Talk:Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

message: As always, it's amusing to watch the non-Americans gloom onto any production to call their own based solely on who directed it, who starred in it and/or the subject matter. 
But the bottom line is to be found in the closing credits: United States is listed as FIRST country of origin. 3 AMERICAN film production studios made & release the film. But, if it helps their small sense of self to claim otherwise on Wikipedia, have at it lads....
Yes, I have corrected it. This is (only) an American production, not an American-British-Australian production  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.100.199 (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Country of origin

message: Re the first paragraph - is a quote from a Playstation magazine about this film valid, relevant or credible? Oliver9184 (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First para

message: "The film is largely faithful in plot to the novels, although there are a few major departures from the series.[citation needed]"
I don't believe a citation is needed here.  It seems obvious that the sources are the movie and the novels.  Boris B (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no.  Anytime you get into differences between a book and the associated film, you need several citations.  Otherwise, it's just plain old original research. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubbish!  The implied citations are the movie and the book.  It is not true that everything on Wikipedia requires a citation.  Much good material stands by consencus alone (in that no one has disputed it).  I note also that part of the article has been tag bombed (unnecessarily IMHO) 86.178.9.171 (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation? 

message: In the article it says that the movie alludes to Maturin's role in British Intelligence when he mentions that the French have spies. Could it not also be possible that, at the end of the film, when he reports that the French doctor has been dead for months, that this is also an allusion? Maybe I'm wrong. I always wondered how he would have known that. I assumed he simply read the ship's (Acheron) log; but it seems ridiculous to think that Aubrey would not have done so as well. Just a thought. Cjcaesar (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the film, it's clear that Maturin speaks French (as well as Spanish), and he simply asked them.  After all, he is the Surgeon of Surprise; it makes sense that they would collaborate on tending the wounded after the battle, and so he would certainly have known that their surgeon was dead.  I don't think the film really deals with Maturin as an intelligence operator at all, other than the 'the French have their spies in England ans elsewhere, as do we' quote you mention, which is pretty soft anyway. Sigma-6 (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Maturin the spy

message: The section that says "Great efforts were made to reproduce the authentic look and feel of life aboard an early nineteenth-century man-of-war." needs qualifying. I remember a particularly scathing review that pointed out that the boards visible after the Surprise was attacked and damaged were clearly modern 4" pine planks, not the wide (12" or more) oak planks used at the time. No ship would have been built of softwood, ffs!86.133.208.116 (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there were a number of frigates built from fir or pine and known as the "fir frigates". See HMS Boreas (1757), HMS Cydnus (1813) and Scamander class frigates for examples. Dabbler (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

text: If the source is a reliable one, then it may be worth mentioning in the criticism section, but the statement doesn't need qualifying. It says great efforts were made, but makes no judgement on the results. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a look for it. 86.133.208.116 (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that whether they succeeded or not isn't really the same as whether, as they say, they tried.  They did try, and they did quite well.  1. Aubrey says "A man who stood beside me on the gunwale..." when that man stood beside him on the taffrail.  2. Mr. Allan, the sailing master, inappropriately sends a master's mate to go and do the work of a topman in a life-or-death crisis, and is then rather inexplicably surprised at the results, which is silly--for all the difference it would have made he might just as well have gone up and failed at that himself. 3. Nobody but nobody ever built privateers the size of eighteen pounder frigates (much less did they crew them with actual, uniformed, French naval officers). Only governments could afford to do that, and until razees of Ships-of-the-Line came along, even Britain didn't build warships that way; it was only the United States, who pioneered the very expensive class. 4. There's no way in the wildest dreams of any naval historian that Lucky Jack's plan for the final battle would ever have succeeded, or even have been suggested.  There are more, but they're really just all nitpicking on the order of that softwood gripe.  Only a picky historian like me would even notice them.  They really did do a great job, and they certainly tried hard in doing it. Sigma-6 (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All the items you pointed out are plot or story telling inaccuracies and I don't disagree with any of them. Howeverthey do not reflect on the original comment which referred to the "...authentic look and feel of life aboard an early nineteenth-century man-of-war."  In that case I believe they succeeded quite well. Dabbler (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are being entirely too pedantic, Sigma. And also not quite accurate in your complaints.
There were indeed privateers the size of 18-pounder frigates. In fact, during the American War of Independence some colonial privateers operated a French frigate with 36(!)-pounder guns on the main deck. The famous Chapman likewise designed a heavy privateer frigate with 32-pdr long guns. And there is nothing wrong with Jack's scheme to take the Acheron. Taking down the mast would have been a long shot, but the chance to rake an enemy at point blank range could decide almost any battle. British 18-pdr frigates took French 24-pdr frigates on many occasions, even without any dirty tricks.50.104.108.112 (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  authenticity criticism 

