did anyone else notice that the clues were a little to easy to find? like the locket they zoomed in really far on both that of tia's and davy's. and with in tia's hut or whatever they showed the monkey in the background several times. idk maybe disney wanted us to notice these things.
they probably wanted people to notice the clues in this movie because SO MANY people didn't notice alot of the easy clues and details in the first movie. so they made them easier to find in this one. either that or they just want to confuse us and make us rack our brains to try and figure out what the clues mean.
__________________
MapleSugar is my hero Join the Raver Club! Now
Isen grädde smörgås
i couldnt help feeling when i was watching potc2 that this film was designed to be loved by everyone, and to be a big summer blockbuster success ... the first film was made for the sake of making a film.
... what im trying to say is that the second film (whilst ultimately for the actors fun and for JD OB KK fans) was designed for a different audience, and so they have to film it differently.
i mean, was it just me who noticed all the diffrent filming techniques, camera angles, different form of scripting in this film - and there's not been a big enough change in management within the film - so it must have been done for the audience ... am i mumbling now??
__________________ "Shame about the French, really. Obsessed with raisins. Humiliated grapes, really. Think about it."
- Captain Jack Sparrow
I think they wanted to do something different with the camera angles, and scripting, so it wouldn't be too similar to the first one, and their going to make the 3rd one a little different from the 1st and 2nd movies too, obviously, to keep it interesting. And some of the scripting changes might of been because there has been substantial character developement too.
exactly. we're like mice in a maze. but that doesn't really matter, as long as we get to see the 3rd movie.
the producers thought that the first movie would bomb so they didn't try that hard to make it a good movie. but then it came out in theaters and it was top in the box office. so i think this time they figured they should do a better job because if the 2nd movie was worse than the 1st, then nobody would go to see the 3rd.
__________________
MapleSugar is my hero Join the Raver Club! Now
Isen grädde smörgås
Gender: Female Location: Giving dirty Mr Sparrow a sponge ba
You know what. The first one had more of a "Independant film" quality to it. It didnt stick to the usual block buster techniques. The very fact it was a "swash buckling adventure" was a HUGE risk, that type of movie died out decades before.
Like these guys said they thought it was going to be a bomb so you are probably right. The director probably had more creative controll over it (in terms of filming).
But now they have sort of shifted into a block buster hype. They set out to make it a block buster like you suggested they did. So it means that its gonna be different. I wouldnt say it was massivly different though, they still broke a few typical Disney expectations with this film (the kiss at the end)
I wouldnt say it was worse because its not Its just different. they made it like it is to please the majority of the audiece..maybe thats why they have shifted character relationships around in the film, like a possibility of Jack/Liz, they want to please the masses IMO
All trilogies change in film style as they progress..otherwise people would be getting bored.
Its quite similar to what they did with the Mummy trilogy.
Last edited by LovelyOne on Jul 18th, 2006 at 05:50 PM
oh know - i wouldn't say it was worse either, and i agree with you about it now being designed as a film to get money and be a big success rather than just a film to be a film!! glad we agree!!
... btw, there were only two mummy movies
__________________ "Shame about the French, really. Obsessed with raisins. Humiliated grapes, really. Think about it."
- Captain Jack Sparrow
yeah, that's what i thought. but they were both really good.
and what other movies did they get from rides besides haunted mansion?
~indiana jones: i think the ride came after the movie, and both the ride and the movies are awesome.
~roger rabbit: the ride is super lame. but the movie isn't that bad. especially since i was named after jessica rabbit.
~alice in wonderland: again, the ride is super lame but the teacups are kinda fun and the movie isnt that bad.
__________________
MapleSugar is my hero Join the Raver Club! Now
Isen grädde smörgås
oh. i forgot about the scorpian king. . . . it was nowhere NEAR as good as The Mummy movies. The Mummy had Brenden Frasier in both. and Dwayne Johnson is all right, but he's better in the goodcop/badcop movies like Walking Tall.
__________________
MapleSugar is my hero Join the Raver Club! Now
Isen grädde smörgås
KMC Community Forums
the clues in potc 2
Jul 17th, 2006 05:16 PM
Join the Raver Club! Now 
what im trying to say is that the second film (whilst ultimately for the actors fun and for JD OB KK fans) was designed for a different audience, and so they have to film it differently.
