The reason there was no sequel is that the movie wasn't that popular when it was released and probably didn't recoup its costs, and none of the book fans I know were that keen on it.
Most of my friends have been captured by the Aubrey-Maturin books, which are great fun and incredibly well-researched, and are enjoyable on every possible level. And all the book fans agree that while Russell Crowe did indeed make a terrific Captain Aubrey, and showed us the character we'd loved for so long in the flesh, they also agreed that Paul Bettany totally failed to do the same. Who the hell was that tall, handsome, boring guy? He wasn't the brilliant, eccentric, and multi-faceted Dr. Maturin of the books!
Which may have had an impact on the decision to pass on a sequel. When a book is adapted to the screen, the suits hope that the book's fan will form a solid movie fandom, and see the movie in theaters multiple times, and buy loads of DVDs and promotional materials, and beg for a special edition with lots of stuff for book fans... as happened with the "Lord of the Rings" movies (most of the book fans went apeshit for the movies, and treasure their extended editions full of nerdy stuff). That's a business model that can make a lot of money, but it didn't seem to be happening with "Master and Commander".
reply
share