message: The names or the position of the names of the film's distributors is being changed sometimes daily. Is there a definitive source, and then this can stop? It was distributed 11 years ago, so this is not a changing topic, is it?  --Prairieplant (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: , I think there are constant changes because there is a misunderstanding of Miramax and Universal's involvement. I researched the film's background, and it does not appear that Miramax and Universal had a direct hand in distributing the film. Only 20th Century Fox did. Rather, Fox involved Miramax and Universal as co-producers and co-financiers as seen here. It may be more appropriate to list these three companies with Samuel Goldwyn Films under "Production companies" with only Fox repeated as distributor. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: , the article you found matches what IMDb says about the movie's production and its distribution. For absolutely all worldwide distribution there are a few companies that appear local to one country, but it is basically a list of Twentieth Century Fox around the world on IMDb's detail page for that. If you change it, then perhaps we can refer others who change it again, to this discussion and to the two sources, EW and IMDb. Perhaps put these as references in the infobox?  --Prairieplant (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've revised the infobox to place the companies in their appropriate spots. As for referencing, maybe we could add a footnote at the end of the "Distributed by" field? I did this at Edge of Tomorrow (film)#Notes with the uncredited screenwriters. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A Note or a Reference, either seems fine. 20th Century Fox did most of the international distribution, too, looking at this list http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0311113/companycredits?ref_=tt_dt_co   Well done, and quick, too!  --Prairieplant (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and done. :) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  constant changes on who distributed the film. Why? 

message: Peter Weir and Gordon Laco both state that the justification for the change was commercial and due to audience in interviews on a Discovery channel special.  After discussing the USS Constitution being the original ship, the following segment discusses the change (the two interviews are separate and interlaced in editing): 
Narrator: So why did the movie change it's nationality?
Laco: If the story was placed in the War of 1812 as O'Brien wrote it, Russell Crowe would have been fighting an American foe. The Royal Navy was pitted in a savage battle with the US Navy at that time.
Weir: The Americans would never back a film in which they were the enemy.  It was just confusing emotionally for the audience: who did they feel for? Jack or their own countrymen?  Given it was an American backed picture, you know, it was asking too much.
Laco: What we did instead was move it back to 1805.  England's at war with France; no explanation required.
The above are transcribed from about five minutes into "Master and Commander: The True Story," a documentary by the Discovery Channel.  Please feel free to use it as needed -- I just am not sure how to cite the television show according to WP standards.  Gnome away, my -pedian colleagues!  JabberWokky (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for time and US -> French change rationale, Do not know how to cite 

message: Does this section belong in this article? The citations from current newspaper articles are focussed on O'Brian's novels, and do not mention the film or Crowe's protrayal at all. One article uses photos of Crowe in the movie to stand in for Aubrey, in the article by Taylor on his theory of Pellew as the inspiration for Aubrey. But Taylor says no words about the film or Crowe's portrayal. The two events cited in that section, are they in the movie? It has been a long time since I saw it, I cannot recall. If someone remembers the scenes, please add a sentence that the ruse of the illusory ship at night, and the Woolsey event, happened in the movie. Otherwise, this discussion seems like it belongs in the article on the novel series, or the article on the fictional character Aubrey.  --Prairieplant (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see that the events are described in Development of the movie, which is the best place for them. That is also where it is made clear which scenes relate to scenes from a particular novel. The question of discussing O'Brian's character in the article on the movie (made by others) is still open for discussion.    --Prairieplant (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its less about whether or not the historical events can't be identified through historical sources: but whether commentators on the movie, connect the fictional events with the historical ones. Othewise, you are doing Original research through association (as you do right now with the William I James source, Sadads (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allusions to real persons and events 

message: added a list of tracks of music from French Wikipedia, beginning at this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Master_and_Commander:_The_Far_Side_of_the_World&diff=773702623&oldid=773074770 and continuing until all items were translated to English. I added the note on this talk page that there is translated text in the article.  --Prairieplant (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracks section, translated from French Wikipedia 

message: I'm always surprised that when a film gets a lot of positive reviews, mentions, awards, and nominations but does poorly at the box office, the film is never labelled as a "box office bomb."
But if the film does not receive those accolades, it is labelled a "box office bomb."
To me, the label of "box office bomb" must only be based on the box office and not influenced by the accolades.
As such, with a "profit" of only $61 million, this film should be labelled as a "box office bomb" since more than the $61 million was probably spent in advertising and etc.
Thoughts? 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Box office bomb is a term to be used only if it is a quote from a secondary reliable source. When a film makes money, how much money is enough is a judgment from those who write about the film. I undid an addition to the lead saying, without a source, that the revenues were disappointing, with no similar discussion in the article, here. I will keep reversing remarks like that without an inline source. The term is fairly informal, box office bomb, and if a movie were described as unprofitable, or disappointing from the US revenues or the worldwide revenues at the box office, those terms would be better for describing that. As to the reviews, use the terms of the reviewers.  --Prairieplant (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical reception versus box office 

message: Great article/post for a great film. I would like to make a small and humble suggestion. Instead of "and lost in all other categories" I suggest considering "and placed in all other categories." Personally speaking I do not like how award nominees that do not place first are referred to. For instance, scores of films that year would have "KILLED" to "lose." Master and Commander is such a great film, as well as so many others that year.
That said, I really like the great details in your post. As a journalism major, many years ago, I appreciate the hard work! Attribution can be tough sometimes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darsuliam (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: After listing all the nominations for an Oscar, the text then says "It won the awards for Best Cinematography and Best Sound Editing but lost the rest to The Return of the King. The film also garnered Weir the BAFTA Award for Best Direction ..." I find that quite clear, because every nomination is listed. n the end, there is just one winner in each category. 
  
