DVDizzy Forum

-

I think for me, the Academy Award nomination was a milestone for Depp, not just because it was his first nomination, but because an actor was being nominated for their role in a blockbuster pirate film based on a Disney theme park ride. I agree to some extent with what you said about the Oscars, but I think that there is still a lot of prestige that surrounds those who are nominated and that there is something very unique and brilliant about Depp's performance that warranted his nomination. While I personally think that he deserved the nomination, I'm still surprised that he received one when actors from other blockbuster film franchises were overlooked, like Sean Astin and Viggo Mortensen for the Lord of the Rings. I'm not disputing your opinion regarding the character but I think that the nomination was justification for Depp's conviction of how he should play the character, even if it went against the corporate suits at Disney.

I'm reading a lot of repetition about Depp supposedly doing nothing more than an unfunny Keith Richards/David Bowie impression, which does little to convince anyone that it is so. Many will still beg to differ and whatever reasons they happen to give are plenty valid since they are, after all, personal opinions. People are more than welcome to claim that the Jack Sparrow character is annoying until they're blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that enough people enjoy the character to the point that he has become a film icon. Is it that some are so resentful over the series' popularity that they not only feel the need to shred it every chance they get, but that they must talk down to the fans as well?

I'm not a fan of Twilight, but thanks to certain members of my family I've seen the films. I don't indignantly lash out at them or any of the other fans for being tasteless though, nor do I search for places to make those arguments. I can totally understand the claim that it's overrated but it's pointless to waste a good chunk of my life fretting over it.

Film critic hobby or not, I don't see a need for anyone to subject themselves to not just one film, but an entire series they apparently despise so much solely for the sake of criticizing it. And then have to go on to complain about nearly every aspect imaginable, including the ten hours of their life they'll never get back. But to be fair, portions of this thread are minutes of my life that I'll never get back, so what do I know?

Dr Frankenollie wrote:You only remember Ford's performance?! Sean Connery and Denholm Elliott were brilliant. And although a few cast members were merely servicing his antics, that's what supporting characters often are (the clue is in the name 'supporting.')

For you I truly believe they were. For me they were bland characters that only made Ford's performance seem that much more awesome.

Dr Frankenollie wrote: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.

Still mixing those facts and opinions hu? A movie could run 24 hours straight and still be considered "short". Why, you ask? Because it really comes down to one's opinion about if the runtime was justified or not.

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

No, because you have posters right here in this thread claiming otherwise, ergo it's just one more opinion.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:I'm mildly amused by the fact that you just say that they're 'far from it', whilst I actually gave a quote as evidence.

Your quote is hardly evidence since to best my recollection it served as nothing but an amusing one-liner in the movie. How complex is it to "get" a joke about nine pieces of eight? It's called irony, look it up...

Dr Frankenollie wrote:I'll admit that Gibbs, Elizabeth's father and even Davy Jones are slightly, occasionally endearing, but not as much as the Indy characters.

I feel like a broken record at this point but again, that's YOUR opinion. I find them more enjoyable than the Indy characters but can see why you would claim differently.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:The original POTC director, Gore Verbinski, was amused when Depp played around on set, pretending to be a pirate Keith Richards. But then Verbinski told him to do it for the entire movie. Verbinski was fine with it, and didn't restrain him. 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.

Heaven fordbid that if something works for a certain movie, they'll keep on giving that thing to the audience? What a ridiculous proposition hu?

Dr Frankenollie wrote:In the fourth movie, Depp was still not restrained in the slightest. If someone like Gilliam or Burton directed the POTC movies (but those two intelligent and creative directors would never be involved with the movies), then they would've known when to stop. Captain Jack Sparrow is easily one of the most annoying movie characters of all time, right beside Jar Jar Binks and Bella Swan.

Again, annoying and unrestrained... All describe feelings and, well, OPINIONS. Are you starting to see the big picture here?

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Now you're not even taking this seriously.

Of course not! How can I when all your posts claim to be passing on opinions as true-to-life undeniable facts?

If you don't mind my blunt honesty, Dr Frankenollie, no one here is forcing you to enjoy the Pirates series and no one is showing resentment towards your dislike of the franchise. What we are arguing is the fact that no matter how we explain it to you, you keep on dissing the Pirates franchise for the sole fact that people enjoy it and it is popular. Even worse, you are trying to force your opinion as fact, making statements like "you can't deny that" and "it's a fact".

No, your opinion will NEVER be a fact. Our opinions will never be a fact either. That's why opinions are formed by out own knowledge and perception of reality. It is how WE view things, how WE interpret them and how WE apply them to our life. They can be argued, accepted and yes, even rejected, but they will never be a fact.

Art appreciation is something that is very subjective. The same logic applies to movies. What may be deep and meaningful to someone may be boring and stupid to someone else. And you know what? THAT IS OK.

The Pirates film franchise was never intended to be high end cinema. As much as it tries to add some depth to the conflicts the characters face, in the end it is all about the action and silliness of it all. It's sorta like the Indiana Jones franchise you constantly mention over and over. Indiana Jones may be considered to be high art by many, but let's not forget that the series was inspired by silly film serials with a very strong emphasis on action and adventure rather than just story.

The Indiana Jones movies even have their own share of dumb moments that defy the logic behind "high art cinema" as shown here:
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BkNHxQ3aqAg" frameborder="0"></iframe>

And yet, no one minds, no one cares because in the end, a lot of people like them like that. And they are not right or wrong in that train of thought.

That's basically what we are arguing here. It's not the fact that you don't like the series that bothers us, it's that you are so adamant in trying to prove to people that your opinions are justifiable as fact that it becomes obnoxious.

Learn to back off a bit and realize that while you have the right to state your opinion you also have to remember that you have to be respectful of the people that do, regardless of how much you love or hate the film in question.

-

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

ajmrowland wrote:^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.

Disney-Fan wrote: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.

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

Simple, fun, nostalgic action-adventures that amount to little more than popular popcorn flicks? that's one thing the fourth pirates movie has in common with IJ.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

DancingCrab wrote: 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

You know what other franchises are massively popular and have huge fan bases? Twilight and Friedberg/Seltzer's 'Movie' series. Modern movie audiences are tasteless. But you're right, I can't deny the fact that my opinion is in the minority.

But Pirates's popularity has lasted longer. It's longevity that solidifies a property, not screaming girls and fart jokes.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:Mildly amusing when it earned Johnny Depp an Oscar nomination?

The Academy Awards is a joke; it always has been and it always will be. I do agree with your opinion on Shia LaBeouf's character in Indiana Jones 4 however.

But sometimes the *do* get something right. That's a rare occassion, but they struggle to please everybody.

Oh, and by the way, I'm seeing a lot of misuse of the word "complex" from a lot of people. It doesnt really mean "hard to get" or "complicated".

Thanks for all the replies, folks! My computer died about a day after I posted it, and I haven't been able to check back for a while.