Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

[Deaths Head II]

Apparently, Disney and Bruckheimer are so confident with how On Stranger Tides is shaping up -- they're apparently gearing up to shoot movies 5 and 6 back-to-back.

I guess they haven't learned anything.

 

[night0205]

My guess is on strangers tides will be it's own adventure like the first one, and 4 and 5 will be one story arc like 2 and 3. I do have a fear that they run the franchise into the ground... so let's hope they get some good writers. I think the main issue with the script on 3 was that they didn't give the writers enough time to finish a good solid script... from what I hear they were filming it while they were writing it. Never a good idea.

 

[Bruce Malone]

As for jack sparrow he was cool and charismatic and funny in the first film. The two films that followed were him as a parody of himself from the 1st.

 

[night0205]

As for jack sparrow he was cool and charismatic and funny in the first film. The two films that followed were him as a parody of himself from the 1st.

I agree, but it's still great in my opinion.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I agree about Jack becoming a Parody.

I think the problem is that in the first film, Jack was written as a more normal sly Pirate. So he had some humorous scenes in there, along with some serious moments as well. Then Depp put his own spin on it.

In the next two movies, they just loaded him down with quirky humor, thinking that was all the audience wanted to see, but it made Jack into a much more one-dimensional character then he was in the first film.

 

[Poetic Chaos]

That's what I'm afraid they're doing with Tony Stark in the Iron Man movies. I loved when Stark got serious about there being no more premiers; it was just about the mission. Then Iron Man 2 followed up with the exact opposite and he was a clown most of the movie. That aspect was very entertaining in the first movie but overdone in the sequel.

 

[Deaths Head II]

That's what I'm afraid they're doing with Tony Stark in the Iron Man movies. I loved when Stark got serious about there being no more premiers; it was just about the mission. Then Iron Man 2 followed up with the exact opposite and he was a clown most of the movie. That aspect was very entertaining in the first movie but overdone in the sequel.

I agree. Tony's humor was entertaining but my I loved the moments was when he got down and serious and the only real time that happened in the sequel was during the scene with the video of his father, which also ended up becoming my favorite scene in the film. That's why sequels and series that go on too long often end up degrading as the studio pander what the audience expects to see and go too far in that direction that they lose grasp of the characters.

 

[ALP]

I guess they haven't learned anything.

Yeah they learned that Dead Man's Chest made over a billion and At World's End made $900 Million.

I call that a lesson well learned

 

[Doctor Jones]

Octoberist has spoken for me on my views.

But I liked that ET footage. By the looks of it (or what they cut together) hopefully Jack is back to his old self. He doesn't look as self parodying as he did in the sequels.

 

[ALP]

After 3 more Pirate movies following Alice, Johnny Depp will no doubt be the undisputed box office king. Tom Hanks, Sam Jackson, Harrison Ford, Will Smith can kiss their records goodbye. That man is bringing in a billion dollars a year for Disney.

 

[rashad]

No one here gives a damn about how much money these films have made. As long as Deep is playing Sparrow these films will financially successful.

 

[ALP]

No one here gives a damn about how much money these films have made. As long as Deep is playing Sparrow these films will financially successful.

Then no one should make silly comment about Disney learning their lesson or something to that effect.

Finances is the only lesson in Hollywood, especially Disney the biggest media conglomerate in the entire world.

Conglomerates do not care about art silly people.

 

[Deaths Head II]

Yeah they learned that Dead Man's Chest made over a billion and At World's End made $900 Million.

I call that a lesson well learned

I guess I should clarify they haven't learned anything about making good films. Sorry about the confusion.

 

[night0205]

For the most part, Disney makes high quality films so...

 

[Deaths Head II]

I wouldn't call PotC2 or 3 "high quality."

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

DMC is awesome to me mostly because of Davy Jones. AWE was not awesome, it stopped to chew the fat way too much.

 

[GREEN =w= DAY]

I agree with one of the above posts about Davy Jones. They had soo much going on in AWE that Jones kind of got lost in the shuffle. Too many characters

one thing i did not like about the 3rd is how many characters were handled; specifically Elizabeth's dad, Norrington, and Davey Jones

i think it's cool that hey want to shoot films 5 & 6 back to back, but only if they have a set story/screenplay set up. i remember reading reports that while filming Dead Man's Chest and World's End, that they didn't even have most of World's End script complete. most of it was written as shooting was taking place, and you can sort of tell. i hope that's not the case with films 5 & 6

 

[ALP]

I guess I should clarify they haven't learned anything about making good films. Sorry about the confusion.

Nah, I was just being coy. Let's shake on it

For the most part, Disney makes high quality films so...

2009:

Race To Witch Mountain
Hannah Montana: The Movie
Up
G-Force
Old Dogs
The Princess and the Frog
A Christmas Carol

Yeah what amazingly high quality films!

They put out two great films last year. And one of them was from Pixar. This year's output was just as mediocre, if not worse.

