Get It Off Your (Dead Man's) Chest: Pirates Movie Reviews

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

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

The comment was supposed to be about Barbossa, was it not?

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

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.

I think she overheard him say, on the island where the chest was buried, that he couldn't allow Will to stab the heart, because dead, Davy Jones would not be able to call off the [Kraken's] hunt. I assumed Elizabeth put two and two together.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

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

Hmm. This is how I saw it:

Sparrow is marked. The mark, basically, shows the claim that Davy Jones has over him. Either Jack returns to the Flying Dutchman to serve 100 years, or Jones sends the Kraken to destroy him. Jack chooses to flee, so Kraken it is. He manges to outsmart the beast and make it to land before the attack, and the beast instead attacks a ship that was in the last known location of the Pearl, and was also carrying one of Sparrow's artifacts.

The mark is then temporarily removed from Sparrow's hand after a second bargain is struck.

The next time the Kraken attacks, it's target is Will Turner, not Jack Sparrow.

The mark returns, Jack hasn't brought the 100 souls he promised, so the Kraken is once again summoned to attack the Pearl.

I don't think the Kraken is following the mark so much as a general order to destroy whatever ship Jack Sparrow is othought to be on. The first attack featured a boat that was sailing in waters near to the Pearl's last known location. The second attack, it was being ordered to attack a different ship. The third, it was going after the Pearl, where Sparrow was thought to be. (Turner, the key thief, too.) It probably would have gone after the row boat after taking down the Pearl, but obviously Sparrow was hoping to make it to the shallows before the Pearl was completely destroyed.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

The comment was supposed to be about Barbossa, was it not?

Open to interpretation say I, but Barbosa it may well be.

Was Davey ever dead? From what I remember in the movie he's just cheating death for the time being and the whole fish DNA mixing is never explained in the slightest.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Eliza Hodgkins 1812

Hmm. This is how I saw it:

Sparrow is marked. The mark, basically, shows the claim that Davy Jones has over him. Either Jack returns to the Flying Dutchman to serve 100 years, or Jones sends the Kraken to destroy him. Jack chooses to flee, so Kraken it is. He manges to outsmart the beast and make it to land before the attack, and the beast instead attacks a ship that was in the last known location of the Pearl, and was also carrying one of Sparrow's artifacts.

The mark is then temporarily removed from Sparrow's hand after a second bargain is struck.

The next time the Kraken attacks, it's target is Will Turner, not Jack Sparrow.

The mark returns, Jack hasn't brought the 100 souls he promised, so the Kraken is once again summoned to attack the Pearl.

I don't think the Kraken is following the mark so much as a general order to destroy whatever ship Jack Sparrow is othought to be on. The first attack featured a boat that was sailing in waters near to the Pearl's last known location. The second attack, it was being ordered to attack a different ship. The third, it was going after the Pearl, where Sparrow was thought to be. (Turner, the key thief, too.) It probably would have gone after the row boat after taking down the Pearl, but obviously Sparrow was hoping to make it to the shallows before the Pearl was completely destroyed.

And that's supposed to make a fun movie? Sounds more like the instructions on some of the tax forms I have to fill out...


Note: That's a dig at the screenwritters and NOT at your interpretaion of said script.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

But the one I don't get is that it is complicated.

iSm apparantly isn't the only one who noticed, seeing as the writers felt the need to add beyond blatant exposition via R2 and 3PO (or whatever their names are) recapping why the 3-way wheel-o-melodrama scene was taking place (which, incidentally, was the point I thought needed the least explanation).

I don't know if "complicated" is the term I'd use. "Convoluted" seems more accurate. It seemed like they were so keen to create what they thought was a clever, interwoven plot that they let things like character motivation slip (save for the ex Admiral). They would have done better had they gone more staright-forward with the plot and concentrated on continuing to develop the characters, rather than have them spout one-liners.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

And that's supposed to make a fun movie? Sounds more like the instructions on some of the tax forms I have to fill out...


Note: That's a dig at the screenwritters and NOT at your interpretaion of said script.

Well, I think my interpretation did read like an instructional manual, so I wouldn't be offended even if you were. It didn't feel like that to me when watching it. My only problem with the Kraken was its overuse. It should have only appeared in the teaser scene, when it first sucks in the boat, and in the climax. Especially since we're probably in for a final battle in which it's killed. Kraken, Kraken, too much Kraken. It's appearances in the film, however, made sense to me.

[Ghoulish Delight]

All part of the "If one is good, 3 is better!" philosophy of the whole movie.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

iSm apparantly isn't the only one who noticed, seeing as the writers felt the need to add beyond blatant exposition via R2 and 3PO (or whatever their names are) recapping why the 3-way wheel-o-melodrama scene was taking place (which, incidentally, was the point I thought needed the least explanation).

I don't see that as being there for exposition so much as for a joke. But maybe people really were confused, I don't know. I though the character motivations were all pretty clear and straightforward so I guess it comes down to just disagreeing.

One thing, in discussing Jack's character is that while he sacrificed Will to Davy Jones he also showed an expectation that Will would be able to get the key. As soon as Will was on the Flying Dutchman Jack switched off to persue the chest instead of the key. Similarly, he showed faith that Will would be able to lead an escape of the imprisoned crew and help him escape the cannibal island.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

All part of the "If one is good, 3 is better!" philosophy of the whole movie.

Which was, on the whole, my only big problem with the movie. That, and the dialogue wasn't as witty. But the overall plot and character development I liked quite alot, which puts me in the minority, I guess.