Pirates of the Carribean Movie???

[VintageKnight]

hey I saw a mention that one of the new projects industrial light and majic was working on(new star wars insider) was a Pirates of the Caribian Movie...

anyone heard anything else about this???

VK

 

[lrodk]

John Knoll will be doing the work for ILM on Pirates. He joined ILM in 1986 and is also known as the co-creator of Photoshop along with his brother Thomas. He first applied the new techniques on The Abyss which was the first modern CG FX film. He has worked on such projects as Hook, Star Trek: Generations, Star Trek: First Contact, Mission Impossible, Mission to Mars and both Star Wars prequels. ILM is expected to create hundreds of f/x shots for Pirates, tackling a mix of digital characters and set pieces.

 

[d-r]

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=270509

 

[lrodk]

Here's a link to a picture of one of the ships currently being used in the film:

http://www.picturelist.com/auctions/showimagez.asp?user=lrodk&pic=pirate.jpg

DarkHorizons reports the following description of this set:

"This is the boat that James Norrington (the villian/hero/villian) is in command of. The filming that was taking place on the boat at the time of the picture being taken of it was young Will (Orlando Bloom's character) is found floating in the ocean amoungst reckage of another ship and is rescued.
The ship itself is basically a floating bardge, tugboats have to pull it away from the dock and out to sea and back again. The reason it has large sections missing is to accomidate the camera's/equiptment being braught on board.

It's complete with a "rest area" set(a section where the navel officers would go and sleep). But the cast and crew used it - extras basically got paid for 2 days to sleep on set in a hammock."

 

[VintageKnight]

Ok i"m wondering if i should like you guys or not anymore

I liked peal harbor, tho i wasn't expecting a "blockbuster" film i never do in war films, actually any film that has more explosions than actors with speaking lines....

I have bought both the video and dvd of pearl tho only for the flight scenes you dont get to see that nice of flying any more (yes i realize all the large shots of jap fighters (and explosions shots)were fake, but those were real british spitfires, real ME109's, real P-40's, and real Jap Zero's even tho the zero's were factory new out of canada.

Im only 26, well 27 in a few hrs, but i learned early that this life is reality, not perfection...

and you guys are whining this much over movies that under no circumstance could have met up with expectations and a movie that hasnt even finished filming, let alone post production.

lighten it up a little.


by the way if you have no idea why i wrote this read the above links.


VK

 

[Another Voice]

Well I’m more than a little beyond 27 and I learned even longer ago that life isn’t perfection – but that’s no excuse to stop trying.

The reason we “whine” is because Disney (read as Michael Eisner) has a habit of spending lots and lots of money on poor projects while squeezing the pennies out of the good ones. I, for one, am tired of sitting in theaters watching really bad movies – and watching really good scripts rot away in filing cabinets.

It was clear that ‘Pearl Harbor’ was going to be a miserable movie to anyone who read the script before the movie started production. But that didn’t stop them from dumping over $200,000,000 into production and marketing on it. Rather than making a good movie, they focused on duping the public into seeing the bad movie they chose to make. In the meantime, a lot of really good films were canned (like that little movie trilogy called ‘The Lord of the Rings’) because those were too expensive. That decision hurt both the audience and Disney.

The same thing has happened with ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’. Another very weak script padded out with a lot of explosions and PG-rated semi-violence. If the movie would have been made for $20 million I would not have minded. But the current “rumored” production cost for this piece of flotsam is now over $160 million and climbing. With marketing, Disney will pour well over a quarter billion dollars on this project. Is this the best way of spending what little cash Disney has to throw around?

Worse is that the money to make Bruckheimer’s “nuclear cannonballs” (that’s how they’re being described) comes at the expense of other more worthwhile films. Disney’s best and more profitable movies have been a series of inexpensive and moderate films – ‘The Rookie’, ‘Signs’, ‘Sweet Home Alabama’. ALL of their big budget action films are both critical and financial disasters.

What would you rather see for the same amount of money – six really good movies or one really bad movie. How Eisner is choosing to answer that question is why we whine.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by VintageKnight
Ok i"m wondering if i should like you guys or not anymore

I liked peal harbor, tho i wasn't expecting a "blockbuster" film i never do in war films, actually any film that has more explosions than actors with speaking lines....


and you guys are whining this much over movies that under no circumstance could have met up with expectations and a movie that hasnt even finished filming, let alone post production.

lighten it up a little.

Too bad you missed Band of Brothers now that was a great blockbuster type war movie ...well it was really a series on HBO that was worth every penny they poured into it and more. So was Saving Private Ryan to a lesser degree. Too bad we can't get more movies/series like these.

