• yessikg@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    The fifth one gave Willabeth a good ending and that’s all I cared about, so no thanks

    • nogooduser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      11 days ago

      He realises this and that’s what he’s saying would be his reason for doing a 6. He wants to do a better job this time.

      The cynical part of me thinks that he would obviously say that the next one’s going to be better to try to get people to watch it.

    • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      Rarely does a second film work, and a third one being any good at all requires a miracle.

      Anything beyond that and I don’t waste my time.

      (What am I saying, I don’t give the third one a chance unless reviews from friends are exceptional).

      • tmyakal@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 days ago

        Counterpoint: every other Star Trek was an absolute banger through at least the first 8 movies.

      • Sanctus@anarchist.nexus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        11 days ago

        The original pirates trilogy, the movie franchise this thread is about, breaks your own statement. So.

        • tmyakal@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 days ago

          Agree to disagree. The “original” trilogy was a fucking mess. The writers have even admitted as much on the DVD commentary: Curse of the Black Pearl was written as a stand-alone adventure that tied itself up nicely, but when it took off at the box office, Disney went, “So you guys are finishing the trilogy, right?” Making it a trilogy was a retroactive decision. And I think the later movies clearly suffer for it: way too much Captain Sparrow for an ensemble, shoveling in new characters to make the rest of the casts’ continued involvement make sense, and ending the second on that cliffhanger was a wildly disappointing choice after how tight and self-contained Curse was.

          Those two movies felt less like a continuing story and more like a theme park ride. But I guess that’s an appropriate development.

          • Sanctus@anarchist.nexus
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 days ago

            Shoveling new characters? Too much Jack Sparrow? A mess? Definitely agree to disagree, though I do get what you are saying between Curse and the following 2 movies having a sort of rift between them due to how it was written.

        • spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 days ago

          They have exceptions to their statement. They didn’t say they’re guaranteed to be bad. They said, “I don’t bother, unless…”.

        • warm@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 days ago

          They kind of wrapped it all up with the trilogy. 4 and 5 were so forced and they sucked because of it.

          If they want to reboot it, they need to just have a completely new cast of characters with their own personalities.

  • Janx@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 days ago

    Does… he think he’ll have control over the writing and direction? Ask the Game of Thrones actors what wanting a good conclusion got them.