disney rebooting Pirates of the caribbean without johnny depp

Avatar image for deactivated-5c03000d4b1b4
#1 Posted by deactivated-5c03000d4b1b4 (1750 posts) -

http://www.commdiginews.com/entertainment/johnny-depp-pirates-reboot-108169

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/johnny-depp-reportedly-booted-from-pirates-of-the-caribbean-franchise

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/entertainment/a24256711/johnny-depp-axed-pirates-of-the-caribbean-film/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316277/Johnny-Depp-Jack-Sparrow-Disneys-Pirates-Caribbean-film-franchise.html

gonna flop hard. johnny depp is the only good thing about pirates

Avatar image for todddow
#2 Posted by Todddow (893 posts) -

Umm, why though?

Doesn't need a reboot yet and I agree, won't be the same without Depp.

Avatar image for blackhairedhero
#3 Posted by Blackhairedhero (2362 posts) -

Dam Disney God forbid you try to make something new.

Avatar image for johnd13
#4 Posted by johnd13 (9509 posts) -

I understand they want to take advantage of the Pirates of the Caribbean property but just give it some time off. We've already had so many movies these past few years. And like others have said, it just won't be the same without Captain Jack Sparrow.

Avatar image for davillain-
#5 Edited by DaVillain- (33085 posts) -

I feel like Pirates of the Caribbean franchise has potential but it was being dragged down. The 5th movie messes with the lore so much and destroyed Jack Sparrow completely as a character. The sequel Hook was terrible and I say that as a huge fan of that character. His story was done and bringing him back seemed like a cheap movie.

I want more pirate movies and I’m fine with them moving on with a fresh new direction of done right that is. If Disney wants more Pirate movies, I would very like to see a new Treasure Planet animation please Disney. I really like & enjoy Treasure Planet, a sequel would be good to see despite it was underrated.

Avatar image for cjdaweasel
#6 Posted by cjdaweasel (1560 posts) -

@davillain- said:

I feel like Pirates of the Caribbean franchise has potential but it was being dragged down. The 5th movie messes with the lore so much and destroyed Jack Sparrow completely as a character. The sequel Hook was terrible and I say that as a huge fan of that character. His story was done and bringing him back seemed like a cheap movie.

I want more pirate movies and I’m fine with them moving on with a fresh new direction of done right that is. If Disney wants more Pirate movies, I would very like to see a new Treasure Planet animationplease Disney. I really like & enjoy Treasure Planet, a sequel would be good to see despite it was underrated.

Treasure Planet +1

Avatar image for JustPlainLucas
#7 Posted by JustPlainLucas (78858 posts) -

It was already dying a few movies ago and that was WITH Johnny Depp. I don't know how they can possibly salvage another one without him...

Avatar image for crimsonbrute
#8 Posted by CrimsonBrute (25229 posts) -

disney rebooting Pirates of the caribbean without johnny depp

http://memegenerator.net/img/instances/73754022/stop-it-stop-it-its-already-dead.jpg

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#9 Posted by LJS9502_basic (165436 posts) -

The only thing that made the movies was Depp. Disney is lost.

Avatar image for watercrack445
#10 Edited by watercrack445 (870 posts) -

Too soon. It has been a decade ago since the first movie came out and they are deciding to reboot it. Wow. Shame

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#11 Edited by Jacanuk (17060 posts) -

@JustPlainLucas said:

It was already dying a few movies ago and that was WITH Johnny Depp. I don't know how they can possibly salvage another one without him...

Ya Dead Men only made 800mill compared to the around 690 to 1billion for all the rest.

Not sure which ones you mean "died" ?

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#12 Posted by Jacanuk (17060 posts) -

@narutosup said:

http://www.commdiginews.com/entertainment/johnny-depp-pirates-reboot-108169

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/johnny-depp-reportedly-booted-from-pirates-of-the-caribbean-franchise

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/entertainment/a24256711/johnny-depp-axed-pirates-of-the-caribbean-film/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316277/Johnny-Depp-Jack-Sparrow-Disneys-Pirates-Caribbean-film-franchise.html

gonna flop hard. johnny depp is the only good thing about pirates

99% chance Disney is trying with a female lead if Deep is not there.

