At World's End

[tolkienfan]

Here is the new thread for Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World's End.

I just got back from seeing it! It was amazing. WAY better than the second one. If you go see it, wait until the very end, past all the credits. It's worth it. Not like the dog thing , I promise.
MAJOR SPOILERS:

So what did you think of the end? I thought it was a bit too sad, but okay. I still can't believe Will died, but it seems in this movie that nobody who "dies" stays dead. I'm really glad the Pearl came back. The beginning was sad too for that matter. Some parts were unrealistic and kind of stupid (like the parachute thing) but thankfully there was less of that than in the 2nd one. I think this was maybe the funniest one. I loved seeing Jack's dad. The score was great. I liked the story of Tia Dalma and Davy Jones, but it was very sad. I'm glad Beckett died, but I think his death could have been shortened a bit.

I'll have to write more tomorrow, it's rather late. So, what did you think?

[Rosie Gamgee]

I think my take on this movie will give away to much, so I've 'spoilered' it.

It was incredible. And by incredible, I mean it literally was not credible. The whole movie dives face-first into this unrealistic world of legends which have a hard time keeping to their own rules, never mind the rules of the real world. Everything is possible. Anyone who dies has a chance at coming back to life except for two unfortunate souls who die and are forgotten about as soon as their final scenes end. Everyone gets stabbed at one point or another. Everyone gets thrown into the brig and then miraculously escapes. There's far too many Jack Sparrows running around chasing legumes for no apparent reason. The good guys and the bad guys are so hopelessly muddled I eventually decided that the only characters worth rooting for were the two aforementioned unfortunate souls who died. Keira's make-up never moves--I think she got that eye-liner tattooed on. Will has an earring and a superior attitude that is simply cheesy. All the dialogue is bloated with 'piratey' words that people have been tossing around on the internet since the first movie came out, and the whole plot plays out like a sickening fan-girl-fiction. The ending was awful. And Keith Richards was just plain uncalled for. It was without a doubt one of the dumbest movies I've ever watched. The pirate trilogy makes a dismal end.

[orithil]

my goodness i cant believe you could say that in my opinion it was the best one made it was funny, dramatic (violent well sorta) and finally everything made sense it was a great trilogy and in MY opinion it was the best in the trilogy and in MY opinion it was very good and they could not have made it better

[tolkienfan]

I didn't mention that the special effects were amazing!

Except for the giant Callypso thing, that was weird and just bad.

[Elfmaster XK]

I am afraid I have to agree with Rosie Gamgee. It could have been so much more. Unfortunately, they wasted the idea of a dying pirate age and filled it with nonsense.

Disappointing.

[orithil]

Well true, but the pirates of the caribbean trilogy had been full of jokes especially with jack sparrow, nonsense? you mean....

[Acalewia]

They could have done with out the numerous Jacks running around, but all in all I thought it was halerious! I think the reason the screenwriters decided to "kill" Will was to solve the problem of his promise to his father. Of course that's just my take on that. of course it sucked that Will "died" after finally getting around to marrying Elizabeth. Speaking of Marrages, that had to be the most wacked up wedding scene I have ever seen Shooting Jack the monkey out of the cannon was just funny. Cruel but funny. That was surprise that Tia was Calipso and the Giant Calispo just didn't make sense to me. The last scene after the credits was great. worth the wait.

[orithil]

yes i do agree they could have done without all the jacks but it had good action scenes humour and was very enjoyable for me and everyone at the movie theater loved it least from the clapping i heard

[Elfmaster XK]

I know it is meant to be funny, and in places it is. Don't get me wrong. It had good bits, and visually it was exceptional.