 

[VintageKnight]

try a "Piece of Cake"
Band of Brothers was awsome just got the dvd version and foun a Peice of Cake also

Cake was a britsh mini series 1988 about a made up spitfire squadron durig the battle of britain....

piece of cake will run ya about 55 for dvd. BoB will run about 85 (depending were ya get it )

saving private ryan was also very good in my opinion.

and "Another Voice"....what your saying is your opinion but look at what you wrote, everything your saying about pirates is past tense...IT HASN"T BEEN RELAEASED YET. please bash the final product, have hope....

or just lighten up


VK

 

[BRERALEX]

knowing AV he probably saw the movie.......like twice

 

[Another Voice]

Well the movie is still being shot, but I have read the script that’s been making its way around town (capsule review –all plot, no story). There are rumblings that a fifth and sixth set of writers have been brought in to “doctor” the script (Hollywood talk for “fixing”) but the final product won’t be too much different.

You can tell 95% of everything you need to know about a movie from its script (it’s kind of the reason they write the things. There are a lot of us out here in Hollywood that have to make judgments about movies before they are released because if you spend $50 million to make something you really want to make sure it’s going to be good. Sometimes (a lot of times) people make the wrong decision because they get lazy or they’re just plain stupid. Such is the case with ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’. It was much easier to spend money on explosions than it was to find someone to write a compelling script. And that’s too bad, ‘Pirates’ could have made a wonderful movie.

To prove the point about money: all ten hours of ‘Band of Brothers’ cost $20 million less to make than the three hours of ‘Pearl Harbor’. Which do you think is the better project? Certainly there was no need for the director’s school teacher to keep saying “what a wonderful movie this is” on the DVD commentary track of ‘Band’ like happened on the deluxe version of ‘Pearl’. And all of the explosions, bombs, torpedoes, and bullets in ‘Pearl’ don’t have a tenth of the impact that a few shells have in artillery barrage scene in ‘The Breaking Point’ episode of ‘Brothers’. Explosions without purpose make just a pretty light show; a story requires characters and plot. ‘Band of Brothers’ has both; ‘Pearl Harbor’ has neither.

I don’t “lighten up” because a lot of smart people are doing a lot of dumb things. The audience deserves better from Disney and Disney should be obligated to do better than they are. The Studio is turning too much garbage these days and far too many otherwise good people are lowing their standards because “it’s Disney!”. Sorry, but I refuse to turn off my brain simply because someone slaps a brand logo on a movie. Even worse is that a lot of really great projects are being cancelled (like the John Sayles version of ‘The Alamo’) to fund dreck like ‘Pirates’ and ‘The Hot Chick’. As long as people roll over and throw their money down for slop that’s all the non-creative management at Disney will produce.


P.S. On a positive note, you should also check out 'Dark Blue World'. It was made in the Czech Republic and is about Czech pilots who escaped and flew in the RAF during the Second World War. There's a subtitled and a dubbed version out there. It was made for less than half the cost of the premier party for 'Pearl Harbor' but the flying scenes are a hundred times better. And if you have the deluxe DVD version of ‘Pearl Harbor’, put in the second disk, go to the “Special Feature” menu than move the cursor to the selection for the Faith Hill video. Press the right cursor button and you’ll highlight a hidden star. Press enter and you can watch the cast & crew gag reel that was created for the film’s wrap party. Watching Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett reenact the animal cracker scene from ‘Armageddon’ makes me wonder if J-Lo really understands what she’s gotten herself into.

 

[raidermatt]

...have hope....or just lighten up

But you see, Mr. Knight, this is a rumors and news board. Therefore we sometimes are fortunate enough to get information on how things are progressing from people with real inside information, such as our friend AV.

The things he is writing about ARE past tense. The script is done. The direction is set. If he sees problems with it, why should he not say so?

He's got a pretty decent track record in these types of things...

 

[raidermatt]

AV- Thanks for the tip on the PH DVD. I'll check it out...

 

[scooby-the-doo]

Originally posted by Another Voice
have been a series of inexpensive and moderate films – ‘The Rookie’, ‘Signs’, ‘Sweet Home Alabama’.

But 'Signs' cost well over $100 million when you factor in marketing -- I don't consider this to be a inexpensive and / or moderate film.

 

[raidermatt]

But 'Signs' cost well over $100 million when you factor in marketing -- I don't consider this to be a inexpensive and / or moderate film.