But Pirates without Deep is no Pirates So Disney must be out of their mind or this is simply a ploy to negotiate payment.

Avatar image for JustPlainLucas
#13 Edited by JustPlainLucas (78858 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:
@JustPlainLucas said:

It was already dying a few movies ago and that was WITH Johnny Depp. I don't know how they can possibly salvage another one without him...

Ya Dead Men only made 800mill compared to the around 690 to 1billion for all the rest.

Not sure which ones you mean "died" ?

Quality wise. They've been getting worse and worse, at least to me.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#14 Posted by Jacanuk (17060 posts) -

@JustPlainLucas said:
@Jacanuk said:
@JustPlainLucas said:

It was already dying a few movies ago and that was WITH Johnny Depp. I don't know how they can possibly salvage another one without him...

Ya Dead Men only made 800mill compared to the around 690 to 1billion for all the rest.

Not sure which ones you mean "died" ?

Quality wise. They've been getting worse and worse, at least to me.

Ahh, ya have to agree there

Without Depp, I doubt I would even have bothered watching the last one at all.

Avatar image for blackballs
#15 Posted by BlackBalls (942 posts) -

@blackhairedhero said:

Dam Disney God forbid you try to make something new.

Well its all about making money, and the franchise is a big money maker so... makes sense doesn't it?

Avatar image for blackhairedhero
#16 Posted by Blackhairedhero (2362 posts) -

@blackballs: Yea but without Johnny Depp? Sometimes you just gotta let a good thing end before it goes bad.

"The Walking Dead" is a perfect example.

Avatar image for Ovirew
#17 Posted by Ovirew (8410 posts) -

When On Stranger Tides came out I really enjoyed it. It felt like, at that point, this is a series of movies that doesn't have to be limited to a trilogy, and that new adventures with Jack Sparrow after the original and the Davy Jones movies were possible. I was even willing to overlook the shoehorned love-story they added to it to make up for Will and Elizabeth not being present, and Blackbeard being a lackluster villain.

To be fair I think Dead Men Tell No Tales had some good things going for it. I thought Salazar made a decent villain, and looked cool, too. I even kind of liked the two new main characters that were introduced. But the movie just wasn't that good. It was a decent-length movie, and by the time it was over I felt like not a whole lot really had happened. And it killed off a major character in the films, who I felt was great in On Stranger Tides.

Depp wasn't on good terms with the crew in this latest movie because they fired the one guy who pushed for him to get the role of Jack Sparrow in the first place. I get that. So I can understand that he might not want to have anything to do with PotC anymore. Of course it sounds like these days he's pretty much out of touch with the world anyway, and it's probably best for the franchise to be distanced from Johnny Depp. It's just a shame there was never some conclusive end to Jack Sparrow's journey.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#18 Edited by mrbojangles25 (42420 posts) -

@blackhairedhero said:

Dam Disney God forbid you try to make something new.

Yeah that was my thought as well.

I mean is this standard policy now? Make five movies in the same series, then reboot it and make another five movies in the same series?

I guess "we" are to blame, though; frackin idiots pay to see this crap.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#19 Posted by MrGeezer (59715 posts) -

@mrbojangles25 said:
@blackhairedhero said:

Dam Disney God forbid you try to make something new.

Yeah that was my thought as well.

I mean is this standard policy now? Make five movies in the same series, then reboot it and make another five movies in the same series?

I guess "we" are to blame, though; frackin idiots pay to see this crap.

To be fair, I think that Disney is a big enough company that they're necessarily at least partly involved with LOTS of new stuff (at least from their subsidiary companies). Making big bucks on huge money-makers like this should help "new" stuff get made.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#20 Edited by mrbojangles25 (42420 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:
@mrbojangles25 said:
@blackhairedhero said:

Dam Disney God forbid you try to make something new.

Yeah that was my thought as well.

I mean is this standard policy now? Make five movies in the same series, then reboot it and make another five movies in the same series?

I guess "we" are to blame, though; frackin idiots pay to see this crap.

To be fair, I think that Disney is a big enough company that they're necessarily at least partly involved with LOTS of new stuff (at least from their subsidiary companies). Making big bucks on huge money-makers like this should help "new" stuff get made.

