Jump to content

Talk:Das Boot/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

'Leaving the sailors to die'

For some reason, the destroyer captains were unscrupulous enough to leave their landsmen dying. The Captain orders to fall back, leaving the sailors to die.

The reason for the destroyer captains 'leaving the sailors to die' was that ships that stopped to pick-up survivors were often torpedoed by the submarine that had just sunk the ship the survivors were escaping from. The safety of the convoy was deemed more important than the lives of a few sailors, who themselves were aware of this and expected it. Usually a destroyer would be sent back to look for survivors at daybreak when the convoy had moved-on some distance and was relatively safe from what was a known U-Boat contact. Ian Dunster 13:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
And on the U-boats' side, I believe this is a reference to the infamous Laconia incident. This was a bizarre incident, in which an atrocity committed by American forces (bombing U-boats carrying allied survivors under the Red Cross flag) was used to convict Dönitz of war crimes.
After the attack, Dönitz (rightly or wrongly) felt himself forced to order his crews to render no assistance to survivors in the water, under any circumstances. For this order, Dönitz was prosecuted for war crimes in what I consider to be a kangaroo court, engineered to depose the legitimate leader of Germany so the Allies could carve it up between them — look, for example at the testimony given in his defence by Chester Nimitz and 120 Admirals of the U.S. Navy! (BTW, I think Dönitz did deserve jail time — for failing to speak or act against the Holocaust, about which he certainly knew.) — Johantheghost 12:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Not only that, but additionally it also dependended on the period. Before the threat (air or destroyer type threat) became too large for uboats, they would usually surface and ask the survivors a couple of questions (ship's name, destination, departure, cargo embarked, etc...), and provide directions (sometimes also some suppies) if needed to shore or a major known shipping lane. Some uboats also provided basic medical care to the very wounded. They could not, of course, take on prisoners, since the uboat was already crowded by it's own crew. At that time, cargo ships were also usually alone, and not escorted either. --Julien 09:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Tipperarry

The "Tipperarry" song heared in the movie was actually performed by the Red Army Choir. A part of the song is sung in russian. The particular section heared in the movie on two occasions (during the Captain-1st WO argument, and later during their return to La Rochelle after the aborted Gibraltar dash)is the ending chorus sung by the whole choir while the earlier chorus were sung solo until "to the sweatest girl I know" and by the whole choir therafter. I spent quite some time looking for the right version because I was puzzled by the strange non-English accent which made me wonder what did they actually play. In fact I`m still puzzled by the effect the director wanted to make. Was that song intended to be an English-recorded song, as it was popular song amoung their troops since WW1 (which would open a question how and why could such a record be found on a German U-boat in WW2?) or a Irish-recorded song mocking the English (as I consider it`s lyrics are somewhat underlining the differances between the Irish and the British) or perhaps a German-recorded song aimed to encourege the Irish in the British army to desert the British cause (the obviously foreign accent made me think this was the right idea) or even what it actually was: a Soviet-recorded song (the movie starts before the German attack on the USSR so it was possible for such a record to be found on a German U-boat). Anyone interested in this who can give me the answer or just an oppinion?

Veljko Stevanovich

It shouldn't have been a Red Army recording — unless those were current in the UK. The truth is that many German U-boat crews listened to British records (which were far more entertaining than much of the Nazi-inspired German stuff), and wore British battledress uniforms, which were more comfortable than the German issue!
When the British were evacuated from Europe, they left tons of stuff behind, which was appropriated by the Germans. Since the U-boat teams were the first ones into the French channel ports — trains containing everything needed to equip a U-boat base had been loaded and ready to go before the ports were even captured — the U-boat men got a lot of the best spoils, and took what they fancied for themselves. Given the situation of the U-boats at sea, dress codes and such tended to be very lax, and the men were very much indulged in issues of comfort and entertainment. One guy even took to wearing an RAF jacket on base, because it was so much more comfortable than his own uniform. So yes, the "Tipperarry" record is quite accurate. — Johantheghost 11:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You`re right. I agree. Thnx and respect. Oh, and sorry I forgot to sign the message

Veljko Stevanovich

40 million dollars?

I don't know the exact value of the dollar of 1997, but it was certainly more than 46% of today's value, which is the percentage the number in the text suggests. In 1999, the DM was fixed by 1.95583 € (that was the time the Euro was started; the coins and bills weren't changed until 2001, or was it 2002, though). The Euro has the value of around 1.2 dollars, which is, of course, today. But the value doesn't change in so big steps! --84.154.127.54 15:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In 1981, the average exchange rate (according to oanda.com) was 1 DEM = 0.44459 USD, so the cost was $11 million in 1981 dollars.

inconsistency

7. "Dubbings and subtitles" lists:

  1. In the U.S. DVD there are no German subtitles. English-speaking students of German wishing to read the German while listening in German will need to obtain an appropriate European region code DVD, such as the French version "le bateau", which also includes American English subtitles and soundtracks.
  2. Cabaret scene: In the U.S. DVD there is a minor background comment during the drunk hero captain's speech ("He'd better watch his mouth!") that is not subtitled in English with the German sound track but which is heard in the English dubbing.

The first says that the US DVD contains no subtitles, the second refers to English subtitles. It is possible that it is referring to the English subtitles in the French version, but that should be stated. Also, statement 1 leaves me wondering about other English versions, such as British. Why mention only French version as a version with English subtitles? If the British version has English subtitles, that seems like the first choice. It implies that either there is no British version, or the British version also cannot be viewed with German audio and English subtitles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.82.143 (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This confusion may be due to translation.

In German, "Untertitel" is the word for closed captions (or the equivalent system in Germany, which is based on Videotext). I.e. the translations can be added to the screen or hidden at the viewers discretion. Now the literal translation of "Untertitel" is "subtitles" - but in English subtitles mean written translation which is always on the screen, and cannot be disabled. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

>>"While Saint-Nazaire was the base used in the novel, the film was changed to La Rochelle because its appearance had not changed to such a large degree in the years since World War II." In the novel, Saint-Nazaire is the port where the boot is based, but it has to go to La Rochelle because of the damages after the Gibraltar episode: the distance to La Rochelle is shorter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.76.181.12 (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

older entries

Kudos to all the authors of this excellent article. :) Nevilley 22:01, January 18, 2003 (UTC)

Isn't it good? I have the DVD and have yet to listen to the commentary; I just watch the movie again each time. --Koyaanis Qatsi
yep, fabulous, a good example of what this w. can be like in its good moments. I envy you your DVD. I loved the TV when it came out, I used to go round the house being Jurgen Prochnow and going Verdammt, verdammt! through the Straits of Gibraltar ... Nevilley 22:19, January 18, 2003 (UTC)
LOL. You and me both, 'cept I'm from Chicago so I got to play Prochnow on the U-505 :) Palm_Dogg 03:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Great article, well done! And one of the greatest films ever, IMHO. (Of course, I would say that... ;-) — Johantheghost 12:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Production Cost