If you're going to include marketing costs, $100 million is certainly not a "big budget" flick. Maybe you want to call it a "big moderate", but it certainly can't be classified as a "big budget action" flick. Not when there are movies with $100+ million PRODUCTION budgets. If AV's figures are correct, Pirates' budget including marketing will be more than $250 million.

 

[scooby-the-doo]

$66 million production budget and big back ends for both Mel and Night does not by any means equal a 'small' or moderate film -- it was one of Disney's tentpole summer pics! The Rookie, on the other hand, was a small film and something of a sleeper.

 

[raidermatt]

$66 million production budget and big back ends for both Mel and Night does not by any means equal a 'small' or moderate film --

Semantics.

If Signs is a big budget, what category do you throw Pearl Harbor, Treasure Planet, and Pirates into?

 

[Another Voice]

Sixty-six million is actually very modest for a major summer release. The average summer movie costs over $80 million now and most of the big blockbusters (‘Spider-man’, ‘Attack of the Clones, ‘Austin Powers’, Men in Black 2’, ‘Minority Report’) all cost well in excess of $100 million. And, in fact, ‘Signs’ would have cost less if it hadn’t been for several last minute changes ordered by Burbank (which I think ended up weakening the film). It’s also very clear that ‘Pirates’ will cost more than double what ‘Signs’ did – and Mr. Gibson’s back end deal won’t amount to the lunch money that Bruckheimer is taking out of the Caribbean.

The real question is if the money is being well spent. No one is complaining that Sony dropped $160+ million on ‘Spider-man’ while there are a lot of people yelling that Disney dropped $90 million on ‘Reign of Fire’. Is ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ worth the money Disney is putting into it? Every indication I’ve seen and read shows to me that it’s not. I honestly believe that ‘Pirates’ given a budget more in line of ‘Signs’ or ‘The Rookie’ and with talented and creative people behind it could have been a fantastic, fun and immensely profitable movie.

Disney has no faith in its creativity ability these days. It is petrified with fear of failure. It is more willing to throw money at a project than it’s willing to invest in talent. And those attitudes inflect the entire company. Disney can not hope to recover until it has the courage to make movies worth seeing, places worth visiting and television worth watching.

P.S. – the newest nickname for the movie around town is (you knew this was coming) ‘Pirates of Pearl Harbor’.

 

[WEDWAY100]

Originally posted by Another Voice
Disney has no faith in its creativity ability these days. It is petrified with fear of failure. It is more willing to throw money at a project than it’s willing to invest in talent. And those attitudes inflect the entire company. Disney can not hope to recover until it has the courage to make movies worth seeing, places worth visiting and television worth watching.

That about says it all. I don’t trust Disney anymore. I don’t trust them to create good movies, or good attractions, or good value for what they sell me. I used to look forward to the movies, theme park attractions, etc. I now look at the new things that they produce with a skeptical eye first, and I am surprised if it is good.

Opening the trunk of car 3, getting my bags ready for car 4…

 

[scooby-the-doo]

Originally posted by Another Voice
I honestly believe that ‘Pirates’ given a budget more in line of ‘Signs’ or ‘The Rookie’ and with talented and creative people behind it could have been a fantastic, fun and immensely profitable movie.

That would be nice, but you must remember that Pirates is in a completely different vein to those other pics. Long and numerious sea-based sequences equal a large budget right off the bat, and I would not be surprised to see the usual over-runs such a production (WaterWorld, Cuttthroat Island) entails. Of course, they could have avoided the large cost by shooting in a studio with lots of green-screen and CGI, but then it would look like hell.

The best I am hoping from Pirates is if it is as gloriously over-the-top as Cuttthroat was.

 

[Another Voice]

Don’t underestimate the power and economy of today’s special effects (watch the material on extended version version of ‘The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring’ and you’ll see both what can be accomplished using both new technologies and very simple tricks.

And in a movie like ‘Pirates’ – exactly how exciting is watching two lumbering ship float around and shoot at each other? Sailing ships don’t exactly offer the same breakneck speed and daring jumps as a car chase. And in the ride itself there’s only one real “water” scene (the pirate ship attacking the fort). The rest is very much on dry land. In an action movie no one cares about the ships, they care about the people. A good sword fight between two interesting characters with a lot at stake shot in a studio can be much exciting than watching two life size boat replicas drifting around at four knots belching smoke at each other.

Both ‘Waterworld’ and ‘Cutthroat Island’ tried to use size and scope (i.e., money) to create excitement. It would have been better for the story to do that, but writing well is much harder than rigging gasoline bag explosions. I’m afraid ‘Pirates’ has fallen into the same trap.