Answers

Jack's deception

Posted by Terry on Monday, 10 July 2006, at 9:18 p.m., in response to Re: Whether the movie sinks or sails... SPOILERS!, posted by Prottsman on Saturday, 8 July 2006, at 8:36 a.m.

>> I agree about Jack suggesting Will should mention his name with Davy Jones.
>> I think it would have made the Jack Sparrow fans happier if Will had thought of
>> it himself and it ended up biting him in the butt...

I think that's a terrible solution.

(spoilers)

It all leads up to the final scene, the Kiss of Death from Elizabeth. Elizabeth is put into a tough spot. She is attracted to Jack, but Jack is a pirate. Does she like him or not? Is he a good man or not? Will's life is in danger, all of their lives are in danger, and she can save them all -- but only if she sacrifices Jack.

But it is not in Elizabeth's nature to do so lightly. She has a heroic side, and if the person in front of her is comepletely innocent, they would all get in the longboat together and fight their way out together, to the death.

Ah, but the person in front of her is not so innocent. In fact -- Elizazabeth directly asks Jack, "Are you telling me the truth?" and he says, "Every word." When Will returns, Elizabeth discovers what Jack did -- trick Will aboard the Dutchman. Every word was a lie -- and Jack put Will in danger.

NOW Elizabeth has a justification, and things get really interesting. Should she use Jack's attraction to her to send him to his death? Does Jack 'deserve' it? Should she fight the thought that he deserves it because who is she to make such a judgement? Does she feel the unworthy pull of revenge, and is that clouding her judgement? Or is in fact the man in front of her the cause of all their problems? Should she sacrifice the one for the many? (Or does she really just want to kiss the guy?)

Jack's action against Will is the only action on the part of Jack that allows Elizabeth, in perhaps a weak moment, to let herself be the pirate that Jack predicts she can be.

So there's argument one.

Argument number two ...

Are you seriously suggesting that Jack Sparrow, the pirate, cannot take such an action as he does with Will? If we don't let Jack do even one minor questionable thing, then the fears of many come true: the character has no balls, it has become a middle of the road, protected corporate symbol. That is a fate no one wants to see for Jack Sparrow.

Argument number three ...

Come on now. This is as benign a betrayal as you'll likely to find. Will Turner does not die. Jack merely sends him on a dangerous mission. And everyone seems to forget the fact that Jack knows Bootstrap Bill is on that ship. Jack is reuniting Father and Son, exactly as it happens. Who is know what Jack was planning? Will is a resourceful guy, going off onto a ship to pair up with his father, and find the key. And to top it off, geeze, WILL ACCECPTED THAT ASSIGNMENT.

There is a strategy to not telling Will -- if Will knew what was going on all along, would Jones have taken him on the ship? The betrayal had to feel real to Jones in order to get Will on the ship at all.

Again, Will did not die. Jack plays all angles. If Will hadn't been able to escape and return, you could even imagine Jack making his way onto the Dutchman, and teaming up with Will to get the key.

Anyway, how bad an action did Jack take here, really? Pretty minor, and it's the only one in the movie, and you want to strip it away.

Jack Sparrow is not Luke Skywalker, you know.

I;m sifting through the rest of the archives cause i'm at work. lots of interesting stuff which i will post for those interested.

a few things to add:

1. the kiss and ending of DMC were the premise that both 2 and 3 were written on. that ending was set early on. no whining actresses made it happen. (see quote)

Spoilers above

Posted by Terry on Thursday, 13 July 2006, at 4:11 p.m., in response to DMC: The kiss, posted by Grant on Thursday, 13 July 2006, at 12:30 p.m.

We began the story construction process with the ending in place that is in the fillm.