The original 1981 version cost DM25 million ($40 million in 1997 dollars)

Is the money figure really correct? IMHO 30 Millions of German Marks are 15 mio Euros which would make it about 12 mio US$ (today). I don't remember that the US$ was below 1 DM in 1997?! --Urbanus

The $12 million is indeed correct, however this is $12 million in 1980 dollars. Inflation ran extremely high in the 80s, taking inflation into account this comes to $40 million in 1997 dollars --kudz75 02:54, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
The official site states 30 million GM's ([1]) Quoting: "At a cost of about 30 million Deutsche Marks (about $40 million US in today's dollars)" --Julien 22:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this still the most expensive German film ever made? Or was that just so when it was produced (back then) ? Engr105th (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this current version [[2]], I don't think Das Boot is the most expensive in the history of German Cinema as reported.Metropolis (film) is reported to have cost the equivalent of $200 million (2005 dollars). Hyperinflation muddies the water a lot though. Perhaps, a disclaimer should be added; maybe, the most expensive after 1945. 166.70.39.30 (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As per the sentence on hyperinflation in the 1920s: the inflation crisis was resolved by the end of 1923 in Germany, after which point Germany's currency was reset against the dollar and held fairly stable through the 1920s. Unless the movie started production before 1924, there's no reason to suspect that inflation played a role in its costs. Besides, hyperinflation would not have affected the exchange rate into American dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.0.139 (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Telvision mini-series

in the Text it says:

It was also produced as a six-hour television mini-series aired in Germany in 1981.

in Versions you read:

A 5 hours television mini-series,

Which length of the tv-series is correct? --Donnyw 14:43, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neither of these is correct, to my knowledge. I have the uncut DVD version, and the runtime is just over around 4 hrs 30 minutes.

281:11 minutes according to splashmovies.de--Hhielscher 20:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The original miniseries had six episodes, each with a duration of 1 hr, which makes 6 hours. I have them taped (from German TV in 1985), so no mistake about that. Christian Rödel

So the uncut version is actually 1.5 hours less than the original one? I figured it could be 6x45 minutes + 15 minutes of commercials each...Dabljuh 21:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

no commercials in german tv back then. i still remember them. commercials werent run in movies untill commercial tv and arent untill know on state tv. ard broadcasted them then.--85.180.50.69 03:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, the version shown on BBC2 back in around 1988 was six 50-minute episodes, IIARC they were shown at 18:00pm to 18:50pm weekdays, although it has been repeated a couple of times since then. The BBC version was subtitled, although there are noticeable differences between the BBC English subtitles and the ones subsequently used for the film. Having just read the article page section on the TV series has reminded me that yes, it was originally shown as three two-hour episodes back in 1984.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Isn't "boot" pronounced more like "bought" than "boat", I think it would be IPA "bo:t", wuite unlike the English pronunciation?

I don't think any of these "how to say it" attempts is going to be all that successful - people don't generally understand IPA and any "it's like X" thing will founder on the reef of people's own local or national accents when speaking English (note appropriate maritime metaphor <g>). "Bought" is I feel doomed to failure for this reason and I would leave it how it is. (From my PoV I'd say "try to say 'boat' with a slight 'comedy-Yorkshire' accent" but this is unlikely to help every reader! :) ) Perhaps the most important thing is "don't pronounce it like the footwear or you will sound a real pillock!" :) 138.37.199.199 08:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The "oo" sound in German is more like "boat" or "note" than "bought". --jdoniach
Rest assured that it closer to "bought" than to "boat", but pronounced with a rounder -oo- than "bought". The German -oo- its not a diphthong. Ontologix (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's more like the "o" in somehow british spelled "order" 84.157.117.198 22:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

On the Region One Director's Cut DVD commentary Wolfgang Peterson clearly pronounces it like "boat". 76.167.74.174 15:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Local dialects may vary, but "Boot" is not pronounced like "boat". "Bought" is in fact the closest english pronounciation I can think of, it's not far off at all. Now, this may not be the best of sources, but if you'll look at this U-96-video, they say "Das Boot" at about 1:29...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwc0shJ2aYc (No, this is not my primary source, I actually do speak a bit of german :D)Andrimner (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Since my mother tongue is German, I can tell you how it's pronounced: If you pronounce the word "shore" with a British accent and draw out the "o" very long, "Shoooooore", you got it. Then just put a "B" in front and the "t" in back -- and you got the German pronouncitation of "Boot" (engl.: vessel). The "U-" is pronounced like the "oo" in "shoot". -- Alexey Topol (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What ever happened to the "ö" in the title? AMCKen (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing, there never was one. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Portrayal of Nazism

The article mentions that some people feel that Nazism and its attendant evils were under-portrayed in the film. While this is certainly a valid point of view, and needs to be mentioned, I think the opposite case could be given more coverage.

My personal feeling is that the film is actually rather accurate in this regard. While there were ardent Nazi-sympathisers in the Navy (eg. Heinz-Wilhelm Eck, who was hanged for war crimes), it was actually run along professional and non-political lines; in fact, am I right in thinking that it was actually against naval law to be a member of any political party?

Eck's warcrime was to assasinate (I don't think another term could apply here), the survivors of the Peleus. Of note, not only he was hanged, but some other officers on board (Silent Hunters by Saval, Naval Institute Press) He thought the survivors presence would give away the uboat's location (the Peleus was sunk during the night in a heavily air patrolled area). --Julien 10:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The Navy, and especially the U-boat crews based in France, were more divorced than most people from Nazi policy in mainland Germany, and I think there was a lot of Nazi-scepticism in the force. A case in point is Oskar-Heinz Kusch, who was court-martialled for taking down a portrait of Hitler from his boat, saying "We are not in the business here of practicing idolatry." Despite chances to recant, he stuck to his views and was shot for them.

After the assassination attempt on Hitler, things changed, with the central party attempting to exert more control on the U-boats by installing "political officers" on each boat, but my feeling is that these men were not much liked. It was, I think, not uncommon for U-boat men to provocatively use the Naval salute in response to the Nazi one.

Of course, it's a complex situation, with many different characters involved, and there were fiends in the U-boat force as anywhere else. But many ex U-boat officers were recruited into Nato (after extensive examination of their backgrounds), and did sterling service there — eg. Otto Kretschmer, Lehmann-Willenbrock himself, and Erich Topp.

