[Wrao]

Originally Posted by Roboman and pretty much every other sequel ever - you can still tell it's a sequel. There's nothing explicitly wrong with the plot, but it doesn't "click" the same way the original did. It feels like it was added on - and, well, it was. (I said all this in my spoiler tag above, actually.)

While I do agree, somewhat, that Pirates 1 wasn't intended to be the first part of a trilogy. I would not be at all surprised if they had the scripts/stories/ideas for Pirates 2 and 3 floating around in their heads before or during the production of Pirates 1, and it is highly likely that they had every intention of making 3(or more) movies based off what they knew would be a blockbuster hit. Remember, studios go where the money is after-all.

Of course, even if 2 and 3 were planned, that does not make 1 2 and 3 a trilogy, so again, I do agree.

That said. Sequels often suffer supremely because, quite simply, the public, or the fan base, don't agree with the need for a sequel OR they don't want to accept that their own perceptions of the starting film's world needed any augmentation. The Matrix trilogy is the biggest example of that. Wachowski Bros. wrote out the entire Matrix storyline and backstory, and characters and ideas meticulously. Everything in all of those movies is intentional and deliberate. Yet, when the sequels were made, people instantly hated them because they thought the first movie was perfect and didn't need anything else, and what they added was 'tacked on' or whatever.

And it's hard to fault the wachowski bros. They only had so much time and money to make the first movie, and if it had flopped, their whole vision would have been lost, so that disparity between 2 & 3 vs. 1 is fairly large.

Now Weekend at Bernie's 2 on the other hand...

[SKMDC]

Remember the reason for the first Pirate's was Disney's plan to exploit rides at their parks that weren't based on movies.
I don't think they were expecting a franchise, even though the first budget was over 100 mil. Johnny Depp was hardly blockbuster gold at the time.

[washington mac user]

Next summer Harry Potter 5 and Pirates 3 cant wait

[evan]

oh, I do think it was planned from the beginning to have 3 parts... maybe there was some "only if its successful" clause but the way the first movie plays out it leaves a few things that need explaining (THE COMPASS, Jack insisting on himself being called "captain") and certainly sets it up for another. Even if its not a complete cliffhanger like the end of 2, having Jack escape and also with jack escaping will turner embracing the pirate in him (a HUGE character change) certainly opens up a world of adventure.

also, after the credits of the 1st it shows the monkey taking a coin again...

[Res]

Originally Posted by windowsrookie I'm going to see it in about a half hour. Anybody seen it yet? I though the first one was pretty good. I hope the New one is too. Although has there ever been a good sequel?

Aliens was 10 x better then Alien, as was The Wrath of Khan compared to Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Other good sequels include: The Empire Strikes Back, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Spider-Man 2, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Lethal Weapon II and III, The Harry Potter and other book based franchises, etc. And last but not least -- Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (saw it yesterday, and so far I think it is the best movie of the year).

[Luca]

I think I still liked the first one a bit more, but Pirates 2 was still an incredibly fun movie. I have to say, Disney is the undisputed master of stereotypes. They have every pirate convention in the book, just like in the first one.

Also, the CG on Davy Jones was incredible. I know CG is often cheesy (and this movie is not really an exception), but somehow it just worked here. It gives the film a sort of cartoon-like quality that deepens the fantasy aspect of the film. Somehow, the new Star Wars movies' excessive use of computer animation was distracting, but in Pirates it works really well.

[SKMDC]

Originally Posted by Res Aliens was 10 x better then Alien.

Obviously that's a subjective comment, but completely untrue.
Aliens is a very exciting movie, don't get me wrong, but the approach of both movies is so different they can't really be compared.

They are both great in their own way.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Wrao The Matrix trilogy is the biggest example of that. Wachowski Bros. wrote out the entire Matrix storyline and backstory, and characters and ideas meticulously. Everything in all of those movies is intentional and deliberate. Yet, when the sequels were made, people instantly hated them because they thought the first movie was perfect and didn't need anything else, and what they added was 'tacked on' or whatever.

