JoshuaRed

Right Foxe, which brings up another annoyance of mine about period art of sailors, particularly the pirates in Johnson's: They are all on land! Why is that? Because the lubberly artists who did the art probably had never been on a ship, and thus knew none of the details concerning the deck layout, rigging, etc. Much easier to use a stage of vague, lumpy rocks and have a teensy ship in the offing than to try and get the details of the quarterdeck right! Sheesh! Actually I'd go one further and say that they probably COULD have drawn the men at sea, but due to deadlines or time constraints they opted for nondescript shorelines. Just like early comic books - hurry hurry hurry and get it out on the street to make a buck.

Yeah! exactly! Researching a niche in history like ours is like sticking your head a little too far down the rabbit hole, and you get stuck. You can't get any farther down, but can't wriggle back out the way you came. So you hang in limbo.

Excellent pic, Foxe. Hey the sailors all have shoes!

No they actually are cursed - with every Aztec Coin order you'll begin receiving Museum Replica's catalog of Renaissance tunics ad nauseum until they break your will and you order one.

Mmmm! Tastes like feet!!

Fascinating info Royaliste, thanks! How about the possibility of sailors wearing just their stockings around ship, no shoes? Would provide some measure of protection, and probably better grip than smooth soled shoes. Personally though, I'm of the belief that they wore shoes more often than not. There are SO many things on deck to bang/stub/slice a toe on when trying to hustle about.

Stellar work! Reminds me of the guy (banging head 'cause I can't recall the name) who does the Star Wars montages. Is it acrylic with some mixed media?

pretty sneaky, 'Cane! Fastest edit in the West.

Huzzah! Well said Bilge and Mission. This is very true. Problem is that Asia is comprised of very large countries with very large armies who have the Bomb. And there's no spoils of war to be had, like oil. Which is why America won't go poking a stick in Asia's ribs. It's sad, and sure it's wrong. But it's the way of the world. I'm not defending it, hell I don't like either. Apparently merely stating the way things are means you are a redneck.

That was my exact point, Kalum. There's no way that they'll mention that "those bloodthirsty cannibals over there dancing around the fire are CARIBS!" They'll just be vague, generic warriors. Boy wait till the gypsies hear about the Gypsy Queen character! Then THEY'LL be up in arms too!

Goes MUCH further back than him...

But it's not about targeting anyone or any group. There's no hostile intent to defame the character of a nation. Verbinski and Bruckheimer are just trying to make a fantasy story that revels in the MYTHS - not the realities of the Caribbean. From buried treasure to jolly swashbucklers, to Voodoo and even scary cannibals. Why, their very presence in a film like this should actually validate the theory that little if any cannibalism existed among the Carib! Heck, even the total absence of slavery in the POTC world is in itself a myth. Well sure it is. Whether it ashames us or not, it's the way of things and is not unique to America. Where do you think we learned this national behavior from? We certainly didn't invent it. Why even the Caribs had their little guys to push around - The Arawaks. It's a never ending cycle among ALL cultures, that we didn't start and certainly won't finish. Not trying to digress here....

Btw I would never profess to have the arrogance to call another nation's history "pathetic"....*ahem*....

Ok. So you're telling me that you feel they should remove all references to cannibals in the film, because it's harmful to the cultural reputation of Dominica. Right? Or perhaps you're just telling me that I'm an ignorant redneck American because I'm ok with cannibals being in the film. In a purely fantasy film with no bearing on real history. Whatever, sticks and stones. I don't care. It's largely accepted in the study of anthropology that much if not most historical accounts of cannibalism are false or exaggerated. So, if the mythical character of an "evil cannibal", along the lines of the ones in Crusoe are depicted in the movie, what harm could that do? Certainly no more harm than the mythical stereotypical bucket-booted pirates do to history's real pirates/seamen, or than the stereotypical voodoo sorcerer does to real life practicers of voodoo, etc. I don't think anyone would watch POTC II and say "Geez, I'm NEVER going to Dominica because they'll eat me." I can see Dominica getting upset if Terrence Malick was there making a sweeping epic movie about Spanish colonists fighting a falsely-portrayed tribe of cannibal Caribs bent on burning, killing or eating the Spanish. THAT would give the wrong idea of history. But for POTC? Nah. It's unwarranted, I say.

You are sorely mistaken if you think that REAL history has any place whatsover in a Hollywood film, particularly fantasy stuff. Look at The Patriot. That's the kind of laughable crap we get when Hollywood cowtows to political correctness and liberal guilt. Of COURSE real history counts...in real life. As to cultural arrogance, well, it's pretty clear on what side of the pond THAT lies.

Damn I almost got a blackeye from that kneejerk! Please. I can name many movies that portray Native Americans as ANYTHING but savage. What do you think movies are? ISOLATED INCIDENTS - a slice of life, a small window into another world, not a round trip ticket. You only have two hours to tell a story, so the more focused the better. Why do you think those sprawling epics that attempt to cover years of time leave us feeling so empty and unfulfilled? (Legends of the Fall, for example) If the script of POTC calls for cannibal tribes, then BRING IT ON BROTHER!!! I guarantee you that there will be scores of unoffended Dominicans lining up to play the part. My point was that the whole premise of this movie series is pure fantasy. So within the context of fantasy, it would stand to reason that any cannibals portrayed are not true, and therefore it's just silly that anyone would be offended by their presence in a goofy setting like POTC.

He was in Jurassic Park II, but he plays George Merry in the Charlton Heston version of Treasure Island. Here is a pic:Peter - Pic He was also in Last of the Mohicans, Alien 3, and a ton of others.

I should also add (and I can't believe I forgot) the entire Tim Burton catalog, ESPECIALLY Sleepy Hollow!

Hey Hawkyns, I'm with you on Plunkett and Maclane....what a terrific odd little movie! It had all the guts and grit that a good pirate movie SHOULD have, but hasn't YET. And it proved my theory that Rob Carlisle would be stellar as an outlaw sailor. Here's some of my other faves FWIW in no certain order: Ravenous Memento The Spaghetti Westerns True Romance Kill Bill 1 & 2 High Society Casablanca Sahara Bram Stoker's Dracula Office Space Pulp Fiction Nosferatu Down To The Sea In Ships Romeo Is Bleeding The Professional Treasure Island (all versions) All classic Pirate films Anything dark and noir, chock full of character actors like Gary Oldman or Peter Posthelwaite makes my day!

...the less you know. Does anyone else just feel overwhelmed here sometimes, when studying early 18th century seafaring life? Geez, I swear the more I learn the more questions it brings up. So many dead ends, so much we'll never know. So many texts still to read...it makes the head spin! Hopefully in 20 years I feel like I can call myself an expert on GAOP. And I've been studying it like a madman for 10 years already!

oh, to be a coffee mug on that table! :angry:

Pardons were rare and often riddled with complexities of conditions. Usually they required that any pirate who wished to surrender had to do so between Date X and Date Y, at city/port X. I've read of pirates who showed up a few days or weeks late to take the pardon, having sailed from the other side of world for it, only to be hung for not meeting the rule requirements. :angry: It also seems that earlier pardons were more encouraging, often offering land or real estate to any pirates who would settle ashore, under the strict condition that they never again go to sea.

That's a VERY good point, Foxe. We are talking about the era of 4 or 6 pounders and swivel guns, etc., after all.

True Foxe, but what if they had short stout crows, much like the nail-pullers of today? Sigh...so much we'll never know....

Possibly. I do know Dampier mentions iron crows more than a few times in his books, being used for various purposes.