the: 2. spiritual, rather than physical
has become: 1. unimportant under the circumstances; irrelevant.
screenwriting that blows 90% of movies from the past decade out of the water, and morons still have the gall to call the potc 2 and 3 mid. better pacing, lighting, costumes, blocking, and action sequences than 90% of movies as well btw
2 and 3 had problems but I would kill for another Pirates movie right about now.
Get Johnny back, that whole abuse debacle turned into a he said she said shitstorm, just write it off as both sides are bad, get him sober, make him do a quick apology, then put the pirate hat on him and get to work.
They both came off as buttholes dude. I personally don't give a shit, I'm just coming up with a way for Disney to cover their ass so they can make another Pirates movie.
Most of the movie going public, would not give a frick about Amber Turd and her bed shitting accusations.
Everyone knows that rockstars are trash and he has always been a rockstar.
They put him back in the hat on a new adventure, without all the woke bullshit.
It would sell.
You're right that no one would actually care, especially at this point.
Johnny was an "butthole". She was a lying abusive psychopath. Trying to paint them with the same brush is inaccurate at best and intentionally disingenuous at worst.
No one cares, the only thing that reached normies is bed poop. Johnny apologising for anything would be saying he's guilty and sabotage whatever project you're pitching by making that the news cycle fluffpiece.
He's saying pirates, who don't make or shape the world, thus not mattering to the direction things are going, have gone from having no weight to being on the verge of extinction.
He's basically saying
"you were treated like nothing, now you are nothing"
You got it wrong. It's not up for interpretation, he's speaking to a supernatural being that has been rendered powerless in the face of expanding civilisation and knowledge.
The supernatural used to be something intensely feared and avoided.
2 is about the end of the pirate age, and it's told through both the broader world and through Jack's character because he's THE pirate who most embodies the spirit of the pirate fantasy. The movie ends with Jack dead and Davy Jones tamed by Beckett. People always ask why the movie needs the long sequence with the island cannibals but is it not obvious? The cannibals treat killing and eating Jack as a sacrifice, and at the end of the movie Jack is sacrificed to the kraken and literally eaten and that ultimately saves the lives of the other characters. Jack has to stop fighting fate and face death, just like the pirate age. And that's why At World's End is a huge copout.
Would it have suffered from not having the cannibals subplot? I enjoyed it for its goofiness, but it was an understandably divisive diversion from the story.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>You got it wrong. It's not up for interpretation
Then why did you post yours? I swear ESL has such a hard time witch such basic words. Immaterial literally has a double meaning, so this line has 4 different interpretations. It is a very clever line in the face of a spiritual being. Look up homonyms pajeet.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I swear ESL has such a hard time witch such basic words. >witch
Uh oh, you fricked up.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Ok, let's talk real slow for you. You are staring at an image of a supernatural (immaterial) being,
Which is being disregarded (immaterial) by the man in the image. >pajeet
You're a babbling moron, I'm a 35 year old Anglo with a wife and children.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
just because you're incapable of seeing depth, doesn't mean it isn't there. Again that is your interpretation of the line. Suggesting it cannot work another way is letting me know you're posting here to escape the stress of your special needs child.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
anon. you're an ESL. You have a lot of difficulty comprehending words with multiple meanings. Because you were only taught just enough english to function as a servant.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You're having difficult realizing writers love word play in movies. The stellar creativity you've shown thus far is highlighting this. That you can only think to use insults used on you.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
the play on words is things without material substance no longer matter. Like loyalty, honor, the supernatural, etc.
your "interpretation" is absolute gibberish.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>stellar creativity
trying too hard. we get it, you learned like 6 new words this week.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>trying too hard
idiocracy is too real. Way to prove your brownness
Most of the movie going public, would not give a frick about Amber Turd and her bed shitting accusations.
Everyone knows that rockstars are trash and he has always been a rockstar.
They put him back in the hat on a new adventure, without all the woke bullshit.
It would sell.
It's also the only one where whatever iconography they take from the original ride is actually relevant to the story by expanding on the cave skeletons and vague mentions of cursed treasure.
That's not to say that the other movies are bad since "Let's keep expanding Pirates into a world where all the nautical myths and legends are true" is a very good one, but ride references in the later movies are kinda just there for obligation and spreading what little material they had left over from that original ride pretty thin.
>DMC is the only good one
PotC 1 is one of the best action-adventure movies of all time, I put it right up there with Indiana Jones, LotR, Jurassic Park, etc. Its 10/10 turbokino with an all-time great score to boot
>PotC 1 is one of the best action-adventure movies of all time, I put it right up there with Indiana Jones, LotR, Jurassic Park, etc. Its 10/10 turbokino with an all-time great score to boot
Truth. It's an absolute shame how badly Disney botched the transfer to 4k UHD.
2 is about the end of the pirate age, and it's told through both the broader world and through Jack's character because he's THE pirate who most embodies the spirit of the pirate fantasy. The movie ends with Jack dead and Davy Jones tamed by Beckett. People always ask why the movie needs the long sequence with the island cannibals but is it not obvious? The cannibals treat killing and eating Jack as a sacrifice, and at the end of the movie Jack is sacrificed to the kraken and literally eaten and that ultimately saves the lives of the other characters. Jack has to stop fighting fate and face death, just like the pirate age. And that's why At World's End is a huge copout.
and then 3 was about what happens when you push people to their breaking point, thinking control is power. they will willingly die to break free, they will revive anarchy because that is better than oppression. they will overpower your tamed forces of "anarchy" because they have something you can't comprehend, passion, willpower, burning desire, and then they will use what remains of your forces to come straight at you. and once you're gone, no one is going to stand up to avenge you.
But we know from historical context that the age of pirates really did come to an end. Maybe not by Beckett, but he heralded it. But walking back 2's point is not even the main problem with that movie, it's just not that good overall.
No one cares, the only thing that reached normies is bed poop. Johnny apologising for anything would be saying he's guilty and sabotage whatever project you're pitching by making that the news cycle fluffpiece.
[...]
You got it wrong. It's not up for interpretation, he's speaking to a supernatural being that has been rendered powerless in the face of expanding civilisation and knowledge.
The supernatural used to be something intensely feared and avoided.
[...]
Would it have suffered from not having the cannibals subplot? I enjoyed it for its goofiness, but it was an understandably divisive diversion from the story.
It's not a diversion if it sets up the ending and reinforces the point that Jack can't escape death. He thought he could avoid being eaten by the kraken only to be almost eaten by cannibals and is forced back on the ship. Jack's first scene sets up the story: he breaks out of a coffin, a dead man's chest if you will. Everything else is subservient to that idea.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>It's not a diversion if it sets up the ending and reinforces the point that Jack can't escape death.
It's been too long since I watched the third, I'll take your word on it. I'll report back in 5 years when I give them all a rewatch.
I disagree, I felt like 2 and 3 were pretty neatly divided. 2 is the quest for the heart of Davy Jones and 3 is the fallout from the heart actually being found.
Imagine the amount of stomach turning shit they're churning out right now that makes you people praise those two films (decent entertainment, I give you that) as some 21st century Ben Hur lol.
They're still overall bad films, it's just that the bar has never been lower so rewatching them now makes them appear 10/10 super kino.
>morons still have the gall to call the potc 2 and 3 mid
the first one is a wonderfully complete story that stands alone. suddenly, 2 comes out with no indication that its only a "part 1" for a greater story.
the mummy also has a great (perfect) first entry. the sequel relies on the events of the first one, but is still ITS OWN MOVIE. pirates 2 is unsatisfying and dogshit until/unless you watch 3 in order to resolve things.
indiana jones movies are all standalone and work great.
having "part 1" and "part 2", ESPECIALLY when you DONT TELL ANYONE THATS WHAT IT IS, goes terribly.
marvel movies all string together, but they do their own thing, EXCEPT for the infinity war and endgame, which we were told explicitly ahead of time would be a two part thing. nobody complains about those.
additionally, 4 and 5 also stand alone and resolve their own problems.
it was a massive plunder of storytelling and marketing.
