Post by: PIAC on September 19, 2003, 11:46:41 PM
i give it nine thumbs up!
Post by: KnowsNothing on September 20, 2003, 05:14:46 AM
The movie was awesome! But since It got a little boring in the middle (or end?), I'd have to give it 8 thumbs up.
Post by: kennyb27 on September 20, 2003, 06:24:08 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on September 20, 2003, 06:31:35 AM
Post by: Molobert on September 20, 2003, 12:43:40 PM
Post by: Berny on September 20, 2003, 02:10:24 PM
My dad had the local classical radio station playing yesterday and I swear they were playing its soundtrack. Which is also AWESOME!
Post by: PIAC on September 20, 2003, 03:06:24 PM
boring?
NEVAH! i was watching with rapt attention the entire time, pirates are awsome, i need an evil demonic uberskull for my desk now.. ohwell
Post by: Termin8Anakin on September 20, 2003, 06:11:24 PM
When my site comes back up, don't be surprised to see a Kiera Knightley page. Not that there's any pics on Google images search to get anyways.
Just a 'Love Kiera' page
Post by: Shift Key on September 21, 2003, 12:02:09 AM
I'm only human ya know.
PIAC: This'll be one I definitely get on DVD.
*waits for release*
Post by: ThePerm on September 22, 2006, 07:59:46 AM
Post by: wandering on September 22, 2006, 11:44:49 AM
Post by: Ceric on September 22, 2006, 11:58:08 AM
It's like Wind Waker to me. I love the game if it wasn't for the stupid ocean.
I love this movie if it wasn't for the stupid need to expand into two instead of doing a separate story in the third one, which I know won't see because I could care less.
While I'm griping on Movies I don't like the direction the New Transformers movie is going.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 22, 2006, 12:11:14 PM
I've noticed that with a lot of big blockbuster films lately. It seems like they just plan a bunch of cool scenes and then make up some thin story to connect those scenes together. So you enjoy it while it's there but there's nothing to think about afterwards.
And I'll agree that the Transformers movie looks stupid as f*ck. The sad thing is the trailer with the Mars lander and the "what's that?" taking it out sets up a cool Martian invasion style film. It's wasted on such a turd like this. I don't know why whenever a licence is obtained for a movie they always change things around. If the source material was popular as it was why not just stay close to the source material? They always make all sorts of unwelcome changes and in the end nobody likes the resulting product. Sometimes it's minor or the change is to help with pacing but when they completely overhaul everything it pretty much never results in anything decent.
Post by: Nick DiMola on September 22, 2006, 02:11:21 PM
Post by: KnowsNothing on September 22, 2006, 02:27:58 PM
I take back what I said about the first one THREE YEARS AGO. It deserves TWELVE thumbs-up for being the best movie ever. I've watched it about a gazillion times.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 22, 2006, 02:58:18 PM
F*ck, you just nailed it perfectly on that one.
Post by: ThePerm on September 22, 2006, 03:05:40 PM
Post by: IceCold on September 22, 2006, 03:52:02 PM
Post by: wandering on September 22, 2006, 06:26:45 PM
Post by: Svevan on September 22, 2006, 07:42:54 PM
Post by: wandering on September 22, 2006, 08:07:40 PM
Post by: Artimus on September 22, 2006, 08:15:32 PM
Post by: wandering on September 22, 2006, 08:43:41 PM
Wachowski brother one: Okay, so Neo's pretty much conquered the Matrix, defeated agent smith, gained immense super powers, and has said he's going to start waking other people up in the real world. What's next?
Wachowski brother 2: Neo: uh.....um.....fighting 100 agent smiths for no real reason?
Brother one: Great! But first, let's have long, boring, pseudo-intellectual discussions about....you know...the nature of man, and stuff.
Brother two: Whoa. Either that is the greatest idea ever, or we've been watching too much anime.
Brother one: The former. Definetly. Oh, and I think our first film was too, you know, visually interesting. It made Keanu Reeve's acting look too bad by comparison.
Brother two: I'm way ahead of you. I've been watching some porn lately, and I've noticed they just love to flood everything with light so you can see every detail. It may not be "artisitic", but we could use the same technique to highlight our special effects!
