nowhere season after season, facing no angels or demons.
So denigrate the Redford character if you wish, but whatever his shortcomings and the plot fails, he was out there; not comfortably buffing the topsides or tinkering with the latest gizmos.

Good answer.

Making movies is hard work. They are all somewhat flawed and exaggerated. Realistic movies would include a lot more household chores, or, in the case of cruising, a lot more sitting at marinas trying to get TV reception and getting alcohol to the boat.

So with movies, you have to look for the central message, or themes that push your buttons.

I do have to say that I had higher expectations for this film, though, and it did seem like he made some significant unforced errors (which I suppose was part of the point).

[Monkeyfist]

I can't believe this movie still has so much traction. Or interpretation.



Here's another take: Movie studios don't make movies for small segments of people, like sailors. They make them to get the maximum amount of people into theaters. I suspect that super-accurate portrayals of anything won't sell tickets. Which is why they're 'hollywoodized.'



Also, there's a thing called 'suspension of disbelief' that happens when you see or read a 'good' movie or book. If you really get into a story, even though your logical brain knows it's not real, your imagination temporarily cancels out that knowledge and lets you go along for the ride. So, for example, you can accept for a little while that baby elephants with big ears can fly.



Like most of the critics here, I "know too much" to be able to do that with All Is Lost. The inaccuracies irritated me too much to suspend my disbelief. My wife (who at best has 'tolerated' sailing for many years) loved the movie - and doesn't want to hear my critiques of why she shouldn't. On the other side of the coin, one of my favorite movies ever is Seabiscuit. The Mrs, having worked with race horses almost her whole life, saw all the inaccuracies and it spoiled the movie for her.



Bottom line, I'm fine with movies 'inspired by true events'. Green Book, Hidden Figures, The Right Stuff - all took a bunch of flak for their inaccuracies, but all were great movies and inspiring stories that expanded my limited knowledge of those times and events. 'All Is Lost' may not have been the best sailing flick ever made, but it exposed a lot of lay people to a world and type of person many had probably never considered before. I think that's a good thing.