MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Pirates 6, Record Book 0

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest grossed $14.1 million yesterday, Wednesday, though it is not clear whether the final number will set a new record for a non-opening Wednesday. That record has been held by Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire, which grossed $14.13 million on the day before Thanksgiving last year. (The Wednesday all-time leader is Spider-Man 2‘s opening day $40.4m in 2004.)
One thing is 100% clear. Pirates has passed Star Wars: Episode Three – Revenge of the Sith to become the highest grossing film after six days in release ever. Pirates

Be Sociable, Share!

92 Responses to “Pirates 6, Record Book 0”

  1. Eric says:

    I was part of yesterday’s total– finally saw the movie, having been on vacation when it opened.
    And I know I’m just joining the chorus, but it really was a lot of fun. Exciting, funny, impressive. Just right for a summer movie.
    It has pirates, damsels, flaming swords, sea monsters… everything the little boy in me wants in an adventure movie. When was the last time we saw such an enjoyable series? Indiana Jones?

  2. Mark D. Fulwiler says:

    Well, allow me to say I was unimpressed. Mildly amusing in parts, but not the great Summer popcorn flick I was hoping for.

  3. Stella's Boy says:

    I’m not surprised that people like this movie, but I am surprised by how much they like it.

  4. Eric says:

    The middle definitely sags, but the last 30 minutes or so are crackerjack. I’m sure that’s where much of the enthusiasm is coming from– you leave on a high note.

  5. Sandy says:

    Oh it was so much fun I have seen it twice already…DMC made me feel like when I was a kid, watching old Sinbad and Jason and the Argonauts movies on TV, and then the Indiana Jones movies, plus there’s pirates!

  6. Stella's Boy says:

    All it made me feel was sleepy and bored.

  7. palmtree says:

    I think context has a lot to do with it. Pirates is a very breezy entertaining movie…one that we haven’t gotten this summer. Everything else has been slightly to majorly self-important. From the melancholy of the opening, I was worried a bit, but sure enough it got going and didn’t stop. I admit to having to fight sleepy eyes after the umpteenth action scene but still, a far better time than Mission Imposeidon X3 Returns.

  8. Stella's Boy says:

    I disagree palmtree. I enjoyed Poseidon, SR, X3 and MI3 more than Pirates 2, despite the many flaws in each of those flicks.

  9. jeffmcm says:

    Poseidon is really awful. I can understand you not liking Pirates, but you have to credit it for getting more things right than Poseidon.

  10. Sandy says:

    It did beat HP’s non-opening Wed. record, btw.
    Go Pirates!

  11. palmtree says:

    Well, you’re wrong. = )
    Seriously though, those four movies are not nearly the funny, cheeky, action-packed, special effects extravaganza that was Pirates. And that was all I expected out of it, not emotional resonance or dramatic tension (which the others were aiming for). Do you disagree that they were more self important or just that they were more enjoyable or both?

  12. Tofu says:

    I disagree Stella’s Boy. I enjoyed Pirates 2 more than Poseidon, SR, X3 and MI3, despite the many values in each of those flicks.
    See how boring a comment like that is? It leaves nothing to respond with…
    Watching Pirates DMC top $200 million tonight is likely assured. Disney is cooking. The meal? Books. =D

  13. Stella's Boy says:

    Poseidon, bad as it is most of time, is an hour shorter than Pirates 2. That’s enough to make me like it more.

  14. Then you should probably focus on short films, as that seems to be your main criteria for quality. 😉

  15. Stella's Boy says:

    Why is that? Because I think that POTC2 is needlessly overlong, I must prefer shorter films and that must be my main criteria? Nonsense. Couldn’t be further from the truth. I just don’t care for films that are ridiculously overlong and boring, like POTC2.

  16. palmtree says:

    Or Superman Returns.
    btw, I thought X3 if anything was way too short.

  17. Stella's Boy says:

    Agreed palmtree. X3 was too short.

  18. THX5334 says:

    So off topic,
    But did anyone else see that clip that Wells posted from TMZ that showed Singer and Co. reactions when asked about Pirates success during the European junket?
    Oh man, I feel for Singer. The way he responded makes me wonder how much he is coddled now because of his success.
    Gotta admit, this is why I still check Wells site out. He’ll post a link to something like this that I would want to see, but am too lazy to go looking for.
    Still haven’t seen Pirates yet. I am dying to go and am worried I am going to accidently get this cliffhanger ending thing spoiled to me if I don’t hurry.

