From ew, The fourth installment of Disney’s Pirates franchise will be titled Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, the studio revealed today. The film is due out in summer 2011, with Johnny Depp returning as Captain Jack Sparrow. The first three Pirates hits were titled Curse of the Black Pearl, Dead Man’s Chest and At World’s End.
From worstpreviews, During Disney's D23 Expo, Johnny Depp appeared in full Jack Sparrow costume to announce the fourth "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie will be released during the Summer of 2011 and that it will be called "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides."
We already know that Jack Sparrow and Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) will be searching for the fountain of youth in the fourth film, which is why it is believed that the "On Stranger Tides" subtitle means that the new movie will be adapting Tim Power's novel that carries the same name.
Plot of the book: Puppeteer John Chandagnac, who was sailing to Jamaica to get revenge on the uncle who had stolen his father's inheritance, has no choice but to join the buccaneers who have taken him prisoner--and soon, known now as the pirate Jack Shandy, he finds himself learning to survive in a treacherous new world of cutlass-fights, sea-battles, and voodoo magic on sun-blinded tropical islands. The legendary Blackbeard is assembling a ruthless navy of pirates living and undead to voyage to the fabled Fountain of Youth, and Jack Shandy must use magic, swordsmanship, and even his puppeteer skills to free himself and the girl he has fallen in love with from Blackbeard's deadly supernatural domination.
25 comments:
Yeah. I remember I had some momentary confusion about the very end of At World's End, (SLIGHT SPOILER WARNING) because it seemed so much more logical that the big magic heart thing happen to Jack Sparrow, and not to Will Turner, since it made much more narrative sense and would have been much more fitting if it had turned out to be Capt. Jack Sparrow's destiny.
And then I came to my senses...and realized that their real agenda is to keep Johnny Depp around for more movies (since he's the big cash machine) and get the increasingly expensive Knightley and the increasingly irrelevant Bloom out of the franchise.
I skipped your spoiler because I haven't seen the third one yet. I wanted to but everyone kept warning me that it stunk. I have a copy of it but it's gathering dust at the moment.
Nah, it's good. You have to get into the whole "Pirates" vibe pretty deep. Remember that we're dealing with the director of The Ring here. He completely understands that it's all about Depp, Knightley, and ILM. The third one is, as my friend Alex put it, "a total acid trip."
The fact is, they're completely unique movies; the more time goes by (and the more summer crap comes out) the more I appreciate the strange combination of slick Disney corporate wealth and film-school bohemian funk that went into this trilogy.
ILM did some of the most astounding work they've ever done in the Pirates sequels. They had a HUGE budget, and I think they were trying to prove that they could beat anything Weta or Digital Domain could do. "Pirates" (along with Iron Man and Transformers, in which ILM is the only participant to do a good job) was, I think, their bid to get back on top of the heap.
My only problem (as I've explained elsewhere) is that, for me, Keira Knightley is so preposterously attractive that I have trouble watching. It's like even movies which only show her face should have an "X" rating. It's nearly impossible for me to concentrate on the story while she's on-screen.
Does this mean that you recommend At World's End? I enjoyed the first two, although I thought both of them were overlong. The FX were fantastic.
The only big summer movie I saw this year was Star Trek (twice).
I said "Nah, it's good," didn't I? I don't understand how you could have read all taht and not realize I'm endorsing the trilogy.
...sorry, man! I didn't mean to snap at you. I just wrote four posts in a row endorsing the movie, but apparently I wasn't being clear. Yes, I hereby officially like the Pirates trilogy.
Well, I'm afraid I'm just not following. Jordan, what's your big problem with At World's End? Why do you hate it so much?
Haven't seen it, but I thought the first one was an inspired bit of fun moviemaking, a sense of leaving the theater going, "Well, how hard was it for them to do THAT? Why can't we have more movies like this?"
Fun, inspired storytelling, intelligent structure, well-acted, and some beautiful people turing in great performances. That's why the second one went batshit-crazy, scorched-earth box office.
However, the second one got VERY confusing for me, and eventually I had to give up trying to follow the increasingly incomprehensible plot and just enjoy the effects. Or, it might have been the 8 beers I had while watching it on DVD. I'll go back & try again.
