PotC: Dead Man's Chest spoiler thread

[mhacdebhandia]

My assumption was that like Bloody Mary she chewed Betel nuts, or a similar substance. Her teeth were not decayed, but rather stained. (As evidenced by similar stains around her lips.)

I liked that look. She was very sexy, all together.

 

[Henry]

He went there to get a drawering of the key because he probibly knew his time was drawing short with Davey Jones. So he wanted to try and so something to break his agreement with Davey ASAP.

The backstory was probably something like, "Jack learns that someone in the prison of such-and-such-a-pirate-warlord knows the secret to Davey Jones' power." So jack goes off to get as much info as possible.

 

[Quasqueton]

Just want to chime in and add my "absolutely loved this movie" comments to the thread.

I like how many comments/plot in this movie really fit in well with the previous movie -- no jiggering around to make it fit. It's almost like it was planned as a trilogy from the beginning. Like how Davy Jones threw the, "And you announced yourself as *Captain* Jack Sparrow all that time."

When Jack was running from the cannibals on the beach, my wife leaned over and giggled, "I love the way Jack runs."

Just all in all, for me, a terrifically fun movie. I will go see it again in the theater.

Quasqueton

 

[Hand of Evil]

Saw the news last night and found out that there were a number of people here in South Carolina that dressed up and went. I have only seen that with Star Wars.

 

[DonTadow]

I wasn't too pleased with PotC2. The first one was a lot better IMHO.

I don't like the way it started off. Unless I missed it, they never explained what that place was that Jack escaped from in the very beginning (a prison of some sort)? Or why he was there. Obviously to get a drawing of a key, but why did he go there to get it?

Sorry you didnt like it, but it kinda irks me that eveyrone wants everything explained. It seems that it was some kind of prison he escaped from. It wasn't important waht it was, so long as the audeience knew it was a deadly place and jack escaped, thus solidifiying his adventrious nature is still intact.

I also don't like how Will and Elizabeth got arrested. Seemed like they put that in there just for conflict purposes. They were charged with helping Jack escape in the 1st movie. Now obviously if that was such a crime, they would have known about it and not hung around. Did anyone else think that Will (and maybe Elizabeth) would become pirates along with Jack at the end of the 1st movie? Sorta like Will embracing his heritage. I thought for sure it would start out with Will and Jack pirating together...

They were under the protection of their father and essentially thought they had amnesty. The movie and this scene also plays a big part in showing the "changing" of the world from these small little nooks and crannies to a more global world. This is an important scene in that it opens up the entire plot of how small the world is really getting.

Other complaints... Jack was basically evil. At the end of Pirates1, he seemed to have redeemed himself. Now, since it is a new movie, they have to make him bad again, so he can once again redeem himself. Seemed sort of contrived.

Well er, he is a pirate. In d and d terms he's pretty neutral to neutral good throughout the movie. He's a pirate out for himself following the pirate creed. There's no such thing as a laweful good pirate. I liked the character a little more in this movie because of that. Greys are always better than cookie cutter in my book. I"m surprised he came back at the end. It solidified that he's still a hero,but he doesnt have to adhere to the alignment. One thing to remember is that in the first movie Jack was forced to be "good" and we really didnt see him in his real envionrment. If they repeated that they'd have the same movie as part one with no real character development. Instaed we get Jack as a pirate in his real environment.

I kept thinking of the animated Sinbad movie (the one with Brad Pitt and Catherine Zeta Jones). It reminded me a lot like that. Sinbad was a scroundrel, Jack was a scroundrel. Sinbad redeemed himself, Jack would eventually redeem himself.

Eh, I go for the real character feel. No one changes their behavior completely over a span of a few years, thus I'm more into Jack maintaining what makes him himself, which is the fact that he's always a wild card. Perhaps facing death will bring him a few steps closer to good, but the movie would abandon itself if it put Jack in goody goody land.

I thought the mosters looked really fake. The undead pirates in the first movie looked a lot cooler. The close up shots of Davey Jones and his crew were actually pretty good, but it was the shots where there were a lot of CGI characters on the screen at once, or the shots from farther away which looked fake to me.

