# Pirates of Caribbean logic question MAJOR SPOILER



## KenM (Jul 9, 2003)

I just got back from seeing it, decent pirate movie, did not expect more. However.......................... MAJOR SPOILER
















 Near end of movie it is discovered that Capt. Sparrow does have the curse. If you have the curse you cannot taste food or drink, it will go right though you. So if this is the case, how come when Sparrow is on the island with the girl, he is able to drink rum and feel the effects of it?


----------



## Fast Learner (Jul 9, 2003)

He doesn't get the curse until he picks those few coins out of the chest, palming one, near the end fight. You have to take the treasure to get the curse.


----------



## KenM (Jul 9, 2003)

D'oh.  Thats right.  I had a brain fart.


----------



## EricNoah (Jul 10, 2003)

I enjoyed the film quite a bit.  I did get boggled a little by the supposed timeline.  Maybe it was that Depp didn't look old enough to have been a pirate with Bloom's dad...


----------



## Farganger (Jul 10, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *I enjoyed the film quite a bit.  I did get boggled a little by the supposed timeline.  Maybe it was that Depp didn't look old enough to have been a pirate with Bloom's dad... *




Ah ha, but Mr. Depp is 40, and quite a few pirate captains were in their early twenties!  Though all that sun - based on Captain Sparrow's bronzed appearance - would likely have had some aging effect that a film actor reliant on self-tanners can avoid.   

I really enjoyed the film, as did my wife.


----------



## Velenne (Jul 10, 2003)

I enjoyed it greatly as well.  That was the best Depp performance I've seen in a very long time.  He pulls off Sparrow absolutely brilliantly and deserves some sort of award nod for it.  Not the Oscar mind you, but perhaps something from MTV?  


Seriously though, excellent movie.


----------



## Gunslinger (Jul 10, 2003)

What I didn't understand was how their ship was able to go toe-to-toe with the Plack Pearl.  They were essentially just firing shrapnel, while the Pearl was shooting cannonballs.  

Other than that, I liked it.


----------



## Starman (Jul 10, 2003)

I just got back from seeing it and I really enjoyed it. I agree that Depp's performance was awesome. Most fun I've had at the movies in awhile. In fact, it makes me want to play some 7th Sea. 

Starman


----------



## Larry Fitz (Jul 10, 2003)

When they went toe to toe with the Black Pearl they were indeed firing shrapnel, kind of like firing a shotgun. The Pearl was shooting ball and chain shot. The difference is when you fire shrapnel (or "grape shot") it tears small holes in everything (including people usually) this is why they lost the fight, the chain shot took down their rigging and mast (like it's suppposed to), but the shrapnel did not have the effect on undead pirates (since it is a piercing weapon) that you would ordinarily hope for. 

I absolutely loved this movie, if you want to play adventures like these then run out and get our book _Broadsides!_ (wherein rules for chain shot, grape shot and yes even regular cannon balls can be found) and for even more undead pirate fun, see our new release this month _Pirates!_ (talk about good timing).


----------



## Chain Lightning (Jul 10, 2003)

Good movie. For a while I felt I was the only one in my group of friends who was looking forward to this movie. Everyone was making fun of me when I kept saying, " I can't wait for Pirates of the Caribbean".

Its been soooo long since a good pirate movie has been seen on the big screen. 

I enjoyed it. And yes....I've been in love with Keira Knightley since I saw her in "Princess of Thieves"....ha ha ha.


----------



## Velenne (Jul 10, 2003)

Actually, I had one serious gripe with the movie.  The rating.  PG-13?


Everbody knows a good pirate movie must be rated AAAARRRRRRRR!


----------



## Pylar (Jul 11, 2003)

*WOW*

I came into this movie, thinking oh, it's a Disney flick...granted it was based on one of my favorite rides, but still a Disney flick.  In short  it rocked!  I wish the D&D movie was 1/2 as good as this flick.  The effects were near flawless, it had a good plot, and Depp was on target.  I see myself going to see this one again...and probably playing a swashbuckler/pirate D&D game in the near future!


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 11, 2003)

I felt this movie was the best movie of the summer! Yes, better than Matrix: Reload  (which was superb).  Better than T3 or Hulk (both of which I liked, despite many not liking Hulk).  Simply put, it was incredible! And the number of scenes borrowed from the ride was great.  In fact, it explains things on the ride that never quite made sense before.  It made me want to run a pirate campaign


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jul 11, 2003)

This was the most fun I've had at a movie all summer.  It didn't inspire fierce discussion the way Matrix Reloaded did, but everyone I saw it with really liked it, which I can't say about Matrix.  This is the first movie of the year that I would have no problem with seeing again.  And yeah, it gave me a serious 7th Sea jones.

Minor Quibble with possible spoiler







When the Black Pearl is right on the Interceptor's behind, and Elizabeth tells the crew to drop the starboard anchor, I sat in my chair and said, "Ah, the ol' Crossing-the-T maneuver."  And then they didn't do it.  I was actually a little disappointed.  Was there some reason they couldn't have done that?  I mean, they made the 180 degree turn, couldn't they have just stopped at 90 degrees and opened up on the Black Pearl when it was still coming at them, with no guns trained on them yet?  That's a classic move, and I'd think a pirate fan like Elizabeth would have known about it.  Any nautical types care to weigh in?


----------



## Fast Learner (Jul 11, 2003)

I was certainly confused -- it seemed pretty clear that the goal was to position themselves broadsides so they could blow the Black Pearl away, but instead they... came alongsides? I'm not even sure why they did it.


----------



## Napftor (Jul 11, 2003)

I would have to say that they didn't fire on the Pearl because they were listing too far to port.  You recall the negress telling Eliz. to let go of the wheel?  That's my theory anyway.