Fascinating discourse on how attractive Keira Knightley is. Plus she's British, which means she's extra clever to boot.
You know how sometimes you're flipping through a glossy magazine, and suddenly you turn a page and there's a fashion ad, and POW! you're completely transfixed by the model in the picture? And you have a couple of seconds where you can't tear your eyes away?
Keira Knightley's like that, in every shot. Especially in the Pirates movies (but, really, all the time), she looks like she was spliced into the movie from an unusually sexy Vogue feature. And she's moving and talking (in a British accent)! There's really nobody else in movies who's like that.
As Gore Verbinsky says in her first sequence in Black Pearl, "You look through the viewfinder, and you're like, 'Wow.' And she can act!"
Reviewing Pride and Prejudice, Anthony Lane in The New Yorker described how, at the end of the movie, she "extends her famous underbite like the alien queen and gets down to business." He's right; it's all about her long jaw and corresponding constant pout. I'll shut up now.
My previous literary agent (who is female) used to describe Tom Cruise's grin as "pure sex." I feel the same way about Keira Knightley's jaw: she raises her face and shifts her chin forward a fraction and parts her lips (constantly) and it's, well, pure sex. (And whatever she spent on augmenting her upper lip between Beckham and Love Actually was the best investment she'll ever make.) (And now I'll shut up.)
World's greatest upper lip.
Oops, you're absolutely right, I missed your post that started with "Nah, it's good" when discussing the third one. I was be-bopping all around online last night so my attention was all over the place. Cool, a Jordan endorsement is always reliable. I'll check it out. I'm happy they're making a 4th and I hope they keep going with these. I can't believe Depp is a willing participant, he doesn't strike me as a "blockbuster" kind of guy.
Blockbusters pay the bills! Plus I imagine Depp has fun playing Jack Sparrow.
Pirates III is worth a gander but I thought it was a crazy mess, kind of like Spider-Man 3. It's not as lame as Spider-Man 3, but it's got the same top-heaviness. Still, it should be experienced. I don't understand you people who only see the first two movies of a trilogy.
Personally, I'm amped for Pirates 4. More supernatural stuff plus a steampunk Captain Nemo? Bring it on. I'm hoping it will benefit from NOT being part of an ilogy, just keep to itself and be a good story.
If they follow that book, however, it might get too crazy again. Sparrow, Barbosa, Nemo AND Blackbeard? That's a lot.
Come on, it's nowhere near as bad as Spider-Man 3!
You can't put them in the same category like that. At World's End is a coherent, well-made, reasonably-well-structured movie. Sure, it's way too complicated and crazy, but at least it makes sense according to its own demented logic, and the scenes play like real movie scenes and not bad TV. Spider-Man 3 was actively embarrassing to watch, it was so stupid and clunky; almost a Phantom Menace-level disaster (without the visual achievements and coherence of Phantom Menace, such as they are). I mean, just the two-ships-over-the-whirlpool in At World's End is better than the entire crappy Topher Grace story and the entire crappy Thomas Hayden Church story and whatever the hell they were trying to pull with the Peter-and-MJ story, all put together. Spider-Man 3 is one of the worst movies I've ever seen; At World's End is, at most, a beautifully-crafted, overly-ambitious noble misfire.
You're not the boss of me! I can put them in the same category like that, and I probably will again.
I walked out of the theater with the same feeling after seeing both, that these were extremely high profile trilogy enders that had gotten completely muddled during production. Clearly you were able to compartmentalize the "way too complicated and crazy" parts better than I was; both movies' convoluted, overpacked stories irked me to the point that the big climactic set pieces just seemed like a whole lot of noise and spectacle with nothing to ground them.
Two-ships-over-whirlpool is a good example, as the entire point of Tia Dalma's character, for all the buildup she gets, is merely to provide an interesting backdrop for the last fight and then she's dropped from the story altogether. Sloppy.
But yes, Spider-Man 3 is worse. Which I said.