Brother one: You mean the special effects that are so mind-blowingly incredible, no one else will even begin to be able to copy them with the next 20 years?
Brother two: Yes, those.
Brother one: haha, this film is going to be so bad.
Brother two: hahaha, yeah I know. "The keymaster" hahaha that's some deep sh!t right there.
Brother one: Concordantly, I think "the architect" would agree with you. But seriously though, let's retire to Hawaii after this, okay?
Brother two: Why, you don't think you'll be able to fool people a third time?
Post by: Arbok on September 22, 2006, 09:33:35 PM
Anyway, it goes without saying, Pirates of the Caribbean is an excellent and incredibly fun film. It also goes without saying that X2 is beyond awesome, as IceCold brought it up. Both of those movies were two of my favorite US productions since the turn of the century.
Post by: TrueNerd on September 22, 2006, 10:55:05 PM
This would have been okay if the story was at least somewhat interesting. It wasn't. The "cliffhanger ending" is not suspenseful at all. You KNOW Johnny Depp will be in the third one, and therefore don't care that an octopus ate him. Han Solo being frozen in carbonite, this is not. The love triangle was the worst of the suicide inducing ideas this film introduced. Thanks, I've watched Friends before. And WHY OH WHY was this movie two and a half hours long? Motherf*cking Goodfellas is two and a half hours long. I hope that editor dies, right along with this series. Pirates 2 was nothing but a cash-in. And it worked, unfortunately. Too bad Spider-Man's opening weekend record had to fall to a movie that manages to fail on almost every level. I would say it is the worst movie of the year so far, but ya know, Ultraviolet.
I want to say I won't ever see the third one, but I'm sure when it comes out that friends of mine will want to and I'll go along with it. But I won't be pleased.
Post by: Shift Key on September 23, 2006, 03:39:19 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
aye!!! horizontal action be the way with me with the knightliest women and the girl who hangs at the ports!!!
Hahaha way to enter a timewarp and find this thread Perm.
Quote
While I'm griping on Movies I don't like the direction the New Transformers movie is going.
Two words - Michael Bay.
More words - "Pearl Harbour sucked just a little bit more than I miss you"
ITS TEAM AMERICA, BABY
Post by: wandering on May 24, 2007, 07:29:40 PM
The ending is perfect, and touching. (Be sure and stay through the credits.)
As for the rest of the film....well, there are some good moments. And casting Keith Richard's as Sparrow's father was a stroke of genius. But, overall, it's a convoluted mess, like Pirates 2 (my opinion of Pirates 2 has lessoned, since I saw it in the theater.)
Post by: King of Twitch on May 24, 2007, 09:07:40 PM
Post by: Requiem on May 25, 2007, 04:07:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: TrueNerd
Pirates 2 sucked ass. Completely worthless. Who the F*CK liked the first one because of the story? I liked it because it made me laugh, usually at something different with every viewing. It was also very fun. Now, let's name the two things Pirates 2 failed horribly at. That's right, it was neither fun or funny! All of the good, clever dialogue was replaced with Johnny Depp falling down a lot and recycling jokes from the first movie which is the opposite of funny and every other random scene dragged on and on. That would be the opposite of fun.
This would have been okay if the story was at least somewhat interesting. It wasn't. The "cliffhanger ending" is not suspenseful at all. You KNOW Johnny Depp will be in the third one, and therefore don't care that an octopus ate him. Han Solo being frozen in carbonite, this is not. The love triangle was the worst of the suicide inducing ideas this film introduced. Thanks, I've watched Friends before. And WHY OH WHY was this movie two and a half hours long? Motherf*cking Goodfellas is two and a half hours long. I hope that editor dies, right along with this series. Pirates 2 was nothing but a cash-in. And it worked, unfortunately. Too bad Spider-Man's opening weekend record had to fall to a movie that manages to fail on almost every level. I would say it is the worst movie of the year so far, but ya know, Ultraviolet.
I want to say I won't ever see the third one, but I'm sure when it comes out that friends of mine will want to and I'll go along with it. But I won't be pleased.
This is one of the greatest rants I have ever witnessed!
