Sunshine, Light, and Joy

 

This is a post that I've been thinking about for awhile. Recently, I opened up the discussion to other members of the staff to get their feelings on the matter, and their opinions generally matched mine, which is this:

Within the last year or so, there's been a steady increase of negative posts in movie threads. We've always had some heated discussions for some movies, but recently things have not only gotten more histrionic in those threads (generally speaking, the CBM ones), but they've started to spread to other franchises and other movies as well. I'm not talking about out-and-out trolling, I'm talking about members feeling they have to consistently shit on a movie (or studio, or star) simply because they aren't interested in the current project or projects. With every piece of news about a movie, it's now a virtual guarantee that there's a flood of people rushing to say they think it sucks, they don't like the current trailer/tv spot/actor/actress/director/concept. And I get it -- we all have movies we don't like, movies which we think are bad ideas, industry people that just don't appeal to us. But there's a fine line between expressing your opinion about this and doing it so often, with such consistency, that the collective emphasis of all of it basically brings down the entire thread and thus the entire forum.

There's no easy answer to this. We don't want to crush freedom of expression here. But at the same time, the spirit of this forum is for people to have fun talking about the movies they love and the box-office runs they love.

To have fun.

And while it may be fun -- in a sense -- to personally vent about a movie, or to vent at people who dare to enjoy something you don't, it doesn't bring fun to our community. In fact, it generally drags down the overall fun for everyone else. We've had people repeatedly mention to us over the last several months or so that in some cases they don't even bother going into some threads -- even for movies they're curious about! -- because they just don't want to deal with the overall mess those threads contain. And frankly, that matches the personal opinion of most of the staff as well.

So this post is both a request and a warning. 

The request: Next time you feel like taking a dump on a movie (or a topic) for the dozenth time, take a moment to consider whether it's really worth it. People probably already have a good idea of what your attitude about the project is. Maybe just put your posting energy into a movie that you enjoy and love or are excited about.

The warning: The staff is going to be taking a closer look at some of these threads and we'll be more active with temp thread-bans if we think it'll help the overall vibe of the forum. I'd rather we don't have to, but it's not going to constrain any of you too much if you aren't allowed to post about a movie you supposedly don't care about anyway.

Remember the words of Bill and Ted: "Be Excellent to Each Other".

They're just movies, guys. It's about having fun.

Welcome to The Box Office Theory — Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

CJohn

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales | May 26, 2017 | It's better than "On Stranger Tides", I guess

6,593 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

40 minutes ago, Jay Hollywood said:

Honestly as a die HARD fan of the series. I felt I was getting spit on.

 

I think these director are stupid. Listened to an interview on the Empire podcast and read another one, with them and they are clueless airheads. No idea how they got the money. 

 

They say things that directly and fully in contradiction to what GORE says in the Commentary and Making of for Pirates COTBP. Like they are fucks who couldn't even take the time to hear what the director of the trilogy said. And its beyond obvious. They talk in detail about Jacks character in 1 and say things that are legit the exact opposite of what Gore says.

 

Hmm...not sure exactly what you're speaking of, but the following thoughts occurred to me:  If people were this precious about James Bond on film, for example (well, some people are), that series would have never survived over 50 years and however many men have played him through often wildly different interpretations.  Yes, I know we have the same actor embodying the role here, in Depp, but actors also don't like to do the same things over and over, of course.  What might be creatively interesting for Depp in this character, or for different filmmakers (besides the money) may rub against 'fundamentalist' interpretations of the material, but clearly Jerry Bruckheimer and audiences globally still see enough of *something* in this franchise to be enticed to go see it. 

 

I'm pretty sure Bruckheimer and Disney have offered each subsequent movie to Verbinski, and you can't blame them for wanting to keep a very successful franchise going...   I, myself think it would be nice to probably end it at this one...but they probably won't, considering how well it's doing.

 

Edited by Macleod
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruckheimer put the nail in the coffin for depp. sure pirates made JD rich, but he lost on the creativity front.

 

The jack sparrow character is played out...they beat it to death, that now JD is seen as a caricature. It will be hard to overcome this period. But i believe depp is a good enough actor to succeed and be a respected actor again.

 

Now Bruckheimer is about to do the same to cruise with top gun 2. i don't know how these actors don't see when its time to stop and leave these franchises die

 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Jay Hollywood said:

Honestly as a die HARD fan of the series. I felt I was getting spit on.

I endorse this statement 200%

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Macleod said:

 

Hmm...not sure exactly what you're speaking of, but the following thoughts occurred to me:  If people were this precious about James Bond on film, for example (well, some people are), that series would have never survived over 50 years and however many men have played him through often wildly different interpretations.  Yes, I know we have the same actor embodying the role here, in Depp, but actors also don't like to do the same things over and over, of course.  What might be creatively interesting for Depp in this character, or for different filmmakers (besides the money) may rub against 'fundamentalist' interpretations of the material, but clearly Jerry Bruckheimer and audiences globally still see enough of *something* in this franchise to be enticed to go see it. 

 

I'm pretty sure Bruckheimer and Disney have offered each subsequent movie to Verbinski, and you can't blame them for wanting to keep a very successful franchise going...   I, myself think it would be nice to probably end it at this one...but they probably won't, considering how well it's doing.

