Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End/Archive 4

Will's Destiny

Contrary to the article at the time of writing, stating that "By waiting on him for the past ten years and meeting him the curse is lifted and he is free of the Flying Dutchman.", A leaflet given with the 2disc DVD UK release states in a section called "Pirates secrets revealed-Top questions moviegoers had about Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End" has this clarified under it, this question comes up

Actual question and anwser are "Since Will honoured his deatiny on the flying Dutchman, in 10 years does he get to return to land for good, thereby freeing his father and crew?" "Every 10 years, Will may step on Land for one day. He is bound to the Flying Dutchman forever."

So yeah , the current article is wrong, and I am editting it as such. Lozmaster (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, the writers state otherwise. I'm unsure of who exactly approved this leaflet. Perhaps you should cite the DVD leaflet (page number, title, date etc) and give the whole post-credits scene a paragraph unto itself, as it was the only thing not clarified in the film. Alientraveller (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What the writers state is usurped by the text of the film. The film never backs up what the writers have said, as much as I wish it did. Since we're dealing only in what can be hard cited in the film, the leaflet would be more accurate. --Bishop2 (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't censor that information just because of someone else's opinion. Cite this leaflet and incorporate into the article. Again, page number, title? I've not bought the DVD yet so I'm out. Alientraveller (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to cite the leaflet because he's basically talking about the leaflet backing up what's already in the film. I don't care about the leaflet; all that matters is the text of what's actually on the screen. This is a "film synopsis" section. It's not a "what the writers said was supposed to be in the film but wasn't" or "what some piece of paper told me is going on" section. Based on the film itself, Will gets one day every ten years. In the end, until they release a new version of the film that changes this, that's all that matters in a Film Synopsis section - what's in the movie itself. If you want to include debate on what is said to have happened in the film but wasn't shown, it's going to need to have its own separate subheading. --Bishop2 (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot is plot. Sure, some things are made clear, but this wasn't, hence two conflicting cites, so don't violate WP:NPOV. Alientraveller (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And as ^^ said, you need to cite it. It needs to be sourced, period. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 19:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible this leaflet was written by some group other than the writers, considering the current strike? Or is that too unlikely? Just a consideration as they would not really have any say at this point and it is possible a marketing department drafted this rather abrupt leaflet to pad the contents of the limited edition DVD.Thoughts? Freestmind (talk) 05:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter who wrote it? It's aiming to clarify a point in the film, one, that, personally, I never had any doubts about, and, being released as part of the DVD package, has to be given at least some degree of credibility. The writers have stated that their original intent was that Will be freed, but scenes suggesting that were all removed. What remains in the film makes it reasonably clear, in my opinion, that once you're the captain of the Dutchman, the job is yours until another takes it from you by stabbing your heart. The original intent doesn't matter - what does matter is what remains. --Tailkinker (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all of that content was removed. Davy Jones accuses Calypso: "When I returned after ten years, when we could finally be together again, you weren't there." which sounds kinda final, like that would have lifted the curse, not like they just missed one day. They certainly removed a lot of scenes that would suggest Will gets freed, but to me the movie is simply ambiguous, leaving it to the viewer's imagination wether Will was freed or not. --Mithcoriel (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The combination of your responses illustrates my point - it is not clear, and should be removed until it is made certain. Historically, this would reference the original Flying Dutchman opera, which as I have read may allow for the release but I'm not sure.Freestmind (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope I'm not adding fuel to the fire, but, the US edition leaflet said, quite clearly:

Question One:

What does the future hold for Will and Elizabeth? Now that he's captain of the Flying Dutchman, is she going to wait for him?

True love never dies, but their story is yet to be told.

Question Two:

Since Will honored his destiny on the Flying Dutchman, in 10 years does he get to return to land for good, thereby freeing his father and crew?

Every ten years, Will may step onto land for one day. He is bound to the Flying Dutchman forever.

