![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Movie mythology and its importance
May. 12th, 2006 04:56 pmFound an interesting article, while surfing around, on the mythology behind specific popular entertainment venues ("Lost" "X-Files" "Mission: Impossible") and thought it might be relevant to a "Pirates of the Caribbean" discussion.
( First, skim the article, which I've cut and pasted here )
It was interesting to read this while keeping POTC in mind. The only specific backing "mythology" for the first movie is the ride, which pre-dates the movie by about 30 years. I've been on the ride; it's not that great shakes, as storytelling goes. It's a loose collection of pirate cliches thrown together in animatronic scenery for a slow boat ride. Yay.
Now of course, piracy on the high seas has a long and rich history and mythology to draw from. But what I found interesting in the movie was the *lack* of cliches. I saw only one peg-leg, and that was in very brief passing; I don't remember eyepatches or hooks for hands (though maybe I just missed them?) or "Yarrr!" except from Barbossa a couple of times. Hell, I don't even remember gold hoop earrings (the only ones I do recall were Elizabeth's at the beginning fort scene).
So the question becomes: Does POTC have a bigger fan base than M:I because it has a longer backing mythology? I don't think so - after all, spies and their myths have been around forever, too. Does it have a bigger base because of better acting or more compelling stories? I don't know - I haven't seen the M:I movies, though I used to watch the TV series, and while Tom Cruise would probably be on my celeb shit-list if I had one, the fact is that he is an entertaining actor when he wants to be.
What do you all think? (Feel free to pimp this in your own journal if you like, since I don't think my shake alone is enough to bring all the commenters to the yard.)
( First, skim the article, which I've cut and pasted here )
It was interesting to read this while keeping POTC in mind. The only specific backing "mythology" for the first movie is the ride, which pre-dates the movie by about 30 years. I've been on the ride; it's not that great shakes, as storytelling goes. It's a loose collection of pirate cliches thrown together in animatronic scenery for a slow boat ride. Yay.
Now of course, piracy on the high seas has a long and rich history and mythology to draw from. But what I found interesting in the movie was the *lack* of cliches. I saw only one peg-leg, and that was in very brief passing; I don't remember eyepatches or hooks for hands (though maybe I just missed them?) or "Yarrr!" except from Barbossa a couple of times. Hell, I don't even remember gold hoop earrings (the only ones I do recall were Elizabeth's at the beginning fort scene).
So the question becomes: Does POTC have a bigger fan base than M:I because it has a longer backing mythology? I don't think so - after all, spies and their myths have been around forever, too. Does it have a bigger base because of better acting or more compelling stories? I don't know - I haven't seen the M:I movies, though I used to watch the TV series, and while Tom Cruise would probably be on my celeb shit-list if I had one, the fact is that he is an entertaining actor when he wants to be.
What do you all think? (Feel free to pimp this in your own journal if you like, since I don't think my shake alone is enough to bring all the commenters to the yard.)
