Monday Mouse Watch: Is Gore Verbinski looking to bail on "Pirates 4" ?

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.