Discussion:
_Master And Commander_ ---- Russell Crowe
(too old to reply)
D. Spencer Hines
2003-11-14 17:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Gangbusters!

http://movies2.nytimes.com/2003/11/14/movies/14MAST.html?pagewanted=2&8m
u

"The Napoleonic wars that followed the French Revolution gave birth,
among other things, to British conservatism, and "Master and Commander,"
making no concessions to modern, egalitarian sensibilities, is among the
most thoroughly and proudly conservative movies ever made. It imagines
the Surprise as a coherent society in which stability is underwritten by
custom and every man knows his duty and his place. I would not have
been surprised to see Edmund Burke's name in the credits.

Mr. Weir's direction is appropriately old-fashioned, which is not to say
that it is staid. It is rare, nowadays, to see a story of such scale and
complexity filmed with such clarity, swiftness and attention to detail.
O'Brian's command of nautical lore and maritime history was always
remarkable, but it also tended to oversaturate his narratives with data.
In Mr. Weir's version, every nail, every rope, every teacup and brass
button is in more or less its place, but rather than feeling fussy and
antiquarian, as so many Hollywood costume pageants do, "Master and
Commander" hums with humor, passion and life. It makes you wish
Napoleon were still around, so we — that is, I mean, the British
Empire — could beat him all over again."

A. O. Scott
D. Spencer Hines
2003-11-14 17:55:44 UTC
Permalink
"It's a $135 million art film," said Russell Crowe, who is winning
praise for his robust portrayal of Patrick O'Brian's seafaring hero, the
captain of H.M.S. Surprise, Jack Aubrey. "I'm confident the audience
exists."

[...]

"At the end of their meeting Mr. Rothman reached behind his chair.
"What I really think you should do," he said, pulling out a mock
captain's sword and presenting it to the director, "is take command of
the Surprise." Mr. Weir asked if he could keep the sword."

[...]

"Mr. Snow won't see a sequel unless the movie makes back its investment.
(While Mr. Crowe is game to do a sequel, Mr. Weir is not sure.) When the
rough cut was first shown to Fox's financial partners, Universal and
Miramax (which are splitting half the costs and half the worldwide
proceeds), they demanded changes, Mr. Weir said: more initial exposition
on land, including more at stake on the mission's outcome for Jack and
his wife. Fox stood fast behind the director."

"This was our concept," Mr. Weir said. "If we dilute it, it's like a
drink that falls between two barstools."

Anne Thompson

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/13/movies/13MAST.html?8mu=&pagewanted=pri
nt&position=

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
D. Spencer Hines
2003-11-14 19:32:33 UTC
Permalink
"Aubrey (Mr. Crowe) is an ideal personification of modern executive
authority — the Harry Potter of the managerial class. His adventures
are salted with arcane technical lore and administrative wisdom that
resonate deeply with even the most landlubberly middle managers and
office workers. "Master and Commander," were it not a movie, could be a
Powerpoint seminar advertised in an airline magazine: Leadership Secrets
of the Royal Navy.

This is not by any means to slight Mr. Weir's accomplishment (or, for
that matter, O'Brian's); it is, rather, to explain why, in his expert
hands, the smallest details of shipboard behavior become so breathlessly
absorbing. The battle sequences are filmed with impressive coherence
and rigor, but "Master and Commander" is, if anything, most thrilling
between skirmishes, when the complex system of authority and deference
that runs the Surprise — and the personality traits needed to keep it
running — is at the center of attention."

http://movies2.nytimes.com/2003/11/14/movies/14MAST.html?pagewanted=2&8m
u

Don't Miss It....

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Britannicus Traductus Sum....
Howard Whitehouse
2003-11-14 20:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Gangbusters!
Oh Hiney, you old salt you. While you may wish to appropriate the smooth
running of a crack ship of the line as a metaphor for an ideal society, I
think we all know that, were you to find yourself serving on HMS Surprise,
you'd likely find yourself falling from a high spar on a dark night to a wet
grave. Because a tight ship would not tolerate trouble-making malcontents,
and that, shipmate, is what you are --
Peter Jason
2003-11-14 22:13:08 UTC
Permalink
For the best battle scenes, check out the "War & Peace" movie, made in
Russia in the late 60's.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0063794/
Mainly about Borodino.
Hot stuff!
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Gangbusters!
http://movies2.nytimes.com/2003/11/14/movies/14MAST.html?pagewanted=2&8m
u
"The Napoleonic wars that followed the French Revolution gave birth,
among other things, to British conservatism, and "Master and Commander,"
making no concessions to modern, egalitarian sensibilities, is among the
most thoroughly and proudly conservative movies ever made. It imagines
the Surprise as a coherent society in which stability is underwritten by
custom and every man knows his duty and his place. I would not have
been surprised to see Edmund Burke's name in the credits.
Mr. Weir's direction is appropriately old-fashioned, which is not to say
that it is staid. It is rare, nowadays, to see a story of such scale and
complexity filmed with such clarity, swiftness and attention to detail.
O'Brian's command of nautical lore and maritime history was always
remarkable, but it also tended to oversaturate his narratives with data.
In Mr. Weir's version, every nail, every rope, every teacup and brass
button is in more or less its place, but rather than feeling fussy and
antiquarian, as so many Hollywood costume pageants do, "Master and
Commander" hums with humor, passion and life. It makes you wish
Napoleon were still around, so we - that is, I mean, the British
Empire - could beat him all over again."
A. O. Scott
D. Spencer Hines
2003-11-15 09:23:34 UTC
Permalink
A Historical Film For Grown-Ups:
----------------------------------------------

"Success On the High Seas"

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, November 14, 2003
The Washington Post

"The great director Billy Wilder was once asked about subtlety in
movies. "Of course, there must be subtleties," Wilder said. "Just make
sure you make them obvious."

The trailer for "Master and Commander," the seafaring epic opening
today, can hardly be described as subtle. It is a dazzling montage of
dramatic scenes of early 19th-century naval warfare, with cannonballs,
bodies, furniture and masts flying all over the place. Nonetheless, my
first reaction to a screening of the film was that it was beautiful and
brilliant, but I was not sure it would find a mass audience because of
its subtlety.

Yep... A Valid Concern. We Shall See.... ---- DSH

Perhaps subtlety is the wrong word. It perfectly describes director
Peter Weir's mind and manner, but perhaps refinement is the word for
what might hinder the film's commercial success. Weir gives us some
magnificently choreographed naval mayhem, but it is spread over two
hours of thoughtfulness and restraint.

The story, drawn from the Patrick O'Brian novels, is framed by battle
scenes between a British and a French warship. The TV trailer promises
" 'Gladiator' at sea." But the movie is really about the nature of
naval life in the age of sail, the nature of command and the nature of
friendship (between the ship's captain and the ship's doctor).

Although entirely fictional, "Master and Commander" might be considered
the most dramatic and brilliant naval documentary ever made. It should
be on the reading (viewing) list of every college course on the history
of naval warfare. Weir has given unbelievable attention to every detail
of the period -- the cookware, the rigging, the uniform buttons, the
drinking songs, the instruments of surgery.

And the mode of speech. This is where I worry about subtlety. I speak
English reasonably well, but I could only make out about half of the
dialogue. That is because Weir has maintained an unswerving fidelity to
the period dialect (the 1805 action is situated about halfway between us
and Shakespeare's time, and so are the diction and syntax). Pepper that
with nautical nouns you have never heard of, often issued in Russell
Crowe's barely audible drawl, place them in a cacophony of ship sounds
(another example of Weir's fidelity to authenticity), and you sometimes
wish that the movie had been accompanied by subtitles.

Weir's restraint carries into a remarkable austerity regarding women.
In the movie's version of a love interest, a Brazilian beauty in a small
boat selling wares offshore to the sailors of Captain Aubrey's ship
catches Aubrey's eye for a moment at a considerable distance. For about
five seconds you see Aubrey (Crowe) returning her glance.

And that is it. Indeed, that scene marks the only appearance of women
in the entire two hours of the film, setting a new record for sexual
austerity in an epic, a record previously held by "Lawrence of Arabia."

The austerity works as film, as does the fidelity to detail. My only
worry is that it won't sell to the kids who flock to see "Pirates of the
Caribbean," who expect sex and swashbuckling between their battle
scenes, and whose patronage is needed for the movie to recover its $135
million cost.

It is perhaps odd to worry about a film's box office, but when a film is
as splendid as this one, you want it to succeed. Perhaps it will be
helped in the United States by its timing. We are at war, and this is a
film not just about the conduct of war but about virtue in war. Its
depiction of the more ancient notions of duty, honor, patriotism and
devotion is reminiscent of what we glimpsed during live coverage of the
dash to Baghdad back in April but is now slipping from memory.

The film was first planned a decade ago, long before Sept. 11, long
before Afghanistan, long before Iraq. But it arrives at a time of war.
And combat on the high seas -- ships under unified command meeting in
duelistic engagement in open waters -- represents a distilled essence of
warfare that, in the hands of a morally serious man such as Weir, is
deeply clarifying.

Even better is the fact that the hero in his little British frigate is
up against a larger, more powerful French warship. That allows U.S.
audiences the particular satisfaction of seeing Anglo-Saxon cannonballs
puncturing the Tricolor. My favorite part was Aubrey rallying the
troops with a Henry V, St. Crispin's Day speech featuring: "Do you want
your children growing up and singing the Marseillaise?" It was met by a
chorus of deafening "No's." Maybe they should have put that in the
trailer too."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aye, Perfidious France....

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
c***@yahoo.co.uk
2003-11-17 13:24:19 UTC
Permalink
"D. Spencer Hines" <***@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message news:<M4mtb.1463$***@eagle.america.net>...

1) do you support "might be considered the most dramatic and brilliant
naval documentary ever made"? Considering the book is a clear work of
fiction and follows the rather mechanistic outlines of many of his
other books.

2) What is your opinion of Das Boot?

CLgrundy
Post by D. Spencer Hines
----------------------------------------------
"Success On the High Seas"
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 14, 2003
The Washington Post
"The great director Billy Wilder was once asked about subtlety in
movies. "Of course, there must be subtleties," Wilder said. "Just make
sure you make them obvious."
The trailer for "Master and Commander," the seafaring epic opening
today, can hardly be described as subtle. It is a dazzling montage of
dramatic scenes of early 19th-century naval warfare, with cannonballs,
bodies, furniture and masts flying all over the place. Nonetheless, my
first reaction to a screening of the film was that it was beautiful and
brilliant, but I was not sure it would find a mass audience because of
its subtlety.
Yep... A Valid Concern. We Shall See.... ---- DSH
Perhaps subtlety is the wrong word. It perfectly describes director
Peter Weir's mind and manner, but perhaps refinement is the word for
what might hinder the film's commercial success. Weir gives us some
magnificently choreographed naval mayhem, but it is spread over two
hours of thoughtfulness and restraint.
The story, drawn from the Patrick O'Brian novels, is framed by battle
scenes between a British and a French warship. The TV trailer promises
" 'Gladiator' at sea." But the movie is really about the nature of
naval life in the age of sail, the nature of command and the nature of
friendship (between the ship's captain and the ship's doctor).
Although entirely fictional, "Master and Commander" might be considered
the most dramatic and brilliant naval documentary ever made. It should
be on the reading (viewing) list of every college course on the history
of naval warfare. Weir has given unbelievable attention to every detail
of the period -- the cookware, the rigging, the uniform buttons, the
drinking songs, the instruments of surgery.
And the mode of speech. This is where I worry about subtlety. I speak
English reasonably well, but I could only make out about half of the
dialogue. That is because Weir has maintained an unswerving fidelity to
the period dialect (the 1805 action is situated about halfway between us
and Shakespeare's time, and so are the diction and syntax). Pepper that
with nautical nouns you have never heard of, often issued in Russell
Crowe's barely audible drawl, place them in a cacophony of ship sounds
(another example of Weir's fidelity to authenticity), and you sometimes
wish that the movie had been accompanied by subtitles.
Weir's restraint carries into a remarkable austerity regarding women.
In the movie's version of a love interest, a Brazilian beauty in a small
boat selling wares offshore to the sailors of Captain Aubrey's ship
catches Aubrey's eye for a moment at a considerable distance. For about
five seconds you see Aubrey (Crowe) returning her glance.
And that is it. Indeed, that scene marks the only appearance of women
in the entire two hours of the film, setting a new record for sexual
austerity in an epic, a record previously held by "Lawrence of Arabia."
The austerity works as film, as does the fidelity to detail. My only
worry is that it won't sell to the kids who flock to see "Pirates of the
Caribbean," who expect sex and swashbuckling between their battle
scenes, and whose patronage is needed for the movie to recover its $135
million cost.
It is perhaps odd to worry about a film's box office, but when a film is
as splendid as this one, you want it to succeed. Perhaps it will be
helped in the United States by its timing. We are at war, and this is a
film not just about the conduct of war but about virtue in war. Its
depiction of the more ancient notions of duty, honor, patriotism and
devotion is reminiscent of what we glimpsed during live coverage of the
dash to Baghdad back in April but is now slipping from memory.
The film was first planned a decade ago, long before Sept. 11, long
before Afghanistan, long before Iraq. But it arrives at a time of war.
And combat on the high seas -- ships under unified command meeting in
duelistic engagement in open waters -- represents a distilled essence of
warfare that, in the hands of a morally serious man such as Weir, is
deeply clarifying.
Even better is the fact that the hero in his little British frigate is
up against a larger, more powerful French warship. That allows U.S.
audiences the particular satisfaction of seeing Anglo-Saxon cannonballs
puncturing the Tricolor. My favorite part was Aubrey rallying the
troops with a Henry V, St. Crispin's Day speech featuring: "Do you want
your children growing up and singing the Marseillaise?" It was met by a
chorus of deafening "No's." Maybe they should have put that in the
trailer too."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye, Perfidious France....
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Jeff Crowell
2003-11-17 14:23:41 UTC
Permalink
Actually, I thought the movie was excellent, and plan to see it
again when my Dad comes up for Christmas. And while
YMMV, I had no trouble understanding what they were saying.

