Talk:Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World/Archive 1

Quotes?
Should we put some quotes on the page? This article seems to have its facts down, but I think some quotes would brighten up the page. Supercraft99 14:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

anachronism
I would edit the part about Aubrey anachronistically being asked about the Battle of the Nile. It would have been perfectly possible for Aubrey to be a "young lieutenant" eight years previous to 1806, as in the film he is a Master & Commander - the first step up from First Lieutenantship, and as is documented in the books in particularly, promotion is exceedingly slow in the Royal Navy at the time. However, it is true that Aubrey would have been a lot older the the 15 year old midshipman had been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimson Blacknight (talk • contribs)

Hang on, let's get this clear. I just edited that point to make the maths add up, but I changed the 'eight' to 'seven'; should it have been 1805 to 1806?81.151.146.238 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * HMS Surprise is a 28 gun frigate, a ship that would only be captained by a post-captain. A Master and Commander would be in command of a sloop, a much smaller ship. The Master and Commander part of the title comes from the first book in Patrick O'Brian's series and has no direct relevance to the plot of the movie.Dabbler 04:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's probably worth pointing out that in the books, Aubrey's having been at the battle of the Nile aboard Leander, and then aboard her afterward when she is taken by Genereux, makes perfect sense. When Genereux herself is taken, Aubrey is in Mahon, having just been made Commander. O'Brian is pretty careful about this stuff, though he does extend 1812, a phenomenon his fans call 'the long year, 1812'.  The movie, amalgamating as it does several plots from the books, does, in fact, introduce, deliberately and inadvertently, several major anachronisms, and the whole question of the Nile is definitely one of them.  On a separate but related note, Pullings was *not* there, even as a 'snivelling little midshipman,' and never met Aubrey until after Genereux was taken and Aubrey was given Sophie in Master and Commander. We could go on like this. . . hehe. . . fact is, the movie is great, but makes no pretensions to accuracy in a lot of cases. It can definitely be forgiven though, because it's a great piece of work anyway. Sigma-6 12:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I know this is an old thread (and a moot point), but I wanted to throw in regarding the alleged anachronism: First, Aubrey was indeed a lieutenant at the Battle of the Nile. Also, I believe that the question is asked of him by Calamy, who is a midshipman, not a lieutenant. I realize the problem is that Aubrey says he was only a few years older than Calamy, which would be a bit of a stretch. Certainly he was not "young" at the time; in the books he is born in 1771, making him around 27 at the Nile. However, calling himself a "young lieutenant" isn't the same as calling himself a child or even a teenager. For starters, when he actually was in his teens he held the ranks of midshipman or master's mate. He received his Lieutenant's commission in 1792, at which point he certainly would have been a "young lieutenant", having just been "born" into the commissioned ranks, despite being 20 or 21 years of age. Also, people of any age look back a few years and call themselves "young", so I don't think we can take this literally. Similarly, he was probably trying to empower Calamy by saying "not much older than you are now", to make the young man feel closer to the Captain he no doubt idolizes. So it's an interesting bit of trivia, but considering it's consistent with the books I don't regard it as an error. Two more things: It's generally understood that Lt. Aubrey was the prizemaster who sails Genereux into Mahon, just before M&C begins, based on "comments of the dockyard official" in the book, and the fact that in real life it was Lt. Cochrane who was Genereux's prizemaster. Also, it's absolutely correct that Aubrey is a Post Captain in the movie, for all the reasons given above, as well as the fact that he wears an epaulet on both shoulders; A Commander wore a single epaulet on his left shoulder. -Eisnel 17:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Master and Commander are individual titles; the captain of the vessel may be its master and commander, irrespective of rank, and is usually accompanied by another master. Editus Reloaded 15:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy
There are a few points here that might be worth adding. . . The Acheron, for one, is a 44-gun 18-pounder frigate, of a type that was made only at tremendous expense for navies. The ship is allegedly an American design, and being so, she's almost the size of a 74 (while still remaining a frigate). A 74 is what we would today call a 'battleship.'

That being so, imagine a WW2 commerce-raider using a WW2 battlecruiser to attack shipping. See the problem? Privateers were, at this time, small, nimble craft, with crews large enough to overwhelm the small crews of merchant vessels, who usually just surrendered anyway before they were boarded. Using a 44 to attack whalers is like using a space shuttle to drive to the grocery store. It's perfectly unnecessary, and incredibly expensive. The filmmakers have committed a rather large error here, and might have been better off to have made Acheron a French naval frigate, because the French navy did have these ships, and might have plausibly planned this cruise (though they'd probably have sent a smaller vessel).

