Author Topic: Pirates of the Caribbean 2 (Read 6493 times)

B E C K · « **on:** Feb 01, 2007, 01:34:20 PM »

I finally saw this thing on PPV the other day. It was padded all to hell. So much dialogue could've been snipped right out. It was stupid. Who cares if it's a picture of key, did you need a whole conversation about it? Is this anything like the fucking hamburger in Pulp Fiction? And I paid so much attention to the first one that I had no idea who many of these people were, har har. It was still ten times better than a lot of the drivel that gets made, so it's not like it was money wasted. I thought it really got interesting to have Elizabeth pretty much sacrifice Jack at the end, but of course the damn thing continued. Who the hell was that guy at the end? This is all.

Rama · « **Reply #1 on:** Feb 01, 2007, 03:18:00 PM »

It did seem like they made it stretch.

And the guy at the end was Barbarossa. The villain from the first POTC that Jack killed.

B E C K · « **Reply #2 on:** Feb 01, 2007, 03:22:41 PM »

That's who I thought he was, but I wasn't sure enough to put money on it. Why the hell is he alive? Am I suppose to gleam that somehow, or is it just a lame twist?

Rama · « **Reply #3 on:** Feb 01, 2007, 03:29:00 PM »

Lame twist that they'll some how make relevant in POTC3.

Guest · « **Reply #4 on:** Feb 01, 2007, 05:43:02 PM »

Speculation is it stems from a Davy Jones deal. Jack got 13 years on the Black Pearl until his deal was up.

Extra Zero · « **Reply #5 on:** Feb 01, 2007, 06:16:43 PM »

Either that or the fact that he died in a cave full of magic money.

IDE · « **Reply #6 on:** Feb 01, 2007, 06:44:52 PM »

Either way my reaction was "who gives a shit?" He just wasn't that great of a character/performance/whatever that I would be all "HOLY FUCK HE'S BACK!"

Faye Valentine · « **Reply #7 on:** Feb 01, 2007, 10:27:50 PM »

Quote

I finally saw this thing on PPV the other day. It was padded all to hell. So much dialogue could've been snipped right out. It was stupid. Who cares if it's a picture of key, did you need a whole conversation about it? Is this anything like the fucking hamburger in Pulp Fiction? And I paid so much attention to the first one that I had no idea who many of these people were, har har. It was still ten times better than a lot of the drivel that gets made, so it's not like it was money wasted. I thought it really got interesting to have Elizabeth pretty much sacrifice Jack at the end, but of course the damn thing continued. Who the hell was that guy at the end? This is all.

Nuri, where you high when you wrote that?? THAT'S FRIGGIN BARBOSA, DAMNIT!

AND I've had so many dreams of me kissing Jack Sparrowww MMMM thank you Disney

Rama · « **Reply #8 on:** Feb 02, 2007, 01:01:01 AM »

I think the explaination is none of the above. It was pretty clear that Barborsa found his way back from the dead on his own, hence how he knows the way back so they can get Jack Sparrow. Thought that was pretty clear at the end of that flick.

B E C K · « **Reply #9 on:** Feb 02, 2007, 04:18:12 PM »

I saw it once, like over a year ago. I'm sorry that I don't commit ugly, dead pirate villains to memory.

That was so lame, having him re-appear like that. It was like he was wished back with the Dragon Balls or brought to life with a Phoenix Down. Cheap. They should've had Keith Richards appear at the end.

Rodent of Unusual Size · « **Reply #10 on:** Feb 02, 2007, 06:25:40 PM »

They had to do this retarded Matrix-like movie trilogy, otherwise they might have combined the two movies given the amount of nothing that occured in the first part. As it was, I thought 2 was okay, but that was it.

B E C K · « **Reply #11 on:** Feb 02, 2007, 07:10:39 PM »

Yeah, really. A trilogy is a cool idea. They should've tried actually writing a third one instead of piecemealing a perfectly good story. Lord of Rings was three books so it actually needed at least three movies because the story was that long. It's like so many people didn't understand that. It doesn't count if you stretch the story on purpose just to make another film, cheaters. I can't think of any film series where they don't appear to be getting more desperate with each film aside from stuff that already has multi-movie material like Bond or Harry Potter or something like that.