This proves the point that no, Will remains forever bound. Though the UK edition might have said differently, this is the US edition, manufactured here, where Pirates was created. Also, keep in mind that Ted and Terry live, well, in America. So now, this points at leaving things as is. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 17:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fear not, the DVD leaflet is already mentioned in the article. But Ted and Terry have supposedly claimed it was made without their involvement. So I think we're pretty well set with the two conflicting bits... until we hear that they definitely agree or something. --Bishop2 (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just saw this :) Good point, but for now :D BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Some minor plot corrections

Immediately after watching this movie for the third time, I've made some minor corrections to the plot synopsis;

1) During the malestrom battle, Jack does NOT escape from the Dutchman, rather he escapes the brig, then goes to the Captain's quarters and takes the chest. Jack Sparrow doesn't actually LEAVE the Dutchman until AFTER Will swings over, is stabbed by Davy Jones, and is subsequently aided BY Jack in stabbing the heart, and by doing so, getting rid of Jones for good and making Will the new captain of the Flying Dutchman.

2) WHICH crew cut out Will's heart? Clarified.

There WAS one other small detail that I was going to include about the parlay, when Barbossa's pet monkey takes Sparrow's piece of eight. As this is such a finite detail though, I've left it for someone else to possibly add, if they believe that it would improve the synopsis. Edit Centric (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Alientraveller - Would you be willing to discuss your recent reversion of my changes? I noticed that your latest edits do not necessarily reflect events as they happen in the film. As these inaccuracies were initially present, and I had just finished viewing the film in its entirety, I went ahead with the corrections to the article's plot synopsis...

Again, I'd be glad to discuss these edits with you here, and reach a possible resolution. Edit Centric (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, mis-named the process here... Edit Centric (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

More possible corrections... Do I remember wrong? Do we know that Jack is hallucinating? We know little of the nature of Davy Jones Locker. Tia Dalma does not say that she was not there for Jones after 10 years, that is revealed later. I don’t remember it ever being said that Gov. Swan is killed because he attempted to stab the heart but because he was too interested in it. I don’t remember Elizabeth vowing revenge or even, at that point of the film revealing that she knew who was responsible for his death. She seems to realize this when Norrington tells her that her father returned to England. Sparrow does tell Beckett that the pirates are meeting at Shipwreck Cove (does not say where Shipwreck Cove is). Feng does not give the Black Pearl to Sparrow, he leaves it to Barbossa and the rest of the crew, when Jack returns Feng is already gone. Jack and Barbossa share captaincy after Jack returns from the Endeavor. How do you know that Teague is Jack father? Teague’s “boy” and Jack’s “How’s mum?” may not necessarily mean a family relationship. Beckett is moving to attack the Pearl when the Dutchman returns captained by Will. Gwen4598 (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't always use the movies as our only sources. For all of this information, we look at Disney-produced books. Example: for the Teague situation, we looked at the “Pirates of the Caribbean Visual Guide” by Dorling Kindersley and Disney. Sources right there. Don’t question, just check the source list. That way it won’t be a hassle for you ☺ BlackPearl14^{Bella Swan} 20:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

SUGGESTED Plot Synopsis Corrections

1) Current / Inaccurate text: "They overturn the ship, and at sunset, upturn back into the living world and witness a flash of green light..." / Suggested Correction: "They overturn the ship as the sun is setting, and upturn back into the living world as the sun is rising..."

2) Current / Inaccurate text: "During the battle, Sparrow escapes the Flying Dutchman with the Dead Man's Chest." / Suggested Correction: "During the battle, Sparrow escapes the Flying Dutchman's brig, and retrieves the Dead Man's Chest from the Captain's quarters." (NOTE: Again, Sparrow doesn't actually LEAVE the Dutchman until AFTER Will is stabbed by Davy Jones, the heart is stabbed, and the malestrom battle is over. It is at THIS point that Jack, accompanied by Elizabeth, sails off of the deck of the Dutchman with a makeshift parachute.)

3) Current skip in synopsis: "...and kiss in the ensuing chaos. When Davy Jones mortally wounds Will aboard his ship..." / Suggested bridge: "..ensuing chaos. Will then boards the Flying Dutchman to retrieve the chest. When Davy Jones mortally wounds Will..." (NOTE: This explains HOW Will comes to be aboard the Dutchman, when he was just married on the deck of the Pearl.)