With a bit more research (can someone find out about the legal status of politics in the Kriegsmarine?), maybe we can work the above into a para or two for the article. Johantheghost 11:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

uboat crew were elite troops of the regime (along with the SS). They had followed rigourous training, but unlike any other troops, they had to work and live for long weeks in an overcrowded tin can. This led to special unofficial permissions: the crew (including the captain) usually wore the standard uniform only on departure and arrival and when on leave, no one cared if they shaved or not during the mission (the beard was non-reglementary). They also came from various backgrounds and often (even captain's) didn't come from a military family where everyone is in the military from father to son.
This may be a reason why uboat crews were not overzelious Nazis. They had a job to do, and there most prized victory was just carrying out well done (or they probably wouldn't survive).
I think this is well portrayed in the movie, by the captain's ironie (scene with the radio propaganda, scene with logbook and recent 'triumphs') and the 1st lieutnant who is the only ardent Nazi, and doesn't even come from Germany. --Julien 10:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Williams' book The Battle Of The Atlantic deals with the issue at some length. To summarise, before some quotes from the book, the Kriegsmarine (navy) was somewhat removed from the apparatus of the state, being a professional navy before and during the National Socialist period.

  • "The image of the Kriegsmarine has always been one of professional sailors remote from the politics of the Reich, yet its ranks mirrored the views of the country at large and in the years after Hitler's rise to power in 1933 he and his creed enjoyed the overwhelming support of most Germans. There were certainly many true believers in the Freikorps Dönitz [U-boat crews]. Membership of political parties was officially forbidden by the navy, but there were many who supported the Nazis and some, like Erich Topp, who once carried a party card." - The Battle Of The Atlantic, pages 23-24, Andrew Williams, 2002, BBC Books
  • "...von Knebel [Dönitz's personal Adjutant] remembers the warm informality of his conversations with Dönitz and the freedom with which he was able to speak of his family's hostility to the Nazis. Dönitz was prepared to turn a blind eye to his Adjutant's views but nevertheless, von Knebel sensed the time was right to move on..." - The Battle Of The Atlantic, page 118, Andrew Williams, 2002, BBC Books
  • (in early 1941) "The British interpreter who spoke to the crew reported that both the U-boat's midshipmen appeared to be 'typical Nazis' but in Kretschmer he observed a distinct war-weariness with 'many of the Nazi methods and most of their leading personalities'." - The Battle Of The Atlantic, page 124, Andrew Williams, 2002, BBC Books
  • "Ecke too was impressed. The commander seemed to exude bonhomie. He recalls: 'If I had to characterize Lemp, I would say that he believed "My country right or wrong." I might not like these Nazis, but we are at war and I can't do anything else.'" - The Battle Of The Atlantic, page 128, Andrew Williams, 2002, BBC Books

I believe these quotes, from a reputable source, itself extensively academically sourced, can help to clear up the section regarding the Nazism of the U-boat crews. Some members of the Freikorps were certainly Nazis, but not to the same extent as in the other armed forces, the Wehrmacht or the Luftwaffe, not to mention the paramilitary wings of the state (for example the SS, Schutzstaffel). The First Lieutenant character refers to the fact that there were Nazis among the U-boat crews, but the overall verdict from Williams' book appears to be that the U-boat crews were not overly Nazi. The character who makes fun of Hitler is not impossible either, as the quotes show. So, to conclude, we can acknowledge this perceived criticism in the article, but I think the current wording goes too far.

--John Lunney 23:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Think the whole issue is a phantom criticism anyway. Its about a U-Boat crew, and a strong anti-war film, not about their political views. How many times are Churchill or Roosevelt mentioned in Western submarine WW2 films?

In one scene, the 1/WO can be heard reciting something from a book. Was that a bunch of Nazi stuff, or perhaps NCO training materials being recited to a crewman to prep him for the NCO exam? It's fairly faint in the background, but it can be heard. Oydman 22:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If I may, I'll weigh in here even though I'm Army and not Navy bred... I have in the past heard the saying that Germany went to war with "a People's Army, a National Socialist (Nazi) Air Force, and an Imperial Navy". The implication being, with which I agree, that their Navy was by far the least Nazi of the main services.
I take issue with the idea that U-boat crews were considered elite in the same sense of the SS. They were indeed elite, but we must remember that Hitler had NO sense of naval power. He was an Army man all the way. In fact, I believe Raeder and Doenitz advised the OKW (High Command) early on of the need for 200 or so U-boats before getting too deep (pardon the pun) into the war. Their advice was ignored; consequently Germany went to war with less than 100 U-boats available operationally at any one time (understand, 'operational' means a third of the fleet on patrol; while a third is in transit to or from their combat stations, and a third in port being re-fitted and repaired to put to sea..300 boats total).
Then there is the "sea tradition" which goes back quite far in history (again, a Naval history type will know a lot more about this than me). As I understand it, the ultimate enemy for any Navy is the Sea itself. If we accept that Navies evolved from merchant sailing tradition (traders and what not), its easier to understand why rescuing a distressed crew crosses national boundaries - I've heard there is an unwritten rule that any nationality must come to the aid of a crew in distress. If true, this helps explain the lack of "nationalism" in Navies. Of course, this tradition is largely Western and didn't seem to apply to the US vs Japanese Empire in WW2, where the two societies - largely ignorant of one another - clashed. But from what little I've read about naval/sea merchant history, it seems that the British, Dutch, French, German, Portugese and Spanish have had the understanding for several hundred years that crews in distress were always to be afforded a "safe port in a storm". I'm sure there were exceptions, even if this tradition is true:)...Point is, it transcends local or generational politics. This may explain the lack of Naziism in the Kriegsmarine of WW2...We should also understand that ship's crews in past times were often VERY international. One example is the CSS Alabama, commanded by Raphael Semmes. He had southern US Officers, but a crew almost entirely made up of Europeans.
Also, keep in mind that running a ship is a highly technical calling. Its just not the same as training a soldier to charge a hill or machine gun nest. There was probably a far more limited effort to indoctrinate a recruit with politics when he had to become highly competent in a tech skill such as running a submarine, and in a limited amount of time.
I am not surprised the U-boat service had so few Nazis. Engr105th (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact when reading the book the movie is based on or watching the TV-miniseries it becomes much more obvious that Jürgen Prochnow's Character (who ist actually called "Kaleun"=abbreviation for "Kapitänleutnant" and not "Kaleu") has issues with his superiors due to his opposition to the regime. Also the "1WO"("1.Wachoffizier) is portayed to be a staunch Nazi who is spurned by all the rest of the crew for being too "tight-arsed". Unfortunately this does not come across in the movie version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.111.93.178 (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It is perhaps a point made by Petersen that the only Nazi in the crew is someone who has spent most of his life not in Germany, but in South America, and hence has not had to experience the already apparent (by 1941) worst aspects of the Nazi's rule after their rise to power that the rest of the crew have. He is tolerated by the rest of the crew because of his rank, but otherwise they dislike him, and some of the junior members of the crew laugh at him behind his back. As-such, he is friendless and alone while on board.
A 1982 interview with Wolfgang Petersen and Jürgen Prochnow recorded at Imperial College, London, here: [4]