B E C K · « **Reply #12 on:** Feb 02, 2007, 07:21:09 PM »

....Although Pierce Brosnon/Denise Richards and Pierce/Halle Berry and Pierce/Fucking Michelle Yeoh seem pretty damn desperate to me. And the irisy fade out/in technique, swarmy Lupin, and child molester overtones in Pettigrew in Harry Potter 3 make it barely watchable for me. But I think you guys get what I mean.

Rama · « **Reply #13 on:** Feb 03, 2007, 03:12:27 AM »

Quote

Lord of Rings was three books so it actually needed at least three movies because the story was that long. It's like so many people didn't understand that.

I still cannot forget when I saw the Two Towers, as the movie ended and it was clear there was going to be a third one the woman in front of me leaned over to her husband and said "I knew they were going to do that." Well no shit Sherlock...there were three books. Only been that way since 1955.

I'm just pissed that Jackson won't be involved in the Hobbit. If it ever gets made that is.

B E C K · « **Reply #14 on:** Feb 03, 2007, 08:22:30 AM »

That stirs the shit in my colon, too. Ian McKellen needs to reprise Gandalf but he won't. Why? Because he'll be fucking dead by the time they get the goddamn thing off the ground. Then there's the whole thing about splitting the Hobbit into two movies and making a third movie so it can be trilogy.

Lord of the Rings was three movies because it was three books.
Lord of the Rings was three movies because it was three books.
Lord of the Rings was three movies because it was three books.

That's not cut and paste either. Fucking Hollywood needs to understand that and undertake one massive Hobbit movie instead of crapping three turds.

Rama · « **Reply #15 on:** Feb 04, 2007, 06:07:13 AM »

There isn't enough material for 3 movies in the Hobbit. And if you have make up a bunch of shit, then it's clear you are desperate to make it work and that should be your first clue that it won't. I don't even think the Hobbit is as long as one of the LOTR books. Guess it depends on what printing you got, but mine isn't as big as any of my LOTR trilogy.

I find it highly Ironic that Jackson has to fight to get LOTR made into 3 movies and now that same studio is trying to force a book that doesn't need 3 movies into a trilogy.

B E C K · « **Reply #16 on:** Feb 04, 2007, 10:28:54 PM »

Quote

I don't even think the Hobbit is as long as one of the LOTR books.

It is if you get one with large blind-people print and pictures. Ta-har.

IDE · « **Reply #17 on:** Feb 04, 2007, 11:30:59 PM »

you might be able to get 2 movies out of hobbit but no way can u make 3.

B E C K · « **Reply #18 on:** Feb 05, 2007, 12:05:21 AM »

I think even two movies would be a stretch, unless they make them Disney animated feature length, which is like 70-80 minutes and then it would just be a fucking rip-off because then they could cut stuff out and get one great movie instead of two turdlings. You shouldn't be able to get all of the details and happenings of the book in the movie anyway. That's what the book is for. A movie is suppose to be streamlined to some extent. They don't need two movies to do this. This is fucking Hollywood seeing dollar signs in the word "trilogy" and not actually thinking about shit as usual.

Rama · « **Reply #19 on:** Feb 05, 2007, 01:24:03 PM »

Quote

Quote
I don't even think the Hobbit is as long as one of the LOTR books.
It is if you get one with large blind-people print and pictures. Ta-har.

Wa Wa Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

B E C K · « **Reply #20 on:** Feb 05, 2007, 01:48:47 PM »

Are you crying or going "wh-wha?" like you're in shock?

Rama · « **Reply #21 on:** Feb 05, 2007, 03:28:51 PM »

No like that noise on TV shows when something funny happens to the main character and he breaks the 4th wall by looking at the Camera and then you hear

Wa Wa Waaaaaaaaaaaaah

Like that.