>and morons still have the gall to call the potc 2 and 3 mid.
Because they are mid, but I like them. YOU, on the other hand, are comparing them to today's garbage. Compare them to the first POTC and they are mid. You are arguing like a moron, while calling others morons, and you really need to GO BACK.
contrarianism isn't real. its a concept invented by small minds to explain why everyone doesn't like, dislike, and think the exact same things.
The first pirates is pretty shallow, as far as movies go. the second two have a lot more depth, tension, drama, and conflict. But such things fly right over the heads of people who call "action" a genre.
I'd bet money you're one of the people who think the philosophy of the matrix was irrelevant to its success.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>contrarianism isn't real. its a concept invented by small minds to explain why everyone doesn't like, dislike, and think the exact same things.
This is 100% true -- anyone who uses this term is automatically worth ignoring. But PotC 1 is still the best, and easily.
He's a troll as well as a moron. If they don't provide a reason why they think the sequels are better, they are just baiting you, don't engage.
see
contrarianism isn't real. its a concept invented by small minds to explain why everyone doesn't like, dislike, and think the exact same things.
The first pirates is pretty shallow, as far as movies go. the second two have a lot more depth, tension, drama, and conflict. But such things fly right over the heads of people who call "action" a genre.
I'd bet money you're one of the people who think the philosophy of the matrix was irrelevant to its success.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>hmm yes, shallow and pedantic
Yeah, saying it has more drama and tension, you're just throwing words at the wall to see what sticks. Either elaborate or frick off. Actually, just frick off for not bothering to elaborate in the first place.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Why does it make you so angry that the sequels objectively had more going on, on multiple levels, than the first movie?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
That was one of the most common complaints about the sequels, too much going on. Sometimes less is more.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>too much going on
which means people had trouble following them. Since I'm not moronic, I didn't have trouble following them. The first movie was kinda boring when it came out and now its straight up anemic. This is a problem with the non-verbinski entries as well.
What exactly are you trying to imply here? Trannies/lefties literally worship modern media and call you a bigot if you dont like it. Why would a troony say that a classic movie is better than contemporary movies? What is your joke?
Why do you Celtic-Roman-German-Norse-French mutts call yourselves "Anglo-Saxon" anyway? English I get, but why do you pretend to be purebred Angles and Saxons from northern Germany?
The Anglo-Saxon conquers by corruption. It's a israelite by every standard.
The Germanic conquers by force, hence he's a great warrior.
But the greatest conqueror is the Med, as he uses both kindness and strength, both culture (which is superior btw) and the sword.
Rome is still the greatest civilization ever, the Anglos are but a poor imitation of the glory of the Roman conqueror.
Rome didn't surrender to Hannibal, Attila, Vercingetorix, the Goths, the Persians. Rome conquered more powerful countries than itself.
What did the Anglo-Saxon conquer?
Black folks, pigmies, pajeets and natives fighting with bows and arrows in the 1800s.
The Anglo-Saxon conqueror spirit is a joke.
Still seething that white people exist I see Jamal.
Why do you Celtic-Roman-German-Norse-French mutts call yourselves "Anglo-Saxon" anyway? English I get, but why do you pretend to be purebred Angles and Saxons from northern Germany?
[...]
[...]
[...]
Still seething that white people exist I see Jamal.
I'm serious. English I get, but if you're going to give white Americans shit for being Mutts, why not acknowledge that English people are also all-European Mutts?
The English are mostly just Insular Celtic, which is broadly the same as most other Northern yuros, plus large amounts of Scandinavian, due to many Danes, Saxons, etc. invading during the "Anglo-Saxon period." They are in now way Roman.
Sure there was a bit of fricking, but they did not leave any significant genetic legacy, certainly not enough to include "Roman" when describing Brits.
Exactly, so why do the English name themselves for two german tribes that only make up a part of their history, culture, and genetic lineage?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
It would be more accurate to call them Scandinavian tribes. Angles are from what we call Denmark now, and Saxons are Scandinavians who moved south to what we now call Germany. They use that term because those tribes' language and culture superseded the insular celtic culture, although they certainly didn't kill all the locals.
Brits are basically just several types of Northern Euros mixed, peoples who lived short distances from each other.
rome didn't settle england as heavily as historians used to think, the southern tribes became romanized and spoke latin but were still ethnically not roman but celts, then later on they became germanized and spoke english but were still ethnically celtic
First of all, hardly anybody calls THEMSELVES Anglo-Saxon, that's what other people like you have no idea what you're talking about call them. >Celts
The main Celtic tribe who lived in that area were called the Britons. Not a coincidence the people call themselves British. >Roman
Lol, a few Romans were there for a couple hundred years and were so unable to either conquer or assimilate that they just ended up leaving with no biological, cultural, architectural or linguistic influence whatsoever >German
Germanic people were not literally from Germany, which didn't exist at the time of the Angles and Saxons. >Norse
This is the closest you've gotten to being correct. These are the Angles and the Saxons you're referring to, as well as the Jutes and sort of the Normans. >French
If you're talking about the Normans, they were French in language only but they were also basically Norse with potentially some mixing with the Franks (the actual "French" who were also Celtic)
The Anglo-Saxon conquers by corruption. It's a israelite by every standard.
The Germanic conquers by force, hence he's a great warrior.
But the greatest conqueror is the Med, as he uses both kindness and strength, both culture (which is superior btw) and the sword.
Rome is still the greatest civilization ever, the Anglos are but a poor imitation of the glory of the Roman conqueror.
Rome didn't surrender to Hannibal, Attila, Vercingetorix, the Goths, the Persians. Rome conquered more powerful countries than itself.
What did the Anglo-Saxon conquer?
Black folks, pigmies, pajeets and natives fighting with bows and arrows in the 1800s.
The reason English is the lingua franca is because the Anglo settlers in North America found themselves living in the richest continent on Earth with virtually no civilization opposing them.
I must remind you that up until 1946 French was the lingua france worlwide, hence the name 'lingua franca'. Guess which WW2 nation gained the most from the destruction of European and East Asian hegemony...
America's superpower status is as lucky as it is unearned.
>The reason English is the lingua franca is because the Anglo settlers in North America found themselves living in the richest continent on Earth with virtually no civilization opposing them.
Why weren't the meds capable of this simple feat?
Meds are a tiny footnote in history, buried beneath many greater and more ambitious empires.
>didnt earn
Taffy 3 going "Im not locked here with you, you are locked in here with me" to a Japanese battleship group is one of if not the most insane things in naval history.
>found themselves living in the richest continent on Earth with virtually no civilization opposing them.
and what is south americas excuse? Had all the potential to be as developed as north america and spread spanish or portugese around the world. But they didn't.
it was harder to move into south america because most of it was dense jungle
you couldn't just caravan into the continent making settlements here and there like in the north
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
There a plenty of areas in SA not strangled by dense jungle like most of argentina for example. It has more to do with the terrible economic systems of the spanish and portugese, practially medieval plantations and peasant labour
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
it was harder to move into south america because most of it was dense jungle
you couldn't just caravan into the continent making settlements here and there like in the north
At one point Spain controlled Florida and a significant part of North America too but fricked up and lost control of it.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>north american doesn't have dense forests
Where do you think log cabins came from?