The Good Fellas comment is PRICELESS!
Post by: Athrun Zala on May 25, 2007, 04:43:13 AM
Post by: Ceric on May 25, 2007, 05:19:46 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: RequiemQuote
Originally posted by: TrueNerd
Pirates 2 sucked ass. Completely worthless. Who the F*CK liked the first one because of the story? I liked it because it made me laugh, usually at something different with every viewing. It was also very fun. Now, let's name the two things Pirates 2 failed horribly at. That's right, it was neither fun or funny! All of the good, clever dialogue was replaced with Johnny Depp falling down a lot and recycling jokes from the first movie which is the opposite of funny and every other random scene dragged on and on. That would be the opposite of fun.
This would have been okay if the story was at least somewhat interesting. It wasn't. The "cliffhanger ending" is not suspenseful at all. You KNOW Johnny Depp will be in the third one, and therefore don't care that an octopus ate him. Han Solo being frozen in carbonite, this is not. The love triangle was the worst of the suicide inducing ideas this film introduced. Thanks, I've watched Friends before. And WHY OH WHY was this movie two and a half hours long? Motherf*cking Goodfellas is two and a half hours long. I hope that editor dies, right along with this series. Pirates 2 was nothing but a cash-in. And it worked, unfortunately. Too bad Spider-Man's opening weekend record had to fall to a movie that manages to fail on almost every level. I would say it is the worst movie of the year so far, but ya know, Ultraviolet.
I want to say I won't ever see the third one, but I'm sure when it comes out that friends of mine will want to and I'll go along with it. But I won't be pleased.
This is one of the greatest rants I have ever witnessed!
The Good Fellas comment is PRICELESS!
100% Agree.
Post by: TrueNerd on May 25, 2007, 11:59:51 AM
Post by: IceCold on May 26, 2007, 10:25:41 AM
Post by: Requiem on May 27, 2007, 09:12:08 PM
That was a long ass movie! It started picking up when other movies climax!
The plot was nothing short of extremely confusing, the "funny" parts were uncreative and borrowed from the previous movies, and their were times during the movie where I didn't know what to look forward to. Wait...that's partly a lie. I looked forward to seeing Jack Sparrow on screen (his performance was marvelous); however, anything story related just blew over my head. I couldn't figure out who to hate. Well, no.....I guess I knew, but I didn't know why.
Anyway, I could have done with a movie entirely fixed on Captain Jack Sparrow (and there are scenes where it is comprised entirely of Johnny Depp). Every other character seemed extremely sub par in comparison (except for Barbossa and Davy Jones), ESPECIALLY Elizabeth Swan. Every time she popped her head into a scene I kept thinking "what a whore?!" or "throw that bitch overboard!"
Whatever though....hopefully Rush Hour 3 doesn't dissapoint me like every other trilogy this summer (i.e. SpiderMan, Shrek).
Anyway...I'm glad I bittorrent-ed it rather than going to the theater and handing them my cash, then I really would have been pissed.
Final Score: 5/10.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 27, 2007, 09:30:08 PM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on May 27, 2007, 10:12:27 PM
Post by: Kairon on May 27, 2007, 10:18:14 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 27, 2007, 10:35:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
You LIKED Pirates of the Caribbean? Hmm... I have yet to see it, but I have received every indication that I shall HATE IT WITH A BURNING PASSION UNKNOWN TO SQUIRREL AND CHIPMUNK ALIKE.
I am not the only one that liked it, IMDB is quite positive towards it and reviewers are split (just like 2).
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 27, 2007, 11:50:56 PM
There were I few issues I had with the movie, but nothing that you can't write off due to it being a complete fantasy.
PoTC3 7/10
PoTC as a trilogy 8.2/10
I am also willing to bet that there will be atleast one more PoTC movie before 2010 is over.
Post by: Athrun Zala on May 28, 2007, 05:21:03 AM
What I didn't like was that Sao Feng died so early, and that the Calypso/Davy Jones storyline was not exactly completed
overall good movie, awesome soundtrack...
