Oh, he’s married, I’ll stick to the ogling one who’s younger than me 
Maybe the too-subtle point is that we are open to it possibly (or probably) being good, and not convinced in advance that it will suck!
Anyhoo, I watched the first one Wednesday night, the second one last night, and we may hit the 9:00 am show after we drop the kids off at school!
She answers that question right in the movie, just obliquely, when Davy Jones gets cranky at her: “You KNEW it was always my nature.” She’s as fickle as the sea. And she DID try to kill Jack. He mentions that in the Underworld.
The idea of Little Miss Swan as the pirate king is a bit of an insult to pirate kings everywhere, I agree. I also knew it was going to go that way. Should’ve been Jack.
I have no illusions – and nor should Turner – that Lizzie kept chaste for ten years. She only brought one kid to the beach and she was happy to see Will, that’s all we know. Maybe she did, but again, COME ON. He can’t trust her to tell him the truth about killing people and he thinks she’s going to just keep her knees together for ten years? She’d just have to be careful not to do any sailing men or it’s not going to be all smiles when her boyfriend the ferryman of the dead comes back – “So, my new gunnery officer has some interesting stories about that little birthmark on the back of your thigh…”
That reminds me. Some hot leg-kissin’ for a Disney move. :eek: 
I think Cutler’s stupidity in the last bits of the movie was just that – he’s a CEO, he’s not a ship captain. He saw everything falling apart around him and he KNEW he was boned. He just froze up. It was cool watching the ship blow up around him, though.
But argh. If I never hated Keira’s character before, I surely do now. Poor Norrington gets one kiss and dies for it. That’s a bit creepy though, isn’t it? Everyone who’s ever kissed Elizabeth has died at LEAST once.
I’m going to see it tonight! Movies should be shallow sometimes, I cant; forever be watching deep stuff anyway. And if I really wanted deep I’d borrow a book. I have 7 or 8 of them sitting on the stairs I am reading.
I am excitedly looking forward to swashbuckling, fun-in-the-sun, and of course Johnny Depp who I think is a very good and diverse actor. I’ll see it with my SO. We’ll make an afternoon of it, dinner and a movie. What more does one want?
This is to no one in particular.
I don’t think randwill is saying that we shouldn’t go see movie-candy.
But, within what we’d all label “move candy” or “summer popcorn movie” or whatever, I think we can all agree there are still differences in quality.
Of course it’s a bad idea to be slaves to critics, but it’s a far worse idea to be a slave to marketing, and that’s really what it seems like when there are endless streams of people heading into these sequels that don’t seem to please the critics OR THE FANS (cf. Spiderman, Shrek 3, or POTC 2).
But, one gets the impression that people are thinking, “gotta go see da seconty one because ah done seen da first one!”
It seems like there’s just an endless stream of people heading to movies (particularly sequels) without considering at all the quality of the movie they might be going to see, or without considering potentially better options (as he mentioned, Waitress, which by all accounts is an excellent movie).
And, people might complain that The Host (or Waitress) didn’t play anywhere near them, but it’s a real chicken-and-egg thing. People have to start branching out taste-wise, and seeing what else is out there. It’s particularly surprising that people here – who often tend to be thoughtful about their moviegoing – get so, well, sheepish, when this stuff like POTC3 comes out.
It’s not even remotely the same thing. I hate movies like Waitress:
Sounds like a chick-flick to me…shallow useless tripe. Yes, it’s real life. I don’t want to go to a movie to see real life! it’s not my life…I am not in any of those situations. I don’t even like romance in movies, let alone stuff like this.
So all of my movies are;
Adventure
Comedy
Swashbuckling
Sci-fi
All things that are not real and delve into the realm of fantasy. I feel like if I trotted off to see movies like Waitress it would simply be…to watch a movie like Waitress. Who cares if it’s “good” in someone else’s opinion? Doesn’t entertainment matter? What entertains me?
I have never lied about the fact that I am a hedonist and in it for pure pleasure. Again, when I want depth, I read books, though I read those for entertainment value as well…I just like deeper things then.
POTC 3 is light-hearted and fun, and that’s all I want for my two hours.