The real problem with north vs south america is spain's naval fleet over extended. The Spanish had better ships and used them to go all over. While the British, trying to avoid the spanish consolidated into mostly one area. As these colonies grew, the 13 colonies became the US. Then each south american country had their own form of independence or not. Spain lost all those wars and conceded many. Napoleans support of the US also later helped.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>trees
It is claimed that North America currently has only 10% of the trees that it used to have. We have a frick load of trees as it is. I cannot imagine what the east coast looked like when when the first Europeans rolled up They probably though the whole continent was nothing but trees. This explains why wood is such a primary building material in North America.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Wood also weighs less than stone-based construction materials, costs less, and is faster to build with. Also, wood can be used in areas like the west coast, where there are earthquakes. I don't know if hurricanes and tornadoes destroy brick houses on the east coast often, but if they do, rebuilding is cheaper with wood. We have a lot of land and tend to be short-termist with purchases, so building new inexpensive homes all the time instead of sturdier, more expensive ones that will last longer is just a given in the US.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
For sure, but wood houses absolutely trigger Europeans for some reason.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
trigger doesn't seem like the right word. a lot of people just wonder why americans build houses out of wood when they get blown down every year by a hurricane. it's more likely a lack of understanding because there's no big natural disasters here.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Most of my Euro friends complain about US wooden houses because they tend to not be very well noise-insulated, at least in price-conscious ones. So noises carry throughout the house or through walls in a way that (apparently) doesn't happen back in the fatherland. Which we certainly don't aim for, it's more that like, you know, need monies
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You can drastically cut down on noise by insulating interior walls. While that does cost more, its not significantly to do that. You have to be careful though as that can change heating and cooling characteristics of the house, so you need to plan for/account for that with HVAC and ductwork etc...which Euros dont deal with central HVAC much either.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
American houses are built (largely) for size and cheapness because we have a lot of land, and the housing market here is based around buying and selling and constant growth. So quicker, cheaper materials are favored since a lot of the time it's the land its built on that determines the price.
It's a modern phenomenon, you find a shitload of brick and other sturdy materials in older constructions, and a lot of mansions make use of stone and much more solid wood than the plywood the average home is made of.
I've also heard that in places like the U.K., all the new build houses are absolute trash that's about as flimsy as an American new build.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I've also heard that in places like the U.K., all the new build houses are absolute trash that's about as flimsy as an American new build.
aye that's true. there's housing popping up fricking everywhere now for pretty cheap but it looks exactly like the deano memes you see posted. just copy/paste shitty terraced houses that fall apart after 10 years
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>north american doesn't have dense forests
get some reading comprehesion >it was harder to move into south america because most of it was dense jungle >because most of it was dense jungle
I didn't in any way shape or form imply that north america didn't have their own dense forests, but unlike south america, MOST of it isn't dense jungle
google Amazon forest, it will blow your mind
The english spread their language to white people who do science, philosophy, aviation, engineering and literature while french taught their language to Black folk in africa who scratch lines into rocks and shit in mud huts. Even if ww2 never happened french will still be a Black person language today
Imagine thinking Rome """"conquered""" Attila. Romans were such cucks they had to pay off the Huns several times, something that amused Attila to no end. Rome didn't win a single battle against the Huns, and eventually the Huns just returned back home for reasons not entirely clear but speculated to be related to a brewing civil war. There has not been a single race on this planet more adept at war than the people of Central Asia, certainly not Roman cucks.
>Rome didn't win a single battle against the Huns,
Catalaunian Plains/Chalons?
>muh central asian warriors
ah yes the central asians whose only legacies are that they used to bigger on maps. crazy that you're using the Latin alphabet to write that bullshit out too you fricking moron.
It is not a Roman victory it's a disputed battle that was most likely a stalemate moron.
>Latin Alphabet
It's called English you Dikshit just cause it has a vague origin in a now dead alphabet doesn't imply shit. Latin itself is a fricking dead language, and the fact that you have to resort to language as some sort of gotcha shows how much a dumbfrick you are.
>legacies are they used to be bigger on the map
That applies to Rome too shithead
As the head if the East India Trading Company where was Beckett on the totem pole?
Only below the king or was he just the director of a government business and as such below the entire main power structure?
EITC was at one point stronger than royalty but i'm not sure if the movies are at that time period
but basically yes, beckett was only subservient to the king and possibly a tiny number of other individuals
Companies at that time, trading in spices and all other kinds of high tier shit, though held comparatively little political power on the mainland compared to say, the monarch, they essentially fricking owned the colonies they performed their business with and on
>In an act aimed at strengthening the power of the EIC, King Charles II granted the EIC (in a series of five acts around 1670) the rights to autonomous territorial acquisitions, to mint money, to command fortresses and troops and form alliances, to make war and peace, and to exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction over the acquired areas.[48]
They owned entire private armies and were conducting nearly half of the trade that was going on on the entire fricking planet, back then the bongs werent fricking around
The company was a company in name only. It was funded by politicians and the queen herself who gave the company the monopoly on trade in the Indian ocean and the right to confiscate the property of any other traders plying business in their territory. The entire initial setup of the company was bankrolled as well as militarily aided by the crown, from diplomats to the rank and file infantry. The company was just another arm of the monarchy themselves.
>After a year of resistance, a famine broke out due to the blockade, the Company surrendered, and in 1690 the company sent envoys to Aurangzeb's court to plea for a pardon and to renew the trade firman. The company's envoys had to prostrate themselves before the emperor, pay a large imperial fine of 1,500,000 rupees, and promise better behavior in the future. Emperor Aurangzeb then ordered Sidi Yaqub to lift the Siege of Bombay and the company subsequently re-established itself in Bombay and set up a new base in Calcutta.
Read up on the Barbery Wars, American Anglos were not pussies.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>W-we're so badass guys >read up on this miniscule event in history that you totally don't already know all there is to know >I read up on it by browsing watching a youtube short about it, I'm so educated
Even when you dominate the world you Americans are so pathetic
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Pathetic >miniscule event
Barbery pirates deviled the Mediterranean for 300 years. A hand full of Americans and few ships, completely fricked them up, including overthrowing a king and installing his estranged brother. Neither the Spanish or the British were able to stop them, but America formed the US Navy to specifically take them out.
>walks into the balcony as he says "the world is shrinking" >busy port >soldiers marching in formation >a clock being hoisted
Did basic story telling like this die out? I genuinely cannot remember a movie of the last 5 years that uses a scene to convey a message as effectively like this. It's all either marvel drool or overacted human drama
One thing I will agree on is that films have become less information dense. We live in a content hungry age of longform narrative media, nobody knows how to fit a whole story into a 2-3 hour runtime because they're not even expected to. There's an eloquent, beautiful quality to establishing a whole world in a single scene which is why I like movies so much and don't care about television at all.
I went on that ride at disneyland a couple years ago. There's really two takeaways I got from it.
First being that I totally understand why Crichton made westworld after riding it. Second being that holy shit some of their animatronics have gotten really fricking good. It still had all the old ones, but they've put in a bunch of jack sparrow ones - a few of them I'm still not convinced weren't actors paid to sit around in one spot all day.
It's basically been Imagineering tradition for decades that whenever they've devised some new technology to make animatronic movement more lifelike and smooth, the Auctioneer gets upgraded with said tech right away.
Yea, those Jack Sparrow ones are fricking crazy good. Its hard to describe unless you see them in person
I once talked to a cast member about the Navi Shaman animation at the end of Navi River Journey. They told me that it takes like half and hour to warm up, so it moves all slow when they first turn it on. If someone is in there sweeping or something, it occasionally will send someone flying because its really strong. They forget its on since it moves so slow at first.
>the main complaint about potc 2 and 3 was that the story was too difficult to follow
No, the main complaints were the moronic love triangle out of nowhere (which was also dropped for 3), the movies being bloated as frick, and Jack going from "competent and smart pirate acting moronic on purpose" to "haha Johnny, do the drunk Jack thing again lmao".
Pretty much this.
REMEMBER:
POTC1: NO FRICKING CLUE if it was going to be a success, the execs HATED what Depp was doing, Disney thought they had a bomb on their hands
POTC 2 & 3: Typical Hollywood HOLY SHIT WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A SEQUEL QUICK! And, of course, the costs worked out best to amortize it into 2 sequels rather than one, so you had a lot of filler for what should have been a single film. And yes, much of the writing went into "what did audiences like best" instead of "how would these characters behave realistically in accordance of what came before in the first film", which is why you got more Depp and more leading role Depp rather than supporting rogue and foil. A lot was done right (Davy Jones), but a lot could have been done so much better. It deserves all of its criticisms, because the first really set the bar so high.