I think even the rivet counters might enjoy this one.


Jeff
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
2003-11-17 17:02:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Crowell
Actually, I thought the movie was excellent, and plan to see it
again when my Dad comes up for Christmas. And while
YMMV, I had no trouble understanding what they were saying.
I think even the rivet counters might enjoy this one.
Naa. They'd be badly let down. Very few rivets in ships
of that time. You'd need to move ahead to Sepping's
frigates of the early 1840s before you start finding
rivets in any quantity. A comparison of Trincomalee
and Unicorn is instructive on this.

;)
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
2003-11-17 18:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Post by Jeff Crowell
Actually, I thought the movie was excellent, and plan to see it
again when my Dad comes up for Christmas. And while
YMMV, I had no trouble understanding what they were saying.
I think even the rivet counters might enjoy this one.
Naa. They'd be badly let down. Very few rivets in ships
of that time. You'd need to move ahead to Sepping's
frigates of the early 1840s before you start finding
rivets in any quantity. A comparison of Trincomalee
and Unicorn is instructive on this.
;)
rivets were actually quite common in wooden ships. Viking ships were
always riveted together..
http://cma.soton.ac.uk/HistShip/shlect70.htm

There was also no really good method of joining large timbers except
with iron rivets. Gun carriages in particular were riveted together
http://nautarch.tamu.edu/model/report4/index4.htm

its worth noting that the term "bolt" at the time routinely referrred to
rivets.

Vince
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
2003-11-17 22:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Post by Jeff Crowell
I think even the rivet counters might enjoy this one.
Naa. They'd be badly let down. Very few rivets in ships
of that time. You'd need to move ahead to Sepping's
rivets were actually quite common in wooden ships. Viking ships were
always riveted together..
Pegged, I'd say - what are normally called "trenails". Cobles were
still being built the same way at Whitburn when I was growing up.
Wooden pegs holding the planks in, albeit supplemented by nails.
Nothing anyone called at rivet. Rivets were for metal ships.

Of course, structually they fufil the same role, but I never heard a
boatbuilder or shipbuilder (and there were a lot around Sunderland,
before That Bloody Woman killed the town) blur the distinction/
Post by Prof. Vincent Brannigan
There was also no really good method of joining large timbers except
with iron rivets. Gun carriages in particular were riveted together
http://nautarch.tamu.edu/model/report4/index4.htm
True.
Post by Prof. Vincent Brannigan
its worth noting that the term "bolt" at the time routinely referrred to
rivets.
What would now be called rivets, however, came in with structual ironwork
- and that means Sepping's frigate scheme, of which Unicorn is a notably
early survivor (lines by Sane, structure by Seppings - a nice
combination!)
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)
Soren Larsen
2003-11-17 23:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Post by Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Post by Jeff Crowell
I think even the rivet counters might enjoy this one.
Naa. They'd be badly let down. Very few rivets in ships
of that time. You'd need to move ahead to Sepping's
rivets were actually quite common in wooden ships. Viking ships were
always riveted together..
Pegged, I'd say - what are normally called "trenails". Cobles were
still being built the same way at Whitburn when I was growing up.
Wooden pegs holding the planks in, albeit supplemented by nails.
Nothing anyone called at rivet. Rivets were for metal ships.
Nope.

Viking ships was build with rivets holding the planks together.

It is more than a rule of thumb in Baltic waters that wrecks
from the period are Slav if the planks are held together with treenails,
German if they are nailed and Scandinavian if they are riveted together.

Cheers
Soren Larsen
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Of course, structually they fufil the same role, but I never heard a
boatbuilder or shipbuilder (and there were a lot around Sunderland,
before That Bloody Woman killed the town) blur the distinction/
Post by Prof. Vincent Brannigan
There was also no really good method of joining large timbers except
with iron rivets. Gun carriages in particular were riveted together
http://nautarch.tamu.edu/model/report4/index4.htm
True.
Post by Prof. Vincent Brannigan
its worth noting that the term "bolt" at the time routinely referrred to
rivets.
What would now be called rivets, however, came in with structual ironwork
- and that means Sepping's frigate scheme, of which Unicorn is a notably
early survivor (lines by Sane, structure by Seppings - a nice
combination!)
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
2003-11-18 09:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soren Larsen
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Post by Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Post by Jeff Crowell
I think even the rivet counters might enjoy this one.
Naa. They'd be badly let down. Very few rivets in ships
of that time. You'd need to move ahead to Sepping's
rivets were actually quite common in wooden ships. Viking ships were
always riveted together..
Pegged, I'd say - what are normally called "trenails". Cobles were
still being built the same way at Whitburn when I was growing up.
Wooden pegs holding the planks in, albeit supplemented by nails.
Nothing anyone called at rivet. Rivets were for metal ships.
Nope.
Viking ships was build with rivets holding the planks together.
It is more than a rule of thumb in Baltic waters that wrecks
from the period are Slav if the planks are held together with treenails,
German if they are nailed and Scandinavian if they are riveted together.
Thanks for that. You are, of course, right, and if my memory had been
working properly I'd have remembered that it was a sort of copper rivet
(nail-and-collar, anyway) used in Cobles. Trenails were in the heavier
boats, not used off the beach. Nuggered if I can remember the word
used for the fastenings in Cobles, though - the builders didn't call
them rivets, though that might just be a local thing.

Come to that, I used to own a boat that was fastened together that
way, which makes getting it wrong even more embarassing..
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)
Martin Reboul
2003-11-19 09:27:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Post by Soren Larsen
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Post by Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Post by Jeff Crowell
I think even the rivet counters might enjoy this one.
Naa. They'd be badly let down. Very few rivets in ships
of that time. You'd need to move ahead to Sepping's
rivets were actually quite common in wooden ships. Viking
ships were
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Post by Soren Larsen
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Post by Prof. Vincent Brannigan
always riveted together..
Pegged, I'd say - what are normally called "trenails". Cobles were
still being built the same way at Whitburn when I was growing up.
Wooden pegs holding the planks in, albeit supplemented by
nails.
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Post by Soren Larsen
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Nothing anyone called at rivet. Rivets were for metal ships.
Nope.
Viking ships was build with rivets holding the planks together.
It is more than a rule of thumb in Baltic waters that wrecks
from the period are Slav if the planks are held together with
treenails,
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Post by Soren Larsen
German if they are nailed and Scandinavian if they are riveted together.
Thanks for that. You are, of course, right, and if my memory had been
working properly I'd have remembered that it was a sort of
copper rivet
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
(nail-and-collar, anyway) used in Cobles. Trenails were in the
heavier
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
boats, not used off the beach. Nuggered if I can remember the
word
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
used for the fastenings in Cobles, though - the builders didn't call
them rivets, though that might just be a local thing.
Were these copper rivets cold hammered or were they heated?

A very strong method of attaching things to wood, or wood to wood.
I used 'rivets' when making replica medieval weapons, to attach an
axe blade and a war hammer head..... actually small coach bolts
heated cherry red then hammered flat (medieval oxy-acetylene,
ahem!).

Does anyone know when the first nuts and bolts were made and used?
I'd guess it was probably a 'one-off' for some special application
(gunnery perhaps?). I'd guess they were very expensive at first,
as strenuous efforts seem to have been made to avoid using them
well into Victorian times. The earliest ones I have seen were
holding flintlock pistols and clock mechanisms together, I'd guess
custom made screw pitches. Most were brass - cutting a thread on a
steel nut must have been tricky.

Its no good, curious now - I'll have to do a search. Must be my
love of Meccano... and cars. Or maybe my love of dismantling
things?
Cheers
Martin
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
2003-11-19 11:36:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
working properly I'd have remembered that it was a sort of
copper rivet
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
(nail-and-collar, anyway) used in Cobles. Trenails were in the
Were these copper rivets cold hammered or were they heated?
Cold-hammered, as I remember.
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)
Budda
2003-11-20 13:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Rivets, tree nails, copper rivets, cold hammered or heated?
I think the question was how was the movie not was there gum under the seat
and, if so, what flavor was it when it was new. Did the teeth marks show
evidence of dental work? Did we run a DNA analysis on the gum? Do you
think Hussein chewed that flavor of gum, if so could it have been his gum
stuck under the seat? If so, could he have watched the movie because he is
preparing to attack in a dessert sail boat (two camels with a tent tied
between them with a third taco powered camel backing being and providing the
wind to sail the mighty sand dunes.

Really guys, how boring can this shit get. Answer is, boring enough to send
me away. It has been real and it has been fun but it has not been real fun.
I wanted to brush up on British History but not at the expense of
surrendering my sanity worrying about rivets in a movie. I think one clue
is -- it's a frigging movie, not a historical documentary. No where does it
claim to be accurate down to the rivets. Remember the ship they are chasing
is French. The movie is based on the British chasing an American ship. Is
that not more important than how the built a boat the doesn't exist. What
do you thing about the construction of Spock's tri-corder. Since it is
fiction as well we could bet in a very long discussion about if it is built,
1)would it be metal or plastic or some metal not yet discovered yet, 2} do
we think Spock is really Vulcan?, and so on.
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
working properly I'd have remembered that it was a sort of
copper rivet
Post by ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
(nail-and-collar, anyway) used in Cobles. Trenails were in the
Were these copper rivets cold hammered or were they heated?
Cold-hammered, as I remember.
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)
Fred J. McCall
2003-11-20 14:51:40 UTC
Permalink
"Budda" <***@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

:Really guys, how boring can this shit get. Answer is, boring enough to send
:me away.

Good. Troll Score: 1.5.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
William Black
2003-11-20 17:42:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Budda
Rivets, tree nails, copper rivets, cold hammered or heated?
I think the question was how was the movie not was there gum under the seat
and, if so, what flavor was it when it was new.
If you want I can rattle on for hours about copper rivets, compound rivets,
iron plated copper rivets, 'false' rivets, the various different types of
the electrolytic effects on the various types of rivets, followed by the
effects on the rudder pintails.

Then we can start on iron knees and the effects of the different types of
iron water tanks on sailing capabilities in RN warships of the period...

The books do...

This is the net. There are experts out there on stuff you can't even
imagine, never mind what you think you don't know.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Alfred May
2003-11-20 23:08:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Budda
Rivets, tree nails, copper rivets, cold hammered or heated?
I think the question was how was the movie not was there gum under the
seat
Post by Budda
and, if so, what flavor was it when it was new.
If you want I can rattle on for hours about copper rivets, compound rivets,
iron plated copper rivets, 'false' rivets, the various different types of
the electrolytic effects on the various types of rivets, followed by the
effects on the rudder pintails.
Then we can start on iron knees and the effects of the different types of
iron water tanks on sailing capabilities in RN warships of the period...
The books do...
This is the net. There are experts out there on stuff you can't even
imagine, never mind what you think you don't know.
--
'false' rivets - are these the same as the "Devil's Bolt" (two ends and no
middle)?

Tom
William Black
2003-11-21 17:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred May
'false' rivets - are these the same as the "Devil's Bolt" (two ends and no
middle)?
Those are the ones...

The shipwrights in the yards cut a few inches of copper from the middle and
hammer in what's left.

Sell the copper and make money.

Then they just hope they don't get drafted as carpenter on that ship...

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Rick
2003-11-23 20:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
the electrolytic effects on the various types of rivets, followed by the
effects on the rudder pintails.
Ducks have pintails, rudders have pintles.

Rick
Alfred May
2003-11-24 00:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick
Post by William Black
the electrolytic effects on the various types of rivets, followed by the
effects on the rudder pintails.
Ducks have pintails, rudders have pintles.
Rick
Please check your attributions (especially when criticising/correcting).
My post was enquyiring about the false rivet/Devil's bolt.

Tom
Bryn Fraser
2003-11-24 09:11:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred May
Post by Rick
Post by William Black
the electrolytic effects on the various types of rivets, followed by
the
Post by Rick
Post by William Black
effects on the rudder pintails.
Ducks have pintails, rudders have pintles.
Rick
Please check your attributions (especially when criticising/correcting).
My post was enquyiring about the false rivet/Devil's bolt.
Is that anything like the Golden rivet on modern craft..?
--
Bryn Fraser
--
We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.

Edward R. Murrow
--
http://www.finhall.demon.co.uk
http://www.thefrasers.com
Fred J. McCall
2003-11-24 04:44:38 UTC
Permalink
Rick <***@dearthlink.nyet> wrote:

:Alfred May wrote:
:
:>>the electrolytic effects on the various types of rivets, followed by the
:>>effects on the rudder pintails.
:
:Ducks have pintails, rudders have pintles.

