MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland


In a move with equal or greater significance than the Google/Viacom suit that the journalism world can’t stop overhyping and misreading, Disney is launching a Pirates 3 trailer embed for blogs, websites, etc…
This is what you call owning the property and building a viral audience while making it easy for both the aggregators and the consumers. This is the future… studios doing what YouTube does and controlling how things are done as they wish. The consumer is getting an equally good product either way.
And that is the meaning of platform-agnostic, not as so many fools and their messengers keep screaming, that kids don’t care about which platform they experience something. They care about access and about the freedom to choose. And in the end, the difference between something being on the Disney website and something being on YouTube is non-existent, so long as there is marketing in place to get them to that other website with a similar ease.
(The one problem is that the offering was too big for a page with the design of The Hot Blog, so I have reduced the size in the coding and you may notice that some of the graphics have been reduced in quality as a result.)
I also think it is fascinating that POTC: At World’s End is trailer-debuting on the older-skewing Dancing With The Stars, the very rare case in which a movie trailer debut is placed to bring the audience that is missing to the TV show rather than the show being selected (Heroes/Spidey3) to maximize eyeballs in the target demographic.

Be Sociable, Share!

23 Responses to “Interesting…”

  1. Blackcloud says:

    That’s on PDT, right?

  2. Devin Faraci says:

    I think the sizing issue is a huge thing. I had to resize it to put it on my site as well, and I wonder why no one at Disney said, ‘Hey, maybe people don’t want this huge fucking thing hogging up their layout. Let’s offer multiple sizes!’

  3. brightness says:

    To me, an unmemorable trailer. I thought 2 was pretty tedious overall, but the monster and the wheel were instant highlights for the trailer. No equivalent action here, nor a quotable Jack line.

  4. movielocke says:

    when I tried watching it at the disney site it would play five seconds wait thirty and play five more, when I realized the silly flash player was actually loading the movie I put it back at the start and watched the whole thing at a whopping 10frames per second (or worse).
    Came here and the scaled down version played beautifully.
    Hope they get it up on quicktime/apple soon, as it’s the only reasonable way to see a trailer online.

  5. Blackcloud says:

    It’s available in Quicktime HD at

  6. Tofu says:

    Trailer felt reserved, as if something is being held back. The entire palette from the first two (vibrant, summer) is gone, now with a darker, dryer, cold blue vibe.

  7. Blackcloud says:

    ^ I noticed that, too. Lots of shots in dark, stormy seas.
    What happened to Davy Jones’ heart?

  8. I like the trailer. If you saw it on the big screen I reckon it’d be great. I love Geoffrey Rush, so glad he’s back. That laugh as they go into the whirlpool thingamajig is killer.
    “I don’t think now is the best time!”
    Aah, Keira. You’re a champ. Ignore the haters.

  9. GayAsXmas says:

    I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed the trailer. But then again, I don’t get the apathy that greeted the second film. I thought that, even though it was a mess by any standards, it was a mess that had more invention, wit and skill then most blockbusters.

  10. Eric N says:

    Maybe it’s because I was bored with the second Pirates. Maybe it’s because this had the same tempo as every other action movie trailer. Slow and mysterious -> Basic story elements -> Rapid succession of action scenes to get adrenaline flowing.
    Disney has done this trailer style well…heck, they got me to go against my better judgment to see Pirates 2…but it’ll take some mighty impressive reviews to get me to see this one. This trailer just screams “If you liked Pirates 2, you’ll like Pirates 3”.

  11. Direwolf says:

    Can’t we just have a little fun at the movies? I don’t get the Pirates hate. Good characters, good actors, mix of comedy and action. Not everything has to be critically acclaimed and perfect movie making. Going to the movies is easy entertainment for the vast majority of Americans. That is what Pirates is attempting to satisfy. And also make lots of money for Disney, which I am long and have been for about two years.

  12. jesse says:

    Oddly, I think it’s the ambition of the Pirates movies that is their undoing. The first movie is a lot of fun, but definitely goes a few too many laps around the track at the end with reversals and triple-crosses and reverse-triple-twist-crosses. The second movie has a lot of great bits, especially in the second half when it really gets moving, but it seemed to me that the filmmakers expected that everyone seeing Dead Man’s Chest had not only seen the first movie (fine) but seen it multiple times and not only remembered but BELOVED each character, like it’s a TV series or something. They try to bring this Matrix/Star Wars/LOTR level of depth/scope/etc. to what is really just a silly, fun adventure movie. I like Gore Verbinski, too; I just found the storytelling in most of the second movie convoluted to a ridiculous degree. Never being sure of a character’s actual motivations or feelings is a great quality for a, say, a smart thriller about con artists. But DMC was a goddamned pirate movie.
    I’m wondering if Part 3 will turn out sort of like Matrix Revolutions: that is, taking a belated critical beating that people weren’t 100% ready to give Part 2, even if the movie doesn’t necessarily share its flaws, resulting in an underrated third chapter (or maybe I’m alone in thinking Matrix Revolutions is a lot of fun).

