‘Pirates of the Caribbean 5 Might Shoot In Puerto Rico By End of 2012

[skier_pete]

OMG. You guys are the people the Disney bean counters are counting on. Build crap, put the Disney name on on it and watch it sell. Poor Walt really must be dead a thousand times over (and I hate invoking a long dead mans ideals into current time).

Is there anyone who can actully say these are good films? I mean made well, good script, good acting, good storeytelling? Yes they make money but is that really your criteria? Really? Honey boo boo and the Kardshians get good ratings and make their companies money. Do you defend them too?

Instead of playing it safe for entertaiment you are comfortable with wouldn't it be better to demand a new success? A new classic that you can fall for rather than more vanilla ice cream? I guess not.

Well, I'm going to disagree with you whole-heartedly. The first Pirates movie was great. The sequels (2 & 3) were both interesting, I enjoyed 2 a lot, especially on 2nd viewing, and the 3rd one had some really bizarre ideas in it that I liked, but ended up kind of a big mess.

On Stranger Tides was not a bad movie. I only ended up seeing it in the theatres because my car was in for repair, but I was pleasantly surprised that it was OK. Then I rented it a few months back and watched it with my wife, and we both enjoyed it. Not nearly as good as the first one as it was rather episodic without feeling like its characters had any through-story and wholly disposable, but entertaining nonetheless. I left thinking, "Well, I could watch another one of these."

Would I prefer it to be "great"? Yes, of course I would, but very few movies are "great", regardless of the talent in front of and behind the camera. I'll use "The Dark Knight Rises" as an example, a sequel to a great film that was hugely popular, it was just sort of "OK". Not bad really, but not great either. It doesn't make me hope there are no more Batman movies. Making a "great" movie is so hard to do, so many things have to go just right. And a movie being an original idea vs a franchise isn't more or less likely to "great"-ness.

James Bond is another good example...a series of movies that rarely acheives "Greatness" and sometimes is total shiite, yet i still look forward to the next one, hoping for closer to "great".

Final example is "Avengers". While I enjoyed all the previous Marvel movies, with the exeption of maybe "Iron Man I" I wouldn't put down any of them as much more than disposable entertainment...while I think "Avengers" somehow acheived greatness. This is the 5th (6th?) movie in a series that will have many many more.

So, all this leads back to the Pirates series. They made one great movie, and then 3 more that were somewhere between "great" and "terrible". If Disney wants to sink more money into another one of these movies, I'll likely go see it. I'd like them to take Rob Marshall out of the directors chair, as I think part of "On Stranger Tides" problem was somewhat poor pacing which I lay at the director's feet. But, I'm OK with them making another one.

I wonder why you are so dead set against it. Is the movie offensive to you in some way? You'd rather have them sink that money into more original properties? Like "Tron: Legacy" and "John Carter", neither of which were any better than "On Stranger Tides"? If you don't like the movies, don't go see them. This is the way I feel about the "Transformers" movies. The first one was not bad, the second one was garbage. I have yet to see the third. I haven't plunked a down on any of them in the theatre, and only saw the second a few months ago on Netflix streaming.

Comparing it to the Kardashians and Honey Boo Boo is sort of sad...taking easy shots...its not even in the same ballpark. I find those shows both insulting to the audience and to the people in front of the camera. But whatever, I don't like it so therefore I don't WATCH it, never seen an episode of either. Never invested a dime in Kardashian products. But I also don't really care if they are popular or not. It doesn't surprise me, stupid stuff has always been popular with the masses. The highest rated television show of ALL TIME? "The Beverly Hillbillies" How does it affect me?

Anyways, to each his own. There are worst things that I could spend $12 on than another Pirates movie.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Skier Pete. Thanks for the very good reply.

No, I have nothing against POC, in fact number 1 is one of my all time favorites.

I do want filmmakers to shoot for the moon every time though and if they did as well as the HP series, which I think tried their very best with each effort, I'd have no problem but then HP had it's written guideline (the books).

Series like Bond aren't really any more relevant than my use of Honey boo boo though, are they? The difference between Bond and POC is that Bond always has a premise in which to write around, a cool spy, fighting crime with outlandish gadgets and pretty girls, POC doesn't have the luxury of being about anything other than Captain Jack, whom I do like (both Jack and Depp).

I think I'm against easy money cash grabs that, IMO tarnish the original. I thought adding Captain Jack to the ride was great initially but as his character diminishes with each film I no longer feel that way.

I guess I'm alone in this fight, but I appreciate your civil response to my admittedly inflammatory post.

 

[skier_pete]

Skier Pete. Thanks for the very good reply.

No, I have nothing against POC, in fact number 1 is one of my all time favorites.

I do want filmmakers to shoot for the moon every time though and if they did as well as the HP series, which I think tried their very best with each effort, I'd have no problem but then HP had it's written guideline (the books).

Series like Bond aren't really any more relevant than my use of Honey boo boo though, are they? The difference between Bond and POC is that Bond always has a premise in which to write around, a cool spy, fighting crime with outlandish gadgets and pretty girls, POC doesn't have the luxury of being about anything other than Captain Jack, whom I do like (both Jack and Depp).

I think I'm against easy money cash grabs that, IMO tarnish the original. I thought adding Captain Jack to the ride was great initially but as his character diminishes with each film I no longer feel that way.

I guess I'm alone in this fight, but I appreciate your civil response to my admittedly inflammatory post.

No problem, I always enjoy a good discussion!

