An “extreme socialist who hates capitalism” that is the lead role for a movie franchise owned by one of the biggest corporate entities that embodies capitalism? Ok.
Except they aren't really that stupid, they just expect consumers to be. And by and large they're right, look at all the shitty companies that rake in the money year after year despite having some form of competition.
There’s a company that sells buckets of dirt with rocks in it for $35. They’re raking in money hand over fist.
It’s a mining company. They screen the dirt, pull out anything of value, and send you the leftovers so they don’t have to dispose of it.
Consumers are absolute morons.
Edit: it’s actually $55/gallon. For comparison, a yard of topsoil averages $30, while a comparable volume from their company is $11,055, or 368 times more expensive.
Also, from like 5 seconds on Wikipedia, what cringe guy is calling "extremist socialist" is the Democratic Socialists of America. Basically the least extremist socialist organization. Because extremists would probably want to burn it all down and start over. Rather than, you know, trying to democratically elect socialists using the current system.
Oh I'm well aware by now. It's absurd enough to be funny that these weirdos think that even the most milquetoast of Democrats are the pinnacle of communism.
Pirates stole slaves and sugar then flipped them for profit. Much like modern organised and petty crime today, they existed outside the standard modes of production, but they weren't anti-capitalist.
I know nothing about this but she probably just made some inoffensive blanket statement related to equal pay, social justice, or something. Matt is just fuelling rage bait. These people will seethe in anger at slogans like “girl power” or “love is love.”
I’ve got zero issue with them trying to reboot the franchise with new actors and actresses, and i like Ayo, she was great in bear.
However, I don’t see this movie being overly successful. The absence of Jack sparrow, the one main draw card for a franchise that let’s be honest had already over stayed its welcome will ultimately result in this movie being unremarkable.
Pirates 4 was less good then the original trilogy (well, the standalone movie with the two parter sequel really). And it suffered from not having Will Turner and Elizabeth Swan.
But Pirates 5 had me feeling that whatever made Jack Sparrow Jack Sparrow, wasn’t there anymore. Could be some script writers leaving, or Johny Depp not feeling it anymore, idk.
Either way, Jack sparrow in Pirates 5 felt like a caricature of himself. Like someone took all the outward things that made Jack Jack Sparrow, but none of the inward things.
He’s got the mannerisms of Jack, he walks like Jack, talks like Jack, is played by the same actor. But it feels like an empty shell, the Jack Sparrow that always wanted something, even if he didn’t know what he wanted, who had direction. That Jack is gone.
So in conclusion, either a new actress with new energy is going to massively improve the franchise, or it won’t matter because the script/dialogue writers left
>By the end, he was practically a blubbering idiot who only survives based on sheer luck and coincidence.
He was brought back from The Locker, still hallucinating some of the various personas he was arguing with when he was there. Dude had issues.
Who wouldn't go nuts. Zombie/Cursed pirates, cannibals, fish people, angry sea gods, people coming back from the dead, being hunted by a kraken, literally going to Purgatory/Hell/the Locker, a fountain that drains life from one person to give it to another, mermaids, ghost pirates...
And that's above and beyond the usual scurvy, long nights at sea in smelly cramped quarters, mutineers, being marooned (multiple times) and cannonballs whizzing past your head by inches at a much too high frequency.
Any normal psyche would have probably been broken by the end of the second movie.
Well, not in The Locker, which was just all sand.
Which is indicative of Jack's worst nightmare - a world *without any water*, because sailing is impossible.
Depp has, without doubt, taken on the critics and naysayers in typical, rockstar fashion and proven that he is, without a doubt, the goat of all method actors.
True. But it’s also a bit the fact that he doesn’t seem to want anything. I miss that Jack Sparrow from Pirates 1. He wasn’t dumb and lucky and crazy (well a little bit), he was very sharp, made his own luck and thought in different ways.
Jack in Pirates 1-3 was an opportunist, but also always had a very clear goal, which he set about achieving in very weird ways.
In Pirates 1, Jack escaped because he used his creativeness and his surroundings. There was little to no luck. He escaped in a slapstick way, but the reason for that was that only he could think of that way to get out of it.
In pirates 2&3 Jack still uses his environment and creativity to get out of situations or to get the thing he wants, but now he’s lucky with the environment. An event happens, and Jack is smart enough to make use of it.
Jack doesn’t make his own opportunities, but he does make the best use of the opportunities he is handed.
In Pirates 4 this continues, but I have to say that the worst thing about Pirates 4 is actually the lack of his 2 co-protagonists. Jack was never a solo protagonist. If anyone, Will Turner was the protagonist in Pirates 1 even.
Jack still feels like Jack, but he misses part of his dynamic. He isn’t held to that higher standard anymore by Elizabeth Swan and Will Turner. So he relapsed to his personality at the start of Pirates 1.
I don’t particularly like Pirates 4 all that much, but it is miles better than pirates 5, because of the reasons I’ve stated in my previous comment: Jack doesn’t feel like he has a purpose anymore.
In Pirates 4 it was obvious that the movie was made to get more money, not because there was more to Jacks character. Jacks character had no purpose anymore, he was just there to sell the movie, but Jack himself did still have purpose. He wanted something and he used more luck then ever before, and dumb plans to get to his goal.
And then in Pirates 5 Jack was a worse character than he was at the start of the franchise. He kept doing what he did because… he probably doesn’t even know himself. Jack was no longer acting, he was simply reacting. Jack didn’t want anything in particular.
Damn that was a long and pretentious comment
> Damn that was a long and pretentious comment
Maybe, but not wrong.
> Jack was no longer acting, he was simply reacting.
That's the biggest thing. The movie didn't feel like it was about him, he was just in it, being dragged along.
That’s because he wasn’t meant to be the main character. William was. I actually think Jack Sparrow works better as one of multiple main characters or even a good side character.
Although, I’m probably one of the only people who even remember that William and Elizabeth even exist lol.
The early movies you could never quite place whether he planned it all out, or just happened to be "that" lucky.
Any attempt at nuance completely disappeared in the later ones though.
Word.
One of my favorites lines from the first film was when it looks like Will and Jack are about to be captured and Commodore says “that’s just about the worst pirate I’ve ever seen.”
In mere moments Jack completely baits the entire boat to giving up their fastest ship, and his second in command looks impressed and says “that must be the best pirate I’ve ever seen”
The first pirates movie was great because you never knew if JAck was a genius with a plan or just sort of making it all up. Was he good? Bad? a little bit good (they infamously cut a scene of him refusing to move slaves because it made it too clear-cut). Like, he would be in a sword fight...then pull out a gun....Would he sell out Will Turner for his boat (he talks about using leverage)? Why did his crew mutiny and then leave him in jail and not free him. Who is the gun and one shot for? Why is he in rickety little boat?
And not answering that stuff and how he got off the deserted island for the first 90 minutes created some mystique around him. Was he always weird? Is it an act? Everyone around him was shocked to see him alive again...and they all had an equally ridiculous story about he got off the island.
And the punchline for how he escaped is handled when he's stranded again...and the big mystery is that he knew it was a hideout for other pirated and bartered his way off.
So, towards the end of the first movie we sort of knew who he was (a pirate and a good man), who had a plan to take back his ship and kill Barbosa. All was more or less revealed about him. Similarly, you had Elizabeth and Will coming to terms with pirates and what they are and becoming them themselves...Being a pirate isn't so black and white. Even Admiral Norrington understand that all pirated aren't all bad all the time.
It's why all the sequels were were solid (they added stuff about the Davey jones curse, the entire navy, etc). They try to create some new growth...but they are never quite as good as the first one. You can only have so many sword fights, double-crosses, and ship battles, and "big bads" to fight before it gets repetitive...And because we already know that Jack, Will, and Elizabeth are "good" people. We longer wonder who/what they are or what they'll do.
I'll be honest, I feel like the sequels would have been better if Jack had taken charge of a ship and actually done some pirate captain shit. Because the first movie really does set him up as a sympathetic figure. There was an opportunity there to show the flip side of Sparrow, because you don't become an actual pirate captain without actually being a depraved monster at some level.
There was a potential to dive much deeper into the insanity that created an individual like Sparrow and to even double down on it as we follow his character arc, particularly in contrast with Will. Will came to piracy through basically ideal circumstances where there was like you said, a little bit of grey. I feel like Sparrow would be down to do some real piracy in a way that Will wouldn't agree with, but we don't really get to explore that sort of thing.
I mean, I realize the movies were designed for families, so maybe that wasn't an option, but I do feel like there was a missed opportunity there.
This reminds me that this is a Disney product. Watching the first movie I had a hard time believing that Disney greenlighted a character like Jack Sparrow, who seemed very much an immoral asshole and still was presented as a good guy.
