1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Discussion in 'Entertainment, Culture, and Sports' started by koobalicious, Jul 6, 2006.

  1. Buddy Love

    Buddy Love Senior member

    Messages:
    139
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Location:
    http://www.turku.fi
    Now I know why they named it "Dead Man's Chest"...[​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Stu

    Stu Senior member

    Messages:
    2,351
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Location:
    Princeton
    Saw it with 6 yr old daughter.

    Was confused about the ending. Will have to watch the first one again.

    And it is quite campy in places, but I didn't feel it insulted anyone's intelligence.

    Thought it was pretty good- we compromised and went to the matinee...


    I too saw it with my 6-year-old girl. I felt the same way -- entertaining story, but over the top in typical Hollywood fashino, I mean what was with that toe-jam necklace Johnny Depp was wearing when he was the Cannibal God? Yuck.

    The ending had me confused but then I realized it was not an ending, just a teaser to get you to see the next one. I can only assume that now that what';s his name has the heart, the sea is under his control. But if he stabbed the heart, Davey Jones won't be around the next movie and there will be no more pirates, hence there won't be a next movie. I would have seen it anyway to see Keith Richards.
     
  3. retronotmetro

    retronotmetro Senior member

    Messages:
    1,645
    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Matadorpoeta, I think everyone has a different definition of "kids' movie."

    They showed an MPAA all-audiences rated trailer for POTC2 before the screening of Cars that I attended with my two kids, ages 4 and 7. Several kids around us in that age group were visibly disturbed (read: scared) by the trailer, and my own kids stated emphatically that they did not want to see that movie. I would not consider POTC2 to be a kids' movie, based on both my own assessment and the kids' reactions to the trailer that I observed.

    I recognize that different children have different scare/gore/violence thresholds, and different parents impose different restrictions on what their kids can watch. But if you take the time to look around, I think you might find that PG-13 really does exist for a valid reason other than MPAA arbitrariness.
     
  4. matadorpoeta

    matadorpoeta Senior member

    Messages:
    4,458
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    I did no such thing. I never mentioned "foreign cinema" I never dismissed it at all, or stated that "domestic" cinema is better. If you would read carefully I am attacking YOUR ATTITUDES about film in general, attitudes which are elitist, artsy, and pretentious. You show no signs of stopping with this latest post.
    film is a medium for art. pirates of the caribbean is a film made to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and every decision on these films, from th writing to the editing, is a business decision. i won't spend my money to support it.


    Its lame to be haughty and pretentious, and to dismiss entire genre's of art and fiction because of some percieved immaturity, which is basically nothing more than personal preference and a lack of imagination on your part. To dismiss 90% of the rest of the world as having the tastes of ten year old boys, putting yourself up on some film watching pedestal, and announcing the superiority of your personal taste over the subjective taste of all others is as immature as I think it gets. And when opening onesself up for ridicule on such a front, you cannot take criticism of said elitist chest thumping, so you change tactics and begin to generalize your attackers arguments (incorrectly) and paint them to be vapid, brain dead morons, who have no appreciation of "foreign cinema" when in reality it is YOU who has no appreciation of anything other than what your small niche of boring, stuffy friends has probably told you is good.

    first of all, you don't why i like the movies i do, or how i got into them, so don't make yourself look bad by making assumptions. you don't know me. i became a film buff on my own, and i only had 2 friends that shared my tastes in film, but i don't see them anymore.

    i am only an elitist in the same way that people here are eltist toward kenneth cole square-toed bicycle front shoes. the members here generally say they care for the finer things in life and it not unusual to find long threads on handmade clothes, the finest cigars, whiskies, the finest hotels, etc... but when it comes to film, something like "battle in heaven" does not get a mention. instead there is a long thread on a disney children's film that is the filmic equivalent to a happy meal.