More...
Other dangles ...
Posted by Terry on Tuesday, 11 July 2006, at 5:38 p.m., in response to Re: (Ending discussed) SPOILERS, posted by Ted Elliott on Tuesday, 11 July 2006, at 5:12 p.m.
SPOLIERS
I would argue the fate of Davy Jones is left hanging, as well as the fate of Beckett. This because while it is implied that Beckett getting the heart is a bad thing, it's not stated exactly in what manner. What is he going to do with the heart, with Jones, with the Flying Dutchman? As the film ends there are many possibilities, and no single one is implied.
Also, the Davy Jones character is not resolved (at least not as clearly as Barbossa in the first movie!) in that he is still heartbroken and his furture is not clear; neither his inner personal demons nor his external situation are known ...
Also, it seems as though the Will and Elizabeth romance story is not resolved, in that you really don't know whether they will end up together or not, there is no 'frankly my dear I don't give a damn' moment of clarity ...
And, like you said, the two father stories are not resolved.

Re: DMC -the two missing characters
Posted by Ted Elliott on Tuesday, 11 July 2006, at 1:44 a.m., in response to DMC -the two missing characters, posted by Travis Graham on Monday, 10 July 2006, at 1:50 p.m.
In the first movie, Jack always had a plan, even if that amounted to nothing more then: keep talking until an opening presented itself ... except when he was locked up in jail, marooned on the island, and locked in the brig of the Black Pearl, that is. And, of course, the circumstances we found him in were not really of his own making: he was the victim of a mutiny.
In the second movie, we thought it would be interesting to find Jack in a different set of circumstances, that were of his own making, where all his planning was for nought and talk would do him no good, where he was acting 'strange - er' because something was 'vexing' him ... until Will showed up and he got clear of the Pelogostas, that is. Once that happens, he: convinces Will to work toward his (Jack's) ends instead of his (Will's) own, heads up the river to see the "her" that Gibbs seems to think is someone to be feared, ships Will off to Davy Jones to settle his debt, talks Jones into giving him a three-day reprieve, manipulates Elizabeth into wanting to find the chest (that he needed) more then she wanted to find Will, takes the Letters of Marque from her, makes a play for her that would likely have ended his problems with the compass if not for Jones revoking his reprieve, gets the chest, gets the key, gets the heart, wins his argument with Elizabeth about who is like who, and then goes down with his ship, fighting. But not even Jack Sparrow could beat the devil (although Davy Jones seems to feel like he did, doesn't he?).
So I don't really understand the criticism that Jack was missing his balls. I can understand the criticism that Jack seemed to be acting out of character -- I don't agree with it, obviously, but I can at least understand why someone might have that perception ... but, no balls?
Unless ...
I wonder: if Jack had ended up chained to the mast after a duel with Will, instead of after a kiss from Elizabeth, would Jack's balls (or lack therefore) even have been an issue?

Re: Reluctant question re: DMC (spoilers)
Posted by Ted Elliott on Thursday, 27 July 2006, at 1:14 p.m., in response to Reluctant question re: DMC (spoilers), posted by Anne on Thursday, 27 July 2006, at 11:22 a.m.
It is for people to make up their own minds. Like I said, the "why is the rum always gone?' line was meant to remind audiences (who'd seen the first movie) of the scene on the island between jack and Elizabeth, and so act as a clue to what's going on with Jack. That's it.

Re: Questions for T&T:Character backgrounds
Posted by Ted Elliott on Monday, 14 August 2006, at 1:57 p.m., in response to Questions for T&T:Character backgrounds, posted by Heartbreaker on Monday, 14 August 2006, at 12:25 p.m.
a ) What better way to avoid ever being the victim of pirates then by becoming a pirate yourself? ((Also: Gibbs drinks (to excess) when he's bored).
b ) I think it's more she demanded he teach her, but, yeah, it didn't begin until after CotBP. They had to do something instead of having sex. How do you think she got so good?
c ) Common to the time: a boy would be apprenticed to a master to learn a trade; his room and board were part of his wages. As an orphan of the lower class, that's likely what Will's life would have been like anywhere.
d ) Pirates are outlaws.
e ) Nothing about Jack that is not in the movies should be considered canon. The stuff in the games is just another story about him, like the sea turtles.