  19. Hopscotch says:

    The other long one was Cars. 2 hrs for an animated movie? Unless it’s directed by Miyazaki it better be no longer than 100 mins.
    Now, I have no problems with the length if the story deserved it. But this one didn’t. I probably liked “Cars” more than “A Bug’s Life”, but I still am not crazy about it.
    Length time is a worthy debate, because there is a DIRECT correlation of when budgets starting to get really, really high and running times started getting really long.
    I can’t wait to hear the early budget est. on “Avatar” / James Cameron’s new project. My guess is $300M and run time of nearly 4 hrs.

  20. THX5334 says:

    My bad for not catching the Singer topic in another thread.

  21. Hopscotch says:

    I haven’t seen Pirates or Superman Returns yet. Why? because I know roughly half my day will be devoted to it and I’m not up for that commitment just yet. I’m on this site so I obviously love movies, but there’s just a small restraint on seeing these two.
    But I want to see these in the theater. I’m one of those saps who really feel there’s a difference in viewing and I’m not passing up on the eye candy.

  22. jeffmcm says:

    I think you have made your case, Stella. And I agree that, if Poseidon had been longer, it would have been even worse. It just happens that, as short as it is, it’s still one of the worst movies of the year.

  23. the keoki says:

    These numbers are truly staggering! The movie was fun and the numbers are reflecting that fact. People want to have a blast at the theater and Pirates delivers that. Can’t wait for the marketing push in late August for Pirates trumpeting the Pirates 3 trailer attached similar to LOTR.

  24. Stella's Boy says:

    Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree jeff.

  25. MattM says:

    Actually, I’d argue that a longer Poseidon might have improved matters. One of the biggest problems was that the characters were cardboard cutouts. Obviously, there’s only so much you can do in a disaster movie, but something beyond “Emmy Rossum has cleavage!” in the way of character would have made the deaths more resonant.

  26. jeffmcm says:

    I have a friend who worked on Poseidon who told me that he saw several scenes before they were finally cut from the film, and he said they were really awful. That was a movie that was doomed from the screenplay stage, it appears, and keeping in scenes would not have helped character development.

  27. Phantom says:

    POTC-DMC is by far one of the funnest movies you can go see, the special effects are great and the story line is very well written. I have seen it once so far and look forward to any excuse to go a few more times.
    Arrrrgh thar me maties, enjoy and please just enjoy the fun of the movie.

  28. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Stella I’m with you. Why are people so impressed with excess? Oh yeah the same reason Trump has followers. POTC2 is a wretched piece of work, bombastic and unfocused. Devotees will say its the antidote to the ills of the world, a fun romp, the perfect popcorn flick.
    Ex-squeeze me? My idea of fun is not being witness to characters screaming at me for 22hrs, or to favour repetitive set pieces one after the other without a thought towards solid storytelling. What complete garbage. When I see Bruckheimer I’m going to rob his ass for my money back and then steal another fifty for wasting my time. If this is the future of filmmaking then may god have mercy on us all.

  29. Stella's Boy says:

    Thank you JBD. I couldn’t agree with you more. I see that Richard Schickel says something similar in the current issue of Time.

  30. jeffmcm says:

    I don’t think anyone thinks it’s the future of filmmaking – it’s a very impersonal film with no reason to exist beyond its set pieces – but I think you guys are only reacting to it because of its success.

  31. Stella's Boy says:

    Give me a break jeff. I think I deserve a little more credit than that. I don’t dislike movies merely because they’re successful. That was a dumb thing to say.

  32. Tofu says:

    “When I see Bruckheimer I’m going to rob his ass for my money back and then steal another fifty for wasting my time.”
    God save the internet for its users.

  33. Wrecktum says:

    Amused. Why would a movie like Dead Man’s Chest elicit so much hostility? Not only from several people in this forum, but by a lot of major press. You can just feel the seething hatred and contempt in a lot of the writing on this film. Wild.

  34. Richard Nash says:

    Who exactly is seeing this film multiple times? Where was the hype and the clamoring for it? The first one wasn’t Star Wars. Pirate movies don’t generally kill at the box office. No major stars. This is shocking.
    The hostility comes from anytime something or someone is successful. Eventually they will be torn to shreds. That’s how the system works. Especially in the entertainment industry. They build you up. Break you down. Then build you back up again.