By nonsense I mean

the whole thing with Calypso. What has she got to do with pirates in the 18th Century? (or is it 17th? I always get my centuries mixed up ) She was a greek sea nymph, and by the time this is set, long forgotton about. Plus, she wasn't a goddess who controlled the sea, the ruler of the sea was Poseidan. So even if you accepted that they were now believing in heathen gods (as mentioned by Barbossa) then it still doesn't make sense. AND, the whole free her or don't free her came to a pointless end as she just disappeared off! She didn't do anything except make a bit of a storm, which I suppose is the equivelent of having a strop. If they had made her disappear and then suddenly sink all the enemy ship, at least it would have been worth watching her come back for something. The other problem I had was they tried to tell the story of Will, Elizabeth, Jack, Davy Jones, Beckett, Barbossa...all at once. It was hard to follow because the characters never seemed to say what they were doing, or who they trusted. Everyone was against each other. There were too many plot threads to follow. You know when you read a book which has too many main POV characters? It was kind of like that. Those are my main problems with it.

[Butterbeer]

spoiler

[b.banner]

it was okay just as good as the first one not as good as the second.

[orithil]

Originally Posted by Elfmaster XK

I know it is meant to be funny, and in places it is. Don't get me wrong. It had good bits, and visually it was exceptional.

By nonsense I mean

yes your right

[me9996]

I haven't seen it, but it must be a good movie by the amount of spoilered text.

[Nurvingiel]

I haven't seen it yet, and I'm glad to hear it's better than the second one, because that one kind of stank. I'm excited to see it, I'll post back when I do!

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by me9996

I haven't seen it, but it must be a good movie by the amount of spoilered text.

Or else a really lousy one.

[HOBBIT]

better than second one, but that isn't saying much. needlessly long and confusing.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

better than second one, but that isn't saying much. needlessly long and confusing.

Saying its better than the second is like saying Hitler is not as evil as Stalin cause he didn't kill as many. Horrible movie, it destroyed enough braincells to make me want to go see Live free or Die hard.

[Acalewia]

ok I don't know if I'm the only one who noticed this but in Dead Man's Chest Beckett said he and Jack left their marks on each other. We know Beckett left a brand on Jack but it was never explained what mark Jack left on Beckett

And with as much whining (for lack of a better word) Will did about his father being a pirate he sure ended up acting like a pirate.

[sun-star]

I thought it was pretty enjoyable and, considering I haven't seen the second film, not that hard to follow. It was far too long though, and I agree with Rosie that characters dying loses its impact when just about everyone has already died and been resurrected. I thought there were potentially interesting elements which were just glossed over - they should have cut out the endless deal-making, which was pointless anyway since everyone was double-crossing everyone else, and explored the different races of pirates in more detail. They looked cool, but hardly any of them were on screen for more than a few seconds! Also, it wasn't really clear to me why the audience are supposed to be rooting for the pirates against the navy, since everyone was behaving unattractively, including Will and Elizabeth. Can anyone explain to me what was going on with the multiple Jacks? Was that explained in the second film?

[tolkienfan]

Originally Posted by Acalewia

ok I don't know if I'm the only one who noticed this but in Dead Man's Chest Beckett said he and Jack left their marks on each other. We know Beckett left a brand on Jack but it was never explained what mark Jack left on Beckett

You're right, that's annoying. If they're going to put that stuff in there it should have a point. Beckett really hated Jack though, so it must have been a big mark Maybe it wasn't an actual physical mark, more like a hatred and revenge sort of mark. (but what exactly did Jack ever do to him? hmm...)

Originally Posted by Acalewia

That was the whole point of the first movie, he realized you can be a pirate and a good man.

Originally Posted by sun-star

Because the bad guys killed Elizabeth's father and hung all those people in the beginning. Other than Barobossa's skeleton crew, none of the pirates really did much damage to innocent people. That's what I think. (Plus they lose, so that pretty much makes the pirates right.

Originally Posted by sun-star

No, there wasn't any of that in the 2nd one. He went partly insane while trapped in the desert, so at times he was seeing a few copies of himself. He was already kind of crazy to begin with, and in the 3rd one he just cracked. (IMO) Someone else I know thinks he really isn't crazy and those parts were just put in to be funny.