Well,
'At World's End' is probably the film that I can comment on the least out of the three, as it's the one I've viewed the fewest number of times. But I agree with you that the plot wasn't great, and it ultimately let the whole film down. Of course, I still really liked
'At World's End', and felt that it did almost everything right... apart from the plot. The effects were amazing, the battle scenes were well done and entertaining, the acting was good, the locations were the best in the series - it should have been absolutely epic... but it wasn't; the plot being the problem.
Because the things that made the first two films so great and so engaging was the fact that they were well thought-out, and their respective plots and storylines had depth and substance to them. This ultimately made the action sequences so much more exciting, because the action and battles we were viewing onscreen would affect the course of events; would have a bearing on what was to come in the story. The action scenes in
'At World's End' were more amazing, visually, but they were
nowhere near as exciting as the action scenes in the first two films, and this was because (as we've mentioned) the plot was weak, and paper thin.
And this probably comes as a result from the team trying to create something of epic proportions, using their incredible budget on making things look amazing, but not focusing on the one thing that made the first two films brilliant - the excitement, the engagement, and the immersion, which all were spawned from the plot.
I like what your ideas are for the movie's plotline; that would have been a much better alternative. Those events would have given way to a
much stronger plot, and probably would have actually created some memorable moments that would actually stick in the audience's head. Because, in all honesty, since it's been a while since I last viewed
'At World's End', I can't actually remember much as all about the film. I sure as hell didn't remember much about it after my first viewing - it was a big blur of men in wigs, hundreds of ships, dark clouds and stormy weather, lots of crabs, Keith Richards and Singaporeans. Whereas, with
'Dead Man's Chest', I could recount the major plot elements, the basic storyline, and the action was more memorable as a result.
At least
'On Stranger Tides' appears to be a return to form, or at least it should be. There's just
one things that the plot is centered around here - multiple parties in search of the fountain of youth. This is good - this means that the scriptwriters can focus on that; focus on cultivating this single storyline; make this one thing complex and exciting, as opposed to stretching themselves thin over a number of storylines and too many plot elements (like in
'AWE'). Also, I hear that they had a pretty big budget cut this time around, which is
great! It means that they can't go crazy this time, and their focus will remain on making a
good film, not making a
visually impressive film. These are other reasons why I think that
'OST' will be a return to form. I'm expecting it to be at about the same level as
'Dead Man's Chest', and should have a lot of similar elements.
Sorry if I talked in circles in this post, by the way
. I can get repetitive sometimes.