You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Pirates 4 - Seriously, was it that bad?

Posted: Mon, 23rd May 2011, 5:40pm

Post 1 of 37

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

So this is getting slammed hard on Rotten Tomatoes, but I don't trust them when it comes to Pirates anyway. If you look at the reviews for these films you can see that they only tolerated the first one and then they started going "Seriously making a movie franchise of a theme park ride? NO!" more and more with each installment. The second Pirates-film was in fact pretty good and had a lot going for it. The first one was an instant classic in a much more dignified and lasting way than for instance The Mummy.

So now it's Pirates 4. I've seen it and here are my thoughts.

Pirates 4 does a lot of things right where Pirates 3 went wrong. They stopped shoehorning a plot about Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley into the story, and the thing I liked the most about the film was how little the other films were referenced. This worked really well because it gives you the idea that all the insane stuff that happened was just another adventure for Sparrow. This helps the film in the sense that what we are watching is just another adventure for Sparrow and therefore his lack of character development isn't so bad. The setup for the film itself is good enough. It picks up where the last film left off and a bunch of characters "race" each other to the fountain of youth. This is where the film gets bloated. Without deciding which character arc to focus most on and give most weight, you end up not caring enough for each character's plight. Couple this with that there are about 3 stories going on and Jack Sparrow has little to do with any of them and you're kind of just watching an adventure unfold from the outside.

They also didn't use the "race" aspect enough. There could have been much more tension here, but the different people in the race are divided by oceans and they all make it to the fountain at completely different times anyway, not that it mattered much in the end who got there first.

The story is driven by several MacGuffin's. They need some cups, a mermaids tear (which is fresh so they kidnap a mermaid in the best action set piece in the film) and then they have to get to the final MacGuffin which is the fountain. In many ways it is better than At World's End, but I understand people saying it feels less special. This one's budget got severely trimmed and Depp took a quarter of it right of the top. The action scenes were bigger, the direction was stronger and Hans Zimmer was making a much bigger effort in the other films (though this track is awesome). Still this is completley acceptable as an addition to Jack Sparrow's adventures and I found it fun enough to watch. Depp was doing just fine, and Rush was having fun. Penelope Cruz was a welcome addition and she was so much more convincing on a ship next to Jack Sparrow than Knightley ever was. The scenes with Depp and Rush together were the big highlight of the film. Sparrow and Barbossa have the best "buddy cop"-vibe in any Pirates-film yet. Much more interesting than Depp and Bloom in Pirates 1.

So my question is? Why is it getting hit so hard by fans and critics? There is nothing offensive about this film. It is a little less than dazzling at all times, but I never found it bad myself.

The 3D was pretty wasted though, I have to say that, and there was a rather silly and underdeveloped subplot about a missionary (who happens to take off his shirt, revealing six pack abs -.-) falling in love with a mermaid, shamelessly pandering to fans of Twilight and The Little Mermaid.

I know the film sounded pretty dire from my post here, but it was actually enjoyable enough. Even with the slightly limited budget ILM does awesome VFX work. Anyone else seen this?
Posted: Mon, 23rd May 2011, 6:36pm

Post 2 of 37

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Jack is back!

I'd say "On Stranger Tides" is definitely the best Pirates sequel yet. The standalone "Captain Jack adventure" is the direction they should have taken from the beginning. In the previous two films, I thought that too often, Jack would be relegated to the sidelines while Will and Elizabeth ate up way too much screen time. In this film, he's back at center stage, and I love it.

I think the lower budget of this film really helped to keep the story from becoming too convoluted, bloated, or otherwise incomprehensible. The action sequences felt much more restrained than the previous two, in that they actually went back to obeying the laws of physics. Jack and Davy Jones sword-fighting while balancing on a mast above a giant maelstrom? No. Jack holding on for dear life over the streets of London? Yes. The the smaller and slower-paced action sequences are much more reminiscent of the first film, and that's great.

The humor is also back in full force. While certainly present in the last two films, I think some of the humor was replaced and/or overshadowed by the overly dramatic and urgent storyline - in the final battle for instance... dramatic storytelling took over completely. Here, the humor is infused throughout... each action set piece is hilariously acted by Depp and Rush, and to a lesser extent, Penelope Cruz. These three also have great chemistry with one another, and the dialogue is much more quick and snappy than in films previous. I'm not sure if others would agree with me... but Jack hasn't been this fun to watch since the first film.

