Roddenberry hated Nicholas Meyer's movies because they were so militarized and he basically turned them into the British Empire with warp drive and redcoats. Technically speaking, because of the utopian nature of the show, there wasn't a "military" per-se, they were always supposed to be explorers. The closest would probably be Insurrection, or maybe the latest Abrams movie to some extent.

M&C just didn't make enough money. It wasn't a bomb or anything but it had a massive budget and took three studios to finance it. I think the huge success of Pirates of the Caribbean was another factor. They're both set in a similar "Ye Olden Times" period on big ships with sails but POTC just had a ton more action.

For me, the movie was stolen by Max Pirkis. The kid was incredible for his first movie, having to do everything left-handed for most of the film, his interactions with Bettany, his sympathy for Hollum. Damn shame he pretty much walked away from acting after he did that 'Rome' HBO series.

I'd like to think a sequel would be cheaper, having restored the Rose to her proper glory, made the costumes, etc. But what do I know about Hollywood budgets.

I do fear we are past the point of it being made. Peter Wier is in his 70s now. A shoot like this might be too much at this point. I guess it depends on how healthy he is. TBH, I'd prefer a reboot of sorts. Too many great characters were killed off in the movie, particularly Master Allen.

it's funny. i thought i had nothing but fond memories of this movie.

guess not...

I remember being very upset with the trailer for this movie because it didn't mention the book, the book series or the author (Patrick O'Brian), as if they weren't interested at all in whether readers of the best-selling books wanted to see it or not. Once upon a time, Hollywood trailers made a big deal of it when a movie was based on a best-selling book.

Should they?

I don't think the mentioning or the lack of mentioning of a property's source matters much. Granted I just take the film for what it is, a film as its own creation.

Did Jurassic Park make a big deal out of being based on a best-selling book, or did they just say, "SPIELBERG AND DINOSAURS YOU FOOLS!!!"

As a child? All I saw was a movie with real dinosaurs. JP will be the THE biggest film of my childhood. I still remember the audience's reaction to the first one you see in there.

Much of the audience for JP was children and their dinosaur love, whereas much of the audience for M&C would have been literate adults.

I imagine mentioning Michael Crichton's name at the time was enough.http://articles.mcall.com/1993-04-08...llantine-books

I recall seeing the book in college and wondering if it was really about dinosaurs or just an artsy title. Eventually I read it for a sci-fi/fantasy lit class.

I don't think the addition of O'Brien's name or a mention the books would have benefitted the film any. I highly doubt the majority of the people who watched it even knew about the source material or it's lengthy history. (Hell, look at the number of people who didn't know about the Lord of the Rings trilogy.) The M&C movie brought more attention to the books that the books brought to the movie.

I am not downplaying the literary value of the series or it's fans; I'm saying that it is not a popularly known series. (Or wasn't at the time anyway ...)

That said ... If the general audience knew there was plenty more material out there, would it have greased the skids for the series to continue?

I think Ash is just reasserting his old fuck status.

I still haven't read the books but I sure want to at some fine point.

Yes, but word about the sequel came out several years after the movie was in theaters...it wasn't like they were talking about it during the release (which so many studios do).

As much as i would dearly love to see a sequel, i realize its probably never going to happen. If it was going to happen, it would have done so maybe 8 or 9 years ago, but as Hollywood bases these decisions simply on numbers...then it was never going to get a sequel green-lit. Whilst it did fine, it was no blockbuster, and the studios seem to only be concerned about movies that are guaranteed to make a profit. Breaking even or a minor loss is just not acceptable. I do wonder though how many movies that break even or lose money at the box office go on to be considered classics, do great numbers over time with rentals and sales and get replayed time after time on cable. Shawshank Redemption was a failure at the box office, but that movie must have turned a profit a long time ago in sales, rentals and its forever on TV.

Best bet for any continuation would be a BBC series ...

I LOVE this film.

Haven't seen it since it first came out, but I loved it and was hoping there would be sequels since the source material is a large series of books. Pity Hollywood has been sucking so much for the past ten-ish years. Maybe if they threw Sam Jackson and Scarlett Johnannson in it alluding to some shadowy Avengers group, they'd bring it back.

Yeah, The Avengers is the reason that Master and Commander doesn't have a sequel.

For the record, I love The Avengers and I love Master and Commander.

I like the idea someone has made of the BBC continuing the series. UK TV managed to knock out some great historical shows in the 90s such as Sharpe and Hornblower. I could see this working. As most the money would be spent on the ship itself then financially it would be cost effective to continue the series. Wishful thinking though i guess.

I'd like to see more adventures, but I think that this isn't the kind of thing you could do on a TV budget like Sherlock Holmes with Brett, unless maybe you were on cable. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It was pitched a between "realism-" it feels realistic, though of course I've read some pretty nasty stuff about shipboard life which is decidedly un-PG-13-and a sort of swashbuckling feeling, but Weir has a deft enough hand to balance it and make it feel right. He has a certain classiness and restraint that makes it feel different from a crass blockbuster.

Are the two somehow mutually exclusive?

No, the reason is that movie executives are insufferable cowards. The Avengers made money, so now every movie has to be The Avengers. Until The Avengers stops making money, and then every movie has to be whatever the last movie that made money is. We're in the 80's again. Star Wars was good, but then the studios decided that every movie had to be the next Star Wars. The 90's shook that shit up because all the ripoff blockbusters stopped doing well. I'm just waiting for that cycle to repeat so movies might start being interesting again.

It's been that way ever since Star Wars, or even Jaws, it hasn't stopped. Money makes the world to round, cinema follows trends. It's simply the way cinema has been for the last 40 years or so. C'est la vie.