I would argue against your assertion that the sequels tarnish the original. In fact, I would argue it continues to show how well it works. There have been many a lousy sequel to a great film. (Jaws is still one of my favorite movies of all time, and though Jaws II is tolerable, Jaws 3 and 4 are two of the worst movies ever made. They don't tarnish how amazing Speilberg's original is. The crappy Star Wars sequels do nothing to diminish how fine the first two/three movies are. I also think of the Matrix & Back to the Future of great first movies with very flawed sequels. The only case of a movie being so bad it actively ruined the original is Highlander II: The Quickening, but I also wouldn't argue Highlander as being "great".)

You make a good point about Bond though not being a good example - what really makes a franchise work, I mean REALLY work, is good characters. Bond is the exception to this, as he's hardly a character at all and has barely changed in 50 years.

A good example of this is the Star Trek universe. The original characters were great and made even some terrible movies (ST5, I'm looking at you here.) bearable to watch. I think the reason the recent Star Trek reboot worked so well was they were able to go back to those great characters, and managed to nail it. The plot is really pretty crap, but good characters (and good action sequences) made it a really fun movie.

I'll loop back to Pirates. One thing "On Stranger Tides" got very, very right is that it took the best two characters in the series - Capts Jack and Barbossa - and gave them interesting motives to move the story forward. Again, there were a lot of flaws to the movie and it wasn't great, but I really enjoyed revisiting those characters, even more than I expected. A big flaw with the movie was they piled a whole bunch of additional characters in the movie that weren't fleshed out enough to care about, which is really too bad. Angelica, Serene, the preacher guy (so uninteresting I can't remember his name), Blackbeard, none were more than one dimensional. Angelica was ALMOST interesting because she made Jack more interesting (inserting someone he genuinely cared about besides himself) you couldn't get a handle on what "side" she was on, even to the end.

Anyways, I will still maintain there are a lot worse things that Disney can produce than the continuing adventures of Jack and Barbossa. Get the right story, and a better director, and I still think you could get a really good film out of it, or at least a really entertaining one. Your right that "easy money cash grabs" are not really what they should be doing, that they should find the right story for it.

SP

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

No problem, I always enjoy a good discussion!

I would argue against your assertion that the sequels tarnish the original. In fact, I would argue it continues to show how well it works. There have been many a lousy sequel to a great film. (Jaws is still one of my favorite movies of all time, and though Jaws II is tolerable, Jaws 3 and 4 are two of the worst movies ever made. They don't tarnish how amazing Speilberg's original is. The crappy Star Wars sequels do nothing to diminish how fine the first two/three movies are. I also think of the Matrix & Back to the Future of great first movies with very flawed sequels. The only case of a movie being so bad it actively ruined the original is Highlander II: The Quickening, but I also wouldn't argue Highlander as being "great".)

You make a good point about Bond though not being a good example - what really makes a franchise work, I mean REALLY work, is good characters. Bond is the exception to this, as he's hardly a character at all and has barely changed in 50 years.

A good example of this is the Star Trek universe. The original characters were great and made even some terrible movies (ST5, I'm looking at you here.) bearable to watch. I think the reason the recent Star Trek reboot worked so well was they were able to go back to those great characters, and managed to nail it. The plot is really pretty crap, but good characters (and good action sequences) made it a really fun movie.

I'll loop back to Pirates. One thing "On Stranger Tides" got very, very right is that it took the best two characters in the series - Capts Jack and Barbossa - and gave them interesting motives to move the story forward. Again, there were a lot of flaws to the movie and it wasn't great, but I really enjoyed revisiting those characters, even more than I expected. A big flaw with the movie was they piled a whole bunch of additional characters in the movie that weren't fleshed out enough to care about, which is really too bad. Angelica, Serene, the preacher guy (so uninteresting I can't remember his name), Blackbeard, none were more than one dimensional. Angelica was ALMOST interesting because she made Jack more interesting (inserting someone he genuinely cared about besides himself) you couldn't get a handle on what "side" she was on, even to the end.

Anyways, I will still maintain there are a lot worse things that Disney can produce than the continuing adventures of Jack and Barbossa. Get the right story, and a better director, and I still think you could get a really good film out of it, or at least a really entertaining one. Your right that "easy money cash grabs" are not really what they should be doing, that they should find the right story for it.

SP

If you want bad sequels how about Weekend at Bernie's 2 or Caddyshack2! Now, I agree that the POC movies are at least entertaining, just not very good cinematic efforts.

I do disagree on the character integrity issue though. IMO, Capt. jack was a stand alone character in the first and maybe the second flicks, after that he seems to be a charicature of himself, if that makes sense. Further, I don't equate mass appeal with quality either ... I could go back to Honey boohoo again here, LOL!

 

[skier_pete]

If you want bad sequels how about Weekend at Bernie's 2 or Caddyshack2! Now, I agree that the POC movies are at least entertaining, just not very good cinematic efforts.

I do disagree on the character integrity issue though. IMO, Capt. jack was a stand alone character in the first and maybe the second flicks, after that he seems to be a charicature of himself, if that makes sense. Further, I don't equate mass appeal with quality either ... I could go back to Honey boohoo again here, LOL!

Wow, Chaddyshack 2 - one of the worst sequels ever!

But how can Weekend at Bernie's 2 be much of a step down from Weekend at Bernie's!

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Wow, Chaddyshack 2 - one of the worst sequels ever!

But how can Weekend at Bernie's 2 be much of a step down from Weekend at Bernie's!

Lol. Weekend at Bernie's kind of made sense if you were really drunk. That didn't even improve the sequel.

 

[JenLoy]

I for one will have a ticket to opening night. Nothing compares to the first, but I love the Pirate movies. Bring on more Jack Sparrow!