Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy

[SilentScope001]

Conclusion: Pirate$2 just wasn't as fun, because it was such an obvious and blatant sales pitch for the next movie.

 

Like Halo 2?

[SithRevan]

I personally can't wait for this movie to come out, this and Spider Man 3 I am going to see when they come out in may whether I have to walk to a movie theater to see them.

[stingerhs]

No, there were resolutions in those movies. Luke does confront Vader, and his friends do escape the empire. Only Han Solo did not, and that was the set-up for the next movie. But that part of the story was over. ESB does not end one second so that ROTJ must start the next. In fact, a full year passed between those stories.

says who?? you??

 

point is that the only absolute in Star Wars is the movies, and there is nothing in the movies that suggests that the Han Solo Rescue took a year or longer. did it take time?? apparently yes, but we don't know for certain. there has been quite a bit of EU material that, as it often does, contradicts itself over the timeline, and it doesn't really hold merit when we're discussing movies.

 

in the meantime, i fail to see your point as to why the start of Pirates 3 has anything to do with the resolution of the ending of the previous movie. if it picks up right where Pirates 2 left off, then so what?? there isn't going to be much of a difference if the story starts off an hour after the end of Pirates 2 or 5 years afterwards.

Plots are open, yes, but there is resolution to some of them. That's the difference - there is NO resolution to ANY plot AT ALL in Pirates2.

uhh, no. there are several plots that are closed. the problem is that the resolution of those plots results in the creation of more questions and thus the prelude to the third movie. allow me to cite several examples (i'll mark them in spoilers to be on the safe side. ):

first, you have the plot of Davy Jone's heart. if you didn't happen to notice, the entire point of the second movie was for them to find the heart. this did happen, if you didn't notice Norrington plopping the heart down on the desk near the end. this did, however, introduce several questions such as what will be done with the heart, and what will become of Davy Jones since he is now being held hostage??

 

second, there is the plot line involving Captain Jack and the value of his soul according to the mark that Davy Jones placed on him ten years ago (in movie years, obviously). although he tries to get the mark off his life by providing souls, he ultimately wishes to find Davy Jones' heart in order to barter his way to freedom. this, of course, ends in failure first when Norrington steals the heart, and then second when he is supposedly eaten by the Kraken. this, of course, leads into several questions which are left unresolved: first, what happened to Jack, and second, is it possible to save him??

 

the point is that nobody is looking for the Heart of Davy Jones anymore at the end of the movie, and nobody is trying to

those were the two central plots the second movie, and they were both resolved. your problem is that you're looking past those points to the questions that are resolved from the completion of those plots.

 

did the movie have problems with those plots?? definitely, but i blame that more on an overly ambitious concept than anything else. besides, they could've made it 4 hours long so that everyone could understand it.

 

for me, these movies are just plain fun to begin with. i'm willing to overlook things in exchange for something entertaining, and in the end, isn't that what going to the movies is all about?

[Negative Sun]

Well said stingerhs, I went to see Pirates 2 in theatre, and even though I was maybe a bit disappointed (which was probably due to high expectations), I would still go and see Pirates 3 in theatre because it's major fun!

And that's what a night out at the movies is all about, or a good DVD for that matter: Entertainment...

(Though nothing will ever come close to the pure awesomeness of TMNT I tell you now!)

[Jediphile]

says who?? you??

 

Well, duh! Since I'm speaking, of course according to me. Or do I have to put "IMHO" next to any statement I make? I could do that, but past experience suggests that people find that exceedingly annoying.

 

point is that the only absolute in Star Wars is the movies, and there is nothing in the movies that suggests that the Han Solo Rescue took a year or longer. did it take time?? apparently yes, but we don't know for certain. there has been quite a bit of EU material that, as it often does, contradicts itself over the timeline, and it doesn't really hold merit when we're discussing movies.

 

You're missing the point. The problem isn't the time, but lies with the question of whether the movie tells any sort of self-contained story. All the Star Wars movies, including Empire Strikes Back did. Even if they were continued in some areas, they all had internal consistency with a beginning, middle and end. Though some plots were left open, others were closed. The same with LOTR. Pirates2, however, makes a virtue to starting a gazillion plots and closing absolutely none of them. It has no self-contained story to tell, since nothing is ever resolved inside the movie itself. EVERYTHING points to the next movie. So what did I spend two and half hours on in the cinema? A very long and expensive plug for Pirates3, that's what!