Re: A new question for T & T
Posted by Ted Elliott on Tuesday, 18 July 2006, at 11:04 p.m., in response to Re: A new question for T & T, posted by Nancy on Tuesday, 18 July 2006, at 3:48 p.m.
Remember what Jack said in the first movie, about what a ship needs versus what a ship is?
He was telling the truth: at that point, it was just a ship. <referencing Jack’s “she’s only a ship, mate.” Line.>

Re: I caught that too,,,
Posted by Ted Elliott on Thursday, 27 July 2006, at 11:26 p.m., in response to Re: I caught that too,,,, posted by threekandabug on Thursday, 27 July 2006, at 7:55 p.m.
Jack was flirting with her, so she decided to give it back to him in spades.

Re: COTBP *and* DMC
Posted by Ted Elliott on Saturday, 15 July 2006, at 11:40 a.m., in response to COTBP versus DMC, posted by Laura on Saturday, 15 July 2006, at 10:04 a.m.
None of us, including Johnny, wanted to simply repeat what we'd done on the first movie. But we weren't looking to replace the first movie, either -- which is what the "versus" seems to imply.
When presented with the opportunity to do sequels, we had a choice: do stand-alone stories (like the Bond films or the Indiana Jones films), or tell a story the begins with the first frame of the first movie and ends with the last frame of the third. We opted for the latter. COTBP presented one facet of the characters; DMC presents a different facet of the characters; both are necessary to the third movie and to tell the whole story.
Although there are some things I would change about DMC (there's some stuff that ended up being cut that I think would have defused the "It's not as witty" criticism, for instance), I nonetheless stand by the story as the one we wanted to tell.
As for what the face in the wall was about: Bootstrap tells Will that those who serve aboard the Dutchman lose themselves, bit-by-bit, until they become part of the ship, just like Wyvern. That's Bootstrap's fate, and Jack's, too, if Jones takes him. Joined to a ship forever, at the cost of his own freedom. Consider that in light of what Jack told Elizabeth on the island scene in the first movie, and what happens to Jack at the end of the second.

A few more...

Re: (Ending discussed) SPOILERS
Posted by Ted Elliott on Tuesday, 11 July 2006, at 5:12 p.m., in response to Re: (Ending discussed) SPOILERS, posted by Prottsman on Saturday, 8 July 2006, at 11:31 a.m.
The climax of the movie is Jack's death; the rest is watchyacall yer "denouement." Even if we hadn't been guaranteed a Pirates III, that's still the ending I would have gone with. Jack's dead, they are going to try to bring him back in world where such a thing is shown to be possible, it's an adventure no one may ever see, except in their own imaginations.
(There's really only two plot threads left dangling at the end of DMC: the fate of the fathers (Bootstrap and Gov. Swann); absent the guarantee of a third movie, we wouldn't have left them a-dangle).
Whether we could have convinced anyone else to go with this ... well, I'm glad we didn't have to try -- but it's nonetheless what I would have wanted to do.

Re: voodoo jack question
Posted by Ted Elliott on Thursday, 3 August 2006, at 5:03 p.m., in response to voodoo jack question, posted by Cat on Thursday, 3 August 2006, at 4:35 p.m.
It was just a fun marketing idea.

Ted, for one, doesnt think Jack would have stayed.