  35. jeffmcm says:

    Stella, I understand your not liking the movie, what I’m questioning is why you can’t stop talking about it. You posted non-analytical reactions four times on this thread alone. Why not just ignore it if you disliked it so? The only answer I can come up with is because you’re reacting to how much more everyone seems to like it.

  36. Stella's Boy says:

    jeff, I respect your opinions and we agree on most things, so it insults me greatly that you would think I am capable of not liking something for no other reason than it’s popular. I responded when asked questions. I see nothing out of the ordinary about that. Seems better than ignoring people. I’m sorry if that bothers you. I’m sure there are people out there who hate something just because it is popular with the masses. I am not one of them. I think it is incredibly stupid to dislike something merely because it is well-liked and I would never do so.

  37. jeffmcm says:

    All I’m saying is, why keep beating a dead horse?

  38. Eric says:

    Stella, I think what he’s saying is that he can respect your dislike for the movie, but maybe that everybody else’s love for it is making you dig in your heels a bit more.
    And hey, that’s understandable. I do that all the time. I may not hate “Napoleon Dynamite” so much today if not for the Vote for Pedro shirts I see on every mouth-breathing middle school jerkoff.
    Anywho, no worries.

  39. Stella's Boy says:

    I certainly wasn’t trying to jeff. If palmtree or someone else asked a question, I tried answering it. It wasn’t like I went out of my way to randomly post negative comments about the movie as often as I could. Everyone else’s feelings about it have nothing to do with my own.

  40. palmtree says:

    Stella, I think what we’re responding to is that your comments are not very meaty. I can respect your opinion, but I fail to see how those other films I mentioned were better. What’s your take?

  41. Stella's Boy says:

    So if anyone dare express dislike for POTC2, automatically their opinion will be called into question? It will immediately be assumed that they dislike it simply because it’s popular? That is really fucking lame people.
    I agree with that JBD said about it. I found it to be extremely overlong and tedious. I thought the first hour dragged. I hated the two moronic comic relief pirates. I thought the Kraken was horrible CGI. I thought the three-way swordfight went on for way too long. None of the action scenes did much for me. I liked Davy Jones and found the CGI there to be spectacular. Other than that, I just didn’t like much. Redundant, excessive and way too long. I hope my opinion is OK with everyone here. Poseidon is pretty bad and only better for me because it’s shorter. MI3 I liked a lot actually. Solid summer action flick with far better action scenes than POTC2. X3 is mediocre but I would give it a slight edge over POTC2.

  42. jeffmcm says:

    I would say, SB, that your 10:21 and 10:38 posts constituted “going out of my way to randomly post negative comments about the movie as often as I could.”
    Nobody’s saying that you shouldn’t express dislike for the movie, but that it should be done constructively, as part of a dialogue. Your above post pretty much fills that desire. Please don’t be so defensive.

  43. Stella's Boy says:

    Went back and took a look at those two comments jeff. Talk about nitpicky. And you wonder why I get defensive? Those are two brief, harmless comments. I guess people can make random comments if they are positive only. Those are part of a dialogue. I am fortunate to have you guide me here jeff. Thank you.

  44. jeffmcm says:

    I should elaborate by saying that I agree with a lot of your points in your 4:45 post, specifically that the first hour has major narrative problems, and that the whole thing is too long…but I still liked the movie very much.
    I would hope that you actually are interested in dialogue, and not just slinging around cranky one-liners.

  45. Aladdin Sane says:

    Richard Nash,
    I don’t know if anyone’s seeing the movie twice (at least right now), but I know of a few friends who are not about movies at all, yet own the first POTC. That movie has an incredible fan base. I don’t know many regular folks who have anything bad to say about that flick…Is the sequel anything special? No, but the ending will definitely leave people wanting some resolution.
    IMO POTC2 the most successful cliffhanger since The Empire Strikes Back I’d say – it gives you an honest to God, “What the hell?” moment.
    For all of the failings, it’s gonna have people talking it up and there’s gonna be a lot of anticipation for the next. Unless the backlash comes from elsewhere, I don’t see how POTC3 could fail to make at least as much, if not more. At least initially.
    Anyhow, it’ll get repeat business from me in August…not before then, although this weekend ain’t looking exactly enticing for new product. What to watch…what to watch…

