***Official "PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN" Discussion Thread - Page 4

Well, they somewhat imply this but there is a definite usage in the film that varies on this.

He puts the bomb in the guy's chest via skeleton entry, then pushes them (3 are stuck together) back into the shadows and the guy says "no fair" as if to IMPLY that he couldn't then reach in to his body to grab the bomb back out.

So it might be that when they say "show us for what we are" it means more of a transformation than just uncovering an illusion. They are always undead but under moonlight they are actual skeletons when otherwise they are just people that can't die but have tissue over the skeleton.

I'm not saying that 100% for sure is true. It just seemed like the writers used it that way during that scene.



As Matt said, the film seems to strongly imply that Barbosa dies because the wound has not had time to heal yet before the curse is lifted. So in effect when the curse is lifted he returns to being fully human but still with a hole in his body, thus the blood then begins to pour out when it obviously would have while he was taunting Jack about wasting his one shot (even if you thought the events were out of order, which I feel certain they were not because of this blood effect).


I noticed the 2nd time that they explicitly say the treasure has to be taken from the stone chest for the curse to fall upon you. I still assumed that Bootstrap took a stolen piece and mailed it away, but I don't see how that would require his blood.

So instead I suppose that Bootstrap has been trapped beneath the ocean and died when the curse was lifted? Not sure I think that was the story either because I think he could have escaped after some 10 or more years if he were the undead.



BTW, the pirates do have BLOOD because we see it on the knife after she stabs Barbosa. And the pirates do make a statement that says that they have gathered back all their pieces (which is the rampage they had been on of course) and put their own blood in.



Robert, I know they realized after they dumped Bootstrap, but depending on his involvement (cursed or not) how would they have EVER found out this info before returning the last piece. Meaning if Bootstrap was not cursed and therefore really dead, then why would the pirates even suspect that they needed his blood since he didn't take one of the pieces out of the box? After all, its not like they put all the pieces back AND THEN realized something else was needed. They were actively looking for Will Turner's family AND the gold to end the curse.

So again that leads to Will being left "alive" at the bottom of the ocean for some period of time. Either he escaped before the curse was lifted or was killed when it was. Funny this wasn't mentioned at all in the film as a possible outcome/plotline. Heck, wouldn't the undead pirates just go walking around the bottom of the ocean looking for him where they dumped him (roughly)?


I completely agree with this statement. I don't think new films need to be better/bigger than I've ever seen before and I wish the focus would shift away from that somewhat.

What a incredibly fun film!!
It is one where you don't overthink it, just sit back and enjoy it.

I've got a question for everyone who has complained about the film's length: If you were paring it down to an "appropriate" length, what scenes would you choose to cut?

I'd cut most of the stuff that had to do with the 2 Birtish soldiers and the 2 buddy pirates. The lead cast did a fine job bringing levity to the action, why have 2 additional comic relief bits that were mostly unfunny groaners anyway?

But I'd put in some longer cuts in the action scenes so my overall running time would balance out. I saw it a second time and when the BP first attacks I can't forgive the editing when a cannon is fired and it cuts directly to an explosion without a cool whistling cannonball moment in between.

Just came from watching Pirates. It was okay, not as good as the rave reviews make it out to be. The movie does drag after awhile, but Johnny Depp's performace as Jack Sparrow does keep the film watchable.

I have one question. Does the film just start without the Disney studio logo? I ask this because in the theater I was in the 5.1 sound wasn't working and I wanted to know if this was intentional and not a mistake on the projectionist's part.

Yeah, the main problem I had with the movie was that I felt the movie was pulling its punches a bit by overloading the comic relief. It really made it feel like a Disney animated feature done as live action, with all the cartoony goofballs popping up and taking the edge off things. Not that Disney cartoons are bad or anything, but I was hoping for something slightly edgier, more like Raiders of the Lost Ark.

I didn't have any problem with the length of it, though. that felt fine to me

Yes, not a fault of the projectionist.

I just heard on the radio news this morning that Disney has completed deals with Depp, Knightley and Bloom for a Pirates of the Caribbean II. No mention of Rush, but then, I have not seen the movie so not sure what happens to him.


Peace Out~

I guess I am one of the few that hated this film. I thought it was very boring, had no real drama and way too much forced humor.