So is he talking about his rudder duckie?
Mike Dana
2003-11-24 08:58:10 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:44:38 GMT, Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
:>>the electrolytic effects on the various types of rivets, followed by the
:>>effects on the rudder pintails.
:Ducks have pintails, rudders have pintles.
So is he talking about his rudder duckie?
Either way, it cannard-ly matter, eh?

--The Punstrel
a.spencer3
2003-11-24 09:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dana
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:44:38 GMT, Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
:>>the electrolytic effects on the various types of rivets, followed by the
:>>effects on the rudder pintails.
:Ducks have pintails, rudders have pintles.
So is he talking about his rudder duckie?
Either way, it cannard-ly matter, eh?
I hope you ducked then!

Surreyman
E***@gyldendal.dk
2003-11-24 11:06:57 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:12:46 -0000, "a.spencer3"
Post by Mike Dana
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:44:38 GMT, Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
:>>the electrolytic effects on the various types of rivets, followed by
the
Post by Mike Dana
Post by Fred J. McCall
:>>effects on the rudder pintails.
:Ducks have pintails, rudders have pintles.
So is he talking about his rudder duckie?
Either way, it cannard-ly matter, eh?
As long as it is placed in the back Ente

Soren Larsen
IBM
2003-11-24 05:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick
Post by William Black
the electrolytic effects on the various types of rivets, followed by
the effects on the rudder pintails.
Ducks have pintails, rudders have pintles.
Not quite.
Pintails are ducks ( Inheritance )
Ships have rudders and pintles ( Aggregation )
Class structure is different.

IBM

_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Budda
2003-11-21 21:45:45 UTC
Permalink
I consider myself to be a master BS Artist but I know when to bow to the
master. Do carry on. Did the H.M.S. Surprise have a brass monkey on board?
Isn't a false rivet a nail? I hope you don't take offense. It's Friday and
I am in a smart ass mood. There are plenty of things I think I don't know,
even the things I do know, I don't really know.
Post by William Black
Post by Budda
Rivets, tree nails, copper rivets, cold hammered or heated?
I think the question was how was the movie not was there gum under the
seat
Post by Budda
and, if so, what flavor was it when it was new.
If you want I can rattle on for hours about copper rivets, compound rivets,
iron plated copper rivets, 'false' rivets, the various different types of
the electrolytic effects on the various types of rivets, followed by the
effects on the rudder pintails.
Then we can start on iron knees and the effects of the different types of
iron water tanks on sailing capabilities in RN warships of the period...
The books do...
This is the net. There are experts out there on stuff you can't even
imagine, never mind what you think you don't know.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
William Black
2003-11-22 08:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Budda
I consider myself to be a master BS Artist but I know when to bow to the
master. Do carry on. Did the H.M.S. Surprise have a brass monkey on board?
Isn't a false rivet a nail? I hope you don't take offense. It's Friday and
I am in a smart ass mood. There are plenty of things I think I don't know,
even the things I do know, I don't really know.
I don't take offence at a first nasty post, however, I'm not a terribly
reasonable man...

And a 'brass monkey' is what hangs outside a pawnbrokers.

False rivets are the ones where the shipwrights have stolen the middle of
the rivet and hammered in the two ends to make it look like there is a rivet
there, when there isn't...

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Martin Reboul
2003-11-20 18:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Budda wrote...
Post by Budda
Rivets, tree nails, copper rivets, cold hammered or heated?
I think the question was how was the movie not was there gum
under the seat
Post by Budda
and, if so, what flavor was it when it was new. Did the teeth
marks show
Post by Budda
evidence of dental work? Did we run a DNA analysis on the gum?
Do you
Post by Budda
think Hussein chewed that flavor of gum, if so could it have
been his gum
Post by Budda
stuck under the seat? If so, could he have watched the movie
because he is
Post by Budda
preparing to attack in a dessert sail boat (two camels with a
tent tied
Post by Budda
between them with a third taco powered camel backing being and
providing the
Post by Budda
wind to sail the mighty sand dunes.
Alas, I cannot answer these questions, as I haven't seen the film
yet.
Even then, I will probably get it out on video, and won't be able
to
offer any opinions on the bubble gum...
Post by Budda
Really guys, how boring can this shit get. Answer is, boring
enough to send
Post by Budda
me away. It has been real and it has been fun but it has not
been real fun.
Post by Budda
I wanted to brush up on British History but not at the expense
of
Post by Budda
surrendering my sanity worrying about rivets in a movie.
That was Scandinavian history anyway...
Post by Budda
I think one clue
is -- it's a frigging movie, not a historical documentary. No
where does it
Post by Budda
claim to be accurate down to the rivets. Remember the ship they are chasing
is French. The movie is based on the British chasing an
American ship. Is
Post by Budda
that not more important than how the built a boat the doesn't
exist.

"Rivet counters" are those dismal folks who sit through a film
tutting
and noting down every historical innaccuracy they see, in order to
indulge in nit-picking afterwards. Watching films for them is not
a pleasure
it is a 'duty' or even a competition.
I have even seen them analysing Lord of the Rings... "What? Tsk
tsk...
Gollum was at least six inches shorter than that?".... "Aragorn
never had
blue eyes, disgraceful!" etc. etc.
Best avoided at all costs, esp. in the pub.

However, the trailers look good, and I can assure you I will watch
Master
and Commander in the ight spirit, shouting "use your sword for
****'s
sake!" , "get down and eload you fool!" and "ha harrr!" as it
should be.
Post by Budda
What do you thing about the construction of Spock's tri-corder.
Since it is
Post by Budda
fiction as well we could bet in a very long discussion about if it is built,
1)would it be metal or plastic or some metal not yet discovered yet, 2} do
we think Spock is really Vulcan?, and so on.
Now here I can help...

http://www.tricorder.cjb.net/

Spock is of course half Vulcan, as any fule kno....

Cheers
Martin
Budda
2003-11-21 22:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Loved the tri-corder. The British can invent the tri-corder but only
America can change a black boy into a white woman. Scan Michael Jackson and
you will have to reboot your tri-corder. Neither Spock's human or Vulcan
side will be able to say much more than wow. Bones will say, It's life Jim,
but not as we know it.
Cheers
Post by Martin Reboul
Budda wrote...
Post by Budda
Rivets, tree nails, copper rivets, cold hammered or heated?
I think the question was how was the movie not was there gum
under the seat
Post by Budda
and, if so, what flavor was it when it was new. Did the teeth
marks show
Post by Budda
evidence of dental work? Did we run a DNA analysis on the gum?
Do you
Post by Budda
think Hussein chewed that flavor of gum, if so could it have
been his gum
Post by Budda
stuck under the seat? If so, could he have watched the movie
because he is
Post by Budda
preparing to attack in a dessert sail boat (two camels with a
tent tied
Post by Budda
between them with a third taco powered camel backing being and
providing the
Post by Budda
wind to sail the mighty sand dunes.
Alas, I cannot answer these questions, as I haven't seen the film
yet.
Even then, I will probably get it out on video, and won't be able
to
offer any opinions on the bubble gum...
Post by Budda
Really guys, how boring can this shit get. Answer is, boring
enough to send
Post by Budda
me away. It has been real and it has been fun but it has not
been real fun.
Post by Budda
I wanted to brush up on British History but not at the expense
of
Post by Budda
surrendering my sanity worrying about rivets in a movie.
That was Scandinavian history anyway...
Post by Budda
I think one clue
is -- it's a frigging movie, not a historical documentary. No
where does it
Post by Budda
claim to be accurate down to the rivets. Remember the ship they
are chasing
Post by Budda
is French. The movie is based on the British chasing an
American ship. Is
Post by Budda
that not more important than how the built a boat the doesn't
exist.
"Rivet counters" are those dismal folks who sit through a film
tutting
and noting down every historical innaccuracy they see, in order to
indulge in nit-picking afterwards. Watching films for them is not
a pleasure
it is a 'duty' or even a competition.
I have even seen them analysing Lord of the Rings... "What? Tsk
tsk...
Gollum was at least six inches shorter than that?".... "Aragorn
never had
blue eyes, disgraceful!" etc. etc.
Best avoided at all costs, esp. in the pub.
However, the trailers look good, and I can assure you I will watch
Master
and Commander in the ight spirit, shouting "use your sword for
****'s
sake!" , "get down and eload you fool!" and "ha harrr!" as it
should be.
Post by Budda
What do you thing about the construction of Spock's tri-corder.
Since it is
Post by Budda
fiction as well we could bet in a very long discussion about if
it is built,
Post by Budda
1)would it be metal or plastic or some metal not yet discovered
yet, 2} do
Post by Budda
we think Spock is really Vulcan?, and so on.
Now here I can help...
http://www.tricorder.cjb.net/
Spock is of course half Vulcan, as any fule kno....
Cheers
Martin
Ogden Johnson III
2003-11-20 20:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Budda
Rivets, tree nails, copper rivets, cold hammered or heated?
I think the question was how was the movie not was there gum under the seat
and, if so, what flavor was it when it was new. Did the teeth marks show
evidence of dental work? Did we run a DNA analysis on the gum? Do you
think Hussein chewed that flavor of gum, if so could it have been his gum
stuck under the seat? If so, could he have watched the movie because he is
preparing to attack in a dessert sail boat (two camels with a tent tied
between them with a third taco powered camel backing being and providing the
wind to sail the mighty sand dunes.
New in town, sailor? Didn't look at the newsgroups header?

[Newsgroups: alt.history.british, sci.military.naval,
soc.history.early-modern, soc.history.medieval, soc.history.war.misc]

Can't speak to the other groups, but in sci.military.naval,
thread-drift is a frequent phenomenon. And for a lot of our regulars
[a good portion of those posting in this particular "drift"], the
minutiae of ship construction and accouterments, and discussions
thereof, are part of the joy of Usenet. So belay the crabbing about
rivets, tree nails, copper rivets, cold hammered or heated. It is
certainly on-topic for sci.military.naval.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]
Spread Eagle
2003-11-21 04:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Budda
Really guys, how boring can this shit get. Answer is, boring enough to send
me away. It has been real and it has been fun but it has not been real fun.
I wanted to brush up on British History but not at the expense of
surrendering my sanity worrying about rivets in a movie. I think one clue
is -- it's a frigging movie, not a historical documentary. No where does it
claim to be accurate down to the rivets.
I haven't seen the movie **yet** but methinks your attitude runs
contrary to one of the films purported pleasures. It has been billed
that Weir endeavored endlessly to recreate period detail. If that's
true, it's fun, not to mention informational, to comment on wthe
degree to which he succeeded in those efforts. Maybe he didn't
vis-a-vis rivets, but if he didn't it's fair game to note it. Plus,
the entire subject is four-square on topic for this NG.

Spread Eagle
Julian Richards
2003-11-21 09:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spread Eagle
Post by Budda
Really guys, how boring can this shit get. Answer is, boring enough to send
me away. It has been real and it has been fun but it has not been real fun.
I wanted to brush up on British History but not at the expense of
surrendering my sanity worrying about rivets in a movie. I think one clue
is -- it's a frigging movie, not a historical documentary. No where does it
claim to be accurate down to the rivets.
I haven't seen the movie **yet** but methinks your attitude runs
contrary to one of the films purported pleasures. It has been billed
that Weir endeavored endlessly to recreate period detail. If that's
true, it's fun, not to mention informational, to comment on wthe
degree to which he succeeded in those efforts. Maybe he didn't
vis-a-vis rivets, but if he didn't it's fair game to note it. Plus,
the entire subject is four-square on topic for this NG.
Rivets boring? Ah, the joys of rivets and associated joining
technologies! Subscriptions to "Rivet World" with its "Rivet of the
Month" centrespread. Tours to the various rivet capitals of the world.
Downtown rivet clubs where like minded individuals can meet away from
the small minded predjudices of the outside world.



--

Julian Richards
julian-richards "at" ntlworld.com

"My son has asked for a pair of Nike trainers.
He's ten years old, he should make his own"

"I bought a CD of whale music. Imagine my
disappointment when I got home to discover
that it was actual a cover version by a tribute
band of dolphins"
Paul J. Adam
2003-11-21 20:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spread Eagle
I haven't seen the movie **yet** but methinks your attitude runs
contrary to one of the films purported pleasures. It has been billed
that Weir endeavored endlessly to recreate period detail.
I liked Michael Mann's "Last of the Mohicans" for many reasons, but if
one technical issue stands out for me it's the magnificent evocation of
18th-century siege warfare, as the French gunners pin down the British
defenders while the sappers extend their parallels until the mortars can
be brought into range...
Post by Spread Eagle
If that's
true, it's fun, not to mention informational, to comment on wthe
degree to which he succeeded in those efforts. Maybe he didn't
vis-a-vis rivets, but if he didn't it's fair game to note it.
You don't have to pay attention to the details, but if you're interested
in them then the better movies either try to get them right or proudly
say they're going for entertainment not realism. (Both can be very
enjoyable)
Post by Spread Eagle
Plus,
the entire subject is four-square on topic for this NG.
Too true - I'm interested in wooden ship construction even if I don't
know much about it.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
Peter Skelton
2003-11-17 14:36:47 UTC
Permalink
1) do you support "might be considered"? Considering the book is a clear work of
fiction and follows the rather mechanistic outlines of many of his
other books.
A large-frigate privateer? Idiocy

Lots of minor clangers

It's good fun, and close to reality for Hollywood. It has no
trouble at all getting the willing suspension of disbelief. It's
no documentary.
2) What is your opinion of Das Boot?
" the most dramatic and brilliant naval documentary ever made"



Peter Skelton
Michael W Cook
2003-11-17 14:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Skelton
1) do you support "might be considered"? Considering the book is a clear work of
fiction and follows the rather mechanistic outlines of many of his
other books.
A large-frigate privateer? Idiocy
Lots of minor clangers
It's good fun, and close to reality for Hollywood. It has no
trouble at all getting the willing suspension of disbelief. It's
no documentary.
I heard all the American 'bad guys' from the book have been turned into
French 'bad guys' in the film.

