![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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")
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)
That last point is totaly redundant. i'd get rid of it myself, but it could be someone's baby...
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)
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)
Sections added for perspective on commercial realities and franchise hopes at this time. Jusdafax 09:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
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. [3] -- Tony Sidaway 22:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
Text says:
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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")
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)
That last point is totaly redundant. i'd get rid of it myself, but it could be someone's baby...
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)
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)
Sections added for perspective on commercial realities and franchise hopes at this time. Jusdafax 09:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
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. [3] -- Tony Sidaway 22:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
Text says:
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)