I think The Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions were hated because they were so different from the original movie. When the series began, we have no idea what is going on - we see a woman fighting cops, and seemingly disappearing in a phone booth. We're introduced to Neo, who is dreaming, and then wakes up from his dream, and then wakes up from that dream, and gradually we're introduced to this mind-bending concept - that everything is a technology-induced "dream." The comparisons to "tumbling down the rabbit hole" were apt - the first part of the movie was very suspenseful, eventually building into a more action-oriented climax.

But the second and third parts didn't have that. There was no feeling of tumbling down the rabbit hole, knowing nothing but what you were immediately given. There was no suspenseful revelation. Instead, there was action. Lots of action. And an orgy scene. The Wachowskis may have written The Matrix as a trilogy, but they "blew their wad" with the first movie - the mind-bending twist is introduced in the first installment, leaving only a few stray philosophical musings to carry the rest of the series. After the first installment, the series feels like any other sci-fi series, with people defending their base from robots with guns while some Council discusses something somewhere.

Plus, there was the unfortunate choice to make Neo too powerful too soon. I don't mind lots of action, as long as it's interesting, but after Neo proved himself virtually invincible in the thousand-Agent "Burly Brawl," there was no tension in any of the remaining fight scenes. Whoo, he's fighting Seraph. So? He beat a thousand Agent Smiths. Could he really...you know...lose?

[Robo]

Pirates 3 deets!

It's called "Pirates of the Carribbean: At World's End," and it will be opening in May. Whoo!

(Hopefully, this "World's End" thing isn't an actual place, because I've been writing a novel about an pirate who is exiled to the End of the World, which is an actual place. I would hate to have Disney beat me to my own story...)

Oh, and Pirates 2 had the largest one-day gross of any movie ever, at a cool 55.5 million dollars. (The previous record holder, Revenge of the Sith, barely broke 50 million in its first 24 hours. Pssh!)

[LudwigVan]

Yup. Time for Scates to come in here and gloat that he's hot shit.

From USA Today: 'Pirates' sets record for biggest opening

[Wrao]

Originally Posted by Roboman I think The Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions were hated because they were so different from the original movie. When the series began, we have no idea what is going on - we see a woman fighting cops, and seemingly disappearing in a phone booth. We're introduced to Neo, who is dreaming, and then wakes up from his dream, and then wakes up from that dream, and gradually we're introduced to this mind-bending concept - that everything is a technology-induced "dream." The comparisons to "tumbling down the rabbit hole" were apt - the first part of the movie was very suspenseful, eventually building into a more action-oriented climax. But the second and third parts didn't have that. There was no feeling of tumbling down the rabbit hole, knowing nothing but what you were immediately given. There was no suspenseful revelation. Instead, there was action. Lots of action. And an orgy scene.

Of course the 2nd and 3rd parts didn't have that! They were... the 2nd and 3rd parts!

The first movie introduced a world
The second movie expanded on it
The third movie took everything established by the first two and let it all play out, for better or worse.

You can't fault the second movie for not having the suspenseful revelation of tumbling down the rabbit hole and not knowing anything...etc. that simply wasn't the goal.

Discovery is always engaging, it's always fun to experience, it's always enjoyable like that, and you can't reclaim that, but it's not the bread and butter of a story, and you can't expect any story to keep that up.

Reloaded, in my opinion, was the strongest movie in the series, because it expanded on the world, the characters, the story, the motives, and it added enough twists to keep it interesting, it tied into the first movie and set up the third movie, and it had some kick-ass visuals to boot.

Revolutions was the weakest link, no doubt, and I think that Pirates 3 will suffer a similar fate. Pirates 2 set up the scene for a massive battle to culminate in Pirates 3, and when it comes to it, there is no more story to be told by the third installment, so all that is left to happen is having all the pieces collide in one action-packed go-at-it. Same thing as Matrix Revolutions.

But, Pirates 3 will still be enjoyable, I'm sure, and people will probably regard it better than Matrix 3. Primarily since the matrix series *was* trying hard to change people's perceptions, to make people think, throw some ideas out there...etc. The Pirates series is purely to entertain, and as such, won't suffer from the overloaded expectations we assign to some other movies.

[Robo]

For those keeping score, more people have seen Pirates in 3 days than have seen Superman in 12. Pirates broke the three-day record previously held by Spiderman.

