While the setting, the action, the style, the costumes, the actors etc are top notch (except for the miscasting of Bonden) the film butchers the source material quite severely. Of all the stories they could have included they chose to make up that Jonah suicide bullshit and worse they completely misunderstood and pussified Maturin, who should be an ice cold killer in addition to his duties as a doctor and genius as a naturist. Still, great movie, because the stuff they get right they get so right.
But do yourself a favor and read the books, especially the first 3. Chances are you will develop a lifelong passion, they are that good.
I have read them and I disagree, except maybe on Maturin. Though the film would probably have been too cluttered if they'd tried to work in a spy subplot or something with him. And the killer/secret agent aspect of his character is only relevant when they're on land. That's one thing they could have featured if they'd done a sequel.
It's not about him not being a secret agent in the movie, it's about him being a wuss. They use him as an antagonist to Aubrey so one can go whipping is good and the other whipping is bad, so the supposed dumb audience gets that there is a conflict there. In the books their positions are multi faceted and much more interesting. But if you think the simple and dumb jonah storyline could not have been done better by using something that O'brien had actually written doubt you really read much of the stuff. You would also understand that Bonden is _severely_ miscast. He's supposed to be a giant of a man who spent his life rowing and boxing, not a homosexual little hobbit.
I can't disagree on Bonden, and yet I can't bring myself to get worked up over it either. It's a comparatively minor niggle which - if it really bothers you - you can always rationalise away by imagining him as another Bonden. Which is lame, sure. But he doesn't feature that much.
Re Bettany's Maturin, I don't see him as a wuss. Don't really know what gives you that impression. Yes, of course, their discussions/conflicts in the books are far more complicated - but this is a necessarily compressed film adaptation. If it'd been a series, sure - then there'd have been ample time to explore all of the nuances in the novels.
Of all the films to take issue with... You're quite the contrarian, anon.
I dont care if you create some head Kino about me supposedly getting worked up over something. Bonden is severely miscast, period. You can't just imagine a miscasting away and that magically makes it not suck anymore, how average iq are you?
The Jonah subplot has been made up whole cloth by the screenwriters, only the name of the officer and the vague concept of what a Jonah is remain from O'brien. He's one of the most eminent writers of the 20th century, they are Hollywood screenwriters and it shows. The subplot is shit.
As I said, it's a great movie because of everything it does right, but I will not imagine away what it does wrong because babby like movie so much. If that in your mind makes me a contrarian - fine, I don't give a frick about what's going on in your mediocre head. You 105 iq motherfricker.
>how average iq are you?
How much of an autist are you? Go back and reread what I wrote. Or don't - whatever. I said you're correct; I just don't find it a big deal. Nor, you may have noticed, does anyone else, as far as I can tell.
>The subplot is shit
In your opinion. I disagree. I get the impression that for you complicated is always better, and - again - I kind of agree with you, but in this instance - an action film with a limited run time - the choice was to either include relatively short/simple subplots or lose them entirely.
>I don't give a frick about what's going on in your mediocre head. You 105 iq motherfricker.
You know what? I've been pretty civil thus far, but since you're being a rude twat for no reason, frick you. You probably take issue with LA Confidential as well because they didn't include the scene with Exley flamethrowering all those nips, or Preston Exley and the Dieterling murders, or Vincennes being married, etc etc. Those dumb screenwriters just replaced all that with some vague simplified shit instead of (magically) including every last detail in a two-hour film! You fricking moron.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>No confronting the criticisms, all sperging out about the banter >no addressing the arguments all "i get the impression" and "you probably"
You are so painfully average I could almost imagine to stop not caring about your existence and getting vaguely annoyed. People like you are what's responsible for how dumbed down western culture has become.
It's in "the far side of the world", and the story of that Hollom is not a kitschy one dimensional "I guess I'm cursed, goodbye cruel world!" followed by the movie saying the superstition was right, now he's dead everything is better again. It is a story of betrayal, lovers quarrel and gruesome murder told one step removed. Great writing but only suitable for the screen if you completely butcher it, like they did here.
>It is a story of betrayal, lovers quarrel and gruesome murder told one step removed
Yes. It's a totally different story. Movie Hollom is an alternate-reality Hollom who shares the traits of being unlucky, indecisive and disliked by the crew. You found that subplot "kitschy"; I didn't, and I've not heard anyone else take objection to it. Don't know what else to tell you. Except that bad luck is a thing in real life too?
