I don't think they have changed him- some time has passed, and the Captain has other things going on, like his survival. He is every bit the same character, and that might be the problem. The other characters have changed, some a great deal (Norrington) and the Captain remains the same self-centered, staggering scoundrel that he was in the first movie. Maybe they needed to change him a bit, or maybe they have and we just don't realise it yet.

I agree with them, actually. I don't think they messed with Sparrow's characterization, or any other's for that matter.

He's a friggin' pirate. They've glossed pirates up enough to make them likeable, but if your'e not going to portray them as self-serving, I might as well be watching Master and Commander. I can easily believe in a fictional character who is, on some level, a good man, but who is also capable of great cowardice. So long as he, in the end, does the right/good thing, he's a libertine worth watching.

Same goes with Swann. I actually like what they did with her character, because it's in line with her longstanding fascination with pirates, and with her overwhelming desire to not be locked in gilded cages. And I can understand her not wanting to lose her life, or the crews lives, and deciding to sacrifice the pirate she's got the lusties for since, after all, hes' the one responsible for getting them into these messes in the first place.

I'm very curious to see what will happen in the next film. My guess is more betrayals, more questioned loyalties, and ultimately an alliance formed to save themselves and those they care about. This film is more of a moral quagmire than the first, which may hurt the characters likeability a bit for some, but I'd be even more bored watching the three get along perfectly well for two movies.

Yes, but I feel their quarrels and backstabbing are so transparently designed to create an artificial arc.

And I don't mind Sparrow being a bit of a coward, but he's so yellow-bellied that I cannot buy him as a pirate captain. He's simply Jack Sparrow to me now ... no matter how much he protests the lack of his honorific title to which I feel he is no longer entitled.


And I don't know why Elizabeth thinks the Kraken is after Jack. The ship she was on that was Krackenattacked didn't even have so much as his hat aboard. Either way, condemning him to death by her own hand was a nastiness I simply could not swallow.


And I have to question why the screenwriters chose to have a two-and-half hour follow-up movie that revealed nothing new about the main character. What frelling hacks! Not that the film they scripted would have me suspect otherwise, but jeeeez!

Well, Elizabeth doesn't knowthe second kraken attack happened so it couldn't well argue against her understanding of what the kraken is after

I've been thinking about Barbosa coming back and the line from the first movie that went something like:

A ship captained by a man so evil that hell itself spat him back out.


Hummm....

Ah, gotcha. Truly, I found the plot confusing. I had not remembered that she was already gone when that happened.

I loathe the fact that I only want to see this again so I can hope to appreciate it without being completely confused about what's going on.

I think the Kraken was a bit put upon. The order to track down and kill Jack was more of a general command and secondary to the more immdiate "Sink THAT ship" order from the big plunger thingy. Which is why the beasty ignored Jack in the row boat and went after the pearl instead.

I can understand, even if I don't find they sway me, many of the complaints about this movie. But the one I don't get is that it is complicated. The whys may be underexplained (or overexplained as it is being both criticized in this thread for not enough plot and too much plot) but the whats and whens and wheres seem very straightforward to me.

If you find this complicated anything that remotely attempts non-linear narrative must leave you curled in a ball. Since I know that isn't true, perhaps it isn't so much that the movie is complicated as that since you weren't entertained you don't care enough to keep track.

Are you thinking that comment was about Barbossa or Davey Jones?

The kraken attacks do seem to be a poorly thought-out portion of the script.

Initially it is said that the kraken will persue whoever has the black mark, which Bootstrap Bill then puts on Jack. So the kraken goes off and attacks the ship where his has ended up and apparently without a specific plunger call to arms. When Jack offers the 100 souls, Davy Jones's removes the mark for the three days he is given. The second attack happens
during this period so it is fine to assume that the kraken wasn't in persuit of Jack and available for a specific call to arms. Then when Jack is about to kill Elizabeth the time runs out and the mark returns. No kraken attack between then arrival at the island with the chest. When they get back to the Black Pearl and set sail they are apparently in deep enough waters for the kraken to attack but it does not do so until the plunger of doom and then it attacks immediately so it was in the area.