The part that did make me say "wha?" was near the beginning when Sparrow was manacled, took Eliz. hostage, and then used that maneuver to escape above the heads of the Brits.  Now, when Sparrow slid down a convenient rope that led nowhere safely to the ground...how in the heck did he throw his manacle chain over the rope and then drop off it?!?!?!

But I also greatly enjoyed the flick.  Music wasn't bad either.  I don't believe I've had the pleasure of that composer before.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 11, 2003)

The plot hole I noticed was near the end, when she climbed out of the window of the ship, using a rope made from clothes tied together:  why was there a rowboat wating for her at the bottom?  They aren't normally kept on that part of the ship. 

And under the "defies the laws of physics but it looks cool" ,  the way Captain Jack Sparrow rode the on the mast as his ship sank wouldn't really work.   The boat would stop moving long before it got to the dock if it was entirely underwater.   But damn, it looked cool.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 11, 2003)

Napftor said:
			
		

> *The part that did make me say "wha?" was near the beginning when Sparrow was manacled, took Eliz. hostage, and then used that maneuver to escape above the heads of the Brits.  Now, when Sparrow slid down a convenient rope that led nowhere safely to the ground...how in the heck did he throw his manacle chain over the rope and then drop off it?!?!?!
> 
> *




I think he threw the center part of the chain over, and then grabbed the middle of the loop with his other hand.    It should have looked much more awkward than it did, but he's a swashbuckler.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 11, 2003)

Depp is a genious. That is probably the best acting I've seen in who knows how long. And since I used to go to Disney ever year, I know the ride like the back of my hand. Was just laughing at some parts because they looked so much the same.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jul 11, 2003)

I was thrown by the manacle thing, too, until I also realized that he could hang the doubled-over chain over the line and hold onto the loop.

The real "plot hole" for me was the when everyone was "forgiven" for their crimes. I just didn't see why they did that -- it didn't seem like one man's desire to please his daughter wouldn't trump all of the law, even if he was the Governor.


----------



## Technik4 (Jul 12, 2003)

I saw it and was NOT very impressed. My experience with Johnny Depp movies is to expect him to be damn-near the best thing in it, and this expectation was met in PoC.

Unfortunately, while there were some excellent parts of the movie, some things did ruin it for me. For fairness, I'll go over the things I liked (w/o spoilers):

1) Great "time-set" language. Hearing pirates say "savvy?" after most everything they say, and most of the other dialogue matching makes it pretty cool to listen to (although see below).

2) Depp rules, as others have said his portrayal of Cpt. Jack Sparrow is awesome, easily my favorite part of the movie.

3) Lots of good ship battles, sword-fights, and zombie fights. Action! Woo.

Now for things that bugged me:

1) Cheezy Hollywood Romance. Even though the romance was the backbone of the story, it felt very very cliche. I found myself muttering the young lovers responses to each other.

2) This is a stupid point, and may not bother anyone else, but its clearly seen from the poster. The main actress's hair is high-lighted.     I mean, this film does great justice to setting a movie in a particular time period in almost every respect except this, and this is thrown in your face very often. She has dark hair and light blond highlights, just like any other "cool" teenager in the 90s or 00s.

3) Orlando Bloom's character was arguably the worst. He was a vapid predictable young hero, and he was far too "invincible" in most of the fight scenes. 

Of course, I do felt I got my money's worth, and if I had the choice I would rather catch this one on the big screen. However, the only thing I'm going to remember about it in 5 years is that Depp ruled and I hated the actress's hair 

Technik


----------



## Chimera (Jul 12, 2003)

My wife and I went to see it.

Great fun.  Good flick.

I was a bit surprised at the length.  Gotta be just over 2 hours, as we went to a 1pm show and were walking out of the theater at 3:30pm.  But that's cool.


----------



## orbitalfreak (Jul 12, 2003)

I loved it!

Went to see it tonight, in between viewings of Sinbad and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (movie marathon, yay!).

It was fun, had nice pacing, and was funny.  Some things were cheesy, but they were done so that they were "good cheese," not "bad, rotten cheese."  Sparrow was cool under (all to frequent) fire, and utterly incompetent; just how I would be if I were a pirate.

Riding the mast of his boat into port?  Priceless scene!

All together, an 8.5/10.


----------



## stevelabny (Jul 12, 2003)

*HELP IM AN IDIOT*

i always stay to the end of the credits, but for whatever reason (probaly too tired, after watching lxg and this) i bailed...

ive since found out that there IS a scene after the credits...
but the people on the other board that mentioned it didnt want to say what it was on the public board. can anyone help me?

i THINK i know what it is, and heres my guess...

spoiler space for my guess
*
*
*
*
*
guessing that we get to see a skeleton jack sparrow in the moonlight, playing with one of the aztec gold coins.  
am i right? is there more to it?
*
*
*
*
im sooooo annoyed i missed it
steve


----------



## Saba Taru (Jul 12, 2003)

*Spoiler*

Better stop reading if you don't want to know about the easter egg at the end.













The monkey (remember the monkey?) swims to the chest, picks up an aztec cursed coin, turns all undead-like again, screams at the camera and lunges at it in skeletal/zombie form.  It was a neat scene, and, in retrospect, I should have expected it.


----------



## Dagger75 (Jul 13, 2003)

FINALLY saw this movie!!

 Loved it. Glad they made a very good pirate movie.  I couldn't believe Disney made this.  I mean throats getting slit, people being stabbed on screen and what not. Granted there was no blood but I was suprised.  Good suprised. 

 Johnny Depp was awsome in this movie.  He is generally good in any movie he is in. 

 I liked the scene with the prisoners trying to get that dog to come to them. Exactly from the ride.

 Just imagine how much faster the Black Pearl would have been had they had sails that weren't ripped and shredded?


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jul 14, 2003)

Dagger75 said:
			
		

> *FINALLY saw this movie!!
> 
> Loved it. Glad they made a very good pirate movie.  I couldn't believe Disney made this.  I mean throats getting slit, people being stabbed on screen and what not. Granted there was no blood but I was suprised.  Good suprised.*



Aren't most Brucheimer movies of later years Disney?