Yeah, I just want my classic animation to come back, though :)

I like Disney, and I even enjoyed most of the Pirates of the Carib films, but why reboot it? Yes, money, I know...but why else?

Avatar image for PSP107
#21 Posted by PSP107 (17285 posts) -

@mrbojangles25: "Yeah, I just want my classic animation to come back, though" :)

Should they reboot A Goofy Movie?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#22 Posted by LJS9502_basic (165436 posts) -
@PSP107 said:

@mrbojangles25: "Yeah, I just want my classic animation to come back, though" :)

Should they reboot A Goofy Movie?

Is it really to hard to create new ideas.........or do we have to rehash everything now?

Avatar image for PSP107
#23 Posted by PSP107 (17285 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic: "Is it really to hard to create new ideas.........or do we have to rehash everything now?"

When the last time you saw innovation in anything?

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#24 Posted by mrbojangles25 (42420 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:
@PSP107 said:

@mrbojangles25: "Yeah, I just want my classic animation to come back, though" :)

Should they reboot A Goofy Movie?

Is it really to hard to create new ideas.........or do we have to rehash everything now?

You don't even have to come up with genuinely new ideas. Disney is famous for taking fables from all over the world and turning them into these amazing fairy tales.

How many cultures have amazing stories that they have left untouched, have not turned into movies?

How about an animated movie (trilogy, even?) about the Indian fable of the Ramayana, where a prince goes off to rescue his wife from a demon? That sounds pretty Disney to me.

Hell, if Disney decided to play it a bit bolder, there's a whole slew of things they could do for adults as well. Grave of the Fireflies doesn't have to be the saddest animated film ever.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#25 Posted by LJS9502_basic (165436 posts) -

@mrbojangles25: At this point I'm tired of retreads and want fresh ideas. There are so many printed medium that you can adapt that has never been touched before.

Avatar image for horgen
#26 Posted by Horgen (118785 posts) -

Reboot already? Didn't they release the last movie earlier this year?

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#27 Posted by Jacanuk (17060 posts) -

@horgen said:

Reboot already? Didn't they release the last movie earlier this year?

Yup they just released it,

i wonder though if Disney has heard the debate surrounding that Fantastic beast movie where they complain about Depp and his "womentrouble" And this is them reacting to that.

Avatar image for speeny
#28 Posted by Speeny (680 posts) -

I was planning to properly watch the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I guess I won't be now. Johnny Depp suits this role perfectly, but it seems from what I've read he can be a pain to work with. It's a shame. I'd be interested to know who's replacing him or if it's a completely different story-line altogether.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#29 Edited by MrGeezer (59715 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

Is it really to hard to create new ideas.........or do we have to rehash everything now?

Depends on what you mean by "new".

If you're talking about something totally unique, like nothing else that has ever been before, AND that is actually good...then YES that is very very hard. As an example, most "good" stories revolve around some kind of conflict, and film has been around long enough that just about every kind of conflict has already been done. I'm not saying that there isn't ANY room for totally unique stuff that just blows everyone's minds with how innovative it is. But from this point onward, that stuff is going to be VERY rare. It's unrealistic to expect that kind of thing to be the norm even when dealing with a new medium, and forget about that being the norm with a medium that has been incredibly popular for thislong and has reached this many people.

If you're talking about original intellectual properties that aren't remakes, sequels, or adaptations of a pre-existing intellectual property, then by that standard "new" stuff gets created all the freaking time. This is kind of one of the things that bugs me about the "nothing is new any more" complaint. MOST movies nowadays are still not sequels or rehashes or adaptations of pre-existing intellectual properties. Sure, the mega-budget tentpole blockbusters are usually sequels or rehashes, but what the hell is to be expected with movies that cost like $150 million to make? That kind of stuff is designed to be safe because obviously anyone who spends $150 million making a movie actually wants to get their money back. meanwhile, every single year there are a bunch of low-to-mid budget movies that aren't sequels or remakes or adaptations, and that get thoroughly ignored in mass pop culture because what everyone's talking about is the new Marvel or Star Wars movie. This kind of "new" stuff still exists. It seems to me that that's MOSTLY the kinds of movies that get made these days simply because MOST people making movies can't afford to spend 150 million freaking dollars getting a movie made. Yet, somehow, there's a perception by some people (I'm not saying you) that "everything is a remake/sequel/adaptation these days". It boggles my mind how anyone can actually legitimately think that unless the only things they watch are the top 10 big budget Hollywood blockbusters.