  13. Wrecktum says:

    Matrix 3 came six months after a movie (Matrix 2) which alienated a substancial number of its core audience (Poland’s obsessive love notwithstanding).
    Pirates 3 is coming a year after one of the most successful movies of all time. Unlike Matrix 2, critics were lukewarm on Pirates 2, to say the least.
    I really don’t think it’s a good comparison.

  14. jesse says:

    So even though Matrix 2 and 3 were shot at the same time at great expense, like Pirates 2 and 3, the comparison doesn’t apply because they didn’t come out the same number of months apart?
    So even though Matrix 2 grossed substantially more than Matrix 1, like Pirates 2 did with its predecessor, it’s not a good comparison because the numbers aren’t *exactly* the same (Pirates being in a much higher income bracket, as it were)?
    So even though Matrix 2 and Pirates 2 were both less regarded than their surprise-hit predecessors, the comparison doesn’t apply because the immediate critical reaction to Matrix 2 wasn’t *as* lukewarm?
    Admittedly, it’s not perfectly analogous. I’m just *wondering* if Pirates 3 will be the point where audiences and/or critics will be “over” the franchise — no matter where #3 falls on the quality scale. There’s a lot of great stuff in Matrix 3 (as there is in Matrix 2), but suddenly it wasn’t all that cool to be excited about those movies anymore and the interest levels had decreased substantially.
    I mean, I don’t think even the first Pirates movie is anywhere near as interesting as any of the Matrix movies (even allowing that the sequels aren’t quite as wonderful as the first one). At the same time, those movies are obviously way more popular thanks to family/kid appeal. But any sequels shot together and released less than a year apart have some risk involved — especially when it seems like the best sequel box-office performances come with three-year gaps. (I’m not saying it’s the only way for a sequel to succeed, but a lot of movies have used it well.)

  15. Eric N says:

    Pirate hate? Sure there are people for whom the word “hate” might be appropriate when talking about Pirates, but I haven’t seen any here.
    Here’s something that those of us who aren’t pretentious about movies need to remember: Just because a movie is meant to be light-hearted and fun, doesn’t mean that people who don’t like it are being snobbish.
    If you genuinely believe that movies can be simply appreciated as fun, then realize that just like some people don’t like Scrabble or poker, some people may not like that movie…doesn’t mean they don’t know how to have fun (Rocky 6 was one of my favorite movies last year), it just means they have different taste than you.
    Pirates 1 & 2 were both well-crafted films…and they worked for a lot of people. They just didn’t work for me (and many other people). Personally, I’d rather say home and watch Mystery Men again and again…now there’s a great Geoffrey Rush movie!

  16. Direwolf says:

    Pirates has a beloved cast of actors and the characters they are playing. The actors/characters and the family accessibility of the franchise give it a very broad reach, much broader than Matrix. If the comparison falls apart it is on this basis.

  17. jeffmcm says:

    The other reason for the comparison to fall apart is that for the most part, Pirates 2 gave its audience an experience designed to replicate the success of Pirates 1, all the way down to bringing back characters who had expired (a mistake as far as I’m concerned). Meanwhile, Matrix 2 delivered an experience that was (deliberately in some regards) frustrating to many core fans and removed from the elements of Matrix 1 that were considered satisfying.

  18. jesse says:

    Yeah, look, I don’t think:
    (a.) the Pirates movies are closely analogous to the Matrix movies on a creative basis
    (b.) the third Pirates movie is going to bomb.
    or even:
    (c.) the Pirates movies suck as a whole.
    I just consider it a distinct possibility that #3 could be the low grosser of the three (as it was with the Matrix movies) — the entry point being the idea of shooting two sequels simultaneously (or right in a row) and putting them out in rapid succession. I actually think this practice is pretty neat, but I can see objectively that it doesn’t have the greatest box-office track record (Matrix 3, Back to the Future 3). I guess my point is more that this one could (hypothetically) be the best of the series and correct some of the creative “mistakes” of its predecessors, and *still* wind up the lowest grosser.

  19. Wrecktum says:

    The alternate example, obviously, is Lord of the Rings, in which the third movie outgrossed both the first and second films substantially internationally.

  20. anghus says:

    ok. don’t get the pirate hate.
    first one – a lot of fun, a little long
    second one – a lot of fun, a little long
    i expect the third one to be a lot of fun, but a little long.

  21. EveHarrington says:

    Just because you’re only noticing this now doesn’t mean it’s the first time a studio has offered an embed function. 28 Weeks Later and Sunshine did it months ago, and those are just the ones I noticed.

  22. EveHarrington says:

    ps. you spelled Manhattan wrong on your front page.

  23. Sandy says:

    The movie is for all ages. The trailer debuting during Dancing With the Stars targets the main demographic – women – and they in turn bring along the kids and the husbands and boyfriends who may not be diehard fans of this franchise. Kids already know they can see the trailer online, but not the 90-year-old grandmas.

The Hot Blog

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