*insert joke about Jack Sparrow plundering the cinema here*

[Engine Joe]

Originally Posted by Wrao Of course the 2nd and 3rd parts didn't have that! They were... the 2nd and 3rd parts! You can't fault the second movie for not having the suspenseful revelation of tumbling down the rabbit hole and not knowing anything...etc. that simply wasn't the goal.

Yah, and The Empire Strikes Back followed that formula... no suspensful revelation there... oh, wait...

[Wrao]

Originally Posted by Engine Joe Yah, and The Empire Strikes Back followed that formula... no suspensful revelation there... oh, wait...

well, when you really get into it, the revelation that 'the one' is another system of control was huge for the series, but, again, people approached the movie from the wrong angle, and they were looking for the same things that they found in the first movie, which they weren't going to find because the 2nd movie moved on.

[Engine Joe]

Originally Posted by Wrao well, when you really get into it, the revelation that 'the one' is another system of control was huge for the series, but, again, people approached the movie from the wrong angle, and they were looking for the same things that they found in the first movie, which they weren't going to find because the 2nd movie moved on.

I was obviously (I hope) being a little faceteous. But in all seriousness, my reaction after seeing the first Matrix was that the story was told. I walked out of the theater saying that it looks like Neo could literally do whatever he wanted to now - or at least had the potential to - and as such, there's nothing left to say.

My problem with the sequels were that they did nothing to dispell that notion (as I was (in essence) correct) and as such I was bored. There was no doubt in my mind how things would work out overall. That said, I DID like 'the one' as part of the system of control. Kinda a good mind fuck for the characters. But it felt like too little, too late. And insufficiently explored in the third film, which seemed to abandon anything interesting in favor of action.

To follow up on my previously cited example, kinda like Return of the Jedi, which jettisoned just about everything for... well.. suckitude.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Engine Joe I was obviously (I hope) being a little faceteous. But in all seriousness, my reaction after seeing the first Matrix was that the story was told. I walked out of the theater saying that it looks like Neo could literally do whatever he wanted to now - or at least had the potential to - and as such, there's nothing left to say. My problem with the sequels were that they did nothing to dispell that notion (as I was (in essence) correct) and as such I was bored. There was no doubt in my mind how things would work out overall. That said, I DID like 'the one' as part of the system of control. Kinda a good mind fuck for the characters. But it felt like too little, too late. And insufficiently explored in the third film, which seemed to abandon anything interesting in favor of action.

My thoughts exactly.

[Wrao]

I admit that I was a tiny bit surprised when I learned of the Matrix sequels, but it did not take long for me to become thrilled, since the story was *not* over with the first one, and I really wanted to see where it would go.

I agree that the superman complex did hurt the movies somewhat, but then you have to realize that, not only was smith as powerful, smith beats neo in the end of the series. So, as far as his invincibility is concerned, it failed in the end. Furthermore, it didn't suffer from the independence day syndrome, where suddenly everything goes right and the humans overcome insurmountable odds, all they did was survive, and that's all the machines'll let them do.

All in all, I can't believe that anyone would consider the first Matrix movie a complete story, when it leaves so much unresolved, when it establishes such an interesting world with an ongoing conflict...etc. Reloaded/Revolutions made you think, "wait a minute, there is no superman, there is no rosy ending, and independence day actually wasn't that good"

Pirates 3 is likely going to have a more traditional "good guys win! yay bbq" type ending, high flying naval battle with 3-5 separate forces, lots of FX, some witty one-liners..etc. But, like I said before, that ain't not bad.

[Banana]

Hmm. Right.

So, um, you're saying a pirate is cooler than a ninja?

Just askin'.

[Wrao]

Originally Posted by Banana Hmm. Right. So, um, you're saying a pirate is cooler than a ninja? Just askin'.

Survey says Ninja v. Pirate

[psmith2.0]

I told you guys!

No, I didn't expect it to go and break a box office record (well, maybe a little bit...I just didn't want to say it out loud and be on the hook - ha! - for it... )

But sounds like an honest-to-goodness hit and a good time at the theater. I just got back home from DC/northern VA and a two-hour drive from the Atlanta airport back to Chattanooga. If I wasn't so completely wiped out and travel-weary, I'd hop in my car and go catch a 9:30-ish showing tonight.



