pirates of the carribean

not really
they are fine the way that they are
i don't see how more gore or swearing would be beneficial

they're pretty brutal for pg-13. one movie starts with crows ripping the eyes out of people's heads and the next one starts with a little kid getting hanged

I honestly wouldnt wanna see naked Keira Knightly

>>83064349
you must be one of those "thick" fellas

They were already a very hard PG13. The second one opens with some prison scene and gallows.

>>83063101
>carribean
>>83063101
>carribean
stop, you illiterate fuckstain

The whole point of the pirates in the first one is that their desires could not be satisfied, an R rating could only hurt that
They even subtlety joke about raping Elizabeth once they've lifted the curse

>>83063101
>bunch of pointless awkward sex scenes
NO

>>83064372
>unironically liking "d"fc
Kill those like your then yourself, please.

>>83063101
You miss the points of them if you think so.

>>83064519
Some dicking on Tortuga wouldn't hurt tbqh.

It would have been better if it had stuck with the tone of the first one instead of making the entire world dark and supernatural which pretty much diminished the significance of everything about the pirates in the first one. It went from "holy shit cursed undead pirates, I thought ghosts weren't real!" to having Davy Jones, his crew, his ship, Jack and Barbossa returning from the dead, and the Kracken all in one movie. Complete 180 from a pirate movie with a supernatural plot element to supernatural movies that happened to be about pirates.

>>83065298
If you remove the super natural shit it gets a lot more dark since piracy and all, so repeating the same shit but adding more was the only way they had.

File: 6825b992e10bbc55ca951d165fd1d4ee.jpg (172KB, 1400x785px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1400x785px

>>83064382
>watching 3rd one
>Disney logo fades out
>film opens with scene of a 5 year old getting hanged

how the fuck did they get away with that

and how the fuck did Disney let Gore Verbinski film 2 three hour movies back-to-back and give him almost $600 million to do so

and somehow the CGI looks better than most movies made today despite the fact that it was 10 years ago and they still had the money for Johnny Depp/Keira Knightley/Orlando Bloom at the height of their careers and the money to build massive sets and shoot on location.

That and the fact that the Lord of the Rings movies had a budget of $90 million each will never make sense to me

>>83065298
I'm actually glad they brought back Barbossa, because along with Gibbs and Sparrow, him being a humorous character in general is one of the few things they've done right in my opinion and captures the tone of the first.

>>83065554
The latter PotC movies got crazy budgets due their cast, Depp alone is like 50m. Besides as you said, the CGI is top class, LotR CGI looks dated these days.

File: Screen Shot 2017-05-22 at 4.44.47 PM.png (45KB, 444x372px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 444x372px

>>83065554
>the Lord of the Rings movies had a budget of $90 million each

holy shit you're right, fucking HOW

further proof that The Hobbit being shit wasn't Jackson's fault but Warner Bros fault.
>what if we threatened Peter Jackson into making The Hobbit by saying if he doesn't we'll have Bret Ratner direct it lmao
>what if we gave him a few months for pre-production compared to the few years that he had for Lord of the Rings lmao
>what if halfway through production we told him to turn 2 films into 3 lmao
>what if we still don't pay the Tolkien Estate lmao

fucking WB hacks

>>83065707
Even two movies out of a small book is stretching it. WB went full retard.

>>83065707
I bet there were some significant savings from filming them all at once. They also spent years on pre-production which translates to a more efficient shooting and post-production process.

>>83065701
yeah but considering it's over 15 years old and was made not only on a budget of $93 million (which was for the entire film, not just the CGI) and Weta Digital was basically a start-up at that point with barely any experience and was literally inventing new ways to use CGI with the AI armies and motion capture for Gollum, LOTR gets a pass for having some dated shots

and Fellowship is the least dated looking of the three IMO, but I think that's just because of the sheer amount of CGI needed for Return of the King that couldn't be hidden in rain or night like The Two Towers.

At World's End had the GOAT trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PetrAmq9fcw

>dat music syncing up with Jack and Davy Jones' swords hitting each other at 1:54

kino

>>83064349
dude I want to see her to lesbian sex with natalie portman, pusy eating I mean

>>83066022
>and was made not only on a budget of $93 million
Let's not forget inflation, it's still relatively low for what its offered but not as low as it seems now. Also they had a lot less work for the plotting and who knows how many subsidies from NZ.

>a start-up at that point with barely any experience and was literally inventing new ways to use CGI
That's how good stuff usually happens, ambitious start ups looking for new ways.

The most amazing thing is that the LOTR movies still look better than Hobbit ones.

>>83066100
I recall watching it on repeat as a kid waiting for the movie to come out already. Still makes me want to watch the movie and then I remember the desert scene.

>>83066406
honestly I rewatched Dead Man's Chest and At World's End recently and neither were as bad as I thought they'd be.

Dead Man's Chest especially is underrated IMO, but At World's End could definitely benefit from editing and not giving Elizabeth 4 fucking love interests, one of them being that old Chinese guy she spends 20 minutes with before the writers realized they had nothing to do with his character (why they didn't realize this at the beginning of the film is beyond me) and kill him off halfway through the film.

KEEF as Jack's dad was great, though