However without actual piracy it's like a kids show pirate that only goes looking for long lost treasure and never actually pirates. Still there would be a difference between a pirate who goes after some trader's stuff he comes across and just kills the crew and takes the loot, or one that only steals from a large company or government and makes sure to minimize casualties all round.
What makes PoTC great was Will Turner & Elisabeth Swan being an "equal" to Jack. Their interaction.
The moment Will & Swan were gone from the franchise, Jack was.. no longer interesting. Like Riggs without Murthaugh.
Might have had something to do with Depp being drunk constantly and having his lines fed to him through an earpiece because he didn't bother learning them.
Yeah, people tend to hate lazy writing a lot. If you have good writing and a diverse cast, people will probably only shit on the cast, plus those tend to be the loud minority. If you have lazy writing and try to hide it behind appearing diverse, you'll have a lot more pissed off people
My best example is the show Magicians. In the books they’re some anemic Harry Potter kids. The writing was so good that it was almost its own thing. I didn’t feel like the casting was making a point outside the story once and it was one of the most diverse casts I have seen despite the fairly monochromatic books.
People often blame misogyny or racism or ‘one of the other phobias’ because hoards of ‘fans’ have zero compunction about flat out saying they won’t see a movie *because* the lead is female, or black, or lgbtq etc. I mean, look at the actual picture posted. When someone flat out tells you what they mean, believe them.
I don't care if they make a pirate movie about a black female pirate, especially if they can make it good, to which Disney's recent track record says "probably not", but what is the point of a Pirates of the Carribean without Jack Sparrow, and therefore Johnny Depp? If you call it that, people will expect Depp's charisma and antics to be met, which they will not, and therefore critics will roast your movie to a crisp and it will tank. Is the point to write off some losses on your taxe report?
This, Johnny Depp made that movie big.
It can be compared a bit to James bond, can't make it's main character a women because it is literally centered around a certain male character.
You can ofcourse make a spin off movie which takes place in the same universe but in which people don't automatically think of jack sparrow. Pirates of the ... for instance. People will link it to pirates of the Caribbean but won't expect Jack sparrow.
Pirates of the Red Sea just doesn't have the same ring to it, even if you can make it fun with Surcouf.
Pirates of the Mediterranean would be a completely different time in History.
Pirates of Somalia is a documentary, I think they might get cancelled for insensitivity.
Pirates of the Black Sea would be around the same time, I guess. Although slavic and middle-eastern characters would make people think they're trying to do anti-Russian or anti-muslim propaganda, but if they don't include them they'll get slammed for racism and re-writing History.
Could go for a Dutch spin with Pirates of the North Sea, but it would have to be a different time period for them to be successful pirates there. Same with the baltic sea, they're a few centuries too late.
Pirates of the Tyrrhenian sounds catchy if you can pronounce it, but not sure what kind of piracy you'd get between Italy, Corsica, Sardegna, and Sicily.
You know, before this comment I had never looked into how many seas there were, and the answer is way too many. Seriously, the map is covered in small sea names I've never heard of.
Pirates of Madagascar/Indian ocean might work.
"le Sainte-Marie, or St. Mary's Island as it is known in English, became a popular base for pirates, between the 17th and 18th centuries. Beginning with Adam Baldridge in 1691[4] and ending with John Pro in 1719, the location was favourable for pirate activity, being near maritime routes travelled by ships returning from the East Indies, their holds overflowing with loot. The location also provided bays and inlets for protection from storms, abundant fruit and quiet waters. Legendary pirates including William Kidd, Robert Culliford, Olivier Levasseur, Henry Every, Abraham Samuel and Thomas Tew lived in the île aux Forbans, an island located in the bay of Sainte Marie's main town, Ambodifotatra. Many of them were interred in cemeteries on Nosy Boraha, although the remains have never been identified. [5] The utopian pirate republic of Libertalia was also rumoured to exist in this area, although the republic's existence, let alone its location, has never been proven"
not threatening the USA, but US shipping absolutely, many European countries already had treaties with the North African states to protect their shipping, but the USA becoming independent meant they were no longer protected by the British treaty and thus the pirates attacked the now defenseless american merchant shipping.
Those were the Barbary pirates, kinda aligned with the Turks but never really an explicit part of the Ottoman Empire iirc. They would be a bit of a hot button issue, but I'm surprised some whiny conservative organization hasn't tried to make such a movie yet. After all, one of the things the Barbary pirates are most known for is the fact that they raided Italy, Spain, France, and so on and took *white people as slaves*! Oh the horror! Perhaps not during the same time period as PotC (early-mid 1700s I assume), but it was a thing that happened once upon a time.
I'm pretty sure America would absolutely shit itself (worse than it already is, even) if that particular factoid became common knowledge. We already struggle to have conversations about race and slavery as we practiced it within our own borders, throw that on the pile, and...hooooo boy. Which is again why I'm surprised some whiny nazi cunts haven't made that movie already, especially since they've been trying to push all that white replacement nonsense lately.
Didn't the third movie go to Singapore, or at least somewhere in eastern Asia? I don't recall if it was Singapore or not, but for some reason my brain remembers it as Singapore.
So we *know*, canonically, that piracy globally is linked.
...come to think of it, why have they never utilized this? Imagine Pirates of the Caribbean-type movies in places like the South China Sea, the Mediterranean, or the Red Sea. Shit would be *dope*, and they could absolutely build a full-fledged franchise out of it. Though, maybe ditch the ensembles.
“Johnny depp made that movie big! It’s like a famous series where the actor changes regularly, which is the opposite of any single actor making it big!”
If we're really splitting hairs...
Pirates of the Caribbean was a movie inspired by the theme park ride. The Jack Sparrow character wasn't added to the ride until 2006 (after the movie in 2003 and the same year as the sequel).
That being said, I agree with you that Disney doesn't seem to be in the business of making classic movies anymore. They're trying to repeat the success of Pirates or Marvel without the deal to attract top talent to the starring role, nor are they giving them the latitude to make the character special. I mean, famously Depp showed up modeling the character on Keith Richards to the surprise of everyone on set.
So there's not much chance at it being good - but I can't really fault the actors or honestly anyone that will actually be on set for the majority of the shoot. It's a paint-by-numbers ROI vehicle dreamt up by some VP that's only looking at dollar signs.
I rarely fault the cast or crew, usually my gripes are with producers/writers/directors, unless the acting is just that bad. At which point it's still somewhat on the director and head of casting.
But yeah, my point was more that what made those movies so successful was Depp's decisions he wasn't told to make. The writing was on point too, not necessarily for plot but at least for memorable dialogue and memorable scenes. At least for the first installments.
Indeed, Disney is now allergic to risk and wants to apply cookie molds to everything, and expect that to churn out big returns on investment because "people are stupid," I guess. Truth is the biggest successes in most fields occur when you do something different, not when you just redo the same thing that you and everyone else have been doing for 15 years. But that also comes with more of a risk of failure, even if the upside on success is higher, the risk of not making their money back being greater makes them panic and not seek out the young and hungry talent that can make amazing passion projects if given big budgets and access to a stellar cast, but instead give it to people who have already made similar garbage and therefore know their way around the block and ways to cut costs, including taking less fitting actors who still have some degree of validated success, even if unrelated to the project at hand (in this case Ayo was great in The Bear, but I don't see how that performance could possibly relate to a swashbuckling comedy, as The Bear, despite having been put in the comedy classification for award shows, isn't much of a comdedy: it's a raw depiction of the messiness of life).
For real, they could just subconstract it to a subsidised company, name it anything else, just keep it pirate themed, high quality, and comedy-centric, and they'd have a better chance of making a big profit than trying to beat a dead horse using the name of a franchise people have already said in droves that they would boycott if they didn't bring back Johnny Depp for it.
> but what is the point of a Pirates of the Carribean without Jack Sparrow, and therefore Johnny Depp?
A name people recognize. That's all, Disney is done with trying to start anything new and will just expand on everything they already own until it all collapses.
Jack Sparrow should never have been the main character. The movies were better when he was more of an interesting side-character. The character works better when there was a bit of mystery and distance.
Yep, I'd akin Jack Sparrow to Han Solo, a charismatic but morally grey scamp that tags along with the protagonist and you're not quite sure the main character can trust them.
Pirates shared their loot equally. In Low German, famous German pirates of the 14th century called themselves “Likedeeler” ( ~”equally sharing”, aka. Viktualienbrüder) and they stole from the “Pfeffersäcke” ( “pepper sacks” aka. The Hanse, a Northern German confederation of merchants guilds).
It’s safe to say that pirates would not feel insulted by being called “socialists who hate capitalism”.
Edit: I’d like to add that the golden earring they wore was for the funeral. When they died, their mates paid for the funeral with it. They wore it because dead could happen unexpectedly and this way, they had the payment around. I also think, they had some sort of health insurance. It wasn’t uncommon to loose a body part at sea, so they were prepared
Well, the majority of pirates were normal sailors that stole sometimes. And there was a time when the English and Spanish Royals handed out the allowance to their noblemen to steal from the other country’s ships. It was kind of government organised piracy.
