LabRat wrote:
I'm willing to bet that any one of us could watch that movie and find several minutes of utterly superfluous footage which could have been excised to account for the overtime and which would never have been missed. Thus allowing them to keep the vital footage they actually cut out. Sometimes, I'm amazed at what they keep in and what they excise.
I'm often amazed, too. I thought the final fight on the edge of the maelstrom was overly long and extremely choppy (and therefore hard to follow). But the people who actually make the decisions on what to keep and what to cut usually have very little to do with the actual filming, not to mention the writing. It's why we have so many "director's cut" versions of movies coming out on DVD. Look for the production company credits and the "executive producer" credit to find the person to blame for anything you didn't like about any movie or TV or radio show. If the basic story line is sound, then it's probably not the writers' fault if the movie is a bust.
I saw the movie Saturday evening. I liked it a lot (not as much as LOTR or "The Quiet Man"), and partly because of the comments in this thread I knew what to look for. I heard the 10-year explanation in the dialogue (but not all in one place, mind you), so I understood what was going on. And I can understand why someone who wasn't forewarned might easily miss it.
But y'all are right. There's several Greyhound-sized plot holes in this puppy.
I would ask, who would captain the Dutchman if Will goes back to land to live with Elizabeth? And what did she do for those ten years? There's definitely another movie in there, but I have no idea whether or not it will be made. Depends on the money, if the studio thinks it can make money on another installment.
For example, the last Star Trek film was supposed to be the last Star Trek film, but another one has been announced for release in 2008. I don't know any details, but it goes to show that if someone thinks there's money to be made, it will probably happen.