You could retell this story as mankind, through empire and technology, attempting to over coming the supernatural and harsh nature and it would be a good story.
man i just got done rewatching the three pirates of the carribean movies. that shit is actually so fricking good, davy jones facial animations are so top notch. homie its insane how modern vfx "artists" make actual slop with even higher budgets
The toad originally had a catchphrase that was :"Do you know what happens to a toad when X?"
Well it got cut but they kept storms line in
Kind of a frick up
>There are heroes on both sides
Soldiers on both sides of war generally feel like they're doing the right thing, and the other aren't. They can still perform "heroic actions" in the eyes of their side (saving X amount of soldiers by doing Y), yet still be "evil".
Nuance, if George had any.
I always just assumed it was meant as a retroactive preamble to Anakin's destiny. Because he's the hero the Republic deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So he'll betray them, because he can foresee it. Because he's not our hero. He's a cunning warrior. A sith lord. A good friend.
I thought Naomie Harris was stunningly beautiful and compelling as Tia Dalma. I credit her with my generalized interest in indigenous folk religion and my willingness to tolerate Black shenanigans when it's from women.
Agreed, this line doesn't land as well as it should. Jones is neither immaterial nor purely fantastical, he is a very real entity that he's repeatedly interacted with. It was only thought of in terms of how the audience would interpret it, which is a poor weakening of the fourth wall.
man i just got done rewatching the three pirates of the carribean movies. that shit is actually so fricking good, davy jones facial animations are so top notch. homie its insane how modern vfx "artists" make actual slop with even higher budgets
Yeah the VFX is bizarrely good. I have no idea how they pulled that off.
Agreed, this line doesn't land as well as it should. Jones is neither immaterial nor purely fantastical, he is a very real entity that he's repeatedly interacted with. It was only thought of in terms of how the audience would interpret it, which is a poor weakening of the fourth wall.
[...]
Yeah the VFX is bizarrely good. I have no idea how they pulled that off.
The line lands just fine. Beckett is telling him that despite his other-worldly powers, Jones is now a cuck.
>Mass market action-adventure movie 20 years ago is better written and treats the audience like adults more than the equivalent modern goyslop
The world is regressing
simply put
What is happening is a great anti-union at a planet scale done by the elites,
The best 'anti-union' is to muttify as well as remove cultural identity by said mixing so you make a super slave class that doesnt want to fight back
He's saying pirates, who don't make or shape the world, thus not mattering to the direction things are going, have gone from having no weight to being on the verge of extinction.
He's basically saying
"you were treated like nothing, now you are nothing"
They were going for a "le spooky mystical things are going out of the world as technology and civilization ever encroach the edges of the map" like Tolkien but it wasn't as fleshed out.
In a post-Whedon world this scene would have something like Beckett saying "obsolete person says what?" really fast, this prompting Jones to say "what?" and then Beckett smirks at the camera
It's actually wild that the entirety of the Pirates series (though probably a little bit less in the ridiculous sequel-sequels) is just entirely made up of dialogue that the fans of it, the kids and the Disney Boomers, don't understand at all.
In fact, I would literally win millions and millions of dollars in sure bets if I gambled on no one ITT and no one who is in the audience demographic from these movies, actually following the dialogue at all and just tuning out because it's "old gibberish".
3 of the most acclaimed and beloved movies of all time and nobody can tell you the director's name without looking it up. He also directed The Ring, another huge hit.
That's because Gore Verbinski's been in movie jail since The Lone Ranger. Even though Disney should have been asking him to do a Star Wars in spite of that.
>direct 2 flops and get kicked out of hollywood >meanwhile hacks like Villeneuve and everyone working for Disney continue getting work despite their mediocre movies
It's not fair.
Villeneuve has been critically and commercially successful on the majority of his films. So not only is the studio getting its money back up front but they get a product that will sell for decades.
>Barbery pirates deviled the Mediterranean for 300 years. A hand full of Americans and few ships, completely fricked them up, including overthrowing a king and installing his estranged brother. Neither the Spanish or the British were able to stop them, but America formed the US Navy to specifically take them out.
Bro is just speaking cause it's free.
The supernatural is no longer relevant because the Anglo-Saxon has overcome even that.
THE WHITE MAN MARCHES ON
lmao this was I the only one that thought it was cool how the humans were just taking Davy Jones hostage and killed the kraken? that’s beast
>white
screenwriting that blows 90% of movies from the past decade out of the water, and morons still have the gall to call the potc 2 and 3 mid. better pacing, lighting, costumes, blocking, and action sequences than 90% of movies as well btw
People of the Color?
Penises of the Celibate
Curse of the Black Person
Dead Mutt's Chest
At White Race's End
On Diverser Tides
Well-Bred Men Tell No Tales
>and morons still have the gall to call the potc 2 and 3 mid.
The only good parts Sparrow and Beckett.
Frick you, Bill Nighy saying "You. Weren't. THERE." gives me chills.
For me it's
>A LOST BERD THAT NEVER LERNED TO FLY-AH!
Problem is they went full moron with no 3 resolving multiple massive plot threads off screen and then wasting half the movie just to bring back Jack
>resolving multiple massive plot threads off screen
Such as?
Killing off the fricking Cthulhu monster for one.
That’s not a plot thread.
It's a plot tentacle, basically the same thing.
There's just one problem, the drunken drug-addled wreck called John Depp is the central character.
pls post breasts amber
Sorry your career's over, Amber.
Implying this isn't perfect casting for a drunk drug addled pirate?
Self owned yourself bud.
>blocking
blocking is very very important
All the pirate movies were bloated
2 and 3 had problems but I would kill for another Pirates movie right about now.
Get Johnny back, that whole abuse debacle turned into a he said she said shitstorm, just write it off as both sides are bad, get him sober, make him do a quick apology, then put the pirate hat on him and get to work.
>write it off as both sides are bad
Femoid detected.
They both came off as buttholes dude. I personally don't give a shit, I'm just coming up with a way for Disney to cover their ass so they can make another Pirates movie.
You're right that no one would actually care, especially at this point.
Johnny was an "butthole". She was a lying abusive psychopath. Trying to paint them with the same brush is inaccurate at best and intentionally disingenuous at worst.
No one cares, the only thing that reached normies is bed poop. Johnny apologising for anything would be saying he's guilty and sabotage whatever project you're pitching by making that the news cycle fluffpiece.
You got it wrong. It's not up for interpretation, he's speaking to a supernatural being that has been rendered powerless in the face of expanding civilisation and knowledge.
The supernatural used to be something intensely feared and avoided.
Would it have suffered from not having the cannibals subplot? I enjoyed it for its goofiness, but it was an understandably divisive diversion from the story.
>You got it wrong. It's not up for interpretation
Then why did you post yours? I swear ESL has such a hard time witch such basic words. Immaterial literally has a double meaning, so this line has 4 different interpretations. It is a very clever line in the face of a spiritual being. Look up homonyms pajeet.
>I swear ESL has such a hard time witch such basic words.
>witch
Uh oh, you fricked up.
Ok, let's talk real slow for you. You are staring at an image of a supernatural (immaterial) being,
Which is being disregarded (immaterial) by the man in the image.
>pajeet
You're a babbling moron, I'm a 35 year old Anglo with a wife and children.
just because you're incapable of seeing depth, doesn't mean it isn't there. Again that is your interpretation of the line. Suggesting it cannot work another way is letting me know you're posting here to escape the stress of your special needs child.
anon. you're an ESL. You have a lot of difficulty comprehending words with multiple meanings. Because you were only taught just enough english to function as a servant.
You're having difficult realizing writers love word play in movies. The stellar creativity you've shown thus far is highlighting this. That you can only think to use insults used on you.
the play on words is things without material substance no longer matter. Like loyalty, honor, the supernatural, etc.
your "interpretation" is absolute gibberish.