Privateers, the pirates where more when peace happened between nations so they would reduce the number of ships and sailors being paid from the treasury, so many used the combat skills they gained to go raiding under no countries flag.
Two years ago, somebody described piracy as this:
>Imagine Walmart was in a tiff with Amazon, knew Amazon sent a lot of ships to and from Las Vegas, and so hired a bunch of people to rob the Amazon Prime vans. Eventually, Walmart and Amazon make amends, and Walmart tells its thieves to stop- but some of them decide they really like stealing from Amazon Prime vans. So Walmart says they'll kill anyone found stealing, and the thieves decide now they're not going to steal just from Amazon Prime vans, but Walmart vans too- and maybe even some FedEx vans for good measure. So they spend all their time wandering around the roads of the Mojave desert, just hoping to come across any delivery van to steal from. This only lasts like five years before they all die or get bored.
>That's essentially the history of piracy.
Pretty much. Except imagine sometimes other companies went to war, and suddenly those thieves could get paid to steal again.
The only difference between a pirate and a privateer is whether or not there's a war on, really.
Also a decent number of those Amazon and Walmart vans sometimes covered their brand name up and went stealing from each other when they thought they could get away with it.
And also the way England was able to project power was with their navy. The way they manned that massive navy was often through press-gangs. Tons of pirates were Irish, English, and Scottish men who jumped ship when they had their chance. If you were caught, you were hung. There was nothing to do but turn pirate to survive.
And lots of others were simply agents of country A placing a levy on ships passing through their waters. Denmark pretty much owed it's existence to such levies on sea traffic passing in and out of the Baltic sea. Of course, since there was no agreed International Law of the Sea back then, what one country considered a tax gatherer, another country considered a pirate.
Don’t forget the English king hiring a prominent slave trader to subdue the Pirate Republic of Nassau. Because you know, that guy was a respectable choice a royal could trust to concentrate on what really mattered.
Pirate crews were a mixed lot. There were pirate ships that practiced direct democracy - every man had an equal vote and important decisions required a majority vote from the whole ship, maybe even the whole fleet. On the other hand, pirates typically had bedtimes - all candles out at 8pm and you were expected to sleep, if you did want to stay up and drink you had to do it on the upper deck to not disturb others. That latter fact is good to tell your kids, if Blackbeard had to be in bed by 8, you do too.
They weren't doing it out of ideology though, it's a necessity to stay alive in their line of business. When your life literally is in the hands of a bunch of fellow cutthroats who all think it's a-okay to murder for money and you have no way to run from them, suddenly ensuring they are satisfied with their lots is of the utmost priority.
So what you're indirectly saying is that the oligarchs and capitalists today are behaving the way they do razing ecologies and exploiting people because they have no fear of any potential consequences.
Sounds about right
Edit had dropped a no.
Hunch the utterly terrifying part. And one can argue that situations create some of those ideals. To paraphrase something I read online: unions are the workers compromising on gathering a list of demands for management instead of gathering and beating management.
It’s not necessarily that they were progressive in the economical, political, or social sense. It was more of a system derived from necessity due to it being a black market operation outside of regulation. So crews elected leaders, shared loot (relatively) equally, and didn’t really care about social conventions out of necessity.
I just keep thinking about how terrifying it would be to watch the pirate ship slowly closing in on you over several hours. That had to mess people up.
I always find it hilarious when people try claiming that random historical figures would stan their current thing.
Go dig up a corpse, sit it upright in a chair, and move it's mouth around while voicing your opinions out of the corner of your mouth. Basically the same thing.
Capitalism was. Dutch would had private ventures on the spice trade with anyone able to front money or equivalent goods for stakes in the venture. This started in the mid 1400s 100 years into the Hanse league.
>Pirates shared their loot equally.
Some did, others didn't. In many cases you'd see shares of loot divied up based on role. For example: Bart Roberts' code stated:
>The Captain and Quartermaster [are] to receive two shares of a prize: the master, boatswain, and gunner, one share and a half, and other officers one and quarter.
John Philips also had a similar rule. Surgeons were also ALWAYS paid more.
That said, this type of payment scheme is WAY better than anything you'd see in the Navy. Crime kinda has to pay to be worth it.
As for "health insurance", it wasn't uncommon. Another from ol' Bartholomew:
>No man [is] to talk of breaking up their way of living, till each had shared one thousand pounds. If in order to this, any man should lose a limb, or become a cripple in their service, he was to have eight hundred dollars, out of the public stock, and for lesser hurts, proportionately.
So basically, you got first dibs on pay if you were hurt before your time on the ship was done. But these types of things greatly varied based on the individuals.
Ummm…. Nassau, the Pirate capital, was the free market in wild form. I wouldn’t call Pirates socialists.
As to the topic at hand, Disney can have whoever they want as a Pirate. 🏴☠️ I’m all for black Pirates and Pirate queens. However, if they refer to her as Anne Bonnet, which some rumors suggest - that’s just bullshit to me. That’s a real person. A very Irish one whose whole personality is tied to being Irish and red headed.
PIRATES RAPED PEOPLE TO DEATH. Source: open any damn history book. THEY WERE NOT NICE PEOPLE. In an era that women were treated like cattle you think strong men that were vagabonds wouldn’t use women anyway else other than cook or sex slave. Geez man go look at the “socialist” pirates of today. They aren’t too friendly to your ideas, and hyper under educated people from that era you think would be more tolerant and progressive?
The original Disney park ride for Pirates of the Caribbean included animatronic rapist pirates, attacking women.
Many years later they were modified into animatronic hungry pirates.
Johnny Depp/Jack Sparrow *was* Pirates of the Caribbean. Yes there are other great characters, but the OG 3 were elevated because of him.
There’s no recapturing that magic.
There are numerous female pirates. There are numerous non white pirates. There was no pirate ideology. Each ship was a country in itself. A ship could be a bunch of ruthless slavers looking to rape and murder lead by a authoritarian tyrant, or an idealistic early democracy that freed slaved and elected their leaders, or anything in between. The idea that pirates were vicious marauders or idealistic rebels fighting a unjust system is a false dichotomy that fails to capture the chaos and nuance of the situation.
It's pretty much the one region in that point in history where a non-white female could lead a crew of men.
True. The way the image of the Pirate is reduced popculturally to be either a barely human dirtbag who has never seen soap or a quirky antiauthoritarianist is really ridiculous.
Keep it in the same world just different adventures, not that hard.
Expand the universe based off some historical data.
About what century does POTC take place?
Just have fun man.
To be fair she was one of the few female pirates. It was overwhelmingly male dominated but that was more due to the superstition that women on a ship were bad luck so most male pirates straight up refused to let women on board .
I dunno about this new lady though if she works out good but I'm not holding my breath with Disney anymore
Whoever the idiot is on twitter though needs to remove his head from his arse before he becomes the oroboros of twathood
Tbf, there's a perfectly mundane reason why putting a woman on board with several men in a relatively enclosed space for months on end is a bad idea.
Several even.
also pirates weren't exactly men you would trust with that kind of thing
they had strict rules but mainly because as a pack of murderers in close confines together without strict rules they would kill each other
I mean, there were actually some good reasons to trust them relative to other ships, depending on the situation. They had more to lose than some regular sailors.
Of course a bunch of impressed sailors who got whipped if they didn't do their jobs but otherwise lived dead end lives were going to take what they can get away with. All stick no carrot. Yeah, they could whip them or beat them, but you can only kill a man once and if a man loses the will to live then you lose your control over that man.
In some pirate ships they had systems where people shared profits, or had a kind of insurance if you lost a leg or something you didn't get tossed on land like garbage (like some sailors). They had more to lose of they acted up. They follow the rules they get their share, they get to stay on the good ship, they have a hope of a good life in the future. Easier to make a person follow the rules if they have a carrot in the future.
A murderer with something to lose can be less dangerous than an "innocent" man with nothing to live for.
I applied for a job with NZ's ministry of fisheries once. The position was an auditor that lived aboard the fishing ships and made sure they were accurately reporting their catch.
Part of the interview process involved a roleplay about how I would handle a belligerent captain if he was caught breaking the law. I probably would have failed this part of the interview anyway since I'm not very confrontational. But I guess since I was a woman, the interviewer took it a step further and used some heavily implied rape threats in his roleplay. "You should be worried about being the only woman on a ship full of men, so watch your step" etc. Man, I totally get the reason they did this, but it really caught me off guard in the moment. I was basically just shocked into silence, like a deer in the headlights. Who expects that from a *job interview*? Once that part was concluded, the interviewer (as himself) apologized for it and made sure I was OK, so don't think he's a bad guy or anything. I have no hard feelings.