So yeah... in tone, "On Stranger Tides" succeeds in recreating the atmosphere of the first film... therefore making it a much more fun and entertaining film than Dead Man's Chest or At World's End. Does it have some of the same problems those two films had? Yes, absolutely. The plot still is a bit bloated and overcomplicated, but nowhere near as crazy as before. Could I have done without the mermaid/missionary subplot? Yes... I guess it was unnecessary, but Astrid Berges-Frisbey is so darn beautiful that I really don't care.

Also, the film takes several opportunities to make fun of itself and acknowledge its silliness. I chuckled when Barbossa's and Blackbeard's henchmen are about to blindly follow their respective leaders into battle, and Jack says something along the lines of... "Wait a minute... I'm trying to understand something here. You guys are going to fight just because these two guys want to fight each other? Why don't you just sit back and place some bets?"

I think a lot of people have problems with this movie because they got used to the epic scale of previous two sequels. So they sat through this movie waiting for the crazy epic-ness to begin... and it never happened. I'll post a more detailed review later, but those are my two cents for now.

The series as a whole:

Curse of the Black Pearl: 10/10
Dead Man's Chest: 7/10
At World's End: 7/10
On Stranger Tides: 9/10

Last edited Mon, 23rd May 2011, 7:06pm; edited 3 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 23rd May 2011, 6:40pm

Post 3 of 37

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

It was definitely my least favorite of them all. It is a really good example of a sequel that wasn't needed. Nothing really stood out and impress me at all.

The story was average. Nothing we haven't seen before/haven't already been done better in the previous movies. The magic was gone. Of course, I never judge a movie on story alone and sometimes couldn't care less if the story is good if the movie is filled with other awesome stuff...

...but this wasn't. The effects looked great (though there wasn't much), but that isn't the point. I already expected them to look real, but still nothing impressed me. Nothing as cool as the pirates in the first one, Davy Jones in the second, and the big last battle in the 3rd. I'm fine with them scaling the movie down but damn could this movie be any flatter in the 'awesome effects' or 'awesome stunts' department?

Another place it failed was in the characters department. Jack Sparrow never was the reason I watched these movies. Heck, it wasn't until the 3rd movie came out that I realized that Will and Elizabeth weren't the main characters of the series. I just assumed Jack was the 'comic relief' in the series. The third movie focused a lot on Jack and I finally realized that the pirate skull in the logo is Jack Sparrow. smile

Anyways, my point is I was skeptical that Jack alone could carry the movie by himself. Keep in mind I really like Will and Elizabeth and still kinda consider them the main characters even if I know better. (come on face it, Will has more protagonist features then Jack)

Jack was the same as he always is, but even that is getting a little tired. In the first 3 we slowly learned that while Jack acts little a gay drunk idiot, he's actually a smart badass. This movie had him back to being the gay drunk idiot. It was funny, but kinda meh.

Blackbeard was supposed to be this EVIL guy who is SO EVIl... yea right. Angelica was hot and played her part well. Didn't like Barbossa in the beginning, but he got back to being awesome at the end. Phillip (the preacher guy) and the Mermaid subplot was a lot more interesting then most of what was going on. And the only reason I would want to see a sequel to this unnecessary sequel is so I can see what happens to him.

This doesn't have any characters as cool as Davy Jones, Lord Beckett, Will, the two funny pirates (the bald one and the one with no eyes), or the dog that randomly pops up.

I'll make the rest short. The soundtrack blew!!! It was just the same old stuff at the first one. I didn't catch any new tunes, just the same old Pirates theme song. The second and especially the third had AMAZING soundtracks. The 3rd movie mostly was just filled with great tracks and epic music. This one actually falls below average cause nothing new was brought to the table.

The last thing that was missing was the direction. The previous director (s) did a much better job at making the series feel like an epic summer thrill ride. Everything about them were more exciting. The only scene in this movie that I would say is great is the first scene involving mermaids. That scene was close to perfect. Everything else didn't impress me.

Overall, not a bad movie, but wasn't needed and is the worst one. I'd give it a 6/10.