The main concern with this article is that, by rights, it does NOT currently meet the GA-status for the following reason: Not factually accurate. Because I would rather see this article maintain it's GA, and not get de-listed, we need to work together to correct these issues. Edit Centric (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of these. I suggest you be bold and perform them all. --Bishop2 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would Bishop2, but for the fact that I already did, and Alientraveller came in and reverted all but one of my recent changes (adding a "the" before "Flying Dutchman" in the last paragraph). I was hoping that AT would write back to me today and explain why he so curtly removed the plot corrections, and included a mod description that makes no sense at all. I'll wait until tonight here (PST) to see if he logs in and catches all of this. If so, I think we might be able to come to an agreeable solution. Edit Centric (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah don't worry, I was in a bit of a rush checking off my watchlist and the overnight edits earlier. I always fear the plot will capsize, but I reverted myself and made a few additional shortenings. Alientraveller (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume it's done, then. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 20:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

All done, BlackPearl114. Between the few of us, the plot write-up now matches the movie more or less dead on. (I re-cued the scenes in question to reference while I wrote, so we're good...) Edit Centric (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I edited that whole "swings over to the Dutchman" line down, "then boards the Dutchman" sounds a tad more formal and not so wordy. Also, we (the viewers) know that he went to retrieve the chest, but it is left to the viewer to infer the reason WHY he wanted the chest at that point; to aid Jack, or again for himself, to save his father. Edit Centric (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, great :) BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 00:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fairly certain, according to the dialogue in the film, this statement is false: "To increase his and the East India Trading Company's power in the Caribbean, Lord Cutler Beckett executes anyone, including women and children, suspected of or remotely associated with piracy." Beckett was, in actuality, ordering executions on a hunch that the pirate's associates would sing "Hoist the Colors," which would call the Brethren Court to convene, drawing them out in the open so that Beckett could obliterate them all in one blow and seize total control of the sea. I say this because, 1.) Barbossa explains (to Sao Feng) that the song is a call to arms, 2.) When Groves informs Beckett the prisoners are singing, he says, "Finally." This suggests the executions were a means to the end of provoking them into singing, which would mean he knew that once the song was sung, the Brethren Court would have to convene, and 3.) Beckett spends the majority of the film trying to cut some kind of deal with Will and Jack to learn the location where the Court would gather. Laota (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Was this film controversial at all?

Watching this film for the first time on DVD, I was struck by the level of violence, not to mention the clear implication that Elizabeth and Will had sex at the end (and the fact a child was conceived from this), and the fact the film was rated PG-13. On its own, there is nothing unusual about this, except for the fact that this was a film released under the Walt Disney banner, as opposed to its Touchstone or Hollywood subsidiaries which allowed for greater flexibility in terms of violence and the like. There's even a blooper on the DVD where Depp tells an actor he can't swear in a Disney film. I'll be surprised if there wasn't some sort of controversy over the content being too strong, either in terms of violence, or for the ending sequences, for a film under the Walt Disney banner. Or did it pass unnoticed? I remember how the road to Touchstone started because of a PG-rated comedy Disney issued called Trenchcoat that got into trouble because of adult content. If there's been any third-party discussion about this (Michael Medved, anyone?) it might be worth adding here, perhaps as an illustration of how Disney-branded films have evolved since the days when there was an uproar because of the dark and violent The Black Hole becoming the first PG-rated Disney film. 23skidoo (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There is the censorship section. As for how dark the film is despite being Disney, well, hae you ever seen Bambi? Some critics have praised the film's tone. Alientraveller (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this really relates, but in Australia it was rated M, therefore recommended for people over 15. In Aus M rated movies can contain violence and adult scenes, but only supernatural violence was marked as the reason for the rating. I'm not sure if that helps, but possibly with the scene at the end, because anything tat happens is implied, Disney expects young children (under 13 in USA, under 15 in Australia) not to pick up on the implication. But obviosuly it isn't recommended for young Bambi-aged children anyway, so they shouldn't be watching it, so there shouldn't be any controversy about the end scene or the levels of violence because it has a ratign that allows that.--JG ROX (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes - Assuming Good Faith...