There are a number of other similar problems, but they are smaller and less important. What, for example, is young Warley *doing* in the mizzen t'gallant? Why isn't the topgallantmast struck and *housed* in that kind of blow? Even Aubrey when he is 'cracking on regardless' complains of the top-hamper of topgallant masts in blows like that, in which a ship can only carry seriously reduced sail. Why doesn't a *mizzen topman* (of whom there were plenty, and whose job it would actually be) lay aloft to help him, inexplicably alone up there, instead of an obviously unqualified and notoriously unreliable midshipman, whose job it absolutely wasn't? Why does Aubrey say 'he stood with me on the gunwale,' when they are clearly standing at the taffrail, which even Russel Crowe must have known? etc. Sigma-6 13:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that the filmmakers were trying to combine a few different aspects of O'Brian's books when they developed the Acheron. You're right to say that a government may have planned such a cruise. In the book The Far Side of the World, HMS Surprise is going after the USS Norfolk, which is based on the real-life USS Essex, a US frigate (larger than Surprise) that sailed into the Pacific to prey on British whalers during the War of 1812. Although in real life the Essex engaged in a nasty battle and was taken by two British ships, in the book the Surprise and Norfolk never do battle. The filmmakers obviously wanted battle scenes. I also suspect they wanted to make the Acheron more formidable by adding an element from Fortune of War: That books depicts the real battle between the HMS Java and the USS Constitution. It expresses British frustration over the Constitution and similar US ships, because they were billed as "frigates" and advertised as holding a frigate's compliment of guns, yet they were armored like ships of the line (thus the term "super-frigate"). The British officers feel that the Americans are cheating by advertising the ship as a frigate, although that's likely due to their pride being tarnished by repeated losses to the American ships (the Royal Navy at the time was not very accustomed to losing). The Acheron is modeled after the Constitution, allowing the filmmakers to imagine what would happen if Aubrey and Surprise had gone up against the Constitution (because the book puts Jack Aubrey as a mere passenger on the Java when it loses to the Constitution). When this movie was being made, there was a lot of patriotic fervor in the US, and a movie with the US Navy as the bad guy probably wouldn't have gone over well (although it should be noted that O'Brian doesn't portray the US as "bad guys" in the books, he reserves that for the Napoleonic French). Easy solution: make the Norfolk into a French ship, but say it's American-made to tie it to the formidable US super-frigates (the OP raises a good point that a privateer's owner probably couldn't afford such a super-frigate). Why a privateer instead of a French Navy ship? I'm not sure. There are instances in the books where Aubrey has really intense encounters with privateers (one that stuck out was in Letter of Marque, if memory serves), and perhaps the filmmakers wanted to bring that aspect into the movie? Regarding the enemy ship seeming like a "phantom", I'm reminded of Desolation Island and the Dutch Waakzaamheid, a chilling mystery ship whose captain seems to have Aubrey's number (not a privateer, I just wanted to mention it because I love that part). -Eisnel 19:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that all things must be taken relatively on this film as far as Hollywood standards go, this movie feels very accurate. Some of the weather terms are the most accurate I have ever heard in any movie. The detailing of all aspects of shipboard life reveals a complete suspension of disbelief that I have ever witnessed in any historical Naval film. I applaud that quality of this movie as well as the wonderful character of the Captain played by Crowe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.10.201.89 (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

preparation for movie
65.100.181.27 03:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Something to add-Russell Crowe was given about three years training for the movie (more specific than "thorough preparedness")

Plot vs. summary
Anyone noticed how the summary is far longer than the plot? I'm going to swap the section headings around, to provide a better match to other articles under WikiProject Films. Editus Reloaded 15:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with the existing broom icon box that the plot summary is too long, and that further expansion of the adaptation section is needed. I have added a few sentences but there is much more of note to include, and revise. Jusdafax 09:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
That last point is totaly redundant. i'd get rid of it myself, but it could be someone's baby...


 * Be Bold. Editus Reloaded 09:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Forget that. I integrated the trivia myself. Editus Reloaded 09:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Leadership Theme?
The Wiki article has a thorough Plot summary, but I'm wondering if this particular movie could use a paragraph on the "leadership theme". This seems to be a major part of the motivation of the main character, Capt Aubrey. It figures quite heavily all through the film - from his dealings with Hollom, to the scene at Cape Horn, to Aubnrey's decision to stay at Galapagos when Maturin is wounded, to the preparation for the final battle (where Aubrey leads the boarding party). All of these have conflicts and "decision points" for the Master and Commander himself... Engr105th 20:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I find that there is more than a bit of Capt. Ahab in Weir's version of Aubrey, in that his obsessive quest to destroy the French ship is openly questioned even by his friend Dr. Maturin. I believe this to be a departure from Patrick O'Brian's 20 book portrait of Aubrey, and therefore of interest to any such "leadership theme". Jusdafax 09:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions...
Hi, even after watching the documentaries on the SE DVD, some questions remain:

1) Is it documented historically that there were so many juvenile officers on board a man-o-war? At what age did they enter their military service usually?