But I'm going to rest my bones and, instead, catch it after work tomorrow night. And I'll report back with my impressions, of course. I'm looking forward to it though!

My friend and I almost went to see it this afternoon up in Tyson's Corner at a big AMC multiplex up there...but it would've cut it a bit too close to getting back to Dulles on time, returning the car, etc.

Oh well...we did, of course, make it to the Tyson's Corner Apple Store. For my first look at the Intel iMacs, MacBook Pros and MacBooks (oh, and the Mighty Mouse). Yeah, it has been that long since I've seen new, iSight-equipped Apple hardware! Nearly six months, basically...how did I survive?



The MacBooks rock, by the way...I even dig the glossy display!

[Engine Joe]

Originally Posted by Wrao I admit that I was a tiny bit surprised when I learned of the Matrix sequels, but it did not take long for me to become thrilled, since the story was *not* over with the first one, and I really wanted to see where it would go.

...followed by...

All in all, I can't believe that anyone would consider the first Matrix movie a complete story, when it leaves so much unresolved, when it establishes such an interesting world with an ongoing conflict...etc. [/quote]

But see, it appears from what you say at least that even you admit that you believed the first Matrix to be a complete story. It was only after you adapted yourself to the sequels that you found there was room for more. My reaction was Neo was God/G*d/god/whatever at that point. Armed with that, walking out of the theater, you didn't need more, because with (to coin a cliché) God on our side, there was no way to lose.

Sure, the sequels added something to that painting, but I didn't need it; I did have a complete story - and one that was better told, over all, then the clunky/disjointed trilogy we ended up with. Once Neo flew away in the last shot of the film, that was all I needed (hell, stopping the bullets was enough).

I find the sequels, as a result, to almost be gaiden. And that's OK... FWIW.

[Wrao]

No. My surprise was not from feeling that 'the Matrix' was complete, I was curious as hell how it would resolve since there was no way Neo or the humans could 'win' given the state of the real world, and the superman complex that only applies to the matrix(or so we all thought at the time). I was also curious about Zion, and I wanted to see the battle between the machines and the humans. But, I simply did not think that they would make Sequels, call it my own naivete. My surprise was not "huh? why are they doing that?" it was "huh? whoa! awesome!"

[naren]

Arrrrgggghhhhhh!

That was fun! So, did anyone else stay until the end of the credits?

[alcimedes]

Reminded me of Back to the Future 2, an advertisement for Back to the Future 3.

[psmith2.0]

Okay, just got back from a 6:30, post-work showing.

I wasn't too thrilled, frankly. Nowhere near as enjoyable, funny and thrilling as the first one.

I guess that's the thing about sequels: all the stuff you found so novel, refreshing and exciting in the first movie just comes across like "retread" and "returning to the well".

I thought they overplayed Depp's "Keith-isms" this time, as if they all said "hey, it went over well last time around...let's do it again, but just more of it!"

So, by halfway into it, he was merely annoying and cartoonish. Orlando Bloom might as well not even been in the thing for as little as he did...what a blank wall he is. Ms. Knightley was lovely and delicious, of course. But not $8 worth of it.



The effects work was stunning, no doubt. But you know something? I think I'm really being left cold and unimpressed by recent CGI spectacles. It's almost as though it's just gotten out of hand. The bigger, faster, louder and more bombastic a movie (or particular sequence) is, doesn't necessarly make it "better", you know?

I see things like this (and "X Men", "Superman Returns", etc.) and I sometimes want to say "Okay, we get it...you can do really, really cool shit with computers...oooh! Aaahh!".

NOW...write, cast and direct a movie that I honestly give two flying flapjacks about, won't you? Do THAT and I'll perk up and shout your movie's praises to the rafters. The CGI/FX stuff is icing...it isn't the entire cake. They're all going about it backwards and wrong!



A decent movie, and it'll make a fortune. But I wouldn't go see it again and I'm not sure how enthusiastic I'd recommend it to a friend. If you've got nearly three hours to kill and you like a lot of water, fighting and unintelligible Cockney/pirate talk, go for it...you'll be enthralled.