 

there are several plots that are closed. the problem is that the resolution of those plots results in the creation of more questions and thus the prelude to the third movie. allow me to cite several examples (i'll mark them in spoilers to be on the safe side. ):

first, you have the plot of Davy Jone's heart. if you didn't happen to notice, the entire point of the second movie was for them to find the heart. this did happen, if you didn't notice Norrington plopping the heart down on the desk near the end. this did, however, introduce several questions such as what will be done with the heart, and what will become of Davy Jones since he is now being held hostage??

 

Precisely why that plot is NOT closed. Norrington has the heart. What does it mean? Find out in Pirates3. What will Lord Beckett use it for? Find out in Pirates3. Does this mean Jack's debt to Davy Jones is paid? Find out in Pirates3. You get the picture...

 

second, there is the plot line involving Captain Jack and the value of his soul according to the mark that Davy Jones placed on him ten years ago (in movie years, obviously). although he tries to get the mark off his life by providing souls, he ultimately wishes to find Davy Jones' heart in order to barter his way to freedom. this, of course, ends in failure first when Norrington steals the heart, and then second when he is supposedly eaten by the Kraken. this, of course, leads into several questions which are left unresolved: first, what happened to Jack, and second, is it possible to save him??

 

In short: Find out in Pirates3.

 

the point is that nobody is looking for the Heart of Davy Jones anymore at the end of the movie, and nobody is trying to

those were the two central plots the second movie, and they were both resolved. your problem is that you're looking past those points to the questions that are resolved from the completion of those plots.

 

That makes no sense, since finding the heart now would solve most of the problems the heroes are facing.

 

did the movie have problems with those plots?? definitely, but i blame that more on an overly ambitious concept than anything else. besides, they could've made it 4 hours long so that everyone could understand it.

 

The ambition seemed to lie mostly in getting $$ while plugging Pirates3.

 

EDIT: And FYI, I find the latter remark you make here condescending, patronizing and generally offensive to anyone who does not like Pirates 2, since it seems to me to infer that we must be of limited intellect, because not liking Pirates 2 can apparently be only due to a lack of understand of the plot.

 

for me, these movies are just plain fun to begin with. i'm willing to overlook things in exchange for something entertaining, and in the end, isn't that what going to the movies is all about?

 

There's a difference between entertaining and blindingly silly. Pirates1 was the former...

[Mike Windu]

How exactly, has the gameplan changed from anything but $$?

 

If I am to quote Johnny Depp, regarding a one Gene Wilder (outraged at the make of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) "No one ever spent a buck in the film industry without looking for it back."

 

The only thing I found blindingly silly was (tragically) the waterwheel fight. That dragged on foreeever. Otherwise, everything else works out (generally, although there are some out of character moments for Will and Jack, some poorly delivered lines (but cleverly written), and some poor script writing (other events should have happened, but didn't)), and also the first 45 minutes or so are generally useless (island scenes).

[Vaelastraz]

I have to agree mostly with Jediphile on that. Pirates 2 really had an extremely poor story, and not as many funny lines as the first one.

 

I liked the first one way better, but still I enjoyed the second movie as well.

The cg effects are simply awesome, and I happen to enjoy good cg effects, besides, the movie was still funny.

 

Just look at Barbossa's return: at first I thought wtf did the director have in his mind? Now I'm kinda glad Barbossa returned, after all I really liked the character in the first movie. Pirates doesn't have to make sense for me.. I'll watch it anyway.

[Jediphile]

How exactly, has the gameplan changed from anything but $$?

 

If I am to quote Johnny Depp, regarding a one Gene Wilder (outraged at the make of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) "No one ever spent a buck in the film industry without looking for it back."

 

Maybe I should rephrase that. Of course the movies are made to make money. No question there. But there are differences in what other motives people have besides making money. Few people indeed expected Pirates1 to be the mammoth success it was.

 

Pirates2, however, was apparently made on a basis of "OMG - we can make money with this crap!!!" and so they began milking the franchise for money.

 

That's okay really, except that it seems to have prompted studio-execs to consider what made Pirates1 work... Personally I don't credit most of the execs with being the brightest people in the world, and let's just say that Pirates2 did little to dispel those perceptions... sadly. Because it seems that what they thought made Pirates1 work were the jokes, the swashbuckling, and the CGI-effects. So we have lots of those in Pirates2. Except the jokes are all recycled from Pirates1, and the CGI is done just for the sake of doing it and saying, "OMG - look what we can do," to which I say, "Yes guys, you're technically very skilled, but I did NOT go to the cinema ONLY to see pretty CGI with no plot."

