Pirates of the Caribbean 4

[King Darkness]

I'm a huge Ian McShane fan, and I've loved all three Pirates films, so I'm completely in. Is a fourth installment necessary? Hell no! Is it intended as a money-making venture? Uh, yeah, it and every other big budget flick. Will it be a lot of fun? Oh, I think so. And if it sucks, well, I've still got the first three. If Bond, Indiana Jones, and Darth Vader can survive a few bad films, so can the wily Captain Jack Sparrow.

Really hope McShane gets onboard!!!

 

[The Mike]

The thing is I never ever thought of the first trilogy as about Jack Sparrow. It was about Will and Elizabeth. The first one Jack was a side, a means to an end and I think it was his popularity and the portrayal of Johnny Depp that moved him into a more notable frame for the next two but if you follow them even in the 3rd where its the most Jackcentric you are still watching the redemption of Will's Father and him taking the place as the next captain of the Flying Dutchman.

I'm glad that Will and Elizabeth are out and we can get a story just about good ol' Jack. I'm all in for this one.

 

[Josette]

I just hope they actually develop a story about Jack - and it isn't a comedy flick with Jack acting stupid the entire time.

 

[devilof76]

When did Jack act stupid?

 

[Agent0028]

When didn't Jack act stupid? But for me the key word is "act".

 

[Josette]

The whole Cannibal island sequence was him being played up solely for laughs.

The tripping down the Black Pearl steps with the Jar of Dirt.

The two "angel and devil" Jacks on his shoulder in the Dutchman's brig.

The goat and the chicken thing during the locker sequence - actually, nearly the entire locker sequence in general except for when he runs himself through is the ultimate display of stupid comedy.

The sequels have really ruined this character, IMO. It's going to take some intelligence in the script writing for the character in POTC 4 to redeem him for me.

In the first movie, Jack was the clever trickster playing the fool - he only acted stupid to throw people off. In the sequels, he was the fool trying to be the clever trickster - and failing miserably.

The difference is night and day.

 

[snoop101]

The whole Cannibal island sequence was him being played up solely for laughs.

The tripping down the Black Pearl steps with the Jar of Dirt.

The two "angel and devil" Jacks on his shoulder in the Dutchman's brig.

The goat and the chicken thing during the locker sequence - actually, nearly the entire locker sequence in general except for when he runs himself through is the ultimate display of stupid comedy.

The sequels have really ruined this character, IMO. It's going to take some intelligence in the script writing for the character in POTC 4 to redeem him for me.

I agree. The first movies plot and script were great. And POTC: Dead Man's Chest seemed as if its sole purpose was to set up a third movie that would be even more spectacular than the first two, but it failed miserably.

 

[devilof76]

Horsefeathers.

 

[Agent0028]

I concur. Jack was just as conniving in DMC and AWE as in COTBP. Other characters have just as many stupid comedy parts as the ones you mentioned for Jack. And the locker sequence was supposed to show that Jack lost his marbles.

 

[Josette]

I don't think the other characters had those types of scenes at all. Sure, there were humorous moments involving them, but Jack's character became all about comic relief.

The writers lost that fine line they were walking in Curse, where you could laugh at his strangeness and yet still take him seriously as a pirate because he was written as clever, even when he was hiding his own cleverness. Jack became a joke in the sequels. The only truly effective scene in the locker sequence is when Jack stabs the "good" version of himself.

I think characterization was poor for many of the returning characters from Curse with the exception of Will Turner, but you didn't get anything like the goat and the chicken or the cartoonish angel/devil on the shoulder with any of the other characters.


Go back and watch Curse and ask yourself if any of that silly stuff would have fit in with that movie. IMO, the answer is no.

 

[Agent0028]

As I said the goat and chicken and the angel and devil were manifestations of Jack's insanity from being in the locker.

 

[devilof76]

I'm not aware of any point in the three movies where Jack suddenly became mere comic relief. He always had a deeper motive underlying the smirk on his face.

The closest I can come up with is the scene with the melons and the spit, launching himself over the ravine, and then falling off. It still managed to characteriz his luck, as well as his ability to roll with punches, and not compromise his disposition.

How seriously did people take the man in the first movie? Jack Sparrow is a clown. Either get over it, or make the effort to comprehend how much more credit you should be giving clowns. They don't do it for laughs, you know.

