Help support TMP

"Master & Commander: tFSotW" Topic

12 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Books Plus Board

Back to the Movies Plus Board

557 hits since 21 Dec 2016
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP21 Dec 2016 8:08 p.m. PST

I saw this movie at the theatre when it first came out & enjoyed it very much.

Tivo recently picked it up & after many years, I've watched it again.

To be clear, I still think it is a very good movie in terms of entertainment & general historical accuracy. However, I don't think it does justice to the two books or the series it springs from.

I think the interpretation is just wrong. I could carp about how the crew of the 'Surprise' look & act more like Frodo's companions trekking after a ring, or that the movie-makers decided to make their prey a French crew, not the authentic American one (eye on the box-office, what?)or that cloying sentimentality over the juvenile midshipmen
but on the two main characters.
I think the main character in O'Brien's novels is Maturin. In the movie, he is but a foil to Jack Aubrey. He neither much looks nor acts like the novel-Maturin and could actually be cut out without doing the movie much damage. On a lesser note, Crow's Aubrey is not focussed accurately, either. Far too introspective, less joyful than the paper-bound original.The essence of the novels are these two & their relationship. It isn't really here in the movie.

That said, I'd cheerfully pay to see a further movie on the same characters. There's not that much Napoleonic naval cinema out there….

Texas Jack22 Dec 2016 2:19 a.m. PST

I agree, nice picture but not very representative of the novels. If you hadnīt had the pleasure of reading the books first, there is no way you would know from the film of the deep friendship between Jack and Steven.

But the battle scenes were fantastic!

It would be nice to see a series similar to the Hornblower films from the late 90s, early nows. But I fear there is no money to be made from it.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP22 Dec 2016 2:29 p.m. PST

These things go, as you undoubtedly know, in trends.

We recently had a wave of Zombie flicks. Then a pantheon of Super-Hero movies. I can see Sci-Fi getting a blast-off following the latest SW's films.

Somewhere down the track, some chiselled actor who looks good in pantaloons may kickstart some more A-M cinema.

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP In the TMP Dawghouse23 Dec 2016 3:01 a.m. PST

M&C made a lot of money, but it was also expencive.

So even tho it made twice it's budget back, it was not a big enough win.

If you put Marvel in front a old Bergman movie it will make a billion dollars. So no risk, neither are zombie movies as they can be made quite cheaply.

But Even with CGI, any Naval/Napoleonic/historic war movie, will be expenicve and the chances of them making back their budget is low.

Alamo 2004, one of my all time favorite movies is also one of histories biggest box office bombs. so bad they haven't even released it on bluray yet, because they feel they have already lost enough money on it.

Big risk and not enough reward. if we want a movie like this. We have to hope Elon Musk just bankrolls the whole movie with no expectation of any money back.

Hafen von Schlockenberg Inactive Member23 Dec 2016 11:13 a.m. PST

Wizard of Oz flopped.
Citizen Kane flopped.
It's a Wonderful Life flopped.

Maybe someday M&C will go into the Classic Movie Why Didn't They Make More Like This? category.

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP In the TMP Dawghouse23 Dec 2016 11:48 a.m. PST

That's quite possible. But master and commander was successful. Making some 450 million on a budget of 250 million. Just not successful enough. Had it made a couple of 100 million more. They might have made a second. All the major actors had signed up for a sequel.

ScottWashburn Sponsoring Member of TMP24 Dec 2016 4:54 a.m. PST

I think the movie was very well done. And while it's true it departed from the novels a bit, that's not necessarily bad. As I recall, in Far Side of the World, Jack is pursuing an American privateer (War of 1812) but after chasing it to the far side of the world, they finally find it wrecked by a storm. The voyage was pointless. Hardly something to make a movie out of :) And yes, Jack's jovial side is mostly missing. But that's Jack Ashore. Jack At Sea is far more serious and professional. And I absolutely loved the young midshipman who lost the arm. He shows a side of the Royal Navy that we can hardly comprehend today. Yes, he's only 13, but he's still a King's Officer and he acts and is treated as such. No cute little kid here! He commands his gun and then leads a boarding party and takes out a foe with a pistol nearly as large as he is. Great stuff!

Personal logo TheWarStoreMan Sponsoring Member of TMP Inactive Member24 Dec 2016 6:26 a.m. PST

The book also had that rather strange interlude with the lesbian Polynesian canoe nomads.

Hafen von Schlockenberg Inactive Member24 Dec 2016 2:42 p.m. PST

And there's no way they could have Jack quoting "Please pass the salt" with such reverence, and expect the audience to get it.

14Bore10 Apr 2017 3:39 p.m. PST

The movie got me into reading the books ( though in a pause period now) also have A Sea of Words which helps a lot in nomenclature

Hafen von Schlockenberg Inactive Member10 Apr 2017 5:19 p.m. PST

I see I failed to mention the hilarious shot of a British Naval Captain standing in the Head.

Doubt if one in a thousand moviegoers caught that one,though.

Old Wolfman11 Apr 2017 6:37 a.m. PST

Saw Mad Magazine's satire of the movie; Last panel spoiler,the enemy ship crew is beaten by Jack and the doctor's musical "talent". ;^)

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.