  46. TheManWho says:

    Stella, I am not nitpicky, but that’s your criticism? Every aspect of the film, grated on you? Really? That’s it? The Kraken CGI is used in the DAYTIME, on a REAL SET, and is that flawless. Besides that, Pintel and Raghetti are the R2 and Threepio (Notice Raghetti has ONE EYE) of this film. They are also a greek chorus in the way they are in the film, but also debating what’s going on in the film with each other. Nevertheless, how can any film succeed, when you refuse to be recepitive to it?
    That aside, jeff, I find your comments about DMC being an “impersonal film” fascinating. Since that whole first hour everyone seems to have a problem with establishes that you are in a BIGGER WORD NOW. It’s no longer one pirate film about one trippy pirate and a couple. It’s about this world full of mythology, the power of love over men, and a the overwhelming desire to be MORE THAN YOU ARE (Or in Elizabeth’s case…different from who you are.). I do agree that the set-pieces are important. However, this is a very personal story for these these characters from Jack to Norrington to Beckett and so on.

  47. jeffmcm says:

    TheManWho, I think we have different notions of what ‘personal’ filmmaking is. I can guarantee that when the screenplay for this movie was being written, the first thing they did was figure out what kind of action set pieces they wanted to incorporate, and after that they started to sort out character arcs. Plus I really don’t think that Will or Elizabeth’s arcs, as they are, are very interesting at all, although of course they have another movie to span.

  48. jeffmcm says:

    By the way, if the movie is so interested in establishing that it takes place in a ‘bigger wor(l)d’, then why does the movie also go out of its way to bring in every character from the first movie, whether they’re necessary to the plot or not? The reintroduction of the character at the end is a sign of a lack of imagination on the part of the filmmakers, a sign to the audience that they would rather provide more of the same than anything significantly new or different.

  49. Wrecktum says:

    It’s hard to believe that anyone thinks there’s nothing “new or different” in Dead Man’s Chest. Exhibit 1 would be Davy Jones.
    The filmmakers chose to reintroduce all the favorite players from the first movie while at the same time creating new characters. Is it too much? I guess that’s the argument, but I would argue it’s not.

  50. jeffmcm says:

    Davy Jones is new and different…as CGI-enhanced characters go. And that’s it. Storywise, he’s still a stock character.

  51. Wrecktum says:

    Jones is not CGI-enhanced. He’s completely CGI. Big difference.
    I dunno. Filmmakers have to walk a fine line with sequels: either give the fans something comepletely new and unexpected (Matrix Reloaded, for example) or rehash characters and themes that made the first film successful (the cinematic equivilant to comfort food). You’re bound to alienate portions of your fanbase no matter which track you take.

  52. jeffmcm says:

    He’s not completely CGI. Jar-Jar was completely CGI, Gollum and Kong were CGI based on post-production motion capture. Bill Nighy was on set and they did motion-capture on him and layered digital ‘makeup’ on him in post, unless I am very much mistaken. But they had a real human performance to start with.
    And even so, he’s still a CGI character, which is only ‘new and different’ within this very specialized world. It’s not like he’s Macbeth or Ahab here, people. He looks cool, and he cost a lot of money, but he doesn’t add to any new understanding to the human condition.

  53. Eric says:

    “He doesn’t add to any new understanding to the human condition?”
    I don’t want to get in the middle of this, because I can respect that you didn’t like PotC, but come on. Now you’re stretching. This is really the standard to which you hold your summer blockbusters?
    How much better do you understand the human condition after seeing, say, Mission Impossible 3, which you said you liked?

  54. Tofu says:

    jeff,
    JarJar wasn’t entirely CGI by your standards. He was motion captured in many aspects by Ahmed Best, the man who also provided his voice. He even wore an odd JarJar helmet on set, so the actors could know the height they should be looking upward towards.
    Bringing back every character from the first was a treat, however, what happened to Sparrow’s sassy female mate? It wasn’t like we didn’t have new characters to deal with. Davy Jones, his crew, Bootstrap Bill, the lord at port royal, his assassin, voodoo lady, and the poor crew that Elizabeth tricked, and Will doomed.
    I cannot wait for Chow-Yun Fat to bring these Captain’s to a halt. He likely works for the East India Trading company, and with him a giant fleet. Expect the last entry to make DMC look small.