Can anyone confirm ?
Post by Peter Skelton
2) What is your opinion of Das Boot?
" the most dramatic and brilliant naval documentary ever made"
Agreed.

Michael

Michael W Cook

Castles Abbeys and Medieval Buildings
http://www.castles-abbeys.co.uk
--
Barbarossa
2003-11-17 17:44:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael W Cook
I heard all the American 'bad guys' from the book have been turned into
French 'bad guys' in the film.
Can anyone confirm ?
Oui. It is now 1805, and the Froggies are sailing what appears
to be a knock-off of the USS Constitution, southern live oak and
all.
Ogden Johnson III
2003-11-17 18:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barbarossa
Post by Michael W Cook
I heard all the American 'bad guys' from the book have been turned into
French 'bad guys' in the film.
Can anyone confirm ?
Oui. It is now 1805, and the Froggies are sailing what appears
to be a knock-off of the USS Constitution, southern live oak and
all.
That was because the USS Constitution was the easiest large frigate to
use as an exemplar to make into the virtual French ship they needed.
A team from whoever did the CGI spent a couple of weeks crawling
around it taking measurements, taking pictures, and making sketches.
The story I read didn't mention it, but I'm sure they also plundered
the historical archives for things like Humprey(?)'s original
drawings, etc.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]
Warren Okuma
2003-11-17 19:01:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ogden Johnson III
Post by Barbarossa
Post by Michael W Cook
I heard all the American 'bad guys' from the book have been turned into
French 'bad guys' in the film.
Can anyone confirm ?
Oui. It is now 1805, and the Froggies are sailing what appears
to be a knock-off of the USS Constitution, southern live oak and
all.
That was because the USS Constitution was the easiest large frigate to
use as an exemplar to make into the virtual French ship they needed.
A team from whoever did the CGI spent a couple of weeks crawling
around it taking measurements, taking pictures, and making sketches.
The story I read didn't mention it, but I'm sure they also plundered
the historical archives for things like Humprey(?)'s original
drawings, etc.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]
Did anyone actually see the movie, and if so what do you think?
D. Spencer Hines
2003-11-17 19:16:16 UTC
Permalink
Yes, I saw it last Friday.

It was superb ---- and demands a sequel ---- which has been cleverly set
up as a teaser.

The $150 million allegedly spent on it shows ---- and Crowe should
receive another Academy Award nomination for Best Actor.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Warren Okuma" <***@lava.net> wrote in message news:***@corp.supernews.com...
|
| "Ogden Johnson III" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:***@4ax.com...
| > Barbarossa <***@ucsd.edu> wrote:
| >
| > > Michael W Cook <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
| >
| > >> I heard all the American 'bad guys' from the book have been
turned into
| > >> French 'bad guys' in the film.
| > >>
| > >> Can anyone confirm ?
| >
| > > Oui. It is now 1805, and the Froggies are sailing what appears
| > >to be a knock-off of the USS Constitution, southern live oak and
| > >all.
| >
| > That was because the USS Constitution was the easiest large frigate
to
| > use as an exemplar to make into the virtual French ship they needed.
| > A team from whoever did the CGI spent a couple of weeks crawling
| > around it taking measurements, taking pictures, and making sketches.
| > The story I read didn't mention it, but I'm sure they also plundered
| > the historical archives for things like Humprey(?)'s original
| > drawings, etc.
| > --
| > OJ III
| > [Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
| > Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]
|
| Did anyone actually see the movie, and if so what do you think?
William Black
2003-11-18 07:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yes, I saw it last Friday.
It was superb ---- and demands a sequel ---- which has been cleverly set
up as a teaser.
It would be difficult not to.

There are about a dozen books, although the later ones are a bit weak.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
David Phillips
2003-11-19 14:44:30 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:57:19 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
Post by William Black
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yes, I saw it last Friday.
It was superb ---- and demands a sequel ---- which has been cleverly set
up as a teaser.
It would be difficult not to.
There are about a dozen books, although the later ones are a bit weak.
There are 20 books in the Aubrey/Maturin series, and weak? Sir, my
seconds will call!
raymond o'hara
2003-11-19 20:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Phillips
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:57:19 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
Post by William Black
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yes, I saw it last Friday.
It was superb ---- and demands a sequel ---- which has been cleverly set
up as a teaser.
It would be difficult not to.
There are about a dozen books, although the later ones are a bit weak.
There are 20 books in the Aubrey/Maturin series, and weak? Sir, my
seconds will call!
after the first 3 or so the series bogs down badly .
the movie is much better than any of the books . great action and violence
.
Olivers
2003-11-19 21:13:22 UTC
Permalink
raymond o'hara muttered....
Post by raymond o'hara
after the first 3 or so the series bogs down badly .
the movie is much better than any of the books . great action and violence
.
Raymond, me lad, whilst you're certainly entitled to your opinion, daft
though it may seem, I for one would give good odds that you, equipped with
the working vocabulary of a mere babe, could hardly have struggled through
all of Jack's career, much less the rest of the Immortal Patrick's shelf.
After all, when your finger must trail each line as you sound out the words
and grope for their meaning and intent, reading's a slow task.

I hope and expect the movie to be both "good" and, hopefully, "memorable",
as all too many movies aren't, but to offer it as a new and improved
substitute for countless hours of enjoyment and entrancement brought to me
by the late Mr. O'Brian's, vast knowledge, fertile imagination and grand
eye for time and place is simply put, a crock of shit.

TMO
raymond o'hara
2003-11-19 21:40:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olivers
raymond o'hara muttered....
Post by raymond o'hara
after the first 3 or so the series bogs down badly .
the movie is much better than any of the books . great action and violence
.
Raymond, me lad, whilst you're certainly entitled to your opinion, daft
though it may seem, I for one would give good odds that you, equipped with
the working vocabulary of a mere babe, could hardly have struggled through
all of Jack's career, much less the rest of the Immortal Patrick's shelf.
After all, when your finger must trail each line as you sound out the words
and grope for their meaning and intent, reading's a slow task.
I hope and expect the movie to be both "good" and, hopefully, "memorable",
as all too many movies aren't, but to offer it as a new and improved
substitute for countless hours of enjoyment and entrancement brought to me
by the late Mr. O'Brian's, vast knowledge, fertile imagination and grand
eye for time and place is simply put, a crock of shit.
TMO
the books are boring after the first few . but i'm sure boring appeals to
an anal retentive fool such as yourself . enjoy the movie . but don't go
looking for an o'brian story other than the names of the characters it's
not there . the director made a good movie instead .
David Phillips
2003-11-20 13:21:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by David Phillips
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:57:19 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
Post by William Black
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yes, I saw it last Friday.
It was superb ---- and demands a sequel ---- which has been cleverly
set
Post by David Phillips
Post by William Black
Post by D. Spencer Hines
up as a teaser.
It would be difficult not to.
There are about a dozen books, although the later ones are a bit weak.
There are 20 books in the Aubrey/Maturin series, and weak? Sir, my
seconds will call!
after the first 3 or so the series bogs down badly .
the movie is much better than any of the books . great action and violence
Bogs down? Fie, sir. Perhaps if you were expecting 20 books of the
'Die Hard' or 'Matt Helm' genre, or the continuing adventures of Dirk
Pitt, but I can point you to hundreds of folks that have read all 20,
multiple times, finding new pleasure in each passage.
raymond o'hara
2003-11-20 18:45:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Phillips
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by David Phillips
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:57:19 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
Post by William Black
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yes, I saw it last Friday.
It was superb ---- and demands a sequel ---- which has been cleverly
set
Post by David Phillips
Post by William Black
Post by D. Spencer Hines
up as a teaser.
It would be difficult not to.
There are about a dozen books, although the later ones are a bit weak.
There are 20 books in the Aubrey/Maturin series, and weak? Sir, my
seconds will call!
after the first 3 or so the series bogs down badly .
the movie is much better than any of the books . great action and violence
Bogs down? Fie, sir. Perhaps if you were expecting 20 books of the
'Die Hard' or 'Matt Helm' genre, or the continuing adventures of Dirk
Pitt, but I can point you to hundreds of folks that have read all 20,
multiple times, finding new pleasure in each passage.
20 pages of a "poetry "contests written by an author who can't write poetry
is boring .
Martin Reboul
2003-11-20 18:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yes, I saw it last Friday.
It was superb ---- and demands a sequel ---- which has been
cleverly set
Post by William Black
Post by D. Spencer Hines
up as a teaser.
It would be difficult not to.
There are about a dozen books, although the later ones are a
bit weak.

As good as Patrick O'Brien?
William Black
2003-11-20 19:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by William Black
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yes, I saw it last Friday.
It was superb ---- and demands a sequel ---- which has been
cleverly set
Post by William Black
Post by D. Spencer Hines
up as a teaser.
It would be difficult not to.
There are about a dozen books, although the later ones are a
bit weak.
As good as Patrick O'Brien?
Should there be a :o) there.

It's O'Brien I'm talking about...

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Martin Reboul
2003-11-21 13:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by William Black
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yes, I saw it last Friday.
It was superb ---- and demands a sequel ---- which has
been
Post by William Black
Post by D. Spencer Hines
cleverly set
Post by William Black
Post by D. Spencer Hines
up as a teaser.
It would be difficult not to.
There are about a dozen books, although the later ones are a
bit weak.
As good as Patrick O'Brien?
Should there be a :o) there.
It's O'Brien I'm talking about...
I know... I wanted to look 'subtle' for once! Any 'book of the
film'
will doubtless bear little resemblance...?
Barbarossa
2003-11-18 18:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yes, I saw it last Friday.
It was superb ---- and demands a sequel ---- which has been
cleverly set up as a teaser.
The $150 million allegedly spent on it shows
My son watched one of those ubiquitous "The Making of ..."
shows about 'Master and Commander.' Most of those Yankee bucks
went for computer graphics. A lot of what you see is not really
there ... you'd be amazed. ;^)
Ogden Johnson III
2003-11-18 20:17:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barbarossa
Post by D. Spencer Hines
The $150 million allegedly spent on it shows
My son watched one of those ubiquitous "The Making of ..."
shows about 'Master and Commander.' Most of those Yankee bucks
went for computer graphics. A lot of what you see is not really
there ... you'd be amazed. ;^)
No. We wouldn't be amazed. The average US movie-goer, even if they
aren't "computer literate", is well aware of how much CGI is used
nowadays - and how much it costs. We're into the second generation of
movie-goers since Star Wars [third or fourth if you count those of us
who were in or approaching geezerhood {defined as some age over 30}
when it was first released].
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]
D. Spencer Hines
2003-11-19 02:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Negats...I'd not be amazed in the least.

700 CGI shots, by one account.

More power to them.

DSH

"Barbarossa" <***@ucsd.edu> wrote in message news:whewitt-***@news1.ucsd.edu...

| In article <1Y8ub.1826$***@eagle.america.net>,
| "D. Spencer Hines" <***@usa.yale.edu> wrote:
|
| > Yes, I saw it last Friday.
| >
| > It was superb ---- and demands a sequel ---- which has been
| > cleverly set up as a teaser.
| >
| > The $150 million allegedly spent on it shows
|
| My son watched one of those ubiquitous "The Making of ..."
| shows about 'Master and Commander.' Most of those Yankee bucks
| went for computer graphics. A lot of what you see is not really
| there ... you'd be amazed. ;^)
John Lansford
2003-11-17 22:14:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warren Okuma
Post by Ogden Johnson III
Post by Barbarossa
Post by Michael W Cook
I heard all the American 'bad guys' from the book have been turned into
French 'bad guys' in the film.
Can anyone confirm ?
Oui. It is now 1805, and the Froggies are sailing what appears
to be a knock-off of the USS Constitution, southern live oak and
all.
That was because the USS Constitution was the easiest large frigate to
use as an exemplar to make into the virtual French ship they needed.
A team from whoever did the CGI spent a couple of weeks crawling
around it taking measurements, taking pictures, and making sketches.
The story I read didn't mention it, but I'm sure they also plundered
the historical archives for things like Humprey(?)'s original
drawings, etc.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]
Did anyone actually see the movie, and if so what do you think?
I saw it and enjoyed the entire movie. Fairly accurate rendition of
life on a sailing ship, and the scenes were very well done. I did
quibble about some of the crew walking 10 miles and back after they
got off the ship; I'd figure no sailor's endurance would be that good,
after all. The fight scenes were very dramatic and well thought out.

Great movie!