 

Is it wrong to revive Barbossa? No, of course not. Geoffrey Rush is a great actor, and it's a small wonder Pirates2 did not fail completely without him as the bad guy - Bill Nighy is a good actor, but I don't consider him to be on Rush's level (and I doubt Nighy would either), and hiding under Davy Jones' mammoth CGI-face must have made acting extremely difficult if not virtually impossible for him. Don't get me wrong, I like CGI, but it must be there ONLY to support the plot, not the other way around. I've often praised Pirates1 for understanding that and using CGI only to step in, when it was essential to the plot. Like when Barbossa reveals his undead state to Elizabeth. In Pirates2, however, I definitely left with the bitter feeling, that large portions of the plot had been written for the explicit purpose of showcasing the CGI-effects. That's unacceptable. Plot and characters are essential. Period. Everything else, including CGI, is just icing on the cake - it's good and yummy, but if you take the cake away, what's left will make you sick.

 

And the jokes just confirmed it. They're still funny, but we already heard them all in Pirates1. Is there anything worse than old jokes trying to be funny? Because I feel fairly certain most of us went to see Pirates2 because we had seen Pirates1. Did they HAVE to recycle the "why is the rum gone"-joke TWICE?!? It's just not funny, and it kills the mood. It's much better when Jack comments that Elizabeth should be wearing a dress or nothing and that he happens to have the latter in his cabin - that's in the spirit from the first movie, and it still works completely too. But we get very little of that, because the movie insists on referring back to Pirates1 while pointing forward to Pirates3. Naturally it needs to bind them together, but it goes to far - when I ask "what are YOU really yourself, Pirates2," I have no answer.

 

The only thing I found blindingly silly was (tragically) the waterwheel fight. That dragged on foreeever. Otherwise, everything else works out (generally, although there are some out of character moments for Will and Jack, some poorly delivered lines (but cleverly written), and some poor script writing (other events should have happened, but didn't)), and also the first 45 minutes or so are generally useless (island scenes).

 

I didn't mind the wheel so much (though it was a bit silly). It was worse to see the perfectly ordered Norrington go completely out of character and betray everything he ever believed in for no apparent reason whatsoever. You could say that it served the plot, but given that Beckett arrives with orders from the very higest British authorities, is that really true? Norrington was authoritative and lawabiding to a fault in Pirates1, so it would have been consistent to let him do whatever Beckette wanted, even if reluctantly, just on the basis of "this is the order of things".

 

I also hated seeing Elizabeth becoming all childish and fake fainting to get Jack, Norrington, and Will to stop fighting each other. Completely out of character. Elizabeth was the mature character in Pirates1 with Will clearly the second, but firmly so. Now she's reduced to a child who swoons when she doesn't get her way when the guys won't play nicely with her

 

It's just out of character. You MUST pick up the characters where you left them. Pirates2 did not. Norrington is hellbent on taking revenge on Jack. That's not where he ended up in Pirates1. Jack is willing to sacrifice Will to save himself, and Will is gullible enough to buy it - that's not where the two ended up in Pirates1.

[Titanius Anglesmith]

P2 had a plot, and a very good one in my opinion. It just takes more than one movie to tell it. If they can include CGI effects to add to the plot then I'll for it, no matter how over-the-top they may seem to some people.

 

I actually found the "old" jokes to be pretty darn funny. I guess you just have to love Jack Sparrow as much as I do to truly appreciate his sense of humor. That's nothing against anyone else here, but Jack Sparrow really is my idol.

 

The one thing I do agree with you on, Jediphile, is Elizabeth going completely out of character and false-fainting. That's my least favorite part of the movie and it really shouldn't have been done. But in my opinion, that's really the only downside of DMC.

[Jediphile]

I actually found the "old" jokes to be pretty darn funny. I guess you just have to love Jack Sparrow as much as I do to truly appreciate his sense of humor. That's nothing against anyone else here, but Jack Sparrow really is my idol.

 

I love Captain Jack. Depp is bloody funny as that character. That's why I was so miffed about what they did to him in that sequel. He should have been so much more fun. Instead he is, at times, reduced to being just plainly rediculous in the JarJar/Snails sort-of-way, which is inexcusable. But when commenting on how Elizabeth should wear a dress or nothing, he was Captain Jack from P1 again, and it was hilarious too. If they hadn't done that bit, then it might have convinced me that I was probably just expecting too much on the basis of the first film. But that moment more than any other convinced me that they had goofed most of the film - Jack COULD work. He could STILL have been the Captain Jack that I knew and loved in the first film - they just didn't write material for him that allowed him to...

[Pho3nix]

Could you fellow LF'ers explain to me what exactly you like about the PotC-movies, because I think they are quite overrated.