PotC1 - 8/10
PotC2 - 6/10
PotC3 - 8.5/10 (because of better pacing and the maelstrom sequence)
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 28, 2007, 06:14:58 AM
Its just a small gripe, but was just something that I think would have made that scene even more intense and enjoyable.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 28, 2007, 09:00:45 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Athrun Zala
well, it was way better than I thought it would be... and I had no problem following the plot it's an effing pirate movie! it's obvious they would be double and triple crossing each other!
What I didn't like was that Sao Feng died so early, and that the Calypso/Davy Jones storyline was not exactly completed
overall good movie, awesome soundtrack...
PotC1 - 8/10
PotC2 - 6/10
PotC3 - 8.5/10 (because of better pacing and the maelstrom sequence)
I had the same complaint as you in regards to the Davy Jones storyline. It makes me wonder if there is a longer cut of the movie that clears up some of the holes, but was cut due to time constraints. Anyway this movie was easily my favorite of the 3, but I loved them all, the pacing was excellent.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 28, 2007, 09:01:24 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1
I couldn't rate PoTC3 so high mostly because of the total non involvement of all the other pirate ships during the ship battle, but then everyone was celebrating as if they all had some part in it. The massive Armada fled because of 9 ships, but mostly because of the 2 that were advancing? They had about 20 ships per one Pirate ship and they couldn't even attempt a quick attack before a full fledged retreat? Not even a small time attack to involve all the other pirate ships that were sitting back watching the Black Pearl and the Flying Dutchman swirl around in circles for 10 minutes?
Its just a small gripe, but was just something that I think would have made that scene even more intense and enjoyable.
I agree that was odd, but oh well.
Post by: Requiem on May 28, 2007, 11:11:17 AM
It seems like dialog is thrown in for the small characters simply because they haven't said anything in a while. It's like when there's a group of them, everyone has to have something to say. It made the movie seem very fake to me.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 28, 2007, 01:50:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Requiem
I have another complaint:
It seems like dialog is thrown in for the small characters simply because they haven't said anything in a while. It's like when there's a group of them, everyone has to have something to say. It made the movie seem very fake to me.
Squid faced monsters are not fake though.
Post by: Requiem on May 28, 2007, 02:28:48 PM
What I mean is, it felt scripted. When Simba found Mufassa dead, that was an animation for God's sake, but it still felt sincere. But in POTC3, it felt like the writer just gave this dude a line so he didn't look stupid just standing there; however, he still managed to be stupid!
Post by: that Baby guy on May 28, 2007, 03:21:34 PM
With PotC3, nearly everything happens on a ship, so main characters only make sense being in several scenes. I also felt that some of the lines that characters seemed to receive at random matched ideas and lines of the pirates on the actual Pirates of the Caribbean ride, at least, they matched the one at Disney World. I can't be sure if they matched the one Disney Land, as I've never been there.
I also can't remember Pirates of the Caribbean at Euro-Disney. I don't think there was one there, though I may be mistaken, and have missed it because of the short time I had there.
Also, what the heck, Euro-Disney? One steak knife total in a steakhouse? Everyone in my group ordered steaks, and we had to pass around the knife to be able to cut them.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 28, 2007, 05:49:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Requiem
Oh come now....don't be like that!
What I mean is, it felt scripted. When Simba found Mufassa dead, that was an animation for God's sake, but it still felt sincere. But in POTC3, it felt like the writer just gave this dude a line so he didn't look stupid just standing there; however, he still managed to be stupid!
Well I didn't see what you were talking about, the movie was well paced and I thought it the dialogs was well written for the most part. BTW comparison to Lion King is pretty lame, POTC3 is supposed to be more comedy based than Lion King, so of course some of the stuff won't sound "sincere". The dialog was no different from the previous two movies, if there is any problem it is that I felt it should have been longer to develop the character even more.
Post by: Adrock on May 28, 2007, 06:17:51 PM
1. Elizabeth Swan's big speeches.
2. Not enough Sao Feng then... boom, kablamo....
3. Norrington. What the hell happened? He was so cool in Dead Man's Chest.
Tia Dalma gave everyone crabs.
Quote
hopefully Rush Hour 3 doesn't dissapoint me like every other trilogy this summer
Hmm, Chris Tucker is in it and Brett Ratner is directing. He already f-ed up X-Men 3. I'd say the odds are against RH3 not disappointing you.