 

 

Your post doesn't apply here at all. this isn't fucking James Bond.  This is a LEGECY sequel NOT a reboot or reimagining cant just ignore things from other movies and cant change who characters are. 

 

 

If the director TFA  decided to say that Han Solo in his mind would have NEVER come back and saved Luke in A NEW HOPE. Then changed the character in TFA to match what I thought he would have done in his version 40 years ago is not a new interoperation. It would be a WRONG ONE. 

 

Theres a difference between growth and actually changing WHO the character was and saying that didnt exist. 

 

 

 

Also why are you defend them? you have no idea what I'm talking about. Did you listen to the interviews and commentary? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i didn't hate the film (by which i mean it has a fun first half, lol the second half is trash) but yeah i was disappointed by how they did jack wrong with this one. he was pretty much a useless idiot. didn't do a damn thing right the whole movie. one of the good things about the character is never being 100% sure if he's ahead of everyone else or just totally lost but it was pretty clear here.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Jay Hollywood said:

Also why are you defend them? you have no idea what I'm talking about. Did you listen to the interviews and commentary?

 

Why am I defending the filmmakers?  Because I liked the film.  And as someone else already said, you can't take that away from me.  :P

 

I don't know specifically which commentaries or interviews you're referring to, because you didn't make it clear.  But I'm not that invested in this franchise to study every little nuance of the original intention of the filmmaker.  Filmmakers' own interpretations are important to a degree, but what matters is what you can interpret from the film itself regardless of "artist's intention."  And I see some great artistry in this film. 

Edited by Macleod
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CoolioD1 said:

i didn't hate the film (by which i mean it has a fun first half, lol the second half is trash) but yeah i was disappointed by how they did jack wrong with this one. he was pretty much a useless idiot. didn't do a damn thing right the whole movie. one of the good things about the character is never being 100% sure if he's ahead of everyone else or just totally lost but it was pretty clear here.

I see what you are saying and I wonder if maybe that's what @Jay Hollywood is actually complaining about though, that Jack Sparrow looks a bit too slow in this one considering how cunning he has always seemed but I quite liked that they decided to show him at his lowest point in life where not even his famous luck and wit were of much use for him(he still ended up where he wanted though).

 

To be honest this movie seemed more like a set up to get him back on his feet and connected once again to the others than anything else so I'll go ahead and say that I'd like to see a sequel to really finish it all up(yeah right).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Arlborn said:

I see what you are saying and I wonder if maybe that's what @Jay Hollywood is actually complaining about though, that Jack Sparrow looks a bit too slow in this one considering how cunning he has always seemed but I quite liked that they decided to show him at his lowest point in life where not even his famous luck and wit were of much use for him(he still ended up where he wanted though).

 

 

 

 

Its one of very very very many issues. But thats a surface level view of it even. 

 

One of the things The directors flat out said on the interview that jack has NO ARC in ANY of the films. thats why they aren't smart. On the surface sure, but any fan or real director would know and see the character does grow, does change, does evolve in every film actually and his ARC is FREEDOM the ship. They ignored that and we got half assed versions of characters we love. 

 

 

 

On a side note,  It would 10xxx better if Jack wanted to go. And actually helped the plot and played into the story and was into trickery again.

 

instead of complaining about the journey what if he wanted to go, to redeem him self, his name, he sees this trip as a way to get back on top, To free the Black Pearl,  to re-earn the legacy he once had and is in the all the stories of the past 

 

If Sparrow was down and out, ready to die, and no longer the best pirate we've ever seen, then we need to see him involved in his journey to go back to form.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This movie doesn't have a sword fight. It sucks

But Jack and Salazar do have a sword fight, don't they? Or is it too little too late?
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If Gore and Davy Jones came back for #6, and Jack Sparrow was removed, what potential do you guys think the movie would have?

110 dom, 440 os, 550 ww?

Without both Gore and Depp, they could make one on a budget of 150 and get it to 500-550 ww if Davy, Dutchmen and Kraken (in POTC uni coming back from dead is no biggie) are in it.

Spoiler

and it's a decent film

 

Would be worth a shot to find out if they can launch further mid-budget (relative to POTC) sequels/spin offs successfully.

Edited by a2knet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ttr said:


But Jack and Salazar do have a sword fight, don't they? Or is it too little too late?

They do have a very brief one that is hacked up into a million cuts. Not a proper one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2017 at 5:25 AM, a2knet said:

If Gore and Davy Jones came back for #6, and Jack Sparrow was removed, what potential do you guys think the movie would have?

110 dom, 440 os, 550 ww?

Without both Gore and Depp, they could make one on a budget of 150 and get it to 500-550 ww if Davy, Dutchmen and Kraken (in POTC uni coming back from dead is no biggie) are in it.

  Hide contents

and it's a decent film

 

Would be worth a shot to find out if they can launch further mid-budget (relative to POTC) sequels/spin offs successfully.

Gore Verbinski is not coming back to direct a 'Pirates 6'. Once he was finished with Pirates 3 he wanted nothing more to do with this movie franchise, and that is why we didn't see him return to direct Pirates 4 and Pirates 5. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pirates 6 isn't gonna happen for some time.  Let's be real.  Disney isn't Paramount, they're not desperate.  And this doesn't play in China like TF does.

 

That being said, I'm sure it'll get revived sometime down the line.  Old Sparrow given enough time might be enticing.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.