Is the newest POTC a "Reboot"?

[littlefuzzy]

Sorry if this has been discussed in the main POTC 4 thread, I've stayed out of there since I don't have the money to see it anytime soon.

I noticed on a few news & entertainment blurb sites that they were calling POTC 4 a reboot. Does this have any bearing to the actual movie, or are they just throwing the term around because there is a different girl in it this time?

To me, a reboot is going from Tim Burton's Batman universe to Batman Begins/The Dark Knight, or Hulk vs The Incredible Hulk, or the new Daniel Craig Bond movies.

I would assume (without having seen it) that POTC 4 is a sequel to the first three (even if it doesn't explicity reference events from them), it still has Johnny Depp, I presume it has much of the same visual style as the first three, and so on. I don't know if the directors/producers/writers/etc. stayed the same or not.

[MutantEnemy]

Not a reboot, just a stand alone story with mostly new characters and references to the earlier films.

[disneyboy20022]

Not a reboot, just a stand alone story with mostly new characters and references to the earlier films.

And possibly two more Movies assuming Johnny Depp stays as Captain Jack Sparrow and Geoffrey Rush as Barbossa

[Dr Frankenollie]

-

[milojthatch]

Sorry if this has been discussed in the main POTC 4 thread, I've stayed out of there since I don't have the money to see it anytime soon.

I noticed on a few news & entertainment blurb sites that they were calling POTC 4 a reboot. Does this have any bearing to the actual movie, or are they just throwing the term around because there is a different girl in it this time?

To me, a reboot is going from Tim Burton's Batman universe to Batman Begins/The Dark Knight, or Hulk vs The Incredible Hulk, or the new Daniel Craig Bond movies.

I would assume (without having seen it) that POTC 4 is a sequel to the first three (even if it doesn't explicity reference events from them), it still has Johnny Depp, I presume it has much of the same visual style as the first three, and so on. I don't know if the directors/producers/writers/etc. stayed the same or not.

Defiantly a sequel. Past films, especially the events of the last, last parts of the third film are talked about.

And possibly two more Movies assuming Johnny Depp stays as Captain Jack Sparrow and Geoffrey Rush as Barbossa

Hasn't Disney squeezed this awful cash cow often enough?

Does that really even need an answer? You know Disney will keep making these films until they stop making them money.

[Scarred4life]

Yes, it is definitely a sequel.

You know Disney will keep making these films until they stop making them money.

And as long as they are quality films, I don't care how much Disney milks it.

[Dr Frankenollie]

-

[ajmrowland]

^You can say the same thing about the Indiana Jones films, but they still entertain, which is one thing movies should do with or without stories.

[Scarred4life]

As long as they don't decline to the standard of the DAC's sequels.

[pap64]

Yes and no. Pirates could be seen as sort of a reboot since all the changes made to this movie were done to address the concerns and complains people had with the second and third movie, such as an overly complex storyline and a stronger focus on Will and Elizabeth.

However, it isn't fully a reboot because the story is a continuation of the previous storylines, making references to them and more.

[Disney-Fan]

Well...the future POTC movies won't be quality films. Johnny Depp will swagger around drunkenly and do a bad Keith Richards impression for an hour, Geoffrey Rush will ham it up, misjudged 3-D will abound and lousy celebrity cameos will become the norm. Nothing ever happens in these films; they have plots, but they don't have stories.

How are these films any different from the widely acclaimed Indiana Jones franchise? Both have strong leads, epic music and scenery and a good old adventure-type story line going for them. I could care less if Disney makes 10 more of these so long as they deliver on what they promise: swashbuckling fun and adventure.

[Dr Frankenollie]

-

[DancingCrab]

POTC is garbage, and you can't deny it.

Au contraire, due to the franchise's MASSIVE popularity and HUGE fan base, your taste/opinion in this case is in the minority...and YOU can't deny it

[Elladorine]

POTC is garbage, and you can't deny it.

Au contraire, due to the franchise's MASSIVE popularity and HUGE fan base, your taste/opinion in this case is in the minority...and YOU can't deny it

Yep! It's all a matter of opinion; different strokes and all that. Many will argue that they are indeed entertained by these films, myself included. I can totally understand disliking them, but I'm having a hard time understanding the point in anyone getting so worked up over the issue.

[Dr Frankenollie]

-

[Disney-Fan]

Have you two been watching the same POTC and Indiana Jones movies as me?

Yes.

POTC is NOTHING like Indiana Jones. POTC is filled with extremely weak leads (the irritatingly unrestrained Depp, the wooden Orlando Bloom, the bland Keira Knightely, etc.), whilst all the Indiana Jones movies have great leads played by great actors, from Harrison Ford to Sean Connery.

Really? Because I seem to remember only Ford's awesome performance, while everything else was merely servicing his antics. Hm, weird, but that's exactly the feeling I get when watching Depp in the PotC.

I wouldn't mind that the POTC movies just had plots and no story or structure to them if they were entertaining...but they're not. They are overtly, pointlessly complex (case in point: 'Who has the ninth piece of eight?' ), they're far too long, and they're also extremely boring.

Far too long? Opinion. Extremely boring? Opinion. Complex? Far from it. I never got all the confusion over 2 and 3's storylines but whatever.

