I hate to say this but, I need a break from POTC movies. I love them but as many other films have proven, the public tends to grow tired of a series after the third film.

Maybe Disney should wait awhile, then adapt POTC to the small screen. "Superman" is doing well as "Smallville". Maybe POTC could be called "Port Royal."

wec is TOTALLY on point...  From what I've heard of Shrek and Spiderman, sequels are certainly going to disappoint a bit this summer.  I suspect "sequel fatigue" is going to hit the movie going public over the next few months.  A $300M pirate movie may not be the money-in-the-bank Disney thinks.  Leave POTC alone!  Do an "Indy."  Some years down the road, bring it back after we've had time to miss it!

Sequel fatigue, and still "Spider-Man 3" is breaking all records.....

I think that if they released "Pirates IV" in 2010, it would be a larger hit. It will be more anticipated than, after they wait a while. But they shouldn't make one without Verbinski!! That would ruin everything.

"ImageMovers"? They choose a really.. original and inspiring name for it.. not.. Getting sick of Zemeckis and motion-capture.

Is POTC3 in the can yet?

Who cares, but does anyone besides me think that Berk Breathed bears a striking resemblance to Judge Harry Stone (aka Harry Anderson) from Night Court??

it will be interesting to see what the final box office for spidey 3 will be. Yes, it did break records this weekend but most of the people I know who saw it were pretty mixed about how they felt about it. We will see after next weekend.

If Breathed is really thinking about shutting down Opus, good riddance. Outland was a disaster and I'll bet Opus is doing poorly in syndication as well. Breathed was never much more than a Doonesbury wanna-be. When his latest waste of newsprint disappears, Bush should stand in front of a national forest with a sign saying "Another tree saved". ;)

My nephew saw Spidey III and hated it, FWIW. I enjoyed the first two but I doubt I'll see this one. I'm focusing on Shrek and POTC III. Can't wait for those.

empoor said:

""ImageMovers"? They choose a really.. original and inspiring name for it.. not.. Getting sick of Zemeckis and motion-capture."

ImageMovers was formed in 1997, so its been around for quite some time.  It's nothing new..."ImageMovers Digital" is just the new name for the Zemeckis/Disney side of it.  In terms of originality...how is it any worse than most of the extremely bland names for other big prod. companies like Jerry Bruckheimer Films?  

Falfa31 said:

"ImageMovers was formed in 1997, so its been around for quite some time.  It's nothing new..."ImageMovers Digital" is just the new name for the Zemeckis/Disney side of it.  In terms of originality...how is it any worse than most of the extremely bland names for other big prod. companies like Jerry Bruckheimer Films?"

I knew that, but I always thought a "creative" company like Disney could have come up with a new, inspiring name for it.

And of course there are a lot of "+ Films" or "+ Studios" production companies out there, but once in a while I come across original names, and that always refreshes me. In my opinion, the last "new" big studio with the most inspiring name was "DreamWorks" (although I hate the brand name "Go Fish Pictures"), and what I also absolutely hated was "The Weinstein Company" after they had such a good start with the combination of their parents names into "Miramax". Such a waste and a shame the Weinsteins couldn't come up with something more inspiring this time. Well, maybe not such a surprise since they lost their touch nowadays.

Yeah... completely uninspired names.

Kinda like that non-creative company... oh what's it's name...? You know, the one that names things after... oh what's his name? You know, Disneyland, Walt Disney World, W.E.D. And how horrible is it when that same company uses such mundane things like street names and such to call things. Buena Vista? Hyperion? Puh-leaze!!!

C'mon people. Really. Do you really spend time fretting over these names?

When you can show me how a name affects production of said product, then I will listen. Until then I'm just gonna shake my head at all of you.

You said it yourself. You answered your own question :P

"Disney" in itself is a brand with an inspiring message attached to it, regardless if it is also a surname. And the brand name "Disney" affects production of its products and how people look up to that product and conceive it ;)

First things First!

Opus Rocks!

Second...Oy! We'll direct it-write it!

Hey-You get built in Storyboards ,Ad and Merch designers! : D

I promise the only thing that can get tired of-is dealing with studio politics : P

hummm....nevermind....I don't want to deal with the studio EEP!

lol

Exactly what "mission" would Breathed be talking about, there?  Waiting eight years?

As for Verbinski, Disney shouldn't rely too heavily on one director if they want the franchise to go on for a long time.  The longest running film series, James Bond, never relied on one director to carry it.

Empoor... are you impying that the 'Disney' name came with all the perks it now garners? I would disagree. The 'Disney' name had to EARN its reputation.

Maybe my question was too 'gray' in the way I worded it.

How does a name negatively impact the quality of the product that said company produces? It doesn't in my opinion. You could make up the stupidest name imaginable and if your product is great, people will love the name and it will become cool.

I agree, I also meant that the "Disney" name has earned its reputation over time.

Well, it doesn't impact the actual quality, of course not, but it has a small impact (and how small differs per person) on the way people conceive the product. A cheap name will always sound cheap, and people will associate the product as cheap (and when it comes to say, movies, they will not visit them) because of the brand name attached to it, regardless of the actual content. In general this impact is small, and has as much to do with marketing as with the actual brand name, but it does have an impact.

Empoor - I'd be curious (because to be honest, other than the Disney name, I pay absolutely no attention to company names) to hear an example or two of some product that you refuse to buy because of your dislike for the company's name (not reputation).

Speaking of names, I thought this article was going to be more about Verbinski than Breathed judging by the title. *Shrug* Interesting stuff, though. I look the look of that "Flawed Dogs" book.

I'm surprised and then again not surprised that Depp has decided to stick with Pirates even after three films, but I am definitely not shocked that Verbinski is thinking about bailing. Then again, I found the second movie to be a major disappointment and I find Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann to be incredibly dull (which is strange, because I'm a die-hard romantic). I watch those movies for Jack Sparrow, Captain Barbossa, and a handful of minor characters. However, I doubt I'll care enough to go see a fourth movie if Will and Elizabeth, and the ever-repetitive "hide the rum" jokes are still in it. Oh, and the Krakken? That was what ruined the second film for me more than anything - totally unnecessary distraction of loud noise and poor story narration.

If the fourth movie expands on the universe, perhaps, and brings more from the ride, then I'll be willing to check it out, even if Verbinski isn't directing. I'm not sure which of his ideas produced what elements of the second film, so I can't really predict if I'll miss his directing or not (although I did love it in the first film).

I can see "Pirates 4" marking a very tired, sinking franchise for shore leave. To me the franchise is already tired thanks to my above complaints.

Please, let the Pirates franchise be done with.  You know I love it... but enough is enough.  Leave 'em wanting more I say.

Well, as Walt was fond of saying: "you can't top pigs with pigs."

Unfortunately, Hollywood still hasn't learned that lesson. It's still extremely rare for a sequel to be superior to the original ... let's see, there's "Godfather II," "Toy Story 2," and that's about it.

"Pirates: DMC" was bloated ... but still a must-see for many fans. Johnny Depp as Capt'n Jack is enough to pull in the crowds. I'll likely see Spider-Man 3 this next weekend ... but my expectations aren't all that high.

I know we are drawn to movies for several reasons. Maybe it's a beloved actor -- we'll see something just because it stars Tom Hanks, Robert DeNiro, Bill Macy, others, Maybe we'll see a film because it was directred by Steven Spielberg, Alfred Hitchcock, Frank Capra, Peter Jackson, etc.

Hollywood wants sure-fire hits and a franchise that can bring in tons of revenue from licensing and merchandising. I prefer the mindset at Pixar ... and what can and should still be the guiding idea at Disney ... in that the brand is the franchise. The name means quality.

I'd like Disney to give PotC a rest -- or develop it into a TV series. But, I suspect the number crunchers will simply look at the box office tallies and the fact that Depp loves the role enough to continue and we'll see PotC 4 ... damn the story, full-speed ahead.

The question should not be is Verbinski coming back? It should not be, will Johnny come back?

The question should be, whats the story?

We all know Worlds End is bringing on the end of piracy. Its no secret that eventually there isnt any piracy and those drunken pirates have to eventually put on a suit and go to their wall street jobs. Wikipedia piracy and you'll see when it ended and how.

So what else could Jack possibly do? Does he 'merchant' around New Orleans? Does he become a bandit in the new old west? Or does the sequel turn into a prequel, explaining who Jack is and how he became the legend.

Id be interested in seeing the latter.

Where have I heard this before?    

"There's only a hint of a story in the book. But all of the characters and settings that you need for a fun movie are there."

So what is Disney Co investing their money in?

Most people waiting in line this summer at the Nemo sub ride can come up with "characters and settings."

Hollywood's Plan:

Step one - take a little story -Polar Express, How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Step two - blow it up to 90 minutes plus. Step three - limit the audience disappointment with lots of loud noise.

Those movies at least started from stories - now we are reduced to characters and settings. Should Disney Co be paying for "Mars needs Moms", or just negotiate directly for rights to the Jimmy Neutron movie?  Disney Co seems to have plenty of money for vague "characters and settings" and executive bonuses, but actual front-line cast member salaries? Oh, sorry, we're fresh outa cash.

greenyskp said:

"The question should not be is Verbinski coming back?"

Um, yes... it should.  Do you think he has no part in conceiving the story?

Gore Verbinski is the author of those films, period.  Without him, you'll have a totally different movie and whatever sensibilities you loved in 'Pearl' and 'Chest' will be completely lost to Davey Jones's locker.  If Disney is smart, they'll give him all of the resources he needs to make another picture, and then leave him alone to make it.  That is the only chance for any kind of success in this business.  

Falfa31 said:

"Gore Verbinski is the author of those films, period. [..]"

You're stepping into dangerous territory now ;) Who is the actual "author" of a film is highly debatable and never bring it up when talking to a group which consists of producers, directors and writers. Because a writer can argue that he is the author of the film, since it is all played upon his/her script. A producer will argue that since he/she starts and ends the movie and is the "overall director" of the complete movie, that he/she is the actual author. You also have the actor side of it all, who will say that their performance sets the movie, so they are the author of the movie.

To make a long story short: you can't say "he is the author, period". Because everybody on the project, from the "second second assistent director" to the "costume designer", from the "writer" to that "tall guy in the crowd"; they're all authors on their own.

Aw man...  I was going to go out and purchase "Mars Needs Moms!", but then I read Jim Hill's recap of some of Breathed's toon rants against the sitting U.S. president, and so now I won't.  

"When his [Breathed's] latest waste of newsprint disappears, Bush should stand in front of a national forest with a sign saying 'Another tree saved'. ;)" ---nice one, Gigglesock!

Regarding Verbinski potentially bowing out of PoTC4...  I am surprised to hear so many cries of "don't do it, Gore!"  AFAIAC, he's made one good 'Pirates' flick, "The Curse of the Black Pearl".  Apart from seeing Cap'n Jack shishkabobbed, "Dead Man's Chest" was not as entertaining as the first PoTC outting; furthermore, as a second-film-of-a-trilogy it wasn't nearly as effective as, say, "The Two Towers" was in maintaining tone from its lead in.  Another director could very well work wonders with PoTC material.  "Return of the Jedi" was arguably one of the best of the Star Wars films, and we all know who did *not* direct it.

bonk!

Retire the film franchise,at least for a few years. Personally, I'd like to see them make that "Pirates" animated cartoon series they had developed years ago.

Empoor said:

“To make a long story short: you can't say "he is the author, period". Because everybody on the project, from the "second second assistent director" to the "costume designer", from the "writer" to that "tall guy in the crowd"; they're all authors on their own.”

I get what you are saying, but I don’t agree.  Assistant directors, costume designers, art directors, etc. are all craftspeople and, of course, contribute to the final film, but the actual auteur of a picture is the Director…period.  The director makes every aesthetic choice in the development of a movie…from screenplay to final color correction.  I make films, so I know something about this.  

Writers and producers understand this too.  Remember when “Little Miss Sunshine” won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay this year?  The writer got up and thanked the directors, remarking that they “were the true authors of this film”.

So, I really don’t think its much of debate honestly, or dangerous ground.  Look at any movie directed by John Ford, Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock, Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, Woody Allen, Steven Spielberg, Paul Thomas Anderson, Martin Scorsese, etc and tell me that they were not authors of their films.  Each one came from their creator, and could not have come from anyone else.  

"the actual auteur of a picture is the Director…period"

Try telling that to the directors that Bette Davis ran roughshod over for much of her career.  She controlled what went on screen much more than the director did.  And George Lucas is arguably the auter of the Star Wars films, even the two he didn't direct because he guided the entire project and had final cut.  Another example is Stanley Kubrick, one of the most distinct directors of all time, but he would have told you himself that "Spartacus" was not his film, it was Kirk Douglas'.

So, no, it is not as clear cut as you state.

There are always exceptions to every rule, but speaking as someone who is a stage actor and director, I can tell you that the final product is the directors vision... period. He may not be the original author of the text, but he is the author of everything from that point on... especially the finished product. If anyone else is involved it is at the directors discretion.

I think the examples that rhindle stated were very specific cases and situations that represent maybe 5% (if even that) of movies made.

It would be like saying that we don't really have to follow any laws because celebrities seem to always get off.

What needs clarification here is the difference between being an author and being an auteur.  Based on the strict definitions of these two words, the author is the screenplay's originator; the auteur is the screenplay's visual interpreter.  To be both, a director must have both writer & director credits in the final film, though not every writer/director is an auteur.

Example 1: Alfred Hitchcock.  Definite auteur, not author.  His hiring the writers based on their strengths to interpret a previously published work does not make him the author.

Example 2: P.T. Anderson.  Definite author/auteur.  Writes his own screenplays and has a distinct eye in interpreting them for the screen.  Also see Quentin Tarantino, and the Coen Brothers.

Example 3: The Hired Gun (apropos of a discussion of a Jerry Bruckheimer film).  Most of the young directors Simpson/Bruckheimer ever worked with were hired guns to work cheap and create stunning visuals.  This is also the last person that should lay claim to "authorship" of a film.

The point here is that anyone and their cousin can sit in a story session in pre-production and say, "since we're shooting here, we should have something like this in it".  This is not authoring the work.  This is called "brainstorming", or (more cynically) "writing by committee".

In the final analysis, an auteur has a singular vision that allows them a unique perspective to interpret the written word of a screenplay, and translate that vision through all production departments.  While that ability makes for some incredible, inventive films, and does set them apart, it does not make them the films' authors.

Not to beat a dead horse....

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Author:

Etymology: Middle English auctour, from Anglo-French auctor, autor, from Latin auctor promoter, originator, author, from augEre to increase --

1: one that originates or creates

Auteur:

Etymology: French, originator, author, from Old French autor, from Latin auctor --

1: a film director whose practice accords with the auteur theory

Auteur Theory:

: a view of filmmaking in which the director is considered the primary creative force in a motion picture

Both words have their roots in words that mean to originate.

Since few original texts make it to the screen without a screen writer writing their version of the story (screenplay). Usually with some input from both original author, director, and possibly others... coupled with the fact that actors do have some input into scenes and dialogue... on top of the fact that the whole thing is ultimately edited by an editor and director (where things are cut entirely and the order can be massively altered) ... I would say that the director is MUCH more the author of the final product that the original text author is.

But maybe we are splitting hairs. The author of the story is different than the author of the movie. Fair enough?

About 18 months back, one of the cable channels (Bravo?) ran one of those countdown lists for the best Christmas/holiday shows and movies- and referred to Nightmare Before Christmas as having been directed by Tim Burton. Now, I'm sure everyone who is reading this here knows that's not the case.

In terms of auteur theory, I think it can be hard to pin down in such a collaborative medium. And I doubt most directors are proficient enough in all areas of production to go at it alone. But the more knowledge he or she has in these areas helps them choose talent better.

BTW, have any of you heard of the Kuleshov Effect? I think it's an interesting notion how editing can compensate for lack of performance.

captainhook91 said:

But maybe we are splitting hairs. The author of the story is different than the author of the movie. Fair enough?

Fair enough, but to me there is no "author of the movie".  I draw the line at the necessity of the filmmakers to declare "authorship" of their works.  You are a director or a producer or a stagehand or a wigmaker.  You are not an author unless you opt to sit at a typewriter/word processor and write something beginning to end.

The title of "author" has been appropriated from it's traditional proper usage, which is strictly to do with the written word.  The closest approximation here is the screenwriter, which may or may not be the director.  Other legitimate forms of art (paintings, sculptures, carvings, weavings, etc.) do not require an "author", so why should films?

To me it is blatant mis-usage of the word and takes away from actual authors who create much more complete experiences (fictional or otherwise) than filmmakers could ever hope to achieve.  Just ask any fan of a novel/short story what they think of the filmed version of their favourite beloved work.

I think Gore deserves the break from POTC. All the cast does.

As much as I would love a 4th movie, I wouldn't be extrememly sad if it didn't happen. If it does, I would be glad to see just Jack and maybe Barbossa in there. Elizabeth and Will are great, but I'm more sick of then than Jack. Besides, so much more can be done with Jack's character.

As for POTC coming to TV, yes! I've seen those Young Jack Sparrow books everywhere. This would make a perfect animated show, and it would be refreshing compared to the poor-quality current animated shows on the Disney Channel/Toon Disney. I think it would be a hit.

burke 426 said:

“Fair enough, but to me there is no "author of the movie".  I draw the line at the necessity of the filmmakers to declare "authorship" of their works.  You are a director or a producer or a stagehand or a wigmaker.  You are not an author unless you opt to sit at a typewriter/word processor and write something beginning to end.

The title of "author" has been appropriated from it's traditional proper usage, which is strictly to do with the written word.  The closest approximation here is the screenwriter, which may or may not be the director.  Other legitimate forms of art (paintings, sculptures, carvings, weavings, etc.) do not require an "author", so why should films?

To me it is blatant mis-usage of the word and takes away from actual authors who create much more complete experiences (fictional or otherwise) than filmmakers could ever hope to achieve.  Just ask any fan of a novel/short story what they think of the filmed version of their favourite beloved work.”

What we are talking about when we talk of “authorship” is who made the film…as in the director…as in the “filmmaker”.  Cinema is a visual medium, not a text based medium.  The screenplay is ONLY A BLUEPRINT for a future film, not the actual art itself.  The director takes this blueprint and further crafts the film from there…therefore actually making the director the “author” of the film.  See?

Cinema is a director’s medium…this is what we are saying.  This is also why there is entire series of classes at my film school (and every other film school) called “Authorship” that focuses on the work of DIRECTORS.  Not producers, screenwriters, or wigmakers.

Oh, and a painter (for example) would indeed be the actual author of his or her painting.

burke426 - "The title of "author" has been appropriated from it's traditional proper usage, which is strictly to do with the written word."

Actually, if you look at the definitions that I posted you will see that it had no specific 'proper usage' in regards to the written word. Its roots lay in words that are: promoter, originator, and increase. Rather general if you ask me. Where is your specific and narrow usage of the word implied in any of that?

Broaden those horizons!  :o)

I think that if it a forth film came around in 2010 or 2011, then the break will be long enough to not overwelm or oversaturate teh public, let the pirate fad settle a bit, but short enough that it won't be irrelevent, but As much as I love the films (changed my life, i'll admit, I used to be a total loser before i "met" jack), it should end there, like Indiana Jones 4.