----------



## Dagger75 (Jul 14, 2003)

Oh I also did anybody notice the guy who played the dwarf in the Dungeons and Dragons movies was in this movie.  He was the freind of the guy with the wooden eye.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jul 14, 2003)

This movie was very impressive.
I'd have to say it's the best pirate/swashbuckilng movie in modern cinema (though that's not saying much, and I might be forgetting some).

The plot was surprisingly solid, too - much more solid and reasonable than T3, for example.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 14, 2003)

Dagger75 said:
			
		

> *Oh I also did anybody notice the guy who played the dwarf in the Dungeons and Dragons movies was in this movie.  He was the freind of the guy with the wooden eye. *




The guy with the wooden eye is also the guy from the fantastic British TV show called The Office.  He plays Gareth, and his "homepage" is here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/theoffice/gareth/index.shtml


----------



## TiQuinn (Jul 14, 2003)

SPOILERS!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

The movie wasn't half bad!  I thought it lost a bit of steam towards the end, though I loved the scene with the pirates walking on the bottom of the ocean towards the boat.  Depp and Rush were awesome.  You can pretty much count on them to liven up any movie.  The romance aspect didn't work, IMO.  Especially the ending where the commodore just pretty much says, "Ok, so you love him instead of me.  MEN, LOWER YOUR GUNS!  EVERYTHING'S OKAY!"  Seemed like they ran up against the time limit on the film and director had to wrap it all up within a minute.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 14, 2003)

Response to spoiler!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.




			
				TiQuinn said:
			
		

> *Especially the ending where the commodore just pretty much says, "Ok, so you love him instead of me...."  *




Actually, I _liked_ the way that worked out.  Usually in Hollywood, the alternate love interest becomes a villain who seeks petty revenge on the Leading Man.  Instead, here he's actually a decent guy who, when push comes to shove, acts in the best interests of the woman he claims to love, rather than to satisfy his own ego.  If the blacksmith can risk his life for the woman he loves, why is it so hard to take another guy bending the rules a bit for the woman he loves?


----------



## KnowTheToe (Jul 14, 2003)

I saw this movie last night and loved it.  It was action packed, with just the right amount of humor, and had great characters.  It also had many throw backs to old pirate movies.  My only complaint was the cheesy ending, but it is a pirate movie and they usually have cheesy happy endings.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 14, 2003)

Saw it last night and *LOVED IT!*  Best pirate movie in, what, decades?

Depp's performance as Jack Sparrow was fantastic.  Why shouldn't he win an oscar?  It's only a recent trend that serious dramatic actors win...comedic actors used to win as well.  The story was good adventurous fun.

But you know what I really liked the best?  Nobody had to be stupid for the plot to move forward.  Everybody guessed what someone else said, or overheard it, and there were lots of twists and turns.

"Boys...GO FOR A WALK!"
"You mean you're not going to use the boats?....."

As for the forgiveness aspect, that's probably one of the most believable parts.  What Sparrow historically could have done is ask for pardon, in return for hunting other pirates, or raiding the Spanish and other fleets.  With a letter of Marque in his hands, he could become a privateer, instead of a pirate.  Heck, it worked for folks like Blackbeard (although he immediately broak his oath, and was eventually hunted down like a dog....but that's another story).


----------



## Aeris Winterood (Jul 15, 2003)

*Time..*

Someone mentioned the length of the movie... It was 150 minutes.... I had to go to the bathroom an hour into it... and was squirming the rest of the movie... I cnt believe I missed the credit's bonus scene.... Geees.. I was in the bathroom by that time!


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 15, 2003)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> *I was thrown by the manacle thing, too, until I also realized that he could hang the doubled-over chain over the line and hold onto the loop. *




He did - they actually showed him doing exactly that.


----------



## mmu1 (Jul 15, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> He did - they actually showed him doing exactly that. *




Well, that's what Depp did, but it's not what it looks at all in the shot of the stuntman sliding down the rope, which is probably what threw a lot of people off.

Anyway, the movie was great. Depp and Rush were amazing, the plot was very good for a summer action movie, the sets and the art design of the film were great, lots of good humor... One reviewer compared it, in terms of adventure movies, to the Indiana Jones films, and I don't think it's a bad comparison.

The one complaint I'd have if I bothered to approach the movie too seriously was how long everyone seemed to last against zombie pirates that can't be killed, when in "reality" it'd be like fighting the Terminator - he'll let you stab him and shoot him as many times as you want as long as he gets to kill you in the process... No need for all the "Cut, trust, parry, hah!" stuff, just let the other guy stab you and rip out his throat when his blade's stuck.


----------



## drnuncheon (Jul 15, 2003)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> *The one complaint I'd have if I bothered to approach the movie too seriously was how long everyone seemed to last against zombie pirates that can't be killed, when in "reality" it'd be like fighting the Terminator - he'll let you stab him and shoot him as many times as you want as long as he gets to kill you in the process... No need for all the "Cut, trust, parry, hah!" stuff, just let the other guy stab you and rip out his throat when his blade's stuck.  *




Well, we have every indication that the pirates intended to a) break the curse (thus returning to life) and b) continue with their pirating lifestyle.  Based on that, we see that the pirates can't really afford to get in the habit of letting people stab them with impunity, so they obviously work at keeping up their swordplay - even though it's not strictly necessary in their undead state.

J


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 15, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, we have every indication that the pirates intended to a) break the curse (thus returning to life) and b) continue with their pirating lifestyle.  Based on that, we see that the pirates can't really afford to get in the habit of letting people stab them with impunity, so they obviously work at keeping up their swordplay - even though it's not strictly necessary in their undead state.
> 
> J *




I don't think the undead were totally immune from damage.  If they lost a limb (like the hand that was lost), I suspect that limb would not reattach once they became mortal again.  So pretty much any non-thrusting weapons could do damage to them that might end up being permanant (and even a thrust that was well placed).  Not to mention it might take a very long time for one of them to walk along the ocean floor to return to a shore, if knocked overboard...and they better hope the return to mortality doesn't take place while they are still on that walk!