    How many asian, icelandic, african, aussie or russian films have you seen lately? Stop trying to hide behind some outdated and incorrect assumption of what "foreign cinema" is about and what you think it should mean. I probably watch 10 foreign movies for every domestic movie I see and I know that its not "foreign" movies that you love, in fact, you really don't like movies at all. You just like SOUNDING SMARTER than everyone else. Well dude, I hate to break it to you, but I LOVE movies, all kinds of movies. So you are going to have to do better than some half baked theory of generalized concepts and prejudices that you've installed so that you can talk to other snooty, critical people who have limited worldviews and funneled perspectives. You've forgotten how to have fun, so instead you put down and mock everyone who hasn't as having less sophisticated tastes than you. I'm just here to call bullshit on your pomposity.
    i saw nacho libre, and i listed the hot chick in the 'funniest movies' thread. i'm all for mindless fun once in a while, in a comedy, but i'm not going to waste 2 hours of my life on mass-produced entertainment as a habit.

    i also saw that korean movie about the korean war which was so popular over there. it was good. i liked whale rider. i generally stay away from african and eastern european cinema because it tends to be overtly political. i don't care for political films. the thief (russia) was good though, it made me cry.

    I mean, your argument, transposed onto any other medium of entertainment becomes utterly preposterous. Do you only watch "interpretive dance" and ballet because they are the only forms of dance that explore the "human condition"? Do you not appreciate anything other than classical piano concertos, and opera?
    Where do you get off telling anyone else that their entertainment doesn't mean anything because it's immature and doesn't meet your standards of high art? Have you ever made any art that explores the human condition, or do you just latch on to someone elses interpretations and ideas about the subject, without actually coming up with anything of your own?


    i don't watch dance, but if i did, i'd rather watch people doing it, not cgi ghosts.

    i have made a couple of short films. you might recall that i made a thread seeking wardrobe advice.
     
  5. GQgeek

    GQgeek Senior member

    Messages:
    17,933
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2002
    Location:
    Canuckistan
    film is a medium for art. pirates of the caribbean is a film made to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and every decision on these films, from th writing to the editing, is a business decision. i won't spend my money to support it.

    I agree with Tokyo. I guess I'm the lowest common denominator. I love opera and classical music, but "artsy" movies and foreign film are just plain boring. Most people watch movies to be entertained. I get enough of the human condition from the news.

    Then again, I did I watch a classic piece of American cinema last night. The movie was called Die Hard. Yippe-ki-yea, mother fucker!
     
  6. LabelKing

    LabelKing Senior member

    Messages:
    25,745
    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Location:
    Constantinople
    Kant or Sartre are not exactly thrillers but compelling.
     
  7. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim Senior member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
    There is a definite place in my life for both "art" films and entertainment movies, what I objected most to was matadorpoeta's belittling assertion that since people didn't share his disdain for POTC by boycotting it, that we were immature or that our tastes were comparitively unrefined (10 year olds I believe is what he called us).

    Basically, he was Kenpollocking in my baliwick, and I know enough about film that I don't feel like I have to take that crap.
     
  8. lawyerdad

    lawyerdad Senior member

    Messages:
    21,820
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    I agree with Tokyo. I guess I'm the lowest common denominator. I love opera and classical music, but "artsy" movies and foreign film are just plain boring. Most people watch movies to be entertained. I get enough of the human condition from the news.

    Then again, I did I watch a classic piece of American cinema last night. The movie was called Die Hard. Yippe-ki-yea, mother fucker!

    Frankly, I'm puzzled as to why anyone feels entitled to claim ownership over the concept of what movies are "for". Some people view them as serious art. Some view them simply as mindless entertainment. Some people spout bullshit about art while really angling for commercial success. Some filmmakers with serious artistic aspirations nevertheless make decisions with an eye toward maintaining sufficient commercial viability to be able to continue making films rather than waiting tables. Very few people, to my knowledge, are "forced" to see movies that don't at least purport to deliver what they are looking for (except when my wife "makes" me watch chick flicks with her or I "make" her go to an action flick), so why worry about films one has no interest in?
    Are the "issues" really different than in any other medium? Is a reading Shakespeare on one hand or Stephen King on the other really more "right" than the other? And before joining battle between "art" and "entertainment", how do you deal with Shakespeare, P.G. Wodehouse, or Mark Twain, all of whom created great art while singing for their supper?
     