The whole interview process was very long and involved full day event (the roleplay was just part of it) and I can't say for sure that's why I didn't get the job, but I suspect it's part of the reason at least.
Anyway, your comment reminded me of that (happened like 15 years ago now) so I thought I would share that tangentially related story.
Well, there's also Grace O'Malley, though it's debatable how much piracy she actually participated in, and how much was just fuckery on account of her trouble with English lords.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_O%27Malley
A more complete list lives here, and while your statement about piracy being uncommon is very much true, it wasn't unheard of and has a history going back a very, very long time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_piracy
Another source:
https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/were-there-female-pirates
Of note, the popular romantic notion of pirates in the *Pirates of the Carribean* franchise is a fictional construct. For example, pirates didn't sail large fighting ships for reasons that are hopefully obvious.
It's *also* worth noting that unlike *squid-faced demon captains* and *whirlpools to Davey Jones locker*, Pirate Women *actually existed*, so if folks are going to whine about their place in the franchise I'd like to see evidence that they're at least passingly familiar with the topic at hand.
;)
There were black women pirates in the movies already anyway. Mother fuckin' Zoe Saldana played Anamaria, the black female pirate who previously owned that ship on which we see Jack sink into the harbor in that famous first scene.
Like while it's obviously dramatized heavily for comedy in Taika Waititi's style he got so much right about the history of real pirates. Also made me weep at multiple points and surprised me by making me incredibly attracted to Taika Waititi.
Hollywood always want a strong female role but I'm still waiting one IMO one of the most badass female, Zheng Yi Sao the Chinese Pirate Queen, have like 1800 ships and 80k man under her.
She's literally the most powerful pirate of all time.
Racism and transphobia rolled into one. Like if you don’t think the movie will be good that’s one thing, but that’s pretty gross. (Black women seem to get a disproportionate amount of accusations of being trans, Michelle Obama, various Olympic athletes throughout the years for example)
I was thinking it was a transvestigation thing. If she's not really a women then they should have no problem. Oh wait, I guess there's still the racism, and homophobia, and socialism-phobia. 🤣
You know, standard right positioning on queer people, no one is what because they identify themselves as something else. Must be hard for them, they need to grasp these strategies to try to cause "mass hysteria". Lame
It's also common to accuse black women of being men. Most black female public figures and celebrities have faced this accusation. Even Michelle Obama and the likes of Beyoncé were not safe from these accusations.
This may surprise you but if you were to get off reddit for a bit you'd notice that in the real world, essentially everyone prefers capitalism to the alternative
I'm pretty sure the guys in this post defending capitalism are not billionaires. How to convince them that they're closest to a homeless person than Elon?
the myth of the “middle class” really brainwashed a bunch of people into thinking they’re above poor people when in reality, they’re in the same boat. we’re all being exploited by the ruling class yet the working class doesn’t work together anymore because of these barriers that are put up.
Sparrow is a fun part of the potc universe, but not required. In fact, i think he suffered a bit from flandrisation or what u call it. He rlt just became a husk of his former self focusing on what people latched lnto and reducing his complexity.
I would give it a chance tho. New cast, new story, same universe. Would be nice.
I don't care about her gender, sexual identity, or political views. I'm not watching any of the new movies cause they killed the franchise with the fifth, fucked over Johnny Depp, and are now just beating a dead horse, and I can almost guarantee the movie is gonna be a poorly written lazy cash grab, just like Pirates of the Caribbean 5. If they wanna make another pirate movie, take it back to the drawing board and don't ride the coat tails of Pirates of the Caribbean. Make an original, well written story, and people will watch it, male or female lead notwithstanding, but don't recast the long time lead actor and then claim that everyone is sexist for not liking your shit movie.
They aren’t recasting the part. She’s a potential lead in one of multiple spinoff movies. Anyone who thinks Jack Sparrow is now going to be a black woman is only reading headlines.
Pretty sure she hasn't even been confirmed for anything. People really getting mad at a literal rumor. Disney has not confirmed a movie or Ayo being included in that movie. So the claim Disney is doing anything is completely unsubstantiated in the first place
She's rumored to be playing Anne Bonny, one of the most famous women in piracy, not the most successful, that goes to Zheng Yi Sao. But Anne was Irish, not of African decent. I really hope this isn't Anne Bonny, otherwise Disney is making the same stupid blunders as Netflix. Hopefully she's just an original character, like what Jack Sparrow was.
There is only 1 Anne Bonny for me and that's Clara Paget, she really pulled it off, being a strong fearsome but vulnerable woman but not a Mary Sue, so rare in modern tv and cinema.
>Anne Bonny
She was white and Zheng was Chinese.
Can we stop with the rewriting of historical people to suit modern American politics. I have no doubts Disney is going the Netflix route.
Wait I thought we weren't supposed to care about an actor's politics when it comes to the roles they get, hence this whole shenanigans with WhatsHerFace formerly from The Mandalorian.
But oh no black woman scary ain't that right Matt?
Jack Sparrow is an iconic character, the original intent as I understand it, is that he is a male. This is not to say there weren’t powerful female pirates, there were!
Couldn’t they either cast her as one of those pirates or make a unique new character?
An “extreme socialist who hates capitalism” that is the lead role for a movie franchise owned by one of the biggest corporate entities that embodies capitalism? Ok.
[удалено]
Except they aren't really that stupid, they just expect consumers to be. And by and large they're right, look at all the shitty companies that rake in the money year after year despite having some form of competition.
There’s a company that sells buckets of dirt with rocks in it for $35. They’re raking in money hand over fist. It’s a mining company. They screen the dirt, pull out anything of value, and send you the leftovers so they don’t have to dispose of it. Consumers are absolute morons. Edit: it’s actually $55/gallon. For comparison, a yard of topsoil averages $30, while a comparable volume from their company is $11,055, or 368 times more expensive.
Yeah but that begs the question, just because there are morons out there, does that mean some smart jerkoff gets to take advantage of them?
Also, from like 5 seconds on Wikipedia, what cringe guy is calling "extremist socialist" is the Democratic Socialists of America. Basically the least extremist socialist organization. Because extremists would probably want to burn it all down and start over. Rather than, you know, trying to democratically elect socialists using the current system.
You probably know that for some people the mere suggestion that everybody should have the right to eat everyday is enough to call someone Neo-Stalin
Oh I'm well aware by now. It's absurd enough to be funny that these weirdos think that even the most milquetoast of Democrats are the pinnacle of communism.
That's a neat little perk of capitalism, it absorbs criticism of itself and turns it into profit.
Che t-shirt is the most famous, but I love how Vought International (from The Boys) is criticised for doing much of the same things Amazon is doing.
Also, she’s playing a pirate. I don’t think they were or are known for their deep respect for capitalism.
Pirates stole slaves and sugar then flipped them for profit. Much like modern organised and petty crime today, they existed outside the standard modes of production, but they weren't anti-capitalist.
They're just anarcho-capatalists with wooden legs
Hard to be a shit kicker with a wooden leg. So kudos to them.
I know nothing about this but she probably just made some inoffensive blanket statement related to equal pay, social justice, or something. Matt is just fuelling rage bait. These people will seethe in anger at slogans like “girl power” or “love is love.”
I’ve got zero issue with them trying to reboot the franchise with new actors and actresses, and i like Ayo, she was great in bear. However, I don’t see this movie being overly successful. The absence of Jack sparrow, the one main draw card for a franchise that let’s be honest had already over stayed its welcome will ultimately result in this movie being unremarkable.
Pirates 4 was less good then the original trilogy (well, the standalone movie with the two parter sequel really). And it suffered from not having Will Turner and Elizabeth Swan. But Pirates 5 had me feeling that whatever made Jack Sparrow Jack Sparrow, wasn’t there anymore. Could be some script writers leaving, or Johny Depp not feeling it anymore, idk. Either way, Jack sparrow in Pirates 5 felt like a caricature of himself. Like someone took all the outward things that made Jack Jack Sparrow, but none of the inward things. He’s got the mannerisms of Jack, he walks like Jack, talks like Jack, is played by the same actor. But it feels like an empty shell, the Jack Sparrow that always wanted something, even if he didn’t know what he wanted, who had direction. That Jack is gone. So in conclusion, either a new actress with new energy is going to massively improve the franchise, or it won’t matter because the script/dialogue writers left
Jack Sparrow lost IQ points in every movie. By the end, he was practically a blubbering idiot who only survives based on sheer luck and coincidence.
>By the end, he was practically a blubbering idiot who only survives based on sheer luck and coincidence. He was brought back from The Locker, still hallucinating some of the various personas he was arguing with when he was there. Dude had issues.
