Naval history fans....
 

Around 2/21/2006 1:12 PM, Martin Schöön wrote:

My main problems with the film are really how one-dimensional
they managed to make the main characters and how they turned a rather
exciting, action-packed novel into not so exciting, pasteurised
Hollywood product.

Just which movie were you watching, anyway? It can't be the same version
of "Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World" that's sitting on my
DVD shelf...

Read the entire series, in order. I think you'll find that, although
some plot sacrifices were made for the sake of the medium, almost every
shot of the movie was lifted directly from one of the books or another.
The level of detail in both the visual and sound effects are nothing
short of breathtaking; It's one of the few movies I've ever seen that
holds up to *frequent* repeated viewings.

The characters may have come across as one-dimensional, but that's
almost exactly how they're portrayed in the later books, when both
Aubrey and Maturin are older and more set in their ways. If you've only
read M&C, you've only read about the younger, more vibrant versions of
those characters.


--
~/Garth - 1966 Glastron V-142 Skiflite: "Blue-Boat"
"There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing about in boats." -- Kenneth Grahame
~~ Ventis secundis, tene cursum ~~

Naval history fans....
 

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:33:34 -0800, Garth Almgren
wrote:

Around 2/21/2006 1:12 PM, Martin Schöön wrote:

My main problems with the film are really how one-dimensional
they managed to make the main characters and how they turned a rather
exciting, action-packed novel into not so exciting, pasteurised
Hollywood product.

Just which movie were you watching, anyway? It can't be the same version
of "Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World" that's sitting on my
DVD shelf...

Read the entire series, in order. I think you'll find that, although
some plot sacrifices were made for the sake of the medium, almost every
shot of the movie was lifted directly from one of the books or another.
The level of detail in both the visual and sound effects are nothing
short of breathtaking; It's one of the few movies I've ever seen that
holds up to *frequent* repeated viewings.

The characters may have come across as one-dimensional, but that's
almost exactly how they're portrayed in the later books, when both
Aubrey and Maturin are older and more set in their ways. If you've only
read M&C, you've only read about the younger, more vibrant versions of
those characters.

I agree. You've got to read the entire series, in order. Great series.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Naval history fans....
 

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:33:34 -0800, Garth Almgren wrote:

Around 2/21/2006 1:12 PM, Martin Schöön wrote:

My main problems with the film are really how one-dimensional
they managed to make the main characters and how they turned a rather
exciting, action-packed novel into not so exciting, pasteurised
Hollywood product.

Just which movie were you watching, anyway? It can't be the same version
of "Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World" that's sitting on my
DVD shelf...

Well, I am afraid that's the one. (Not your copy though)
snip

The characters may have come across as one-dimensional, but that's
almost exactly how they're portrayed in the later books, when both
Aubrey and Maturin are older and more set in their ways. If you've only
read M&C, you've only read about the younger, more vibrant versions of
those characters.

To me it sounds like I should *not* read the entire series. It sounds
like O'Brian went from inspired author to someone stomping out books
as a routine. I really hope this is not the case but if the film
is true to how the series develops...

In "Master and Commander" Aubry is a complex guy: A womaniser, vain, great
leader who does want to win but keep the number of dead and wounded down
(so did Cochrane), he finds life as a commander lonely (did you see any of
that in the film??), he is distinctly non-musical (that's how the book
starts)... In short he has good and bad sides as most of us but in the
film he is just another standardised action hero.

May I suggest this is a rather futile exchange since seems to
come down to differences in taste?

/Martin

Naval history fans....
 

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:05:25 -0500, JohnH wrote:
snip

In the series there are several interactions between the British and the
French in the Pacific.

Not Spanish?
That was the case for the real guy: Cochrane.

/Martin

Naval history fans....
 

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:03:00 +0100, Martin Schöön
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:05:25 -0500, JohnH wrote:
snip

In the series there are several interactions between the British and the
French in the Pacific.

Not Spanish?
That was the case for the real guy: Cochrane.

/Martin

And the Spanish, while they were aligned with Bonaparte.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Naval history fans....
 

Around 2/22/2006 12:58 PM, Martin Schöön wrote:

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:33:34 -0800, Garth Almgren wrote:

The characters may have come across as one-dimensional, but that's
almost exactly how they're portrayed in the later books, when both
Aubrey and Maturin are older and more set in their ways. If you've only
read M&C, you've only read about the younger, more vibrant versions of
those characters.

To me it sounds like I should *not* read the entire series. It sounds
like O'Brian went from inspired author to someone stomping out books
as a routine.