??? Ok, did you think they looked fake or just not as cool? They definatly did a better job with the makeup, robitics and cgi in this movie with their bigger budget. Coolness is a matter of preference. I actually liked the fish creatures better because of their creativity. Anyone cna throw a bunch of skeletons at a party for an encounter but wierd lookind Saughins, man thats cool.

I also thought the action sequences weren't as abundant. The mill wheel scene, them fighting off the kraken, and the fight on the beech were all good, but not really spectacular. But most of all, I wanted more. They were probably saving it for Pirates3.

The movie was 2 and ahalf hours long and had 4 to 5 really elaborate action sequences. They have tomake time to set up the plot.

I did like how they brought back most of the characters from the first one. Even the minor characters you didn't think you'd ever see again. The two comic relief pirates were great, and I almost forgot about Norrington until they reintroduced him.

How Ironic is it that my only flaw is your only weekenss. I thought the DM (director/screenwriter) hand waved some thngs to get everyone in there. A bit too much irony for me but it didnt take away.

Ever since the Matrix sequels, I haven't been a fan of unresolved plots. I agree with the previous poster who said they didn't want to see Pirates 2a and Pirates 2b. They should have made 2 and 3 their own seperate movies with their own seperate plots and resolutions. Oh well... Blame that one on Matrix

That was pretty much it. All in all I thought it was okay. Not as good as the first. I will probably see it again when my friend goes, just incase there were things I missed.

I guess the world is spoiled with too many thrown together sequals to appreciate a good arc. That's been my biggest irking reading some of the negative reviews. (too many dangling plot threads ect). WAsn't the problem with the Matrix trioligy was that they all felt disjointed. Now that we have linking that we havn't seen since STar Wars, its as if no one can hold thier attention spans over a three year period. I got a filling that if the arc isn't as simple as it was with LOTR (ok their going ot hte mountain and fighting sardion) that we won't see many good complex arcs anymore.

The main plot of this movie was finding the dead man's chest. There were lots of innerlocking plots to connect the movies but that was the main one. The first movie's main plot was finiding that treasure.

 

[Aeolius]

...it kinda irks me that eveyrone wants everything explained.... Greys are always better than cookie cutter in my book....I actually liked the fish creatures better because of their creativity....I guess the world is spoiled with too many thrown together sequals to appreciate a good arc.

I am in agreement with your entire response.

The first movie gave us skeletons and, admittedly, the scenes where the skeletons walked beneath the waves were bloody brilliant. The second movie gave us a wider variety of henchmen; personally, I liked "Hermit Crab Head".

As a DM, I like a thousand dangling subplots; some to be resolved quickly while others linger like bad cheese. How well would the second Matrix, Star Wars, or LoTR films done as standalone flicks, I wonder?

Pirates 2 was every bit as spectacular as it's predecessor, simply for different reasons.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Sci-fi poll on Sci-Fi Wire (www.scifi.com) is to rate the movie, at this time, 28% of the voters are saying Too Much Plot!

 

[Agamon]

Though I wasn't a fan of the movie, I had no problem with the ending. Why must movies have a finality to them when you know there's going to be another one? If it had ended like that with no plans for a sequal, yeah, that sucks. But it'll continue, so what's the big deal? I don't hear people complain about cliffhanger endings to serial TV show seasons. You still need to wait to find out what happens. :\

 

[TheAuldGrump]

This movie be brought to you by pieces of eight, and the letter 'arrr'!

I find it hard to fault a movie, based in part on the old pirate serials, for not wrapping up its plots. I had a great deal of fun, I really hope we see more of Tia Dalma (a safe hope methinks ).

Best line - "I love those moments. I like to wave at them as they pass by!' Jack Sparrow is chaotic (borderline between good and neutral on the other axis) and in 7th Sea terms is a Scoundrel with a fair number of scoundrel points. I have pulled out Skull & Bones, the Split Eye maps of the 1600s, and the cardstock pirate ship by World Works games and am thinking about working out a bit more of my S&B/CoC D20 game. In CoC terms Jack is minus a few Sanity Points.

I may see this yet a third time in a week or so.

The Auld Grump

 

[ThirdWizard]

And to think, way back people were all like "A movie based on a Disney theme park attraction? That's gonna suck!" Heh

I loved the movie.