Avatar image for Solaryellow
#30 Posted by Solaryellow (4490 posts) -

@mrbojangles25 said:
@blackhairedhero said:

Dam Disney God forbid you try to make something new.

Yeah that was my thought as well.

I mean is this standard policy now? Make five movies in the same series, then reboot it and make another five movies in the same series?

I guess "we" are to blame, though; frackin idiots pay to see this crap.

You've heard of that test done on animals essentially programming them to feed at the sound of a bell. That's how it is with people and movies. Being entertained is wonderful but christ, just sit back and look at the utter crapola people pay good money to view. Whoever said there is never too much of a "good" thing was wrong. Bringing something new to the table while not saturating the market is what I look for when buying movie tickets or watching a television program. Taking a hiatus is not always bad especially when it comes to a franchise.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#31 Posted by MrGeezer (59715 posts) -

@Solaryellow said:

You've heard of that test done on animals essentially programming them to feed at the sound of a bell. That's how it is with people and movies. Being entertained is wonderful but christ, just sit back and look at the utter crapola people pay good money to view. Whoever said there is never too much of a "good" thing was wrong. Bringing something new to the table while not saturating the market is what I look for when buying movie tickets or watching a television program. Taking a hiatus is not always bad especially when it comes to a franchise.

I think that's doing people a disservice. I mean, I don't think it's that people hate movies but are simply so stupid that they're programmed to watch what gets thrown at them (at least, I don't think that's MOSTLY the case). Rather, I think that people genuinely like the stuff that they pay to watch (again, for the MOST part).

And yeah...I can sit here and say that what most people like is garbage. The flip side of that is that most of THEM can sit there and say that what I like is garbage. Which is fine. Different tastes and all. But the implication here would then be that I don't like the garbage that I like because I like it, but that I like the garbage that I like because I've been programmed to like it.

The thing about that argument is that it could really apply equally well to EVERYONE. That if this is true, NO ONE (not even you or me) actually likes what we watch. That EVERYONE is just a machine to be manipulated.

And if that's the case, I'm not even saying that's a bad thing. But that would kind of just be plain human nature, right? Why talk about that as if it's a bad thing? That'd be as pointless as lamenting the fact that we're mostly hairless and only have two legs.

Avatar image for Solaryellow
#32 Posted by Solaryellow (4490 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

I think that's doing people a disservice. I mean, I don't think it's that people hate movies but are simply so stupid that they're programmed to watch what gets thrown at them (at least, I don't think that's MOSTLY the case). Rather, I think that people genuinely like the stuff that they pay to watch (again, for the MOST part).

And yeah...I can sit here and say that what most people like is garbage. The flip side of that is that most of THEM can sit there and say that what I like is garbage. Which is fine. Different tastes and all. But the implication here would then be that I don't like the garbage that I like because I like it, but that I like the garbage that I like because I've been programmed to like it.

The thing about that argument is that it could really apply equally well to EVERYONE. That if this is true, NO ONE (not even you or me) actually likes what we watch. That EVERYONE is just a machine to be manipulated.

And if that's the case, I'm not even saying that's a bad thing. But that would kind of just be plain human nature, right? Why talk about that as if it's a bad thing? That'd be as pointless as lamenting the fact that we're mostly hairless and only have two legs.

Liking or disliking something doesn't mean you can not be objective when deciding if it is good or bad but I believe when someone looks at the pictures coming out of Hollywood, it isn't difficult to recognize and acknowledge quality being nonexistent or in short supply. As an example, I enjoyed Halloween (2018) but it isn't an upper echelon film in terms of quality nor would I ever suggest a thing. Box office gross shows how people will pay to see anything because they want to forget about R.L. for a few hours.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#33 Posted by MrGeezer (59715 posts) -

@Solaryellow said:

Liking or disliking something doesn't mean you can not be objective when deciding if it is good or bad but I believe when someone looks at the pictures coming out of Hollywood, it isn't difficult to recognize and acknowledge quality being nonexistent or in short supply. As an example, I enjoyed Halloween (2018) but it isn't an upper echelon film in terms of quality nor would I ever suggest a thing. Box office gross shows how people will pay to see anything because they want to forget about R.L. for a few hours.

