PingBack from http://mapofflorida.destinfloridasun.com/?p=26

PingBack from http://floridamap.floridaestatesale.com/?p=26

Is this a blend of AntZ and A bugs life?

PingBack from http://floridamap.floridarealestatejunction.com/?p=28

I cant imagine anyone on this site caring about this movie. Or the behinds the scenes happenings.

Wheres the insight and updates on DISNEY stuff? Jim ressurecting old files, Ignoring our requests for POTC After release info and now Roger writing about this crapfest of a movie.

I understand he had a few family emergencies... but POTC was released almost a month ago. And several things are getting ready to happen at WDW.

And when this movie flops, no one on this site will mention how bad it did. or compare it anything else. Annoying...

To dutchduck1977:

No, this is an adaption of John Nickles book of the same name. There are no caracters from either of the other films or place settings etc. It is an expansion of the book.

To greenskp:

So what you are saying is that inspite of what Jim himself says on the masthead of this very page: News, reviews, history and commentary about the entertainment industry (But mostly about the Mouse). Is that the site should only report direct news and reviews of Walt Disney Company projects, movies, themeparks etc. With no regard to what else is happening in the overall industry that can and could impact what the Walt Disney Company does. As an opinion, this movie will not flop, nor will it be a blockbuster, it will however be a fun family movie that will grow with time.

Is that kid wearing ant body parts? Because that's gross.

Yeah, I couldn't care less about this film. As for POTC - that is the ONLY movie I've seen this summer that I thoroughly enjoyed. Everything else - "Ice Age 2", "Over The Hedge", "Cars" and "Monster House" - was a letdown. So yeah, let's have some more celebration of the wonder that is POTC. How about the new Disney logo in the front of the film, huh? Wasn't that awesome? So much better than the cheapie cutout castle and whiny theme music from the Eisner years. How about an article about that and how it was made?

I thought the new intro was unnecessary and overly elaborate.

The cutout was quick and to the point.  More screen time for the logo, less time overall.  Quick and efficient, as I wish logos always were.  There's no need to have elaborate ones that drag on for a bit.

So it was impressive, I just liked it less.



I do agree about POTC, though.  I enjoyed it much more than any other film I've seen this summer.  I agree with just about every single criticism of it: too long, Jack suddenly too unlikeable, meandered too much, too little for anyone else to do, Davy Jones not as captivating as Barbossa... but I don't care.  It had pirates, it had an undead monkey, and it had the proper tone of not taking anything seriously yet giving everything weight.  A rare, difficult to capture tone.

So while I agree it was probably too long, I didn't want it to end.  Found myself looking at my watch hoping there was more time left, much like I do when I wake up in the middle of the night and hope I still have hours to sleep, not minutes.


I'll agree it wasn't an amazing movie, and far off from the original.
That said, it was a ton of fun and I loved it.

They need to change the title to "The PIrate Bully" so assure a big opening weekend

One RottenTomatoes critic summed it up:
"You'll be wishing that you and your kids had something better to watch. Well, you do. It's called Monster House, and it's probably just one screen over."

(Shades of a certain blue furry Pixar movie--
And we could've substituted "Cars" for the punchline, but NOOooo, someone rode that movie out of June showings on a rail...)

Tanan said:
No, this is an adaption of John Nickles book of the same name. There are no caracters from either of the other films or place settings etc. It is an expansion of the book.
---
Which (taking advantage of the chance to dogpile on the lone defender) brings up a good discussion point about why non-Disney studios are so afraid of children's books--

Of course, most studios are already "afraid" of most adult mainstream bestsellers, since there's the fear that books have balkanized themselves away from filmable plots, but, with children's books, it's different:
The sugar-frosting side of producers (like, Tom Hanks, to pick three examples in one, counting "Curious George") wants to do Big Movies of Famous Children's Books, so they can feel like they're using their Big Awesome Power of Hollywood Clout to personally do something for their own kids, persuade big Hollywood acting talent that by doing a throwaway character voice -they- can be cuddly parents, etc., and put the original books up on sale at Barnes & Noble...

But then, the Cellphone & BMW Adult side of producers kicks in, and they start snubbing the original book for only being 24 pages long and having one quick anecdotal story (as most picture books do), and thinking it's their screenwriter "burden" to flesh out for 90 minutes--
Which they grow more and more contemptuous of the original in doing, and fill  in the void with "what works" for kids' films, namely a lot of attention-deficited gags, a generic off-the-rack "Believe in yourself!" mesage, and that uniquely post-Shrek ingredient known as "Humor adults can enjoy with their kids[TM]" which is a fancy way of saying lame frenetic sitcom dialogue and "hip" references.

Which brings us back to today's article:
"We're not making fun of [the book by being more in love with our own in-jokes]...We're celebrating it!"
Uh-huh.  Sure, pal.  They ALLLLLL say that.  -_-

All I know is the audience in the theatre that I watched POTC in applauded after the logo appeared. I thought it was spectacular. Disney deserves spectacular. IMO it fit the Uncle Walt legacy perfectly. And the music score was much better than the old one too. JMHO.

First, this was a great article.  Its one of the first articles on this site which wrote about classic cinematography techniques as related to animation.  I provided a great insiders viewpoint.  Thanks for writing it.

Second, this article has everything to do with Disney and PIXAR.  It shows how the animation industry is no longer insulated within a single production house. Former Disney/Pixar Employees are spreading throughout the industry... and we can thank Disney and PIXAR.

Don't get hung up on Disney products unless they deserve the praise. And please appreciate some of the fine work being done by other studios.

Personally, POTC II was a major disappointment.  I was in a packed audience that elicited hardly any response, during or after the film. The characters were still interesting but the plot was action-driven with no real strong development or buildup and the dialog  wasn't as witty and charming as the first movie. This movie's script was so simplistic, it was probably wriiten on a napkin.  On the plus side, it did have a great visual look and I still liked Depp's character and it was a great way to escape the heat.

Anyway, JimHill is doing a great job presenting articles that really capture the tone of Disney, even if they aren't produced by Disney.  

To all the Pixar haters out there guess what John up and did... yep, not only is 2D coming back, but we are getting a new Princess movie in the old Disney Princess tradition.  Check IMDB.  What do you have to say about that?

Well, POTC is on its way to making 400 million dollars at the box office. It's already surpassed "Lion King".

As for POTC, I'm planning on seeing it again.

Traditional animation still beats CG in terms of character animation. With cinemas swamped with CG anmiation, traditional animation should standout. Looking forward to the return.

POTC at 400 million, thats amazing.  I can't wait for POTC III.

<i>Tired of stories about Disney films that are supposedly unperforming? Well, Roger Colton turns your attention toward Warner Bros. Studios. Which has had such a long cold streak at the box office this year, you'd think that their corporate headquarters