Why does this movie work so much better than all of its sequels?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Why does this movie work so much better than all of its sequels?
Why does this movie work so much better than all of its sequels?
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
it was the first film in the franchise, and they are always the best because they have to be simple enough for the audience to get it on first watching, rather than relying on years of accumulated knowledge of the franchise.
So the first movie is fun and fast moving and a good time. The sequels ALWAYS go downhill from there, regardless of the franchise, because they have to work to stay consistent, and watching them becomes less fun and more work.
More like sequels suck because they are made purely for money so they half ass shit to get it out before people forget about the original
Oh look the pseudointellectual, anti-fun police have arrived. Yes a movie based off a fricking amusement ride is a sacrosanct masterpiece and must never be followed up on, not even by the same cast and crew
Weird that you quoted so many people yet you addressed a point never brought up.
don't @ me ever again you massive homosexual
I like all three of the Verbinski movies, but Black Pearl is the most focused even if it's still too long. It doesn't suffer as much from the convoluted mythology that the subsequent two movies get wrapped up in. It still feels like an unusual fantastical world, but it teases out the magic.
It's works well as a standalone movie, unlike 2 and 3 which are clearly part of an overarching plot.
THREE 2'S
three 8s
Liar!
Rewatched 3 recently and it was terrible, 2 was still decent
Agreed. Idk what the hell were they thinking when they wrote the third one's script
>Let's waste half a hour in a pointlessly long Singapore fight scene
>Let's waste half the movie on Free Calypso plotline which resulted in nothing in the final fight
I don't think it was terrible but definitely squandered and had too much good build up in the previous movie to deliver upon. Like the first reply stated, the opening in Singapore dragged on way too long. Calypso was a waste as well, just keep her as the wacky swamp voodoo priestess. And then they go and make Elizabeth the Pirate King? lol come the frick on writers, get your hand off your dick. Having her become a pirate is all well and good and has her story come full circle from her introduction, but that was pushing it, not to mention the cringe rally scene before the final battle.
They are all good.
Because the main villain in 2 and 3 was just a fricking whiny incel homosexual
3 has the dirty niggress and I want her to give me genital herpes.
sequels almost always suck
unless a story is specifically designed as a serial the sequel will inevitably
>undo previous characterization
>create contrived situations to bring the MC back into action
>render the story of the previous installments pointless either through undoing progress (i.e. resurrecting a villain) or increasing the stakes to comical levels
3>2=1>>5>4
I also enjoy back to the future 3 the most out of that trilogy
I have a soft spot for 4. Didn’t think much of it when it came out but she grows on me.
i thought that earlier, but i rewatched the trilogy last year and i preferred the sequels for some reason
because people have been dying everyday and being young is bliss
No expectations. The entire premise is making a movie based on one of Disney's classic theme park rides. No one knew Johnny Depp was going to do as Jack Sparrow literally right up until the first day of shooting, Keira Knightley was a hot piece of tail unknown to the world, Geoffery Rush was going to have a ball playing a pirate and they snatched Orlando Bloom right in time just as Lord of the Rings was taking off. The story involves spooky skeleton pirates and cursed treasure. It just had one-off popcorn movie with a good cast written on it instead of franchise. They probably weren't expecting it to be the hit that it was as opposed to the Johnny Depp cult movie they were hoping it would end up being.
Dead Man's Chest is practically the best one though, but I understand what you are saying. I also thought the 4th movie was legitimately good.
1=2 > 4 > 3 > 5
it was only ever meant to be this one movie. it was never meant to be a grand franchise with overarching grandiose plots. it didn't have to try and connect the dots with other plot points and movies. it was just meant to be a one off adventure movie that you enjoy with some popcorn on a friday night with friends and family.
The 2nd one is the best.
Dead Man's Chest would be about as good if they'd cut the meandering cannibal island timesink. A few other scenes were also too long, but that entire thread was unnecessary.
Come on man, the bone cage scene is classic. It's a classic adventure serial trope to have a cold open with an unrelated adventure, lets kids imagine the characters getting into all kinds of hijinks inbetween movies.
The execution was lacking. As fun as the bone cage was, by that point there had already been enough time spent on that tangent. The final fight also had great ideas and visual spectacles while also being a fricking drag.
And it gets worse in The World's End
As a teenager I'd watch Dead Man's Chest twice a week on average. I saw At World's End 6 times in theaters. Davy Jones is my favorite film villain. Revisiting the trilogy after 15 years or so, I was shocked to discover Curse of the Black Pearl was easily the best of them, after being mostly lukewarm on it back in the day. All of the fumbles the sequels made that never occurred to me then were now plain to see. It was a strange experience. I still love all three of them.
I say because PoTC 2&3 are visuslly pleasing movies. Story is haphazard, but you get to see all the exotic locations, all the bizarre things. So it was basically...like a gigantic theme park ride hmm
Really makes you think.
Why does this movie work so much better than its sequel?
Because pirate orgy.
The amusement park ride is better.
The second one is also excellent.
>UMMM WE THE """HONEST"" PIRATES DESERVE THE BREAD WE EARN WITH OUR SWEAT AND BLOOD SO LET'S STOP EVIL... keepers of the law?
What was that all about
East India Company was not keepers of the law. It was basically proto globohomo. Also the Pirates are never depicted to be 'good' as well
I know that but the way the movie presents it is beyond confusing
But Dead Man’s Chest is way better.
literally every side character was memorable and compelling, not once did I feel "oh great now we gotta see what this character is up to"
Then there's absolute multitude of memorable character pairings that I haven't seen before or since - Murtogg and Mulroy, Pintel and Ragetti, Koehler and Twigg, Grapple and Mallot, Jack and Gibbs, Mr Cotton and the Parrot