If you're wondering how I rank these movies:
First and 3rd one are tied as the best, then Dead Man's Chest, then OST way back.
Posted: Mon, 23rd May 2011, 7:05pm

Post 4 of 37

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Heh, Rody. I'd say you're in the minority of people who actually really liked Will and Elizabeth. Notice I say Will and Elizabeth, rather than Dead Man's Chest and At World's End - because most people actually did like those movies. In fact, I really enjoyed them myself. The bad part, was not the movies themselves... but the inclusion of Will and Elizabeth - two characters that did not need to be explored further.

See these movies are called "Pirates of the Caribbean". Captain Jack Sparrow is a "pirate". Will and Elizabeth, are merely "people who got mixed up with pirates". If you think about it, they shouldn't have even been in the second film. Jack had left Port Royale with the Black Pearl, and Will and Elizabeth are set to be married happily ever after (it is a Disney series, after all). But guess what the writers did? They felt some sort of need (perhaps Bloom/Knightly had already signed sequel contracts?) to shoe-horn Will and Elizabeth back into the story. So they came up with this ridiculous way to get both Will and Elizabeth to leave Port Royale and go find Jack, wherever the heck he would be. See the problem there? The second film should have just focused on Jack vs. Davy Jones, and left the whole Will/Elizabeth + East India Trading Company out of the story completely.

The Pirates films are about Captain Jack Sparrow. There really isn't anything more to it than that.
Posted: Mon, 23rd May 2011, 7:25pm

Post 5 of 37

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I get your point, but, at least to me, the makers did a bad job at making Jack Sparrow seems like the main character of the series. The first movie was more about Will, and Jack was the funny supporting character. That's just how I saw it. I never felt Will and Elizabeth were being shoe-horned into anything because they had just as much right (if not more) to be in the movies as Jack did.

I don't know if it's because jack Sparrow is such a weird character, or because I wasn't familiar with Johnny Depp, but I just don't see how I was supposed to think he was THE main character of the series.

BTW Dead Man's Chest gave a good reason to why Will and Elizabeth were back in the story. I wished they actually did shoe-horn them into the last one. It didn't feel right without them. Pirates of the Caribbean to me is about Will, Jack, and Elizabeth. Not just Jack. I hope one of them, or all of them come back in the next movie even if it's just a cameo.
Posted: Mon, 23rd May 2011, 10:11pm

Post 6 of 37

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

I actually enjoyed On Stranger Tides and I agree with jawajohnny's ratings of the four movies. This movie definitely felt more like the first movie. It was less convoluted and made much more sense (although, I was kind of waiting for something bad to happen to the missionary so I wouldn't have to see him so much twisted ). At the same time, there wasn't really a "wow" factor to the movie and the final battle wasn't as epic as it should have been (compared to the first movie). Oh, and the 3D was stupid...only the title actually popped out in 3D space. In all, it was a fun sequel.
Posted: Mon, 23rd May 2011, 10:27pm

Post 7 of 37

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Pirates 4 to me feels a little like Speed 2. Sure, the premise is the same- but if you're not following the same storyline/franchise-arc, and the majority of your leading characters are gone- why not just make/call it something else?

Jack Sparrow never felt like the central reason to see the Pirates films, or why they succeeded. It was the encompassing of everything- his character, Will and Elizabeth in the strange environment, the tropical setting, the pirate theme, the strong score, Gore Verbinski's direction, the fantastical-but-grounded plot, etc.

To take a portion of that concept and make it seem like it was the only one of importance- in being a central-to-Jack-Sparrow-only-story - just seemed superfluous and uninteresting to me from the get-go.

Pirates worked because it was fresh and new and appropriately directed, and raw in some sense, and done against great setpieces and fun, swashbuckling, adventurous characters. When you switch to the director of Chicago, cut the budget in more than half, get away from the strong filmmaking roots in favor of the cheaper and easier RED system and unnecessary 3D, and do so all without a storyline or natural progression of the series following a pretty clear conclusion- you're doing a disservice to the initial film Black Pearl. A cheap, unnecessary sequel that looks and feels, without even having seen it, shoehorned in. And breaking, even worse, from the somewhat classic nature of the trilogy-format.

