I do love the film-Stephen (although I don't really go for Paul Bettany. It's still character rather than actor) - but I miss the small dark scrawny book-Stephen. To me that's how he's supposed to be - I like that his attractions are subtle, and generally not physical :)
I think Weir and the script writers did the right thing by not following a specific book. A lot of what happens in the series translates badly to the screen. The more often I watch it (like today) the more I see little details that I remember from a book.
Thematically the movie is a bit Far Side, a bit Waaksaamheid. I can see that a lot of the books before Far Side (though not TMC) could have happened before the movie. HMS Surprise definitely happened before, just watch Stephen flex his fingers...
For me that's Stephen coming to talk to Jack after the first battle - taking off his glasses and rubbing the corner of his eye, and giving the butcher's bill. I don't really know why either, except that it's tired serious grown-up Stephen, and I love it. (I love the film boyishness too... but that more)
*g* There are several hints in the movies which will not be detected by non-fans, be it Stephen flexing his fingers or his remarks to Jack about French and British spies. His and Jack's non-verbal exchange of looks points a fan towards Stephen's spyhatty business. ;D
If those were reasons why people start reading the books, so much the better.
Definitely the spirit of the books, although sadly it would have been impossible on film to capture the spirit of the characters.
How could they manage to portray Stephen's slovenly habits, his brilliance, his ineptitude regarding nautical matters, his secretive nature and his love for Jack?
And it would be impossible to convey in the movie's context how silly Jack is on land compared to his brilliance at sea. His complete love & trust in Stephen.
The actors did a wonderful job considering these limts - and physically I thought they were beautifully cast. The minor characters were played well too.
what do you think is film canon? POB's own timeline is so skewed anyway, I wouldn't even try. It's more of an Alternate Universe type M&C, isn't it
( ... )
And it would be impossible to convey in the movie's context how silly Jack is on land compared to his brilliance at sea. His complete love & trust in Stephen. I hope that will be something RC has to try if the sequel is made.
Shame you didn't have time for the watch. :( It was too late for you, wasn't it?
Sometimes I feel that the two things have very little to do with each other at all - the question was partly inspired by simultaneously watching the film and reading HMS Surprise a while ago, and being unable to imagine the film Stephen (for example) complaining about Judaical ritual superstitious cleanliness. But I think part of that is the the film is just more modern in its speech patterns, and part of it is that all the bad-tempered Stephen is in the deleted scenes
( ... )
part of it is that all the bad-tempered Stephen is in the deleted scenes.
It could be said that Film!Stephen is just too nice. His innocence is endearing, his mentoring little Blakeney admirable, and then gosh darn it, he's hurt and you just want to hug him. All that is non-huggable about Book!Stephen goes out the window rather, which is perhaps why the scoldings of Jack about booze, mutiny and island-avoidance are given prominence beyond what you'd expect at that point in their friendship, when Stephen had given up expecting to be fetched and carried for purposes of natural history.
It's either a Stephen who hasn't met Diana, or possibly one who still believes she'll be waiting for him at the end of his journey...
Or she doesn't exist in movieverse, or they're long married, or it's later on still... I'm not sure there's any clue at all, and leaving the women out was deliberate. (Again, I wonder how they would handle The Reverse of the Medal)
Jack seems to have more of the spirit of the lieutenant of Master and Commander than the
( ... )
This watch was the first I've done since I began reading the books with the group. I got the DVD when it first came out, because I love wooden ships. I knew nothing about the book. I watched the beginning, got very tired of it, and didn't watch it again for a long time. I think this film could have been so much better done. The first third of it is basically "life at sea is rough." It should have been about character development, and really acquainting us with the Jack and Stephen characters. Paul Bettany did a good job acting, but anyone familiar with the book knows the character should have been played by someone like Wally Cox (were he still around
( ... )
A lot in this film could have been alluded to, rather than having so much time spent on things that don't really move the story. I think the people who did this film needed a clearer focus: the stories are really about the relationship between Jack and Stephen and the setting is Age of Sail. They seemed to be trying to do too many things at once.
There is always going to be a problem making characterisation evident without plot - this film has little enough in the way of plotting anyway, as the story is essentially "ship chases another ship and catches it". You couldn't strip The Far Side of the World down a lot more, really. I do think there's a bit of a problem with doing away with all the backstory along with all of Stephen's POV, spyverse etc, as newcomers are left genuinely bewildered about Jack and Stephen's relationship.
Comments 21
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Thematically the movie is a bit Far Side, a bit Waaksaamheid. I can see that a lot of the books before Far Side (though not TMC) could have happened before the movie. HMS Surprise definitely happened before, just watch Stephen flex his fingers...
Reply
I love that bit! dunno why really, but I have to rewind and rewatch. This is v annoying for non-fans apparently.
Reply
(I love the film boyishness too... but that more)
Reply
If those were reasons why people start reading the books, so much the better.
Reply
Definitely the spirit of the books, although sadly it would have been impossible on film to capture the spirit of the characters.
How could they manage to portray Stephen's slovenly habits, his brilliance, his ineptitude regarding nautical matters, his secretive nature and his love for Jack?
And it would be impossible to convey in the movie's context how silly Jack is on land compared to his brilliance at sea. His complete love & trust in Stephen.
The actors did a wonderful job considering these limts - and physically I thought they were beautifully cast. The minor characters were played well too.
what do you think is film canon? POB's own timeline is so skewed anyway, I wouldn't even try. It's more of an Alternate Universe type M&C, isn't it ( ... )
Reply
I hope that will be something RC has to try if the sequel is made.
Shame you didn't have time for the watch. :( It was too late for you, wasn't it?
Reply
Besides, I have M&C on my iPhone now and watch little snippets of it in bed every night. I just about know the movie off by heart!
Reply
Reply
Reply
It could be said that Film!Stephen is just too nice. His innocence is endearing, his mentoring little Blakeney admirable, and then gosh darn it, he's hurt and you just want to hug him. All that is non-huggable about Book!Stephen goes out the window rather, which is perhaps why the scoldings of Jack about booze, mutiny and island-avoidance are given prominence beyond what you'd expect at that point in their friendship, when Stephen had given up expecting to be fetched and carried for purposes of natural history.
It's either a Stephen who hasn't met Diana, or possibly one who still believes she'll be waiting for him at the end of his journey...
Or she doesn't exist in movieverse, or they're long married, or it's later on still... I'm not sure there's any clue at all, and leaving the women out was deliberate. (Again, I wonder how they would handle The Reverse of the Medal)
Jack seems to have more of the spirit of the lieutenant of Master and Commander than the ( ... )
Reply
Reply
There is always going to be a problem making characterisation evident without plot - this film has little enough in the way of plotting anyway, as the story is essentially "ship chases another ship and catches it". You couldn't strip The Far Side of the World down a lot more, really. I do think there's a bit of a problem with doing away with all the backstory along with all of Stephen's POV, spyverse etc, as newcomers are left genuinely bewildered about Jack and Stephen's relationship.
Reply
Leave a comment