Master & Commander

[Sarge]

I was positively blown away by this movie.

Russel Crowe played a very human, believable, and likable Jack Aubrey. The supporting cast was more than competent. Special effects were so good that I didn't even think, "How did they do that?" I could have sworn I was watching an actual live naval combat.

One word of caution: I've read and loved all 20 books in the series, so I went into the movie already knowing who all the characters were, what they were like, what their quirks, habits, and foibles were. If you don't know these people, you might not like them as much as I did.

The plot was indeed a mishmash of Master and Commander (Book 1) and The Far Side of the World (Book 10), but it made a good story.

I thought the filming and editing style perfectly captured the atmosphere of the novels. If you have any interest in ships and adventures (if you don't, why are you here at a Trek RPG site?), go see this movie. Sorry, I have to say this: "There's not a moment to lose."

[First of Two]

I heard he spends most of the movie shooting at the French.

Reason enough to go.

And it's "Star Trek"-ish, according to Slate :

As Aubrey and Maturin debate the finer points of their mission while sawing away on a violin and cello, you can see how O'Brian influenced Star Trek: The Next Generation, with its French-English-liberal-humanist-authoritarian aesthete Capt. Jean-Luc Picard—who also flirted with Ahabism, but so guiltily that the actor, Patrick Stewart, had to make a TV-movie of Moby Dick to get the role out of his system.

There are other ways in which the film of Master and Commander will remind Trekkies that for all the loopy sci-fi contrivances in that series, it's the naval-adventure template that holds it together. This is the ur-Star Trek. Here, too, a captain barks out, "Damage report!" and the exchange of information that follows is gratifyingly lickety-split. Here, too, is a spirit of wonder on a planet that in the early 19th century seemed almost as vast and unknowable as our galaxy does now.

[Evan van Eyk]

When I accidently got my hands on the first of O'Brian's books, with Crowe's face on it I became inmmidiately interested in that movie, being a fan of such stories since ages - the trailer I found was remarkable and so bought the book.

Well I found it especially boring, though and I hope the movie makes up for that. Would be the first time a movie is better than the book.

[Evan van Eyk]

One thing I almost forgot. Why is the book/ Movie actually called "Master and Commander". In the book there is no single Master and Commander onboard ( although two Post Captains are ). So where does the name come from?

[Ineti]

Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
One thing I almost forgot. Why is the book/ Movie actually called "Master and Commander". In the book there is no single Master and Commander onboard ( although two Post Captains are ). So where does the name come from?

I thought 'master and commander' refers to the captain of the boat, whether he's a first lieutenant, a captain, a post captain, or whatever.

[C5]

Originally posted by First of Two
I heard he spends most of the movie shooting at the French.

Reason enough to go.

Heh ?
The hero of a movie spends his time committing warcrimes (shooting at ennemy soldiers who have surrendered) ??

(EDIT : since they're French.....)

[Evan van Eyk]

He shoots on enemy soldiers who surrendered in the movie?

Relax, C5 its just a movie and in the book the enemy is an American frigate.

[qerlin]

Originally posted by C5
...committing warcrimes...

And everyone bloody did it at this time. Love it when people judge the past by our pussified present.

[Evan van Eyk]

No actually shooting surrendered soldiers was a crime at that time as well and especially forbidden in the British Navy, especially if these soldiers were officers. Although of course it were more practical reason why not to do this - more a "if we do not shoot them, let's hope they won't shoot us" thing.

[Eric R.]

Originally posted by Evan van Eyk


Relax, C5 its just a movie and in the book the enemy is an American frigate.

Not quite Evan, the Frigate was built in Boston for the French a common practice in those days.

[C5]

Uh, guys, I didn't intend to start a debate here...
Since apparently shooting at French is fun to watch, I commented with a poor joke based on another cliché about them surrendering whenever a kid slingshots at them. There's nothing more to it, I have not actually seen the movie (it will probably be aired in a few months around here) and I didn't want to hijack the thread further.
My apologies.

(BTW my PM box is cleaned a bit now).

[Ramage]

Originally posted by Eric R.
Not quite Evan, the Frigate was built in Boston for the French a common practice in those days.

Yes, but in the book The Far Side of the World many of the crewmen and the leader were American (or technically so), who were nominally allied with the French (remember: War of 1812 is going on at the same time).

The movie is a whopping great adventure film.

It is not O'Brian's books at all, but it is a good adventure film and I accept it as that.

[Evan van Eyk]

Well, in the book I am reading, Far Side of the World its the American Frigate Norfolk. Otherwise the whole thing would not make too much sense as the US where the only ones having 44-Gun Frigates at that time - they could not afford Ships of the Line but needed firepower nevertheless, so this mixture was created. But maybe in the actual Master and Commander book there is a French frigate. I just got to know its different books which got mixed in the movie - which might explain why there is actually no Master and Commander in the movie nor in the bok I am reading.

[Evan van Eyk]

Originally posted by Ramage

It is not O'Brian's books at all, but it is a good adventure film and I accept it as that.

I am actually glad to read that I find the book so boring and full of "exceptions" ( i.e. sailors get swimming lessons, instead of hunting the enemy frigate the ship starts exploring wildlife, a marriage scandal onboard, etc. ) I really have to force myself reading it.

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
One thing I almost forgot. Why is the book/ Movie actually called "Master and Commander". In the book there is no single Master and Commander onboard ( although two Post Captains are ). So where does the name come from?

By naval custom the 'commander' of a vessel is its 'master' -- this is used still today by many navies, including the merchant marines. My father, a naval captain, recieved his 'Master's license' and was 'master' of his vessel, although he was referred to as 'Captain' by the crew.

Referring to someone as the 'Master and Commander' of a vessel is something of a mocking double entendre that makes it very clear who is in charge.