But maybe that's just me. Pirates 4. When did we get to this? The fourth film in a series. Ridiculous. At least with X-Men or Terminator they have the sense to play around with the time period, do some 'one-off' work, or wait a while.

This looks bad, I don't care about pirate stuff, and the reviews are terrible. So yeah, that speaks for itself.
Posted: Mon, 23rd May 2011, 11:07pm

Post 8 of 37

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I found the movie pretty pleasant. I say that because it wasn't awesome, exactly, and it wasn't as funny as the others, but it was an entertaining, relaxing movie without a super-complicated plot or action scenes. It was definitely better than At World's End; I'd say about as good as Dead Man's Chest, though I can't decide which is better. However, there were several different issues that really were noticeable.

1. The atmosphere. The whole movie felt like just another adventure movie; it didn't seem to have anything that made me think "yes. This is a Pirates of the Caribbean movie", or even "yes this is a pirate movie". Unlike all the others. I think this is because all the others had scenes with pirates being pirates; drinking, fighting, etc. It was far less grimy and even gory than the others; they almost always cut away from people getting stabbed or shot, until I was thinking "THIS is PG-13?" It wasn't a pirate movie; it was an adventure movie without any signature traits, except one or two carried over via Jack and Barbossa.

2. The villain. Barbossa was a brilliant bad guy; he was intimidating, since he couldn't die, and he was also a very distinctive character, yelling and cursing and having very personal motivations. His chemistry with Jack and the other pirates was great in its few scenes. Davy Jones was also great; he had his voice, his look, and his entire ship was creepy and disgusting. Blackbeard was just a guy. He didn't really even do much; his only purpose was to keep the plot going, rather than provide an actual obstacle.

3. Motivations. In the original movies, the characters were partially defined by their intentions. Jack was always selfish, Will was more noble, Elizabeth was kind of just there, etc. In Tides, they were all pretty selfish, which made for less of a distinction between characters and reduced the importance of any of them. As irritating as Will was, he always made Jack more fun to watch because of the contrast. With that gone, everyone seems more redundant.

4. The magic. The first three were mostly based on reality; there was one magical item that everyone was after, and nothing else. That was what made the magic more magical, and also made it a definitely-pirate movie. In Tides, there was a ton of magical or mythical stuff, practically unrelated to each other, that served no real purpose and made the whole thing more disjointed. Examples: Blackbeard's ability to control his ship via sword and make people into zombies. Where did these come from? Is Blackbeard supernatural? The mermaids. They're pretty self-explanatory, but they still aren't really necessary. It could have been anything; tears of a virgin or something. Basically, there wasn't really any point for that.

Then there are a couple minor problems: why were the zombies even there if they didn't do anything?
What was Penelope Cruz trying to do? I don't think that was explained.
3D...ugh. It looked okay, but didn't make the movie any better.

7/10.
Posted: Tue, 24th May 2011, 12:05am

Post 9 of 37

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I thought it was the worst one.

The first is one of my favourite movies mainly because of how tight a package it is, how it all ties together nicely with class and heart. With the fourth one, it's obvious they didn't really have any inspiration or motivation to make it, and it felt completely devoid of life (even moreso than 2 and 3).

Plus, there was something about the directing that was off. Moments of cheesiness and poor timing cropped up fairly frequently, which rarely happened in the other 3 movies. It was ridiculously predictable too, as I could guess what was going to happen in each scene within a minute without fail.

I think Curse of the Black Pearl is damn-near untouchable in terms of quality for sequels, though, so I guess it's no surprise.
Posted: Tue, 24th May 2011, 8:11am

Post 10 of 37

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

If we're doing the rating game, I'd go for something like this:

Curse of the Black Pearl - 7/10
Dead Man's Chest - 5/10
At World's End - 4/10

The only thing keeping those last two ratings up are the wonderful VFX in the sequels.

Therefore I won't be bothering with the fourth film. smile

I agree with some of the comments above, though - Sparrow was an amusing supporting character. Part of the problem of the sequels is that they pushed him to the forefront, and Sparrow isn't really a character that works under too much scrutiny. He's a mercurial character: you don't want to get to know him too well.
Posted: Wed, 25th May 2011, 11:47am

Post 11 of 37

Azulon'sAssassin

Force: 1108 | Joined: 26th Oct 2010 | Posts: 648

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

I'm not sure where those ratings came from. I never got bored. The movie went from dramatic, to actiony, to hilarious, and it all ran together beutifully.