Alientraveller - I was kind of waiting to see what you thought about that whole "ghastly / ghostly" change, I didn't want to revert that until I got a chance to message you here. Also, I'm not sure about a few of the recent edits, most appear in "good faith", there was the one changing 10 to 10,000 that I was kind of suspicious about though, so I nuked it... Edit Centric (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A revert was done because someone was trying to make Chow Yun-Fat appear more important than he is in the film. "Ghastly" also sounds a bit too story-bookish in my view: "ghostly" is more apt description of what Davy Jones is, regardless of resembling an octopus. Alientraveller (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah. No, I wasn't talking about YOUR edits, I know where those are coming from, since you're a major contributor to the article. I'm talking about the newer user edits, like the one that moved Chow Yun Fat up on the list, and the one that changed 10 to 10,000. These are edits coming from users (like me, I realise) that are new to the article, and don't have the vested interest in the history of the article, that brought it to GA-status. (As I made a case for increased accuracy, I've gotten a chance to get involved in a really good article here, and my interest lies in PROTECTING it's GA.) Edit Centric (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Changing ten to ten thousand is a very typical form of vandalism of screwing with numbers. Hope that helps. Alientraveller (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I get that. But in keeping with the Wikipedia "Assume Good Faith" premise, ya know....

That latest edit from Wiki12345321 looks like a "green" account (so new it still has the stickers on it!) trying to get a feel for minor edits, and how WikiLinks work. I looked at the section they were operating in, and there ARE other instances of "2007" being linked in this fashion, so they probably assumed that the end of the paragraph instance should be also. This user's account only has 3 edits to it, and has only been active since yesterday (Dec 7th.) This one was a "GFE", the one that changed the numbers, I'm frowning at... Edit Centric (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that people create accounts just to change Pirates: AWE into their own story. We need to put some sort of tag that will protect this page from new users. In addition, I’ve also had to put several vandalism tags on many new user’s pages – and several IPs. It’s getting really severe. I think we need some way to block off certain IPs and Users from this page. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} —Preceding comment was added at 19:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

New Challenges to Stability

Since just this afternoon, there have been three more edits by "greenhorn" user accounts. What is happening, IMHO, is that since the DVD came out here in the States, it has generated some new interest in the article. This interest is coming from two distinct perspectives; article improvement, and vandalism. Alientraveller, since you are the major contributor to the article, I think you, maybe BlackPearl14 and I in the interests of preserving article integrity, may want to start scruitinizing these new edits at a higher pace and priority. I've already added this article to my watch list and Current Project list on my user page...

NEW ACCOUNT EDITORS! Please consider registering an account here at Wikipedia, and giving us a method of discussing changes with you. With registration, there are quite a bit more things that you can do, and more ways to get involved! Also, please note that this article has already been nominated for and received a GA (Good Article) rating. What this indicates is that it has been reviewed for content by a panel of peers, and judged to be in excellent order, according to GA guidelines.

What you might want to do is make suggestions for improvements and additions here on the talk page, so that a meaningful dialogue can be commenced, the changes can be fine-tuned, and then added to the article if they are deemed to be significant improvements. As seasoned editors, we understand the enthusiasm of newer editors to "jump right in" and get your feet wet, and that's a beautiful thing!

This article is also being actively monitored for vandalism, due again to the renewed interest in the subject. While assuming good faith is a hallmark of the Wikipedian, by the same token, vandalism will not be tolerated. Edit Centric (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I am. I’ll work on it. I wasn’t here this week due to exams. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 19:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the recent changes that happened overnight, I think we need to find an Admin that will lock the page for us... Edit Centric (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I was thinking about the IP block (Admin to do it). But we still need to submit the page for semi-protection, at least until this wave of "article pirates" moves on.... Edit Centric (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. I think this “wave” is going to last for a while, though, unfortunately. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 01:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

AARGH!! Every stinkin' time I take a break from "The Wiki", there come at least four more changes down the pipe that I have to get up to speed on. But I AM up to speed now, and will take up the monitoring mantle for the next few days. Between the lot of us, we "Defenders of The Wiki" might just be able to repel all borders... Edit Centric (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The victory! I hadn't seen any new AWE changes, except for the previous one. Maybe I missed a couple. The Elizabeth Swann article was messed up, and someone got mad at me for putting a vandalism tag on a user's page. Anyway, yes, we need some sort of way to block IPs. And soon. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 04:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Alientraveller-When reverting edits, could you please avoid making inflamatory remarks like "only in little America"? I AM on this side of the pond, and I'm on YOUR side on this article. Besides that, we Hobbits (lol) here in America do have quite an effect on box office revenues... (all in good fun, mate!) Edit Centric (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Box Office Gross - WORLDWIDE