Ah, that scene
Posted by Ted Elliott on Friday, 18 August 2006, at 8:31 a.m., in response to No Mercer/Norrington moment on Tortuga?, posted by Kevin on Friday, 18 August 2006, at 2:00 a.m.
There were some involved on the movie who worried that the audience would not understand Norrington's motivation based on what was included in the screenplay. Since, in the editing room, it's better to have something you don't need then to need something you don't have, we came up with and shot a little scene between Mercer and Norrington in Tortuga that spelled out Norrington's motivation.
Even as we shot it, though, Terry, Gore and I did not think we would ever use it -- because, in spelling out his motivation up front, it changed the character. Rather than seeing a decent man brought low whose desperation prompts his action, the audience would have seen a man on a secret mission, which would have caused the audience to question the sincerity of everything he did and said from the moment he appeared in the movie.
It was a bad scene, in that it would have diminished the character and subtracted from the overall story in a way that was not worth the trade-off.
So it was not cut from the movie, because the first assembly of the movie -- which did not include that scene -- proved that it was unnecessary.
> Did Jack already intend to go down with his ship after he returned? He sure looked like he was resigning himself to stay.
I don't think he would have decided for himself to stay, but he seemed okay with being proven right about Elizabeth, didn't he?
> Jack says when someone gets the chest, "he or she" could do whatever they wanted, including rescuing dear William. Does that signify that if he had the chest, he would try to rescue dear William too?
Jack needed Elizabeth to want to find to the chest. Playing on her feelings for Will seemed to do the trick.
That said, Jack undoubtedly would have negotiated a price for the heart that meant greatest profit to himself.

Re: Last names
Posted by Ted Elliott on Thursday, 10 August 2006, at 4:09 p.m., in response to Last names, posted by Tina G on Thursday, 10 August 2006, at 3:38 p.m.
Stuart Beattie named both Jack and Elizabeth; we liked the names, so we kept 'em (and also gave Will (nee Thackery) a name intentionally reminiscent of another bird: the tern).
-
Re: Pirates 2 -- 2 Complicated?
Posted by Ted Elliott on Thursday, 10 August 2006, at 8:54 p.m., in response to Pirates 2 -- 2 Complicated?, posted by HankG on Thursday, 10 August 2006, at 8:20 p.m.
The thing about the key, the chest, the heart, the letters, the compass?
They aren't macguffins.
A macguffin is a plot engine, but ultimately has no real story value. Change out "microfilm plans for a new weapon" with "key to decoding any cipher," and there would be no real difference in the plot (in an "innocent involved"-type plot, the profession of the main character might change, but that, too, is ultimately superficial).
Why do you think you should be able to break a movie's story down into three sentences?
What we wanted to try was, establishing the context cumulatively. Each scene demonstrates information to the audience about the story while raising questions, which are answered (directly or indirectly) in a subsequent scene (so a question raised relative to Jack might be answered in a scene between Elizabeth and Beckett, for example). Also, we wanted plot exposition to work as characterization: Jack and Beckett share the trait of revealing only that information necessary to manipulate other characters to their own ends, but the specific information revealed and how it is revealed contributes to the understanding of each character. Or, more simply: when we made the first movie, we wanted to make a movie that was unconventional relative to most movies that nonetheless worked for audiences; when we made the second movie, we wanted to make a movie that was unconventional relative to most movies *including the first Pirates movie* that nonetheless worked for audiences; and, with the third one, we are trying to make a movie that was unconventional relative to most movies including the first and second Pirates movies that nonetheless worked for audiences.

Terry thinks Jack would have stayed (those two dont agree on ANYTHING)

Only a ship

Posted by Terry on Wednesday, 19 July 2006, at 1:03 p.m., in response to Re: Everyone isn't ..., posted by Nancy on Wednesday, 19 July 2006, at 11:51 a.m.

Jack knows that the battle is lost. He knows at that point that they are all dead. You cannot beat the devil, you cannot escape the Kraken.

You could interpret the line that Jack is trying to convince himself of something he doesn't believe, cannot believe, but has to try and believe. You can interpret the line as something he is saying for Gibb's benefit only, so Gibbs will leave the ship.