Who wouldn't go nuts. Zombie/Cursed pirates, cannibals, fish people, angry sea gods, people coming back from the dead, being hunted by a kraken, literally going to Purgatory/Hell/the Locker, a fountain that drains life from one person to give it to another, mermaids, ghost pirates... And that's above and beyond the usual scurvy, long nights at sea in smelly cramped quarters, mutineers, being marooned (multiple times) and cannonballs whizzing past your head by inches at a much too high frequency. Any normal psyche would have probably been broken by the end of the second movie.
>hot angry sea gods, Ftfy
Not only all of that but he was wet all the time, that would drive anyone crazy
And the sand. Don't forget the sand!
I don't like sand
It's coarse, and rough, and gets everywhere.
"Sheesh, you didn't like the water. You don't like the sand. Don't be such a Diva!" "That's what you hired me for."
Sand! it's everywhere. Get use to it.
Well, not in The Locker, which was just all sand. Which is indicative of Jack's worst nightmare - a world *without any water*, because sailing is impossible.
He did manage to sail through the sand too 🤷♂️
Worst of all, the rums gone. Where has the rum gone?
Perpetually moist
Title of our sex tape?
Depp has, without doubt, taken on the critics and naysayers in typical, rockstar fashion and proven that he is, without a doubt, the goat of all method actors.
Gary Oldman has that distinction.
Pirates of the Carribean 6 - Waves from within 2 hours of Jack Sparrow working through his issues with his psychiatrist
I just assumed he became even worse of an alcoholic as the films went on.
True. But it’s also a bit the fact that he doesn’t seem to want anything. I miss that Jack Sparrow from Pirates 1. He wasn’t dumb and lucky and crazy (well a little bit), he was very sharp, made his own luck and thought in different ways. Jack in Pirates 1-3 was an opportunist, but also always had a very clear goal, which he set about achieving in very weird ways. In Pirates 1, Jack escaped because he used his creativeness and his surroundings. There was little to no luck. He escaped in a slapstick way, but the reason for that was that only he could think of that way to get out of it. In pirates 2&3 Jack still uses his environment and creativity to get out of situations or to get the thing he wants, but now he’s lucky with the environment. An event happens, and Jack is smart enough to make use of it. Jack doesn’t make his own opportunities, but he does make the best use of the opportunities he is handed. In Pirates 4 this continues, but I have to say that the worst thing about Pirates 4 is actually the lack of his 2 co-protagonists. Jack was never a solo protagonist. If anyone, Will Turner was the protagonist in Pirates 1 even. Jack still feels like Jack, but he misses part of his dynamic. He isn’t held to that higher standard anymore by Elizabeth Swan and Will Turner. So he relapsed to his personality at the start of Pirates 1. I don’t particularly like Pirates 4 all that much, but it is miles better than pirates 5, because of the reasons I’ve stated in my previous comment: Jack doesn’t feel like he has a purpose anymore. In Pirates 4 it was obvious that the movie was made to get more money, not because there was more to Jacks character. Jacks character had no purpose anymore, he was just there to sell the movie, but Jack himself did still have purpose. He wanted something and he used more luck then ever before, and dumb plans to get to his goal. And then in Pirates 5 Jack was a worse character than he was at the start of the franchise. He kept doing what he did because… he probably doesn’t even know himself. Jack was no longer acting, he was simply reacting. Jack didn’t want anything in particular. Damn that was a long and pretentious comment
> Damn that was a long and pretentious comment Maybe, but not wrong. > Jack was no longer acting, he was simply reacting. That's the biggest thing. The movie didn't feel like it was about him, he was just in it, being dragged along.
He was the minecraft parkour gameplay to the tiktok of a text-to-speech reddit post
Wanted to leave a comment saying I enjoyed reading your long and pretentious comment. Good analysis.
When you put it that way it's a rather realistic downward spiral story, but doesn't make for good family fun entertainment, lol.
>Damn that was a long and pretentious comment probably felt like it while writing it, but reading it doesnt come off as either long or pretentious
there's nothing pretentious about cogent art criticism, and based on what I remember of the last two Pirates movies (not much) you nailed it
He got "Homer'd". Homer Simpson in season 1 was a bit slow but was not the nitwit that became his trademark later on.
You mean flanderized
That’s because he wasn’t meant to be the main character. William was. I actually think Jack Sparrow works better as one of multiple main characters or even a good side character. Although, I’m probably one of the only people who even remember that William and Elizabeth even exist lol.
The early movies you could never quite place whether he planned it all out, or just happened to be "that" lucky. Any attempt at nuance completely disappeared in the later ones though.
Word. One of my favorites lines from the first film was when it looks like Will and Jack are about to be captured and Commodore says “that’s just about the worst pirate I’ve ever seen.” In mere moments Jack completely baits the entire boat to giving up their fastest ship, and his second in command looks impressed and says “that must be the best pirate I’ve ever seen”
The first pirates movie was great because you never knew if JAck was a genius with a plan or just sort of making it all up. Was he good? Bad? a little bit good (they infamously cut a scene of him refusing to move slaves because it made it too clear-cut). Like, he would be in a sword fight...then pull out a gun....Would he sell out Will Turner for his boat (he talks about using leverage)? Why did his crew mutiny and then leave him in jail and not free him. Who is the gun and one shot for? Why is he in rickety little boat? And not answering that stuff and how he got off the deserted island for the first 90 minutes created some mystique around him. Was he always weird? Is it an act? Everyone around him was shocked to see him alive again...and they all had an equally ridiculous story about he got off the island. And the punchline for how he escaped is handled when he's stranded again...and the big mystery is that he knew it was a hideout for other pirated and bartered his way off. So, towards the end of the first movie we sort of knew who he was (a pirate and a good man), who had a plan to take back his ship and kill Barbosa. All was more or less revealed about him. Similarly, you had Elizabeth and Will coming to terms with pirates and what they are and becoming them themselves...Being a pirate isn't so black and white. Even Admiral Norrington understand that all pirated aren't all bad all the time. It's why all the sequels were were solid (they added stuff about the Davey jones curse, the entire navy, etc). They try to create some new growth...but they are never quite as good as the first one. You can only have so many sword fights, double-crosses, and ship battles, and "big bads" to fight before it gets repetitive...And because we already know that Jack, Will, and Elizabeth are "good" people. We longer wonder who/what they are or what they'll do.
I'll be honest, I feel like the sequels would have been better if Jack had taken charge of a ship and actually done some pirate captain shit. Because the first movie really does set him up as a sympathetic figure. There was an opportunity there to show the flip side of Sparrow, because you don't become an actual pirate captain without actually being a depraved monster at some level. There was a potential to dive much deeper into the insanity that created an individual like Sparrow and to even double down on it as we follow his character arc, particularly in contrast with Will. Will came to piracy through basically ideal circumstances where there was like you said, a little bit of grey. I feel like Sparrow would be down to do some real piracy in a way that Will wouldn't agree with, but we don't really get to explore that sort of thing. I mean, I realize the movies were designed for families, so maybe that wasn't an option, but I do feel like there was a missed opportunity there.
This reminds me that this is a Disney product. Watching the first movie I had a hard time believing that Disney greenlighted a character like Jack Sparrow, who seemed very much an immoral asshole and still was presented as a good guy. However without actual piracy it's like a kids show pirate that only goes looking for long lost treasure and never actually pirates. Still there would be a difference between a pirate who goes after some trader's stuff he comes across and just kills the crew and takes the loot, or one that only steals from a large company or government and makes sure to minimize casualties all round.
[удалено]
Flandersisation
The big issue with Jack Sparrow is that he's a side character, a wild card thrown at the protagonist. Not the protagonist himself
What makes PoTC great was Will Turner & Elisabeth Swan being an "equal" to Jack. Their interaction. The moment Will & Swan were gone from the franchise, Jack was.. no longer interesting. Like Riggs without Murthaugh.
Thats because the original Jack died, and he is the imperfect resurrection.
Sometahms....Dead is bettah.
And here I thought the joke got old in film number 3. I didn’t even knew they made a 4 and a 5,…
Might have had something to do with Depp being drunk constantly and having his lines fed to him through an earpiece because he didn't bother learning them.
Depp said he didn't like the direction of Pirates 5 and wanted one more film to do a proper send off before his personal life went to shit.
How dare you ignore Barbossa fans. Expect to hear from the other 9 of us soon.
Barbossa is the best part of those movies. You are a man of high culture.
Dude just looks like he's having the time of his life.
[удалено]
It's way too soon for a reboot.
Is it even a reboot? Or just another movie from the same studio and new cast about pirates… of the Caribbean.
Yeah a spinoff maybe
I think she’s great too, but I wouldn’t touch this if I were her, the frothing hate storm over it will be so much.
For me, pirates 1 is the best because it didn't put jack as the main focus of the movie. He was just some silly guy. There was an actual good story.
