Pirates of the Caribbean franchise

Personally, I always thought the first film was the most darkly serious.

The third film? Very dark of course. Can't not be with a child getting hung in the first scene.

But the first film takes itself gritty serious at times to a degree that the other films didn't. The over the top shenanigans tend to be centered on Jack in the first one which isolate them a bit from, say, the Pirates invasion of Port Royal which is played dead serious. I believe the first film has the Governor attacked by a dismembered zombie hand and it's played pretty seriously from what I recall- something I think later movies might have tried to joke about.

The later films don't isolate the over the top stuff as much so they feel dark, but not that serious at times.

I still like the films anyway. I never felt too whiplashed from the tone differences and I couldn't quite tell you why. I know a lot of people shit on World's End, but I do think the trilogy stands up pretty well. And, considering how much of the film is genuinely done with practical sets, effects, and action, I do think it's one of the last great film franchises before everything got too soaked into CGI.

I believe the fight between Norrington, Will, and Jack in Dead Man's Chest WAY more than I believe most of the big brawls in modern movies.

That Mêlée à Trois is still in my top 3 favorite movie fights list.

The first movie is more somber and dark, but that’s more in the way of being more serious in its emotional relationships (owing to it being much more Will’s movie than Jack’s). It’s overall less wacky, but in terms of intense moments it’s actually much lighter than the later films and is thus more tonally consistent, hence the lack of whiplash there.

We’ve got the zombie pirates, but the worst they do is shoot nameless mooks with “puff of smoke” guns or stab people just offscreen. It’s more that they run around being spooky - a family friendly take on that sort of threat, plus nothing bad ever happens to any one the audience might have the chance to emotionally invest in. The most intense moment is probably Barbossa getting shot, and that uses the magic to ensure a lot of misdirection in how to intense it is.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Mar 28th 2024 at 1:48:01 AM

I think Pirates of the Caribbean is a fantastic example of why studios shouldn't try to create "franchises" out of standout films.

But they know people will come to see sequels, and it seems like a sure bet. So anything quirky, unusual, or novel gets ground down, and we end up getting more of the same. It's rare for a sequel to be brave enough to be different from the original film — I think Alien and Aliens are the classic example of doing that successfully. The third film is a classic example of why turning two hits into a "franchise" was a bad idea.

I think we could put that ever more simply as "There's nothing wrong with coming in, telling the story you want to tell, doing so well, and closing the curtain. You can open the curtain again for a new act, but only when you have a new story to tell".

It's been an issue since the dawn of storytelling and especially telling stories for capital (See: John Steinbeck and other writers who were paid by the word/chapter), but I think it's hitting an absurd degree lately with a starter film being created with "franchise potential" from the get go and taking the "infinite growth" ideology from capitalism and corporatization and applying it to the arts and storytelling world.

Now, instead of telling a full and complete interesting story from start to finish, bits and pieces are portioned off for infinite sequels and spin-offs, but leaving any one individual installment pretty unfocused and lame.

"Well, maybe they'll do more with that in the sequel."

No. No no. No. You come in, tell the story well and tell the story completely, and do so the first time. I don't want to sit through four mediocre movies to *hopefully* *maybe* get a decent story arc and use for a single character. Or any interesting character growth or storytelling at all because, for all these infinite sequels we have, they sure do seem to be deathly allergic to any actual growth across dozens upon dozens of hours of runtime.

Just have more fucking craft to your work, damn it.

Edited by InkDagger on Mar 28th 2024 at 7:12:27 AM

I remember when they revealed Davy Jones was returning and I wondered if they were setting him up to fill the void left by Barbossa. I wonder if Calypso brought Jones back because Will didn't choose a successor before abandoning his duties. I figure that's the best explanation for the situation.

I also wonder if Will could've passed the role of Captain onto Bootstrap if he'd known he had to choose a successor or if Bootstrap because he didn't take the out to be freed of his debt was ineligible anyway. I'd love to hear about that.

I doubt they had an explanation in mind. I've been discovering more and more lately that these kind of decisions are done more on a "Hey, Davey Jones was popular. His return would have fans shitting their pants" basis and they'll leave it to the writers to figure out what that means and why WAY latter.

The Davey Jones Cliffhanger is the epitome of "Writing by Exec Post-it Notes".

Being an aspiring writer, I would try to come up with explanations. Pirates while not a consistent franchise at least gives way to just coming up with theories on the fly. Be interested to see how a Pirates movie would do without Jack since public opinion of Johnny Depp seems to be significantly souring again.

Would like to see Shansa back. She wasn't in the fifth one much, but she was a fun addition though.

the issue of "tell the story and move on and only when you have a new story" can feel arbitrary, like john wick, you could close it at first film and yet it span near a franshise just well.

I guess the idea is...can pirate of caribian spawn a infinite amount of stories? well who knows

Of course it's arbitrary. Because there never ever will be a hard rule for something like that. It's writing and creativity. And chasing the idea of a hard and clear (read: non-arbitrary) rule would be a complete folly.

Where one writer has a definitive and complete ending, another might see room for a direct continuation. Or picking up thirty years later as the characters have evolved beyond that ending.

Ask one writer about Ghostbusters and they might say the story is over and done with the first film and anything after is Sequilitis. Personally for me- I think it would be really fascinating to explore Ghostbusters outside of the Regan-era politics the original is steeped in which is something no sequel has done.

You can't really create a more defined statement for that because it's directed at creative types who don't particularly like rules about what stories they can or cannot tell and rules that limit the freedom of their expression.