  55. Stella's Boy says:

    TheManWho, how did I refuse to be receptive to it? I’m not sure what you mean. I’m sorry if I didn’t like a movie you love, but that doesn’t mean I am wrong or that my opinion is invalid. Do I need to write a lengthy essay about everything I did not care for before you will accept my opinion about POTC2? I don’t know what you want from me. Do you automatically dismiss all negative opinions about the movie because you love it so much?

  56. Eric says:

    You know, looking back at it, I conflated Jeff’s “human condition” comment with Stella’s taste in movies. Ignore my comment. It didn’t make a lot of sense. I am shamed.
    This is why this site needs threaded comments.

  57. Wrecktum says:

    I guess you get into a semantic argument when you say “completely CGI.” I recommend reading the fascinating Davy Jones thread at the CGTalk Forum. You might change your mind.
    http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=379460&page=1

  58. palmtree says:

    I think when people say that they loved Pirates (at least when I say it), I don’t think they mean that it is great filmmaking. It is fluffy filmmaking at its best…to say that it is loud and obnoxious is to miss the point. Of course it is those things. But it is the one movie that to me had the attitude of “relax and enjoy, this is a movie.” The other big summer films tried to tell me they were somehow more important than that.

  59. Krazy Eyes says:

    Wasn’t Davy Jones essentially just a fully-CGI facial mask? The body and body movements were really Bill Nighy, right? That alone would make a big difference between him and Gollum/Jar-Jar/Kong.

  60. Wrecktum says:

    No, he was completely CGI. From head to toe. Nighy was on set wearing mocap gear, but it wasn’t traditional motion capture. Read the link I provided for more info. It’s very enlightening.

  61. Wrecktum says:

    BTW, Dead Man’s Chest grossed a little over $12m on Thursday, which is certainly no individual day record, but it is the highest non-opening week summer Thursday ever. If that makes any sense.

  62. TheManWho says:

    Stella, seriously, that your response? To portray yourself as a victim with some righteous indicnation on top? I have no problem with your opinion. I simply have a hard time respecting your criticisms and the argument you base around them. Since they demonstrate a total lack of grasping the premise of this film. If you want to discuss how much you HATE a film. Maybe you should hate the film for something more than your own inability to be recepitive to it.
    jeff, the reintroducting of characters in this film is not lazy. It’s narrative filmmaking. Since the audience wants to know what’s happening to their favourite characters from the go get. Even in the second film, the characters need their own mini-reintroductions because of the time lapse between the first and second film. Again, the first hour, is nothing but a set-up to how BIG this WORLD has become. Wanting the film to drop the reintroduction and not spend an hour on set-up ignores that you are a) watching a sequel and b) watching a film that’s now a part of a saga instead of one film.
    I also disagree with Davy Jones not representing the human condition. That character is all about the human condition. It’s a character that revolves around love and the lengths some men will go through to be rid of that feeling. Again, it’s narrative storytelling, that some people are no longer receptitive to in this day and age. One last thing; so some films this Summer, thought they were too important? But DMC oozed “It’s just a movie. Relax and enjoy.”? This is a film that’s a part of a saga. If you relax and enjoy too much, then you might miss how much everything counts. It is a BIGGER WORLD after all.

  63. jeffmcm says:

    TheManWho, I would have liked it better if they filmmakers had refrained from bringing back any characters except for Capt. Jack, Will, and Elizabeth. The rest required varying degrees of contrivance in order to fit into the movie, plus nobody really cared about Norrington from the first one. I would make an exception for One-Eyed Comic Relief Pirate, and OECRP’s partner, because I found them amusing, but that’s all. It’s not filmmaking based on advancing a story, it’s filmmaking based on recycling what worked from the first movie, with a few new twists and FX.
    I also disagree with your “how big this world has become’ notion. This film takes place in exactly the same world as the first movie, except that there’s also Davy Jones and a Voodoo lady. Not that much bigger.
    I like sequels that take the thematic elements of the first movie and enhance them, deepen them. This movie didn’t do a lot of that, and where it did, it felt very perfunctory, as with what happens to Jack at the end (fun to watch, but meaningless since we know he’ll be in the 3rd movie) and what happens between Will and Elizabeth (very weak and could be resolved with a single short conversation).
    Finally, Davy Jones is an effect. He’s a good effect, but if you really got deep insights about life from him, I would politely suggest you need to get out more.