Exactly. Because they WANT to forget about real life for a few hours, not because they're being programmed to think it's the best stuff ever.

Heck, do you really think that fans of these Marvel films think that those are upper echelon films in terms of quality? People watch that stuff because it's cheap easy escapism. They're fully aware of better films but choose to watch dumb movies because they want to, same as how you deliberately watched a freaking Halloween film knowing fully well that it wasn't going to be great.

Avatar image for Solaryellow
#34 Posted by Solaryellow (4490 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

Exactly. Because they WANT to forget about real life for a few hours, not because they're being programmed to think it's the best stuff ever.

Heck, do you really think that fans of these Marvel films think that those are upper echelon films in terms of quality? People watch that stuff because it's cheap easy escapism. They're fully aware of better films but choose to watch dumb movies because they want to, same as how you deliberately watched a freaking Halloween film knowing fully well that it wasn't going to be great.

Cheap? My friend, going to the movies is not cheap. People value their money to a point. If all they wanted was pure escapism, everything would do very well. Butler's submarine movie would be pulling in money hand over fist but it looks like it should have been released STV. I can't say if people thought movie X was/is the best stuff ever but apparently they found it worthy of their money. When I saw Halloween, I had free passes. Each ticket was normally $13.00. Would I have paid $13.00 X 2 to watch it? No way. This weekend I saw Bohemian Rhapsody even though the "compelling" Nobody's Fool was playing.

Marvel has things not found in those assembly line, pump them out as fast as possible films. Many of these films stem from early comics and cartoons and steadily evolved into what makes it on the big screen. People grew up watching these franchises evolve. Hunter Killer?

Are they really aware there are better films?

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#35 Posted by MrGeezer (59715 posts) -

@Solaryellow said:
@MrGeezer said:

Exactly. Because they WANT to forget about real life for a few hours, not because they're being programmed to think it's the best stuff ever.

Heck, do you really think that fans of these Marvel films think that those are upper echelon films in terms of quality? People watch that stuff because it's cheap easy escapism. They're fully aware of better films but choose to watch dumb movies because they want to, same as how you deliberately watched a freaking Halloween film knowing fully well that it wasn't going to be great.

Cheap? My friend, going to the movies is not cheap. People value their money to a point. If all they wanted was pure escapism, everything would do very well. Butler's submarine movie would be pulling in money hand over fist but it looks like it should have been released STV. I can't say if people thought movie X was/is the best stuff ever but apparently they found it worthy of their money. When I saw Halloween, I had free passes. Each ticket was normally $13.00. Would I have paid $13.00 X 2 to watch it? No way. This weekend I saw Bohemian Rhapsody even though the "compelling" Nobody's Fool was playing.

Marvel has things not found in those assembly line, pump them out as fast as possible films. Many of these films stem from early comics and cartoons and steadily evolved into what makes it on the big screen. People grew up watching these franchises evolve. Hunter Killer?

Are they really aware there are better films?

I meant "cheap" in the sense of something that doesn't require any significant emotional or intellectual work, not in terms of money.

And you might have gotten free passes to Halloween, but you apparently thought that it was worth your TIME, which is arguably the bigger dealbreaker for a lot of people. I mean, the $10 that someone spends on an Avengers ticket is nothing. But spending 2 hours of your life watching a piece of crap, you're never getting that time back.

All I'm saying is that I don't know what position any of us are to be throwing stones here. Yeah yeah, popular media is trash, I get it. But, like, so what? You watch trash and justify why it's acceptable for you to do so. I watch trash and justify why it's acceptable to do so. Hell, at least in the case of people who like dumb Hollywood flicks, they actually LIKE those flicks and don't have to justify it with stuff like, "it's okay because I saw it for free because I pirated it or got a free pass or whatever".