I enjoyed it, even if I did have the “meh” feeling that Ellis Dee mentioned. I think that applied more to the first … oh, half or so, which was spent establishing the “plot”. That sucker was more convoluted than a Boa Constrictor who accidentally swallowed a box of Pop Rocks - nobody in my group really got what was going on and who was with whom. Not that it really mattered, mind you, there was swashbuckling and fun stuff, it was just somewhat disjointed.
As to my own comments / questions:
[spoiler]Why were the people singing in the very beginning? There was a lot of ominous mention of “THAT SONG” and I thought it would be cleared up later but it never wasn’t.
How did the Kraken die? I get why from a writer’s point of view: if one person has a cephalopod ex machina they can use to swallow ships it would have made the final battle even more lopsided. But who killed it - was it the East India Trading Company (whose sinister power never was sufficiently explained IMHO)?
Why could Barbossa be brought back from the dead but nobody else? Because he was one of the nine whatnot or others?
Why can’t Keira Knightley go and hang out on the Dutchman with her man if he can’t leave? Will Turner seemed to be perfectly able to travel with the ship even when he wasn’t dead.
The wedding scene was cool, though, and I appreciated that the plot was more surprising than you’d have thought (OMG they killed Norrington!) That and I applaud the decision of having loads of Johnny Depps talking to each other. What, shallow and sheeplike, me? Never.[/spoiler]
Yeah, but surely you don’t just enjoy ALL movie in those categories?
You must have some sense of “that was well done” or “that stunk” even if all you’re seeing is Spiderman/Superman/X-Men/Hulk/Fantastic Four?
Absolutely not. I don’t think we’re talking at cross-purposes here. I don’t believe I should go see a movie just because people say I should…and you don’t believe I should go see a movie just because people say I should.
take for example the ones you’ve mentioned.
Spiderman I sucked.
Spidey 2 was a significant improvement and actually enjoyable.
Superman - the new one - I hated. Chiefly because he turned so emo.
I’ve not seen either Hulk or Fantastic Four because it sounds like they sucked. I’ll eventually rent them and make my own decision.
X-Men I liked the first and second. The third lost a lot of the in-depth character development.
I mean, sure I have grades of what I liked. I rather liked POTC 2. It was lacking some things, but it was still a high adventure. I didn’t go see it in the theatre, but I bought it a few weeks ago.
I will go see POTC 3 in the theatre because it’s the last one, because I know there’ll be some great scenes that look good on the big screen, and because I do like the story.
Don’t get me wrong…i think they could have easily stopped at POTC I. But I think there is enough in there to still enjoy it.
Let me just say that nesting quotes and spoilers is complicated…
[/spoiler]
Because it was a pirate song, first, and second because it was making those nine pieces of eight summon the pirate lords into one place. They kept saying over and over again “the song has been sung” and I gather it was something like the coin hitting the water in the first movie – a summoning, a call.
[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Beckett, I think, mentions ordering Davy to kill “his pet”. I assumed this was the kraken. Since Beckett held the heart, he had all the power.
Of course, the natural question to follow is why Beckett would EVER want to do that. I have the feeling the answer is simple: he realized he might not succeed and did not want that thing turned on him. More than that, he wanted an end to supernatural control over the waters that did not come from him. He didn’t get rid of Davy himself because he couldn’t, not without sacrificing himself.[/spoiler]
[/spoiler]
Who couldn’t be brought back? Jack was assumed bodily into Hello, so he was a special case. Tia Dalma/Calypso brought Barbossa back 'cause she wanted to. Nobody sniff bothered to bring Norrington back. Will was bound to the Dutchman.
[/spoiler]
Good question, except that she wouldn’t have been able to follow it under the sea and into the land of the dead all the damn time, probably. At least that’s likely not to be a very healthy relationship for a child. Still, that is a good question.
Says who? I liked Spiderman 3. I liked PotC 3.