John Lansford

The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/
Ed Frank
2003-11-17 22:49:55 UTC
Permalink
[snips abounding, including most crossposts. EF]
Post by Warren Okuma
Did anyone actually see the movie, and if so what do you think?
I thought it was very well done, though I was
disappointed that the main characters were not
more physically distinctive. (In the books, Aubrey
is a very large man and Maturin a very small one,
which adds a bit of humor during the musical
evenings and in some other scenes; in the film,
Maturin is taller than Aubrey. Call me a purist.
Other than that, the casting was spot-on, and
the acting superb.)

Some people have mentioned having trouble making
out the dialogue, and I certainly did, despite
having a pretty good ear and having read the
books.

I doubt that it will do well . . . but then again
I would not have predicted that the books would
do well either.

Ed Frank
a.spencer3
2003-11-18 09:43:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Frank
Post by Ed Frank
I doubt that it will do well . . . but then again
I would not have predicted that the books would
do well either.
I still don't! :-))
I've found them very stolid. Never understood their popularity.

Surreyman
William Black
2003-11-18 17:35:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Ed Frank
Post by Ed Frank
I doubt that it will do well . . . but then again
I would not have predicted that the books would
do well either.
I still don't! :-))
I've found them very stolid. Never understood their popularity.
He gets the technical stuff all correct in a way that comes from an
obsessive reading of a series of secondary sources published in the
'seventies. Stuff like 'elm tree pumps' and 'knees and futtocks' that only
the seriously keen know (or care) about, but at the same time he manages to
use English in the same way as contemporary novelists use it.

Sort of 'If Jane Austen had written Hornblower with Cochrane as technical
adviser'.

And yes, I have read them all...

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Paul J Gans
2003-11-18 21:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Ed Frank
Post by Ed Frank
I doubt that it will do well . . . but then again
I would not have predicted that the books would
do well either.
I still don't! :-))
I've found them very stolid. Never understood their popularity.
I think it was the interplay between Maturin and Aubrey. Aubrey,
at least initially, is not depicted as Horatio Nelson in waiting.
Their relations with women are also, I thought, more interesting.

But I too found that they dragged and I never read the last ones
in the series as a result. Too much detail and too much repetitious
character development -- plus the fact that O'Brian painted himself
into a corner early on with his choice of starting date. Not his
fault -- how did he know that he'd write a dozen or so of them.

---- Paul J. Gans
Ed Frank
2003-11-20 22:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Ed Frank
Post by Ed Frank
I doubt that it will do well . . . but then again
I would not have predicted that the books would
do well either.
I still don't! :-))
I've found them very stolid. Never understood their popularity.
I think it was the interplay between Maturin and Aubrey. Aubrey,
at least initially, is not depicted as Horatio Nelson in waiting.
Their relations with women are also, I thought, more interesting.
I won't go as far as those who call the series "the
best historical fiction ever written" but overall I'm
a big fan.

You're right about the romantic content, and IMHO that's
part of the strength of the books--they are about adults
struggling with adult emotions and relationships.

I also liked the scenes of everyday life, and the side-
treks into City, parliamentary, and other subcultures.
Post by Paul J Gans
But I too found that they dragged and I never read the last ones
in the series as a result.
Many of the action scenes plod; Forrester was in
my opinion superior at building and releasing tension
in the Hornblower books. OTOH, O'Brien has some
good social-comedy scenes.

Too much detail and too much repetitious
Post by Paul J Gans
character development -- plus the fact that O'Brian painted himself
into a corner early on with his choice of starting date. Not his
fault -- how did he know that he'd write a dozen or so of them.
More like twenty, but I know what you mean. Only
a few of the books stand by themselves as far as
plotting and plot resolution. In a few cases, they
seem rather arbitrary.

Ed Frank
Anthony J. Bryant
2003-11-18 01:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warren Okuma
Did anyone actually see the movie, and if so what do you think?
Loved the movie, but I abhor O'Brian's books. It's telling -- to me -- that this
film is actually a combination of two books (Master and Commander, and Far Side
of the World), and even then they changed the enemy from an American ship
harrassing British whalers to a French frigate.

Basically, books by O'Brian (IMHO) aren't good enough to stand alone as a film.

Personally, I'd rather someone would make the Alexander Kent or Dudley Pope
novels into movies -- I enjoyed them all immensely. But O'Brian? I'd rather have
a tooth pulled.


Tony
David Phillips
2003-11-19 14:35:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warren Okuma
Did anyone actually see the movie, and if so what do you think?
I saw the movie on opening day here in the US (Nov. 14) and found it
thoroughly enjoyable, and quite believable.

There were a few moments of "that's not how I envisioned it, but I can
understand how someone else might see it that way, and it's good" and
a couple of "hey, I don't think that's correct, but if it was shown as
it should be, it would get in the way of telling the story on film",
but I can't remember any specifics. None of those moments, though,
got in the way of a fine film. It will be fun to watch it again, and
look for those moments

It is neither "Master and Commander" nor "The Far Side of the World",
nor any other Patrick O'Brian book. It is, however, a very good film
reproduction of the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey/Maturin universe.

I greatly enjoy all 20 of the POB Aubrey/Maturin books, and was very,
very pleased by this film. I'll go see it again, and will likely
purchase the DVD when it comes out (esp. if it has commentary on the
making of the film)

which I'm also a listadmin of the ***@hmssurprise.org
Malcolm
2003-11-20 10:21:17 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com> Wed, 19 Nov
2003, David Phillips writes
Post by David Phillips
Post by Warren Okuma
Did anyone actually see the movie, and if so what do you think?
I saw the movie on opening day here in the US (Nov. 14) and found it
thoroughly enjoyable, and quite believable.
There were a few moments of "that's not how I envisioned it, but I can
understand how someone else might see it that way, and it's good" and
a couple of "hey, I don't think that's correct, but if it was shown as
it should be, it would get in the way of telling the story on film",
but I can't remember any specifics. None of those moments, though,
got in the way of a fine film. It will be fun to watch it again, and
look for those moments
It is neither "Master and Commander" nor "The Far Side of the World",
nor any other Patrick O'Brian book. It is, however, a very good film
reproduction of the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey/Maturin universe.
I greatly enjoy all 20 of the POB Aubrey/Maturin books, and was very,
very pleased by this film. I'll go see it again, and will likely
purchase the DVD when it comes out (esp. if it has commentary on the
making of the film)
There is also a good cookery book published in the US which contained
recipes derived from the meals mentioned in the books. Lobscouse and
and Spotted Dick was the title, written by Anne Chotzinoof Grossman and
Lisa Grossman Thomas (why do American ladies have such long names?) and
published by W.W. Norton (ISBN 0-393-04559-5). It states the books in
which each recipe appeared and contains a few quotations to give the
background to the recipe/meal.
--
Regards
Malcolm
www.tosd.demon.co.uk - HMS SOLEBAY and Battle class website.

I love to cook with wine: sometimes I even put it in the food.
Jack Linthicum
2003-11-20 17:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
There is also a good cookery book published in the US which contained
recipes derived from the meals mentioned in the books. Lobscouse and
and Spotted Dick was the title, written by Anne Chotzinoof Grossman and
Lisa Grossman Thomas (why do American ladies have such long names?) and
published by W.W. Norton (ISBN 0-393-04559-5). It states the books in
which each recipe appeared and contains a few quotations to give the
background to the recipe/meal.
There was a period of feminism in which it was considered ? to take
the husband's name. So many took their father's name (their maiden
name) and hyphenated it with the husband's. There were some who just
stayed with their father's name, one male for another. This looks
like mother-daughter.
Paul J Gans
2003-11-20 17:53:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm
2003, David Phillips writes
Post by David Phillips
Post by Warren Okuma
Did anyone actually see the movie, and if so what do you think?
I saw the movie on opening day here in the US (Nov. 14) and found it
thoroughly enjoyable, and quite believable.
There were a few moments of "that's not how I envisioned it, but I can
understand how someone else might see it that way, and it's good" and
a couple of "hey, I don't think that's correct, but if it was shown as
it should be, it would get in the way of telling the story on film",
but I can't remember any specifics. None of those moments, though,
got in the way of a fine film. It will be fun to watch it again, and
look for those moments
It is neither "Master and Commander" nor "The Far Side of the World",
nor any other Patrick O'Brian book. It is, however, a very good film
reproduction of the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey/Maturin universe.
I greatly enjoy all 20 of the POB Aubrey/Maturin books, and was very,
very pleased by this film. I'll go see it again, and will likely
purchase the DVD when it comes out (esp. if it has commentary on the
making of the film)
There is also a good cookery book published in the US which contained
recipes derived from the meals mentioned in the books. Lobscouse and
and Spotted Dick was the title, written by Anne Chotzinoof Grossman and
Lisa Grossman Thomas (why do American ladies have such long names?) and
published by W.W. Norton (ISBN 0-393-04559-5). It states the books in
which each recipe appeared and contains a few quotations to give the
background to the recipe/meal.
American ladies have long names because they do not hyphenate.
It seems that Anne was born Chotzinoof and married Grossman.
Their daughter (or so I'd guess) Lisa married a Thomas.
One gets one's geneology that way.

----- Paul J. Gans, grandfather to two multiply
named but non-hypenated grandchildren.
D. Spencer Hines
2003-11-17 19:03:55 UTC
Permalink
The film makes it quite clear the French "phantom ship" was
"Yankee-built before the Peace."

One sailor saw her being built and provides a model of her hull to
Captain Aubry, with proper framing. He and his mate receive an extra
ration of grog for their cleverness.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Barbarossa" <***@ucsd.edu> wrote in message news:whewitt-***@news1.ucsd.edu...

| In article <BBDE8FC8.13BA6%***@hotmail.com>,
| Michael W Cook <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
| > I heard all the American 'bad guys' from the book have been turned
| > into French 'bad guys' in the film.
| >
| > Can anyone confirm ?
|
| Oui. It is now 1805, and the Froggies are sailing what appears
| to be a knock-off of the USS Constitution, southern live oak and
| all.
Soren Larsen
2003-11-17 20:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
The film makes it quite clear the French "phantom ship" was
"Yankee-built before the Peace."
Not my period, but I seem to remember that American frigates at the
time was considered monstrosities with the sailing capabilities of
soapboxes
by the naval powers.

But Nappy was beefing up the French navy in 1801(?) so maybe there
is something to it.

Did the French buy American frigates?

Soren Larsen
raymond o'hara
2003-11-17 23:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soren Larsen
Post by D. Spencer Hines
The film makes it quite clear the French "phantom ship" was
"Yankee-built before the Peace."
Not my period, but I seem to remember that American frigates at the
time was considered monstrosities with the sailing capabilities of
soapboxes
by the naval powers.
But Nappy was beefing up the French navy in 1801(?) so maybe there
is something to it.
Did the French buy American frigates?
Soren Larsen
the french didn't buy american frigates , but the us gave the french a sol
to replace one run aground and lost during a victory celebration in boston
mass .
the hms rose based in bristol ct , a replica of a brit 32 from us rev
period , stars in the flick ..
Gregory E. Garland
2003-11-18 02:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soren Larsen
Post by D. Spencer Hines
The film makes it quite clear the French "phantom ship" was
"Yankee-built before the Peace."
Not my period, but I seem to remember that American frigates at the
time was considered monstrosities with the sailing capabilities of
soapboxes
by the naval powers.
I recall differently...namely that most people (especially the British)
realized that the large American frigates could do exactly what
they were designed to do. I.e., fast enough to outrun what they
couldn't outfight, and tough enough to outfight anything else.
David Loewe, Jr.
2003-11-18 06:47:15 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:15:34 GMT, "Gregory E. Garland"
Post by Gregory E. Garland
Post by Soren Larsen
Post by D. Spencer Hines
The film makes it quite clear the French "phantom ship" was
"Yankee-built before the Peace."
Not my period, but I seem to remember that American frigates at the
time was considered monstrosities with the sailing capabilities of
soapboxes
by the naval powers.
I recall differently...namely that most people (especially the British)
realized that the large American frigates could do exactly what
they were designed to do. I.e., fast enough to outrun what they
couldn't outfight, and tough enough to outfight anything else.
This was only *after* the War Of 1812...
--
"Does any one know where the love of God goes
When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
Gordon Lightfoot
Tom McDonald
2003-11-18 22:57:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:15:34 GMT, "Gregory E. Garland"
Post by Gregory E. Garland
Post by Soren Larsen
Post by D. Spencer Hines
The film makes it quite clear the French "phantom ship" was
"Yankee-built before the Peace."
Not my period, but I seem to remember that American frigates at the
time was considered monstrosities with the sailing capabilities of
soapboxes
by the naval powers.
I recall differently...namely that most people (especially the British)
realized that the large American frigates could do exactly what
they were designed to do. I.e., fast enough to outrun what they
couldn't outfight, and tough enough to outfight anything else.
This was only *after* the War Of 1812...
As I understand it, the American 44-gun frigates (USS
Constitution et al.), 3 in all, _were_ the equal of the
British frigates with more guns, and were faster than the Brit
frigates (and certainly than any ship-of-the-line). These,
with three 38-gun frigates, were in service at the start of
the War of 1812.