----------



## mmu1 (Jul 16, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, we have every indication that the pirates intended to a) break the curse (thus returning to life) and b) continue with their pirating lifestyle.  Based on that, we see that the pirates can't really afford to get in the habit of letting people stab them with impunity, so they obviously work at keeping up their swordplay - even though it's not strictly necessary in their undead state.
> 
> J *




True, I'm sure they'd rather not get stabbed (since they actually seem to feel pain, contrary to the "I feel nothing! Not the wind on my face..." line), but going into a fight knowing getting hit will be unpleasant, and nothing more, gives you an enormous advantage against a sane human being trying hard to stay in one piece. Anyone remember the fight at the end of Rob Roy?  

And, contrary to what you say, many of them do seem to be extremely casual about getting injured - they just don't really take advantage of their state, because having them actually fence makes for more entertaining and dynamic combat scenes.  

Still, as I said, I don't think it's really an issue, the movie is an action-adventure comedy...


----------



## Caliban (Jul 16, 2003)

Also, pirates aren't generally the brightest of individuals, and old habits die hard.   (The bright ones become Pirate Captains.)


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 16, 2003)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> *
> The one complaint I'd have if I bothered to approach the movie too seriously was how long everyone seemed to last against zombie pirates that can't be killed, when in "reality" it'd be like fighting the Terminator - he'll let you stab him and shoot him as many times as you want as long as he gets to kill you in the process... No need for all the "Cut, trust, parry, hah!" stuff, just let the other guy stab you and rip out his throat when his blade's stuck.  *




I saw this as the priates having their minds, they were not mindless.  Sure they knew they could not die but what is the willpower needed to not react to it.  I would think you would have to train yourself not to dodge a sword thrust.


----------



## Henry (Jul 16, 2003)

Minor plot points aside, this movie was the best I've seen in six months. I saw POTC and T3 in the same day, and I walked away enjoying Pirates much more.

My favorite scene still definitely had to be Jack sailing into the harbor on the sinking boat, followed by Captain Barbosa looking at Jack a THIRD time, and muttering, "It's not possible..." 

To use an expression, Johnny Depp "tore it out the frame," Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly gave the movie lots of heart and passion, and Geoffrey Rush turned in a stellar performance. To me, it reaffirms that what makes a movie is not gore, profanity, or bright flashy special effects, and that simply telling a good story is still king.


----------



## Henry (Jul 16, 2003)

Also, did anyone else note that the Commodore was played by Jack Davenport, of the BBC sitcom "Coupling?"


----------



## Farganger (Jul 16, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *Also, did anyone else note that the Commodore was played by Jack Davenport, of the BBC sitcom "Coupling?" *




I haven't seen that, but he was the protagonist of "Ultraviolet", a very interesting short series involving vampires . . .


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 17, 2003)

Napftor said:
			
		

> *The part that did make me say "wha?" was near the beginning when Sparrow was manacled, took Eliz. hostage, and then used that maneuver to escape above the heads of the Brits.  Now, when Sparrow slid down a convenient rope that led nowhere safely to the ground...how in the heck did he throw his manacle chain over the rope and then drop off it?!?!?!*



Y'know, I completely missed that...boy do I feel dumb.  I thought it was a great movie though.


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 17, 2003)

It took me until the end of the movie, but did anyone else recognize the governor as Pres. Perrone (sp) from Evita?


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 17, 2003)

Napftor said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The part that did make me say "wha?" was near the beginning when Sparrow was manacled, took Eliz. hostage, and then used that maneuver to escape above the heads of the Brits.  Now, when Sparrow slid down a convenient rope that led nowhere safely to the ground...how in the heck did he throw his manacle chain over the rope and then drop off it?!?!?!
> 
> *




He threw the lenght of chain between his shackled hands over the rope and grab the looped end.  That is how it could be done.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 17, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> *It took me until the end of the movie, but did anyone else recognize the governor as Pres. Perrone (sp) from Evita? *




You mean Jonathon Pryce?  He's done a good deal more than that, my son.  His most famous material, of course, are being the bad guy in 'Tomorrow never Dies', a series of popular car commericals (infinit, iirc), Jack in 'Jumping Jack Flash', 'GlenGarry GlenRoss', 'Ronin', and lots of others, including, of course, 'Evita'.


----------



## Aeolius (Jul 17, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> * You mean Jonathon Pryce?  He's done a good deal more than that... *




   Don't forget "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen"


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 17, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *His most famous material, of course, are being the bad guy in 'Tomorrow never Dies', a series of popular car commericals (infinit, iirc), Jack in 'Jumping Jack Flash', 'GlenGarry GlenRoss', 'Ronin', and lots of others, including, of course, 'Evita'. *



Wow, totally missed the Bond connection.  Haven't seent he other movies though.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 17, 2003)

It looks like there is going to be another one!  Sci-fi Wire...

 Pirates Sequel Sets Sail 

Banking on the success of its Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, Disney is already talking about a sequel to the theme-park-ride-inspired movie, according to The Hollywood Reporter. Disney has reportedly made sequel arrangements with key cast members Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley, as well as with producer Jerry Bruckheimer and director Gore Verbinski, the trade paper reported.

The studio has also begun talks with Pirates writers Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio about drafting a sequel, though no specific storyline has yet been set, the trade paper reported. Since opening a week ago, Pirates has taken in more than $78 million.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 17, 2003)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Don't forget "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen"  *




Even more importantly, don't forget "Brazil"!  One of the best movies of the last 20 years, and he was the lead actor.