Post by: IceCold on May 28, 2007, 06:49:58 PM
QuoteConsidering how bloated the film is, I doubt that. Unless they were even stupider and decided to not show those scenes in favour of other useless ones.. Man, I really don't like movies that drone on like this. Reminds me of King Kong.
I had the same complaint as you in regards to the Davy Jones storyline. It makes me wonder if there is a longer cut of the movie that clears up some of the holes, but was cut due to time constraints.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 28, 2007, 07:14:32 PM
QuoteTo be fair, Brett had to come in to someone elses movie and finish it, Rush Hour is Brett's from the beginning if I remember right. So if you liked Rush Hour 1 & 2, good chances are that you might atleast enjoy the 3rd. It has the same main actors and the same director, the movie is/was not rushed as that 2nd movie came out over 3 years ago, and besides, I don't think Chris Tucker would have signed on unless he was happy with the script. You know how picky that guy seems to be about movies.
Originally posted by: AdrockQuote
hopefully Rush Hour 3 doesn't dissapoint me like every other trilogy this summer
Hmm, Chris Tucker is in it and Brett Ratner is directing. He already f-ed up X-Men 3. I'd say the odds are against RH3 not disappointing you.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 28, 2007, 08:23:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceColdQuoteConsidering how bloated the film is, I doubt that. Unless they were even stupider and decided to not show those scenes in favour of other useless ones.. Man, I really don't like movies that drone on like this. Reminds me of King Kong.
I had the same complaint as you in regards to the Davy Jones storyline. It makes me wonder if there is a longer cut of the movie that clears up some of the holes, but was cut due to time constraints.
King Kong was a splendid movie and so was POTC3, I never once thought "I wish this would just get over", but hey with today's ADD culture it is no surprise people can't sit through a longer movie.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 28, 2007, 08:24:22 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
I liked At World's End. At the very least, it was better than Spiderman 3 because, you know, they didn't kill Davy Jones by tossing a grenade at him. Three major failings:
1. Elizabeth Swan's big speeches.
2. Not enough Sao Feng then... boom, kablamo....
3. Norrington. What the hell happened? He was so cool in Dead Man's Chest.
Tia Dalma gave everyone crabs.Quote
hopefully Rush Hour 3 doesn't dissapoint me like every other trilogy this summer
Hmm, Chris Tucker is in it and Brett Ratner is directing. He already f-ed up X-Men 3. I'd say the odds are against RH3 not disappointing you.
What was wrong with Swan's speeches? I thought they were passionate, and well acted.
Post by: IceCold on May 28, 2007, 08:31:30 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 28, 2007, 08:37:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
Hmm, well I guess we disagree on both counts then - it's my view that King Kong could and should have been much more streamlined. It honestly sometimes took an hour to portray what could have been done more effectively and concisely in fifteen minutes. Waste of my time.
King Kong was a very character driven movie and I appreciated the 1 hr lead up, it made me care about the characters, not to mention to better appreciate the action. POTC3 on the other hand was almost non-stop action and seldom if ever dragged.
Post by: Adrock on May 28, 2007, 08:48:13 PM
Quote
BlackNMild2k1 wrote:
To be fair, Brett had to come in to someone elses movie and finish it, Rush Hour is Brett's from the beginning if I remember right. So if you liked Rush Hour 1 & 2, good chances are that you might atleast enjoy the 3rd.
From what I've read, Bryan Singer had a nearly completed treatment and Brett Ratner used very little of it. Singer's X-Men 3 was supposedly focused on just the resurrection of Jean Grey... and not every X-Men plot ever conceived.
Even though I think Bret Ratner is a terrible filmmaker, I suppose you're right. If you liked the first 2, there's a chance you might like the 3rd. Anyway, I think it's absolutely absurd how much money Chris Tucker is getting paid, especially since its substantially more than Jackie Chan.
Quote
Golden Phoenix wrote:
What was wrong with Swan's speeches? I thought they were passionate, and well acted.