The Indiana Jones franchise has countless likable characters (Indiana Jones, Henry Jones Senior, Marcus Brody, Marion Ravenwood, Sallah and even Oxley from the admittedly mediocre fourth movie), and what does POTC have as 'characters'?

Hm, I seem to recall liking quite a lot of them: Sparrow, Gibbs, Barbosa, Tia Dalma, Elizabeth and her father, Davy Jones, the monkey... Do I need to continue proving to you that all you've stated so far is just one, also less popular, opinion?

An unfunny Keith Richards/David Bowie impressionist

That's just flat-out disrespectful to Depp's awesome portrayal. It goes so far beyond an impersanation and the sole fact that he even chose to go the way of wacky-rock-star for playing a pirate is unheard of. Truly groundbreaking!

And even if POTC had somewhat likable characters, they would've been just as detestable as the already horrible characters were in the third movie as they betray and lie to and trick each other again and again and again for some ridiculous and far too complicated reasons that are never properly explained. I honestly have no idea how anyone could give a damn about what happened to Jack, Will, Elizabeth and any of the other tiresome, depthless and uninteresting characters.

So, the characters being imperfect makes them unlikeable? Sorry but I tend to enjoy my movie characters with a bit of an edge to them.

Indiana Jones is an excellent, witty and exciting franchise, whilst POTC is bland, boring, overtly complicated and filled with unendearing characters. POTC is garbage, and you can't deny it.

Let me show how easy it is to claim differently: POTC is an excellent, witty and exciting franchise, whilst Indiana Jones is bland, boring, underly complicated and filled with unendearing characters. Indiana Jones is garbage, and you can't deny it.

[Scarred4life]

I wouldn't mind that the POTC movies just had plots and no story or structure to them if they were entertaining...but they're not. They are overtly, pointlessly complex (case in point: 'Who has the ninth piece of eight?' ), they're far too long, and they're also extremely boring.

They are entertaining, to me. I don't understand the complaints about complexity, I understand everything fine.

The only interesting character is Davy Jones, but his character was ruined in the dreadful third POTC movie due to the fact his backstory was no longer mysterious and intriguing, and instead was revealed to be far-fetched and disappointing.

Far fetched? We're already talking about a octopus-human who cut out his heart and who crews a ship that can sail underwater. I don't think that they were exactly striving for it to be realistic.

And even if POTC had somewhat likable characters, they would've been just as detestable as the already horrible characters were in the third movie as they betray and lie to and trick each other again and again and again for some ridiculous and far too complicated reasons that are never properly explained.

Have you been watching the same POTC's as I have? (:P) What is there not to understand? And umm, the lying to each other? They're pirates, and they're all trying to get what they desire, as well as stop Beckett from taking over the seas.

I can understand you not liking the films, and I don't care that you don't like them, but some of these criticisms seem unreal. They're not that complicated. And I love the characters. I enjoy their flaws, and I like them all the more for it. I realize these films aren't perfect, but they're so much fun to watch. They have great actors, they're funny, exciting, and extremely charming.

[Dr Frankenollie]

-

[UmbrellaFish]

The first movie was 143 mins, the second was 151 mins, the third was 169, and the fourth was 137 mins. That's exactly 10 HOURS of my life that I will never get back. My point is that it's not just an opinion I'm stating when I said it was far too long; it's a fact.

And just to compare: the first Indiana Jones movie was 115 mins, the second was 118 mins, the third was 127 mins, and the fourth was 122 mins. That's roughly 8 hours. The 4 Indy movies are 2 hours shorter than the 4 POTC movies, and some claim that the Indy movies are quite long. I reiterate, my statement of the POTC movies being far too long is a fact.

Admittedly my claim that the POTC movies are extremely boring is an opinion, but my claim that the movies are complex is a fact.

I'm not one to get into debates, but your definition of fact and opinion is quite off. A fact is that the first film 143 minutes- it is your opinion that it is "far too long". You can use the fact to back up your opinion, but your opinion is an opinion- it is not a fact.

[DisneyAnimation88]

For some bizarre reason, the only very mildly amusing performance of Depp (which became tiresome only minutes after Depp first appeared) was popular, so Verbinski let Depp have even more freedom in the second movie, and then in the third movie Verbinski unleashed TEN Johnny Depps onto the viewers in the locker scenes.

Mildly amusing when it earned Johnny Depp an Oscar nomination? Fair enough if that's your opinion, I have no problem with it, but you're stating it like it's undeniable fact.

Captain Jack Sparrow is easily one of the most annoying movie characters of all time, right beside Jar Jar Binks and Bella Swan.

I couldn't disagree with this any more. Like the character or hate him, he has become one of the most iconic in modern cinema. For me, he's nowhere near as irritating as Jar Jar Binks or any of the characters from Twilight. I'm a massive, massive fan of Indiana Jone but I would be tempted to add Shia LaBeouf's character to that list. He wasn't terrible but his role just seemed very predictable and bland and he wasn't anywhere near as entertaining for me as other sidekicks in the franchise like Sallah, Marcus Brody and Short Round. And the "swinging through the trees with monkeys" scene still makes me cringe every time I watch it.