I'll paraphrase a review I saw earlier this summer: it's a great two hour movie...too bad it was two-and-a-half.

Well, that just shoots it for me...every movie I looked forward to the summer of 2006 for has been, ultimately, a bit of a wash-out for me. Nothing has truly grabbed and entertained me. Not Davinci, not the mutants, not Superman, not pirates.

Oh well.

[Wrao]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 The effects work was stunning, no doubt. But you know something? I think I'm really being left cold and unimpressed by recent CGI spectacles. It's almost as though it's just gotten out of hand. The bigger, faster, louder and more bombastic a movie (or particular sequence) is, doesn't necessarly make it "better", you know?

You sir. are wrong

[AWR]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 If you've got nearly three hours to kill and you like a lot of water, fighting and unintelligible Cockney/pirate talk, go for it...you'll be enthralled.

Nothing beats a good dose of unintelligible pirate talk.

Well, that just shoots it for me...every movie I looked forward to the summer of 2006 for has been, ultimately, a bit of a wash-out for me. Nothing has truly grabbed and entertained me. Not Davinci, not the mutants, not Superman, not pirates. Oh well.

What about the Poseidon Adventure [Returns, or whatever].

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by AWR What about the Poseidon Adventure [Returns, or whatever].

Ha! As if.



I did forget to include "MI:3" which, frankly, was more exciting and fast-moving than all the rest. Granted, that was the ONLY thing it had going for it. But at least I wasn't completely bored throughout.

But everything I've seen since April/May has been a big letdown. Especially when I can let a few days pass and extract myself from that "post-viewing" feeling of maybe being too close to something. Usually in 2-3 days I can get my head right and think of it more objectively (ie, I wanted to love "Superman Returns" and didn't have the heart to brush it off the night I returned from seeing it. But, days later, I could think back on it - removed from the geekster excitement of opening night and the crowd - and realize how dull, plodding and uninspiring it truly was).



Honestly, that's it now. "Pirates" represents the last "big summer movie" I was holding on to see. I'll see things like that Will Ferrell NASCAR one just because it's silly. And maybe that one with Uma Thurman and Luke Wilson ("Super Ex-Girlfriend"?). But those will be casual matinees, if/when I feel like sitting in a cool, dark theater and eating popcorn. Nothing I'm going to plan for. Movies like that are my "rainy day" (or "get out of the scorching heat") alternatives.

The only thing remaining in 2006 that I've got marked on my "must see opening night/weekend!!!" calendar is the new 007 "Casino Royale" flick in November. But hell, after the past few months you can't blame me if I'm feeling a bit skittish about it as well...it's just as capable as being a big money-gobbling, waste-of-time cinematic turd as all the rest of this stuff has been.

And trust me...if it is, you guys will hear about it.

[SKMDC]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 The only thing remaining in 2006 that I've got marked on my "must see opening night/weekend!!!" calendar is the new 007 "Casino Royale" flick in November.

YEAH. Like you're gonna miss SNAKES ON PLANES.


Personally I'm looking forward to TALLADEGA NIGHTS, I've been promised by a friend who has seen it that it's quite funny and that John C. Reilly & Sacha Baron Cohen steal the movie from Farrell. Plus I want to know what Elvis Costello is doing in it.

[Luca]

I'm pumped about Snakes on a Plane. Unfortunately, I'm leaving for China sometime in August... I really hope I get a chance to see it before I leave! I don't know when I'm leaving yet, but I'll tell you now, I'll still go see the midnight opener even if my flight leaves just a scant few hours later. I figure I'll have enough time to sleep on the plane, provided there aren't any snakes on it

Final thing about Pirates: even though it was fun and I thoroughly enjoyed it and thought it was worth the $8.50... it had absolutely no suspense or major excitement. One of the things I love about going to the movies is how, when I go to see a really good one, I get all tense at all the right moments. I'll be literally quivering in my chair during suspenseful movies, half from suspense and half from excitement/anticipation. Pirates didn't do that to me at all. In typical Disney fashion, there's never much conflict or strife, even at the worst of times.