They were cliche.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 29, 2007, 02:44:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: AdrockQuote
BlackNMild2k1 wrote:
To be fair, Brett had to come in to someone elses movie and finish it, Rush Hour is Brett's from the beginning if I remember right. So if you liked Rush Hour 1 & 2, good chances are that you might atleast enjoy the 3rd.
From what I've read, Bryan Singer had a nearly completed treatment and Brett Ratner used very little of it. Singer's X-Men 3 was supposedly focused on just the resurrection of Jean Grey... and not every X-Men plot ever conceived.
Well, then Bryan Singer should have stayed on and finished what he started, and maybe Bret Ratner could've taken on the Superman Returns film, caus I don't think it could've been any worse. Besides Superman Returns could've used more action and less emo Superman and other such character developments.
QuoteChris Tucker is a smart man, work less, get paid more. I envy that man.
Even though I think Bret Ratner is a terrible filmmaker, I suppose you're right. If you liked the first 2, there's a chance you might like the 3rd. Anyway, I think it's absolutely absurd how much money Chris Tucker is getting paid, especially since its substantially more than Jackie Chan.
Post by: Adrock on May 29, 2007, 03:38:51 AM
I'd like to think the reason Chris Tucker hasn't had any roles in the past 6 years is because everyone, except Ratner but including Tucker himself, realized how annoying Chris Tucker is and stopped casting him in movies. I hate Chris Tucker. You're probably smarter and funnier with a far less annoying voice than Chris Tucker. You'll get your chance at the big bucks.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on May 29, 2007, 05:33:14 AM
Post by: Athrun Zala on May 29, 2007, 06:02:08 AM
Quoteno it does not.... and the scene where Elizabeth pulls a weapon out of her ass proves that...
Originally posted by: PartyBear
I saw Pirates 3 on Sunday. I have pretty mixed feelings on it. I loved the first one. I even loved the second one. The third one, though, takes itself way too seriously. Way, way, too seriously.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on May 29, 2007, 08:07:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Athrun ZalaQuoteno it does not.... and the scene where Elizabeth pulls a weapon out of her ass proves that...
Originally posted by: PartyBear
I saw Pirates 3 on Sunday. I have pretty mixed feelings on it. I loved the first one. I even loved the second one. The third one, though, takes itself way too seriously. Way, way, too seriously.
Haha, seriously, I was like "WTF, I don't wanna know where she was hiding big ass gun!"
The only parts of the movie that took itself (somewhat) seriously was the non-pirate parts of the movie, but that is pretty much the same for all 3 movies and thats what makes the charm and apparently drunk nature of Jack Sparrow stand out, not to mention the general goofiness of the pirates overall.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on May 29, 2007, 08:39:43 AM
Post by: TrueNerd on May 29, 2007, 10:44:27 AM
And hey look! They left room a fourth movie!
Post by: ShyGuy on May 29, 2007, 11:32:32 AM
Post by: Requiem on May 29, 2007, 12:19:26 PM
By "girl", do you mean sister?!
hahaha, seriously though. TrueNerd hit the nail on the head. The problem with the third movie is that no one cared.
Post by: ShyGuy on May 29, 2007, 02:20:32 PM
I agree about them sucking all the empathy out of the story. hacking away half the subplots from movie 2 and 3 would have helped.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 29, 2007, 08:46:17 PM
Post by: King of Twitch on May 29, 2007, 09:21:05 PM
It's the same thing with Shrek 3; plot runs into problem of damsels in distress ... so how do we get them out of prison?? I know! Have one of them bash their head into the wall and make a giant hole to escape from! Whoever is thinking up these plots are dipping their chips with the same stupid sauce.
Post by: ShyGuy on May 29, 2007, 09:22:13 PM
Post by: Requiem on May 30, 2007, 02:28:45 AM
Why didn't they tell us that whoever stabs the heart takes over the Dutchman in the second movie? That's a pretty key piece of information that NOONE seemed to have wanted to mention ANYWHERE in the second movie, even though the second movie was based around that.
And ShyGuy, that would make a huge plot whole. After ten years then, who takes over? It needs a captain right?