Some have mentioned using Rotten Tomatoes. While I agree that it can be a place to start, if I want to see a movie, I have no problems ignoring it. Since it’s been brought up though, as of this moment PotC 3 is exactly at 50% and Spiderman 3 is at 61%. So you’re saying that I shouldn’t go to either movie because in one case half the critics didn’t like it and for the other movie, slightly more than 1/3rd panned it? I really don’t get that at all. You’re going to let less than half of the voices discourage you from going to a movie? In my case, this is for two franchises where I have liked all of the installments to this point?
I think it goes back to a point that EJsGirl made that seems to be lost on some of you. You’re calling us sheep for wanting to see these movies (where in most cases we liked all of the predecessors). To me being a sheep would be allowing these critics or messageboard smarks to disuade us from enjoying these movies. I think some of you are being sheep in thinking that something can’t be entertaining if it’s not an independent film or loved by critics who by definition criticize.
Again, you’re missing the obvious point. It’s not that we’ve seen the first one. It’s that we enjoyed the first one.
The description of Waitress doesn’t sound like anything that I would pay money to see. Why should I see it because the critics like it? Let me bring up another movie that the critics loved, The Departed. To me that movie was an absolute mess with a few great individual performances thrown in. The end result is that the movie was still a mess. The critics absolutely failed me there, but I should follow them blindly? :dubious:
I’m not saying negative opinions are invalid or unwanted in threads like this. I just get the impression from reading many of your posts that you take take a perverse joy in pointing out to everyone how much you think something sucks, especially when others are posting about their excitement and anticipation of the movie/tv show.
So you’re calling us all ignorant because we like these movies? You feel it’s your duty to tell us how bad they are, because obviously we’re less enlightened than you?
So you saw the first one and didn’t like it enough to see the second, and you won’t be seeing the third either, and yet you feel the irresistable urge to come into this thread and make negative comments? Why bother? And not just negative, but condescending. Because the only reason any of us want to see this movie is that we “can’t wait to ogle Johnny Depp.” Never mind the fact that I’ve enjoyed both movies so far, for many reasons, none of them involving ogling Depp.
Face it, you’re just one of those people (I’ve known many) who enjoys being negative. You’re the Debbie Downer of the Dope. No, wait–you’re the afternoon cloud who just can’t wait to darken everyone’s day.
That’s all I have to say about this. I’m not normally one to call people out and argue about crap like this, but I just really wish you would give it a rest. But you won’t because you’ll misinterpret all this as me saying that you shouldn’t post if you can’t post anything nice.
You’re right about one thing. It’s taking a LOT longer than we thought.
I did NOT go to ogle Johnny Depp (who looks frankly not that sexy in dredlocks and eyeshadow).
I went to ogle Jack Davenport.
Sheesh. 
Someone responded to my report of bad reviews for the movie that “they didn’t care”. I took this to mean that they didn’t care whether the movie was any good or not. I think this is an unfortunate and prevalent attitude among too many film goers.
I wish more people went to see films like, “The Lives of Others”, “Pan’s Labyrinth”, “Bridge to Terabithia”, “Breach”, “Starter for Ten”, “The Host” and “The Wind That Shakes the Barely” to name just a few recent releases I have seen and that I would recommend, rather than things like, “Wild Hogs”, “Delta Farce”, “The Reaping”, “Norbit”, “Perfect Stranger”, “Date Movie” and “Lady in the Water”, none of which I have seen, but which made a lot of money in spite of nearly universal scorn. If they did, maybe more quality movies would be made, and fewer poor and mediocre ones would be foisted on the public. I believe this would be richer for our culture.
I’m not saying that things like “Saw 3” and “Little Man” shouldn’t be made. Fat chance. There should be entertainment options for people of all tastes and levels of sophistication. It’s just unfortunate, to me, that those are the big money-makers and better films can’t always find an audience nearly as large.
Rather than making this about me, as you are trying to do, I think this is a better direction for this thread or perhaps another one.
Or possibly they don’t care what critics think. One of my favorite (incredibly cheesy, I will admit, but still one of my favorite) horror movies has something like 10% on the Tomatometer. I recall listening to a Vogue magazine movie reviewer who panned The Green Mile because he couldn’t conceive of a 1950s Southern good ole boy jailer getting pissed off over an inmate cursing. So many movies are judged on their universal rather than specific qualities; that is, an action movie may get poor reviews because its characters were poorly fleshed out or some of the action scenes were unrealistic. In my opinion, many critics entirely miss the point. Just because people pay for your opinion doesn’t make it valid.
