Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DonTadow" data-source="post: 2940355" data-attributes="member: 22622">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. 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. 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.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. ??? 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. 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. 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. 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.</blockquote>

Verification