>stellar creativity
trying too hard. we get it, you learned like 6 new words this week.
>trying too hard
idiocracy is too real. Way to prove your brownness
Fricking moron
Bro you played yourself
Point at him and laugh.
It wasn't about being an "butthole", it was about abuse.
Most of the movie going public, would not give a frick about Amber Turd and her bed shitting accusations.
Everyone knows that rockstars are trash and he has always been a rockstar.
They put him back in the hat on a new adventure, without all the woke bullshit.
It would sell.
>mid
no they were shit
>better pacing
moron
Dead Man's Chest is the best and only actually good Pirates of the Caribbean movie, but good is still distinctly below great or amazing.
the first movie is literally perfect
It's also the only one where whatever iconography they take from the original ride is actually relevant to the story by expanding on the cave skeletons and vague mentions of cursed treasure.
That's not to say that the other movies are bad since "Let's keep expanding Pirates into a world where all the nautical myths and legends are true" is a very good one, but ride references in the later movies are kinda just there for obligation and spreading what little material they had left over from that original ride pretty thin.
*since the idea of
>DMC is the only good one
PotC 1 is one of the best action-adventure movies of all time, I put it right up there with Indiana Jones, LotR, Jurassic Park, etc. Its 10/10 turbokino with an all-time great score to boot
>PotC 1 is one of the best action-adventure movies of all time, I put it right up there with Indiana Jones, LotR, Jurassic Park, etc. Its 10/10 turbokino with an all-time great score to boot
Truth. It's an absolute shame how badly Disney botched the transfer to 4k UHD.
2 was just a prequel to 3. Felt like 2 ended awfully abruptly and nothing really happened.
2 is about the end of the pirate age, and it's told through both the broader world and through Jack's character because he's THE pirate who most embodies the spirit of the pirate fantasy. The movie ends with Jack dead and Davy Jones tamed by Beckett. People always ask why the movie needs the long sequence with the island cannibals but is it not obvious? The cannibals treat killing and eating Jack as a sacrifice, and at the end of the movie Jack is sacrificed to the kraken and literally eaten and that ultimately saves the lives of the other characters. Jack has to stop fighting fate and face death, just like the pirate age. And that's why At World's End is a huge copout.
and then 3 was about what happens when you push people to their breaking point, thinking control is power. they will willingly die to break free, they will revive anarchy because that is better than oppression. they will overpower your tamed forces of "anarchy" because they have something you can't comprehend, passion, willpower, burning desire, and then they will use what remains of your forces to come straight at you. and once you're gone, no one is going to stand up to avenge you.
But we know from historical context that the age of pirates really did come to an end. Maybe not by Beckett, but he heralded it. But walking back 2's point is not even the main problem with that movie, it's just not that good overall.
It's not a diversion if it sets up the ending and reinforces the point that Jack can't escape death. He thought he could avoid being eaten by the kraken only to be almost eaten by cannibals and is forced back on the ship. Jack's first scene sets up the story: he breaks out of a coffin, a dead man's chest if you will. Everything else is subservient to that idea.
>It's not a diversion if it sets up the ending and reinforces the point that Jack can't escape death.
It's been too long since I watched the third, I'll take your word on it. I'll report back in 5 years when I give them all a rewatch.
I disagree, I felt like 2 and 3 were pretty neatly divided. 2 is the quest for the heart of Davy Jones and 3 is the fallout from the heart actually being found.
>It's good because it's not as shitty as other movies
no
hornblower and sharpe stand above pirates and they had zero budget
Both are old tv shows and not 21st century movies.
the pirates movie was in the works since 1991
first one is still 100x better
Those movies are still trash you dumbass
Imagine the amount of stomach turning shit they're churning out right now that makes you people praise those two films (decent entertainment, I give you that) as some 21st century Ben Hur lol.
They're still overall bad films, it's just that the bar has never been lower so rewatching them now makes them appear 10/10 super kino.
It really is like that unfortunately, they feel like "modern" epics compared to the shit we have nowadays.
That's not to POTC's credit, it's just a observation about how bad subsequent screenwriting has gotten.
>all these seething responses to the truth
>morons still have the gall to call the potc 2 and 3 mid
the first one is a wonderfully complete story that stands alone. suddenly, 2 comes out with no indication that its only a "part 1" for a greater story.
the mummy also has a great (perfect) first entry. the sequel relies on the events of the first one, but is still ITS OWN MOVIE. pirates 2 is unsatisfying and dogshit until/unless you watch 3 in order to resolve things.
indiana jones movies are all standalone and work great.
having "part 1" and "part 2", ESPECIALLY when you DONT TELL ANYONE THATS WHAT IT IS, goes terribly.
marvel movies all string together, but they do their own thing, EXCEPT for the infinity war and endgame, which we were told explicitly ahead of time would be a two part thing. nobody complains about those.
additionally, 4 and 5 also stand alone and resolve their own problems.
it was a massive plunder of storytelling and marketing.
>its because I'm moronic
ok
Matrix had the same problem. They're not real trilogies when they decide to do back to back sequels.
>and morons still have the gall to call the potc 2 and 3 mid.
Because they are mid, but I like them. YOU, on the other hand, are comparing them to today's garbage. Compare them to the first POTC and they are mid. You are arguing like a moron, while calling others morons, and you really need to GO BACK.
the sequels are better than curse of the black pearl.
>contrarian post just to be contrarian
go. back.
contrarianism isn't real. its a concept invented by small minds to explain why everyone doesn't like, dislike, and think the exact same things.
The first pirates is pretty shallow, as far as movies go. the second two have a lot more depth, tension, drama, and conflict. But such things fly right over the heads of people who call "action" a genre.
I'd bet money you're one of the people who think the philosophy of the matrix was irrelevant to its success.
>contrarianism isn't real. its a concept invented by small minds to explain why everyone doesn't like, dislike, and think the exact same things.
This is 100% true -- anyone who uses this term is automatically worth ignoring. But PotC 1 is still the best, and easily.
Literally impossible to believe this if you experienced them as they released.
He's a troll as well as a moron. If they don't provide a reason why they think the sequels are better, they are just baiting you, don't engage.
see
>hmm yes, shallow and pedantic
Yeah, saying it has more drama and tension, you're just throwing words at the wall to see what sticks. Either elaborate or frick off. Actually, just frick off for not bothering to elaborate in the first place.
Why does it make you so angry that the sequels objectively had more going on, on multiple levels, than the first movie?
That was one of the most common complaints about the sequels, too much going on. Sometimes less is more.
>too much going on
which means people had trouble following them. Since I'm not moronic, I didn't have trouble following them. The first movie was kinda boring when it came out and now its straight up anemic. This is a problem with the non-verbinski entries as well.
>all these seething replies
Based, all these seething contrarian homosexuals ITT replying to you
>Noooo no movie has EVER been good
Xhes right you guys....XHES RIGHT!
What exactly are you trying to imply here? Trannies/lefties literally worship modern media and call you a bigot if you dont like it. Why would a troony say that a classic movie is better than contemporary movies? What is your joke?
Based. Rewatched them recently and they still hold up. Flawed, but they're brimming with soul. Movies like them just aren't made anymore.
I'm sorry I just hate Elizabeth becoming Pirate Queen for existing.
3 is fine otherwise.
3 is mediocre, most of the movie is about convening
relax bro its just Disney movies
>because the Anglo-Saxon has overcome even that.
Well, that's a frickcing shame
Still seething that white people exist I see Jamal.
>anglo
Frick off.
ok, the Saxon then
Why do you Celtic-Roman-German-Norse-French mutts call yourselves "Anglo-Saxon" anyway? English I get, but why do you pretend to be purebred Angles and Saxons from northern Germany?
damn it must be rough having brown skin
I'm serious. English I get, but if you're going to give white Americans shit for being Mutts, why not acknowledge that English people are also all-European Mutts?