-- Prairieplant (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! After this comment was posted here, on that same day (the 18th) I made a slight change to the article wording to accommodate this request. Seems I forgot to mention it here though. My bad, sorry. Hope the edit was sufficient. - wolf 08:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a small suggestion 

message: At present, the article states The film's plot and characters are adapted from three novels in author Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey–Maturin series. What three novels? After having been told that, the reader should be informed of the three specific titles. Kintaro (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede is but a summary of the main. The four novels providing in spiration are listed in the "Source" section, though of course the entire canon provides material and atmosphere. I dare say that one might read any of the 23 books and find something that turned up in the fillum. --Pete (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thank you Pete, we'll leave it as it is. Kintaro (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What three novels? 

message: I don't see why one of the very few pictures in the article is of a random seaman attending some special screening for the Navy (which the article doesn't even mention nor gives a source for, by the way). Is it really so important to document that this one guy bought popcorn at the event, while looking at the camera? It's outright goofy. --Kumagoro-42 (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Removed. - wolf 23:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of seaman at screening 

message: I saw this on DVD a long time ago. It ended with the Acheron sinking after the final battle. I just watched the movie on HBO, and it ends after the capture of the Acheron, with Captain Aubrey realizing the French Captain deceived him by posing as the Ships Doctor. Aubrey gives the order to "Beat to Quarters" which we already know means the soldier go to battle stations. The last shot is an aerial shot of the HMS Surprise turning around to chase down the Acheron again. Then the credits start to roll. This is not how the movie originally ended. The actual ending is missing.
I realize that my recollection can't be used in the article, but there's a piece of the story we're missing beyond the missing ending. How did it vanish? What happened? If anyone knows, please fill me in on this page. If anyone has an old DVD of the film, please check the running time. The incomplete version runs 138 minutes. The Blue Ray version has the same running time, is is probably also incomplete, so I would be interested to know if an old DVD has a longer running time. — MiguelMunoz (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I promise you the Acheron never sank in any cut of the film. Looks like the classic Mandela effect. ~ HAL333 14:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot/Story 

message: The current segment summarizing how the film adapts from the books is a hot-mess, with plenty of citation needed statements in the text. I am currently on my first read through in the series (only six books in) and am noting other key pieces of dialogue and scenes in the books that were adapted into the film; such as the argument on "men must be governed" being a scene in Post Captain and the "lesser of two weevils" scene being a scene from The Fortune of War (and I have a vague recollection the previous dialogue in the same scene of Aubrey discussing Nelson in the cold air without a coat was something out of Mauritius Command or Desolation Island). The idea of a ship being cursed with a Jonah figure onboard is also certainly from Desolation Island.
So it creates a problem, the claim that the film is an adaptation of three principal books in the series is somewhat flawed even if Far Side of the World is the most obvious plot inspiration. There is such a liberal sprinkling and use of O'Brian's phrases and text through-out the film, it almost feels more true that all 20.5 books served as inspiration and influence on the film. Listing out every source of phrases and language tied back to the books could cause the article to have undue burden and border on trivial. It also seems the claim that the film really only used three books as inspiration is blown out of the water by the depth of quotations the film is making to other books in the series so that also feels inappropriate to the article. I am out of my depth here in really knowing what the best course to present the information is.
As an aside it also raises a bigger issue on how the adaptation reduced the women characters, as the absence of characters such as Sophie Aubrey, Mrs. Williams, Diana Villiers or Louisa Wogan all seem like a significant choice on the script (although admittedly the film lacks the land-based settings where the women of the Aubrey-Maturin books come into more active play); but I also don't really know how to best address that with the article's scope without risking editorializing the matter as well. I assume that is partially due to the film starting "in media res" compared to O'Brian's regular story structure with a portion set on land leading up to the naval actions coming in later chapters of the book; but the current article doesn't really dive into it in detail and I can't think of a way to describe it without undue editorialization. (I guess I can also point out the irony of one of the criticisms of the film in the "Critical Reaction" segment includes somebody saying the film half-way through is more interested in the relationship between Jack and Stephen than the naval action at play; when O'Brian himself was so willing to put his characters so often on land and sometimes without a ship JUST to get the character interaction between the two to drive the plot, but that is more just me chuckling at the reviewer than it is a critique on the Wikipedia article itself) Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions on how to Summarize Adaptational Sources