Pirates of the Caribbean 4

wr8_utd

Ripped :'(
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
39,535
Apparently Megan Fox will be in it opposite Depp :drool:

I actually have mixed emotions on this. On one hand Fox playing a mermaid (which is what she will play) is a truly :drool: worthy prospect, she also has no clue how to act and she really could ruin a very good series of movies.

Megan Fox in the 4th Pirates of the Caribbean | JC News Network

I just hope it's not too major a role and she just shuts up and is there for viewing pleasure :lol:
 
How are they going to film all of those key super slow-motion explosion scenes that she always finds herself in, when she's a mermaid.

Could be some imaginative stuff here.
 
She really is a terrible actress. This is bad news for the POTC series. :(
 
She's going to seduce Sparrow.

With Depp and Fox both there it sure won't have trouble pulling in audiences.

But yeah she's going to ruin this series :( She can't act at all!
 
I never got around to watching the 3rd one after the 2nd was a bit shit.

This review sums it up perfectly:

 
I just read that It's going to be released in 3D? Why is everyone jumping on the 3D train?
 
They may as well replace Depp with Shia what's his face while they're at it.

Mind you, Keira Knightley wasn't far off Fox's level of awfulness in the third film. Maybe they're just looking for some consistency
 
wr8_utd said:
She's going to seduce Sparrow.

With Depp and Fox both there it sure won't have trouble pulling in audiences.

But yeah she's going to ruin this series :( She can't act at all!
Click to expand...
The second one did a good job in lowering the quality, then the third one killed it off. I liked the first one, disliked the second, hated the third.
 
I yet liked the 2nd and 3rd movies. It's been a great series.
 
Megan Fox is a shite at acting but as of recent Depp's hardly had a variety of roles.
 
The series has always been shit. The only time it wasn't shit was when it wasn't a series, because the first film was very good. The second and third films, however, were disastrously bad.
 
I don't really think the films are that good, the first one was ok, but they kinda lost it after that.
 
olesmyhero said:
The second one did a good job in lowering the quality, then the third one killed it off. I liked the first one, disliked the second, hated the third.
Click to expand...

Count Duckula said:
The series has always been shit. The only time it wasn't shit was when it wasn't a series, because the first film was very good. The second and third films, however, were disastrously bad.
Click to expand...

Alex said:
I don't really think the films are that good, the first one was ok, but they kinda lost it after that.
Click to expand...

These.

First was great. After that it was obvious they were milking it. I'm kind of sick of seeing sequels that aren't really sequels but are really just part I of a two-part sequel. The ones that drop a bombshell at the end to set up a third movie, where it was obvious they made the decision to make a trilogy as soon as the first movie cashed in. To be fair there's been some pretty good ones that have followed this pattern (Bourne for example).
 
The first was a great family adventure movie, something that hadn't been around for a while, and got massively overhyped because of it. That and the mainstream media suddenly realised what everyone else already knew, that Johnny Depp was a great actor. I'm amazed the third made so much money after how poor the second was.

I expect this one to improve on the last two though, since they're removing all the clutter that was Bloom, Knightley and co., but doubt I'll bother going to watch it. One good film out of three isn't a great record.
 
I didn't hate the second one but the third was dreadful. No wonder everyone barring Depp jumped ship.

See what I did there?
 
Wibble said:
I didn't hate the second one but the third was dreadful. No wonder everyone barring Depp jumped ship.

See what I did there?
Click to expand...

I didn't really mind the third one except that they tried to cram too much into it and it all just seemed like a bit of a mess, plus at times was a bit too silly. Seemed that unlike with the first two they were more concerned with just getting it done than getting it done properly.

I'll still go see the fourth though. It'll be better than say, Sex in the City, and suits everyone since every woman on the planet seems to fancy Johnny Depp.
 
noodlehair said:
I didn't really mind the third one except that they tried to cram too much into it and it all just seemed like a bit of a mess, plus at times was a bit too silly. Seemed that unlike with the first two they were more concerned with just getting it done than getting it done properly.

I'll still go see the fourth though. It'll be better than say, Sex in the City, and suits everyone since every woman on the planet seems to fancy Johnny Depp.
Click to expand...

and what's wrong with sex and the city, young man?
 
I don't like it, and there's not enough actual sex scenes involved to compensate
 
EricaNo7 said:
and what's wrong with sex and the city, young man?
Click to expand...

The acting, the story, the message, the product placement, the cliche, the complete lack of taste, originality and perspective, the commercialism, the daily mail, the immigrants, everything.
 
Count Duckula said:
Don't forget Horseface.
Click to expand...

Hopefully she falls under acting.....sorry, I meant hopefully she falls over acting

Mockney said:
The acting, the story, the message, the product placement, the cliche, the complete lack of taste, originality and perspective, the commercialism, the daily mail, the immigrants, everything.
Click to expand...

I should probably clarify a bit more

The acting was - "OMG! like, FYI!, like no way! like, handbags!!"
The story was - Rich, passably bearable women do a modicum of vaguely interesting things (if you're a passably bearable woman) in big interesting city...then buy handbags.
The message was - Handbags and shoes are great
The product placement was - Handbags and shoes.
The cliche was - Women are unfeasibly idiotic and shallow
The complete lack of taste was - obvious in everything that happened on the screen
The originality was - not evident
The commercialism was - everywhere
The Daily Mail is - a hideously racist, bigoted whiney prejudiced waste of a newspaper
The immigrants are - taking over the asylum.

Hth
 
Mockney said:
Hopefully she falls under acting.....sorry, I meant hopefully she falls over acting



I should probably clarify a bit more

The acting was - "OMG! like, FYI!, like no way! like, handbags!!"
The story was - Rich, passably bearable women do a modicum of vaguely interesting things (if you're a passably bearable woman) in big interesting city...then buy handbags.
The message was - Handbags and shoes are great
The product placement was - Handbags and shoes.
The cliche was - Women are unfeasibly idiotic and shallow
The complete lack of taste was - obvious in everything that happened on the screen
The originality was - not evident
The commercialism was - everywhere
The Daily Mail is - a hideously racist, bigoted whiney prejudiced waste of a newspaper
The immigrants are - taking over the asylum.

Hth
Click to expand...

This is the essence of everything I have ever tried to say about Sex and the City.
 
Mockney said:
Hopefully she falls under acting.....sorry, I meant hopefully she falls over acting



I should probably clarify a bit more

The acting was - "OMG! like, FYI!, like no way! like, handbags!!"
The story was - Rich, passably bearable women do a modicum of vaguely interesting things (if you're a passably bearable woman) in big interesting city...then buy handbags.
The message was - Handbags and shoes are great
The product placement was - Handbags and shoes.
The cliche was - Women are unfeasibly idiotic and shallow
The complete lack of taste was - obvious in everything that happened on the screen
The originality was - not evident
The commercialism was - everywhere
The Daily Mail is - a hideously racist, bigoted whiney prejudiced waste of a newspaper
The immigrants are - taking over the asylum.

Hth
Click to expand...

you forgot to mention Mr Big ;)
 
Who are you all kidding. Pirates of the Caribbean III was an absolute piss-take, what an atrocious movie. The only redeeming factors were the effects, the scenery and some of the cast - but the storyline was just abysmal.

Pirates I was excellent, Pirates II was enjoyable but a bit of a joke.... I would expect this movie to be rubbish. Having said that I'd probably watch it as soon as it's released.
 
Pirates 3 had a plot? I thought it was just about throwing images and words at the screen until the audiences' eyes exploded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.