Pirates of the carribean

Which one? The original movie, the second installment or the third? I enjoyed the first movie. The second I fell asleep on and the third I never tried to see.

I liked all of them. I thought they were great fun.

I didn't know there was a third one.

I enjoyed the first one.
But, in the back of my mind I was wondering about Depp, if he was selling out to Disney.
The 2nd one convinced me he had, and only watched an hour of it before switching it off.

Well, of course it's rubbish. What did you expect? That's what makes it fun to watch.

Do they carry beans on the movies?

I think I need a translation of that, Francis?

AGREED.
I paid for a ticket and watched it in a movie theater
until I just coud not take it anymore.
It was very, very bad.

I walked out in the middle,
but not soon enuf.

Its a good thing that I was alone.


I believe that it was made for very young children,
not older than 5, who r influenced by exagerated facial distortions of the actors.





David

No, just read this thread's title..

Sorry, old friend. Early in the morning. I wasn't quite awake.

I loved Pirates of the Caribbean, and i am no ignoramus when it comes to history or pirates. The movie does not purport to be an historical account, nor to be based on an historical account, so that would be a poor basis upon which to criticize it. With it's references to a curse from beyond the grave and a crew of undead pirates, it obviously intends that the viewer suspend disbelief. On that basis, i greatly enjoyed it. I consider that the first movie stands well on its own; the second and third, of course, are only "plausible" in reference to their predecessors.

What is wrong with the movie from an historical point of view? Well, not much, and a great deal. Not much in that i was surprised at the extent to which the set dressers, costume people and props people did all they could to make it accurate in reference to the early 18th century, and that includes the way English was spoken. As an example, people saying "aye" rather than "yes" was very common in the 17th and early 18th centuries, both by land as well as at sea. At one point, the Jack Sparrow character says: "Sticks and stones, Love."--which is very much in the manner of how people spoke then. The two "gay" pirates refer to Miss Turner/Miss Swann (her name was Swann, but she pretened to be Miss Turner) as "poppet," which means doll, and that is exactly the word people used then for a doll. It comes from the French word poupée, which means doll, and is the origin of our word puppet. There were many such careful language touches in the screenplay.

The laundry list of what was wrong in an historical sense is long indeed. The action obviously takes place in the early 18th century, based on the language and the artifacts used. Port Royal was once the capital of colonial Jamaica, but it was destroyed in an earthquake in the late 17th century (1696?), in the time of Henry Morgan, and it was not rebuilt by government. It was rebuilt by private individuals, but a new port and capital was built on the shores of the harbor, which was known as Kingston Bay, and that became Kingston, Jamaica. Most of the city of Port Royal sank into the ocean at the time of the earthquake, which is why Kingston was built. In it's heyday, it was the resort of pirates from all over the world, some coming from as far away as Africa to dispose of their loot in a port which was "safe" for pirates, and then to dispose of their cash in the taverns and whorehouses of Port Royal. However, after the War of the Spanish Succession, the English stopped issuing letters of marque (a license to commit piracy on behalf of the King), and began a concerted effort along with the French and Dutch to extirpate piracy. By 1720, all of the major pirates in the Caribbean had been put out of business, and what piracy remained was small vessel such as pinnaces or sloops which would hide in coastal streams or rivers to dash out to stop and loot a merchant vessel, and then get away before any naval vessel could catch them. They avoided murder, and usually only took food, booze and cash, because they didn't want to attract too much attention from professional navies. The novel A High Wind in Jamaica perfectly describes the kind of piracy which survived after 1720 (although the action in that novel takes place much, much later).

So, you have some serious problems right there with the story, but, once again, one is obviously intended to suspend disbelief and just to enjoy the romp--which i did.

Some of the other problems are ones which would only occur to someone with a special knowledge of the days of wooden sailing ships and the days of widespread piracy by Europeans. The "pirates code" referred to may said to have a basis in fact, but only barely. The oh-so-well informed Elizabeth Swann speaks of the rules laid down by the pirates Morgan and Bartholomew. Well, Henry Morgan did not consider himself a pirate, and would have been insulted. In fact, when Alexandre Esquemeling published his book on Caribbean piracy and it began to be sold in England, Morgan brought an action against Esquemeling for libel in the English courts . . . and lost. I know of no pirate whose family name was Bartholomew. However, there was one pirate, very notorious, whose name was Bartholomew "Black Bart" Roberts, who did in fact have a written code of conduct for his men. Roberts had to get out of the Caribbean after 1720, and he was killed off the west coast of Africa in 1722--an extremely lucky shot from a Royal Navy frigate which was pursuing him decapitated Roberts as he stood on the quarterdeck of his own frigate. Pirates who became so bold that they took a frigate, or turned a large merchant man into a frigate were signing their own death warrants. The same thing happened to Blackbeard when he carried it with too high a hand.