Those films do not appeal to everyone, just as many films don’t appeal to you. You understand this. How, then, do you propose to make people like what you want to watch? Why do you think this is better? Why should this medium be used for art rather than mindless entertainment?
And why, good Lord, have you come in here to complain about a movie you don’t want to see? Because you don’t think people should like movies like this? Do you walk up to happy newlyweds and tell them fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce?
But then, what info do you use in deciding whether to see a movie?
Surely, you don’t see every single movie that comes out so you have some criteria to judge whether you go?
What is it. . .the trailer?
That’s just indicative that you’re much more affected by marketing than people who listen to critics.
The fact that you saw the previous one? (Ugh.)
It can’t just be the subject matter. . .otherwise what’s to stop you from going to see ‘Hostel’ and ‘The Hills Have Eyes’ just because you liked ‘Saw’?
It may be that the person who posted the “I don’t care” response meant that they don’t care what critics think.
I think a movie should be judged on how well it accomplished what it set out to do. Simply put, was the horror movie horrifying? Was the comedy funny? If the movie is primarily an action vehicle, then it should be judged as such. I like to care enough about the characters who are involved in the action so I would hope that the filmmakers would flesh them out enough for me to care how the action affects them.
And it’s true that one man’s paid for opinion may not be valid or helpful to you in making viewing choices. I would combine the opinions of many writers along with personal recommendations from friends with what types of films I am generally entertained by when deciding what’s worth my time.
I don’t propose to make people like what I like. I just think one can lead a fuller and more enlightened life if one opens themselves up to more than what the popular culture offers up. I don’t think film should be used exclusively as art and I’ll admit that I enjoy some mindless entertainment. But surely you’re not arguing that the craft of filmmaking is elevated by shoddy product.
I didn’t complain about “Pirates 3”. I pointed out that it was getting bad reviews. I later elaborated that the critics were split about 50 – 50. I quoted some negative reactions from film reviewers.
My complaint is with the plethora of garbage over quality entertainment on movie screens. I wish more people liked and were moved by things that challenged or elevated the human spirit. Not market tested things designed for the lowest common denominator. But I’m on the wrong planet.
I can see how my remark about ogling Johnny Depp would be seen as condescending. So let me just say that if the movie promised to be any better, I’d be right there ogling Keira Knightly. I think I’ll wait for her in a better film though.
Oh, and I heard recently that the average of successful marriages was now slightly above 50%, but, yeah, any couple should go into it with the knowledge that the chances of long term success are iffy.
Thank you for trying - I’ll do my best to mirror the effort
Re: the song:
But how did “ordinary” people know that song and why did they have those pieces of eight? Well, I guess that’s one I’ll have to file that under “because they could”…
Re: the cephalopod
Ah, thank you - when that was mentioned, the Calypso thing hadn’t been revealed yet, and I assumed he had been ordered to kill his lover at one point by the mysterious East India Trading Company. In retrospect, that doesn’t make sense, because they didn’t have the heart at that time.
Re: I see dead people
Alas, Norrington…he would be at the top of my To Do list if I was Calypso. No, when Elizabeth’s father came past on the Funky Disco Boat of 80s Speed Dating, Calypso said he couldn’t be brought back. But maybe she just wasn’t in the mood.
In the EW article on this a few weeks ago, the director said the movies were “intended for multiple viewings”. That seems like it’s just giving up, and saying it’s too complicated to follow the first time through.
[spoiler]
I don’t remember that… I do remember that Elizabeth tossed him a line and Calypso said nothing, and Gov Swann more or less shrugged and told her he was proud of her. She ran around to the side about to jump in and drag him back onto the ship, and THAT’S when Calpyso ordered them to stop her.
Ahhhh, Norrington. We need more Age of Sail movies with men in powdered wigs and long-suffering expressions and British accents. Rowr.[/spoiler]