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.
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.
Five sucked and you were in it bro.
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.
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).
Counterpoint: every other Star Trek was an absolute banger through at least the first 8 movies.
The original pirates trilogy, the movie franchise this thread is about, breaks your own statement. So.
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.
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.
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.
I wouldn’t watch Pirates without Jack Sparrow as a character.
They have exceptions to their statement. They didn’t say they’re guaranteed to be bad. They said, “I don’t bother, unless…”.