And if it makes a difference, the characters in this film are not what you can consider villains nor Nazis in the true sense of the word. In fact, just about all of them hold contempt for Hitler and the war but are fulfilling their duty to serve their country. This is pretty obvious from the get-go, when the drunken captain of another U boat openly mocks Hitler while making a speech in the bordello. When the crew stops in Spain to pick up supplies and are greeted with the Nazi salute by higher officers, the captain refuses to return the gesture. At one point when patriotic German music is being played in the submarine, another character yells at him to shut it off. In fact, only one of the men -- the 1st Watch Officer -- is an ardent Nazi supporter; the rest of the crew can't stomach him and his bourgeois upbringing in Mexico. It doesn't help that he tries to maintain a clean shaven and uptight uniformed look while everyone else descends into greasy haired filth.

I have read that U boat crews were less than enamored with the Nazi regime and many U boat historians maintain that the U-boat navy was the least pro-Nazi branch of Germany's WWII armed forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.200 (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Things that could be added

It lacks something about the music in the article. Ericd

What about the fact when they Kapiten and the 1st Lieutenant, and the reporter went onto the boat with all the German Offizers and when they were saluted with the "HEIL HITLER" they did nothing back in return but just looked at each other. And how they made fun of the one who was raised by adopted parents because they were Mexican?

the 1WO wasn't raised by ethnic Mexicans, he was raised by Germans who had emigrated to Mexico. Many Germans left their homeland after WW1 because of the poor economic climate and political instability. The USA had strict limits on immigration, so many Germans went elsewhere -- especially South America. The airship Graf Zeppelin had a regularly-scheduled run from Germany to Brazil during the 1930s, ferrying businessmen back and forth. Even today there are many blond, blue-eyed Brazilians and Argentinians with German surnames. Oydman 21:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Oydman is quite correct, there have historically been a number of German/European "colonies" in S.America. In fact, I'd speculate the Germans and Portugese are the dominant immigrant cultures. Entirely plausible that the 1WO would have been raised there and returned to his family's native Germany for his higher education, especially after the Depression was over and Germany was back on the rise...This immigration trend was repeated after WW2 - remember Oskar and Emilie Schindler. Engr105th (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Most Expensive German Movie?

The article says that Das Boot was "was at the time the most expensive film in the history of German cinema", but the page for the silent German film Metropolis says it cost the equivalent of 200 million of todays dollars, which is march larger then the 40 million equivalent of Das Boot. I'm not going to change it because its probably there for a reason, but something isn't right.

Metropolis costed 5.1 million Reichsmark, which is less than Das Boot. Exchange rates in 1938 were 2.49 Reichsmark = 1 US-Dollar, so measured in 1938 dollars it costed a bit more than 2 million US-$. Which in turn would translate into 12.94 million dollars of the year of 1981 ( http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi )! Das Boot cost 40 million Deutsche Mark in 1981, which was the equivalent of 32.15 million dollars in 1981 ! So in today's money (2009), Das Boot was priced at 30.15 million dollars, whereas Das Boot would weigh in at 74.91 million dollars ! Roughly two and a half times more ! -- Alexey Topol (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Dubbings and subtitles section

Seems that most of this section could be deleted, as it seems very trivial at best. One line of dialgue is missing? German subtitles don't exist for the English version? Actors re-recorded their own voiced in English? RoyBatty42 10:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The part about the actors doing their own English voices is worth noting. It might be useful for film students and others to know that many Germans speak good to perfect English and can act in either, as needed. Oydman 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Running time?

In IMDB it says: 149 min / 209 min (director's cut) / 293 min (uncut version)

which is very different from what it figures in the chart, here. Which information is correct? Nazroon 03:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Destroyer

How does the captain lose sight of the destroyer? I haven't seen the uncut version; do they show the ship doing some maneuvers?

Also, who dies at the end? I recognize Johann, Ullman, and the 2WO.- JustPhil 04:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

pronunciation

In das Boot, is the s pronounced [z], or is the B pronounced [p]? I assumed the former in editing the IPA. kwami 05:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Need more details...

The plot need more details about when they sunk near gibraltar. Marking the difficults that the U 96 Crew passed and miracle surfaced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.124.17.240 (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Influenced by Earlier film?

The Enemy Below, a 1957 film about the struggle between the captain of an American destroyer escort and the commander of a German U-boat during World War II, was based on a novel by Denys Rayner, a British naval officer. Might The Enemy Below have influenced either the novel or the film Das Boot? In both flicks the German crews sing heartily while under water.Jim Lacey (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think its inevitable that a variety of sources influenced the film. Not sure about the novel...As an aside, we have to remember that Bucheim wasn't a U-boat man or even a sailor, he was a military journalist in a propaganda dept. Prior to the war he was an artist. He accompanied only one combat patrol in his career...Personally I'd like to think this great film had other pertinent influences. Engr105th (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. Buchheim accompanied several U-boat missions as he states in the foreword to the book in german. He says that he has condensed his experiences and also some ocurrences he only heard about second hand into the story for this book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.111.93.178 (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Capt Peter "Ali" Cremer's book, "U-Boat Commander"

I read a long time back a book by Peter Cremer, who was also a German sub commander who survived the war. Unless I'm mistaken, he wrote of an incident where his boat was making strange noises and upon return they discovered a bent screw or propeller blade....I noticed in Das Boot the Captain and Chief Engineer discussing this same type thing as they walked with Lt Werner through the U-boat pens to U-96 immediately before the patrol....Wondering if Cremer's book was used in any way as a source for the film? I don't recall that detail in Bucheim's book - but both are dimly remembered for me....Engr105th (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Exhibition

"In the autumn of 2007, there was a well-visited exhibition about the film "Das Boot",...About 3,000 people visited the exhibition during its four-month run."