This site alleges to have Roberts' code of conduct. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe that pirates were ever that well organized. There are only a few example i know of when privateers/pirates cooperated on a large scale--the raid on Maracaibo by l'Olonnais in 1667, the raid on Cartegena by Morgan in 1669, which failed, leading him to take his men to raid Maracaibo again (Esquemeling claims that a Frenchman who had been with l'Olonnais said he could lead them there). Finally, there was the raid on Panama by Morgan in 1671 (l'Olonnais was dead by then, having been eaten by tribesmen in Panama three years previously). England and Spain had concluded a peace treaty by then, and Morgan was arrested and taken to England for trial--but beat the rap by proving to the court's satisfaction that he had no knowledge of the treaty. He was knighted, and returned to Jamaica as Lt. Governor, and became acting governor soon after--but, basically, his career was over, because the King wished to clean up Jamaica, and Morgan wasn't helping.

So, the entire theme of some sort of "honor among theives" among pirates, a written code observed by them all, and a council of pirate lords is so much eyewash. Once again, the makers of the movies intend that the viewer suspend disbelief and enjoy the romp.

The ship which Jack Sparrow steals in Port Royal, Interceptor, is described by one of the Marines: " . . . but there's no ship as can match the Interceptor for speed." This is pure BS, painfully so for anyone familiar with sailing vessels. The vessel is a brig, not a ship. It has two masts, and therefore, at least as far as naval men are concerned, cannot possibly be a ship. For the motion picture, they used the American reconstruction of a late 18th century brig, Lady Washington. A well founded brig (and that surely is a well founded brig) can be many things--it can be said to be capacious for a ship its size, and offers the crew more comfort than they would have on other ships. It will be easy to sail with a small crew, and will respond quickly to anyone who sails her with a deft hand. If not being sailed by a ham-handed lubber, she will weather almost any storm you throw at her. But she will wallow like a pig in the best of weather, and the one thing a brig will never be is fast.

At the beginning of the first movie, the character Norrington is being "promoted" to "commodore." There was no such rank in the Royal Navy. Anyone who commands a vessel of the King's navy has the courtesy title of Captain, and therefore, those who have been promoted to the rank of Captain, and are Captains whether or not they have a command are known as Post Captains. When a squadron is formed consisting of several post captains and the ships they command, the post captain who will be in command of the squadron will be given the courtesy title of commodore, and will be allowed to "hoist the broad pendant." If a flag officer (i.e., and admiral) appears, the commodore will be obliged to strike his broad pendant, and becomes just another post captain, although the admiral may allow him to hoist the broad pendant again as a courtesy and a mark of approval of his conduct. This was often done when the Royal Navy wished a post captain to command a squadron which included men who were senior to him on the post captain list, and whom he could not otherwise command. A fine example is Horatio Nelson in 1793 when he was given command of a squadron to support landings on Corsica and to help the army reduce the strong places of the island. When Nelson rejoined the main fleet, he was obliged to strike his broad pendant, and became just another post captain. In 1796, Admiral Sir John Jervis took command in the Mediterranean, and he sent Nelson off to harry French shipping and keep an eye on the French navy, and Nelson again hoisted the broad pendant. Then the French fleet escaped from Toulon, and Jervis was obliged to abandon the Mediterranean. When Nelson rejoined, Jervis allowed him to keep the broad pendant and the courtesy title of commodore, as a mark of approval of his conduct.

So, the entire episode of Norrington being "promoted to commodore" is pure BS. So?

Norrington is also wearing a uniform at the promotion ceremony which went out of style in the Royal Navy about 60 or 70 years earlier--ah well.

****************************************************

The numerous silly parts of the movie didn't spoil it for me. It was a fun romp, and the first movie stands up well on its own. The last two only work as extensions of the first, and they just get sillier and sillier, with the most extraordinary crapola being worked into the plot. For example, the English didn't show up in Singapore until 1819, about a century after the action in the movies is set. Once again, if you're going to let things like that bother you, why bother watching the movies at all? I rather suspect that people who didn't like the movies weren't objecting to it on historical grounds, anyway, as i suspect (and i don't mean to be snotty) that they simply don't know enough about history and about European pirates to object to it on that basis.

As a stand alone movie, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl stands up well to Captain Blood, the Errol Flynn-Olivia de Havilland pirate epic of the golden era of Hollywood (1935?). I know i can't make anyone like the movie, but i thought it was fun. I have no notion of the rest of Johnny Depp's career, so i had no preconceived view of him when i saw the motion picture. I thought he did the role well.

I loved it. Movies with swashbuckling make me happy. A good sword fight can make an average movie over-the-top wonderful for me.

Bravo, well said!

[clap, clap, clap]

As I said earlier, I thoroughly enjoyed all 3 movies and was entertained. Of course they had silly bits in them, but it was a lot of fun. After all, the whole Davey Jones locker thing?

Good escapism.

Them boys can buckle a swash with the best of them.

and incidentallky, depp has said the major model for his portrayal of jack sparrow was keith richards of the rolling stones. haven't seen number 3 but i think richards has a cameo in it.

yep you are right Richards did have a cameo in it. I liked all three movies bit of rough and ready! and Depp was lovely.

So who did Richards play? The Pirate King?

Jack Sparrows Father of course.

I've seen that motion picture more than once, and i don't recall Sparrow's father coming into it.

OK, i checked online, and he plays Teague--but i missed any reference to him as Sparrow's father when i watched the film.