Tom McDonald
--
remove 'nohormel' to reply
raymond o'hara
2003-11-18 23:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:15:34 GMT, "Gregory E. Garland"
Post by Gregory E. Garland
Post by Soren Larsen
Post by D. Spencer Hines
The film makes it quite clear the French "phantom ship" was
"Yankee-built before the Peace."
Not my period, but I seem to remember that American frigates at the
time was considered monstrosities with the sailing capabilities of
soapboxes
by the naval powers.
I recall differently...namely that most people (especially the British)
realized that the large American frigates could do exactly what
they were designed to do. I.e., fast enough to outrun what they
couldn't outfight, and tough enough to outfight anything else.
This was only *after* the War Of 1812...
As I understand it, the American 44-gun frigates (USS
Constitution et al.), 3 in all, _were_ the equal of the
British frigates with more guns, and were faster than the Brit
frigates (and certainly than any ship-of-the-line). These,
with three 38-gun frigates, were in service at the start of
the War of 1812.
Tom McDonald
--
remove 'nohormel' to reply
the constitution was bigger than your average brit 38 , the us ships carried
24lb guns as opposed to brits 18lb guns . the constitution although rated a
44 usually carried 52 guns with chasers and a few extra on the broadsides .
a.spencer3
2003-11-19 09:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:15:34 GMT, "Gregory E. Garland"
Post by Gregory E. Garland
Post by Soren Larsen
Post by D. Spencer Hines
The film makes it quite clear the French "phantom ship" was
"Yankee-built before the Peace."
Not my period, but I seem to remember that American frigates at the
time was considered monstrosities with the sailing capabilities of
soapboxes
by the naval powers.
I recall differently...namely that most people (especially the British)
realized that the large American frigates could do exactly what
they were designed to do. I.e., fast enough to outrun what they
couldn't outfight, and tough enough to outfight anything else.
This was only *after* the War Of 1812...
As I understand it, the American 44-gun frigates (USS
Constitution et al.), 3 in all, _were_ the equal of the
British frigates with more guns, and were faster than the Brit
frigates (and certainly than any ship-of-the-line). These,
with three 38-gun frigates, were in service at the start of
the War of 1812.
Tom McDonald
--
remove 'nohormel' to reply
the constitution was bigger than your average brit 38 , the us ships carried
24lb guns as opposed to brits 18lb guns . the constitution although rated a
44 usually carried 52 guns with chasers and a few extra on the broadsides .
Didn't the Bolitho books based around the War of Independence cover the need
to match the fast, powerful US frigates? Or was that poetic licence?

Surreyman
Sally
2003-11-19 20:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory E. Garland
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:15:34 GMT, "Gregory E. Garland"
Post by Gregory E. Garland
Post by Soren Larsen
Post by D. Spencer Hines
The film makes it quite clear the French "phantom ship" was
"Yankee-built before the Peace."
Not my period, but I seem to remember that American frigates at the
time was considered monstrosities with the sailing capabilities of
soapboxes
by the naval powers.
I recall differently...namely that most people (especially the
British)
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
Post by Gregory E. Garland
realized that the large American frigates could do exactly what
they were designed to do. I.e., fast enough to outrun what they
couldn't outfight, and tough enough to outfight anything else.
This was only *after* the War Of 1812...
As I understand it, the American 44-gun frigates (USS
Constitution et al.), 3 in all, _were_ the equal of the
British frigates with more guns, and were faster than the Brit
frigates (and certainly than any ship-of-the-line). These,
with three 38-gun frigates, were in service at the start of
the War of 1812.
Tom McDonald
--
remove 'nohormel' to reply
the constitution was bigger than your average brit 38 , the us ships
carried
Post by raymond o'hara
24lb guns as opposed to brits 18lb guns . the constitution although rated
a
Post by raymond o'hara
44 usually carried 52 guns with chasers and a few extra on the broadsides
.
Didn't the Bolitho books based around the War of Independence cover the need
to match the fast, powerful US frigates? Or was that poetic licence?
Surreyman
The official website for the USS Constitution
http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/
General Characteristics
Builders: Col. George Claghorn, Edmond Harrt's Shipyard, Boston, Mass.
Unit Cost: $302,718 (1797 dollars)
Power Plant: 42,710 sq. ft. of sail on three masts
Length: 204 feet (62.16 meters) (billet head to taffrail); 175 feet at
waterline (53.32 meters)
Beam: 43.5 feet (13.25 meters)
Mast height: foremast, 198 feet (60.33 meters); mainmast, 220 feet
(67.03 meters); mizzenmast, 172.5 feet (52.56 meters)
Displacement: 2,200 tons
Speed: 13+ knots (approx. 14.95 miles per hour, 24 km. per hour)
Crew: 450 including 55 Marines and 30 boys (1797)
Armament: 32 24-pounder long guns; 20 32-pounder carronades; and, two
24-pounder bow chasers.
Boats: one 36-ft. long boat; two 30-ft. cutters, two 28-ft.
whaleboats; one 28-ft. gig; one 22-ft. jolly boat; and one 14-ft.
punt.
Anchors: two main bowers (5300 lbs.); one sheet anchor (5400 lbs.);
one stream anchor (1100 lbs.); and two kedge anchors (400 to 700 lbs).
Date Deployed: October 21, 1797
and by the way, a digitalize picture of the Constitution was used in
the movie.
the below - pictures of US Navy Sailing ships - can enlarge the
thumbnails.
http://www.archives.gov/publications/us_navy_ships/sailing_ships.html
David Loewe, Jr.
2003-11-19 05:48:38 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:57:37 -0600, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by David Loewe, Jr.
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:15:34 GMT, "Gregory E. Garland"
Post by Gregory E. Garland
Post by Soren Larsen
Post by D. Spencer Hines
The film makes it quite clear the French "phantom ship" was
"Yankee-built before the Peace."
Not my period, but I seem to remember that American frigates at the
time was considered monstrosities with the sailing capabilities of
soapboxes
by the naval powers.
I recall differently...namely that most people (especially the British)
realized that the large American frigates could do exactly what
they were designed to do. I.e., fast enough to outrun what they
couldn't outfight, and tough enough to outfight anything else.
This was only *after* the War Of 1812...
As I understand it, the American 44-gun frigates (USS
Constitution et al.), 3 in all, _were_ the equal of the
British frigates with more guns, and were faster than the Brit
frigates (and certainly than any ship-of-the-line). These,
with three 38-gun frigates, were in service at the start of
the War of 1812.
The Brits only found out how capable they were after they went up
against them - during the War Of 1812.
--
"Does any one know where the love of God goes
When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
Gordon Lightfoot
hippo
2003-11-19 06:26:44 UTC
Permalink
"Tom McDonald" wrote in message

-snip-
Post by Tom McDonald
As I understand it, the American 44-gun frigates (USS
Constitution et al.), 3 in all, _were_ the equal of the
British frigates with more guns, and were faster than the Brit
frigates (and certainly than any ship-of-the-line). These,
with three 38-gun frigates, were in service at the start of
the War of 1812.
Tom McDonald
The US 44s were vastly larger (and more expensive) than even the largest
Brit. Frigate until the completion of the Newcastle Class which were 64 gun
ships-of-the-line cut down one gun deck. The Constitution is over 200 feet
long, HMS Victory is something over 180. The theory was borrowed from the
French who thought building larger more powerful ships in each class would
stop their humiliating defeats at sea. The number of 'guns' to achieve rate
was only in long guns. Short range guns called carronades were not usually
counted in 'rated' ships unless they carried nothing else which was rare but
did happen. Most of the upper deck guns on the Constitution were carronades
which is why she is only counted as a 44 gun frigate. The broadside weight
of shot put out by the Constitution must have been nearly twice that of the
average Brit. 36 gun frigate at calculations:

Constitution:
2X 18 pounder chase guns = 36 pounds
20X24 pounder broadside guns = 480 pounds
6X32 pounder carronades = 192 pounds
Total = 708 pounds

British 36 gun frigate:
16X18 pounder broadside guns = 288 pounds
2X12 pounder upper deck guns = 24 pounds
2X24 pounder quarterdeck carronades = 48 pounds
Total = 360 pounds

Armaments varied over the decades but that's a fair estimate of comparative
offensive strengths remembering that heavier shot had more penetrating
power.

-the Troll
Hatheway, Darwin
2003-11-19 04:08:30 UTC
Permalink
When I toured the USS Constitution a few years back, I was told that this
ship had a certain kind of framing enhancement that made the ship a better
"sailer". Apparently, it didn't "sag" at the ends as much as most other
ships of its size. This might have represented a general technical
advantage held by the US ships.
Post by Soren Larsen
Post by D. Spencer Hines
The film makes it quite clear the French "phantom ship" was
"Yankee-built before the Peace."
Not my period, but I seem to remember that American frigates at the
time was considered monstrosities with the sailing capabilities of
soapboxes
by the naval powers.
But Nappy was beefing up the French navy in 1801(?) so maybe there
is something to it.
Did the French buy American frigates?
Soren Larsen
raymond o'hara
2003-11-19 06:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hatheway, Darwin
When I toured the USS Constitution a few years back, I was told that this
ship had a certain kind of framing enhancement that made the ship a better
"sailer". Apparently, it didn't "sag" at the ends as much as most other
ships of its size. This might have represented a general technical
advantage held by the US ships
the constitution had trouble being launched and it stuck in the ways . she
had to be jacked up and sent down again . in the 1850's rebuild sparked by
the poem old ironsides it was discovered that her keel was hogged a few feet
out of line by this trouble

i got to climb the constitutions main mast as a kid , my father worked at
the boston navy yard and did volunteer work on weekends to maintain her .
getting up is easy , but those ratlines are awfully narrow at the top when
it's time to come down .
Drew Nicholson
2003-11-18 01:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael W Cook
Post by Peter Skelton
It's good fun, and close to reality for Hollywood. It has no
trouble at all getting the willing suspension of disbelief. It's
no documentary.
I heard all the American 'bad guys' from the book have been turned into
French 'bad guys' in the film.
Can anyone confirm ?
Yes, the time of the story has been changed from the War of 1812 to the
Napoleonic wars.

I sorta think that woulda happened anyway; it _is_ an american film...
John Cartmell
2003-11-18 01:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Drew Nicholson
Yes, the time of the story has been changed from the War of 1812 to the
Napoleonic wars.
Now that really *does* confuse!

[Napoleonic Wars 1803-1815]
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Acorn Publisher magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com
Drew Nicholson
2003-11-18 13:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Cartmell
Post by Drew Nicholson
Yes, the time of the story has been changed from the War of 1812 to the
Napoleonic wars.
Now that really *does* confuse!
[Napoleonic Wars 1803-1815]
Right, well, early Napoleonic, then. During the "oughts".
Kathy
2003-11-17 19:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Skelton
Post by c***@yahoo.co.uk
2) What is your opinion of Das Boot?
" the most dramatic and brilliant naval documentary ever made"
I enjoyed both the film and the book. A quick scan of the shelves shows
no sign of the book, so I guess my ex must have pinched it.
--
Kathy
Cliff Wright
2003-11-20 00:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
----------------------------------------------
"Success On the High Seas"
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 14, 2003
The Washington Post
"The great director Billy Wilder was once asked about subtlety in
movies. "Of course, there must be subtleties," Wilder said. "Just make
sure you make them obvious."
The trailer for "Master and Commander," the seafaring epic opening
today, can hardly be described as subtle. It is a dazzling montage of
dramatic scenes of early 19th-century naval warfare, with cannonballs,
bodies, furniture and masts flying all over the place. Nonetheless, my
first reaction to a screening of the film was that it was beautiful and
brilliant, but I was not sure it would find a mass audience because of
its subtlety.
Yep... A Valid Concern. We Shall See.... ---- DSH
Perhaps subtlety is the wrong word. It perfectly describes director
Peter Weir's mind and manner, but perhaps refinement is the word for
what might hinder the film's commercial success. Weir gives us some
magnificently choreographed naval mayhem, but it is spread over two
hours of thoughtfulness and restraint.
The story, drawn from the Patrick O'Brian novels, is framed by battle
scenes between a British and a French warship. The TV trailer promises
" 'Gladiator' at sea." But the movie is really about the nature of
naval life in the age of sail, the nature of command and the nature of
friendship (between the ship's captain and the ship's doctor).
Although entirely fictional, "Master and Commander" might be considered
the most dramatic and brilliant naval documentary ever made. It should
be on the reading (viewing) list of every college course on the history
of naval warfare. Weir has given unbelievable attention to every detail
of the period -- the cookware, the rigging, the uniform buttons, the
drinking songs, the instruments of surgery.
And the mode of speech. This is where I worry about subtlety. I speak
English reasonably well, but I could only make out about half of the
dialogue. That is because Weir has maintained an unswerving fidelity to
the period dialect (the 1805 action is situated about halfway between us
and Shakespeare's time, and so are the diction and syntax). Pepper that
with nautical nouns you have never heard of, often issued in Russell
Crowe's barely audible drawl, place them in a cacophony of ship sounds
(another example of Weir's fidelity to authenticity), and you sometimes
wish that the movie had been accompanied by subtitles.
Weir's restraint carries into a remarkable austerity regarding women.
In the movie's version of a love interest, a Brazilian beauty in a small
boat selling wares offshore to the sailors of Captain Aubrey's ship
catches Aubrey's eye for a moment at a considerable distance. For about
five seconds you see Aubrey (Crowe) returning her glance.
And that is it. Indeed, that scene marks the only appearance of women
in the entire two hours of the film, setting a new record for sexual
austerity in an epic, a record previously held by "Lawrence of Arabia."
The austerity works as film, as does the fidelity to detail. My only
worry is that it won't sell to the kids who flock to see "Pirates of the
Caribbean," who expect sex and swashbuckling between their battle
scenes, and whose patronage is needed for the movie to recover its $135
million cost.
It is perhaps odd to worry about a film's box office, but when a film is
as splendid as this one, you want it to succeed. Perhaps it will be
helped in the United States by its timing. We are at war, and this is a
film not just about the conduct of war but about virtue in war. Its
depiction of the more ancient notions of duty, honor, patriotism and
devotion is reminiscent of what we glimpsed during live coverage of the
dash to Baghdad back in April but is now slipping from memory.
The film was first planned a decade ago, long before Sept. 11, long
before Afghanistan, long before Iraq. But it arrives at a time of war.
And combat on the high seas -- ships under unified command meeting in
duelistic engagement in open waters -- represents a distilled essence of
warfare that, in the hands of a morally serious man such as Weir, is
deeply clarifying.
Even better is the fact that the hero in his little British frigate is
up against a larger, more powerful French warship. That allows U.S.
audiences the particular satisfaction of seeing Anglo-Saxon cannonballs
puncturing the Tricolor. My favorite part was Aubrey rallying the
troops with a Henry V, St. Crispin's Day speech featuring: "Do you want
your children growing up and singing the Marseillaise?" It was met by a
chorus of deafening "No's." Maybe they should have put that in the
trailer too."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye, Perfidious France....
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Good Day.
As a fan of the late "Patrick O'Brien's" works I was pleased to see your opinions of my
fellow countryman Russell Crowe's version of Jack Aubrey.
Your detail of the movie amazes me in one respect, unless I'm getting confused with another of
the series I seem to remember that Jack got so close to the lady in Brazil that they had a
"natural" son who of all things became a Catholic bishop.
If my memory hasn't failed this must be the very first time in history that a movie has REMOVED
sex from the original boo!!!
I do have some reservations about Crowe playing Aubrey however, Jack is described as a large
tall man who tends to put on weight. Certainly he was clean shaven.
BTW who plays Stephen Maturin?
I will certainly see this movie as soon as we get it here, if it is as good as you say it will
soon join my DVD collection!
Have you read the very fascinating biography of Patrick O'Brien BTW, he rewrote his own life
several times as well as writing all his books.
I wonder how the English of the movie compares with Jane Austen for example? Though I bet Jane
would have the Vapours at the language!!!
Best regards.
Cliff Wright.
D. Spencer Hines
2003-11-20 02:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Aloha,