2) Why did Blakeney had to lose his forearm? Was that just to have a link to Lord Nelson? I see no need for the plot nor a logical leason...

--213.23.4.74 12:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, a common age for young officers to enter the Navy was about 12 or 13 as "volunteers" or "captain's servants" followed by promotion to midshipman by 13 or 14, see Nelson for example. Some successful officers joined when older but that meant 17 or so, see Cochrane.


 * In Patrick O'Brian's books there were several instances of young midshipmen getting wounded and having amputations. It was not uncommon for a severe limb wound to be amputated especially if infection set in. Dabbler 13:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks for answering!
 * Ad 1) Why were they so young compared to nowadays? I would speculate that the "pool" from which to choose junior staff was very small.


 * Ad 2) Ok, but shooting all those sequences with "hidden" right forearm is not very efficient. I was just wondering why they chose to do so. --213.23.4.74 15:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO, two cases of that oddity, authenticity in film-making.
 * That question seems to lack awareness of how recent is the model of childhood that industrialized democracies regard as natural. Kids going to sea, and supposedly being objects of pederasty (presumably with exceptions for those whose from wealthy shipping or naval families, or sailing under unusually scrupulous captains), seemed natural to the way of things -- see Oliver Twist and Sweeney Todd and The Baroque Cycle. Kids were cheap labor, and light eaters, and for the parents, sending them to sea probably got the family a fee, got a mouth out of the household, and depending on the current economic conditions could be the best means of meeting the instinctual imperative to increase the kid's odds of surviving to pass on the genes.
 * Going to sea was f'g dangerous -- especially during wartime, but at other times don't forget about pirates and storms, and occasionally fires, or starvation after becoming becalmed, or the water casks getting polluted, and falls and crushings and falling overboard. You aren't telling an age-of-sail sea story if people aren't dying and getting maimed left and right. See the current HBO biopic of John Adams, ep. 2 (or maybe 3), where Adams is sent below in anticipation of the sea battle (where he should have stayed, considering the importance of his mission), but understands that even one musket might make the difference between a few casualties vs. the death of all aboard.
 * --Jerzy•t 06:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Box Office History/Sequel Outlook sections added
Sections added for perspective on commercial realities and franchise hopes at this time. Jusdafax 09:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary
The plot summary was greatly expanded in mid-2007 and soon thereafter tagged as overlong. As it was a huge 1600 words, and the "adaptations" section gives a much better picture of the differences between the film and the novels, I've reverted to the much briefer synopsis that existed before the expansion. --Tony Sidaway 22:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree the Plot section is far too long, your solution to duplicate the Summary section immediately above it is not the right answer. I have reverted for now, but I will go and cut the Plot again. Dabbler (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Acheron link
I have edited the Acheron link to direct to the Acheron disambiguation page, rather than the Greek river, as was previously the case. As there is no page specifically about the fictional ship, it seems to me that all uses of the word may be of interest. 195.154.157.65 (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Spying omitted
Text says:
 * Probably the largest difference between the film and the books is the profession of Stephen Maturin. In the books he is a spy for England (as well as being a physician and naturalist), but although several references to both his beliefs and to espionage in general are made, he is never shown to be a spy.

But that's not to the point, and worse yet, plainly false. The series has 20½ books, so the biggest diff is the compression of several books into one movie, with the omission of various incidents from them, and of most of the other books. Aside from "biggest, i'm sure several of the books had gone by before that matter became clear. If it was clear, in the narrative of the novels' incidents corresponding to the film's incidents, then it is a difference; if not, then the statement should be that the occasions of Maturin's spying consultations and adventures are not included. --Jerzy•t 06:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the plot of the movie does not offer Maturin any opportunity to spy. So it's not a huge omission, because it never would have been relevant to the plot. It's a small omission. I might change that now. -Eisnel (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6BQv3CYAA?url=http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/76th-winners.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/76th-winners.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/10top10.pdf?docID=381&AddInterest=1781

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150415012706/http://www.agbfinebooks.com/Publications/Movie/Master%20and%20Commander.htm to http://www.agbfinebooks.com/Publications/Movie/Master%20and%20Commander.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Link was saved, but this is work by Anthony Gary Brown, who still has it on his web site. A back up, I guess. --Prairieplant (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)