3,000 people is a little bit too low no? If you take into account that 4 months are 120 days This is les than 25 people per day which does not really sound like a well visited exhibition --23:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Topio (talk)

Fair use rationale for Image:Das boot ver1.jpg

Image:Das boot ver1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Cast" paragraph - Thomsen

Under the Cast paragraph, the listing for Otto Sander (who plays Thomsen) it says "Sometime after U-96 departs, Thomsen is deployed once again and the two submarines meet randomly in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. After failing to make contact later, the Captain is forced to report to HQ that Thomsen is missing."
I have both the old VHS cut and the dvd Director's Cut, which I recently watched. I do not recall that Thomsen was reported by U96 as being missing; or that Thomsen is in fact mentioned at all again after the chance meeting in the Atlantic...can anybody confirm this? (I think there's an Uncut version which I don't have)... Engr105th (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

AFAIR they didn't report him as missing but they noticed radio calls for him were left unanswered so they assumed he is missing. --Denniss (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sets and Models

I've not seen the film in years but just noticed the article reference to "genuine" aircraft such as the SBD Dauntless. If an SBD was depicted in the film, it was TOTALLY bogus. No Dauntlesses were operating in Europe in 1941 (they were still fairly new in USN service) and none were used until Free French units received them three years later. Furthermore, having been intimately involved in the "warbird" community (my family restored and flew a Dauntless), I can say that none were operational in Europe in the 1980s. In fact, I cannot find any reference to an SBD or A-24 existing in Europe then or since.

Barrett Tillman 9 Feb 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btillman (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The two aircraft that attack the docks at the end of the movie are MOST DEFINITELY that ubiquitous movie stand-in for attacking WWII aircraft of any nation SNJ/T-6/Texan/Harvard trainers (considering where the film was shot, most likely specifically Harvards) and absolutely NOT SBDs192.100.69.146 (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)CBsHellcat
The aircraft are Harvards, as there were no airworthy RAF WW II aircraft available to Petersen when the film was made in 1981. In reality, the attacking aircraft for the 1941 period would most probably have been Douglas Bostons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.15 (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

La Pallice (the port area of La Rochelle) was never attacked by RAF 2 Group's Bostons. The climactic air raid in Das Boot is wholly fictitious and was invented by the author of the novel simply to provide a sentimental ending. The appearance of low-flying single-engined fighter-bombers in the film is an obviously absurd conceit for cinematic purposes since La Pallice, at 350 miles from the nearest English bases, was beyond fighter-bomber range in 1941 and its flak defences made low-level attack inadvisable. The film attempts to promote the self-pitying German notion that the British enjoyed overwhelming power, which was not the case. The only RAF attacks on La Pallice in 1941 were by six Stirlings on 23 July, 30 Whitleys on the night of 23/24 July and 15 Halifaxes on 24 July, all these attacks being aimed at the battlecruiser Scharnhorst in port. The U-boat pens were not completed till the end of the year and the RAF notably failed to bomb them while under construction. There were no further RAF raids on La Pallice until 9 August 1944, when 17 Lancasters and one marker Mosquito attacked an oil depot while 12 617 Squadron Lancasters (with Tallboy bombs) and one marker Mosquito attacked the U-boat pens. About 20 Lancasters attacked on 12 August, three Lancasters (22 held bombs due to cloud) on 16 August and 23 Lancasters on 18 August. On 19 August, 52 Lancasters attacked, but they targeted the oil depot, not the U-boat pens. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Video

This iste: [[5]] has some scenes of this movie and theme.Agre22 (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)agre22

1991 techno version, not orginal version (E-Kartoffel (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC))

English title, The Boat ?

Generally, the English titles of films are used in English wikipedia. Wasn't the film retitled/translated for the english audiences? (E-Kartoffel (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC))

AFAIK the American dubbed version was retitled "The Boat", but the generally better known subtitled version kept the German name. Since the latter was the preferred version, it is basically everywhere referred to by "Das Boot", including e.g. the Academy Awards sites, critics sites (Roger Ebert) or imdb (though that's hardly a reliable source). So I guess it's fair to say that the English naming is way less known and not at all outside the US (like the UK, Australia, NZ...) --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The BBC television version called the series by the original German title of "Das Boot". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.196 (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

HF/DF (high-frequency direction finding) to locate the sub.

True? My impression is that the bomber used RADAR to locate das Boot. Huff/Duff is a device to locate HF transmitters. It is not likely that the sub used her transmitters in Gibraltar to give away her position. Have not see the film for years, but the novel says that the boat dived in the same moment as it was hit by bombs. Then surfaced and ran south for a short while and again dived. This time it sank to the bottom. No dept charges was used, the boat was not located by the destoyers. Use of HF/DF seems incorrect. KjellG (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

In reality for the period the attacking aircraft would have been a Coastal Command Wellington GR equipped with ASV radar, and based at RAF Gibraltar.

