Pirates of the Caribbean?

Let's face it, the movies are great! However, there has been a question in the back of my mind for a while, and I have to ask it.

Now, it is to be expected that such a movie would be based on mostly fiction, but you would expect with the inclusion of real world ports such as Port Royal and Tortuga, that the film makers would at least base the movie on fact.

However, the bad guys are the "East India Trading Company" (East India Company in real life), but the Caribbean is in the West Indies? That's a pretty big problem right? I mean why would the East India Company be in the West? Pretty big mistake if you ask me.

Unless it's historically accurate, in which case... *head explodes*
Can someone please clear it up for me.

Also, sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I saw nowhere else for it.

Piracy (when talking about the era of piracy used in the films) was not localized to the West Indies, though it is certainly where most pirates operated out of. Many successful pirate captains operated out of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans equally, sailing back and forth and plundering trade ships they found along the way. The trade routes in the Indian Ocean were filled with ships stuffed with goods ripe for plunder, so its likely (though I don't know if ever made explicit in the films) that many of the pirates who operated in that era would have spent time in the area as well as the Caribbean.

For the purposes of the films, its not outside the realm of believability that they would be willing to petition the British Government to send naval officers, men, and ships to curb piracy and "hit them where they live," so to speak. The East India Company was not a military organization, simply a trade one, so keep in mind that the soldiers and navy members you see in the films aren't from them, likely only the leaders and officers like Cutler Beckett were actually representatives of the company itself.

Actually, the East India Company did have a fully private army which wielded tremendous influence and was a leading force for expansion within India. The British Government later nationalised it into the British Raj.

You raise some good points, my friend!!!

Also, I've always wondered why Frodo and Sam walked to Mordor, when they could've just taken the bus?! Hah, silly hobbits!!

Anyone who attempts to call the Pirates of the Caribbean films realistic needs to be incarcerated in a lunatic asylum.

As Mike said, the East India company basically owned India. It had it's own private army and navy, and was nationalised by the British government following the Sepoy rebellion. Plus it had become bloated and corrupt and totally unprofitable.

The film series has absolutely no basis in reality. The Royal Navy was very effective in wiping out piracy across the world (especially in the Caribbean, which was THE most important and profitable part of the Empire in the time period the films are set), and by the time of the films (not sure really what it is- mid to late 18th century?) there where next to no pirates at all in the area.

Most historical 'pirates' where just captains in a nation's navy who had been given orders to attack enemy commercial shipping. There where some independent captains, yes, but being on a nation's payroll was far more profitable than raiding by yourself.

I don't really like these films. They could have at least tried.

Tabby wants a film about Francis Drake

hahahaha.
I knew the movies were littered with inaccuracy, but I would have imagined they would have had the basics right.

The reason I ask is because I am making a Pirates board game based on trade, having you sail to different ports buying and selling stock (eg. gunpowder, rum, spice, timber, possibly sugar and/or livestock). I was using the Pirates of the Caribbean movie as one of my main references during the intial development, but soon opted for a more realistic approach. So, I was wondering if it was right to call the British team "East India Company" (I'd prefer it to simply the "British").

Originally Posted by Dovahkiin

The Royal Navy was very effective in wiping out piracy across the world (especially in the Caribbean, which was THE most important and profitable part of the Empire in the time period the films are set), and by the time of the films (not sure really what it is- mid to late 18th century?) there where next to no pirates at all in the area.

It references George II, so that means 1727 – 1760. There were few pirates left in the region decades before this, the last major pirate captain, Edward Teach also known as Blackbeard, dies nearly a decade before the reign of George II begins.

Originally Posted by Tarkin

The reason I ask is because I am making a Pirates board game based on trade, having you sail to different ports buying and selling stock (eg. gunpowder, rum, spice, timber, possibly sugar and/or livestock). I was using the Pirates of the Caribbean movie as one of my main references during the intial development, but soon opted for a more realistic approach. So, I was wondering if it was right to call the British team "East India Company" (I'd prefer it to simply the "British").

You know there are quite a few games like that already? Port Royale, East India Company, and some others.

Tabby wants a film about Francis Drake

I hope it would get banned in Spain.

The film series has absolutely no basis in reality.

Ummm...did you stop to think for a moment that this, was in fact, the reason why people really loved them? I think just about everyone with two braincells was all "yeah this is so unrealistic." Bravo said it best. They used all these things that were in reality for the sake of imagery and the names themselves.

Its a crying shame some people's suspension of disbelief is so easily shattered. Those films are obviously fantasy and was meant to be in the first place.

yeah ive never been able to enjoy a movie unless its realistic

its why every movie that isnt a documentary pretty much sucks

i mean geez it just ruins the whole movie

Whoa, hold on a second there. Are you trying to tell me that there's no cursed gold that turns people into skeletons in the moonlight, or squid monsters who captain cursed vessels that can submerge and travel underwater, as well as summon gigantic mythic sea monsters?

mind = blown

It's interesting to note that a lot of Pirate games do the same thing, and have the East India Company in the Caribbean. I suppose you can understand the reasoning, having a trading company, and I suppose these days popular cuture has "rewritten the history books" so to speak, as most people I assume would not be aware of the inaccuracy...

For my game, I think I'll just stick to calling them the "British", and then I can just stick to the generic theme and then have the "Spanish" and the "Pirates".

Thanks for your insights, it's quite an interesting topic.

DON'T PISS ALL OVER ONE OF MY FAVORITE FANTASIES! :O

I love the POTC trilogy - didn't care much for the fourth movie. Unfortunately, Disney has made more than a few movies historically inaccurate; another example is Pocahontas - but I presume it's all for the sake of entertaining audiences.

The East India Trading Co. was not something they made up. It was a real company. This was the whole America/ India thingy.

I love the POTC movie to pieces. A lot of things won't be accurate, but you can still enjoy them. Unless, you're a history buff.

Even if you are a history buff, whats wrong with setting all that aside for an hour and a half and enjoying a film full of pirate fantasy?

Take The 13th Warrior for instance. I know quite enough about viking/norse culture to know that a lot of whats in that film is historically inaccurate. Especially with the clothes and armor they wear. And the character of Bulivyf not being able to read being a load of rubbish since the Norse Men had their runic language and junk. Also that Neanderthals have been long gone for thousands of years. Doesnt mean i still cant have fun with that film. Ya know?

Pirates of the Caribbean hate because it's historically inaccurate? That's cool. I don't like Star Wars because there is no sound in space.