I agree with you.

Paul Bettany plays Dr. Stephen Maturin, excellently cast, in my
opinion ---- and a very young actor [reportedly 11 during the shoot]
named Max Perkis turns in a quite winning and professional performance
as a noble midshipman, Lord Blakeney.

No, Captain Jack Aubrey simply gazes somewhat lustfully at the Brazilian
beauty for perhaps five seconds and that's it ---- no sex scenes.

Quite Remarkable, as you say. She is quite some distance away in a boat
alongside H.M.S. Surprise, whereas he is standing topside, well above
her, at the rail. Risky indeed for Hollywood to have so little sex in
a film.

I was particularly pleased that several of the more complicated nautical
matters are simply NOT fully "explained" to the Lowest Common Landlubber
Denominator. People all around me were deeply puzzled about a number of
them ---- but Peter Weir maintains the film's excellent, rapid pace and
just moves on. One Naval Historian was even roundly confused, I'm told.

_Weather Gauge_ is the one nautical term explained to landlubbers ----
and Dr. Maturin, who is their stand-in ---- because it is crucial to
understanding the action.

Delightful! The film is designed for smart, alert, people who pay
attention and listen carefully. It reminded me of the Howard Hawks
Bogart/Bacall _The Big Sleep_ in that respect.

It also encourages repeat viewings to catch more detail. <g>

The opening scene alone is a remarkable practical lesson in leadership.
_Beat To Quarters_....

It's quite an extraordinary film ---- and your fellow Kiwi is
superb ---- I think you'll agree he fits the role like a finely-tailored
glove.

Best Actor nominations SHOULD flow ---- which is not to say that they
will.

Crowe is properly beefy and looks taller in his uniform and is often
photographed from below. He also wears his hat sideways ---- which I
understand Aubrey does in the novels. He also tells us he was with
Nelson at the Battle of the Nile [1799]. He's clean-shaven.

I've not read the "O'Brian" biography but I know about his being a
poseur who abandoned a wife and a daughter with spina bifida and
therefore took on an alias. He also seems to have lied about attending
Oxford and serving in the RAF?

The English has an archaic flavor, but not so much so as to confuse
[me]. Still, I suspect many Americans will not be able to catch all the
dialogue ---- particularly that of the sailors ---- who speak naturally
in various regional accents ---- with a preponderance of Cockney or
Estuary, I suppose.

The DVD should be a treat indeed. Perhaps we'll see a Special Edition
by March 2004.

Cheers,

Spencer Hines

"Cliff Wright" <***@auckland.ac.nz> wrote in message news:3fbc0ac3$***@news.auckland.ac.nz...
|
|
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:

| > A Historical Film For Grown-Ups:
| > ----------------------------------------------
| >
| > "Success On the High Seas"
| >
| > By Charles Krauthammer
| >
| > Friday, November 14, 2003
| > The Washington Post
| >
| > "The great director Billy Wilder was once asked about subtlety in
| > movies. "Of course, there must be subtleties," Wilder said. "Just
make
| > sure you make them obvious."
| >
| > The trailer for "Master and Commander," the seafaring epic opening
| > today, can hardly be described as subtle. It is a dazzling montage
of
| > dramatic scenes of early 19th-century naval warfare, with
cannonballs,
| > bodies, furniture and masts flying all over the place. Nonetheless,
my
| > first reaction to a screening of the film was that it was beautiful
and
| > brilliant, but I was not sure it would find a mass audience because
of
| > its subtlety.
| >
| > Yep... A Valid Concern. We Shall See.... ---- DSH
| >
| > Perhaps subtlety is the wrong word. It perfectly describes
director
| > Peter Weir's mind and manner, but perhaps refinement is the word for
| > what might hinder the film's commercial success. Weir gives us some
| > magnificently choreographed naval mayhem, but it is spread over two
| > hours of thoughtfulness and restraint.
| >
| > The story, drawn from the Patrick O'Brian novels, is framed by
battle
| > scenes between a British and a French warship. The TV trailer
promises
| > " 'Gladiator' at sea." But the movie is really about the nature of
| > naval life in the age of sail, the nature of command and the nature
of
| > friendship (between the ship's captain and the ship's doctor).
| >
| > Although entirely fictional, "Master and Commander" might be
considered
| > the most dramatic and brilliant naval documentary ever made. It
should
| > be on the reading (viewing) list of every college course on the
history
| > of naval warfare. Weir has given unbelievable attention to every
detail
| > of the period -- the cookware, the rigging, the uniform buttons, the
| > drinking songs, the instruments of surgery.
| >
| > And the mode of speech. This is where I worry about subtlety. I
speak
| > English reasonably well, but I could only make out about half of the
| > dialogue. That is because Weir has maintained an unswerving
fidelity to
| > the period dialect (the 1805 action is situated about halfway
between us
| > and Shakespeare's time, and so are the diction and syntax). Pepper
that
| > with nautical nouns you have never heard of, often issued in Russell
| > Crowe's barely audible drawl, place them in a cacophony of ship
sounds
| > (another example of Weir's fidelity to authenticity), and you
sometimes
| > wish that the movie had been accompanied by subtitles.
| >
| > Weir's restraint carries into a remarkable austerity regarding
women.
| > In the movie's version of a love interest, a Brazilian beauty in a
small
| > boat selling wares offshore to the sailors of Captain Aubrey's ship
| > catches Aubrey's eye for a moment at a considerable distance. For
about
| > five seconds you see Aubrey (Crowe) returning her glance.
| >
| > And that is it. Indeed, that scene marks the only appearance of
women
| > in the entire two hours of the film, setting a new record for sexual
| > austerity in an epic, a record previously held by "Lawrence of
Arabia."
| >
| > The austerity works as film, as does the fidelity to detail. My
only
| > worry is that it won't sell to the kids who flock to see "Pirates of
the
| > Caribbean," who expect sex and swashbuckling between their battle
| > scenes, and whose patronage is needed for the movie to recover its
$135
| > million cost.
| >
| > It is perhaps odd to worry about a film's box office, but when a
film is
| > as splendid as this one, you want it to succeed. Perhaps it will be
| > helped in the United States by its timing. We are at war, and this
is a
| > film not just about the conduct of war but about virtue in war. Its
| > depiction of the more ancient notions of duty, honor, patriotism and
| > devotion is reminiscent of what we glimpsed during live coverage of
the
| > dash to Baghdad back in April but is now slipping from memory.
| >
| > The film was first planned a decade ago, long before Sept. 11, long
| > before Afghanistan, long before Iraq. But it arrives at a time of
war.
| > And combat on the high seas -- ships under unified command meeting
in
| > duelistic engagement in open waters -- represents a distilled
essence of
| > warfare that, in the hands of a morally serious man such as Weir, is
| > deeply clarifying.
| >
| > Even better is the fact that the hero in his little British frigate
is
| > up against a larger, more powerful French warship. That allows U.S.
| > audiences the particular satisfaction of seeing Anglo-Saxon
cannonballs
| > puncturing the Tricolor. My favorite part was Aubrey rallying the
| > troops with a Henry V, St. Crispin's Day speech featuring: "Do you
want
| > your children growing up and singing the Marseillaise?" It was met
by a
| > chorus of deafening "No's." Maybe they should have put that in the
| > trailer too."
|
Post by D. Spencer Hines
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
| >
| > Aye, Perfidious France....
| >
| > D. Spencer Hines
| >
| > Lux et Veritas et Libertas
| >
| > Vires et Honor
| >
| Good Day.
| As a fan of the late "Patrick O'Brien's" works I was pleased to see
your opinions of my
| fellow countryman Russell Crowe's version of Jack Aubrey.
| Your detail of the movie amazes me in one respect, unless I'm getting
confused with another of
| the series I seem to remember that Jack got so close to the lady in
Brazil that they had a
| "natural" son who of all things became a Catholic bishop.
| If my memory hasn't failed this must be the very first time in history
that a movie has REMOVED
| sex from the original boo!!!
| I do have some reservations about Crowe playing Aubrey however, Jack
is described as a large
| tall man who tends to put on weight. Certainly he was clean shaven.
| BTW who plays Stephen Maturin?
| I will certainly see this movie as soon as we get it here, if it is as
good as you say it will
| soon join my DVD collection!
| Have you read the very fascinating biography of Patrick O'Brien BTW,
he rewrote his own life
| several times as well as writing all his books.
| I wonder how the English of the movie compares with Jane Austen for
example? Though I bet Jane
| would have the Vapours at the language!!!
| Best regards.
| Cliff Wright.
raymond o'hara
2003-11-20 04:28:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Aloha,
I agree with you.
Paul Bettany plays Dr. Stephen Maturin, excellently cast, in my
opinion ---- and a very young actor [reportedly 11 during the shoot]
named Max Perkis turns in a quite winning and professional performance
as a noble midshipman, Lord Blakeney.
the kid is excellent ,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
No, Captain Jack Aubrey simply gazes somewhat lustfully at the Brazilian
beauty for perhaps five seconds and that's it ---- no sex scenes.
jaws also left out the sex scenes to the betterment of that story too ,
weir kept his eye on the ball .
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Quite Remarkable, as you say. She is quite some distance away in a boat
alongside H.M.S. Surprise, whereas he is standing topside, well above
her, at the rail. Risky indeed for Hollywood to have so little sex in
a film.
he's standing right above her with a good view of her
Post by D. Spencer Hines
I was particularly pleased that several of the more complicated nautical
matters are simply NOT fully "explained" to the Lowest Common Landlubber
Denominator. People all around me were deeply puzzled about a number of
them ---- but Peter Weir maintains the film's excellent, rapid pace and
just moves on. One Naval Historian was even roundly confused, I'm told.
the language stuff is overated the woman i saw it with had no trouble
following it .
i've read enough naval history that i don't notice anything odd .
Post by D. Spencer Hines
_Weather Gauge_ is the one nautical term explained to landlubbers ----
and Dr. Maturin, who is their stand-in ---- because it is crucial to
understanding the action.
Delightful! The film is designed for smart, alert, people who pay
attention and listen carefully. It reminded me of the Howard Hawks
Bogart/Bacall _The Big Sleep_ in that respect.
It also encourages repeat viewings to catch more detail. <g>
The opening scene alone is a remarkable practical lesson in leadership.
_Beat To Quarters_....
It's quite an extraordinary film ---- and your fellow Kiwi is
superb ---- I think you'll agree he fits the role like a finely-tailored
glove.
Best Actor nominations SHOULD flow ---- which is not to say that they
will.
Crowe is properly beefy and looks taller in his uniform and is often
photographed from below. He also wears his hat sideways ---- which I
understand Aubrey does in the novels. He also tells us he was with
Nelson at the Battle of the Nile [1799]. He's clean-shaven.
I've not read the "O'Brian" biography but I know about his being a
poseur who abandoned a wife and a daughter with spina bifida and
therefore took on an alias. He also seems to have lied about attending
Oxford and serving in the RAF?
The English has an archaic flavor, but not so much so as to confuse
[me]. Still, I suspect many Americans will not be able to catch all the
dialogue ---- particularly that of the sailors ---- who speak naturally
in various regional accents ---- with a preponderance of Cockney or
Estuary, I suppose.
the americans in the theater i was in {everyone there} had no trouible with
dialog
a.spencer3
2003-11-20 09:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
He also tells us he was with
Nelson at the Battle of the Nile [1799].
1798

Surreyman
Mark Sieving
2003-11-22 03:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Risky indeed for Hollywood to have so little sex in
a film.
That was actually a bit of a departure from the book. In the
book, the reason Midshipman Hollum was thought to be a Jonah was
because he was carrying on an affair with the gunner's pretty
young wife. (It was not uncommon for warrant officers to have
their wives on board.) Hollum and the wife were eventually
murdered by the gunner, who later committed suicide.