Cast section: Thomsen

There seems to be an edit war going on over this section.
About Thomsen, it has stated up to now: “When he is introduced, he is extremely drunk and briefly mocks Adolf Hitler on the stage of a French nightclub”. This was changed, as a “minor translation error” to read "briefly mocks Churchill" and has been reverted and replaced several times.
I can’t remember off-hand which it was, but the correct course of action when a change is disputed is to discuss the matter. So, does anyone care to explain? Can anyone check the truth of it? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Because this is an Englisch page, I will use the official Englisch sub-titles as reference. Thomsen is giving a speech and part of it he trails off calling Hitler a "great battle strategist", but his tone is ranging from dead-pan to aggression. These lines are deliberately ambiguous and the audience(as well as the U-Boot crews) are left wondering the exact persuasion of Thomsen's intonation. Thomsen, while extremely drunk, then goes on to call WINSTON CHURCHILL "an English bed wetter" and that the Führer will show "that cigarchomping asshole Churchill where to stick his cigars", thus completing his original ambiguous sentence and clarifying that his allegiance is still on the side of Germany.
It is common German language practice (and a great problem to many non-native speakers) for Germans to add words at the end of a sentence that completely changes the context and/or meaning of the information that the person is first receiving. Naturally most wiki-pedia users are against Hitler for personal/subjective reasons and have projected their personal beliefs on Thomsen's speech. But this is incorrect because the film even pans to many Pro-Nazis in the crowd and they are seen as cheering and being satisfied with Thomsen's speech, with the OVERALL and COMPLETE impression being mockery of Churchil and tolerance of Adolf Hitler.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.215.46 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 24 September 2012‎
Thank you for the explanation. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Er well... while it cannot be doubted that Churchill is mocked in the end, that does have a sound as if he was just getting the politically-correct path but nearly missed it. And no, that is not reading something into it. It's there.
The speech in German is a toast and translates to
Our awesome, abstinent (and un-wived [i. e. unmarried]) Führer, who in a glorious career (beginning as painter apprentice) to the greatest battle-leader of all times (what? ain't that right?) --; the great naval expert, to whom it hath pleased in his immeasurable counsel (long break and grin) (how does my text go on?) (burp) who will show this English bed wetter, this cigar-smoking asshole Churchill where this whathisname fetches the must.
"Show to someone where the Bartel fetches the must" is an expression wiktionary translates as "know every trick in the book".
The overall and complete impression is that Thomsen tolerates, and to a degree agrees with, the diatribes against Churchill apparently en vogue in then-German propaganda. (Though he would not go so far as to say Churchill chomped his cigars. He "qualmed" them, which is a less friendly word for normal smoking.) However, the obviously predominant element is an implicit but very clear mockery of Hitler.
The following analysis should not be necessary; you need not read it because the thing is clear anyway, but nevertheless here it is.
Remember also that was a dictatorship. You would not plainly say what you mean; you'd allude. Apart from that, Germans like to allude anyway. If they can think of an allusion, they will rather go for it rather than say plainly what they mean (by which I don't say we constantly lie; no, we're subject to the usual vices but that's not what I mean; this habit supposes that even the allusion is clear enough to be understood). Though I'm not so sure whether this is not universal to entire Western civilization, or mankind.
First he begins to praise Hitler (herrlich, "awesome"). Then he adds "abstinent". Abstinence was no compliment in Germany (though by my stereotype it is one in America), nor is it now. And then it is a drunk man that says so! Still he says "un-wived". The impression created is that of a prudish oddball. The things is that Hitler was abstinent and (despite concubinage, which Thomsen would not have known about though anyway) un-wived, so he could hardly be arrested for saying so.
Call him at this stage of war "the greatest battle-leader of all times" in itself, at this stage of war, was recognizably ironic ("Gröfaz" vor "größter Feldherr aller Zeiten" was the mock abbreviation). And then he proceeds to say "what? ain't that right?"! Concerning the "naval expert", I guess not even Hitler himself would have called himself so... Then he (clearly again) changes into the religious tone only in use when speaking about God (hence I translated "hath"), including the key expression "immeasurable counsel". (On an aside: Here is a break; he probably meant to say "granted my the Knight's Cross" or a more ironic version of this.)
Then, indeed, comes the Churchill attack. But besides being the way to finally achieve saying something politically correct, this could even in itself be ironical. As a later scene shows, it seems to have been a custom to call Churchill names in German propaganda - something that would naturally have been rather ridiculous to German soldiers: To them he was an enemy, but made their lives hard enough than they'd dismiss him as an irrelevant bed-wetter. Thus even this is ironical; it mocks German propaganda by straight imitation.
I said he tolerated and partly agreed with the Churchill attacks nevertheless, though (you can be ironic and partly agreeing about a thing at the same time); but anyway, to repeat it, the overall and complete impression is a mockery of Hitler.--93.135.104.231 (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
IIRC, as stated above, the scene actually shows Thomsen treading a thin line between making a joke at Hitler's expense, and treason, as his speech is actually making a scathing thinly-veiled diatribe against Hitler, with a bit about Churchill thrown in to hopefully make it seem to be not so. Nazi Germany was a police state and making speeches like Thomsen's in public got the average German sent to a concentration camp, and German service personnel shot, and it is only because Thomsen is a much-valued U-boat commander - and drunk and in a brothel - that he is allowed to say such things - if he had been sober he almost certainly would not have dared to. Hitler was tee-total and did not smoke, whereas Churchill did both. And to the U-boat crews, with all their losses, it looked like Churchill's side were winning.
So in the scene Thomsen is actually risking his life to say things that other U-boat men dared only think. The other U-boat crew members present realise this. And Thomsen knows they do, and that they, for the most part, agree with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.205.73 (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Festival performance

Have just watched a film on Petersen´s life. He mentioned the pre-cinema performance at a film festival, possibly in France. The film opens with the sub approaching under water. Then a text appears that of the 40,000 German submariners of which 30,000 perished during the war. Immediately loud applause rose in the house. After the performance there was applause again, this time not for the good=dead Germans, but for the film. Perhaps this episode could be mentioned in the article if someone finds out where it happened. According to the interview with Petersen it must have been at a film festival somewhere in Europe.Ontologix (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The event in question, was a premiere in the United States, for a Jewish audience: the audience cheered at the caption at the very beginning that says that 30,000 of 40,000 German submariners died. The makers of the movie were really afraid at that moment, because that was supposed to be a tragic fact. As the movie went on, however, the audience began cheering for the submarines to survive. By the end of the movie, the audience was sympathetic to the submariners and, as said in the director's commentary, gave a standing ovation to the film.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.29.26 (talk • contribs)

Trivial criticism?

"Furthermore, an officer—even an outsider like Lt. Werner—would have commanded special respect and that throwing an oil-drenched towel into his face would not have been tolerated."

Werner didn't see who did it. Another man demanded to be told who had, but no one spoke up. Werner never pressed the issue, probably out of embarrassment. Officers are supposed to command respect, but that doesn't always happen. This criticism is stupid and out of place among the more relevant objections. 70.172.214.70 (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

" ... Günther Buchheim expressed great disappointment with Petersen's adaptation in a film review published in 1981, especially with Petersen's aesthetic vision for the film and the way the plot and the effects are, according to him, overdone and clichéd by the adaptation. He also criticised the hysterical overacting of the cast, which he called highly unrealistic, while acknowledging the cast's acting talent in general... " - the film makes it clear at the beginning that the majority of U-96's crew are inexperienced 'boys', and not veteran U-boat men. It also makes clear that the Captain is tolerant of them because of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.113 (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Das Boot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Criticisms

I removed the section: "At the very end of the movie, the port of Saint-Nazaire is bombed by allied fighter-bombers. Yet, Saint-Nazaine was never bombed before at least March 1942. Morevover, none of the British fighter-bombers of late 1941 - early 1942 had the range to bomb the city." Since it wasn't germaine. The port that U-96 puts into at the end of the film is on the Med. coast, as the boat has to pass Gibraltar.L Hamm 02:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but you are wrong, the submarine never made it in the Med. --Denniss 14:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to concede the point if you can site the reference. My perception has been that the sub continued through the Gibraltar into the Mediterranean. L Hamm 16:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I have seen the movie as well the TV miniseries several times and they returned to France (Atlantic side). --Denniss 17:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I am sure they go back St Nazaire, I have seen the DVD (director cut) 3 times or so. It might not be said in the shorter version, though, even though the ports LOOKS LIKE Saint Nazaire. Narval 08:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I concede the point. However, I wish there was a more concrete way we could know that it was St. Nazaire. I've only seen the director's cut and nothing is said that would confirm that it is St. Nazaire, though. I think the place to look would be a screenplay, where it might be explicitly implied by writer or director. L Hamm 17:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Saint-Nazaire was the only German sub base IN FRANCE with concrete sub pens... Narval 19:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to shout. Alright, that would mean that the submarine either (a) returned to St. Nazaire, the favoured conclusion because of the existence of the concrete sub pens at the opening and ending, (b) another port, not in France that had concrete sub pens, or (c) a French port that, in error, is shown having concrete sub pens. L Hamm 23:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Basically, yes. Your three points stands. Sorry for the shouting, I wanted to preclude answer like "Kiel had concrete sub pens, too" [I don't know whether La Spezia has concrete sub pens or not] Ok, I ll watch the movie again ASAP to be sure. Note that a bombing of La Spezia in Dec 1941 - Jan 1942 would be even more unrealistic, it was completely out of range of anything English, including Malta. Narval 07:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Reading another source indicated that the submarine base used at the beginning of the movie was supposed to be La Rochelle, which would have been further out of range of Allied bombing. But, the footage shown of the bombing at the end of the movie is stock from the Battle of Britain and shows German Henkel bombers. I hadn't thought of La Spezia.L Hamm 11:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, two things : Both La Rochelle and Saint-Nazaire had sub pens. Uh ! My mistake. Sorry for this. Second point : the "detailled plot" of this page is inconsistant, since they start from St-Nazaire and comes back at La Rochelle, which is possible but makes little sense. I ll watch the movie again next weed-end, and will settle all this. The cities are probably both out of range, but I'll check the "bombing history" of La Rochelle