Okay, before this turns into an official pi&^ing contest over numbers, here's what we're gonna do; DISCUSS. I'm looking at IMDB, and it states the gross at $958,404,152. There was a recent edit to this number within the article, changing it from $916m to $961m, which is closer to the number I'm seeing. Does anyone have another FIRM source for the actual ending gross, besides IMDB? If so, let's get those numbers, figure the avearge, and say "approximately" (unless the source is the studios themselves, then we can quote the source directly, which would be nice!) Edit Centric (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have the following results:

http://www.worldwideboxoffice.com = $958.4m

http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region=world-wide = $958.4m

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/ = $961.0 (This might be where that figure is coming from)

http://www.boxofficeguru.com/intl.htm = $961.0

(God I HATE Yahoo, only U.S. figures! Since when are we the only ones that watch movies!?)

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2007/PIRT3.php = $960.6m (WARN-this site has ad popups!)

Also, an interesting "in-progress" article from Reuters; http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN1145142820070611

Based upon these numbers, the average value is $959.8 million. We'll go with that, if that's okay with all concerned... Edit Centric (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That works perfectly with me. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 23:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I edited the amount before I read this. I agree with that average amount. However the table with the different countries gross won't work with different sources. To have a equal comparison, all countries need to have the same sources. boxofficemojo.com is the only place I found grosses for different countries.DWMD w (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

S'okay, I changed it back for now, so that the infobox and the BOG table are the same. We'll revisit this soon, and see if we can't get all the info lined out and sourced... Edit Centric (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THIS ARTICLE

You know, I think it's a good idea at this point to discuss any significant changes to the article HERE, before applying them article-side. This way, consensus can be reached, and there's no issues resulting in revert wars and such...

POSITED: I would like to make a small verbiage correction, to the "Reaction" section of the article. At the start, where the word "Like" appears, I would like to replace that with "Similar to", or another more professional sounding prose. What do you all think? Edit Centric (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, it's just copyediting. It's not like someone wants to delete "production" because they don't like revealing what's behind the magician's curtain. Alientraveller (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey now, be careful with that "magician's curtain" thing, you've heard what's happening with good ol' David Copperfield lately, right? (LOL) Anyway, my thinking is that every editor to the article has a different spin on prose, even to the degree that we have editors on both sides of the "pond" working on this. I only spent 3 months on that side, so I didn't pick up a working knowledge of the differences between American English and "The Queen's" English, of which there are some differences. (Nappy = Diaper, kit = clothes, etceteras.) That's why I collaborate, so that we arrive at something representative of a worldwide audience! :-D Edit Centric (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

^Or King's English. I think that keeping this area is a good idea. From now on, if a significant change isn’t posted on here, should it be marked as vandalism? BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 21:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. Not all changes to the article should be considered as vandalism, in keeping with the "assume good faith" principle of Wikipedia. What I'm suggesting is that we still patrol the article for detrimental changes, but maintain this area in addition, so that editors have a way of positing changes that may or may not affect the GA status, as well as the article on the whole...Edit Centric (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I was saying so because I'm patrolling all articles related to PotC, including the game, soundtracks, actors, characters, plots, etc. It would be easier. Okay, we'll cut down on said idea, but perhaps for the major, major, major reverts, it would be helpful. (Such as, changing details and adding to the plot info by a paragraph). Now tell me what you think. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 17:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What I think? Oh, no thanks. I'm trying to quit doing that (thinking, that is!). LOL! But seriously, sounds like a good idea to me! :-D Edit Centric (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I just saw this and all I can do is this - laugh. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 19:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The compass