----------



## Terraism (Jul 17, 2003)

SPOILER ---




			
				Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> *It looks like there is going to be another one!  Sci-fi Wire...
> 
> Pirates Sequel Sets Sail *



On this note, and I haven't yet spoken to anyone else who sees this as I did, but... when the pirates are explaining the fate of Bloom's father, they say that they strapped him to a cannon and sunk him, ten years prior.  Now, since he couldn't have drowned, is it possible he's still alive?  I mean, ten years - I think that given that much time, someone could manage to get themselves "un-tied-up."  Anyone think this makes some degree of sense?


----------



## mmu1 (Jul 17, 2003)

Terraism said:
			
		

> *SPOILER ---
> On this note, and I haven't yet spoken to anyone else who sees this as I did, but... when the pirates are explaining the fate of Bloom's father, they say that they strapped him to a cannon and sunk him, ten years prior.  Now, since he couldn't have drowned, is it possible he's still alive?  I mean, ten years - I think that given that much time, someone could manage to get themselves "un-tied-up."  Anyone think this makes some degree of sense? *




It does, but only if you assume he wasn't dropped in deep enough to be completely crushed by the pressure. (Although a skeleton might not be... People get crushed because we're filled with water and have a different internal pressure, bare bones might be able to stand up to high pressures better.)  

You'd also have to assume that he was subject to the curse and not actually alive at the time he was dumped overboard. 
Barbossa makes it sounds like the initial transformation caused by the curse was pretty gradual, and it's also obviosuly possible for someone to physically own the coin without having a "share" in the curse (the way Will and Elizabeth did). 
So if Will's father was opposed to betraying Jack Sparrow and the actions of the crew leading to the recovery of the chest, he might have very well been alive when they dumped him overboard... The fact that they needed his blood also suggests that might have been the case.


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 17, 2003)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> *The fact that they needed his blood also suggests that might have been the case. *



I think the fact that they needed his blood means he was subject to the curse.  Remember, anyone who took a coin out of the chest became subject to it.  Since he sent one to his son, he would be subject to it.  Now, Capt. Sparrow took a coin out, and we could see him as a skeleton in the moon light a mere, what, 5-10 minutes after doing so.  Perhaps the deprivation of the senses is what happened over time.  I think the idea that Wil's father will be in the sequel a valid one.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 17, 2003)

I assumed that whether or not Will's father was cursed, he was lost to the sea so badly that he couldn't be retrieved.  They dropped him into the depths of the ocean, and without something to use as a reference point, they probably had no idea where he was, even if he was still undead.

Given that they didn't really understand the curse for some time, it may have been weeks or months before they realized their mistake, and by then it was too late, the sea had probably reclaimed him.  Most likely, he was buried under the sand of the ocean floor, virtually unretreivable.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 17, 2003)

From how I see it, Will's father should be quite dead.  Will's father was certianly cursed, or else they'd not have needed his blood.  From what we see of Capt. Sparrow, the curse takes very little time to start up - it just takes a while for the person to notice, if they aren't in moolight.

So, Dad is undead, attached to a cannon on the sea floor.  All of a sudden, the curse is lifted, and he's quite alive... but still on the sea floor.  Not good for Dad.

Unless you want to posit that Dad managed to get off the sea floor.  But, if he really was a "good man", would he not then have gone looking for his son?  I suppose it's possible...


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 18, 2003)

It would be interesting to see how the curse was worded.  Orlando's characher was imune, as kid he had coin but never showed signs of the curse.  The girl took the coin and having the coin did not affect her.  I think the curse was directed at the 'crew' of the Black Pearl, Sparrow was part of that crew, it is also why the curse effected animals.


----------



## GMVictory (Jul 18, 2003)

I think the curse was upon any who "took" the treasure from the stone chest where it was stored.  Simple possession of the coins was not enough to enact the curse.

Jack Sparrow, excuse me, CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow took a coin from the stone chest and met the conditions of the curse.


----------



## Dagger75 (Jul 18, 2003)

This is just my understanding of the curse, mind you there are holes to it.

 I think the coins had to be stolen, then used for a payment.  Capt Jack may have been captain of the Black Pearl when they STOLE the coins but there was a mutiney before he could SPEND the money.  Granted I don't know why he wasn't cursed when he first stole the gold, maybe he wasn't captain of the Black Pearl, I don't know but he did become cursed when he stole that coin from the Pirate. He never spent it there.

 Will's father would have been cursed. Will wasn't cause he was given the coin, he never stole it.

 The girl should have been cursed cause she did steal the coin from Will.  Maybe the curse was biased towards women who knows.

 Its one of those convient Hollywood curses.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 18, 2003)

Dagger75 said:
			
		

> *This is just my understanding of the curse, mind you there are holes to it. *




You're right, there are holes in your understanding.

The curse was very specific.  Anyone who stole the Aztec coins from the stone chest that was sent to Cortez would become one of the living dead.

CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow foolishly lets first mate Barbossa know where the Aztec gold can be found.  Barbossa leads a mutiny, deposes Sparrow and maroons him.  Barbossa THEN goes to get the gold.  AFTER, not BEFORE.  No curse for Sparrow.  *DING* Curse for the mutineers and THEIR captain, Barbossa.

CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow stole a coin from the chest while trying to fool Barbossa.  *DING* Instant curse.  No payment involved.

Eliza takes the coin off of an unconscious Will Turner...not from the chest.  No curse.

Will Turner's dad took the coin, but felt bad afterwards.  He sent the coin on to his son.  He took it from the stone chest. *DING* He's cursed.

It's pretty consistent.  I think your confusion over the timing of the gold may be confusing you.

As for Will's dad: he should be dead...but if you were an undead freak, would you want to drop in on the son you virtually abandoned 12 years prior?  He could just as easily have escaped his watery prison (10 years is a long time to work on your bonds and then walk across the ocean floor) and gone into hiding/disguise.  But I'm inclined to think he's dead.   However, with sequels...who knows?