 

Watched 1 & 2 yesterday and I can honestly say that they felt mediocre, story wise at least. Johnny Depp is funny at times though. And Keira Knightley has quite poor dialogue in the first one eg. "If you like pain, try wearing a corset!" (not sure if I quoted it right).

[Jediphile]

Jack Sparrow IS what makes Pirates good. Without Jack the whole thing dies, and everything plays towards Jack, including all the other characters. Would anyone watch a Pirates movies with Elizabeth and Will but without Jack? I sincerely doubt it. A movie with Elizabeth and Will would have a fair chance of success, though.

 

EDIT: Oh bloody... I meant that the other way around: A movie withOUT Elizabeth and Will BUT WITH JACK would have a fair chance of success, though.

[Negative Sun]

A movie with Elizabeth and Will would have a fair chance of success, though.

A fair chance of success in boring the hell out of people maybe...

[Titanius Anglesmith]

Could you fellow LF'ers explain to me what exactly you like about the PotC-movies, because I think they are quite overrated.

Why I like Pirates? 3 words - Jack, Jones, Barbossa.

[PoiuyWired]

W00t, somehow I think they are going to do more than three movies. Though I think 3 is the magic number, we don't need PT for PotC.

[Jediphile]

W00t, somehow I think they are going to do more than three movies. Though I think 3 is the magic number, we don't need PT for PotC.

 

Depp has already said that he'd do 4 and 5 no problem. And let's face it - as long as Johnny is willing to do it, that's really all it takes. You could cut all other characters out of those movies, and they could still be quite fun as long as Captain Jack is in there, whereas without Jack Sparrow, they'll be lost to Davy Jones' locker. Savvy?

[Jeff]

Keira Knightley has said she might not be interested in doing more movies after 3 and Orlando Bloom has also hinted towards this. http://movies.ign.com/articles/745/745233p1.html

[Davinq]

Keira Knightley has said she might not be interested in doing more movies after 3 and Orlando Bloom has also hinted towards this. http://movies.ign.com/articles/745/745233p1.html

No movie series should go beyond a trilogy anyways, James Bond being the exception. What was Disney thinking?

[Jediphile]

No movie series should go beyond a trilogy anyways, James Bond being the exception. What was Disney thinking?

 

How about the Star Wars movies then?

 

Seriously, if they can continue to make the movies funny (and I admit that is a big "if"), then I don't see anything inherently wrong with doing more than three movies in a series.

[PoiuyWired]

No movie series should go beyond a trilogy anyways, James Bond being the exception. What was Disney thinking?

 

There is hairy potter...

[Commander Obi-Wan]

Could you fellow LF'ers explain to me what exactly you like about the PotC-movies, because I think they are quite overrated.

 

Some people believe Spiderman is overrated.

 

I personally find it entertaining, which is an important to most movies that are brought up through fantasy and science-fiction, such as Pirates of the Caribbean and Spiderman. The right choice of actors for these movies were important. Especially Johnny Depp for his role as Jack Sparrow. Personally, I think nobody else can play the role of Jack Sparrow as well as Johnny Depp can. He just seems perfect for the role. And some of the other characters and actors just add to that. Even if their roles are small. Then, there is the action that happens during the film. The "swordfights" and the battles between the Black Pearl and the other ships, such as The Flying Dutchman and the Dauntless. And finally, they're pirates, mate.

 

But, hey, it's all based on your opinion whether you like it or not.

 

And about the idea of the there being a Pirates 4 and so on, I honestly don't really have an opinion on it, until I finish watching the third installment. If the ending seems fitting for their to be another Pirates movie, then so be it. Or if there is a prequel, then we'll just have to see what they do there. I'll wait till they confirm these other installment, before I make a big deal out of it, anyway.

[Titanius Anglesmith]

I would actually like to see a prequel set during the time when Jack made his deal with Jones. That part of DMC's plot has always been a little cloudy to me, and it could use some clearing up.

[Diego Varen]

Has anyone noticed that both Commander Obi-Wan and EagerWeasel both have Captain Jack Avatars? I think that At World's End will conclude Dead Man's Chest storyline, before going onto prequels, etc. Johnny Depp will do them too, since he was the only actor in the series who had interest of returning.

[Jediphile]

^^

 

Prequels? GAH!! Don't give them any bright ideas, please! I'd much rather they let Captain Jack sail on his merry way to new adventures.

[Mike Windu]

I think that if the story is great, then they can go ahead with sequels. That being the case with Dead Man's Chest and At World's End, as well as Spidey.

 

However, from the looks of both Spiderman 3 and At World's End, the trilogy comes to a natural close.