0 out of 5 stars here. I wanted to leave within 15 minutes of the movie.....wish I would have.

Ron-P,

I heard they have Rush for the sequel too.
I saw it last night and thought it was great too.

As far as taking young kids, I have 2 daughters 6 and 12.
My 6 year old has been asking me to take her since she saw the 1st commercial on tv. My 12 year old has been back and forth.

I wound up just taking me 6 year old last night.
She isn't afraid of anything.
She wasn't the least bit scared of the movie.
I think the movie would have scared my 12 year old more because she would have had nightmares.
Younger kids don't know enough yet to be afraid.

There was a lot of sword fighting but hardly any blood or gore. The skeletons were more comical than scary.

Here's an interesting chart of Pirate movies from 1980 to the present and how they have done. And here's a chart of Swashbuckler's. with some Pirate films included.

Great movie, absolutely loved it!

A quick thought though. Did any of you think that Sparrow was Will's father for any time? I immediately did when Will first rescued Sparrow and he perked up and got interested when Will told him his name was Turner (My mom even leaned over and said she bet Jack was his father).

And later on, Sparrow tells Will that his father's nickname was Bootstrap. This is also what Barbosa's pirates say to Sparrow when they first find him in the lockup. They say something along the lines of "Bootstrap, last we saw you, you were screaming on that island we left you on."

Plus Sparrow cuts his hand right before he puts the coin in his palm at the end, leading you to think his blood would cure the curse.

I realize that Sparrow isn't his father since they didn't eve outright say it, but the movie certainly did have me thinking it!

Bring on the DVD and the sequel!

Except Bootstrap Bill was cursed (though his body and blood were apprently unretrievable), and when the pirates reached through the grates at him, they were revealed as skeletons and he wasn't.

Good point Jason, I had forgotten about that.

Still though, you get what I was getting at right?

Here's a good pic of Miss Knightly at the premiere, from IMDB,

http://us.imdb.com/EGallery?source=g...246359_400.jpg

Man, living in the same world as both Natalie Portman and Keira Knightly is a very good thing.

Wow, so there IS money in piracy! Guess the MPAA has nothing to fear about the Internet after all

That's because his blood was NOW needed to lift the curse. He became undead to help win the fight and he did this by stealing a piece of gold from the chest (he palms one when he picks up a handful). That piece with his blood had to be returned to the chest along with Will's blood of course.

Seth, that is true, but someone not paying attention that well, or that hadn't figured out the "rules" of the curse, aka, my Mom, would think he did it for another reason.

Did anyone else hear about the kid that tried to recreate the Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) and ended up killing himself. Now the father of the kid got the FBI to investigate the movie and we all know that once Disney gets questioned they will edit the movie. When will people stop putting the blame on everyone and everything else?

Jassen, I'm speechless.

I mean, who could ever consider that to be a stunt worth imitating? Why not just try to imitate Neo and jump between skyscrapers?

It's not like that's an original scene, either. It reminded me quite a lot of a similar scene in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

These people just don't want the world to know they're shitty parents who raised a braindead moron.

Actually, a friend of mine said that the dialog was rather reminicent of "Hang em High"...

Jason

Sequels!!!!!!!! We know who well they've done this summer.

There's another hopeful for this years Darwin Awards.

I dunno, sounds urban legend-y to me.

//Ken

I think you may be right.

Although reputable, I could only find this one story link:

http://www.wnbc.com/news/2335626/detail.html

I would have thought this would have appeared on more news sites, or at least on the AP.

That helped me find more detail from the local paper. The local police looked into it, but no mention of the FBI.

//Ken

As for the curse, I assumed Bootstrap's blood couldn't be retrived becase of what they did to him. They strapped him to the end of a cannon and pulled the trigger. The movie clearly showed that while the pirates were immortal, they could still be broken to bits (arm getting bashed off, pirates being blown up by a bomb), so this is what I assumed happened to Bootstrap. Tie him to the front of a cannon over the ocean, pull the trigger, and you've got little bits of Bootstrap over about an acre of ocean. Hard to recover any blood from that to use.

Why did they have to use Bootstrap's blood or his son's? This is the only thing I did not understand.