My interpretation of the line, the way it was delivered, is that Jack sees no way out that include both himself and the Black Pearl ... his gambits have failed, and that, in order to save the others, he is considering sacrificing himself and the Pearl. (There is what a man can do and what a man can't do ...) making 'it's only a ship' one of the most heroic lines he will ever say.

Regarding the DVD:

deleted scenes

Posted by Terry on Wednesday, 23 August 2006, at 8:26 a.m., in response to Re: I can't ... (build-your-own extended version), posted by sondbax on Tuesday, 22 August 2006, at 3:41 p.m.

I'm really curious how Disney will handle the DMC DVD. As far as I know, there is only one true 'deleted' scene and it's not very long.

So they won't be able to do a true 'deleted scenes' section. On the other hand, most of the scenes got 'cut down' in some manner, so they could do an 'extended scenes' section. That's what I'd like to see.

It all leads up to the final scene, the Kiss of Death from Elizabeth. Elizabeth is put into a tough spot. She is attracted to Jack, but Jack is a pirate. Does she like him or not? Is he a good man or not? Will's life is in danger, all of their lives are in danger, and she can save them all -- but only if she sacrifices Jack.

But it is not in Elizabeth's nature to do so lightly. She has a heroic side, and if the person in front of her is comepletely innocent, they would all get in the longboat together and fight their way out together, to the death.

Ah, but the person in front of her is not so innocent. In fact -- Elizazabeth directly asks Jack, "Are you telling me the truth?" and he says, "Every word." When Will returns, Elizabeth discovers what Jack did -- trick Will aboard the Dutchman. Every word was a lie -- and Jack put Will in danger.

NOW Elizabeth has a justification, and things get really interesting. Should she use Jack's attraction to her to send him to his death? Does Jack 'deserve' it? Should she fight the thought that he deserves it because who is she to make such a judgement? Does she feel the unworthy pull of revenge, and is that clouding her judgement? Or is in fact the man in front of her the cause of all their problems? Should she sacrifice the one for the many? (Or does she really just want to kiss the guy?)

Jack's action against Will is the only action on the part of Jack that allows Elizabeth, in perhaps a weak moment, to let herself be the pirate that Jack predicts she can be.

[/B]

i hadnt read this quote before.

i liked the bit about letting Will take responsibility for his own actions. I really hate it when people try to say Jack tricked him on to the dutchman or whatever. Every character is responsible for their own actions and who they choose to trust, clearly.

I should think Elizabeth's decision was a combination of all of the above mentioned suggestions. I'm glad to know, at least, that the writers are clear that Elizabeth was attracted to Jack and was not just trying to save William.

surprise So. Much. To. Read. BUT I SHALL! 😄

does anyone know if this was the original writer's version of the scene or a written translation from someone else?

Quote:

Elizabeth: Thank you, Jack.

Jack: We're not free yet.

She moves towards him.

Elizabeth: You came back. I always knew you were a good man.

IN THE BOAT, Will looks up toward the railing, sees ---

ON THE DECK, ELIZABETH KISSES JACK ... Jack staggers, the kiss driving him back.

Will is shocked as they move out of his sight --

THE KISS CONTINUES, all the way to the mast of the ship.

An incredible kiss. A kiss for the ages. A kiss that has been building since the day Jack and Elizabeth met.

They break the kiss. Jack looks at Elizabeth, knowledge of his fate already in his eyes --

-- There is a 'click.' --

Jack glances down --

-- Elizabeth has manacled his wrists, chaining him to the mast.

Jack looks into her eyes, desiring her all the more, knowing her true heart is the same as his. Elizabeth can't hold his gaze.

Elizabeth: It's after you, not the ship ... not us. It's the only way. (she looks up) I'm not sorry.

Jack nods accepting the fate, the logic of what she has done. He says -- with some admiration --

Jack: Pirate.

The word stings Elizabeth.

