There are millions of fans of this series of books, so I reckon the director knew he had to respect the books’ immersion in historical accuracy if he wanted the fans to like his film.
I loved it; I’m overjoyed to think that a remake might be contemplated and am off to read about this. The Reverse of the Medal, eh? That’s the one where poor Jack is dragged through court on a trumped-up charge of stock market fixing, isn’t it?
I’ve listened to a few of the audio books read by Patrick Tull, who was supposedly O’Brian’s favorite reader. I love hearing the nautical terminology pronounced correctly, but I don’t think the humor comes across as well as on the printed page. There are so many throw-away lines that get can easily get lost as the narrative plows ahead.
I’ve never read the books and have no plans to, but loved the movie.
The movie was, to my mind, a perfect example of a movie keeping it simple. There is no attempt to enforce modern sensibilities on people of the past. There’s only as much backstory as is needed. No themes are beaten over the audience’s head. The ship’s captain is a hero, but a real one, not a ridiculous superhero who does martial arts moves or defeats whole navies singlehandedly. There’s little in the way of side plots, skulduggery, or intrigue. The movie says, “Here’s a bunch of guys on a ship trying to sink another ship” and runs with it.
17th century is a typo right? While I disagree about the film lacking a traditional sense of acts, I think I know what you mean about the snapshot thing. It was almost as if it was a documentary called “A day in the life of the HMS Surprise.” I got the same feeling with Pulp Fiction, sorta like “A day i the life of Wallace’s gangsters.” I don’t mean documentary as in everything was completely realistic, or that the stories only rook one day, just that it sort of had that documentary type feel to it. This is what lions do. This is what detectives do. This is what the crew of the HMS Surprise does.
Yep, I goofed. Should have written 19th century, actually.
Anyway… I recognize that the film had traditional acts, but as a viewer, the whole story seemed to flow absutely smoothly to the point where it felt like a snap shot. In fact, your comments above capture that well.
I really hope a sequel is made.
I have trouble with the idea of someone who liked the movie for exactly the reason the books are so good, but who doesn’t like the books. I think you need to give them another go.
I agree completely. It was about 15 years ago that I tried reading it, maybe now is the right time.
That whole Leopard - Waakzaamheid chase is spectacular; how the tension builds and builds and builds–what a scene!
But I misspoke; the ship is not the Leopard; it’s the Horrible Old Leopard. 
[Regarding which century]
Actually, the second and third. Jack Aubrey started his naval career in the late 1700s, and ended it in the early 1800s.
While I’m no historian, it seems his era is really more 18th century --wind power, hereditary nobility as rulers (both actual Monarchs and upper and mid-level commanders), hand-crafted technology, science as an upper-class diversion – than 19th century, which I see as steam power (railroads and ships), telegraph, a middle-class and merchant class, mass production, and science/technology as a means of military and economic power.
I just finished the book and was wondering if the movie was good. I’m tickled pink to hear that it is and am off to buy the DVD.
There’s a hilarious conversation between Jack and Stephen about a sailor due to be hanged because he sodomized a goat. Jack wishes those things weren’t reported and Stephen suggests putting the sailor and the goat ashore, but not the same shore, “for morality’s sake”. Any chance that’s in the movie? I’d love to see how they play it.
No goats in the movie–which is awesome, by the way.
That was the precise moment when I realized how wonderful the series would be. 
The movie doesn’t have a goat morality conversation, but it does contain references to dog watches and weevils. If they make a second movie, I hope there will be a sloth.
Yeah, that’s when I started to get a glimmer too. Actually, the first scene was encouraging – Jack at the concert, not listening quietly like a gentleman should, and Stephen letting his irritation show, and risking being called out.
I understood maybe every third word in the book, but I sure enjoyed it.
A debauched sloth.
We’re you played by a Hobbit?
“Jack!. . .”
Hee hee, indeed I was. . .
I’m so glad you liked the book! However, despite the name, the (awesome) movie isn’t based on the first book. It’s based loosely on the plot of the 10th book, I believe, but it uses scenes and dialog from several books in the series.
Do watch the extra scenes on the DVD, they’re worthwhile.
The “care for some milk?” exchange after…
“Goat’s milk?”
Something else I’m getting a kick out of is Stephen’s vocabulary, all those five-syllable words. Apparently everyone understands him, or they don’t want to look ignorant and ask him what he means. Maybe that kind of talk wasn’t surprising, coming from a scientific type.
Eleanor of Aquitaine, I don’t know why I waited so long to try them! I’m pimping them to an on-line book group and have at least one other person convinced that you don’t have to know sailing to enjoy the books. O’Brian’s doing everything right. What little bit of exposition there is, is almost unnoticeable.
I envy you, reading them for the first time.
I have begun HMS Surprise for the 1024th time.
Agreed. And if they still have it there…The ship used in the movie is docked in San Diego. I went on it twice. Totally cool. Go if you can.