SPOILER ALERT
If I had a complaint it would be Jack Sparrow kissing "Jack Sparrow." That sorta freaked me out, but it was still pretty funny.
SPOILERS OVER

On the subject of Will and Elizibeth, sure they were great in the first, but in the others, Elizabeth just totally lost her personality. Sure if they had mentioned Will or her, it may have just been an amusing "Oh I remember that from when they fought Barbosa," type thing, but the movie probably did better without them. Captain Jack was all it needed!
Posted: Wed, 25th May 2011, 5:21pm

Post 12 of 37

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Anyone else ever realize how semi-pedophilic the Jack Sparrow/Elizabeth/Will love triangle was?

You've got Keira, who's 17 in the first one in real-life, with Orlando Bloom who's 10 years older- and Depp who's 20 years older.

Thinking back on it, just kinda odd. She definitely fit, but damn Knightley was young comparably.
Posted: Wed, 25th May 2011, 9:34pm

Post 13 of 37

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I thought it was much better than 2 and 3. Was great to see how it came together after seven months on it last year. Really did think it was better than the previous two. It actually shows you though how good the first Pirates was and just how overwhelmed Disney were with the success.

I was lucky enough to go to premiere in London and the film to me was actually ruined by the 3D - I've never been a fan of 3D and it just didn't work for me, I look forward to watching it in 2D. I remember seeing just how much trouble and effect was being taken to shoot it all in 3D, but it really wasn't worth it..

Anyways, one thing is for sure.. it's not the last time we'll see Jack Sparrow wink
Posted: Wed, 25th May 2011, 10:21pm

Post 14 of 37

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Anyone else ever realize how semi-pedophilic the Jack Sparrow/Elizabeth/Will love triangle was?

You've got Keira, who's 17 in the first one in real-life, with Orlando Bloom who's 10 years older- and Depp who's 20 years older.

Thinking back on it, just kinda odd. She definitely fit, but damn Knightley was young comparably.
Dear god, 17? I could've sworn she was at least in her 20s in that movie eek
Posted: Wed, 25th May 2011, 10:33pm

Post 15 of 37

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Yep. Production wrapped just before her 18th birthday, apparently. Johnny Depp was turning 40 that year.

She was only 21 when the sequels came around, too. Crazy to think about, a little. Like knowing Scarlett Johansson was a teenager when Lost in Translation came out. Or that Natalie Portman had justed turned 16 when they shot Episode I.

Jeez, makes me feel old and unaccomplished. smile
Posted: Wed, 25th May 2011, 11:43pm

Post 16 of 37

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Yeah, but they're just actors.


wink
All that info is crazy to me as well. IRL it's kind of creepy, in regards to Pirates; but in the context of the film, not as much. She looked 20-something for sure, and "back then" it would not have been pedophiliac, regardless.

I'll see this film. Love Sparrow and the world they create, even in the subpar sequels. I certainly don't have any extreme expectations.
Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011, 8:11am

Post 17 of 37

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Also, how old is Sparrow supposed to be? It's fairly vague, but I'd say that Depp is somebody that generally looks younger than his actual age - same with Bloom. So in the fiction of the film it's far less dubious.
Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011, 5:26pm

Post 18 of 37

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Watched it yesterday and my fears from the trailer were unfortunately all coming true.

First of all: It was really painfully obvious that the director changed. Marshall doesn't have Verbinskis sense physical comedy or general "kineticness", his precision or his general light humour. Everything in Pirates 4 felt handled worse then in the first three films directing-wise. The action scenes just kind of went by, the comedy felt forced and often unfunny, the chemistry between characters was rather non-existant.

Even though Pirates 2 and 3 had really really bad screenplays, Verbinski still managed to make a lot of it fun and adventurous. And even though Bill Nighy's Davy Jones was no Barbossa, he still was a fun character and a cool add.

