My 2 cents..

I think the movie industry missed an opportunity to contribute some of their
resources to the possible recreation of such a vessel, for real..

What they spent on such a 'fake' ship could have gone into the building of a
full size (or slightly scaled down) ship. There are a number of Wooden Boat
Societies and wooden boat schools that would have jumped at the funding and
opportunity to create a extremely accurate reproduction..

The movie industry has done this in the past and the public has benefited
for years after the movie was retired from circulation.

Seems the movie techno-geeks would rather dazel the public with fake effects
than work with real ships of the period.

My opinion. FWIW.

Steve
s/v Good Intentions

My 2 cents..

I think the movie industry missed an opportunity to contribute some of their
resources to the possible recreation of such a vessel, for real..

There is ample justification for feeling that way, but as a practical matter
most of the money spent building such a vessel would be wasted. The plot
involves not only the ship, but the vessel's interaction with the sea. Pretty
expensive to send a boat to Cape Horn and wait for a storm to come up. :-)
(and pretty difficult to film from the deck of another boat also heaving around
in the mess).

Many of the interior shots have to be done on a movie set to provide enough
light, the proper acoustics, and the huge amount of room required to set up
cameras, booms,
etc.

There are some actual shots of Cape Horn in the film, that were taken from the
"Endeavor". "Endeavor" was making the voyage, and the movie company got
permission to send a film crew along.
When you see Cape Horn from the water vantage point, that's Cape Horn and not
CGI.

The production company bought a sail training ship in Rhode Island, the "Rose",
and sailed it through the Panama Canal to San Diego. In San Diego, "Rose" was
remodeled to resemble a frigate. The scenes in the movie that use a vessel
actually under sail (and apparently there are only a few) use the "Rose".

"Rose" sailed from RI in January, and encountered 70-knot winds off the
Atlantic coast. This so damaged the core of the rig
that even after repairs in Puerto Rico....

"We were sailing along in glorious Caribbean weather, and in the space of about
ten-seconds, the top gallant mast belw to pieces. I was on deck and for some
reason I glanced up and watched it go. I can still see it quite vivedly, right
now.
It took the topgallant sail on its yard, and that fell forward, landing on some
rigging. We're talking about stuff that's a hundred, a hundred and ten feet off
the deck. That lot landed on lines which go to the next sail, so broke that
yard. We went from sailing beautifully to having all these spars and riggings
just dangling like some mobile from hell!"

Perhaps the effort and expendature would be wasted on the average
movie-goer.. But it if it were possible to truly recreate "Life Under Sail"
I personally would feel it was money well spent.

I appreciate the other background information you just provided and I am
glad to hear that they did make the effort with the Rose.. This may go
towards the extended preservation of that ship.

Not only does the Rose voyage sound interesting, but it think it, in it's
self, would have afforded an opportunity for a documentary. It also has
provided an opportunity for present day sailers to actually gain experience
in sail a ship of that era. I know they sail a few square riggers for
training vessels, but those traines seldom ever follow a "Life Under Sail".
The experience, with that regard, is wasted..

I think Irving Johnson had the right idea and I'm wondering if it would be
possible for a Master of Sail to do the samething today..

Just my thoughts FWIW.

Steve
s/v Good Intentions