  64. Wrecktum says:

    So Jeff, first you argue that Jones was a “real human performance” and now you’re dismissing the character as nothing more than “an effect.” Make up your mind.

  65. jeffmcm says:

    I’m being rhetorical. Nighy was on set all the time, which means that the CGI guys had a lot to work with in crafting Davy Jones, and not making him out of thin air. BUT, that said, within the greater scope of the movie, his only reason to exist is to be a cool effect.

  66. Wrecktum says:

    He’s the main villain. Had ILM not done anything to the character and Nighy had appeared on film in his original appearance would you still dismiss him so?
    As for the world being much bigger…well, the beginning takes place off the coast of Turkey. Four different islands are visited in the film. Dialogue is spoken in English, French, Turkish and Corsican (not to mention “Cannibal”). Beckett talks about how “The world is shrinking, the blank edges of the map filled in” and, to ram that point home, a huge map of the world is shown periodically throughout the film, a map which at first is mostly blank but at the end is mostly completely painted.
    So, yeah, I’d say the movie makes the attempt to show how big the world is. And, likewise, it shows how such a big world is slowly shrinking.

  67. Lynn says:

    “Gollum and Kong were CGI based on post-production motion capture.”
    I don’t know about Kong, but Gollum was a combination of motion capture and keyframe animation that painted Andy Serkis out of the sequences filmed on set. They go into lengthy detail about this (and the internal controversy about it) on the featurette on the Two Towers extended edition.
    Apparently they ended up using whichever was right for the particular sequence — if Gollum was interacting heavily with the actors (the first fight on the rocks, or pulling Frodo out of the marsh) it’s animation; solo moments (e.g., the schizoid scene) were more likely to be motion capture.

  68. jeffmcm says:

    I’m not dismissing him. I’m just trying to counter the notion that he’s a deep character. He’s a fun, cartoonish villain.
    Good point about the map. But I didn’t know that the beginning took place off the coast of Turkey (is that captioned in the movie?) and how many islands were visited in the first film? They all kind of look the same to me. Any chance that At World’s End might go somewhere visually different, like the Arctic or (more likely) East Asia?
    I hate to be the current party-pooper here, but I’m trying to strike a middle ground between hating on it and irrational exuberance.

  69. Stella's Boy says:

    TheManWho, I have no idea what you mean. My inability to be receptive to it? I have no clue what you are talking about. I went in expecting a brainless summer action movie. Nothing more and nothing less. I had no unreasonable or unrealistic expectations. So excuse me if I don’t understand this “inability to be receptive” bullshit.

  70. jeffmcm says:

    Relax, Stella. If you’ve read enough of TheManWho’s posts you’ll know he’s a little…enthusiastic.

  71. Stella's Boy says:

    I am perfectly calm jeff. Just informing him that I continue to have no idea what he means. He seems to really, really love this movie, to say the least.

  72. brack says:

    this film ownz the summer. end of story.

  73. Wrecktum says:

    The prison from which Jack stole the map was Turkish. The two sailors that fish Jack’s hat from the water are Turkish and Corsican. Although no captions indicate that the action takes place in the eastern Mediterranian, I think the implication is clear.
    I love how many languages are depicted in the film. It reminds me of Star Wars with all the weird alien tongues. Language is used for similar effect in both films: By demonstrating all the different cultures intermingling together, the films indicate the size and diversity of their separate internal universes.

  74. Blackcloud says:

    ^ Really? I found the Pirates universe to be smaller this time, for whatever reason. It’s almost as if the filmmakers took to heart that EIC guy’s comment about the world getting smaller. Maybe all the toing and froing made it seem less expansive than the original.

  75. Wrecktum says:

    The filmmakers made no effort to show a sense of time passing. There were no shots of ships sailing from one location to another. Maybe that’s why you got the feeling that the universe was smaller this time. But I assume that wasn’t the intention.
    In fact, part of what the film tries to do is open up more and more of the world (the aforementioned map symbolism). The third film is to be even more expansive, presumably, with the rumored trip to Singapore and to the “weird and haunted shoals at world’s end.”

  76. jeffmcm says:

    The problem is that every tropical island looks exactly the same. Seems like a failure of structure to me. I totally assumed the opening sequence was set in, you know, the Caribbean.