Now we have Ian McShane, who is damn fantastic actor and could have been a brilliant villain - watch Deadwood if you need to know why. But, as the trailer suggested, they didn't do anything with his character. He's basically an extra that waves his sword about in 3D and says a few oneliners here and there. He's not scary, nor particularly evil (for that, he takes for too much shit from everyone around him). He's completely wasted. Cruz does her thing but doesn't really fit in. Depp does his thing but felt very "seen it already" during the entire film.
The only actor/character I really liked was once again Geoffrey Rush's Barbossa. He's awesome. Everyone else is "just there".

And the weakest part of all of it was the screenplay. How this pile of nonsense could ever get the green light is completely beyond me. Characters don't act much, they TELL everything. There's so many scenes that left a big WTF? on my face I stopped counting at one point. The screenplay really is even worse then the aimless 2 and 3 version, which they wrote while shooting. This one feels like it was made up after "action!". The Zombies were random and pointless, the mermaids ridicolous and... well... I'll stop.


So to me, Pirates 4 is the weakest PotC and marks a low point of a franchise which should have stopped at the absolutely brilliant first one, who is a 10 out of 10 in my book simply for how much fun it is.
Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011, 5:50pm

Post 19 of 37

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Well I'm certainly loving one thing about this film and it's that people are seeing Verbinski's genius.

He's certainly on the same level visually and technically as Stephen Spielberg, Zack Snyder, James Cameron and J.J. Abrams. He's also probably better than them at VFX (with the possible exception of Cameron after his learning curve on Avatar). He was an accomplished VFX supervisor on commercials before he became a director. If you look at the behind the scenes footage on the Pirates Trilogy you can see how interested he is in physical space, movement, physics, compositing and CGI-lighting to name a few things, giving John Knoll extremely technical and specific critique on the shots ILM present to him.

Even in the first Pirates that only had the skeletons as a "Difficult Flashly visual effect" (in fact most of ILM's work was digitally removing contemporary motor-boats containing crew-members in the background) the cinematography, action and visual gags are amazingly well directed.

And I've seen a lot of unfair: "Gore Verbinski is a soft director; Johnny Depp directed the Pirates films."-talk since the trilogy was made. People cited the bland "The Weather Man" and "The Mexican" (both enjoyable enough films). I remember this (watch the last minute). Gore Verbinski can't direct traffic? Wtf?

But now Oscar nominated Rob Marshall steps up and proves Michael Bay, myself and every other person who's realized it takes a special kind of intelligence and passion to direct a giant blockbuster well, right. People are crying out: "Where's the Verbinski direction?!" and I love that. It is so much more gratifying to me than the completley apathetic approach people have taken to vastly different directorial efforts in competence and style in the Harry Potter franchise. Unlike Sollthar I was actually relived how much this film reminded me of the other Pirates films because I expected an unrecognizable, jarring, train-wreck which is what it felt like every time Harry Potter changed director and to a lesser extent every time The Doctor regenerated (you know, everything feels "off"). At least Bruckheimer and Marshall tried to pretend this was the same franchise.

So I'm really glad people are crying out about this. Verbinski deserves the credit.
Posted: Sun, 29th May 2011, 9:49pm

Post 20 of 37

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I actually found this film incredibly enjoyable. Different, sure, but that's what the series needed. I definitely noticed the lack of Verbinski, but like I said, it was enjoyable. The comedy wasn't forced from what I could see, so I'm not entirely sure where Sollthar was coming from. I thought that Barbossa was the highlight of the film, but Depp really met all expectations I had going in.

I think the important distinction needs to be made that these are not great films, but fun films. And personally, I think that "On Stranger Tides" was the most fun I've had watching a pirate film since the first of the series.
Posted: Sun, 29th May 2011, 10:06pm

Post 21 of 37

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Thrawn wrote:

And personally, I think that "On Stranger Tides" was the most fun I've had watching a pirate film since the first of the series.
Are you kidding me? Go rewatch the 2nd one: compare the brilliant fight scene in the mill wheel to the 4th's lame sword-swinging between the two jacks. Eons apart in terms of fun - the hilarious and creative choreography was completely absent in the fourth film.
Posted: Mon, 30th May 2011, 6:59pm

Post 22 of 37

Azulon'sAssassin

Force: 1108 | Joined: 26th Oct 2010 | Posts: 648

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Thrawn wrote:

I actually found this film incredibly enjoyable. Different, sure, but that's what the series needed. I definitely noticed the lack of Verbinski, but like I said, it was enjoyable. The comedy wasn't forced from what I could see, so I'm not entirely sure where Sollthar was coming from. I thought that Barbossa was the highlight of the film, but Depp really met all expectations I had going in.