----------



## mmu1 (Jul 18, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *
> The curse was very specific.  Anyone who stole the Aztec coins from the stone chest that was sent to Cortez would become one of the living dead.
> 
> CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow foolishly lets first mate Barbossa know where the Aztec gold can be found.  Barbossa leads a mutiny, deposes Sparrow and maroons him.  Barbossa THEN goes to get the gold.  AFTER, not BEFORE.  No curse for Sparrow.  *DING* Curse for the mutineers and THEIR captain, Barbossa.
> ...




Actually, the curse is pretty arbitrary in the way it works - we know that if you actually stick your hand into the chest and take a coin, you're cursed, and that's about all that's certain.  

There are many other ways of coming across the gold that don't involve getting the curse - else there'd be a lot of undead whores and innkeepers scattered around the Carribean... So the magic is capable of deciding who has a "share" in the curse.

As for someone thinking they needed Will's father's blood _because_ he was cursed... How do you imagine that was gong to work, since the undead pirates clearly didn't bleed real blood?

Given all that, if he we was undead, he probably could have worked himself loose and walked his way out, since the gold "called" to everyone who was cursed, and so would have provided him with some rudimentary sense of direction...


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 18, 2003)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> *Actually, the curse is pretty arbitrary in the way it works - we know that if you actually stick your hand into the chest and take a coin, you're cursed, and that's about all that's certain.  *





I'm missing the part where it's arbitrary.  That sounds pretty straightforward to me.  If they made a reference in the movie that the gold was handed out to the men, I missed it.  I could easily argue that they walked up to the chest, and took their alloted share right out of it....that makes sense, matches what they said and fits the curse.  It sounds like you're assuming they didn't, which does make the curse 'choose' who has a piece.  But that makes things needlessly complicated for no particular reason.




> *As for someone thinking they needed Will's father's blood because he was cursed... How do you imagine that was gong to work, since the undead pirates clearly didn't bleed real blood?
> 
> Given all that, if he we was undead, he probably could have worked himself loose and walked his way out, since the gold "called" to everyone who was cursed, and so would have provided him with some rudimentary sense of direction... *




We don't have enough info to say if they're right or wrong, frankly.  We don't know how they learned all the details of the curse or even where Jack got that compass, for that matter.

Presumably, the curse wasn't an immediate change, or they'd have noticed it the very first night.  From Barbossa's description, they went on about their business for some time, until they realized they were cursed.  It's safe to say that they sunk Will's father in this time.  The only thing that doesn't fit that is Jack's transformation from the curse, which I'd chalk up to cinematics overwhelming the backstory.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 18, 2003)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> *Actually, the curse is pretty arbitrary in the way it works - we know that if you actually stick your hand into the chest and take a coin, you're cursed, and that's about all that's certain.  *




And that's all you really need.  The only way to get cursed is to take the gold directly from teh chest.  Coming into posession of the gold another way doesn't do it.



> *As for someone thinking they needed Will's father's blood because he was cursed... How do you imagine that was gong to work, since the undead pirates clearly didn't bleed real blood?*




Don't know how it works, but it's clear it does.  Barbossa explicitly says so.  When he's about to sacrifice the governor's daughter, and is giving his speech to the men, he notes something to the effect of "We have all paid in blood", and then goes on to how it's the lady's turn.  

Will's father wasn't around to make that payment, so the child of his blood must do so.


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 18, 2003)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> *As for someone thinking they needed Will's father's blood because he was cursed... How do you imagine that was gong to work, since the undead pirates clearly didn't bleed real blood?*



Ummm...Sparrow, after taking a coin and becoming undead, cut his hand and bled on his coin, then tossed it to Will. Seems to me that they can bleed.


----------



## mmu1 (Jul 18, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> *
> Ummm...Sparrow, after taking a coin and becoming undead, cut his hand and bled on his coin, then tossed it to Will. Seems to me that they can bleed. *




No he didn't. He threw the coin to Will, Barbossa aimed a gun at Elizabeth to (presumably) stop Will from doing anything with it, Sparrow shot Barbosa, who laughed at him for wasting a shot, Sparrow replied it wasn't a waste and pointed to Will, who cut his hand, smeared both the medallion and the coin Sparrow threw him with blood, and dropped them in. Trust me, seen it three times.


----------



## Saba Taru (Jul 18, 2003)

*Hrm...*

I've seen it twice, and both times I remember Sparrow holding the coin, slicing his hand with his sword, and tossing the coin to Will.  Will then takes his own coin and slices his own hand to bleed on it (all off screen supposition).  When the camera cuts back to Will after Sparrow shoots Barbossa (or however you spell that dratted man's name), Will drops both coins (the slice on his own hand obviously visible), the bottom halves of which are blood covered, into the chest and the nasty captain drops dead.

I guess I'll have to see it again, but that's how I remember it.


----------



## drnuncheon (Jul 18, 2003)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No he didn't. He threw the coin to Will, Barbossa aimed a gun at Elizabeth to (presumably) stop Will from doing anything with it, Sparrow shot Barbosa, who laughed at him for wasting a shot, Sparrow replied it wasn't a waste and pointed to Will, who cut his hand, smeared both the medallion and the coin Sparrow threw him with blood, and dropped them in. Trust me, seen it three times.  *




Watch it a fourth time.   Before he throws the coin to Will, Sparrow cuts his own hand and bleeds on it.

J


----------



## Ei (Jul 20, 2003)

Actually, those undead priates do bleed.  Remember the scene where Eliz stabbed capt Barbossa with the kitchen knife?  When Barbossa pulled the knife out it has his blood on it. 

Apparently, the priates don't turn into skeletons unless they are under the moonlight, and when they look like normal human they still bleed like normal.


