There's a new book out.

I got a review copy yesterday from W.W. Norton & Co., so it should be in stores
now or in within a few days at most. It's called "The Making of Master &
Commander- The Far Side of the World", by Tom McGregor.

If knowing how an illusion is created spoils it for you and you plan to see the
movie, don't read this book before you go. (Or continue reading through this
post).

Almost *none* of the movie was filmed at sea! The "Surprise" sits on a gimbal
on a huge water tank in Mexico. A computer shifts the boat around to simulate
motion, and wind is generated by jet engines. The gimbal cannot heel the ship
as severely as the storm sequences demand, so camera angles are used to
exaggerate the heel and ptich. Those big storm waves? CGI. There are chutes
around the stage to dump water on deck.

The "Surprise" is actually four different elements in the movie. There is an
actual vessel that has been converted to look like the "Surprise", and it
appears in a few scenes. There is the full size movie prop in the tank down in
Baja, a scale model built in New Zealand, and everything else is CGI (computer
generated images).

The "Acheron", (the French vessel), exists only as a scale model, a partially
built full size prop, and CGI. In spite of the gazillions they spend filming
movies these days, one look at the partially built prop of the Acheron
indicates just how absolutely the bean counters are in charge. They know
*exactly* how much of the boat is going to appear on camera, and don't build
another inch. The bowsprit of the "Acheron" terminates in a splintery stub 5-6
feet forward of the stem. The upper portions of the masts were nevver built on
"Acheron", the sails and most rigging are CGI.

While we are going to have to use our imaginations just a bit during the
sailing sequences, there has been exhaustive historic research to make other
portions of the movie extremely accurate. The producers acquired an original
(not a copy) manuscript of an early 19th century training manual used to teach
seaman how to fight with cutlasses, and choreographed much of the hand to hand
combat accordingly. Everything from the food, the uniforms, the weapons, and
the ship's protocols has been well researched and reproduced as accurately as
possible.

This promises to be a neat movie. Hope it lives up to its potential. Russell
Crowe will bring the ladies to the box office, and the guys will like all the
intrigue and the action. Let's hope it does well.....seagoing movies have been
big losers at the box office all too often (Titanic an obvious exception), and
a few big winners will encourage the bean counters to film some more. :-)

Nice review. Thanks.


--
Jim Woodward
www.mvFintry.com


..
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
There's a new book out.

I got a review copy yesterday from W.W. Norton & Co., so it should be in
stores
now or in within a few days at most. It's called "The Making of Master &
Commander- The Far Side of the World", by Tom McGregor.

If knowing how an illusion is created spoils it for you and you plan to
see the
movie, don't read this book before you go. (Or continue reading through
this
post).

Almost *none* of the movie was filmed at sea! The "Surprise" sits on a
gimbal
on a huge water tank in Mexico. A computer shifts the boat around to
simulate
motion, and wind is generated by jet engines. The gimbal cannot heel the
ship
as severely as the storm sequences demand, so camera angles are used to
exaggerate the heel and ptich. Those big storm waves? CGI. There are
chutes
around the stage to dump water on deck.

The "Surprise" is actually four different elements in the movie. There is
an
actual vessel that has been converted to look like the "Surprise", and it
appears in a few scenes. There is the full size movie prop in the tank
down in
Baja, a scale model built in New Zealand, and everything else is CGI
(computer
generated images).

The "Acheron", (the French vessel), exists only as a scale model, a
partially
built full size prop, and CGI. In spite of the gazillions they spend
filming
movies these days, one look at the partially built prop of the Acheron
indicates just how absolutely the bean counters are in charge. They know
*exactly* how much of the boat is going to appear on camera, and don't
build
another inch. The bowsprit of the "Acheron" terminates in a splintery stub
5-6
feet forward of the stem. The upper portions of the masts were nevver
built on
"Acheron", the sails and most rigging are CGI.

While we are going to have to use our imaginations just a bit during the
sailing sequences, there has been exhaustive historic research to make
other
portions of the movie extremely accurate. The producers acquired an
original
(not a copy) manuscript of an early 19th century training manual used to
teach
seaman how to fight with cutlasses, and choreographed much of the hand to
hand
combat accordingly. Everything from the food, the uniforms, the weapons,
and
the ship's protocols has been well researched and reproduced as accurately
as
possible.

This promises to be a neat movie. Hope it lives up to its potential.
Russell
Crowe will bring the ladies to the box office, and the guys will like all
the
intrigue and the action. Let's hope it does well.....seagoing movies have
been
big losers at the box office all too often (Titanic an obvious exception),
and
a few big winners will encourage the bean counters to film some more. :-)

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