I think the important distinction needs to be made that these are not great films, but fun films. And personally, I think that "On Stranger Tides" was the most fun I've had watching a pirate film since the first of the series.
THANK YOU! And on a personal opinion, I didn't agree with Sollthar. Perhaps i'ts just because I REALLY focus on what they're saying. Oh, and Blackbeard wasn't a "backgroung" character, if it weren'r for him, the movie would have been really pointless


Oh, and just off to the side...

SPOILER (highlight to read)
Did anyone else wish they had a ship that could blast fire like Blackbeard's did, because I thought that was awesome...
SPOILERS OVER.

Ok, just my personal opinions.
Posted: Tue, 31st May 2011, 2:28am

Post 23 of 37

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Azulon's Assassin wrote:

Oh, and Blackbeard wasn't a "backgroung" character, if it weren'r for him, the movie would have been really pointless
No, they would have had a different villain. Which would probably have made it more interesting.
Actually, I think it would have been a lot more fun to see Jack and Barbossa competing. Blackbeard didn't really do anything. His daughter would have been a sufficient villain.
Posted: Tue, 31st May 2011, 11:56pm

Post 24 of 37

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Terminal Velocity wrote:

Actually, I think it would have been a lot more fun to see Jack and Barbossa competing. Blackbeard didn't really do anything. His daughter would have been a sufficient villain.
Yeah... I'd say Blackbeard was the most disappointing thing about the movie. Seriously... he doesn't do anything. He's just there. A much better idea would have been something like this:

The London action sequence happens. After Jack escapes, he hears about the person posing as Jack Sparrow. Just as fake Jack (Angelica) is leaving port, real Jack hops on board, fights with Angelica, and takes over the ship as if it were really him the entire time. That would set up a Jack vs. Barbossa quest for the Fountain. Then they'd have to team up with each other when they encounter the Spanish, who are also looking for the Fountain. Angelica could then be revealed as the true villain, who was working with the Spanish the whole time. Or something like that.

Something like that would have removed some of the bloat, while also keeping all the good gags and set pieces.
Posted: Wed, 1st Jun 2011, 12:17am

Post 25 of 37

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

And the funny thing is, his status as Blackbeard was entirely gratuitous (as was a lot of stuff). It's like "Grr he's BLACKBEARD! Ye be feared!" And then...it's completely irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that in actual mythology, he was a terrifying, ferocious pirate. Not a mildly irritable grandpa. How about his zombifying powers? Couldn't those have been used in several ways during the film? I was anticipating that more than anything else in the movie.
Posted: Wed, 1st Jun 2011, 8:15pm

Post 26 of 37

DX6channel

Force: 496 | Joined: 9th Jul 2009 | Posts: 110

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Saw Pirates of the Caribbean (PotC) 4 a few days ago. Here's my opinion:
I liked it quite a bit. That being said, it didn't feel like a PotC movie. I walked out of the theater with the same feeling I had after Narnia 3; it was a cool movie on its own, but it didn't seem to fit into the in with the other movies. The movie mostly followed Jack Sparrow (with a few break for Philip and the mermaid or Barbossa), I felt it needed some characters that were separate from the main people (like Will and Elizabeth. I did like the music (especially when the Spaniards came in).
Posted: Thu, 2nd Jun 2011, 2:23am

Post 27 of 37

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Well this is certainly intriguing:

http://www.slashfilm.com/rumored-pirates-caribbean-5-director-list-includes-tim-burton-sam-raimi/

While I did enjoy Pirates 4 quite a bit, Rob Marshall's direction really didn't impress me. Like many others have said, I could tell that the directors had changed.

