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