I didn't mean to give that impression; I think the books are all
inspired page-turners, and even after 20-some volumes O'Brian left me
wanting more.

I really hope this is not the case but if the film
is true to how the series develops...

Eh, bad choice of words; "One-dimensional" has such a negative
connotation, and it's not that Aubrey is that in the later books. Let me
put it this way: while maintaining his complexity and signature
boldness, Jack is far less /rash/ in his decisions. He's older and wiser
(a bit), but still the same Jack.


In "Master and Commander" Aubry is a complex guy: A womaniser, vain, great
leader who does want to win but keep the number of dead and wounded down
(so did Cochrane), he finds life as a commander lonely (did you see any of
that in the film??)

They *barely* touched on it, but it was there, most notably the two or
three scenes where Jack's sense of duty came before his friendship with
Stephen.

he is distinctly non-musical (that's how the book starts)...

He's certainly not as good as he thinks he is, in either the movie or
the books. Also true of his punning, for that matter.

In short he has good and bad sides as most of us but in the
film he is just another standardised action hero.

I still say you're watching a different movie. ;)

May I suggest this is a rather futile exchange since seems to
come down to differences in taste?

Nah, that has /never/ happened, in all the history of USENET! How could
you even suggest such a thing?! :)


Seriously, I still wholeheartedly recommend reading the rest of the
series. Once I got to book three, I couldn't put the series down until I
had read through the everything including the unfinished novel about a
week and a half later.


--
~/Garth - 1966 Glastron V-142 Skiflite: "Blue-Boat"
"There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing about in boats." -- Kenneth Grahame
~~ Ventis secundis, tene cursum ~~

Naval history fans....
 

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:44:57 -0800, Garth Almgren wrote:

Around 2/22/2006 12:58 PM, Martin Schöön wrote:

snip

To me it sounds like I should *not* read the entire series. It sounds
like O'Brian went from inspired author to someone stomping out books
as a routine.

I didn't mean to give that impression; I think the books are all
inspired page-turners, and even after 20-some volumes O'Brian left me
wanting more.

The first book definitely was a page-turner.

I really hope this is not the case but if the film
is true to how the series develops...

Eh, bad choice of words; "One-dimensional" has such a negative
connotation, and it's not that Aubrey is that in the later books. Let me
put it this way: while maintaining his complexity and signature
boldness, Jack is far less /rash/ in his decisions. He's older and wiser
(a bit), but still the same Jack.

Sounds much better to me.

In "Master and Commander" Aubry is a complex guy: A womaniser, vain, great
leader who does want to win but keep the number of dead and wounded down
(so did Cochrane), he finds life as a commander lonely (did you see any of
that in the film??)

They *barely* touched on it, but it was there, most notably the two or
three scenes where Jack's sense of duty came before his friendship with
Stephen.

But eating and joking with his officers as he did in the film is
totally out of step with the (first) book.

he is distinctly non-musical (that's how the book starts)...

He's certainly not as good as he thinks he is, in either the movie or
the books. Also true of his punning, for that matter.

"Punning"? is that a verb-form of the noun "pun"? (English is not
my first language)
snip

May I suggest this is a rather futile exchange since seems to
come down to differences in taste?

Nah, that has /never/ happened, in all the history of USENET! How could
you even suggest such a thing?! :)

Right, how silly of me and I have been participating in various
usent groups since - ehrrr - 1986 actually.

Seriously, I still wholeheartedly recommend reading the rest of the
series. Once I got to book three, I couldn't put the series down until I
had read through the everything including the unfinished novel about a
week and a half later.

OK, I'll give O'Brian a chance :-)

/Martin

Naval history fans....
 

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:43:56 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:03:00 +0100, Martin Schöön
wrote:
snip

Not Spanish?
That was the case for the real guy: Cochrane.

/Martin

And the Spanish, while they were aligned with Bonaparte.

Bonaparte was history at the time Thomas Cochrane entered the Pacific.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cochrane

/Martin

Naval history fans....
 

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:10:11 +0100, Martin Schöön
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:43:56 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:03:00 +0100, Martin Schöön
wrote:
snip

Not Spanish?
That was the case for the real guy: Cochrane.

/Martin

And the Spanish, while they were aligned with Bonaparte.

Bonaparte was history at the time Thomas Cochrane entered the Pacific.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cochrane

/Martin

O'Brian admits to playing with history a little!

Again, read the series. I got so hooked I went through the whole bunch in a
few weeks. Now I'm starting the Hornblower series. Much easier reading, but
not yet as interesting. At least I know what most of the nautical terms
mean now.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************