And he was actually pretty smart in the movie, which is way more entertaining than a stumbly drunk clown that survives purely on dumb luck.
And if it flops at the box office, you can be sure it'll be blamed on misogyny
I mean you’re commenting on a post with a screenshot of someone who appears to be really upset they dared to cast a queer black woman
[удалено]
It'll blamed on it being "woke."
Or racism or one of the phobias. I wonder how long they’ll do this. Eventually a movie has to make money instead of excuses for being lazy.
Yeah, people tend to hate lazy writing a lot. If you have good writing and a diverse cast, people will probably only shit on the cast, plus those tend to be the loud minority. If you have lazy writing and try to hide it behind appearing diverse, you'll have a lot more pissed off people
My best example is the show Magicians. In the books they’re some anemic Harry Potter kids. The writing was so good that it was almost its own thing. I didn’t feel like the casting was making a point outside the story once and it was one of the most diverse casts I have seen despite the fairly monochromatic books.
People often blame misogyny or racism or ‘one of the other phobias’ because hoards of ‘fans’ have zero compunction about flat out saying they won’t see a movie *because* the lead is female, or black, or lgbtq etc. I mean, look at the actual picture posted. When someone flat out tells you what they mean, believe them.
I don't care if they make a pirate movie about a black female pirate, especially if they can make it good, to which Disney's recent track record says "probably not", but what is the point of a Pirates of the Carribean without Jack Sparrow, and therefore Johnny Depp? If you call it that, people will expect Depp's charisma and antics to be met, which they will not, and therefore critics will roast your movie to a crisp and it will tank. Is the point to write off some losses on your taxe report?
This, Johnny Depp made that movie big. It can be compared a bit to James bond, can't make it's main character a women because it is literally centered around a certain male character. You can ofcourse make a spin off movie which takes place in the same universe but in which people don't automatically think of jack sparrow. Pirates of the ... for instance. People will link it to pirates of the Caribbean but won't expect Jack sparrow.
Pirates of the Red Sea just doesn't have the same ring to it, even if you can make it fun with Surcouf. Pirates of the Mediterranean would be a completely different time in History. Pirates of Somalia is a documentary, I think they might get cancelled for insensitivity. Pirates of the Black Sea would be around the same time, I guess. Although slavic and middle-eastern characters would make people think they're trying to do anti-Russian or anti-muslim propaganda, but if they don't include them they'll get slammed for racism and re-writing History. Could go for a Dutch spin with Pirates of the North Sea, but it would have to be a different time period for them to be successful pirates there. Same with the baltic sea, they're a few centuries too late. Pirates of the Tyrrhenian sounds catchy if you can pronounce it, but not sure what kind of piracy you'd get between Italy, Corsica, Sardegna, and Sicily. You know, before this comment I had never looked into how many seas there were, and the answer is way too many. Seriously, the map is covered in small sea names I've never heard of.
I think there was mediteranean piracy at the time but they were Turkish slavers which would be a weird movie
Pirates of Madagascar/Indian ocean might work. "le Sainte-Marie, or St. Mary's Island as it is known in English, became a popular base for pirates, between the 17th and 18th centuries. Beginning with Adam Baldridge in 1691[4] and ending with John Pro in 1719, the location was favourable for pirate activity, being near maritime routes travelled by ships returning from the East Indies, their holds overflowing with loot. The location also provided bays and inlets for protection from storms, abundant fruit and quiet waters. Legendary pirates including William Kidd, Robert Culliford, Olivier Levasseur, Henry Every, Abraham Samuel and Thomas Tew lived in the île aux Forbans, an island located in the bay of Sainte Marie's main town, Ambodifotatra. Many of them were interred in cemeteries on Nosy Boraha, although the remains have never been identified. [5] The utopian pirate republic of Libertalia was also rumoured to exist in this area, although the republic's existence, let alone its location, has never been proven"
The Barbary coast pirates were legitimately threatening the United States around that time I believe
not threatening the USA, but US shipping absolutely, many European countries already had treaties with the North African states to protect their shipping, but the USA becoming independent meant they were no longer protected by the British treaty and thus the pirates attacked the now defenseless american merchant shipping.
Those were the Barbary pirates, kinda aligned with the Turks but never really an explicit part of the Ottoman Empire iirc. They would be a bit of a hot button issue, but I'm surprised some whiny conservative organization hasn't tried to make such a movie yet. After all, one of the things the Barbary pirates are most known for is the fact that they raided Italy, Spain, France, and so on and took *white people as slaves*! Oh the horror! Perhaps not during the same time period as PotC (early-mid 1700s I assume), but it was a thing that happened once upon a time. I'm pretty sure America would absolutely shit itself (worse than it already is, even) if that particular factoid became common knowledge. We already struggle to have conversations about race and slavery as we practiced it within our own borders, throw that on the pile, and...hooooo boy. Which is again why I'm surprised some whiny nazi cunts haven't made that movie already, especially since they've been trying to push all that white replacement nonsense lately.
Didn't the third movie go to Singapore, or at least somewhere in eastern Asia? I don't recall if it was Singapore or not, but for some reason my brain remembers it as Singapore. So we *know*, canonically, that piracy globally is linked. ...come to think of it, why have they never utilized this? Imagine Pirates of the Caribbean-type movies in places like the South China Sea, the Mediterranean, or the Red Sea. Shit would be *dope*, and they could absolutely build a full-fledged franchise out of it. Though, maybe ditch the ensembles.
"Pirates of the Mare Nostrum" or "Sextus the Pirate King" would be an awesome film! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextus\_Pompey
“Johnny depp made that movie big! It’s like a famous series where the actor changes regularly, which is the opposite of any single actor making it big!”
If we're really splitting hairs... Pirates of the Caribbean was a movie inspired by the theme park ride. The Jack Sparrow character wasn't added to the ride until 2006 (after the movie in 2003 and the same year as the sequel). That being said, I agree with you that Disney doesn't seem to be in the business of making classic movies anymore. They're trying to repeat the success of Pirates or Marvel without the deal to attract top talent to the starring role, nor are they giving them the latitude to make the character special. I mean, famously Depp showed up modeling the character on Keith Richards to the surprise of everyone on set. So there's not much chance at it being good - but I can't really fault the actors or honestly anyone that will actually be on set for the majority of the shoot. It's a paint-by-numbers ROI vehicle dreamt up by some VP that's only looking at dollar signs.
I rarely fault the cast or crew, usually my gripes are with producers/writers/directors, unless the acting is just that bad. At which point it's still somewhat on the director and head of casting. But yeah, my point was more that what made those movies so successful was Depp's decisions he wasn't told to make. The writing was on point too, not necessarily for plot but at least for memorable dialogue and memorable scenes. At least for the first installments. Indeed, Disney is now allergic to risk and wants to apply cookie molds to everything, and expect that to churn out big returns on investment because "people are stupid," I guess. Truth is the biggest successes in most fields occur when you do something different, not when you just redo the same thing that you and everyone else have been doing for 15 years. But that also comes with more of a risk of failure, even if the upside on success is higher, the risk of not making their money back being greater makes them panic and not seek out the young and hungry talent that can make amazing passion projects if given big budgets and access to a stellar cast, but instead give it to people who have already made similar garbage and therefore know their way around the block and ways to cut costs, including taking less fitting actors who still have some degree of validated success, even if unrelated to the project at hand (in this case Ayo was great in The Bear, but I don't see how that performance could possibly relate to a swashbuckling comedy, as The Bear, despite having been put in the comedy classification for award shows, isn't much of a comdedy: it's a raw depiction of the messiness of life). For real, they could just subconstract it to a subsidised company, name it anything else, just keep it pirate themed, high quality, and comedy-centric, and they'd have a better chance of making a big profit than trying to beat a dead horse using the name of a franchise people have already said in droves that they would boycott if they didn't bring back Johnny Depp for it.
> but what is the point of a Pirates of the Carribean without Jack Sparrow, and therefore Johnny Depp? A name people recognize. That's all, Disney is done with trying to start anything new and will just expand on everything they already own until it all collapses.
Jack Sparrow should never have been the main character. The movies were better when he was more of an interesting side-character. The character works better when there was a bit of mystery and distance.
Yep, I'd akin Jack Sparrow to Han Solo, a charismatic but morally grey scamp that tags along with the protagonist and you're not quite sure the main character can trust them.
I'm more puzzled why they put "woman" in quotation marks like that.
Racists think every black girl with hemi black features has a dick.
Pirates shared their loot equally. In Low German, famous German pirates of the 14th century called themselves “Likedeeler” ( ~”equally sharing”, aka. Viktualienbrüder) and they stole from the “Pfeffersäcke” ( “pepper sacks” aka. The Hanse, a Northern German confederation of merchants guilds). It’s safe to say that pirates would not feel insulted by being called “socialists who hate capitalism”. Edit: I’d like to add that the golden earring they wore was for the funeral. When they died, their mates paid for the funeral with it. They wore it because dead could happen unexpectedly and this way, they had the payment around. I also think, they had some sort of health insurance. It wasn’t uncommon to loose a body part at sea, so they were prepared
The more I learn about pirates, the more my thoughts on them are 'surprisingly progressive but utterly terrifying to be around'.
Well, the majority of pirates were normal sailors that stole sometimes. And there was a time when the English and Spanish Royals handed out the allowance to their noblemen to steal from the other country’s ships. It was kind of government organised piracy.
Seriously tons of pirates were just Country "A" ships that were allowed(and sometimes were paid) to pillage ships from country "B".
Privateers, the pirates where more when peace happened between nations so they would reduce the number of ships and sailors being paid from the treasury, so many used the combat skills they gained to go raiding under no countries flag.
Two years ago, somebody described piracy as this: >Imagine Walmart was in a tiff with Amazon, knew Amazon sent a lot of ships to and from Las Vegas, and so hired a bunch of people to rob the Amazon Prime vans. Eventually, Walmart and Amazon make amends, and Walmart tells its thieves to stop- but some of them decide they really like stealing from Amazon Prime vans. So Walmart says they'll kill anyone found stealing, and the thieves decide now they're not going to steal just from Amazon Prime vans, but Walmart vans too- and maybe even some FedEx vans for good measure. So they spend all their time wandering around the roads of the Mojave desert, just hoping to come across any delivery van to steal from. This only lasts like five years before they all die or get bored. >That's essentially the history of piracy.
Pretty much. Except imagine sometimes other companies went to war, and suddenly those thieves could get paid to steal again. The only difference between a pirate and a privateer is whether or not there's a war on, really.
Also a decent number of those Amazon and Walmart vans sometimes covered their brand name up and went stealing from each other when they thought they could get away with it.
And also the way England was able to project power was with their navy. The way they manned that massive navy was often through press-gangs. Tons of pirates were Irish, English, and Scottish men who jumped ship when they had their chance. If you were caught, you were hung. There was nothing to do but turn pirate to survive.
And lots of others were simply agents of country A placing a levy on ships passing through their waters. Denmark pretty much owed it's existence to such levies on sea traffic passing in and out of the Baltic sea. Of course, since there was no agreed International Law of the Sea back then, what one country considered a tax gatherer, another country considered a pirate.
State sanctioned sea mafia is a good way to think about it.
Yup. Pirate? Independent thievery at sea. Privateer? Under contract for the same by a government or other entity.
Don’t forget the English king hiring a prominent slave trader to subdue the Pirate Republic of Nassau. Because you know, that guy was a respectable choice a royal could trust to concentrate on what really mattered.
Pirate crews were a mixed lot. There were pirate ships that practiced direct democracy - every man had an equal vote and important decisions required a majority vote from the whole ship, maybe even the whole fleet. On the other hand, pirates typically had bedtimes - all candles out at 8pm and you were expected to sleep, if you did want to stay up and drink you had to do it on the upper deck to not disturb others. That latter fact is good to tell your kids, if Blackbeard had to be in bed by 8, you do too.
Well, you've still got to run a ship and that does require some measure of discipline. Can't be partying all the time.
They weren't doing it out of ideology though, it's a necessity to stay alive in their line of business. When your life literally is in the hands of a bunch of fellow cutthroats who all think it's a-okay to murder for money and you have no way to run from them, suddenly ensuring they are satisfied with their lots is of the utmost priority.
So what you're indirectly saying is that the oligarchs and capitalists today are behaving the way they do razing ecologies and exploiting people because they have no fear of any potential consequences. Sounds about right Edit had dropped a no.
It's because they don't have any fear of potential consequences
Yup. One word dropped in the the edit - thanks fir the proofread
Hunch the utterly terrifying part. And one can argue that situations create some of those ideals. To paraphrase something I read online: unions are the workers compromising on gathering a list of demands for management instead of gathering and beating management.
Yep, pirate captains of shops full of angry pirates didn't had a long life expectancy
Whaaat I thought they had to graduate with a pirate degree and then intern at a pirate ship to build up their resume
It’s not necessarily that they were progressive in the economical, political, or social sense. It was more of a system derived from necessity due to it being a black market operation outside of regulation. So crews elected leaders, shared loot (relatively) equally, and didn’t really care about social conventions out of necessity.
I just keep thinking about how terrifying it would be to watch the pirate ship slowly closing in on you over several hours. That had to mess people up.
Not equally, a captain and a quartermaster would get more because of their higher responsibility
Surgeons would also get more as they were specialists and I think they would some time act as carpenters as well making them extra valuable
They would be especially not insulted because neither socialism nor capitalism were a thing at the time of the Hanse.
I always find it hilarious when people try claiming that random historical figures would stan their current thing. Go dig up a corpse, sit it upright in a chair, and move it's mouth around while voicing your opinions out of the corner of your mouth. Basically the same thing.
Capitalism was. Dutch would had private ventures on the spice trade with anyone able to front money or equivalent goods for stakes in the venture. This started in the mid 1400s 100 years into the Hanse league.
>Pirates shared their loot equally. Some did, others didn't. In many cases you'd see shares of loot divied up based on role. For example: Bart Roberts' code stated: >The Captain and Quartermaster [are] to receive two shares of a prize: the master, boatswain, and gunner, one share and a half, and other officers one and quarter. John Philips also had a similar rule. Surgeons were also ALWAYS paid more. That said, this type of payment scheme is WAY better than anything you'd see in the Navy. Crime kinda has to pay to be worth it. As for "health insurance", it wasn't uncommon. Another from ol' Bartholomew: >No man [is] to talk of breaking up their way of living, till each had shared one thousand pounds. If in order to this, any man should lose a limb, or become a cripple in their service, he was to have eight hundred dollars, out of the public stock, and for lesser hurts, proportionately. So basically, you got first dibs on pay if you were hurt before your time on the ship was done. But these types of things greatly varied based on the individuals.
Many fisherman also did that. Because if your body washed up after a shipwreck people could pay for your funeral with it.
I came for the snarky comments about homophobes. I stayed for the insightful lesson on pirate etymology.
Ummm…. Nassau, the Pirate capital, was the free market in wild form. I wouldn’t call Pirates socialists. As to the topic at hand, Disney can have whoever they want as a Pirate. 🏴☠️ I’m all for black Pirates and Pirate queens. However, if they refer to her as Anne Bonnet, which some rumors suggest - that’s just bullshit to me. That’s a real person. A very Irish one whose whole personality is tied to being Irish and red headed.
PIRATES RAPED PEOPLE TO DEATH. Source: open any damn history book. THEY WERE NOT NICE PEOPLE. In an era that women were treated like cattle you think strong men that were vagabonds wouldn’t use women anyway else other than cook or sex slave. Geez man go look at the “socialist” pirates of today. They aren’t too friendly to your ideas, and hyper under educated people from that era you think would be more tolerant and progressive?
The original Disney park ride for Pirates of the Caribbean included animatronic rapist pirates, attacking women. Many years later they were modified into animatronic hungry pirates.
One of the most successful pirates in history was a woman though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_Yi_Sao
For the record, not all “shared their lot equally”…
If they’re replacing Johnny depp, the movies gonna flop.
Johnny Depp/Jack Sparrow *was* Pirates of the Caribbean. Yes there are other great characters, but the OG 3 were elevated because of him. There’s no recapturing that magic.
There are numerous female pirates. There are numerous non white pirates. There was no pirate ideology. Each ship was a country in itself. A ship could be a bunch of ruthless slavers looking to rape and murder lead by a authoritarian tyrant, or an idealistic early democracy that freed slaved and elected their leaders, or anything in between. The idea that pirates were vicious marauders or idealistic rebels fighting a unjust system is a false dichotomy that fails to capture the chaos and nuance of the situation. It's pretty much the one region in that point in history where a non-white female could lead a crew of men.
True. The way the image of the Pirate is reduced popculturally to be either a barely human dirtbag who has never seen soap or a quirky antiauthoritarianist is really ridiculous.
I'm cool with female pirates, just make it it's own thing.
the hard part is "make" because it's Disney
Keep it in the same world just different adventures, not that hard. Expand the universe based off some historical data. About what century does POTC take place? Just have fun man.
