Pirates Of The Caribbean 6
Fran Bottella
Blacksmith Will Turner teams up with eccentric pirate Captain Jack Sparrow to save Turner's love, Elizabeth Swann, from cursed pirates led by Jack's mutinous former first mate, Hector Barbossa. Jack wants revenge against Barbossa, who left him stranded on an island before stealing his ship, the Black Pearl, along with 882 pieces of cursed Aztec Gold.
As recalled in the book DisneyWar, Eisner asked "Why does it have to cost so much?" Bruckheimer replied, "Your competition is spending $150 million," referring to franchises like The Lord of the Rings and The Matrix. Eisner concurred, but with the stigma attached to theme-park adaptations, Eisner requested Verbinski and Bruckheimer remove some of the more overt references to the ride in the Pirates of the Caribbean script, such as a scene where Sparrow and Turner enter the cave via a waterfall. Another change made was adding The Curse of the Black Pearl as a subtitle, should the film be a hit and lend itself to sequels like Raiders of the Lost Ark, which brought protest due to the Black Pearl being the name of the ship and nothing to do with the pirates' curse. Although Verbinski thought the subtitle was nonsense, Eisner refused to back down and The Curse of the Black Pearl remained the subtitle, although on most posters and trailers the words were so small as to be barely visible.[44]
After seeing how well the first film was made, the cast and crew signed for two sequels to be shot back-to-back,[46] a practical decision on Disney's part to allow more time with the same cast and crew.[47] Writers Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio knew that with an ensemble cast, they weren't free to invent totally different situations and characters, as with the Indiana Jones and James Bond series, and so had to retroactively turn The Curse of the Black Pearl into the first of a trilogy.[48] They wanted to explore the reality of what would happen after Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann's embrace at the end of the first film, and initially considered the Fountain of Youth as the plot device.[49] They settled on introducing Davy Jones, the Flying Dutchman and the Kraken, a mythology mentioned twice in the first film. They introduced a fictionalized East India Trading Company as the primary antagonists (being only mentioned in the first film), which for them represented a counterpoint to the personal freedom represented by pirates.[50]
My theory of why the Auction sticks around? The Redhead, while going to be auctioned, seems to be the real one in charge in that scene.
Tony PerkinsJanuary 3, 2014 at 1:24 AM Thanks for the thoughtful post. With the changes Disney has made to PotC over the past couple decades, they have soft-pedaled some of the pirates' evil deeds to become more akin to playful misbehavior (like the movies). The ride's signature song is also quite whimsical so it fits into this new paradigm of whimsy ostensbily being pushed by Disney. I suppose another simple reason the wench scene remains is it would be quite costly to redesign that entire show scene, so it could just be a matter of money and profit. If there were a true outcry, I suppose they would change it in order to avoid the bad PR, but I haven't heard of any movement calling to delete the wench scene. In any case, the addition of Jack Sparrow completely changed the main narrative thrust of the attraction. It used to be a look at those awful pirates and their degenerate lives so we should be thankful we don't join them (dead men tell no tales). But now dead men do tell tales and get the treasures as the narrator tells us as we ascend the final waterfall. Whimsical misbehavior a la Jack Sparrow has its rewards. In any case, the DL version of PotC is still a great attraction, and one of the most amazing ever created.
BradyNBradleysMomJanuary 3, 2014 at 6:46 AM This article was just excellent. I really enjoyed it. I LOVE these stories on the history of different attractions. This is why I make TPI one of my breakfast reads every morning. Nothing better than starting my day with some TPI wonderfulness! :)
Eric FisherJanuary 3, 2014 at 1:38 PM Disneyland is an amusement park. As such, when I visit the park I expect to see things I would never see in real life. Elephants flying. The Yeti. A woman being auctioned off. Would I tolerate the 3rd, in real life? No. On the other hand, I am descended from slaves, so I know this went on. The controversy over "Pirates" is a tempest in a teapot. It is fantasy, nothing more. Are we concerned that the young women on the storybook boat ride (at least used to) dress like they are in private elementary school? I hope not. We are being too sensitive here. Parents can use this as a teaching tool - and talk about how far (we would like to think) we have come from days when these practices were, at the very least, tolerated.Bob Dylan addressed this topic in a song called "Long Ago and Far Away". My favorite version is by The Brothers Four. I recommend it to you.