My pick from this new list would have to be Alfonso Cuaron, although he's probably going to be too busy with his sci-fi film, Gravity. As long as it isn't Tim Burton, I'll be happy. His trademark "strangeness" (and use of Johnny Depp, for that matter) is exactly what Pirates 5 doesn't need.
Posted: Thu, 2nd Jun 2011, 4:11am

Post 28 of 37

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Please god not Tim Burton! Jesus that would be bad!
Posted: Thu, 2nd Jun 2011, 7:16am

Post 29 of 37

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Hehe, Tim Burton would be pretty much the only reason for me to go watch Pirates 5 - just to see how he turns it into something really strange and completely out of place. biggrin
Posted: Thu, 2nd Jun 2011, 7:49am

Post 30 of 37

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Not Tim Burton. surprised That could break the franchise.
Posted: Thu, 2nd Jun 2011, 7:00pm

Post 31 of 37

Azulon'sAssassin

Force: 1108 | Joined: 26th Oct 2010 | Posts: 648

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

jawajohnny wrote:

His trademark "strangeness" (and use of Johnny Depp, for that matter) is exactly what Pirates 5 doesn't need.
Are you saying that if there were to be a Pirates 5, Johnny Depp shouldn't be in it? Because if they made a Pirates five, and Depp wasn't in it, there would either be no, or a very bad, Jack Sparrow, and that would ruin the entire movie. I mean, think about all the Pirates movies. Now take Jack out of all of them, and replace them with a different actor, who just can't get it right.

But I agree with you saying that they don't need Tim Burton's "interesting" direction. While I like some of his other movies, a Pirates directed by him would just be wierd. Though, it would be fun to see Helena Bohnam Carter being a pirate...
Posted: Thu, 2nd Jun 2011, 8:11pm

Post 32 of 37

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

No, no... I just mean that in general... the Pirates films really don't need a Tim Burton/Johnny Depp collaboration... because I've hated every one that I've seen. I don't want to see Burton directing Depp again. They've done it enough already.
Posted: Thu, 2nd Jun 2011, 11:27pm

Post 33 of 37

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

You hated Edward Scissorhands? You hated Sleepy Hollow? Or have you not seen them? I can understand (but disagree on the word 'hate') on the others, but I think those two are fantastic. But each to his own.

I feel like they've got nothing to lose after that, from what I've been hearing. Trying an offbeat director, Burton or not, might be a good idea. I'd actually like to see what Burton would do with it, but that's just me.

Last edited Thu, 2nd Jun 2011, 11:30pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 2nd Jun 2011, 11:30pm

Post 34 of 37

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Sleepy Hollow is still my favorite film of all times. Definately a cinematic masterpiece.

But as much as I'm a fan of some of Burtons stuff, I'd also say he would not exactly my first choice to direct a pirates of the caribbean movie... Didn't care much for Alice, loved Sweeney Todd though. Hated Mars Attacks, loved Big Fish. Burton can be brilliant, he can also be rather empty.

Light hearted action adventure comedy is not his strength I'd say though. I'd rather see Spielberg direct a PotC movie. smile
Posted: Thu, 2nd Jun 2011, 11:49pm

Post 35 of 37

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I would watch a Woody Allen directed Pirates film.
Posted: Thu, 2nd Jun 2011, 11:57pm

Post 36 of 37

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

You hated Edward Scissorhands? You hated Sleepy Hollow?
I've seen Edward Scissorhands... but not Sleepy Hollow. I probably should get on that. smile But in general... I'm just not a fan of Tim Burton's style. I'll admit I did like Sweeney Todd... save for the fact that Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter cannot sing. At all. razz
Posted: Fri, 3rd Jun 2011, 1:37pm

Post 37 of 37

Azulon'sAssassin

Force: 1108 | Joined: 26th Oct 2010 | Posts: 648

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

jawajohnny wrote:

No, no... I just mean that in general... the Pirates films really don't need a Tim Burton/Johnny Depp collaboration... because I've hated every one that I've seen. I don't want to see Burton directing Depp again. They've done it enough already.
Ok. I agree with you (mostly) there. Having Burton and Depp colaborate might be a bad idea for pirates, although Depp pretty much invented Jack Sparrow. The writers wanted Jack to run around in the shirt that he does (but with out the vest), the same pants and boot, and a blue bandana. He was also going to be a very serious character. Depp changed all that, basing it off of Kieth Richards from the Roling Stones (the walk and run, the clothes style, etc.) and probably made the movie better, but with him AND Burton, it would probably turn into Jack slicing the heads off of zombies...the dead people type...