  77. TheManWho says:

    Jeff, you wanted enhanced and deepened thematic elements? We know Beckett and Jack have a backstory. Davy cut out his heart for someone, that could have been (or could be) very much like Elizabeth. Norrington, Elizabeth, and Will Turner have a story as well. Norrington has a part to play in this story. Too bad you missed it. DMC deepens and enhances this world. It adds all sorts of layers. Layers needed to make it a SAGA instead of two seperate films with two very different stories featuring the same characters. Hating on Jack Davenport? Shameful.
    Stella, you hate something, for the way it was intended to be. How exactly does that make your criticisms valid? While jeff is critiquing a film that negates his criticism. You are bashing a film that intended to be a certain way because it’s THAT WAY. Again, your opinions, have nothing to do with this at all. Your criticisms about this film are hating the film for being the way it is, and that’s not valid criticism.

  78. Blackcloud says:

    Yeah, I agree with you on that, Jeff. I mean, if Jack and crew were in the Mediterranean, then the ruined wedding has to take place weeks before Jack is introduced, since it would take him a good while to get to the Caribbean. Wrecktum’s right about there being no sense of time or movement in the film. Maybe they could have done an Indiana Jones thing and superimposed a map showing where they were going. I knew those fishermen weren’t locals, but I figured they were far from home, not that they were home.
    The “weird and haunted shoals at world’s end,” eh? Does Tia Dalma say that? At any rate, if that is what’s going to happen, then they’ll probably wind up in the underworld or the land of the dead. That’s usually where this kind of journey ends up. You keep traveling far enough and that’s where you get to.

  79. jeffmcm says:

    Of course that’s valid criticism. I can hate smog for being smog.

  80. jeffmcm says:

    I didn’t miss anything, TheManWho. The movie is a fun summer romp and not Moby Dick. I’m sure the filmmakers would be flattered by all the layers you’re seeing, but they are very thin.
    What negated my criticism?

  81. Blackcloud says:

    “Your criticisms about this film are hating the film for being the way it is, and that’s not valid criticism.”
    What other kind of criticism can there be, than to criticize something for what it is? I’m sure you’ve heard the dictum, “Criticize the book the author wrote, not the one you wish he would have written.” It applies to movies, too.
    TMW, you’re capsule of the plot is more compelling than its presentation in the film. That is not a good thing.

  82. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Can someone open a window please? The reeking nerd odor from some schlump, who’ll obviously will be first in line to buy the Kraken Sideshow doll, is fouling up this joint. POTC2 is a poor film – and yes that is just my opinion but it’s also the opinion of many others who critique movies for a living. Of course critics aren’t always the best guage but in this case it appears I’m onside with many of them. I’d made up my mind before this heffalump of a movie had even made it’s first trillion. It’s fantastic success has nothing to do with how I feel about it, I received the same pounding migraine I got from other pics (and people) that don’t realise when to shut the fuck up. Your continued defense and holier than thou attitude about this theme park from hell, this sticky mess of cine-confectionary and travelogue porn is bewlidering.

  83. jeffmcm says:

    Travelogue porn? We were just talking about how everything looks exactly the same.

  84. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    And the nano second I hear the following in any discussion on a films merit “the cgi was great’ becomes an auto-fucking-matic dismissal for me for anything else that dribbles from that arrested adolescent orifice.

  85. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    well I’m a island wanderer jeff so to my trained vacation eye it definitely came across as travel porn.

  86. jeffmcm says:

    Glad to hear you’re open to dialogue.

  87. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    I’m open all hours but that’s another story

  88. jeffmcm says:

    Hey-o!

  89. Wrecktum says:

    Poor Jeffrey Boam’s Doctor. He hates this movie sooooooooooo much that he’ll insult and denigrate anyone who disagrees with him. Such low esteem of your own opinion!

  90. TheManWho says:

    jeff, if more than one person can see the LAYERS of the story. They exist. Rather you or people who agree with you. Choose to accept them or not. Boam, nice schtick. How long that take to work out? An hour? Two hours? Did you spend your whole Friday night trying to be clever? How quaint. Nevertheless, there are better debates to be had, and they are not here. Have a nice day everybody!

  91. Blackcloud says:

    TMW, does your religion forbid proper punctuation?

  92. jeffmcm says:

    Okay, TMW, who’s the second person seeing your layers?

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon