Jerry Bruckheimer: Pirates of the Caribbean 5 Won't Have Demonic Monsters

Jerry Bruckheimer: Pirates of the Caribbean 5 Won't Have Demonic Monsters

Pirates of the Caribbean

Pirates of the Caribbean 5 will be more of a "straight pirate movie, says producer Jerry Bruckheimer.

For those who watched Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, you might have noticed that it delved way more into the supernatural compared to the previous film entries that focused more on swashbuckling, and other pirate-y stuff. Well, if you're hoping for more of the latter in Pirates of the Caribbean 5, you're in luck, as that's exactly what you'll be getting. Speaking to Collider, mega producer Jerry Bruckheimer was asked if there will be "demonic monsters" in the film franchise's fifth entry, to which he replied, "No, no. I think we're back to more of a straight pirates movie this time." Following up with that question, he was then asked whether the film "won't have big Kraken creatures anymore?" Bruckheimer reiterates and says, "Not in the script I read recently."

In other parts of the interview, Bruckheimer mentions that he's working on an "outline" for Bad Boys III, and that he's hopeful a screenplay will be ready in three months. Regarding National Treasure 3, the producer confirms they are working on another one, and that he recently had a meeting with the writers and the director, so he's hoping it "will come together."

Are you looking forward to Pirates of the Caribbean 5: Dead Men Tell No Tales? Regardless of how it comes together, let's hope it doesn't become a big of a money sink as Bruckheimer's Lone Ranger, which is said to cost Disney -- and Bruckheimer -- $150 million in losses.

Source: Collider via Ain't It Cool News

Permalink

But why? Pirates 3 effectively ended the series, and 4 was naked-yet-successful cash grab.

*Sigh* But I guess we're getting it. Do we at least get a straight man to play to Jack Sparrows... Sparrowiness?

Wow he is just deep in to the business of making garbage and nothing else now huh.

So many series that just don't need any more continuity or sequels. Bruckheimers films used to be something I'd look forward to at times, now they just get a passing glance.

Sounds... kinda dull, actually. And why would anyone want to make yet another POTC movie? Weren't the first three movies enough? ...Oh wait, Hollywood. Never mind.

Ah yes, the fifth movie of a trilogy that sucked to begin with.

Pirates 4's main downside was that it was heavy on Depp's silliness without much of a foil with Bloom or Knightley.

The first three Pirates movies have always had supernatural elements (Zombies, Kraken, Cthulhu-Dude) and a magical MacGuffin (Cursed Gold, Magic Map, Magic Compass, etc). The Fourth movie having Mermaids and a Fountain of Youth actually fit the Pirates-with-Magical-Stuff theme rather well. It was just the execution that failed.

Having a Pirates movie with just pirates alone may end up being just a bland movie with Johnny Depp being silly the whole time.

All of the PotC movies had some form of supernatural elements in them. If they're abandoning that, is the new film just going to be a remake of Muppet Treasure Island?

I have been waiting for this day.

Seems like he doesn't really "get it" as half the appeal of the entire series has been the supernatural elements which have been present from the beginning. You drop the ghost pirates, demonic/cursed incarnations of Davy Jones, and other assorted insanity and your missing what makes the formula work. "Pirates 4" failed I think because it was a cash grab and while the basic elements were in place for a decent story, it was just carried off badly.

The most important thing that I think sank "Pirates 4" was that the first three movies worked by having an ensemble cast of sorts. It wasn't all Johnny Depp acting weird, you also had Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly to fall back on, both of whom were pretty big names in their own right then (and still are). One thing to understand also is that as the series was developed it seemed like the idea was to have Orlando Bloom play the hero, and Jack Sparrow be his sidekick/partner, but that plan got supplanted as the Jack Sparrow character became far more popular and people wanted to see more of Johnny Depp. It worked in part because even with a reduced role, you still had Orlando Bloom doing a fairly normal hero thing alongside him, and if people got tired of the two of them you still had Keira Knightly who could present herself as far more than just a pretty face as she's a good actress. Geoffrey Rush is a fine supporting guy, but was never really full out co-star material (though people have given him numerous chances) and relying on him playing Barbarossa to pick up the slack for both a lack of Keira Knightly and Orlando Bloom was a mistake.

In judging "Pirates 5" the first thing people should be looking at is who else does this movie have in it except for Johnny Depp. Apparently Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly are unlikely to reprise their roles (and that would be hard since their entire arc for their characters came to a conclusion). If they don't bring another "A" or at least "High B" actor or actress that you could see in a pirate movie to the table it's pretty much going to be doomed. As odd as it sounds I would think Disney would do well to see if they could land Angelina Jolie as she's done some odd fantasy roles through her career, and she's already done some great work for them with "Maleficent" (speaking of an odd fantasy role). Her other half Brad Pitt could also pull off a role in a movie like this as well. Of course the big problem with ideas like this is that A-list actors are expensive, and can explode the price of a movie especially when your looking at something that is already going to be this FX heavy.

As far as "Lone Ranger" goes, I've basically skipped it. The bottom line from what I've been hearing is that they made it a lot too goofy, and Johnny Depp was actually responsible for a lot of that. A lot of it probably because when you get down to it "Lone Ranger" was hardly politically correct, especially his much-parodied relationship with Tonto and other Indians and the like. He's pretty much a character popularized in another time, with another set of standards, and really can't be made to work while retaining his essence. This is arguably a problem with a lot of westerns, a genera big on a whole "Frontier America: Yay!" attitude and in many cases some rather brutal actions against natives (who are currently sympathized with) and Mexicans (who were big competitors at the time) there are only so many ways you can have some unwashed guys in cowboy hats get gunned down for great justice and basically re-tell some version of the OK Corral. What's more when they do supernatural westerns it's almost always the same thing, we don't get "Deadlands" so much as the whole "gunslinger comes back from the dead", which while workable, was something sold by Clint Eastwood originally and other variations like "Dead In Tombstone" or "The Lone Ranger" seem like they are just playing follow the leader. Especially seeing as Clint's version was more subtle (in "The Man With No Name" series they never explicitly stated he was a ghost, but all the hints are there... and it is something that can be debated).

Straight (lol) pirate movie? So it's not a Pirates of the Caribbean movie... so... what's the point again?

But I thought the supernatural was part of the appeal of Pirates of the Caribbean. Zombies, Davy Jones, sea monsters, end of the world, fountain of youth...it all fits perfectly well if you ask me. Taking that out and just making a straight Pirate movie means what, exactly? Jack is going to go around with a newly restored Pearl, raiding ships and killing the crew of said ships? Because that's about as straight a pirate movie as you can get.

Or did he mean to say they're going to tone down the more fantasy elements, but still keep them in?

Can we get Gore Verbinski back to direct?

Didn't they originally say the third movie was going to be the last one? And then they said the fourth one was definitely the final film?

Could this be more cash-grabby?

So no more Penelope Cruz is what your saying?

In all seriousness though who is the next antagonist gonna be Yellowbeard? Blue Beard? or Sir Francis Drake (if they are going to continue the England and EIC is evil theme)?

wetfart:
All of the PotC movies had some form of supernatural elements in them. If they're abandoning that, is the new film just going to be a remake of Muppet Treasure Island?

Actually, can we just have a remake of Muppet Teasure Island, guest starring Johnny Depp? That movie kicked ass.

Objectable:
Actually, can we just have a remake of Muppet Teasure Island, guest starring Johnny Depp? That movie kicked ass.

Only if we can get Tim Curry to sign on too!

At first I read that title as "Pirates of the Caribbean 5 won't happen" and though "wow, they finally got it" but no, they're probably just keep making them, even though they'll probably come out with something worse than the 4th one.

The reason why 4 did poorly wasn't necessarily because of an over reliance on the supernatural elements, it was because it was a halfhearted script and obvious cash grab what with waning public interest in the series. That and blatant audience pandering, namely the expanded roles of Depp and Rush. I always felt the best iteration of Captain Jack Sparrow was as the goofy wildcard sidekick with an agenda of his own that could go from a bumbling idiot savant to a world class manipulator in a heartbeat, not the main focus of the movie. He can't carry an entire movie by himself, and the writers had no idea whether to make Jack a proactive hero or an unwilling captive who just wanted to leave. Whatever the case he ends up looking disinterested in everything that's happening around him and sticks around or returns after escaping because REASONS. It's like they wrote a new character to play the straight man to Jack's wildcard but ended up scraping him and merging the two.

Therumancer:
Especially seeing as Clint's version was more subtle (in "The Man With No Name" series they never explicitly stated he was a ghost, but all the hints are there... and it is something that can be debated).

I think you're thinking of the Preacher character from Pale Rider or The Stranger from High Plains Drifter. They're entirely separate from The Man with No Name series.

So... Does that mean that this movie is probably going to be "worse" than Pirates 4: Where Not Telling You Where We Fit In This Post-Trilogy Spectrum Of The Pirate Movies?

They better have some new big-name actors/actresses encompassing this suppose non-POTC-esque POTC movie of milking potential... I mean, if you want to, you can have some kind of "subplot" involving Jack's past coming back to "haunt" him, which would include flashbacks with a young Jack himself...

In other words, make this one turn out more like Pirates 1[1], I guess, and ["way"] less like Pirates 4...

[1] As in Pirates 1: Almost Self-Contained As Fuck Minus Post-Credit Scene

The Gentleman:
But why? Pirates 3 effectively ended the series, and 4 was naked-yet-successful cash grab.

Because the last 3 big budget movies with Depp in the lead (Dark Shadows, Lone Ranger, Transcendence) have lost money so he needs to do something safe and marketable in order to get back in the game.

Sniper Team 4:
But I thought the supernatural was part of the appeal of Pirates of the Caribbean. Zombies, Davy Jones, sea monsters, end of the world, fountain of youth...it all fits perfectly well if you ask me. Taking that out and just making a straight Pirate movie means what, exactly? Jack is going to go around with a newly restored Pearl, raiding ships and killing the crew of said ships? Because that's about as straight a pirate movie as you can get.

Or did he mean to say they're going to tone down the more fantasy elements, but still keep them in?

I hope they keep them in, but just tone them down. One of the problems Iv'e had with the series is how loaded it's gotten with magical elements.
The first movie handled it best by having only one supernatural thing going on, the cursed treasure that turned a bunch of pirates into zombie pirates. It was nice and focused and was at the center of the story.
Even the second movie was alright, being pretty much all about Davy Jones, The Flying Dutchman, and the Kraken.
The third and forth ones jumped the shark in a big way; The end of the world with little rock crab things and multiple Jack Sparrows, a God that explodes into crabs, voodoo dolls, mermaids, the fountain of youth, Ponce de Leon's corps randomly coming back to life, and Black Beard with a magical ship. It all just feels random.
They need to pick just one supernatural element and make that the center of the story, rather than just throwing magical BS in whenever they feel like it.

HardkorSB:

The Gentleman:
But why? Pirates 3 effectively ended the series, and 4 was naked-yet-successful cash grab.

Because the last 3 big budget movies with Depp in the lead (Dark Shadows, Lone Ranger, Transcendence) have lost money so he needs to do something safe and marketable in order to get back in the game.

That explains Johnny Depp, but what about Jerry Bruckheimer? Why is he greenlighting this?

The Gentleman:
That explains Johnny Depp, but what about Jerry Bruckheimer? Why is he greenlighting this?

Because the last PotC movie made over $1 billion worldwide.
Can't turn away from a gold mine.

I have just one question: ... why?

Why make ANOTHER PotC movie? The series didn't even need a fourth entry, hell, I would have preferred that the first one just remain a stand-alone movie. So why the Keith-Richards-imitating **** are we getting another one?!

So, Cutler Beckett was right? "As the map gets filled in, the magic goes out of the world?" Meh, didn't see 4, still don't care to...

Rhykker:
I have been waiting for this day.

This day arrived four times already.

Gottesstrafe:
The reason why 4 did poorly wasn't necessarily because of an over reliance on the supernatural elements, it was because it was a halfhearted script and obvious cash grab what with waning public interest in the series. That and blatant audience pandering, namely the expanded roles of Depp and Rush. I always felt the best iteration of Captain Jack Sparrow was as the goofy wildcard sidekick with an agenda of his own that could go from a bumbling idiot savant to a world class manipulator in a heartbeat, not the main focus of the movie. He can't carry an entire movie by himself, and the writers had no idea whether to make Jack a proactive hero or an unwilling captive who just wanted to leave. Whatever the case he ends up looking disinterested in everything that's happening around him and sticks around or returns after escaping because REASONS. It's like they wrote a new character to play the straight man to Jack's wildcard but ended up scraping him and merging the two.

Therumancer:
Especially seeing as Clint's version was more subtle (in "The Man With No Name" series they never explicitly stated he was a ghost, but all the hints are there... and it is something that can be debated).

I think you're thinking of the Preacher character from Pale Rider or The Stranger from High Plains Drifter. They're entirely separate from The Man with No Name series.

It's the one where he plays Marshal Duncan or something like that and he winds up being betrayed and apparently killed. He spends three movies hunting down the guys who did it, and part of the whole schtick is that he comes riding into town in a heat haze, and disappears the same way. He does various things like paint an entire town red (including the church, especially the church) in the last movie, and the final confrontation makes it kind of clear he's not normal with people basically getting whipped to death off camera (like they did to him) and thrown through doors in record time to the point where it shouldn't have been possible. They wind up asking who he was but at the end he goes past his old grave and makes it sort of clear that he's the guy whose buried there.

The point was that it was supposed to be subtle up until the end, and it's a big topic of debate as to whether he actually survived his presumed murder, or was a ghost, but I believe it was stated several times by the director and Clint Eastwood that the character was basically a ghost. I believe it was also referenced as one of the big inspirations for "The Crow", both the stand alone comics, and some of the scenes in how the first (and by far the best) movie played out.

The point though is that unlike "The Crow" it can be argued either way, as he did some very human things, but at the same time it was also why he was able to do the crazy tough guy stuff, which while stereotypical for cowboy movies, was happening in a more gritty environment where others seemed to be playing by a different set of rules. Basically nobody could outdraw the guy not because they were going for pure cheese but because the guy was literally not human.

I could be wrong by I believe one of the old version of "Boot Hill" (that might be the right western RPG) statted out famous movie gunfighters for comparative purposes, and "The Man With No Name" has a 99 in speed and accuracy or something like that, which is basically impossible to roll or obtain, because he's not mortal. Basically if he draws on you your dead...

Therumancer:
It's the one where he plays Marshal Duncan or something like that and he winds up being betrayed and apparently killed. He spends three movies hunting down the guys who did it, and part of the whole schtick is that he comes riding into town in a heat haze, and disappears the same way. He does various things like paint an entire town red (including the church, especially the church) in the last movie, and the final confrontation makes it kind of clear he's not normal with people basically getting whipped to death off camera (like they did to him) and thrown through doors in record time to the point where it shouldn't have been possible. They wind up asking who he was but at the end he goes past his old grave and makes it sort of clear that he's the guy whose buried there.

The point was that it was supposed to be subtle up until the end, and it's a big topic of debate as to whether he actually survived his presumed murder, or was a ghost, but I believe it was stated several times by the director and Clint Eastwood that the character was basically a ghost. I believe it was also referenced as one of the big inspirations for "The Crow", both the stand alone comics, and some of the scenes in how the first (and by far the best) movie played out.

The point though is that unlike "The Crow" it can be argued either way, as he did some very human things, but at the same time it was also why he was able to do the crazy tough guy stuff, which while stereotypical for cowboy movies, was happening in a more gritty environment where others seemed to be playing by a different set of rules. Basically nobody could outdraw the guy not because they were going for pure cheese but because the guy was literally not human.

I could be wrong by I believe one of the old version of "Boot Hill" (that might be the right western RPG) statted out famous movie gunfighters for comparative purposes, and "The Man With No Name" has a 99 in speed and accuracy or something like that, which is basically impossible to roll or obtain, because he's not mortal. Basically if he draws on you your dead...

Yeah that's High Plains Drifter. The townspeople hired three gunmen to whip the Marshall to death after he discovered that the local mine was on government property and he comes back to get revenge on all of them. Since he wasn't shot and was buried in an unmarked grave it's up in the air whether or not he was really a ghost or just alive and pissed off, but since he's never visibly beat up or shot (unlike in The Man with No Name trilogy) after the fact it remains ambivalent. Since none of the townsfolk are able to recognize him and one of the characters remarks that the dead can't rest without a marker and he disappears after Mordecai carves him one I'm inclined to lean toward the supernatural.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here