Master & Commander

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-11-15 10:29pm

Yeah, I just saw the movie. It's good, you should go see it too.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-11-15 10:46pm

Which is just what I was going to do.

Does it rival the Ioan Gruffudd Hornblower film series?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-11-15 10:51pm

I never saw those, alas.

I still find it funny that they swapped out the American ship in the book for a French ship

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-11-15 10:53pm

phongn wrote:I never saw those, alas.

I still find it funny that they swapped out the American ship in the book for a French ship

Yeah... bloody hilarious.

*Cough*

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-15 10:59pm

phongn wrote:I never saw those, alas.

Dang, if you like Master and Commander I'd highly recommend them to you. They're definitely as good as any movie I've seen and adapt the Hornblower novels well, the embellishments of the orginal story are always an improvement rather than a detriment. Well worth checking out.

The first two mini-series (based off Midshipman Hornblower and Lieutenant Hornblower) are already out in a nice A&E boxed set with the third mini-series set to air Dec 2nd and 3rd. Check them out.

phongn wrote:I still find it funny that they swapped out the American ship in the book for a French ship

What kind of English sea-dog movie would it be with out some poor frog bastard getting his ass handed to him?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-15 11:01pm

Based off the trailer, it looks like they're continuing the proud filmmaking tradition of having sailing vessels fight under windless conditions.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-11-15 11:02pm

Looky, Stormie.

I'll likely get it for Xmas now that Master & Commander is setting the mood. And yes, what is a film like this without a rotten frog to make an archnemesis out of?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-11-15 11:05pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Based off the trailer, it looks like they're continuing the proud filmmaking tradition of having sailing vessels fight under windless conditions.

Only pussies use wind to propel their ships.

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-11-15 11:49pm

Master and Commander was excellent. As a fan of the books I recommend it.

At school a group of us are in the middle of watching the Hornblower series. We finished Mr. Midshipman last week and start Lieutenant tommorrow.

That being said, I'm not sure which is better. Hornblower has better supporting characters (it is much longer) but Hornblower himself is so damn annoying! He's cool some of the time, but not enougb of the time. Also, production values. Hornblower was a VERY well funded series, but doller per minute M&C blows it out of the water. M&C has none of that shit from Hornblower that goes like this:

"Enemy in sight, sir!"
"Holy shit! They're already yardarm to yardarm with us. Beat to quarters and flog whoever was supposed to be at the masthead!"

M&C instead has ships being sighting more like when they're hull up (which is still late, but who cares about the 6 hours of wondering if that sail is really a sail?), and then actual chase scenes through, I don't know....storms?

The preview is deceptive int aht is shows the initial battle, when Surprise is taken by surprise iin a heavy fogbank. Wait...there's only thick fog when there's no wind!

Go see the damn movie, Sea Skimmer, it's excellent. And for recreating a Man'o'war as well as being a good story with good acting.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-15 11:53pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Looky, Stormie.

I'll likely get it for Xmas now that Master & Commander is setting the mood. And yes, what is a film like this without a rotten frog to make an archnemesis out of?

Yeah, yeah, you bastards and your BBC.

The BBC half of the partnership got it much, much earlier than A&E (why I don't know). They haven't even debutted on A&E yet and the new DVDs don't go on sale until then and I have the previous two sets. Oh well, I'm planning on getting the of rest them for Christmas anyway.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-16 12:03am

Worlds Spanner wrote:That being said, I'm not sure which is better. Hornblower has better supporting characters (it is much longer) but Hornblower himself is so damn annoying! He's cool some of the time, but not enougb of the time.

Actually, the acting was pretty darn good in both the mini-series. Hornblower was portrayed on screen as he was in the books.

Worlds Spanner wrote:Also, production values. Hornblower was a VERY well funded series, but doller per minute M&C blows it out of the water. M&C has none of that shit from Hornblower that goes like this:

"Enemy in sight, sir!"
"Holy shit! They're already yardarm to yardarm with us. Beat to quarters and flog whoever was supposed to be at the masthead!"

M&C instead has ships being sighting more like when they're hull up (which is still late, but who cares about the 6 hours of wondering if that sail is really a sail?), and then actual chase scenes through, I don't know....storms?

That has less to do with the A&E/BBC budget than with the nature of the Hornblower battles. The few battles that took place in the first book were not high seas chases but rather the sort of short, sharp actions that were the grunt work of a ship on close blockade. In short, that's exactly the kind of action that the Indefatigable should be engaged in. We should see some of those sort of battles/chases in the new miniseries and in any succeeding ones.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-11-16 12:12am

Stormbringer wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Looky, Stormie.

I'll likely get it for Xmas now that Master & Commander is setting the mood. And yes, what is a film like this without a rotten frog to make an archnemesis out of?
Yeah, yeah, you bastards and your BBC.

The BBC half of the partnership got it much, much earlier than A&E (why I don't know). They haven't even debutted on A&E yet and the new DVDs don't go on sale until then and I have the previous two sets. Oh well, I'm planning on getting the of rest them for Christmas anyway.

Only the Hornblower films were made by ITV, a private commercial company and rival channel to the Beeb. Not the BBC itself.

http://www.meridiantv.com/whats_on/prog ... orld.shtml

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-11-16 01:55am

A friend of mine thought Master and Commander was some sort of S&M gay pr0n.