Post by: Dirk Temporo on May 31, 2007, 12:21:51 AM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on June 01, 2007, 03:13:22 PM
My buddy I mentioned earlier in this thread actually got a pretty important role. He was the asian pirate spy guy in the beginning with the fake tattoo that melted off. Congrats to him for his motion picture superstar debut
Post by: wandering on June 01, 2007, 07:50:47 PM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on June 02, 2007, 02:37:31 AM
Post by: wulffman04 on June 03, 2007, 07:39:06 PM
Post by: that Baby guy on June 03, 2007, 07:48:15 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on June 04, 2007, 06:24:31 AM
I thought Pirates 3 was fun and I enjoyed myself but I have no intention of ever seeing that movie ever again. It is the typical modern blockbuster - lots of stuff happens but almost none of it has to happen. The plot was clearly made up as they went along. The set and costumes are complex enough that obviously something had to be written ahead of time but if they weren't I would assume that some scenes were made up on the spot the day of filming. The dialogue is even mysteriously vague whenever a new plot point is introduced. We'll mention something about a goddess or pieces o' eight now in one of the early scenes with all the characters all acting like this is common knowledge but we won't provide any hints to the audience about what it even means until an hour later when I, the scriptwriter, has had enough time to figure out some sort of possible solution. Hell a huge chunk of the film is about freeing the goddess but once they do it seemingly accomplishes nothing. My brother described Pirates 2 and 3 as like a season of 24 compressed into two three hour movies. Sub-plots begin and end and are forgotten about and everyone jumps sides at least once but in the end only the last ten minutes matter. Now when one has to wait a week for each episode this style of writing works because it hides how dumb the story is in sequence but it doesn't work in a movie. And Chow-Yun Fat's characters seems to have been designed solely to create another action figure because all of the plot involving him ultimately accomplishes nothing.
I think most people will like Pirates 3 but you'll feel like moron for liking it.
And why do both Jack and Barbosa each have one of the pieces o' eight? Wasn't Jack the original captain and then Barbosa took his place in a mutiny? Then wouldn't only ONE of them have a piece? It's one ship with one captain and each ship seems to be decended from the original pirates that sealed the goddess in the first place. It makes no sense for Barbosa to have an exceptional "first mate piece". Ideally there would be one piece for the Black Pearl and logically Barbosa would have taken Jack's piece when he marooned Jack in the events prior to the first film. Of course the real explanation for this is that they made up all this crap as they went along and had no initial plan in place. I don't really expect them to since the first film was probably initially designed as just one film. Everyone makes it up as they go but the audience isn't supposed to be able to tell that.
I think the problem is this idea of filming two sequels at once. They did that for both The Matrix and this and both times it resulted in films that consist of just a buncha stuff happening with no real focus. Lord of the Rings was able to film three movies at once because it was based on a story that had been published decades before. There was already a plan. I think there is potential for more Pirates films that are good and have decent plots. The trick is to make the films self-contained. Have the next film just be an adventure of Jack Sparrow and don't try to connect everything into one big giant story.
The irony is that the same movie execs that love having films become franchises are the same ones that always want to cram so much stuff into every sequel when they actually could milk the franchise longer by spacing things out better to make MORE movies. Having seperate adventures with different villains and not connecting sequels into one big story is they best way to keep things going. But no instead we get big jumbled crap like Pirates or three movies worth of villains in Spider-Man 3. Funny how James Bond uses self-contained sequels and that movie franchise has lasted over 30 years.
Post by: IceCold on June 04, 2007, 07:05:27 AM
QuoteWell, to be fair, he was a Pirate Lord and then passed it on to Keira Knightley, who was able to become King and make the decision.. But you're right; many of his scenes just added to the bloat.
And Chow-Yun Fat's characters seems to have been designed solely to create another action figure because all of the plot involving him ultimately accomplishes nothing.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on June 04, 2007, 07:13:32 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on June 04, 2007, 08:09:25 AM
Post by: that Baby guy on June 04, 2007, 08:28:48 AM
Anyways, I walked into the second and third movie of the series with no expectations, mostly because I could barely remember the first movie for some reason. I thought the second movie was alright, but not an excellent film overall. I thought the third was actually pretty good, and received some unfair criticism, probably because of the success of the original film. I believe several websites were giving it somewhere around a 6/10, but I felt it was closer to 7.5/10. I was tired of reading reviews that complained too much about too double crossing in a pirate film. That's half of what the movies have been about, and I appreciated that the first thing that happened once everyone was in the normal world was a stand-off, as well as all the other tricks. People don't become pirates for the relationships, they do it for their own greed, excepting our two protagonists, Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley, who character-wise, have learned how to deal with pirates by now, so they blend in as well as the other pirate main characters, when it comes to double crossing, though they try to do it for the good of others, and not for their own gain.