Ok, I checked. The Sub is leaving and coming back to La Rochelle.

Alright, sounds good. L Hamm 21:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't answer for the movie, but in the book (it's on pg. of the 1976 Bantam edition--English xltn, of course), it says "We must try to put in at the nearest reachable base. Which means La Rochelle, not Saint Nazaire and home." Of course, the movie (theater edition--I haven't seen the director's cut) leaves out a few things in the book, so this too could be changed. Mcswell 02:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

According to this site, it looks like they did return to La Rochelle

With the condition the boat is in we'll head straight for La Rochelle.

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/d/das-boot-script-transcript-submarine.html

I just watched the director's cut and can't remember that line being included, so maybe it's only in the full version?

Note the details: A German Flotilla Commander (and other officers) is present when they pull into port, but no Italian Naval officers. Guaranteed that if they had successfully made it to Italy, Italian officers would be there to welcome them. Also, La Spezia is out of British bomber range until late in the war. The port they enter is damaged. My only beef is that La Rochelle seems to have gotten hit badly in the time of U-96's cruise. Obviously a plot device, but it went from essentially unhurt to pretty badly damaged while they were at sea. BTW, those concrete submarine pens never were penetrated, the French used them for decades after the war! Oydman 21:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I know this is an old message thread, but I'd like to weigh in: Oydman has a particularly valid point. And they only attempt to make the Med and La Spezia; otherwise the film refers only to La Rochelle for both departure and return. The film never references St Nazaire. A lot of this is for simplicity sake and audience comprehension - it's the difference between detailed books and 2 hour movies.....As far as the damaged La Rochelle is concerned, remember the movie Enemy At the Gate? The Russians are on the ropes, on the very verge of a disastrous defeat - and then Vasily the sniper goes up against one German supersniper (Ed Harris), all the while involved in a love triangle with Rachel Whatshername, and (in what? a months time? two weeks?) he's defeated the german sniper and the Soviets have re-taken Stalingrad! Sorry for the digression, but the point is Such Is Hollywood (or in Das Boot, the German version of Hollywood). They have to compress time. In Das Boot, the prologue mentions how the 'war is beginning to go aganst the Germans' or some such. So what you get is part of the U-boat 'Happy Time' coupled with the Germans being pounded and the end we all expect is just around the corner....Taht exlains the jaunty La Rochelle vis a vis the damaged one...Engr105th (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
In the scene in the nightclub/brothel early in the film/series, the Kaulein and Thomson are speaking and Thomsen states that Kelsch was lost off Gibraltar recently so the Kaulein knows that getting past Gibraltar and into the Mediterranean is a risky business and was not going to be easy for anyone who attempts this. This is long before they receive the orders, which is when they are actually at sea, to do just that. Thus when the orders to sail to La Spezia are received the Captain already knows a boat has been lost attempting this very route quite recently. This is why, as an act of kindness, he attempts to get permission to leave behind in Vigo the Number One/Chief Engineer and the War Correspondent as he has doubts the boat will be successful in getting through and they may all be lost.
For any English speaker wanting the definitive experience get the six-part 50-minute episode mini-series of Das Boot and watch it in the original German audio with English subtitles. The current English subtitles are not quite as good as the original BBC ones used on the UK broadcast back in 1984-85, which were done by the specialised BBC Subtitling Department who were familiar with the idiomatic German of the period, as well as with specific German submarine and naval terminology, but are however much better than the subtitles used in the cinematic cut released in the early 2000's. Watch the series in instalments over several consecutive days.
Incidently, apart from the UK air dates mentioned, the series was also broadcast on BBC 2 over six consecutive evenings - Monday to Saturday? - in the early-to-mid 1990s, as I had the complete series, in correspondingly poor quality, on one extended play 3-hour VHS cassette. I should also remind readers that the original German and UK broadcasts would have been in the Standard Definition 'square' format with a 4:3 aspect ratio, predating the current 'wide screeen' format we use today in-which the film/series was actually shot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.164 (talk • contribs)

Kaleu vs Kaleun

In my English edition (Cassell, 2004, British edition) of Lothar-Günther Buchheim's book, Herr Kaleun is throughout used as the German standard naval abbreviation of the commander, rather than just Kaleu (without n) as the current article suggests. Unless there is a discrepancy between the British and American editions of the book, I suggest replacing throughout with Herr Kaleun. Hakkasberra (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur. I have always seen "Kaleun" - this Wiki article is the first place I've seen it without the 'n'...Engr105th (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I´m German, Wiki is the first place I´ve ever seen "KaleuN". The normal and common short form is Kaleu without an "n".(84.139.211.25 (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)) I am just as german as you and at first I always understood Kaleu but as Hakkasberra states for his English version of the book is just as true for the german version. It also uses "Herr Kaleun" throughout. I was surprised when I first read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.111.93.178 (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Touché. It would be interesting to hear an explanation for this interesting discrepancy. Is the British edition (as referenced above) entirely wrong in this respect? Hakkasberra (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm having this problem with denniss at the moment; he had twice reverted my "Kaleut'n" to "Kaleu". What the crew actually call der Alte in the film is (phonetically) "Herr Kaleut'n". The 't' and the 'n' are both clearly heard. I have had my hearing of this word confirmed from a German friend in Hamburg. When I read "Kaleu" I wondered what this meant, as it does not occur at all in the film. So I agree with Hakkasberra that the article should use "Kaleut'n". But how do we convince denniss to leave it there? Anyone know? Skylark42 (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

KaLeu is the nowaday's Bundeswehr abbreviation. Kaleun is what the actors said. I do not know what would have been said.--93.133.249.37 (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
KaLeun was used as a written abbreviation by the navy staff. In colloquial use among the submariners Kaleu was used. Ontologix (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The tern 'Kaleun' is just a shortening of the official title Kapiitan-Leutnant, i.e, Captain of a U-Boat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.164 (talk • contribs)

Earlier attempts

Production for this film originally began in 1976. Several American directors were considered, and the Kaleu (Kapitänleutnant) was to be played by Robert Redford. Disagreements sprang up among various parties and the project was shelved. Another Hollywood production was attempted with other American directors in mind, this time with the Kaleu to be portrayed by Paul Newman. This effort primarily failed due to technical concerns, for example, how to film the close encounter of the two German submarines at sea during a storm.