  9. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim Senior member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
    film is a medium for art. pirates of the caribbean is a film made to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and every decision on these films, from th writing to the editing, is a business decision. i won't spend my money to support it.

    Film CAN BE a medium for high art, but once again you are imposing your elitist standards upon something that is much more varied and diverse than you choose to recognize. Your small-minded view of what is "art" and what is not, is your opinion, and in no way qualifies you to bash other peoples differing opinions. This is what I hate most about snobs. They always have to be better than everyone else.

    The "lowest common denominator" huh? If thats what you really think of the rest of us who don't meet your exacting standards of taste, perhaps we should bow or salute you or something? Get a grip on reality sir.


    I don't care how you came to like the movies that you do, I never made any claims to know anything about you other than the fact that I find your haughty, pompous viewpoints on a subject near and dead to my heart, extremely irritating.

    Please feel free to mention, start a thread, or bring up in another thread any movie you feel the need or desire to talk about (just like the rest of us do). That would be the appropriate way to bring up the subject.

    Instead, you have decided to come trolling in a thread that you really had no interest in, entering only to insult everyone involved and to generally make an ass out of yourself. There is a difference between telling someone that their shoes or clothes are sub-par, and telling them that they are classless and have the taste of a ten year old for wearing said shoes or clothes. You stepped over that line with your posts.

    You paid to go see Nacho Libre, and you are upset because we went to go see POTC2? Man, are your priorities screwed up or what? [​IMG]

    This is about the only paragraph in your whole reply so far where you clearly expressed your point of view without being condescending or snide about it.

    Again, very well articulated. When it comes to movies, I respect CG when its done well, it opens up more possibilities that would otherwise be impossible or too expensive to attempt with traditional effects. When it's done poorly, it makes me cringe. The difference between us is, I can respect the artistry involved, and you dismiss it as being "for children".
     
  10. GQgeek

    GQgeek Senior member

    Messages:
    17,933
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2002
    Location:
    Canuckistan
    Frankly, I'm puzzled as to why anyone feels entitled to claim ownership over the concept of what movies are "for". Some people view them as serious art. Some view them simply as mindless entertainment. Some people spout bullshit about art while really angling for commercial success. Some filmmakers with serious artistic aspirations nevertheless make decisions with an eye toward maintaining sufficient commercial viability to be able to continue making films rather than waiting tables. Very few people, to my knowledge, are "forced" to see movies that don't at least purport to deliver what they are looking for (except when my wife "makes" me watch chick flicks with her or I "make" her go to an action flick), so why worry about films one has no interest in?

    You're arguing with the wrong man, my friend. I said that I didn't like artsy movies or foreign film, not that nobody else should. I also said that most people watch movies for their entertainment value, which is a point of fact that takes about 1 minute to verify by looking at box office and rental data.

    I'd argue that books, or more accurately, scrolls, codex, manuscripts and books, have been used largely for the dissemination and continuity of knowledge and important works (Marquis de Sade excluded :p). Motion pictures on the other hand moved quickly from their invention towards being a medium whose main purpose was for entertainment. Although people find leisure in books, you could argue that reading is more about a quest for knowledge and understanding of the world around them than it is about enjoyment. There are many people who enjoy reading, but whose main purpose in reading is to gain a better understanding of the things around them and what goes on in the world. It's only relatively recently that books have appeared that serve no real purpose except to be read for enjoyments' sake alone. Even literature, which might be argued is read purely for pleasure, is of educational value. There are many reasons, several of them economic, for why the role of books has evolved in this way, but the facts remain as they are. The primary function of books and their predecessors has always been the transfer of knowledge.

