Pirates of the Caribbean producer teases Johnny Depp's return to films
'If he likes the way the part's written, I think he would do it,' Bruckheimer told Entertainment Weekly . 'It's all about what's on the page, as we all know… We are still working on a screenplay. We want to make it. We just got to get the right screenplay. We haven't quite gotten there yet, but we're close.' Daily Mail has reached out to Depp's representatives for comment, but they have not yet responded.
Depp, 62, led five Pirates films between 2003 and 2017, all of which grossed more than $650 million globally, with Dead Man's Chest (2006) and On Stranger Tides (2011) each crossing the $1 billion mark. Together, the franchise has pulled in $4.5 billion at the worldwide box office — much of that with Depp front and center.
His future with the Disney-backed series had been uncertain following his highly publicized legal troubles , including his 2022 libel trial against Amber Heard. Previously, the entertainment conglomerate chose to distance itself from the actor, but never formally cut ties with the father-of-two.
At the time, millions of his fans signed online petitions demanding the star be reinstated in his role as Sparrow. But with Depp now mounting a major comeback in Lionsgate's upcoming Day Drinker, rumors over his return to the high seas has only grown. His last studio film was 2018's Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald.
The path to another Pirates installment has been winding and long. Back in 2020, Variety reported that Disney was developing two separate projects: a reboot led by Margot Robbie and a sixth film continuing the original storyline, written by Craig Mazin and Ted Elliott.
Elliott famously co-wrote the first four Pirates adventures. Robbie later told Vanity Fair in 2022 that Disney was 'not interested' in her 'more of a female-led' version, but Bruckheimer pushed back on that narrative. At the time, he told EW there's still room for both.
'I think Disney agrees they really want to make the Margot one, too,' he said. That same year, he continued to insist that the project was very much 'alive' to The Hollywood Reporter. Although the female-led spinoff is unclear, it does not currently have a release date and no details about casting or production plans have been released.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Legendary comedian, 70, arrested on suspicion of drug possession at LA restaurant
The comedian and actor Paul Rodriguez has been at a restaurant in Burbank, California, after police allegedly found drugs in a car associated with him. He was arrested on Monday after officers searched the vehicle and allegedly found Xanax, as well as what they suspected was fentanyl, police told NBC4 Los Angeles. Police said Rodriguez denied that the drugs reportedly discovered during his latest arrest belonged to him. This comes after the 70-year-old comic was arrested in March for drug possession, though he also denied at the time that the drugs belonged to him. The Daily Mail has contacted Rodriguez's representatives to request comment but hasn't yet received a response.
The Sun
28 minutes ago
- The Sun
Bachelor star Nick Viall reveals wife Natalie Joy has suffered third devastating miscarriage
BACHELOR star Nick Viall has revealed the heartbreaking news of how his wife Natalie Joy suffered a third devastating miscarriage this year. Nick gained fame through his appearances on The Bachelorette and as The Bachelor himself, with him meeting his wife through Instagram years later. 5 5 5 5 He married his wife Natalie in April 2024 after four years of dating, with them going on to welcome a child just months before tying the knot. The 44-year-old reality star has now revealed his wife endured her third pregnancy loss this year. He made the heartbreaking revelation in the latest episode of his podcast, The Viall Files. Natalie, 26, who usually sits beside her husband when the podcast is being filmed, was absent from this episode. Opening his podcast, Nick addressed Natalie's unusual absence, saying, "As you can see, Natalie is not with us. "There's no really easy way to talk about this..." He then got candid with his listeners as he revealed the heartbreaking news. Nick opened up and said, "Sadly, Natalie experienced another miscarriage. "It is her third this year, our third this year... "There's no really good way to say it, it f**king sucks." Tensions heat up on Bachelor in Paradise as relationship tests are officially underway Nick continued, "She's obviously at home resting, healing, both physically and emotionally." The couple are parents to their one-year-old daughter River Rose, who was born two months before they got married. Natalie first suffered a miscarriage in January of this year before enduring a second pregnancy loss just two months later. Nick explained to his listeners, "When it happens the first time, the doctors and everyone kind of acknowledge that, while terrible, this is that something that can happen. "And everyone's just... don't freak out, there's nothing wrong, it sadly can be a part of this process." Nick went on, "And then it happened the second time, you know, obviously we have a lot of amazing blessings in our life, first and foremost being River, minus like some morning sickness and things like that, we were very lucky to have a fairly easy pregnancy... "Really no complications, which was such an amazing blessing. "Despite what's going on right now with us, our doctor keeps reminding us that that is the best sign of our future ability to grow our family." He then spoke of how the couple now feel "uneasy". "But right now obviously there's a little bit of uneasiness," he said candidly. "It's far less normal to have two and three back to back. "Now we're kind of in that very scary process of running tests and finding out more about ourselves, and it's like this weird thing of like you want them to find something, but you don't want them to find something. "Because if they find something, you don't know what that means. We're in this kind of very uncharted territory of fact finding. Which sucks," he said. Nick also said, "I really just wanted to be transparent with you guys 'cause I know she wasn't there yesterday, people started to notice, and we're already getting messages with like a lot of concern. "So overall, Natalie is doing OK physically and healing and she's OK in that respect and emotionally, we're currently dealing with that." 5
The Guardian