Almost everyone in Europe is an "all-Euro mutt" too. People there have been migrating, invading, and interbreeding for centuries.
The English are mostly just Insular Celtic, which is broadly the same as most other Northern yuros, plus large amounts of Scandinavian, due to many Danes, Saxons, etc. invading during the "Anglo-Saxon period." They are in now way Roman.
Damn, why'd the Romans not frick any of the locals like they did everywhere else?
Sure there was a bit of fricking, but they did not leave any significant genetic legacy, certainly not enough to include "Roman" when describing Brits.
Exactly, so why do the English name themselves for two german tribes that only make up a part of their history, culture, and genetic lineage?
It would be more accurate to call them Scandinavian tribes. Angles are from what we call Denmark now, and Saxons are Scandinavians who moved south to what we now call Germany. They use that term because those tribes' language and culture superseded the insular celtic culture, although they certainly didn't kill all the locals.
Brits are basically just several types of Northern Euros mixed, peoples who lived short distances from each other.
rome didn't settle england as heavily as historians used to think, the southern tribes became romanized and spoke latin but were still ethnically not roman but celts, then later on they became germanized and spoke english but were still ethnically celtic
First of all, hardly anybody calls THEMSELVES Anglo-Saxon, that's what other people like you have no idea what you're talking about call them.
>Celts
The main Celtic tribe who lived in that area were called the Britons. Not a coincidence the people call themselves British.
>Roman
Lol, a few Romans were there for a couple hundred years and were so unable to either conquer or assimilate that they just ended up leaving with no biological, cultural, architectural or linguistic influence whatsoever
>German
Germanic people were not literally from Germany, which didn't exist at the time of the Angles and Saxons.
>Norse
This is the closest you've gotten to being correct. These are the Angles and the Saxons you're referring to, as well as the Jutes and sort of the Normans.
>French
If you're talking about the Normans, they were French in language only but they were also basically Norse with potentially some mixing with the Franks (the actual "French" who were also Celtic)
The Anglo-Saxon conquers by corruption. It's a israelite by every standard.
The Germanic conquers by force, hence he's a great warrior.
But the greatest conqueror is the Med, as he uses both kindness and strength, both culture (which is superior btw) and the sword.
Rome is still the greatest civilization ever, the Anglos are but a poor imitation of the glory of the Roman conqueror.
Rome didn't surrender to Hannibal, Attila, Vercingetorix, the Goths, the Persians. Rome conquered more powerful countries than itself.
What did the Anglo-Saxon conquer?
Black folks, pigmies, pajeets and natives fighting with bows and arrows in the 1800s.
The Anglo-Saxon conqueror spirit is a joke.
he posts in perfect english
The reason English is the lingua franca is because the Anglo settlers in North America found themselves living in the richest continent on Earth with virtually no civilization opposing them.
I must remind you that up until 1946 French was the lingua france worlwide, hence the name 'lingua franca'. Guess which WW2 nation gained the most from the destruction of European and East Asian hegemony...
America's superpower status is as lucky as it is unearned.
Sounds like the seethe of a failed country to me.
>The reason English is the lingua franca is because the Anglo settlers in North America found themselves living in the richest continent on Earth with virtually no civilization opposing them.
Why weren't the meds capable of this simple feat?
Meds are a tiny footnote in history, buried beneath many greater and more ambitious empires.
>greater and more ambitious empires.
Name one that is more impressive than the Spanish.
>he types, in perfect English
>America's superpower status is as lucky as it is unearned.
Yeah, beating Imperial Japan was a total fluke that the US did not earn.
>didnt earn
Taffy 3 going "Im not locked here with you, you are locked in here with me" to a Japanese battleship group is one of if not the most insane things in naval history.
>found themselves living in the richest continent on Earth with virtually no civilization opposing them.
and what is south americas excuse? Had all the potential to be as developed as north america and spread spanish or portugese around the world. But they didn't.
it was harder to move into south america because most of it was dense jungle
you couldn't just caravan into the continent making settlements here and there like in the north
There a plenty of areas in SA not strangled by dense jungle like most of argentina for example. It has more to do with the terrible economic systems of the spanish and portugese, practially medieval plantations and peasant labour
At one point Spain controlled Florida and a significant part of North America too but fricked up and lost control of it.
>north american doesn't have dense forests
Where do you think log cabins came from?
The real problem with north vs south america is spain's naval fleet over extended. The Spanish had better ships and used them to go all over. While the British, trying to avoid the spanish consolidated into mostly one area. As these colonies grew, the 13 colonies became the US. Then each south american country had their own form of independence or not. Spain lost all those wars and conceded many. Napoleans support of the US also later helped.
>trees
It is claimed that North America currently has only 10% of the trees that it used to have. We have a frick load of trees as it is. I cannot imagine what the east coast looked like when when the first Europeans rolled up They probably though the whole continent was nothing but trees. This explains why wood is such a primary building material in North America.
Wood also weighs less than stone-based construction materials, costs less, and is faster to build with. Also, wood can be used in areas like the west coast, where there are earthquakes. I don't know if hurricanes and tornadoes destroy brick houses on the east coast often, but if they do, rebuilding is cheaper with wood. We have a lot of land and tend to be short-termist with purchases, so building new inexpensive homes all the time instead of sturdier, more expensive ones that will last longer is just a given in the US.
For sure, but wood houses absolutely trigger Europeans for some reason.
trigger doesn't seem like the right word. a lot of people just wonder why americans build houses out of wood when they get blown down every year by a hurricane. it's more likely a lack of understanding because there's no big natural disasters here.
Most of my Euro friends complain about US wooden houses because they tend to not be very well noise-insulated, at least in price-conscious ones. So noises carry throughout the house or through walls in a way that (apparently) doesn't happen back in the fatherland. Which we certainly don't aim for, it's more that like, you know, need monies
You can drastically cut down on noise by insulating interior walls. While that does cost more, its not significantly to do that. You have to be careful though as that can change heating and cooling characteristics of the house, so you need to plan for/account for that with HVAC and ductwork etc...which Euros dont deal with central HVAC much either.
American houses are built (largely) for size and cheapness because we have a lot of land, and the housing market here is based around buying and selling and constant growth. So quicker, cheaper materials are favored since a lot of the time it's the land its built on that determines the price.
It's a modern phenomenon, you find a shitload of brick and other sturdy materials in older constructions, and a lot of mansions make use of stone and much more solid wood than the plywood the average home is made of.
I've also heard that in places like the U.K., all the new build houses are absolute trash that's about as flimsy as an American new build.
>I've also heard that in places like the U.K., all the new build houses are absolute trash that's about as flimsy as an American new build.
aye that's true. there's housing popping up fricking everywhere now for pretty cheap but it looks exactly like the deano memes you see posted. just copy/paste shitty terraced houses that fall apart after 10 years
>north american doesn't have dense forests
get some reading comprehesion
>it was harder to move into south america because most of it was dense jungle
>because most of it was dense jungle
I didn't in any way shape or form imply that north america didn't have their own dense forests, but unlike south america, MOST of it isn't dense jungle
google Amazon forest, it will blow your mind
The english spread their language to white people who do science, philosophy, aviation, engineering and literature while french taught their language to Black folk in africa who scratch lines into rocks and shit in mud huts. Even if ww2 never happened french will still be a Black person language today
go back to making my pizza luigi, im visitign jesolo in a month
>im visitign jesolo in a month
What a coincidence, I live 20 kms from there.
See you on the lido in a month.
nice, are there still a shitton of Black folk on the beach trying to sell you shit?
Rome did not conquer by kindness you abject moron.