What would you have done instead if tasked with writing an Aubrey-Maturin film? An adaptation of just the first book, maybe, but even then you've have had to lose and/or compress a lot of stuff. And if there's no guarantee there'll ever be more than one film, would you really choose Aubrey in his first command over seasoned Aubrey? I think I'd have done something similar to what Peter Weir did - stitched together various aspects of several books to create a coherent, self-contained action film (that's mostly a shipboard-life-between-moments-of-action film).
>stitched together various aspects of several books to create a coherent, self-contained action film
Only he didn't do that. He stitched together various aspects of several books and then tacked on a story about the crew disrespecting an officer for being a Jonah, Aubrey punishing them for doing it while inwardly agreeing with them (!) and then having the problems of the ship be solved by the jonah's suicide so making it the position of the movie itself that he truly WAS a Jonah - which is the exact opposite of O'brien's intent and classic Hollywood "magical thinking is real" bullshit. It's a complete 180 from the source material, not a compression or adaptation, a refutation. I doubt it was on purpose though, as the screenwriters are writing for the averagely intelligent viewer (that's (You)) and they won't be able to tell a difference anyway.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You sure you think consider this movie "great", anon? Because you seem to dislike it on a pretty fundamental level. Whatever - it's no fun conversing with a spiteful autist, so you're on your own.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Keep mindlessly repeating insults other people came up with to convince me you are not a completely mediocre NPC. Good luck.
He knocks a guy unconscious and then coldly severs his jugula with a scalpel in the second book. He has countless bloody duels. He doesn't rinse the knife he uses for eating after he dissected a corpse with it. "surely to wipe it will suffice"
You have fried your dopamine receptors and can only be entertained by 'splosions and sex scenes. you are broken.
It's dad kino. Perfect gift for Father's Day.
If a real man was given this as a gift from their kid, the dad would beat them with in an inch of their life and send them to live on a farm.
While the setting, the action, the style, the costumes, the actors etc are top notch (except for the miscasting of Bonden) the film butchers the source material quite severely. Of all the stories they could have included they chose to make up that Jonah suicide bullshit and worse they completely misunderstood and pussified Maturin, who should be an ice cold killer in addition to his duties as a doctor and genius as a naturist. Still, great movie, because the stuff they get right they get so right.
But do yourself a favor and read the books, especially the first 3. Chances are you will develop a lifelong passion, they are that good.
I will, voice inside my head.
I have read them and I disagree, except maybe on Maturin. Though the film would probably have been too cluttered if they'd tried to work in a spy subplot or something with him. And the killer/secret agent aspect of his character is only relevant when they're on land. That's one thing they could have featured if they'd done a sequel.
It's not about him not being a secret agent in the movie, it's about him being a wuss. They use him as an antagonist to Aubrey so one can go whipping is good and the other whipping is bad, so the supposed dumb audience gets that there is a conflict there. In the books their positions are multi faceted and much more interesting. But if you think the simple and dumb jonah storyline could not have been done better by using something that O'brien had actually written doubt you really read much of the stuff. You would also understand that Bonden is _severely_ miscast. He's supposed to be a giant of a man who spent his life rowing and boxing, not a homosexual little hobbit.
I can't disagree on Bonden, and yet I can't bring myself to get worked up over it either. It's a comparatively minor niggle which - if it really bothers you - you can always rationalise away by imagining him as another Bonden. Which is lame, sure. But he doesn't feature that much.
Re Bettany's Maturin, I don't see him as a wuss. Don't really know what gives you that impression. Yes, of course, their discussions/conflicts in the books are far more complicated - but this is a necessarily compressed film adaptation. If it'd been a series, sure - then there'd have been ample time to explore all of the nuances in the novels.
Of all the films to take issue with... You're quite the contrarian, anon.
I dont care if you create some head Kino about me supposedly getting worked up over something. Bonden is severely miscast, period. You can't just imagine a miscasting away and that magically makes it not suck anymore, how average iq are you?
The Jonah subplot has been made up whole cloth by the screenwriters, only the name of the officer and the vague concept of what a Jonah is remain from O'brien. He's one of the most eminent writers of the 20th century, they are Hollywood screenwriters and it shows. The subplot is shit.
As I said, it's a great movie because of everything it does right, but I will not imagine away what it does wrong because babby like movie so much. If that in your mind makes me a contrarian - fine, I don't give a frick about what's going on in your mediocre head. You 105 iq motherfricker.