41 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Hit horror Weapons doesn't have a deeper meaning but that's OK
For years now, horror fans and critics have grown increasingly and understandably impatient with the tendency of genre films to orient their scares toward a clearly conveyed central metaphor. The real monster in these movies is parenthood, personal trauma or that old horror-movie standby, grief. Writer-director Zach Cregger is no stranger to this line of thinking; his 2022 horror movie Barbarian is very much a spooky-creature-in-the-basement movie for the #MeToo era. Now Cregger has returned with a movie that may well stymie anyone who has been trained by the last decade to search for an easy-to-track allegory within their viscerally depicted fears. His new movie Weapons has received mostly rave reviews and positive audience response. But at least a few critics and fans are pivoting from complaining about obvious metaphors to ask … is that all there is? Is Weapons actually about anything? (To further delve into this question, of course, we'll need to go full spoiler mode, so if you want to see the movie and haven't yet, turn back now.) The movie certainly alludes to plenty of hot-button issues. It springs from a chilling premise: one night in a small town, 17 children from the same third-grade class wake up at 2.17am, leave their houses, and disappear into the night. Parents are understandably distraught, and in looking for someone to blame seem to land on the students' teacher Justine (Julia Garner), who is as puzzled and disturbed about this as anyone else. When Archer (Josh Brolin) angrily demands to know what was 'going on' in his missing son's classroom, convinced that Justine must have played some role in this tragedy, there are unmistakable echoes of social panics in an era where parents feel empowered to dictate what their children learn about at school. The fact that the movie's school shutters, then must reopen before the disappearance is solved or its pain is at all healed recalls Covid-era school closures. And when Archer has a dream where he sees a giant AR-15 materialize in the sky above the town, it seems like an obvious reference to school shootings that have devastated so many classrooms over the past quarter-century. Or is it? Cregger actually says no. I co-host a horror podcast, and in our interview with the film-maker, he unequivocally said he was not thinking of school shootings when he wrote the movie. For him, that's not at all what it's about. (Though he did stress that he welcomes people's interpretations, and in fact wanted to make something with that kind of flexibility.) He wouldn't say precisely how he personally interprets the story, but he has mentioned repeatedly that it was something he started writing out of – hey! – grief, even if the movie itself may be more ambiguous as to its thematic aims. This leaves Weapons open to the charge that it's not about much of anything – that it's all great hook and solid technique in service of a thrill ride where some stray inspiration from Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia is more superficial homage than thematic link. The real question, though, is how bad of an offense this is supposed to be. Plenty of great horror movies are principally concerned with the visceral experience of watching them in the dark, rather than the talking points or takeaways they might hand over to the viewer in broad daylight. Subtext shouldn't have to be plainly visible at first glance. Indeed, some of the skepticism over Weapons seems to stem from the fact that it turns out to be … a horror movie. The children in the movie are enchanted by a witch. The movie doesn't say whether she's always been a witch, or has turned to witchcraft in the face of a debilitating illness. But that's why she takes control of these children, and various other adults at her convenience: to sap their life force, attempt to heal herself, and, in the meantime, use her control to make her victims do her bidding. So yeah, pretty witchy stuff, and her comeuppance has the gory satisfaction of a Brothers Grimm story fed through a powerful amplifier. That wild, almost fanciful ending may strike some as reductive, especially when its first half plays more like a dark mystery like David Fincher's Zodiac, or at least Seven. But is the spectacle of brainwashed children being turned against their older captor and ravenously destroying her so devoid of opportunities for interpretation? It's not even that Weapons is demanding a lot of work from the audience – and that might be exactly what rankles some about it. Most of what happens in the movie is unambiguously explained; it's the meaning that's left up to the audience, and maybe some sense an incongruity between those two approaches. That's a fair-enough critique, as is a thoughtful consideration that concludes none of the movie's interpretations hold up to much scrutiny. But it's hard to fault Cregger for making a horror movie that is more concerned with its own scary, twisty immediacy than its optics as a social critique. At the same time, maybe the discourse over the meaning of Weapons suggests that the eye-rolling about 'metaphorror' has been overblown, too. Countless horror classics could very much be described as driven by metaphor. Some are murkier or more interpretative than others, but having a central idea and conveying it clearly isn't a marker of hackdom. It's just something that some hacky movies have done, often directly imitating very good ones. Think of Get Out, which may have been thornier than it was given credit for, but still has a trackable central conceit that's not exactly obtuse; then think of heavy-handed Get Out knockoffs like Antebellum and Blink Twice with too much visible effort and too little inspiration. Jordan Peele himself followed a path not unlike Cregger's when following up Get Out; his movies Us and Nope are immediately engaging visceral experiences with more allusions and evocations than clear signaling of a central metaphor. They may be more successful in that realm than Weapons, but then, that's true of most movies when compared with Peele's output. It's the prescriptiveness – give us a meaning, or kill all metaphors – that goes against the nature of horror in general. The combination of the concrete and slippery is what makes horror such a compelling field; there may not be a genre better suited to blurring the lines between reality and a heightened dream state. There's no single correct way to have a nightmare.