^^^ dont know. saw it somewhere else. sort of sounds like their writing, eh? pretty hott stuff. 🙂 sigh...

what Terry and ted used to say about the kiss doesn't match up with wht they said in the commentary does it?

its more "slaking lust, drowning guilt" than punishing him for betraying Will. IMO that was just a way for them to make her actions less selfish and give the audience less reason to hate on her. They had to give something that would take some of the selfishness out of the act.

"An incredible kiss. A kiss for the ages. A kiss that has been building since the day Jack and Elizabeth met. "

^^ doesn't that just SCREAM "destiny"??

and kate on the matter of disagreeing..there HAS to be one true answer and they know what the true answer is, they wouldnt add something into a script if they didnt agree on it no way no how

IMO we, the audience wont know what the true answer is until the end of AWE..then we will know if he would have stayed or not..or if Jack's compass was pointing her ever, if Liz wanted him the most in the world

they aint giving it away yet..IMO because the ending to AWE is going to gob smack us and they dont want to give any direct hint towards it I bet you...once we se it and look back..it will ALL make perfect sense.

I wanted to read all their posts before but I was to lazy to look for them hehe

Thank you!

naw, i think i can see them disagreeing about issues like the compass and whether Jack would have stayed on the pearl, because both are metaphysical speculations that have little real bearing to the story-- and arent plot hinges. ya know?

personally, i'm all with Terry.

I think Terry ships J/L more than Ted does... lol.

Re: Jack's deception SPOILERS

Posted by Terry on Tuesday, 11 July 2006, at 11:29 a.m., in response to Re: Jack's deception, posted by Louise B on Tuesday, 11 July 2006, at 5:46 a.m.

>> I've got one question. Why did Jack leave the Pearl when she was being attacked
>> by the Kraken? That seemed out of character. Jack saw Elizabeth fall into the
>> sea - a woman he knew nothing of y6- and dived right in to save her.

Ah, but his own life was never in jeopardy there. He didn't know he'd get caught, in the best case scenario he gets a little wet and saves a beautiful woman.

There are a number of interpretations to Jack in the rowboat, leaving the Pearl.

Some people say Jack is headed back to the island, knowning that the heart must be there, since it is not in the jar.

Some people say that Jack is trying to 'draw off' the Kraken, and stops when he sees it didn't work, and then has to make a decision.

I can tell you what I think.

Either his friends defeat the Kraken or they don't, either way, staying with them won't help. If they are all to die, why not try for land? If they can defeat it, then he is not leaving them to their deaths. If they can't kill it, in fact he might not make it to land either. But better to die trying.

This sounds fine in Jack's head. But then when he sees the actual event happening, he can't do it. He can't leave them. ('There is what a man can do and what a man can't do.'😉 When Jack decides in that moment to go back, he is deciding at that moment to die, fighting on the ship.

The barrel strategy gives him a reprieve, and now there is a new situation. A wounded Kraken. Maybe the longboat will work. Probably not. If you look closely, Jack suggests the others get into the ship, you can see Jack go the other way ... I believe that Jack was going to stay on the ship even without Elizabeth's action, which is why he is more admiring of her than upset.

was that what you think..where you said "I can tell you what I think" or is that what Terry said?

that was terry.

oh interesting..I think he would have stayed..its obvious lol
Its funny how one writer says one thing and the other says the opposite..in no way would they write a script unless they agreed on what Jack was really doing...

I've never written anything serious with someone else, so maybe I'm not one to judge, but it seems like T&T have very different ideas about not only the characters, but the direction the story should have gone. Is that normal? Can that even happen in a successful movie? It just seems irresponsible on their part and I've figured out why, in spite of all the evidence, I have doubts about my beloved J/E relationship:

T&T dug themselves into a hole.

If they can't even agree on what should happen, there is no guarantee what will happen. I've never heard of writers differing so much on such important issues such as the motivations of the characters. If this has always been true, COTBP and DMC are miracle babies, little marvels to the world that beauty can come from people not knowing what to do. Let's hope AWE is the same way.