>how average iq are you?
How much of an autist are you? Go back and reread what I wrote. Or don't - whatever. I said you're correct; I just don't find it a big deal. Nor, you may have noticed, does anyone else, as far as I can tell.
>The subplot is shit
In your opinion. I disagree. I get the impression that for you complicated is always better, and - again - I kind of agree with you, but in this instance - an action film with a limited run time - the choice was to either include relatively short/simple subplots or lose them entirely.
>I don't give a frick about what's going on in your mediocre head. You 105 iq motherfricker.
You know what? I've been pretty civil thus far, but since you're being a rude twat for no reason, frick you. You probably take issue with LA Confidential as well because they didn't include the scene with Exley flamethrowering all those nips, or Preston Exley and the Dieterling murders, or Vincennes being married, etc etc. Those dumb screenwriters just replaced all that with some vague simplified shit instead of (magically) including every last detail in a two-hour film! You fricking moron.
>No confronting the criticisms, all sperging out about the banter
>no addressing the arguments all "i get the impression" and "you probably"
You are so painfully average I could almost imagine to stop not caring about your existence and getting vaguely annoyed. People like you are what's responsible for how dumbed down western culture has become.
Also - though he doesn't die in the same way - there is a Hollom in one of the books who's a Jonah.
It's in "the far side of the world", and the story of that Hollom is not a kitschy one dimensional "I guess I'm cursed, goodbye cruel world!" followed by the movie saying the superstition was right, now he's dead everything is better again. It is a story of betrayal, lovers quarrel and gruesome murder told one step removed. Great writing but only suitable for the screen if you completely butcher it, like they did here.
>It is a story of betrayal, lovers quarrel and gruesome murder told one step removed
Yes. It's a totally different story. Movie Hollom is an alternate-reality Hollom who shares the traits of being unlucky, indecisive and disliked by the crew. You found that subplot "kitschy"; I didn't, and I've not heard anyone else take objection to it. Don't know what else to tell you. Except that bad luck is a thing in real life too?
What would you have done instead if tasked with writing an Aubrey-Maturin film? An adaptation of just the first book, maybe, but even then you've have had to lose and/or compress a lot of stuff. And if there's no guarantee there'll ever be more than one film, would you really choose Aubrey in his first command over seasoned Aubrey? I think I'd have done something similar to what Peter Weir did - stitched together various aspects of several books to create a coherent, self-contained action film (that's mostly a shipboard-life-between-moments-of-action film).
>stitched together various aspects of several books to create a coherent, self-contained action film
Only he didn't do that. He stitched together various aspects of several books and then tacked on a story about the crew disrespecting an officer for being a Jonah, Aubrey punishing them for doing it while inwardly agreeing with them (!) and then having the problems of the ship be solved by the jonah's suicide so making it the position of the movie itself that he truly WAS a Jonah - which is the exact opposite of O'brien's intent and classic Hollywood "magical thinking is real" bullshit. It's a complete 180 from the source material, not a compression or adaptation, a refutation. I doubt it was on purpose though, as the screenwriters are writing for the averagely intelligent viewer (that's (You)) and they won't be able to tell a difference anyway.
You sure you think consider this movie "great", anon? Because you seem to dislike it on a pretty fundamental level. Whatever - it's no fun conversing with a spiteful autist, so you're on your own.
Keep mindlessly repeating insults other people came up with to convince me you are not a completely mediocre NPC. Good luck.
Book Maturin is an irredeemable simp not a goddamn Terminator
>t.cannot read
He knocks a guy unconscious and then coldly severs his jugula with a scalpel in the second book. He has countless bloody duels. He doesn't rinse the knife he uses for eating after he dissected a corpse with it. "surely to wipe it will suffice"
What a fricking idiot. Pedophiles who approve of this shit need to be exterminated.
ywnbaw
True, and you will never be a man.
Where's the 4k?
woman
woman detected
I thought it was a tasteful epic. I watched it after Gladiator, thanks to an anon's recommendation. God bless him.
LONDON
As a kid I remember it being a manly movie about boats
In reality it was surprisingly gay and liberal how the scientist was portrayed so positively
>no black sailors, women captains, pirates
i agree, kinda ruined the immersion. its just boats and guys in it.
>WE SHALL BEAT OFF IN THE QUARTERS!