Mark Sieving
Julian Richards
2003-11-22 10:03:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Sieving
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Risky indeed for Hollywood to have so little sex in
a film.
That was actually a bit of a departure from the book. In the
book, the reason Midshipman Hollum was thought to be a Jonah was
because he was carrying on an affair with the gunner's pretty
young wife. (It was not uncommon for warrant officers to have
their wives on board.) Hollum and the wife were eventually
murdered by the gunner, who later committed suicide.
There is a book called "Trawler" about the deep sea fishermen; I'm
sorry but I don't remember the author, I merely heard excerpts when it
was Radio 4's "book of the week". It is the most dangerous job in
Britain (26 boats lost a year!). That makes them immensely
superstitious. Women are not allowed on board and cannot even touch
the boat from the quayside.

Traditional superstitions include never wearing green on board and
turning their backs on a clergyman if you meet one on the way to the
boat. Recent additions are not alllowing washing machines to be run
before sailing due to the turning of the water.

It was a fascinating tale of both the men and the odd things that they
have brought up from the deep.



--

Julian Richards
julian-richards "at" ntlworld.com

"My son has asked for a pair of Nike trainers.
He's ten years old, he should make his own"

"I bought a CD of whale music. Imagine my
disappointment when I got home to discover
that it was actual a cover version by a tribute
band of dolphins"
D. Spencer Hines
2003-11-23 06:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Yes, that would have been an unnecessary diversion from the main thrust
of the plot ---- not really permissible in a mass-market film. I'm glad
Weir filmed it as he did.

Whatever happened to Cliff Wright?

DSH
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Risky indeed for Hollywood to have so little sex in
a film.
That was actually a bit of a departure from the book. In the
book, the reason Midshipman Hollum was thought to be a Jonah was
because he was carrying on an affair with the gunner's pretty
young wife. (It was not uncommon for warrant officers to have
their wives on board.) Hollum and the wife were eventually
murdered by the gunner, who later committed suicide.

Mark Sieving
Vaughan Sanders
2003-11-22 20:48:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yes, that would have been an unnecessary diversion from the main thrust
of the plot ---- not really permissible in a mass-market film. I'm glad
Weir filmed it as he did.
Whatever happened to Cliff Wright?
DSH
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Risky indeed for Hollywood to have so little sex in
a film.
That was actually a bit of a departure from the book. In the
book, the reason Midshipman Hollum was thought to be a Jonah was
because he was carrying on an affair with the gunner's pretty
young wife. (It was not uncommon for warrant officers to have
their wives on board.) Hollum and the wife were eventually
murdered by the gunner, who later committed suicide.
Mark Sieving
It was not uncommon for the wives of lower ranks to serve on a British
Man-o-War, Spence. This was denied by the Admiralty when the wives who
fought at Trafalgar for example, demanded the same pension rights as
their husbands.

This btw, is were the saying *Son of a Gun* comes from.

Jamie
D. Spencer Hines
2003-11-22 13:12:02 UTC
Permalink
You've totally misread what I wrote.

Please read it again.

I never said women were not to be found on ships of the Royal Navy.

"Show a leg...." is another well-known expression.

DSH

"Vaughan Sanders" <***@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message news:bpoklk$91j$***@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
|
| "D. Spencer Hines" <***@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message
| news:qFNvb.74$***@eagle.america.net...
| > Yes, that would have been an unnecessary diversion from the main
| thrust
| > of the plot ---- not really permissible in a mass-market film. I'm
| glad
| > Weir filmed it as he did.
| >
| > Whatever happened to Cliff Wright?
| >
| > DSH
| >
| > "Mark Sieving" <***@mchsi.com> wrote in message
| > news:***@4ax.com...
| >
| > "D. Spencer Hines" <***@usa.yale.edu> wrote:
| >
| > >Risky indeed for Hollywood to have so little sex in
| > >a film.
| >
| > That was actually a bit of a departure from the book. In the
| > book, the reason Midshipman Hollum was thought to be a Jonah was
| > because he was carrying on an affair with the gunner's pretty
| > young wife. (It was not uncommon for warrant officers to have
| > their wives on board.) Hollum and the wife were eventually
| > murdered by the gunner, who later committed suicide.
| >
| > Mark Sieving
| >
|
| It was not uncommon for the wives of lower ranks to serve on a British
| Man-o-War, Spence. This was denied by the Admiralty when the wives who
| fought at Trafalgar for example, demanded the same pension rights as
| their husbands.
|
| This btw, is were the saying *Son of a Gun* comes from.
|
| Jamie
Mike Lechnar
2003-11-20 15:40:34 UTC
Permalink
My wife and I went to see it last Friday and were suitably impressed. A
great film. I noticed many teenaged girls in the audience. I found
that more than a little strange considering the movie. I mentioned this
to my wife on the walk back to the car. She turned and fixed me with
the "How can you miss something so obvious gaze?" and said: "Russell
Crow in the tight, white pants silly." I guess she likes movies based
on historical fiction less than I thought.

Mike Lechnar


SNIP
Post by Cliff Wright
Good Day.
As a fan of the late "Patrick O'Brien's" works I was pleased to see your opinions of my
fellow countryman Russell Crowe's version of Jack Aubrey.
Your detail of the movie amazes me in one respect, unless I'm getting confused with another of
the series I seem to remember that Jack got so close to the lady in Brazil that they had a
"natural" son who of all things became a Catholic bishop.
If my memory hasn't failed this must be the very first time in history that a movie has REMOVED
sex from the original boo!!!
I do have some reservations about Crowe playing Aubrey however, Jack is described as a large
tall man who tends to put on weight. Certainly he was clean shaven.
BTW who plays Stephen Maturin?
I will certainly see this movie as soon as we get it here, if it is as good as you say it will
soon join my DVD collection!
Have you read the very fascinating biography of Patrick O'Brien BTW, he rewrote his own life
several times as well as writing all his books.
I wonder how the English of the movie compares with Jane Austen for example? Though I bet Jane
would have the Vapours at the language!!!
Best regards.
Cliff Wright.
Ogden Johnson III
2003-11-20 20:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Lechnar
My wife and I went to see it last Friday and were suitably impressed. A
great film. I noticed many teenaged girls in the audience. I found
that more than a little strange considering the movie. I mentioned this
to my wife on the walk back to the car. She turned and fixed me with
the "How can you miss something so obvious gaze?" and said: "Russell
Crow in the tight, white pants silly." I guess she likes movies based
on historical fiction less than I thought.
You really let down the side with that one, Mike.

OJ III
[Who has never been baffled why his war- and SF-movie-hating wife
encouraged him to take her to see "Courage Under Fire" and the
"Matrix" movies.]
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]
Mike Lechnar
2003-11-20 21:46:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ogden Johnson III
Post by Mike Lechnar
My wife and I went to see it last Friday and were suitably impressed. A
great film. I noticed many teenaged girls in the audience. I found
that more than a little strange considering the movie. I mentioned this
to my wife on the walk back to the car. She turned and fixed me with
the "How can you miss something so obvious gaze?" and said: "Russell
Crow in the tight, white pants silly." I guess she likes movies based
on historical fiction less than I thought.
You really let down the side with that one, Mike.
OJ III
[Who has never been baffled why his war- and SF-movie-hating wife
encouraged him to take her to see "Courage Under Fire" and the
"Matrix" movies.]
--
I'm an aerospace engineer by trade and temperment. I could do no less.
D. Spencer Hines
2003-11-20 22:16:06 UTC
Permalink
You and your wife both sound like smart people.

Teenaged girls also enjoy _The Texas Chainsaw Massacre_ ---- not
surprising.

DSH

"Mike Lechnar" <***@boing.com> wrote in message news:***@boing.com...
|
| Ogden Johnson III wrote:
| >
| > Mike Lechnar <***@boing.com> wrote:
| >
| > >My wife and I went to see it last Friday and were suitably
impressed. A
| > >great film. I noticed many teenaged girls in the audience. I
found
| > >that more than a little strange considering the movie. I mentioned
this
| > >to my wife on the walk back to the car. She turned and fixed me
with
| > >the "How can you miss something so obvious gaze?" and said:
"Russell
| > >Crow in the tight, white pants silly." I guess she likes movies
based
| > >on historical fiction less than I thought.
| >
| > You really let down the side with that one, Mike.
| >
| > OJ III
| > [Who has never been baffled why his war- and SF-movie-hating wife
| > encouraged him to take her to see "Courage Under Fire" and the
| > "Matrix" movies.]
| > --
|
| I'm an aerospace engineer by trade and temperment. I could do no
less.
LizR
2003-11-20 23:43:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ogden Johnson III
Post by Mike Lechnar
My wife and I went to see it last Friday and were suitably impressed. A
great film. I noticed many teenaged girls in the audience. I found
that more than a little strange considering the movie. I mentioned this
to my wife on the walk back to the car. She turned and fixed me with
the "How can you miss something so obvious gaze?" and said: "Russell
Crow in the tight, white pants silly." I guess she likes movies based
on historical fiction less than I thought.
You really let down the side with that one, Mike.
OJ III
[Who has never been baffled why his war- and SF-movie-hating wife
encouraged him to take her to see "Courage Under Fire" and the
"Matrix" movies.]
Has she seen Spy Kids II ? :-)

Liz
Ogden Johnson III
2003-11-21 21:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by LizR
Post by Ogden Johnson III
OJ III
[Who has never been baffled why his war- and SF-movie-hating wife
encouraged him to take her to see "Courage Under Fire" and the
"Matrix" movies.]
Has she seen Spy Kids II ? :-)
AFAIK, no. Not for Antonio Banderas, not even for Denzel Washington
or Lawrence Fishburne. There's a limit to her masochism in pursuit of
eye candy. [As there is to mine.]
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]
ER
2003-11-22 01:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ogden Johnson III
Post by LizR
Post by Ogden Johnson III
OJ III
[Who has never been baffled why his war- and SF-movie-hating wife
encouraged him to take her to see "Courage Under Fire" and the
"Matrix" movies.]
Has she seen Spy Kids II ? :-)
AFAIK, no. Not for Antonio Banderas, not even for Denzel Washington
or Lawrence Fishburne. There's a limit to her masochism in pursuit of
eye candy. [As there is to mine.]
It's brilliant!
To me it's the perfectly crafted film. AB for the mums, Geena Davis for the dads and
an all-action thriller for everyone. Plus it has believable female roles in it (the
little girl's very sussed and the boy is cute but a clutz). Oh, and there's Alan
Cumming for those otherwise not catered for:-)

Liz
Jonathan Howland
2003-11-20 17:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff Wright
Good Day.
As a fan of the late "Patrick O'Brien's" works I was pleased to
see your opinions of my fellow countryman Russell Crowe's version of
Jack Aubrey.
Your detail of the movie amazes me in one respect, unless I'm getting
confused with another of the series I seem to remember that Jack got so
close to the lady in Brazil that they had a "natural" son who of all
things became a Catholic bishop.
you are slightly confused. In "The Reverse of the Medal" (the book
after "Far Side of the World") Jack encounters his "natural son"--the
result of an African liason from much earlier in his career
Post by Cliff Wright
If my memory hasn't failed this must be the very first time in history
that a movie has REMOVED
sex from the original boo!!!
Actually, in FSW, (the book) there were a lot of references to sex which
the movie amazingly skipped. There was a lengthy subplot concerning the
gunner (who was impotent) and the gunner's wife (who had an affair with
Hollom)--it provided much more background to suicides and the like.
Post by Cliff Wright
I do have some reservations about Crowe playing Aubrey however, Jack is
described as a large tall man who tends to put on weight. Certainly he
was clean shaven.
BTW who plays Stephen Maturin?
I will certainly see this movie as soon as we get it here, if it is as
good as you say it will
soon join my DVD collection!
Have you read the very fascinating biography of Patrick O'Brien BTW, he
rewrote his own life several times as well as writing all his books.
I wonder how the English of the movie compares with Jane Austen for
example? Though I bet Jane would have the Vapours at the language!!!
Best regards.
Cliff Wright.
My take on the movie was that if you are a true died in the wool Patrick
O'Brien fan, (as I am)--somebody who has gotten through all 20 several
times each--you could let yourself be disappointed at the frequent gross
innacuracies and significant differences from the books. That would be
a mistake, because the movie was quite enjoyable and had lots of
vignettes straight from many of the books, which did lend some of the
flavor of the books to the movie. That was a treat, and something which
made it much better than most of the very lame movies which have been
made from excellent books

Jonathan Howland
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...