>Attila
Basically a nomad horseman who would've steamrolled Rome if he didn't get bored and turn back
>Vercingeterix
A forest squatting tribal Gaul, even pajeets were more impressive than these morons
>Goths
Another flavour of swamp squatting tribals fighting woth bones and sticks
>Persians
Only real civ, and even then Rome suffered multiple defeats and stalemates against them
In short, Roman """glory""" involves subjugation swamp squatters, Black folk in Africa and......that's pretty much it lol
Imagine thinking Rome """"conquered""" Attila. Romans were such cucks they had to pay off the Huns several times, something that amused Attila to no end. Rome didn't win a single battle against the Huns, and eventually the Huns just returned back home for reasons not entirely clear but speculated to be related to a brewing civil war. There has not been a single race on this planet more adept at war than the people of Central Asia, certainly not Roman cucks.
>Rome didn't win a single battle against the Huns,
Catalaunian Plains/Chalons?
>muh central asian warriors
ah yes the central asians whose only legacies are that they used to bigger on maps. crazy that you're using the Latin alphabet to write that bullshit out too you fricking moron.
It is not a Roman victory it's a disputed battle that was most likely a stalemate moron.
>Latin Alphabet
It's called English you Dikshit just cause it has a vague origin in a now dead alphabet doesn't imply shit. Latin itself is a fricking dead language, and the fact that you have to resort to language as some sort of gotcha shows how much a dumbfrick you are.
>legacies are they used to be bigger on the map
That applies to Rome too shithead
Correct and that's why Beckett is such a kino villain.
As the head if the East India Trading Company where was Beckett on the totem pole?
Only below the king or was he just the director of a government business and as such below the entire main power structure?
EITC was at one point stronger than royalty but i'm not sure if the movies are at that time period
but basically yes, beckett was only subservient to the king and possibly a tiny number of other individuals
Probably had total control of operations but had to work within the framework provided by the company board.
Companies at that time, trading in spices and all other kinds of high tier shit, though held comparatively little political power on the mainland compared to say, the monarch, they essentially fricking owned the colonies they performed their business with and on
>In an act aimed at strengthening the power of the EIC, King Charles II granted the EIC (in a series of five acts around 1670) the rights to autonomous territorial acquisitions, to mint money, to command fortresses and troops and form alliances, to make war and peace, and to exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction over the acquired areas.[48]
They owned entire private armies and were conducting nearly half of the trade that was going on on the entire fricking planet, back then the bongs werent fricking around
The company was a company in name only. It was funded by politicians and the queen herself who gave the company the monopoly on trade in the Indian ocean and the right to confiscate the property of any other traders plying business in their territory. The entire initial setup of the company was bankrolled as well as militarily aided by the crown, from diplomats to the rank and file infantry. The company was just another arm of the monarchy themselves.
>weren't fricking around
>After a year of resistance, a famine broke out due to the blockade, the Company surrendered, and in 1690 the company sent envoys to Aurangzeb's court to plea for a pardon and to renew the trade firman. The company's envoys had to prostrate themselves before the emperor, pay a large imperial fine of 1,500,000 rupees, and promise better behavior in the future. Emperor Aurangzeb then ordered Sidi Yaqub to lift the Siege of Bombay and the company subsequently re-established itself in Bombay and set up a new base in Calcutta.
Yeah no, Anglos were and always will be pussies.
Read up on the Barbery Wars, American Anglos were not pussies.
>W-we're so badass guys
>read up on this miniscule event in history that you totally don't already know all there is to know
>I read up on it by browsing watching a youtube short about it, I'm so educated
Even when you dominate the world you Americans are so pathetic
>Pathetic
>miniscule event
Barbery pirates deviled the Mediterranean for 300 years. A hand full of Americans and few ships, completely fricked them up, including overthrowing a king and installing his estranged brother. Neither the Spanish or the British were able to stop them, but America formed the US Navy to specifically take them out.
>not even the devil himself could resist the East India anglojew
the: 2. spiritual, rather than physical
has become: 1. unimportant under the circumstances; irrelevant.
Thank you
>jack sparrow is a dying breed. the world is shrinking. the blank edges of the map, filled in
>the world used to be a bigger place.
>the world is the same, there's just less in it
it's like how there used to be krakens on maps, and now there is McDonald's in every country
>walks into the balcony as he says "the world is shrinking"
>busy port
>soldiers marching in formation
>a clock being hoisted
Did basic story telling like this die out? I genuinely cannot remember a movie of the last 5 years that uses a scene to convey a message as effectively like this. It's all either marvel drool or overacted human drama
One thing I will agree on is that films have become less information dense. We live in a content hungry age of longform narrative media, nobody knows how to fit a whole story into a 2-3 hour runtime because they're not even expected to. There's an eloquent, beautiful quality to establishing a whole world in a single scene which is why I like movies so much and don't care about television at all.
ITT posts that could've been prevented with 5 seconds on google
ITT: just because you wish we had nothing to talk about it doesn't make you not a gay
whats wrong with zoomers? Why do you need a translation?
We churn through language at an unprecedented rate and rarely encounter media which wasn't made to optimize for the lowest common denominator.
>Pirates of the Caribbean
>not the lowest common denominator
Its a blockbuster franchise based of a fricking amusement park ride
Yet still somehow good as frick. Late stage capitalism occasionally produces something cool
yes but it was made at another time not as braindead as current times. Check the year potc came out
And Clue is based on a board game.
Anything can be kino if there’s talent and a will to make it so.
An amusement park ride held up as "The Citizen Kane of animatronics filled dark rides"
I went on that ride at disneyland a couple years ago. There's really two takeaways I got from it.
First being that I totally understand why Crichton made westworld after riding it. Second being that holy shit some of their animatronics have gotten really fricking good. It still had all the old ones, but they've put in a bunch of jack sparrow ones - a few of them I'm still not convinced weren't actors paid to sit around in one spot all day.
It's basically been Imagineering tradition for decades that whenever they've devised some new technology to make animatronic movement more lifelike and smooth, the Auctioneer gets upgraded with said tech right away.
Yea, those Jack Sparrow ones are fricking crazy good. Its hard to describe unless you see them in person
I once talked to a cast member about the Navi Shaman animation at the end of Navi River Journey. They told me that it takes like half and hour to warm up, so it moves all slow when they first turn it on. If someone is in there sweeping or something, it occasionally will send someone flying because its really strong. They forget its on since it moves so slow at first.
>I see loyalty is not the currency of the realm as your father believes
>Then what is?
>Currency is the currency of the realm
Dude has a speech pattern.
Nice.
I'm listening
pistol wiener
I'm listening intently
he has that
>no, I've come back to stop you
speech
frick her tit looks so good in that picture grahh horny
Reminds me of G K Chesterton. A little highbrow for a pop film.
I never understood the “but you have heard of me” from these movies
I never understood what he meant by that line
It implies that if someone has heard of him, that he is an infamous pirate, regardless of what they heard about him.
And that tickles his ego.
it's ok to be autist autismo-anon
Transformers, I fricking never understood this line (still don't)
whats there to understand? are you really that moronic?
Its just the shittest line they could have used, I think I get it but I just can't believe he said it
I assume they mean the ice is freezing faster than its being cleared and for some reason they decided "melting" would work better for the audience?
>frozen water is freezing
???
>YASPAROOOOOO
reminder that the main complaint about potc 2 and 3 was that the story was too difficult to follow. people deserve the garbage we have now.
>the main complaint about potc 2 and 3 was that the story was too difficult to follow
No, the main complaints were the moronic love triangle out of nowhere (which was also dropped for 3), the movies being bloated as frick, and Jack going from "competent and smart pirate acting moronic on purpose" to "haha Johnny, do the drunk Jack thing again lmao".
>dropped
Yeah it’s kinda hard to keep your feelings about someone who feeds you to a kraken to escape.
>hard to keep your feelings
What feelings?
>complain about love triangle being dropped
>explain that it wasn't dropped, it ended for good reason
can't even comprehend the context between two posts, no wonder they don't bother with anything resembling competent writing anymore
Pretty much this.