B E C K · « **Reply #22 on:** Feb 05, 2007, 10:02:46 PM »

That's gay. We are the fourth wall.

Rodent of Unusual Size · « **Reply #23 on:** Feb 06, 2007, 12:16:10 AM »

I've heard talk of it being made into two movies, but The Hobbit is only one movie. Yeah, lots of stuff happened in it (more than FotR), but most of the memorable stuff are more like action vignettes...the Battle of Five Armies, however, is a great capstone for both the book and the movie. The scale and scope of it can't be matched or compared to anything else in the book, and ending a first movie with anything less is a crock.

Also, Peter Jackson WILL do The Hobbit in the end. Apparently they wanted Sam Raimi to do Hobbit. And that's all well and good, but when you realize New Line put Jackson off the project to punish him for suing them for money they stiffed him on, it really invalidates any rationalizing of the decision.

However, from all accounts, MGM was banking on Jackson helming this project. Chances are that if New Line does get someone on board to do it, MGM might yank the money out from under them and it never gets started. Combine that with New Line losing the movie rights to The Hobbit later this year (they wouldn't have time to get it off the ground, anyway) and Tolkien Enterprises backing Jackson's involvement 100%, and I suddenly don't feel as bad about it as I initially did. When everyone goes to bidding for the rights of this, Wingnut Productions will probably wind up with it, cutting New Line out of the loop entirely. And given that the actors from LotR that would reprise in The Hobbit (Ian McCellan and possibly Ian Holm) want him to do it, that won't be a problem, either.

In essense, New Line screwed themselves out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Fuck those 'tards!

IDE · « **Reply #24 on:** Feb 06, 2007, 12:31:48 AM »

If they end the first movie with the battle of 5 armies we wouldn't need a 2nd movie. As long as they don't try to cut beorn out of the action I'm happy.

Rama · « **Reply #25 on:** Feb 06, 2007, 01:01:30 AM »

Quote

That's gay. We are the fourth wall.

I was just trying to explain what kind of "Wa Wa Waaaaaaah" it was. Forget all the stuff about the fourth wall, there is no fourth wall.

IDE · « **Reply #26 on:** Feb 06, 2007, 02:58:56 AM »

realize the truth!

B E C K · « **Reply #27 on:** Feb 07, 2007, 10:48:29 AM »

Man, I hope the Squirrel speaks the truth. We don't need some other cracker directing this.

Derrick · « **Reply #28 on:** Feb 07, 2007, 01:23:11 PM »

I could see the movie going like this:

Prolouge - Similar to Fellowship, maybe showing the Dwarves being ousted, a vignette with the dragon blowing fire everywhere?

Part 1 - Introduction similar to FotR, introducing the hobbits and Bilbo. Then cut to the hiring of him and how wacky those dwarves are. The set out to Rivendell, showcasing the Trollshaws.

Part 2 - Arrival at Rivendell, introduction of Elves more passively than in the LotR movies, in which they are basically soldiers and witches. Elrond must be Agent Smith, his drawl is too perfect. Them movement through the Misty Mountains, Smeagol, the Wolves attack and Eagles, and end the part with Beorn.

Part 3 - Build up the climax with the goblins arming, the men of dale on alert, and start with them being thrown in Mirkwood's jail. Introduce the M Elves and then the Dale men as entities in the area, and bring focus of both to the Lonely mountain. Then build up with the approach and theft, and bring a false climax with the Dragons being slain.

Climax - Make it look safe, then bring the 5 armies in to take the hoard. Bring a massive LotR battle with CG arrows, brutal goblins tearing apart men and elves, and some hot Elf on Dwarf action, and end it with Thorin being slain.

Finish it with the trip home between Gandalf and Bilbo, remarking about how there should be no more adventures.

B E C K · « **Reply #29 on:** Feb 07, 2007, 02:30:33 PM »

You forgot "Epilogue - Then no more adventures are made." At least in the terms of a Hobbit trilogy.

Author Topic: Pirates of the Caribbean 2 (Read 6493 times)

Guest