But At World's End is a demented "fairy tale" fantasy through and through, with elements of A Hard Day's Night-style winks and nods to the modern audience, and, as such, is of a piece with the first two movies, while Spider-Man 3 totally throws away whatever integrity and solemn comic-book logic the first two movies possessed in favor of a fucking idiotically stupid story and vibe.
I can see how, on a formal grading-system level, you can compare the disappointments of both movies, if you were grading on a curve, but comparing them to each other is like comparing a bad steak to a bad Big Mac, you know what I mean?
Maybe you didn't have the same toxic reaction to Spider-Man 3 as I did. (I remember that you liked the first two more than I did, anyway.) But I walked out of Spider-Man 3 thinking, "That was truly one of the worst pieces of shit I've ever seen." I was insulted, you know? Whereas with At World's End I was more like, "Yeah...didn't quite work...Cool, though." But Spider-Man 3 was like a fucking Aaron Spelling production; like a Melrose Place episode trying to pass itself off as a superhero movie. I really, really hated it.
Also, "behind the scenes," it's fairly clear to me that Verbinsky and the Pirates screenwriters did pretty much exactly what they intended to do with their "reverse-engineered" trilogy (like it or not), whereas Sam Raimi clearly lost control of Spider-Man 3 and had Venom pushed on him against his will. So I don't agree with your assessment that both movies got "completely muddled during production." One of them did (and it shows); the other one was always intended to be the way it is (and it shows). They were going for over-the-top insane and got there (and brought ILM with them); I can dig that more than I can dig Sam Raimi hopelessly shoving more and more crap into the movie against his will and becoming disheartened and inept in the process.
Hmm. No, the more I think about it, they're pretty much the same movie.
Wow. Okay. I guess we just don't see eye to eye (obviously).
Do you at least concede my "loss of control" point? No? Okay. Forget it.
I just can't imagine hating At World's End the way I hated the loathsome, idiotic Spider-Man 3. But I guess that's just me, not you.
Also, Keira Knightley makes Kirsten Dunst look like William H. Macy.
You knew I was kidding, right? I am.
But, no, I didn't hate Spider-Man 3 as much as you did and I didn't like At World's End as much as you did. I think JPX's reaction to S-3 is probably closer to yours.
Here's a piece of your sentence: "Verbinsky and the Pirates screenwriters did pretty much exactly what they intended to do with their "reverse-engineered" trilogy (like it or not), whereas Sam Raimi..."
For me, artist intentionality (or loss of control) never outweighs my own feelings about something. The "not" in parentheses up there says everything, the rest of it is incidental. I don't like it, and therefore in my opinion any cred they have for getting it done is first and foremost tainted by their failure to use whatever achievements we're talking about to make good art.
This is pretty much the exact same point I will always come to in discussions about Phantom Menace. I just will not cut that movie a break and nobody can make me, because I hated it.
The common thread I see between these two "3's" is this: I resent movies that try to go over the top when they haven't built the supports of the structure properly. The lurching form of the Sandman in the final Spidey fight scene left me with the same vertiguous dread as watching those two boats in the climax of At World's End. The dent in my brain's fun centers was the same shape.
Anyway, you should still see it, JPX.
I loved the first Pirates. Loved it. At the end when Jack is tossed the rope from the Pearl and instead of climbing they just haul him up, dripping and delighted, I was grinning and happy. That small stunt just capped all the action and thrill of the movie perfectly, reminded you of what you just watched and how much you dug it. It's the feeling that every swashbuckling movie is trying to bestow.
I was really excited for Davy Jones and his crazy ship when the images were coming out, I was all amped for "Pirates of the Caribbean -- with all this other stuff!" And Depp is amazing and Keira Knightly's beautiful, but the sequels never came close to that feeling.
The only reason I was talking about intentionality was because you made that point about "losing control" above, but I now realize you meant it more figuratively and abstractly, whereas I thought you meant that, procedurally, they actually "lost control" of the process.
So, I misunderstood. Of course it doesn't matter what they "meant" to do, if you didn't like it. I just misunderstood and thought you were making a specific point about the "too many cooks" elements of Spider-Man 3 also plaguing At World's End which is all I was disagreeing with.
Post a Comment