Badmovies.org Forum

I was  with some of my classmates and I and this girl was talking about Master and Commander. She said she hated it because the book had alot more plus she said the CGI was too fake! My impression was stunned and shock. The only reason she liked it was because of the young 20 something blond-curely haired British actors! I thought what a dumb excuse. It is not just her but some of you on the board are comparing the origional book to the movie. We need to stop it. There is a distinct difference between books and movie a movie can go on for normally one and a half hours, but books could go to 600 pages. With all those extra pages you can add alot of details to the story in time which you can't have in the movie. The only thing a book to movie translation should be compared to are (this can also be used for comic book translations too!)
-How well does it stay true to the story
-Are the characters still the same only with faces of famous(or not so famous-Manhunter)
-Does it keep some of the major suspense
-Does it keep the same morale of the story(most have one!)

Then again some of the true believers will not be satisfied so they should really just shut-up. As for the CGI come on do you want to scar pretty-boy's face.

yeah that true ppl tend to compare to much the book and the movies. i do it too when it comes to comic book movies. when i saw battle royale i read the 600 page book first. i knew every detail wasnt going to be in it but i thought it was true to the book.

"Dont be a fool for ur tool"

While I do agree that your female classmate's analysis of Master & Commander was WAY off I must admit that for some odd reason it didn't blow my socks off.

The film was lacking something that I just could not and still cannot put my finger on.

I didn't hate the film but I didn't really go ga-ga over it either.
I do admit that it painted a rather fascinating portrait of life on a British Man-O-Wat during that time period.

Do any of you feel the same way and do you also think that it was lacking something?



Post Edited (05-04-04 02:38)

It's hard, sometimes, to seperate the book from the movie. I suppose if I enjoy a book then I have a great expectation that the movie be as good. Obviously, when reducing a book into a 2 hour film, bits are going to get cut. This can be a good thing. For instance, in The Godfather, movie goers were spared the whole gynecological subplot involving the bridesmaid that Sonny nailed to the door. A very good thing. And films based on Tom Clancy books spare us alot of the rambling that goes on in his books. But, I guess I agree that as long as the movie stays true to the spirit of the book, all is well.

It's hard, sometimes, to seperate the book from the movie. I suppose if I enjoy a book then I have a great expectation that the movie be as good. Obviously, when reducing a book into a 2 hour film, bits are going to get cut. This can be a good thing. For instance, in The Godfather, movie goers were spared the whole gynecological subplot involving the bridesmaid that Sonny nailed to the door. A very good thing. And films based on Tom Clancy books spare us alot of the rambling that goes on in his books. But, I guess I agree that as long as the movie stays true to the spirit of the book, all is well.

>For instance, in The Godfather, movie goers were spared the whole
>gynecological subplot involving the bridesmaid that Sonny nailed to the door.

Huh?

JohnL wrote:

> >For instance, in The Godfather, movie goers were spared the
> whole
> >gynecological subplot involving the bridesmaid that Sonny
> nailed to the door.
>
> Huh?

In The Godfather(the book), there was a subplot involving the bridesmaid that Sonny, had sex with at the wedding. The basis of the subplot was that owing to extremely large naughty bits, she could never be satisfied by a man(except by Sonny who also had freak naughty bits). Eventually she hooks up with a plastic surgeon who nips and tucks...voila....normal bits!

 I mentioned this to illustrate how, in some cases, it was good that some things were trimmed from a book when making a movie....see, that bit(or those bits) weren't featured in the film.

Gecko Brothers wrote:

> -How well does it stay true to the story
> -Are the characters still the same only with faces of famous(or
> not so famous-Manhunter)
> -Does it keep some of the major suspense
> -Does it keep the same morale of the story(most have one!)
>

First of all, I loved M&C.  I have read many  of POB's books, the whole series of Aubrey Maturin novels plus Golden Ocean AT LEAST TWICE (and several even more than that).  I also sail, so I have a passion for the stories from that standpoint as well.

Okay, having said that, I would say that if I used your criteria listed, I'd have to assert M&C was *not* true to the book Master and Commander.

Story: The movie was an amalgam of several of the books, notably Master and Commander (#1) and Far Side of the World (#10), with bits and pieces thrown in from others as well.  The enemy frigate in M&C was Spanish (and Aubrey's ship was a 14 gun sloop-of-war, not the frigate Surprise) and the battles occured in the Mediterranean Sea.  Aubrey was a Commander, not a Post Captain (he was made post in #2, apty called 'Post Captain').  Incidentally, this battle really occured roughly as described by POB (Aubrey was based on Lord Cochran).

Characters: Those aboard ship in the movie were not the same as those aboard ship in the book Far Side of the World.  In the book M&C, Mowett, for example, was a Midshipman; in FSotW (book), he was a Lieutenant, as depicted in the movie.  The whole subplot with Hollom was glossed over in the movie, but he was murdered in the book, not killed himself (he was cheating with the gunners wife, who later did kill himself).  There were key characters not on board in the movie that were in FSotW (book), and others on board that were not in the book (but were in other books).  

Suspense:  Well, since the story was mishmashed from several, this one is hard to say.  I suppose the main story line, the battle with the larger frigate is true to the Sophie vs. Cacafeugo (which represented the real ships Speedy and El Gamo), was done okay, but in FSotW, the enemy ship was American and not so much bigger than the Surprise.  The Surprise did not sink or capture the Norfolk in the book.  

Moral:  These are historical novels.  I don't think POB was trying for 'moral' so much as he was just trying to tell interesting stories, set in historical situations.  His was a flair for description and characterization, as well as really, really good use of period language.  Hmmm.  I don't think I have read any of his books and came away with 'wow, that taught me a moral lesson.'  If there is one, it has to do with man vs. nature and possibly the vagaries and brutality of warfare.  Okay, here the book(s) and movie agree perfectly.  

So, if I only used your criteria, I'd say the movie failed.  However, I really enjoyed it, and I don't think it failed at all.

Just my two cents.

>In The Godfather(the book), there was a subplot involving the bridesmaid that
>Sonny, had sex with at the wedding.

Ok, thanks for the description. When you said "nailed to the door" and knowing that the characters in those movies could get nasty, I was thinking more literally.