And yeah, I get the point that to some extent EVERYONE is programmed (to some degree) to consume pop culture trash. But, like, EVERYONE kind of does that, dude. You just admitted that you spent your time watching a movie that you never would have in good conscience paid to see. It's kind of hard to get all uppity about this topic after saying that kind of thing.

And Hunter Killer? Why even mention that? That doesn't really reinforce your point. It's a freaking submarine movie (which aren't exactly hot stuff right now). Apparently it's being critically panned. And it's total box office numbers (according to boxofficemojo, which I don't know how reliable they are) is like $13 million to date. $13 million is $***, dude. Hell, freaking Halloween made $150 million at the box office. If anything, you're just reinforcing my point. Audiences clearly stayed the hell away from Hunter Killer which is evident by its awful box office numbers. Yet you're providing that movie as evidence that people are largely programmed to flock to see trash, when people DIDN'T watch that movie. Meanwhile, Halloween was released at nearly the same time and was FAR more succesful. Yet you admit that you were part of the flock who watched it, while trying to justify that by saying that you didn't pay for a ticket?

You really don't see a disconnect here? We're both on a video game forum talking about pop culture movies and we both admit that we voluntarily watch garbage. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but try having a little bit of perspective here. It's kind of your ATTITUDE that rubbed me the wrong way, not the movies that you were watching. That you're kind of sitting there looking down on everyone else for being stupid enough to be scammed into watching trash, when you readily make excuses for watching movies that you'd be embarassed to pay to see. And to top it off, the example that you cited for how people flock to crappy movies was a movie that pretty much hardly anyone watched anyway.

Look dude, we're ALL kind of guilty of this. At the same time, I'm assuming that if you weren't at least a LITTLE bit interested in Halloween that you would have thrown the free passes into the garbage and spent your time feeding beans or clothing the poor or whatever it is that you REALLY do.

Avatar image for Solaryellow
#36 Posted by Solaryellow (4490 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

I meant "cheap" in the sense of something that doesn't require any significant emotional or intellectual work, not in terms of money.

And you might have gotten free passes to Halloween, but you apparently thought that it was worth your TIME, which is arguably the bigger dealbreaker for a lot of people. I mean, the $10 that someone spends on an Avengers ticket is nothing. But spending 2 hours of your life watching a piece of crap, you're never getting that time back.

All I'm saying is that I don't know what position any of us are to be throwing stones here. Yeah yeah, popular media is trash, I get it. But, like, so what? You watch trash and justify why it's acceptable for you to do so. I watch trash and justify why it's acceptable to do so. Hell, at least in the case of people who like dumb Hollywood flicks, they actually LIKE those flicks and don't have to justify it with stuff like, "it's okay because I saw it for free because I pirated it or got a free pass or whatever".

And yeah, I get the point that to some extent EVERYONE is programmed (to some degree) to consume pop culture trash. But, like, EVERYONE kind of does that, dude. You just admitted that you spent your time watching a movie that you never would have in good conscience paid to see. It's kind of hard to get all uppity about this topic after saying that kind of thing.

And Hunter Killer? Why even mention that? That doesn't really reinforce your point. It's a freaking submarine movie (which aren't exactly hot stuff right now). Apparently it's being critically panned. And it's total box office numbers (according to boxofficemojo, which I don't know how reliable they are) is like $13 million to date. $13 million is $***, dude. Hell, freaking Halloween made $150 million at the box office. If anything, you're just reinforcing my point. Audiences clearly stayed the hell away from Hunter Killer which is evident by its awful box office numbers. Yet you're providing that movie as evidence that people are largely programmed to flock to see trash, when people DIDN'T watch that movie. Meanwhile, Halloween was released at nearly the same time and was FAR more succesful. Yet you admit that you were part of the flock who watched it, while trying to justify that by saying that you didn't pay for a ticket?

You really don't see a disconnect here? We're both on a video game forum talking about pop culture movies and we both admit that we voluntarily watch garbage. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but try having a little bit of perspective here. It's kind of your ATTITUDE that rubbed me the wrong way, not the movies that you were watching. That you're kind of sitting there looking down on everyone else for being stupid enough to be scammed into watching trash, when you readily make excuses for watching movies that you'd be embarassed to pay to see. And to top it off, the example that you cited for how people flock to crappy movies was a movie that pretty much hardly anyone watched anyway.