    So to answer your question, I would not say that reading Shakespeare is right and that reading Stephen King is wrong. You have to look at the individual in question. I might chastise my sister for reading trashy novels, but she also reads fine literature and massive textbooks so I can understand that her mind needs a rest once in a while. I have my Dune novels, but most of my reading is non-fiction and for the purpose of broadening the scope of my knowledge. What I would say, is that someone that does nothing to further their intellectual or professional development is in fact a lesser person than someone who does. It might not be PC to say so, but it's a fallacy to believe that we're all somehow equal. Concerning movies, I'd again argue that you need to look at the individual and the totality of their activities. I wouldn't look down upon a professional that works 80 hours a week and then vegitates on the weekends. I might, however, form a low opinion of someone that works a standard day and then vegitates the rest of their life away.
     
  11. edmorel

    edmorel Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    25,670
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Location:
    NYC
    Did you read the NYer review of Return of the King? (A movie I liked, incidentally.) It was one of the great put-downs of all time.

    And yet another reason I've stopped reading the critics on the NYT and the NYer. They have gotten to the point where if it is not some estoeric foreign film or something by Julian Schnabel, they feel compelled to trash it. LOTR and POTC are what they are. I feel no need to excuse myself for liking both nor do I feel a need to make myself feel intellectually superior by trashing them or any other blockbuster Hollywood offering. The money these movies bring in pays for a lot of the low budget artsy films that are always in vogue among the intelligista. Reading them, you get the feeling that they would be severly dissapointed in themselves if they actually allowed themselves to enjoy these films. There is room in the world for "Tsosti" and for "Pirates.." Everything that the southerners and midwesterners hate about the northeastern intellectuals is on display in these movie reviews. So, I'd like to give a big, low-brow, lowest common denominator F.U. to both the NYT and the NYer movie reviewers. Get your heads out of your intellectual asses. Some people go to the movies just to have some mindless, suspension of reality, fun. Believe it or not, many of these people are functioning members of society and know their multiplication tables.
     
  12. lawyerdad

    lawyerdad Senior member

    Messages:
    21,820
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    You're arguing with the wrong man, my friend. I said that I didn't like artsy movies or foreign film, not that nobody else should. I also said that most people watch movies for their entertainment value, which is a point of fact that takes about 1 minute to verify by looking at box office & rental numbers.
    I may have appended my comments to your post for convenience or through inadvertence, but I wasn't intending to argue with you particularly - just commenting on the drift of the thread generally.
     
  13. matadorpoeta

    matadorpoeta Senior member

    Messages:
    4,458
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    I don't care how you came to like the movies that you do, I never made any claims to know anything about you other than the fact that I find your haughty, pompous viewpoints on a subject near and dead to my heart, extremely irritating.

    Please feel free to mention, start a thread, or bring up in another thread any movie you feel the need or desire to talk about (just like the rest of us do). That would be the appropriate way to bring up the subject.


    film, as you know, is very dear to my heart as well, which is why it irritates me to see droves of people flocking to disney pirate movies, while many good films get played for a week in new york and l.a., and not at all in the rest of the country.

    and if steve b. can troll on my world cup thread, i can troll here. but i'm going to take your advice and start a thread on one of my favorite films.
     
  14. LabelKing

    LabelKing Senior member

    Messages:
    25,745
    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Location:
    Constantinople
    The only "trash" I watch is for its camp value, which excludes most contemporary films.
     
  15. Bradford

    Bradford Senior member

    Messages:
    6,708
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Location:
    Phoenix
    I was bothered by the amount of marketing towards children that was done (particularly with McDonald's/Happy Meals) and then to see that the movie was oversaturated with violence and sexual innuendos...

    EXACTLY -

    My wife and I had this exact conversation yesterday after seeing the movie. We didn't take our 3-year-old, because we figured it would be too scary for him and we were correct. We were though, once again, surprised by the number of people who apparently feel that PG-13 is just a "suggestion" and take young children to these movies.

    We also discussed the fact that, despite the rating, Disney is clearly marketing this to young children. We specifically discussed the fact that not too many kids 13 or older would be eating Happy Meals at McDonalds, so all they are doing is encouraging young kids to bug their parents to see this movie.
     