REMEMBER:
POTC1: NO FRICKING CLUE if it was going to be a success, the execs HATED what Depp was doing, Disney thought they had a bomb on their hands
POTC 2 & 3: Typical Hollywood HOLY SHIT WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A SEQUEL QUICK! And, of course, the costs worked out best to amortize it into 2 sequels rather than one, so you had a lot of filler for what should have been a single film. And yes, much of the writing went into "what did audiences like best" instead of "how would these characters behave realistically in accordance of what came before in the first film", which is why you got more Depp and more leading role Depp rather than supporting rogue and foil. A lot was done right (Davy Jones), but a lot could have been done so much better. It deserves all of its criticisms, because the first really set the bar so high.
soul vs soulless
It's a Berserk reference
IS THAT A HECKING BERSERK REFERENCE?
You could retell this story as mankind, through empire and technology, attempting to over coming the supernatural and harsh nature and it would be a good story.
man i just got done rewatching the three pirates of the carribean movies. that shit is actually so fricking good, davy jones facial animations are so top notch. homie its insane how modern vfx "artists" make actual slop with even higher budgets
frick now I need to know
>Do you know what happens to a toad when it's struck by lightning?
>It croaks.
I fricking love this line and always have.
over 20 years and i still don't get it
It's meant as an insult to his mutant supremacist beliefs.
She is saying that compared to her his mutant abilities make him no different from a human.
How do you respond without sounding mad? I would say: "Nice hairline, b***h!"
The toad originally had a catchphrase that was :"Do you know what happens to a toad when X?"
Well it got cut but they kept storms line in
Kind of a frick up
>FRY YOU FROOLS
they couldn't get another take?
>ITT lines you don't understand
Bane is implying that CIA gives him a bit of a hot head you know what I mean
Would it be better if he said "to you"? "Painful to you"?
>You're a big guy
>For you
Bane has a raging erection ready for mr twink CIA.
lit/ explains:
kino
>It will be extremely painful
>If I pull that off will you die?
>For you
>You're a big guy
Huh?
SEVEN SEVENS? UR A CHEAT AND A LIAR WILL TURNER!!!
The third movie is fricking awful.
What did he mean by this?
that its never too late to come out the closet
How could this be?
>There are heroes on both sides
Soldiers on both sides of war generally feel like they're doing the right thing, and the other aren't. They can still perform "heroic actions" in the eyes of their side (saving X amount of soldiers by doing Y), yet still be "evil".
Nuance, if George had any.
I always just assumed it was meant as a retroactive preamble to Anakin's destiny. Because he's the hero the Republic deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So he'll betray them, because he can foresee it. Because he's not our hero. He's a cunning warrior. A sith lord. A good friend.
>he didn't experience the peripheral material leading up to Episode 3
Many such cases!
General Grievous did nothing wrong.
I thought Naomie Harris was stunningly beautiful and compelling as Tia Dalma. I credit her with my generalized interest in indigenous folk religion and my willingness to tolerate Black shenanigans when it's from women.
Plus you can lick her stinky pirate body clean.
What about this version?
I don't quite have a giantess fetish, but I can say I understand the appeal.
>You
>You have a touch of destiny about you...William...Turner
Her knowing his name by looking at him was cool as frick.
The imagination stays … imagination.
Even though Davy Jones is physically present.
Agreed, this line doesn't land as well as it should. Jones is neither immaterial nor purely fantastical, he is a very real entity that he's repeatedly interacted with. It was only thought of in terms of how the audience would interpret it, which is a poor weakening of the fourth wall.
Yeah the VFX is bizarrely good. I have no idea how they pulled that off.
The line lands just fine. Beckett is telling him that despite his other-worldly powers, Jones is now a cuck.
I get that. He calls him "immaterial", though, which is obviously false by every definition. He isn't a fairy tale, Jones actually exists.
He isnt a corporeal flesh and blood being, aka material. His is a non-corporeal spirit being, which makes him "immaterial"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/immaterial
Why did we never get a Barbossa spinoff movie?
PRICE? *pop*
do ya fearh deathuuuh?
>Mass market action-adventure movie 20 years ago is better written and treats the audience like adults more than the equivalent modern goyslop
The world is regressing
20 years ago goyslop was just cynical money business. now goyslop is aggressive, insane propaganda, a constant assault on the psyche of its targets.
simply put
What is happening is a great anti-union at a planet scale done by the elites,
The best 'anti-union' is to muttify as well as remove cultural identity by said mixing so you make a super slave class that doesnt want to fight back
Pretty based if you ask me
>The world is still the same.
>There's just less in it.
He's saying pirates, who don't make or shape the world, thus not mattering to the direction things are going, have gone from having no weight to being on the verge of extinction.
He's basically saying
"you were treated like nothing, now you are nothing"
It's been so long since I saw 3, I didn't like it very much at the time but the only bad thing I remember is the giant Calypso plotline.
since you guys can explain everything
explain this, which part is funny
They were going for a "le spooky mystical things are going out of the world as technology and civilization ever encroach the edges of the map" like Tolkien but it wasn't as fleshed out.
In a post-Whedon world this scene would have something like Beckett saying "obsolete person says what?" really fast, this prompting Jones to say "what?" and then Beckett smirks at the camera
PotC was full of non stop quips, it was proto capeshit.
I mean after Whedon-esque dialogue was popularised in Hollywood movies that had nothing to do with Whedon, i.e. the early 2010s
Wtf
One piece
literally ghosts have become figurative ghosts.
other way around ,moron.
fuarking KINO
comic relief, character and world building that all feels natural
I really don't like the "You only have to hang mean bastards" line in The Hateful Eight because I don't understand the structure of the sentence.
you don't only hang mean bastards you hang a bunch of people
but at the same time every mean bastard needs to be hung
it's just a way of saying frick that particular guy even more
>but at the same time every mean bastard needs to be hung
Yeah, I know I ain't gonna respect no mean bastard if he's got a small dick
Impossible and fantastical things slowly ceded ground to rational modernity.
basically just the same thing as the lord of the rings
>the sequels are still kin-
Skimming through this movie I don't think I could watch it again.
It's actually wild that the entirety of the Pirates series (though probably a little bit less in the ridiculous sequel-sequels) is just entirely made up of dialogue that the fans of it, the kids and the Disney Boomers, don't understand at all.
In fact, I would literally win millions and millions of dollars in sure bets if I gambled on no one ITT and no one who is in the audience demographic from these movies, actually following the dialogue at all and just tuning out because it's "old gibberish".
people can tell you're brown
>were you poor
>did you eat chicken pot pie
I don't understand.
Your actually all moronic, holy shit
What about my actually moronic holy shit
At World's End is so fricking boring holy shit.
>all these tards calling pirates of the carribean a ride
you walked through it.
Maybe in the Berenstain universe.
3 of the most acclaimed and beloved movies of all time and nobody can tell you the director's name without looking it up. He also directed The Ring, another huge hit.
That's because Gore Verbinski's been in movie jail since The Lone Ranger. Even though Disney should have been asking him to do a Star Wars in spite of that.
Honestly verbinski would very an excellent choice t9 direct a star wars film. Swashbuckling adventure is what star wars needs
>direct 2 flops and get kicked out of hollywood
>meanwhile hacks like Villeneuve and everyone working for Disney continue getting work despite their mediocre movies
It's not fair.
Villeneuve has been critically and commercially successful on the majority of his films. So not only is the studio getting its money back up front but they get a product that will sell for decades.
>things nobody ever watched
>Barbery pirates deviled the Mediterranean for 300 years. A hand full of Americans and few ships, completely fricked them up, including overthrowing a king and installing his estranged brother. Neither the Spanish or the British were able to stop them, but America formed the US Navy to specifically take them out.
Even if you're muttposting, America was still a European nation culturally and ethnically when they took on the Barbary Corsairs.
Literally the exact same quality curve, how did they do it?
nah matrix two and three were much worse compared to the first one than what potc 2 and 3 were to the black pearl
>we had air power and the enemy didn't and the enemy commander ran away
>this is considered a great victory in the annals of US history
youve got a dett to pay
I’m sorry
>I always tell the truth, even when I lie
He was high.