I liked the scenes where Jack was talking to himself. People I talked to said they didn't understand why the movie had those, but to me, it seemed to answer the question of whether he was crazy, or if he has everything planned all along. The answer being that he really is insane, and these other personalities basically influence everything he does, for the better. But that's just my impression.
The whole Calypso and Davey Jones subplot was a little gratuitous, though, and I think if they had either solidified it or just taken it out, it would helped the movie out quite a bit.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on June 04, 2007, 08:42:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
That was my biggest problem with the film: Two pirate lords from the area, let alone ship, without letting us in on the circumstances allowing them both to have a piece of eight. I understand Jack Sparrow having a piece, it was handed down with his ship, but for Barbossa, who was there to pass it down to him? Is it something that can legitimately be stolen to count as "passed down?" We don't know, and we won't know.
Anyways, I walked into the second and third movie of the series with no expectations, mostly because I could barely remember the first movie for some reason. I thought the second movie was alright, but not an excellent film overall. I thought the third was actually pretty good, and received some unfair criticism, probably because of the success of the original film. I believe several websites were giving it somewhere around a 6/10, but I felt it was closer to 7.5/10. I was tired of reading reviews that complained too much about too double crossing in a pirate film. That's half of what the movies have been about, and I appreciated that the first thing that happened once everyone was in the normal world was a stand-off, as well as all the other tricks. People don't become pirates for the relationships, they do it for their own greed, excepting our two protagonists, Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley, who character-wise, have learned how to deal with pirates by now, so they blend in as well as the other pirate main characters, when it comes to double crossing, though they try to do it for the good of others, and not for their own gain.
I liked the scenes where Jack was talking to himself. People I talked to said they didn't understand why the movie had those, but to me, it seemed to answer the question of whether he was crazy, or if he has everything planned all along. The answer being that he really is insane, and these other personalities basically influence everything he does, for the better. But that's just my impression.
The whole Calypso and Davey Jones subplot was a little gratuitous, though, and I think if they had either solidified it or just taken it out, it would helped the movie out quite a bit.
Another possible explanation is that the Pirate Lord title was handed to Barbossa when one of the other pirates retired. Regardless it isn't a plot hole, just something the movie was unclear about. In regards to Calypso, I think that plot was necessary since that was the driving force behind Davey Jones, and in turn Will.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 04, 2007, 09:51:17 AM
I viewed it more as insanity as a result of dying and coming back to life. Like he wasn't necessarily insane before (or at least he didn't see visions of himself) but developed that when he was more or less in Hell having to move a ship on land all by himself.
"Another possible explanation is that the Pirate Lord title was handed to Barbossa when one of the other pirates retired. Regardless it isn't a plot hole, just something the movie was unclear about."
You're right. It doesn't have to be a plot hole. But the way the film was written the pieces seemed more like "main character medals". I think a different film with a tighter plot could have a potential plot hole like that and get away with it. But in this film it looks like a goof. The film as a whole lacks focus so why should I assume that a bizarre potential goof was intentional? The whole film was probably written in a boardroom with representatives from the fast food and toy industries present.
Post by: that Baby guy on June 04, 2007, 09:58:41 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on June 04, 2007, 12:27:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
I don't consider it a plot hole, either, but I would like to know the canonical reasoning behind why Barbossa has one. I could come up with hundreds of ways it was possible, and all of them would work, but I would much rather the writers tell how he got it, even if through an interview.
Well there is always the possibility it was a cut scene, that kind of stuff happens all the time with movies. In regards to the movie not having focus, um, yes it did. The focus mainly on the pirates fighting for their very lives, everything they did was for that one goal.