Look dude, we're ALL kind of guilty of this. At the same time, I'm assuming that if you weren't at least a LITTLE bit interested in Halloween that you would have thrown the free passes into the garbage and spent your time feeding beans or clothing the poor or whatever it is that you REALLY do.

First off, lets not put words into my mouth about not seeing a due to good conscience. The reason I don't often attend theatrical movies is because the price is not justified. Add to that a bombardment of commercials, jackasses who are too dramatic or won't be quiet, etc..., The value for my money isn't there.

Hunter Killer is mentioned because, although it isn't burning up the tickets, people still paid to see it. $13,XXX,XXX is a lot of money especially for crap. Straight To Video is where it should have ended up or maybe right on the Sci Fi Channel. I mentioned Night School, Nobody's Fool ( I thought I did), etc.., which made killings and I think you are more comfortable denying rather than accepting the hold Hollywood (and media) has on individuals.

Society in general is programmed to consume garbage whether it is music, television or in this case, pictures. People follow the status quo. Tell me they don't.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#37 Edited by Serraph105 (32980 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:
@JustPlainLucas said:
@Jacanuk said:
@JustPlainLucas said:

It was already dying a few movies ago and that was WITH Johnny Depp. I don't know how they can possibly salvage another one without him...

Ya Dead Men only made 800mill compared to the around 690 to 1billion for all the rest.

Not sure which ones you mean "died" ?

Quality wise. They've been getting worse and worse, at least to me.

Ahh, ya have to agree there

Without Depp, I doubt I would even have bothered watching the last one at all.

I love Geoffrey Rush in all of them. Just saying.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#38 Edited by MrGeezer (59715 posts) -

@Solaryellow said:

First off, lets not put words into my mouth about not seeing a due to good conscience. The reason I don't often attend theatrical movies is because the price is not justified. Add to that a bombardment of commercials, jackasses who are too dramatic or won't be quiet, etc..., The value for my money isn't there.

Hunter Killer is mentioned because, although it isn't burning up the tickets, people still paid to see it. $13,XXX,XXX is a lot of money especially for crap. Straight To Video is where it should have ended up or maybe right on the Sci Fi Channel. I mentioned Night School, Nobody's Fool ( I thought I did), etc.., which made killings and I think you are more comfortable denying rather than accepting the hold Hollywood (and media) has on individuals.

Society in general is programmed to consume garbage whether it is music, television or in this case, pictures. People follow the status quo. Tell me they don't.

You still watched the movie though, dude. At the theaters too, since it's not out on Disc/Streaming yet. So what's the big takeaway from this other that maybe the people who paid to see it just don't give that much of a s*** about a measly $10?

There's a lot of stuff that I wouldn't watch for free, because I value my time. I'm sure the same is true for you. Yet you still chose to watch a freaking Halloween movie of your own free will. What evidence did you actually have that it would be worth watching even for free, considering that you hadn't seen it yet and therefore didn't know how much you'd like it?

I never said that media doesn't influence people, I was pretty damn explicit in saying that it does. My point was that that applies just as well to you or me as to anyone else. Again I ask, how the hell did you decide that a Halloween movie would be worth your time before you ever even saw it? You can't have known how good or bad it would be (again, since you hadn't seen it yet), so what exactly convinced you that it was worth taking a risk on the movie? Was it the reviews? Word of mouth from friends and peers? Trailers? You have to be "programmed" to consume ANYTHING because the default position is to NOT consume it. If someone doesn't have information (or misinformation in some cases) fed to them about a given product, then there is zero reason to consume that product because NOT buying it is the default position. The words "new Halloween movie" don't mean s*** to someone who hasn't been "programmed" by pop culture. You're in this just as deep as anyone else, so stop getting uppity about it. If you can be "programmed" to go watch stuff that you don't even think is worth a measly $10, and still be able to actually like it, despite being "programmed" in the first place, then what the hell makes you think that the millions of people watching popular bad movies are any different?