----------



## Sam (Jul 20, 2003)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> * Pirates Sequel Sets Sail
> 
> Banking on the success of its Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, Disney is already talking about a sequel to the theme-park-ride-inspired movie, according to The Hollywood Reporter. Disney has reportedly made sequel arrangements with key cast members Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley, as well as with producer Jerry Bruckheimer and director Gore Verbinski, the trade paper reported.
> *




Saw the movie last night.  Easily one of the best action/adventure films in many years!   As we were walking out of the theater, I said to my wife "I wonder how they're going to do the sequel, as I don't see Depp signing on for sequels." 

Already looking forward to "Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Flight of the Sparrow" or whatever they're coming up with


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jul 20, 2003)

Ei said:
			
		

> *Apparently, the priates don't turn into skeletons unless they are under the moonlight, and when they look like normal human they still bleed like normal. *




Will and Elizabeth even realize this and take advantage of it.  When they're all fighting Barbossa and his men in the cave at the end, and they've impaled the three pirates together under the moonlight, Will sticks a lit grenade in the open ribcage of the middle pirate and then kicks all three out of the light.  Back in the shade, their skin magically reappears, and the pirate can't get the grenade out.  He says, "No fair!", and then blows up.

THE ONGOING CURSE DEBATE

A few things were happening simultaneously during the fight between CAPTAIN Sparrow and Barbossa, and they show a close-up of a hand getting cut right after showing Will running up the treasure pile.  It seemed pretty obvious to me that it was Will cutting his hand open (Why would Sparrow cut his hand, anyway?), but I can see how the way it was shot and edited might leave it confusing.

Which still begs the question no one's asked:  Why Turner blood?  Is it because his was the last coin to be returned?  Is it because he was the only one who felt genuinely remorseful for taking the treasure in the first place?


----------



## drnuncheon (Jul 21, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *A few things were happening simultaneously during the fight between CAPTAIN Sparrow and Barbossa, and they show a close-up of a hand getting cut right after showing Will running up the treasure pile.  It seemed pretty obvious to me that it was Will cutting his hand open (Why would Sparrow cut his hand, anyway?), but I can see how the way it was shot and edited might leave it confusing.*




I believe that Sparrow needed to cut his hand (and they needed Turner's blood as well) because they needed some of _everyone's_ blood to break the curse - Barbossa said something about it during his speech to the effect of "we've all paid in blood and now she must do the same!"

J


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jul 21, 2003)

Well, I remember Sparrow saying something to the effect it had to be pirate blood. But apparently it had to be the blood of the pirates who took the gold coins, otherwise they could have just grabbed any pirate who wasn't part of the Black Pearl's crew and spilled his blood.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Jul 21, 2003)

Remember, CAPTAIN Sparrow took a coin too, so he could be immortal to fight with Barbarossa. He needed to pay his blood as well for the curse to be lifted. So both Sparrow _and_ Will cut their hands and pay in blood in the last fight, lifting the curse and allowing Barbarossa to be killed.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Aeolius (Jul 21, 2003)

Sam said:
			
		

> * Already looking forward to "Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Flight of the Sparrow" or whatever they're coming up with *




Pirates of the Caribbean II: Bootstrap Bill vs. Zombie Monkey


----------



## Seonaid (Jul 22, 2003)

Other than Orlando Bloom, the movie was quite good. His character was, as noted before, incredibly unbelievable. I don't remember LotR well enough to analyze, but I thought he was quite good in that, but perhaps that was due to the scope of the film or how good he looked . . .  Maybe he did well in Pirates, too, his acting was just overshadowed by how bad the character was.

As for the ending, I liked it a lot too. I was totally expecting the "jilted lover turned evil" and so it was a lovely surprise when it didn't happen. Dude always seemed like a half-decent guy anyway. If I *think* about it, the ending does seem a bit abrupt, but if I don't think too hard, it works out fine, so I just don't think too hard.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 22, 2003)

Great fun!    All my likes have been listed already so I'll just move on to...







			
				Napftor said:
			
		

> *But I also greatly enjoyed the flick.  Music wasn't bad either.  I don't believe I've had the pleasure of that composer before. *



Really?  Hans Zimmer has done tons of movies, especially summer blockbusters.

See?!   

But seriously, the music was quite good and obviously done by him.  It just had that feel altho it did feel like he had much more fun scoring this film than he has any other in years.  I actually didn't pick up on who it was until the very end, mostly because I was focused on Sparrow and his antics.  

I'll be picking up the soundtrack ASAP.

EDIT:  He had help.  Oops.  Klaus Badelt


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jul 22, 2003)

I thought from the movie credits in the theater that Klaus Badelt wrote most of the music, with others contributing some, and Zimmer served as musical supervisor or something.

And Amazon.com lists Badelt as the primary composer: The link


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 22, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> *I thought from the movie credits in the theater that Klaus Badelt wrote most of the music, with others contributing some, and Zimmer served as musical supervisor or something.
> 
> And Amazon.com lists Badelt as the primary composer: The link *



Yup, I responded a bit hastily.  That sounds about right.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jul 23, 2003)

*Hand slashings and you!*

Talked about the final fight scene with my girlfriend, in which the curse is lifted.  She confirmed that they DID both slash their hands.  We also remembered the bit with Barbosa saying that they'd all paid in blood.  Now it all makes much more sense.

What was so bad about Orlando Bloom's character?  The bland hero is such a stereotype of these kind of movies, I'd have been disappointed if there hadn't been one.


----------



## Seonaid (Jul 23, 2003)

*Re: Hand slashings and you!*



			
				Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *What was so bad about Orlando Bloom's character?  The bland hero is such a stereotype of these kind of movies, I'd have been disappointed if there hadn't been one. *






I don't appreciate stock characters in general, and this film was sufficiently different that I had hoped not to have *any*. Actually, I *almost* hoped that she would go with dude (whose name, again, escapes me), rather than submit to the hackneyed plot. ::shrug:: Oh well. It was still a quite good movie.