  16. matadorpoeta

    matadorpoeta Senior member

    Messages:
    4,458
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    EXACTLY -

    My wife and I had this exact conversation yesterday after seeing the movie. We didn't take our 3-year-old, because we figured it would be too scary for him and we were correct. We were though, once again, surprised by the number of people who apparently feel that PG-13 is just a "suggestion" and take young children to these movies.

    We also discussed the fact that, despite the rating, Disney is clearly marketing this to young children. We specifically discussed the fact that not too many kids 13 or older would be eating Happy Meals at McDonalds, so all they are doing is encouraging young kids to bug their parents to see this movie.


    i saw a lot of scary and violent movies, including 'halloween' and 'clash of the titans', when i was a little kid, and i turned out okay.[​IMG]
     
  17. imageWIS

    imageWIS Senior member

    Messages:
    20,008
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    New York City / Buenos Aires
    To be perfectly honest... I've seen The Canturbury Tales, and it sucked. I didn't really note anything extraordinary about it. I might have tried to sit through Accittone once or twice, but it seemed so unfocused, pointless, and clumsily written that I don't think I've ever finished it. Never really run across anything else that peaked my interest. Generally Italian film is not my cup of tea.

    I recognize that REAL people watch movies to be entertained, not so they can name drop or discuss the effect of the Odessa Steps sequence in the 1925 russian silent filmn Battleship Potemkin on modern film. Or to think about the existential ramifications of Fellini's 8 1/2. (about the only italian director I've ever really found watchable other than Dario Argento, and occasionally Sergio Leone ) Or whatever it is that people talk about in those cheese and wine parties where everyone basically tries to out-do one another with their meaningless drivel.

    I mean, I can talk about those things, like the importance of Citizen Kane, its social and political impact, and it's being the basis for almost all modern filmmaking. But only when asked. I understand though, that its a pretty boring movie as far as modern tastes go, and without going to film school, or knowing someone who did, most people will never understand why...

    I also know that Raiders Of The Lost Ark may be one of the most entertaining movies ever made, and also definitely not a children's movie. There is nothing wrong with watching movies for fun, and in fact, I consider it to be much nobler a cause than seeing movies because of some quasi-intellectual one upsmanship. I work for a living, I don't have time to ponder.


    Ditto, films like "˜Il Gattopardo' are totally lost on me. Sure, the cinematography is interesting and the portrait of the era is fascinating, but other than that it's just a 185 minutes of pointless story telling with no beginning, middle or end.

    Jon.
     
  18. imageWIS

    imageWIS Senior member

    Messages:
    20,008
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    New York City / Buenos Aires
    film is a medium for art. pirates of the caribbean is a film made to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and every decision on these films, from th writing to the editing, is a business decision. i won't spend my money to support it.

    i am only an elitist in the same way that people here are eltist toward kenneth cole square-toed bicycle front shoes. the members here generally say they care for the finer things in life and it not unusual to find long threads on handmade clothes, the finest cigars, whiskies, the finest hotels, etc... but when it comes to film, something like "battle in heaven" does not get a mention. instead there is a long thread on a disney children's film that is the filmic equivalent to a happy meal.


    Not every film can be Citizen Kane, not every film can be Akira, not every film has to break the barriers of its particular genre or break the standard (thereby creating a new standard) of its sub-genre. Not all films are made to make you think or analyze both the film and life. Some films are there simply to entertain and make money for the studios.

    I'm not saying that all films should be pointless, not at all; it would be great if people were able to understand something higher than the lowest common denominator, unfortunately that is not the case. If everyone could understand "˜art' films, that is what Hollywood would make, but since, for the most part they can't, they pander to the group of people they think will make them the most profit...after all the studios are business and at the end of the day they exist, simply to make money.

    Jon.
     
  19. acidboy

    acidboy Senior member

    Messages:
    21,170
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Not every film can be Citizen Kane, not every film can be Akira, not every film has to break the barriers of its particular genre or break the standard (thereby creating a new standard) of its sub-genre. Not all films are made to make you think or analyze both the film and life. Some films are there simply to entertain and make money for the studios.

    Jon.


    thank god for that. i join the masses when it comes to movies: cheap thrills and popcorn- good times!
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by