Actually the earlier attempts to finance the film using American funding fell through on the US studio's insistence that Petersen set the movie after the US's entry into WW II and to use an American actor to play the Kapitan. Petersen refused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.230 (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Buchheim himself gave the following reason for the failure of the Hollywood project:

"Die andere Seite bestand [...] unabdingbar auf einer Szene - der Ermordung amerikanischer Offiziere im Rettungsboot durch Leute vom Boot [...] Im amerikanischen Drehbuch war sogar die SS mit von der Partie. U-Boot-Leute wurden als Kriegsverbrecher, ich selbst als deren wüster Antreiber geschildert. Ich drohte mit dem Verbot der Titelverwendung und dem Rückzug des Autorennamens."

"The other side insisted on a scene portraying the massacre of American officers in a lifeboot by people from the Boot [...] The American script even included the SS aboard. U-Boot-Men were portrayed as war criminals, and myself as their brutish whipper-in. I threatened to prohibit the use of my name and the title."

Poor Amis ... they later came up with the outrageous "U 571" crap as a consolation. --Reibeisen (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

American Cinema Task Force???

Didn't have time to read thru all the discussions of this one (if there are any...) but why is this one under the Am Cinema Task Force? It's wholly a German venture... Tommyt (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed makes no sense
Actually if you see the credits on the original TV mini-series the series is actually a co-production between Bavaria Film, the BBC, and TF1, on behalf of WDR and Sudfunk Stuttgart.
Considering the involvement of the French TV station TF1 one would expect that the series was also aired in France at around the same time as the original first German and UK broadcasts. It would be strange for a non-commercial TV company to be involved in a co-production and then not subsequently show the series. Perhaps a French editor, or an editor living in France, might like to see if they can find out if, and when, it was aired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.164 (talk • contribs)

Cast section: Lamprecht

The character notes say of Bootsman Lamprecht "He gets upset after hearing on the radio that the football team most of the crew supports (FC Schalke 04) are losing a match, and they will "never make the final now". Can anyone confiirm this is what is said? I thought he was referring to another U-boat commander (named Schalke) as it was shortly after the convoy battle U-96 missed. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Definitely football-talk. The english translation is crude, but the actual german text makes no sense as well. Schalke reached the final of the cup in 1941, where they lost to Dresden de::Tschammerpokal_1941#Finale. In 1940 Schalke washed out in the cup before the round of sixteen, loosing to Bremen 5:0. --Maxus96 (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
It is useless to look for historial football results in this context. In the novel, the crew is supporting Hertha BSC. --Reibeisen (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

A point of unintentional humour.

Well it's very black humour, but it seems to be the only such in the movie (yes, I accept that it is about as far from a funny movie as you can get), so I thought it worth mentioning. When the boat first leaves St Nazaire (or wherever), it is absolutely full of food. Stowed on an hanging from every space on the boat. And it is "German" food - sausages and the like. When it leaves Vigo, it is again absolutely full of food, but now it is "Mediterranean" cuisine - fruits such as pineapple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.136.220 (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how this constitutes humour - black or unintentional or otherwise. Care to expand on it? --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The Type VIII U-boat was not designed for the long Atlantic voyages many such submarines ended up being used for, and so the interiors do not have as much space for storage as the larger Type IX U-boat, which was intended for longer range. IIRC the Type VIII was designed as a coastal patrol submarine for the North Sea and the Baltic and so it only had storage space for relatively short voyages.
Because of this food and other supplies for the longer voyages had to be stored anywhere they could find space. Fresh fruits such as pineapples and similar were unavailable in both Germany and Britain during the war, as these only grew in hot tropical areas of the world and shipping space was too precious to spare for relativity unimportant luxuries. So ship's crews from both nations stocked up on such items when they were in foreign ports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Type VII was not a coastal boat, it was designed to operate in the Atlantic although they tried to keep it small at the cost of crew comfort. Type IX was designed to operate long way from home (across atlantic to south/central america and around Africa + Indian Ocean. --Denniss (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Denniss, I stand corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.164 (talk • contribs)

Historical accuracy

Let me amend why I deleted this section. All films based on historical events or people take liberties with the facts: chronologies are muddled, two or more real people are combined into one character, etc. A film, after all, is a piece of entertainment, not an historical monograph, and needs to tell a story. Given this, I would object to the restoration of some of the items here, which are within the scope of what normally occurs in historical films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.241.124 (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Article has been tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert the below material with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The Rank of LI (Leitender Ingenieur / Chief Engineer) is not Oberleutnant, but Kapitänleutnant. Please take an exact look at his badges. There are two stars on it, not one star. His correct rank must be Kapitänleutnant (Ing.).

By the way: Fähnrich zur See (here Ullmann) ist not to be translated "senior cadet", but "officer cadet" or "Midshipman". Senior cadet would be Oberfähnrich (zur See / z.S.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:E663:F667:2DE1:771B:82AB:D8BF (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Connection with crew of U-96

I've removed all of the claims that individual characters were based on the real-life crew members of U-96, as it was all unsourced and all added by User:OberRanks who has since been banned for chronic fabrication of content and sources. I can find no reliable sources that verify the individual connections, either in English or German, only things like this which just confirms that "The screenplay was inspired in part by exploits of the real life U-96", and this which says only "The film, along with the book by the same name, was based on a true story, recorded by Lothar-Günther Buchheim".

The one-to-one correlation between real-life crew members and characters looks to be WP:OR at best, as if the author simply checked the list of U-96 crew members and made his own assumptions that the characters were based on them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Fedder going overboard

The article claims that actor Jan Fedder (Pilgrim) was "almost swept off the submarine" during the filming of the storm scene and "broke several ribs. This scene was not scripted and [...] Petersen [...] at first did not realise this was an accident." This is obviously an urban myth. In the novel, the Obersteuermann recounts that just this kind of accident happened on another boat. Petersen apparently decided to include this thrilling scene in his movie. --Reibeisen (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Das_Boot/Archive_1&oldid=1178455234"