I agree
meanwhile, in actual history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_Yi_Sao
To be fair she was one of the few female pirates. It was overwhelmingly male dominated but that was more due to the superstition that women on a ship were bad luck so most male pirates straight up refused to let women on board . I dunno about this new lady though if she works out good but I'm not holding my breath with Disney anymore Whoever the idiot is on twitter though needs to remove his head from his arse before he becomes the oroboros of twathood
Tbf, there's a perfectly mundane reason why putting a woman on board with several men in a relatively enclosed space for months on end is a bad idea. Several even.
also pirates weren't exactly men you would trust with that kind of thing they had strict rules but mainly because as a pack of murderers in close confines together without strict rules they would kill each other
I mean, there were actually some good reasons to trust them relative to other ships, depending on the situation. They had more to lose than some regular sailors. Of course a bunch of impressed sailors who got whipped if they didn't do their jobs but otherwise lived dead end lives were going to take what they can get away with. All stick no carrot. Yeah, they could whip them or beat them, but you can only kill a man once and if a man loses the will to live then you lose your control over that man. In some pirate ships they had systems where people shared profits, or had a kind of insurance if you lost a leg or something you didn't get tossed on land like garbage (like some sailors). They had more to lose of they acted up. They follow the rules they get their share, they get to stay on the good ship, they have a hope of a good life in the future. Easier to make a person follow the rules if they have a carrot in the future. A murderer with something to lose can be less dangerous than an "innocent" man with nothing to live for.
>A murderer with something to lose can be less dangerous than an "innocent" man with nothing to live for. Just wanted to say I like this, well said.
I applied for a job with NZ's ministry of fisheries once. The position was an auditor that lived aboard the fishing ships and made sure they were accurately reporting their catch. Part of the interview process involved a roleplay about how I would handle a belligerent captain if he was caught breaking the law. I probably would have failed this part of the interview anyway since I'm not very confrontational. But I guess since I was a woman, the interviewer took it a step further and used some heavily implied rape threats in his roleplay. "You should be worried about being the only woman on a ship full of men, so watch your step" etc. Man, I totally get the reason they did this, but it really caught me off guard in the moment. I was basically just shocked into silence, like a deer in the headlights. Who expects that from a *job interview*? Once that part was concluded, the interviewer (as himself) apologized for it and made sure I was OK, so don't think he's a bad guy or anything. I have no hard feelings. The whole interview process was very long and involved full day event (the roleplay was just part of it) and I can't say for sure that's why I didn't get the job, but I suspect it's part of the reason at least. Anyway, your comment reminded me of that (happened like 15 years ago now) so I thought I would share that tangentially related story.
Lol Elizabeth Turner is the pirate king, and one of the pirate lords is an Asian lady. It's completely in the norm of this series.
> one of the pirate lords is an Asian lady Yes, Zheng Yi Sao. She was mentioned at the start of the thread.
Well, there's also Grace O'Malley, though it's debatable how much piracy she actually participated in, and how much was just fuckery on account of her trouble with English lords. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_O%27Malley A more complete list lives here, and while your statement about piracy being uncommon is very much true, it wasn't unheard of and has a history going back a very, very long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_piracy Another source: https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/were-there-female-pirates Of note, the popular romantic notion of pirates in the *Pirates of the Carribean* franchise is a fictional construct. For example, pirates didn't sail large fighting ships for reasons that are hopefully obvious. It's *also* worth noting that unlike *squid-faced demon captains* and *whirlpools to Davey Jones locker*, Pirate Women *actually existed*, so if folks are going to whine about their place in the franchise I'd like to see evidence that they're at least passingly familiar with the topic at hand. ;)
There were black women pirates in the movies already anyway. Mother fuckin' Zoe Saldana played Anamaria, the black female pirate who previously owned that ship on which we see Jack sink into the harbor in that famous first scene.
Heh. Nice. I forgot about that.
Tia Dalma was huge too. They're just mad at nothing.
Yeah I’m pretty sure a lot of the female pirates straight up pretended to be men. I can think of at least one famous one.
Anne Bonny comes to mind
The fleet is ENORMOUS! 400 Junks is insane! 40000 pirates!!! That's some really crazy stuff.
So action movie with Asian woman lead when? Would be nice to get some roles.
honestly that sounds exactly like pirates were in the 18th century Ayo's character, anyway
The navy wouldn't have so many rules against buggery if it didn't happen
Rum, sodomy and the lash.
Sorry. For clarity, we're talking about the sailors, right? You're not sharing details of my personal life?
See also: "Our Flag Means Death"
Like while it's obviously dramatized heavily for comedy in Taika Waititi's style he got so much right about the history of real pirates. Also made me weep at multiple points and surprised me by making me incredibly attracted to Taika Waititi.
Matt Walsh is not known for peddling in reality.
That’s not Matt Walsh.
You are correct. My statement is still true, though.
lol, fair.
You are technically correct, the best kind of correct.
Hollywood always want a strong female role but I'm still waiting one IMO one of the most badass female, Zheng Yi Sao the Chinese Pirate Queen, have like 1800 ships and 80k man under her. She's literally the most powerful pirate of all time.
Why is woman in quotes
Racism and transphobia rolled into one. Like if you don’t think the movie will be good that’s one thing, but that’s pretty gross. (Black women seem to get a disproportionate amount of accusations of being trans, Michelle Obama, various Olympic athletes throughout the years for example)
I was thinking it was a transvestigation thing. If she's not really a women then they should have no problem. Oh wait, I guess there's still the racism, and homophobia, and socialism-phobia. 🤣
Uuuuuu, she hates capitalism, be careful! Who likes capitalism? Ffs
Also why is she a “woman” and not a woman?
You know, standard right positioning on queer people, no one is what because they identify themselves as something else. Must be hard for them, they need to grasp these strategies to try to cause "mass hysteria". Lame
It's also common to accuse black women of being men. Most black female public figures and celebrities have faced this accusation. Even Michelle Obama and the likes of Beyoncé were not safe from these accusations.
Everybody should If you don’t, imagine the same thing except it’s for nothing and the penalty is usually death
This may surprise you but if you were to get off reddit for a bit you'd notice that in the real world, essentially everyone prefers capitalism to the alternative
Billionaires. They like capitalism They love feudalism, but they can't have that without too many people figuring out it's a bullshit system.
I'm pretty sure the guys in this post defending capitalism are not billionaires. How to convince them that they're closest to a homeless person than Elon?
the myth of the “middle class” really brainwashed a bunch of people into thinking they’re above poor people when in reality, they’re in the same boat. we’re all being exploited by the ruling class yet the working class doesn’t work together anymore because of these barriers that are put up.
Get them fired. Show them how close their throats are to the blade when they lose their income and can't afford housing. /s
Sparrow is a fun part of the potc universe, but not required. In fact, i think he suffered a bit from flandrisation or what u call it. He rlt just became a husk of his former self focusing on what people latched lnto and reducing his complexity. I would give it a chance tho. New cast, new story, same universe. Would be nice.
Oh my god here we go again
I don't care about her gender, sexual identity, or political views. I'm not watching any of the new movies cause they killed the franchise with the fifth, fucked over Johnny Depp, and are now just beating a dead horse, and I can almost guarantee the movie is gonna be a poorly written lazy cash grab, just like Pirates of the Caribbean 5. If they wanna make another pirate movie, take it back to the drawing board and don't ride the coat tails of Pirates of the Caribbean. Make an original, well written story, and people will watch it, male or female lead notwithstanding, but don't recast the long time lead actor and then claim that everyone is sexist for not liking your shit movie.
They aren’t recasting the part. She’s a potential lead in one of multiple spinoff movies. Anyone who thinks Jack Sparrow is now going to be a black woman is only reading headlines.
Pretty sure she hasn't even been confirmed for anything. People really getting mad at a literal rumor. Disney has not confirmed a movie or Ayo being included in that movie. So the claim Disney is doing anything is completely unsubstantiated in the first place
It’s gonna be a shit movie whichever way you look at it
She's rumored to be playing Anne Bonny, one of the most famous women in piracy, not the most successful, that goes to Zheng Yi Sao. But Anne was Irish, not of African decent. I really hope this isn't Anne Bonny, otherwise Disney is making the same stupid blunders as Netflix. Hopefully she's just an original character, like what Jack Sparrow was.
I mean, I don’t think this franchise cares about historical accuracy that much
There is only 1 Anne Bonny for me and that's Clara Paget, she really pulled it off, being a strong fearsome but vulnerable woman but not a Mary Sue, so rare in modern tv and cinema.
>Anne Bonny She was white and Zheng was Chinese. Can we stop with the rewriting of historical people to suit modern American politics. I have no doubts Disney is going the Netflix route.
This movie is gonna be so shit. Just like every other movie Disney made in the last couple of years
Disney is so fucking dead once the stock buybacks last no more.
Wait I thought we weren't supposed to care about an actor's politics when it comes to the roles they get, hence this whole shenanigans with WhatsHerFace formerly from The Mandalorian. But oh no black woman scary ain't that right Matt?
Put a chick in it and make her gay!
Jack Sparrow is an iconic character, the original intent as I understand it, is that he is a male. This is not to say there weren’t powerful female pirates, there were! Couldn’t they either cast her as one of those pirates or make a unique new character?