I recently watched the three Pirates of the Caribbean movies, and it occurred to me that even though Disney pulled off a remarkable feat by making one film (Curse of the Black Pearl) based on a theme park ride actually entertaining, they royally screwed up the sequels. Which is a real shame, if you ask me. (You didn’t, but you may have at some point.)
The first movie, the Curse of the Black Pearl, was a fun Bruckheimer-produced popcorn movie. The plot was simple: bad pirates stole some cursed coins and had to get them back so they could reverse their curse. Adventure, hi-jinx, and Johnny Depp ensue. What’s not to love? (Was that a little gay-sounding?) I had only two plot-related questions, that (correct me if I’m wrong) were not explained in the movie, namely: if Elizabeth Swann had one of the coins, why wasn’t she cursed, and why is it that Bootstrap Bill/his heir’s blood is necessary to reverse the curse? Still, those minor things didn’t detract from the novelty of the movie.
Dead Man’s Chest picked up after Black Pearl left off, but it quickly becomes very confusing. Jack Sparrow is searching for the key to a chest that contains Davy Jones’ heart, but all of the wheelings and dealings of the East India Trading Company just seemed to detract from the pirate swashbuckling and what have you. But there were still some cool, fun action scenes, so I didn’t mind too much that I was a little bit lost with the story.
But in At World’s End, everything totally unravels. The bad guy (Barbossa) from movie one is now a main good guy in movie three. And William Turner, our beloved hero from the first two flicks, is now a bad guy? Or is he still a good guy who’s trying to work every angle? It isn’t totally clear. Everyone is making deals, then breaking them, and it is very hard to keep up with. I like to think of myself as a reasonably intelligent fellow, so I didn’t appreciate the fact that I was confused by a Disney movie. To make matters worse, the storytelling gaps weren’t even glossed over with cannonball battles and sword fights and the like. No, we only got one big battle scene that didn’t make up for the characters that weren’t fleshed out (Chow Yun Fat’s Captain Whatshisname), stories that didn’t go anywhere (the love between Davy Jones and Voodoo Lady), and to top it all of, a pretty unhappy ending where (SPOILER ALERT) Will and Elizabeth get married, but are only allowed to see each other for one day every ten years. Downer!
Still, I guess Mickey and Co. could have done worse… (cough cough)
3 users commented in " The Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy - What Happened? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackbackthe first movie isn’t really all that simple. it was deep, which is why its so fantastic, since it was also a ‘popcorn’ movie. (though i will admit on first viewing its easy to miss some of the details and pass it off as simple)
anywho, the reason swan isnt cursed is because the curse only applies to people who take a coin from the chest. (jack received the curse because he took it directly from the chest). that is also why the curse didnt transfer when the pirates went and spent all the coins. to break the curse, all the coins need to be returned with the pirates blood. bootstrap bill had sent his coin to his soon, because he thought the pirates should remain cursed forever for what they did to jack. because he did this, barbossa tied him to a canon and threw him overboard, so now they need will to stand in his place.
also, its interesting that you call barbossa the bad guy. through all 3 of the movies, pirates are never really the bad guys, the british are the bad guys. the first movie never really makes us feel unsympathetic towards the cursed pirates.. thats why at the end of the second one we arent like “oh crap barbossa is back”, we’re more like “cool! barbossa is back.. he rocks! go save jack!” … the british are the bad guys in these movies.
Meh, your explanations of the curse all make sense, but were they explained in the movie? It’s totally possible that they were (either directly or implied) and I just missed them, I’m just wondering.
But you don’t think Barbossa was the villain of the first movie? I agree that the British are far more ruthless in the sequels, but in the first flick, after leading a mutiny against Jack and stealing his ship, he raided Port Royal, kidnapped Elizabeth, and plans on murdering her and later Will for his own benefit. Doesn’t that make him the bad guy of the film?
Also, the British in the first movie are much more sympathetic; Norrington and his crew save Elizabeth and, even though he does intend to execute Jack, he in the end allows him to escape.
they are explained in the movie, but in pieces, and usually as side comments/conversations, hidden beneath english accents and pirate speech. if you watch the movie a second time you’ll notice how everything is eventually explained and once it is, it kinda makes sense. you aren’t hit over the head with the explanation. possibly this was done so the film wouldn’t have to fully explain the curse, but i found this subtlety to be brilliant.
sure, barbossa was the classical villian according to the plot, but in terms of how they are presented, and viewers emotional reactions, i think the british are the bad guys.
Leave A Reply