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2003-11-16 02:32am

I just got back from it. I thought it was a rather bitching movie. I haven't read any books on it or anything yet. I did find it strange that it was a yankee built vessel under French command. So the switch in the book explains it. LoL. Besides, the movie is during Napoleon's reign. So wouldn't it be more likely that the British are after the French?

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2003-11-16 02:42am

Yes, everyone go out and see it. It needs about $12 million in business on Sunday for my prediction to be accurate.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-16 05:40am

Cal Wright wrote:I just got back from it. I thought it was a rather bitching movie. I haven't read any books on it or anything yet. I did find it strange that it was a yankee built vessel under French command. So the switch in the book explains it. LoL. Besides, the movie is during Napoleon's reign. So wouldn't it be more likely that the British are after the French?

Historically, didn't the United States export a great deal of its naval ships? I'm not an expert of that era, but as I recall, the US did have quite advanced ship designs and was not above providing ships to privateers, especially since they were at war with the British at the time.

Anyways, bitchin' movie. I really feel like I now know what it is like to spend months at sea in a tiny floating wooden house with 137 other guys.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-11-16 05:48am

Oops, I see this movie took place in 1805, not 1812 so I guess that the US would have been sinking French privateers at the time. My mistake.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2003-11-16 09:17am

The Kernel wrote:Oops, I see this movie took place in 1805, not 1812 so I guess that the US would have been sinking French privateers at the time. My mistake.

The undeclared navel war with France was over in 1800

in 1805 the british started intering Amaerican sailors into the Royal Navy. It was a commong practice in the Royal Navy to Impress people whenever a ship came into port to fill in the crew with men lost to sickness. but in 1805 they began boarding the ships of private Amarican shipping companies and borrowing thier seaman(claiming thewe were escapees from their Press gangs). They also justified it with the idea that Americans were really british anyway and should be backing us against Napolian.

The Amaericans never sold our hulls to other nations. The design of the american frigates was as gaurded as was the Stealth fighter. It was Americans secret weapon in that the stregnth of the American hull design that allowed them to carry more cannon then the best British or French Frigate. In the War of 1812, the only times British frigates were able to take out an American frigate was when they fought them with at a least a 2 to 1 numerical superiority. BTW it is still on the handbooks of the Royal navy to not engage American vessel unless you have at least a 2 to 1 numerical superiority.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-11-16 09:24am

I was reading some comments on it by various naval history experts, from various naval historical societies over at SteelNavy.com, the biggest criticism is the American 44 gun frigate, and Crowe's character choosing to do battle in the middle of a raging storm.
Several of them said it's the best representation of life on board ship during the age of sail ever put on film.

It's my impression that this is loosely based somewhat on the French privateer Robert Surcouf, whose ship the Confiance was anything but a frigate.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2003-11-16 09:36am

Frank Hipper wrote:I was reading some comments on it by various naval history experts, from various naval historical societies over at SteelNavy.com, the biggest criticism is the American 44 gun frigate, and Crowe's character choosing to do battle in the middle of a raging storm.
Several of them said it's the best representation of life on board ship during the age of sail ever put on film.

It's my impression that this is loosely based somewhat on the French privateer Robert Surcouf, whose ship the Confiance was anything but a frigate.

Yes the fact that some French dude could have in his possesion an American Secret weapon is as silly as an Al'Quead man flying around the Stealth Fighter! Even if the US supported the French they would not have handed a potential enemy(no one trusted Napolian) such a secret.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-16 10:13am

I think his opponent should've been the Tirpitz. That would've been great. Of course, he would be in the Iowa.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-11-16 10:53am

Vympel wrote:I think his opponent should've been the Tirpitz. That would've been great. Of course, he would be in the Iowa.

And thus the coolness and premise of the story dribbles out since we're talking about Man-O-War stuff and not hulking things of steel. Plus you can't board with those ships and cut some frogs up and make them walk the plank, AARRR!

Ahem.

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-11-16 11:58am

Isolder74 wrote:In the War of 1812, the only times British frigates were able to take out an American frigate was when they fought them with at a least a 2 to 1 numerical superiority. BTW it is still on the handbooks of the Royal navy to not engage American vessel unless you have at least a 2 to 1 numerical superiority.

Except for when Shannon took Chesapeake. Chesapeake wasn't one of the new designs of course.

Frank Hipper wrote:... the biggest criticism is the American 44 gun frigate, and Crowe's character choosing to do battle in the middle of a raging storm.

Perhaps the 44 gun ship should not have been in French hands, but they did build frigates like that (hence "Old Ironsides").

As for the storm, it may be stupid to fight there but there is precedent in O'Brien, specifically when Leapard sank that 74 in Desolation Island.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-11-16 01:18pm

Worlds Spanner wrote:Perhaps the 44 gun ship should not have been in French hands

That was their point, guess I should have made myself more clear.
I guess you could write it as a captured ship from the Quasi-War with France, but I'm not seeing that scenario...

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2003-11-16 08:24pm

Frank Hipper wrote:
Worlds Spanner wrote:Perhaps the 44 gun ship should not have been in French hands
That was their point, guess I should have made myself more clear.
I guess you could write it as a captured ship from the Quasi-War with France, but I'm not seeing that scenario...

the French did not defeat or capture any American Constitution style frigates. The Babary Pirates got one but only because the captian of the Philidelphia was stupid and left the blockade to be surronded by Pirate vessels and then surrender hit ship to them without a fight. To keep the sectrets of the ship from getting out the blockade commander sent in his marines to burn the ship denighing it to the Pirates.