Herwig DelvauxJanuary 8, 2014 at 3:54 AM Thank you, absolutely bright story, Matt !
But...
Not all things are, as the wishfull thinking wants them to be to fit in a framed story about how and why changes occurred. Especially when it comes to an attempt, retracing the attraction history, one must be more carefull. It starts with registering what was. Quote: < The next scene featured pirates chasing townswomen around, trying to capture them. ..//.. Now, the women chase pirates who are carrying looted goods. >
"Now" ?
No, sorry, not true. It was "ever since" !
The original boosted BOTH pirates chasing woman (the 'logic', as "joke opener" / see video 4:53>) AND woman chasing pirates (the unprobable contrasting scene, as "joke maker" / see video 5:02>), and chicken chasing chicken (gender?? ;-) as "the supplementing cartoony offset from history").
If you trace well the-making-of, you will be able to find the discussions around this well reasoned scene composition which was meant to get a "ohh, and haha, and I-got-it" sentiment from the carefull re-visiting rider.
PoTC is the kind of elaborated attraction where re-riding is so rewarding, as to "get" details and humour only after you've seen it several times. One could say: perfect marketing in re-riding. But also just, perfect theatrical complexity, which was THE thing that made Disney, Disney... To be more precise : 'Walt' Disney, not Disney Corp. ... The far majority of recent "A ticket" Disney attractions have NO experience depth anymore, they are mental flat, singular level only, visual experiences, where the next rides after the first one don't bring on new findings.
My theory behind this, is that the new attractions have been deprived of the traditional film scenarists & animators leading roles in the development. Even if very expensive, the multi-level/depth story magic (and humour) is ... missing. This brings me to a totally different assumption why the original mental 3-level scene of the chasing-around's, was changed into a 1-level boring, after refurbishment : the actual non literary simplicity of the "imagineers'" minds. Like : < oh, woman chasing pirates is more "fun" , right? So, let's do just woman chasing pirates. >
I dare to postulate, that most probably, "the 1990-ies public opinion" has nothing to do with it. But the flattening of the whole imagineering job to nothing more then a repeated technical exercise, probable has all to do with it. And harmfull descisionmaking, in brand marketing. 'Jack Sparrow' needed to have a spot, there... from a purely commercial IP-contract viewpoint. Having a "star" dropped in a standalone fantasy, is mentally destroying the fantasy, because it recalls "his acting in the film", and distracts from the original power of the attraction scenario.
Perhaps, true imagineering is almost dead, with Disney? (And still growing with Efteling, at less then 10% of comparable development budgets) Disney still builds the-best-there-is, but only on an uninspired technical level...
This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.
Question: I want to know: after the curse has been lifted, we see Barbossa's crew surrendering to Norrington's crew. Some of them collapse. My friend tells me this is because these pirates have been 'killed' or stabbed many times before, and once they are human, they therefore die. My question is: Is this true; and if so, why does this not happen to Jack, who was stabbed with Barbossa's sword when he became cursed?
**Answer:**No, it's not true. There's a vague suggestion in the film that the change from human to skeletal form (or vice versa) causes wounds to be healed. Barbossa, for example, dies of Jack's gunshot, despite the curse being in effect when he's actually shot - he doesn't change during that timeframe, therefore the wound is still in place. Jack, on the other hand, has shifted form multiple times since being run through, so his wound has been dealt with. Likewise Pintel, who was shot through the heart by Barbossa earlier in the film, is seen to survive, as he has shifted several times since then. Only a few of the pirates actually seem to die on the Dauntless - any wounds sustained during the battle should have been healed by their final shift back to human form (when the curse lifts). Any subsequent deaths can be put down to the pirate in question continuing to fight for a brief moment after the lifting of the curse and being run through or shot, unaware that they're no longer invulnerable to harm.
**Question:**After Elizabeth is brought to the Pearl, she threatens to drop the medallion overboard. Barbossa feigns disinterest but when Elizabeth pretends to drop it, the pirates gasp in panic. Why? So she drops it, big deal. They can't drown, the gold "calls to them" so what does it matter if she were to drop it?
Question: When the pirates have Will in the cave and are just about to lift the curse, why does Jack stop them and make them go out and fight when they can't die? Isn't he on the 'good' team?