 

[Josette]

The locker sequence was played up purely for comic effect, as was the devil/angel on the shoulder. The writers could have come up with other ways of showing Jack as not right in the head after his death, cartoon antics were not needed.

It's my opinion that Jack Sparrow wasn't anything close to a clown in the first movie, and my feelings on the treatment of the character in the sequels remains the same: he went from the clever trickster playing the fool to the fool playing the trickster. Jack was the "good" (if strange) pirate in Curse, but they played it so that you also knew he was capable and could even be dangerous. You don't get any of that in the sequels. I couldn't take the character seriously even for a moment, when in the first movie you never knew what was going on with him, but you always knew something was. There wasn't much going on with him in the sequels - I didn't buy into the immortality bit.

But I'm actually one of the people who thinks he should've become captain of the Dutchman, because then they would have to go somewhere different with the fourth one, at least. Instead it looks like we're going to get Sparrow vs. Barbossa for the Pearl. Again.

The backstory they chose not to use concerning Jack and Beckett's history was far more deserving to be explored than the silly locker stuff and the wasted time with Sao Feng, who was the most useless character in the films.

 

[devilof76]

When I say clown, I mean the same thing you do when you refer to Jack's role in the first movie. I'm sorry you were unable to take him seriously. I had no issue, right up to him unrolling his piece of the map in the dingy.

If anything changed about Jack, it was that he evolved past the single dimension that defined his character in the first movie. In CBP, he was a charming cutthroat, whose virtue was continuously impeding his goals. He never lost any of that, but he did become much more than just a thief chasing his stolen ship.

I can sorta concur that Sao Feng was under used, but he served his purpose which, ultimately, was to make Elizabeth a pirate lord.

As for Beckett, what more do you need to know about what went down between a brigand and a dirty cop? The only real story to explore there was how does the brigand win in the end, which they covered in spades.

 

[MaulFan]

I would have liked to see, on film, the exact incident that transpired between Jack and Beckett, we learn it's where Jack got his "P" brand, and Beckett alludes to leaving some sort of mark on him, it'd be interesting to see just what happened there.

 

[devilof76]

It would be interesting, but it wouldn't advance the plot any.

Something I would have liked to get more of was Jack's history with Tia Dalma, but that also wouldn't have added anything essential, and the mystery it afforded was most welcome.

What I know for absolute certain is that I did not want him to end up captain of the Dutchman. Anything but that.

 

[MaulFan]

I thought that it was better for him not to become Captain, all 3 films played Jack as a very selfish man for the most part, almost incapable of thinking about others, the redeeming moments were always nice, going back to save the Pearl in DMC, helping Will to live on in some way in AWE.

 

[Josette]

I can sorta concur that Sao Feng was under used, but he served his purpose which, ultimately, was to make Elizabeth a pirate lord.

Elizabeth as a pirate lord....how I despised that whole plot. It was just another useless time waster - the entire pirate lord plot goes absolutely nowhere. They do nothing to contribute in the final battle, and at the meeting they're played up for laughs - I can't see any of them committting actual piracy and living to tell the tale. It was just more silliness.


As for Jack being captain of the Dutchman - I wouldn't see that as selfish because I honestly didn't buy for a moment that he truly wanted to be - he wanted the immortality, not the responsbility. His hesitation to stab the heart is what got Will killed in the first place. He didn't sacrifice anything he truly wanted. Will being stabbed made his decision for him. Will would've died if he wasn't made captain - the decision was taken out of Jack's hands.

What would have displayed some selflessness is if Jones was getting ready to stab Will and Jack got in the way instead, therefore having to become captain of the Dutchman whether he wanted to or not - he would have saved Will and given Will and Elizabeth a chance to live their full lives together.

 

[devilof76]

Loved all three with no reservations. Jack's selfishness was the character's most endearing quality. I was ecstatic that they never compromised that, and I remain as such.

 

[agen_kolar]

Loved all three with no reservations. Jack's selfishness was the character's most endearing quality. I was ecstatic that they never compromised that, and I remain as such.

This.

I never think Jack's character changed, as devil has said many times before. He's the same old Jack. Conniving, manipulative, sometimes silly, a bit lucky, and drunk.