----------



## Tsyr (Jul 23, 2003)

Actualy, my big question is:

Ok, blooms character's father sent him a coin. But giving away/selling a coin doesn't end the curse (Hence them talking about having to get all the coins back)... So Bloom's dad should have been hit by the curse, right? They tied him to a cannon, and tossed him overboard... So shouldn't he have still been down there? Or swam untied himself and walked/tied to shore somewhere, or something? It's not like he could drown or starve...


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jul 23, 2003)

I'm betting that the fate of Bootstrap will be a major component in the sequel.


----------



## drnuncheon (Jul 23, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> *I'm betting that the fate of Bootstrap will be a major component in the sequel. *




Hopefully it's not something like this:

*Bootstrap*: Finally, after all these years, the chain has rusted enough for me to get free! (breaks it)  I wonder how little Will is getting along.  I suppose I'd better get walking.

[Two years later.  Still on the ocean bottom.]

*Bootstrap*: Hmm.  I should have made it to Hispaniola by now.  I must have taken a wrong turn somewhere.  Oh well, I'll just keep going - I'll hit land _sometime_.

[Three years later.  Still on the ocean bottom.]

*Bootstrap*: Is that light up above? It's getting shallower! There must be land ahead!

[Meanwhile, Will drops the coins into the chest.]

*Bootstrap*: At last! I'll be able to....(glub).

J


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 24, 2003)

drnuncheon,

I *really* hope that isn't what's going to happen.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 24, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *Hopefully it's not something like this:
> 
> Bootstrap: Finally, after all these years, the chain has rusted enough for me to get free! (breaks it)  I wonder how little Will is getting along.  I suppose I'd better get walking.
> 
> ...



Budget:  $175 million.

Film Length:  2 hours 52 minutes.

I smell a winnah.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jul 25, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> *drnuncheon,
> 
> I really hope that isn't what's going to happen. *




I wouldn't put it past Disney at all.  They've killed Bambi's mom, Lilo's parents, Cinderella's mother, Mr. and Mrs. Tarzan, and Mufasa, just to name a few.  No parent is safe from Walt Disney's evil clutches!


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 28, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *I wouldn't put it past Disney at all.  They've killed Bambi's mom, Lilo's parents, Cinderella's mother, Mr. and Mrs. Tarzan, and Mufasa, just to name a few.  No parent is safe from Walt Disney's evil clutches! *



Well, in Disney's defense, Cinderella's mom and Tarzan's parents weren't Disney's fault...they were just following an existing storyline.


----------



## BobROE (Jul 28, 2003)

I saw this film last night and it was entertaining.

But I couldn't help thinking "Curse of Monkey Island" over and over again.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 28, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> * They've killed Bambi's mom, Lilo's parents, Cinderella's mother, Mr. and Mrs. Tarzan, and Mufasa, just to name a few.  No parent is safe from Walt Disney's evil clutches! *




....and, to follow up on kingpaul, I note that The Lion King was an (at best) thinly veiled Hamlet, so they aren't really responsible for Mufasa - blame that on Shakespeare.

And Lilo's folks were dead when Disney found 'em.  The forensics report on the possible sabotage on the car's brakes was inconclusive, so you can't prove anything!


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 28, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *....and, to follow up on kingpaul, I note that The Lion King was an (at best) thinly veiled Hamlet, so they aren't really responsible for Mufasa - blame that on Shakespeare. *




Or, if you're like me, you'd call it a thinly vieled Jungle Taitei, a.k.a. Kimba the White Lion. (without the Jet Packs. ).

Same goes for Bambi, of course.  Remember that it, and Dumbo, were based on books.  Disney only has a handful of material that they can claim was actually their own ideas, ultimately, as good as their treatements may or may not be.

Like it or not, removing one or more parents makes a quick shorthand for conflict and drama in a story...it makes love interests easy to set up (i.e. the Parent Trap), makes inter-family conflict fast and understandable (and ultimately repairable) and lowers the amount of characters needed in the plot (it's much easier to occupy one parent than two).


----------



## MaxKaladin (Jul 29, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *Like it or not, removing one or more parents makes a quick shorthand for conflict and drama in a story.*




One of the people in my gaming group is an author who writes young adult books and she tells me one of the the first rules of her genre is "get rid of the parents" as this clears the way for the kids to do things.


----------



## Enchantress2 (Jul 30, 2003)

Here are my thoughts.  Hold on tight. 

First of all, I LOVED this movie!  Depp is wonderful! Everyone must sing his praises!  Definitely smell a sequel coming on, and I couldn't be happier.  I knew that it was gonna be cheesy in some parts ever since I saw the trailer. "They've taken Elizabeth, we MUST save her!"  Oh, please...

Fav. quotes and scenes:

"But why is the RUM gone??!!!

Any scene with Depp in it counts as a favorite, even if he wasn't the center of attention, he just stole the show.

"I don't think I deserved that."
"I may have deserved that."

"Elizabeth, darling, I'm so sorry, but it would never work out between us."

"Stop blowing holes in my ship!"

"PARLET!"

And many, many more but my brain hurts to remember them all.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Aug 4, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Which still begs the question no one's asked:  Why Turner blood?  Is it because his was the last coin to be returned?  Is it because he was the only one who felt genuinely remorseful for taking the treasure in the first place? *




Easy. The answer lies in Captain Sparrow cutting himself before he threw the coin to Will.

Everyone who stole a coin had to put it back and pay a price in blood. So as the other coins were returned we can assume each one of the pirates cut himself and bled into the chest as his payment.

The reason they needed Will's blood was because they didnt have his father and his was the last blood not in the chest.


----------



## Enchantress2 (Aug 4, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Easy. The answer lies in Captain Sparrow cutting himself before he threw the coin to Will.
> 
> ...




I think that was one of the best explanations in the whole thread.  Bravo!!!


----------