I don't know where I'd even start with trying to re-phrase that rule to direct it at capitalist pigs, but I think that's maybe a different folly in of itself because a capitalist pig wouldn't listen to the statement anyway no matter how well crafted.

Edited by InkDagger on Mar 31st 2024 at 10:54:38 AM

In in term of "how much we do this to get money" the answer is "As much as you can" if story make bank, they will made more and nowdays movie belive the cna create movie over and over until it crash or they see the writting and finish it.

As for writter...it depends as well, many writter want a clear end, other just get tired and do it, so it a mix of imagination and will and how much you can go.

I think it clear as IP, this is firmly the former

Even a definitive ending wouldn't matter because anthology series exist.

I bring it up because I remember a retrospective comment I saw years ago saying that this franchise should've been an anthology series with Jack Sparrow being the only common element. We'll never know how well it would've worked.

I think that probably would have been a bad idea. As much as Jack is the iconic character of the franchise, the films (at least as the original films went) were never his story. It was ultimately Will and Elizabeth's story. Jack never really had much of a character arc and we're mostly following Will and Elizabeth's developments.

Pivoting to a Jack focused franchise would have probably missed the point and did as many felt the series jumped ship when they finally did try to make it anthology style with Stranger Tides and Dead Men Tell No Tales.

Another writer might have been able to execute that idea better- I'll give credit when due that I've certainly goffed at an idea I thought to be bad and recanted it later once I saw it. But, based on the original movie, it was never Jack's story.

I mean even Dead Men Tell No Tales brought it back to Will and Elizabeth not just by the end, but with the movie following their son and his special journey primarily as well. There you go on that front. Also, it's funny thinking about how it came out about ten years after At World's End and apparently 20 years was supposed to have passed in between.

The Stinger of Angelica at the end of On Stranger Tides with Jack's voodoo doll ended up totally dropped as a Sequel Hook. So yeah, there you go.

<Spit Take> Davy Jones is back? ...That's not me being surprised in an excited way, its a "his story is over, have it be over!" way.

I haven't actually watched any of the movies since At World's End (which I liked, I like all the original trilogy), but I do sort of keep up with it in clips and such.

Edited by diddyknux on Apr 2nd 2024 at 2:56:07 PM

Just in the stinger for Dead Men Tell No Tales...which makes no sense since he was killed. Someone new should've had to take Will's place, not resurrect the last guy. Hell, let Will appoint Jack. He wanted the immortality and Disney had already decided they were done with Johnny before the last one was out.

They can just..ignore the stinger,you know?

I mean depending on how you interpret a continuity reboot they're "ignoring" all of it going forward, but I see your point considering they ignored On Stranger Tides' stinger iirc.

So... I would argue that Jack Sparrow is more the protagonist, in the vein that Iron Man was the protagonist of the MCU, Phases 1-3. Sure, they have another character like Will Turner/Steve Rogers, who is the intended protagonist, but all the while you're left captivated by the enigmatic charisma master on display here, completely transforming a role, making it all his own, progressing the plot forward in ways we couldn't even imagine.

Yes, knowing full well Jack Sparrow ISN'T supposed to be the main protagonist, isn't stopping me from viewing him as such.

Agreed 100%. I actually saw Dead Man's Chest first, and when I went back to watch Curse of the Black Pearl I was real confused as to why Will got so much focus. Like as much as people complain about Jack getting too much focus in later movies, he really did steal the show even early on.

The way I saw it described once was "What if George Lucas had pivoted the original Star Wars trilogy to make Han Solo the main character instead of Luke Skywalker?" And Pirates with Jack Sparrow becoming the protagonist is basically that.

That said, I don't know if the filmmakers should've been surprised. A movie called Pirates of the Caribbean, people are gonna be pretty naturally drawn to the most pirate-y protagonist, especially with the appeal of Johnny Depp. (Back when he wasn't a polarizing figure)

I mean you look at the Hannibal Lecter series and in only one of those stories/movies is he actually the protagonist. Then again, much like Anthony Hopkins in those films, Johnny Depp—whatever you think of him now—had both the name and presence that pulls focus and attention. Much like Lecter, Captain Jack Sparrow is the one you want to see the most because he's so fascinating just on his own.

Much like Dr. Lecter, Barbossa—who definitely wasn't the protagonist—pulled major focus too.

Maybe Jones was in the Locker and made a deal that should the Dutchman ever need a Captain again—and like I pointed out before, Will didn't choose a successor, he'd happily come back and step in to do it.

Edited by futuremoviewriter on Apr 2nd 2024 at 7:57:48 AM

I like all the PotC movies except the latest one, so on some level I'm excited for this, but why does it have to be a reboot? Why can't it be another story in the same continuity, just without Jack Sparrow?

Public consciousness. Everybody remembers the movies for "witty Jack" so its hard to define a new movie with "so Jack's not here now, here's these other layabouts nobody gave a f-ck about."

Its probably tainted by all that Depp vs Heard energy too. People know Depp won't come back because he got his money and dignity back (...kind of), so there are those stans that will boycott it on parasocial loyalty alone. If it were me, I wouldn't continue from there either with that sort of risk.

There's not much else going on in the original continuity. Will and Elizabeth got their happy ending. Jack's former lover, his former first mate, and Will and Elizabeth's son and probably daughter-in-law all have stories but they're not as exciting as Captain Jack SPAR-ROW so -loud whoopie cushion noise-.

Edited by FOFD on Apr 2nd 2024 at 11:27:38 AM

Do we know it's not the same continuity? The word "reboot" is often used incorrectly in media journalism. Frasier's "reboot" was literally a direct sequel