Alice in Wonderland
Prince of Persia
Toy Story 3
Sorcerer's Apprentice
Secretariat
Tangled

Toy Story 3 and maybe Tangled are the only thing on that list that could be called "high quality cinema."

 

[mclay18]

I'm not against a fifth and sixth POTC film. As long as Bruckheimer can keep his ego in check and get a well-defined story (like for OST, hopefully) -- bring them on. As long as they're separate adventures and Depp is in them, I'll watch them.

There are far worse movie franchises out there that have committed worse. The second and third films weren't that great, but they were fun. The first one, like most movie franchises are, is the best one.

 

[night0205]

By high quality I'm not saying the movies are without faults, but they have a good production. Pirates 2 & 3 had a high quality production... even if it had faults in it's script... I hated the princess and the frog, but that's a high quality film. All Pixar movies are very HIGH QUALITY (up, toy story 3, etc.) Tangled was also very high quality. Narnia was high quality. I'm not saying perfect movies, or even very good... but people who like that kind of stuff can enjoy it. I'm calling it high in comparison to other studios... like maybe fox... Guess it's just my opinion.

 

[Octoberist]

The Princess and the Frog had some issues with the pacing, despite the great value.

 

[Erzengel]

By high quality I'm not saying the movies are without faults, but they have a good production. Pirates 2 & 3 had a high quality production... even if it had faults in it's script... I hated the princess and the frog, but that's a high quality film. All Pixar movies are very HIGH QUALITY (up, toy story 3, etc.) Tangled was also very high quality. Narnia was high quality. I'm not saying perfect movies, or even very good... but people who like that kind of stuff can enjoy it. I'm calling it high in comparison to other studios... like maybe fox... Guess it's just my opinion.

Then you aren't using "high quality" correctly.

I could list so many movies, from Battlefield Earth, Prince of Persia, Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, Van Helsing, Fantastic Four etc.

These movies as well as many others, have believable special effects, but were crappy movies.

A movie with good special effects, doesn't make it a quality movie.

 

[night0205]

I don't see the fantastic four movies, battlefield earth, mummy 3, van helsing, etc, as anything similar to a good quality production. Bad visual effects, boring visuals, no existing story, one dimensional characters, horrible cinematography, bad music, all would make these movies seemingly bad quality films.

Pirates 2 & 3 has an amazing score, great visuals, epic story and battles, good cinematography, pretty good acting, and a fun story. It's a good fantasy journey length, good directing, and satisfying conclusion. Comparing this franchise to those movies makes no sense. The way these movies are bashed confuses me, and only can be explained by people's extremely unrealistic expectations. Even if you don't like a story, doesn't mean the films were not well made or high quality productions. It just means it's not your cup of tea.

And anyone who says specifically that van helsing has good special effects, had no idea what they are talking about. In my opinion.

 

[ALP]

Yeah but you mentioned more than just Pirates 2 and 3. You said Disney made mostly quality films. I then listed all the garbage they put out like Hannah Montana The Movie, G-Force, Old Dogs, Prince of Persia, Sorcerer's Apprentice, etc. Even Race to Witch mountain which should have been a good film ending up being incredibly dodgy and rather boring.

Had you just mentioned the Pirate films I could have agreed. But you said Disney mostly puts out quality films and I just can't agree with that at all. I'd say they make 65% crap 35% good films at the very best. For every Pirates there's an awful G-Force and Prince of Persia. For every Toy Story they put out an Old Dogs and an Alice. Even A Christmas Carol with Carrey was just mediocre and I was really hoping to like that one.

 

[Erzengel]

I don't see the fantastic four movies, battlefield earth, mummy 3, van helsing, etc, as anything similar to a good quality production. Bad visual effects, boring visuals, no existing story, one dimensional characters, horrible cinematography, bad music, all would make these movies seemingly bad quality films.

Pirates 2 & 3 has an amazing score, great visuals, epic story and battles, good cinematography, pretty good acting, and a fun story. It's a good fantasy journey length, good directing, and satisfying conclusion. Comparing this franchise to those movies makes no sense. The way these movies are bashed confuses me, and only can be explained by people's extremely unrealistic expectations. Even if you don't like a story, doesn't mean the films were not well made or high quality productions. It just means it's not your cup of tea.

And anyone who says specifically that van helsing has good special effects, had no idea what they are talking about. In my opinion.

Saying Pirates 2 and 3 had an "epic story" is a misnomer.

They really should have tried to replicate the 1st movie instead of going an "epic story" route. It was such an epic story that they weren't even done writing it when they were filming.

But I guess you meant epic like the forced love triangle, or writing other huge parts of the second story into a quick wrap up in the third. The Kraken, Norrington huge parts of the 2nd and 1st and 2nd respectively, given quick endings in order to forward the script.

Not to mention the whole 3rd movie was them trying to gather a huge pirate army who in the climax just sat there.

This movie wasn't meant to be King Lear. It's a summer blockbuster but don't make it to be some deep, cinema changing epic.