I know this sounds more like a forum topic than an idea for an improvment of the article, but I thought that maybe some more information regarding the compass might be necessary, if not on this article then on the Dead Man's Chest one or the comapss one. Some points about the compass that I haven't been able to find are not the fictional ones from the movie, but the practical ones that explain its significance further. One important note about the compass is that it is possibly the largest plot device used in the movie, being a fantastic way to keep the movie moving along. I know that this is only a single note, but I think tat it is important that viewers undertsand the practicality of having a compass that points to what its user wants most as part of the movie becuase it just makes the entrie plotline easier to construct and follow. Just a suggestion... --JG ROX 121.218.142.186 (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You DO make a good point, but compared to the rest of the overall story, the compass is little more than a plot device. If there's a separate article regarding the compass its self, that would be the place to add to, as long as the addition is done in a referential, outside the universe way, with adequate source citations. Edit Centric (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ratings Section...

Now Alientraveller, I did not know that! Good looking out, I wasn't sure what to do with that particular edit, but I knew that you or another regular editor would catch it, and deal with it appropriately.

One thing that I'm not too clear on though, is just HOW ratings violate WP:NOT, especially the section that you cited. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree (at this point), just that the premise needs clarification, that's all. Edit Centric (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, discussing any rating is considered biased to a particular country. If we list all the ratings though, it violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, essentially adding nothing to the article or a reader's encyclopedic enlightenment. If AWE almost earned an R, it'd be notable for getting a higher rating than the previous films. That applies anywhere: so if Poland let more children see it than the previous films, please say so! Alientraveller (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea how many kids in Poland saw the film, but the overall premise that you give is sound, ie the unregistered editor only included ratings from primarily English-speaking countries. Now THAT would be more WP:POV than WP:NOT in my opinion, but either way, the argument is a good one. Edit Centric (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Poster vs. DVD image

RFC Follow-up: I've just posted a request at the RFC page, for their list to be updated... Edit Centric (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Alientraveller, I would appreciate it if you would stop replacing the theatrical release poster image in the infobox with the DVD cover art. As Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines clearly states, the infobox image should preferably be a 'Style A' or teaser one-sheet. Only when one of these is not available can the DVD cover art be used. Sorry, but the completely POV reasons who have given for insisting on the DVD such as "the film isn't really about Jonny Depp's character" and "the poster art is lame", aren't good enough reasons for making an exception to this rule. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's actually POV if you want to just put only one of the character posters. Otherwise, you might well easily replace it with Will or Elizabeth's posters. Alientraveller (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem - the final theatrical poster wound up being just Jack. The original "Just Jack" teaser poster is not the one being posted, even though it's the same photo; the billing block makes it clear this is the final version. So it's not just a character poster; there was only ONE final poster. And this is the final theatrical poster for the film. I personally think the final should be used, because final theatrical posters are always preferable to DVD art. --Bishop2 (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right about Disney being incredibly lazy: [1][2] But if we're judging this by credit block, why, isn't it always on the back of the DVD? Alientraveller (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you, I and everybody else know the difference between a theatrical poster and the back of a DVD, so I don't think there's any confusion there. --Bishop2 (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandpafootsoldier - Sorry, but I agree with Alientraveller on this one. The guideline is just that, a guideline. Even its own text states that it should be "treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I think it's consensus time for this one. I am in full favor of the DVD cover art overriding the poster, due to the fact that it depicts an even spread of the characters in the film. Edit Centric (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Edit Centric and Alientraveller on this one. We understand that you're eager to help out and that you've been assuming good faith, but please read through guidelines completely :) Case closed. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 17:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

3 to 2 isn't much of a consensus. I wish we could get a larger variety of perspectives on this. Anyone else want to chime in? --Bishop2 (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me take care of some wiki-keeping chores, and I'll RFC this topic... Edit Centric (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Bishop2, the problem isn't about a majority vote. The problem is following the rules. The thing here is that we don't want any images removed and by those rules we have come to this consensus. I would advise you to leave this as is, because it's following guidelines. As earlier stated, case closed. Period. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 19:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to be so aggressive. Where is this "consensus" on the talk page, or where in the rules does it say that DVD art should be valued over a theatrical poster if it features a wider breadth of characters? I'm not clear on where this is a rule or guideline for that matter; as earlier pointed out, the guidelines are the place which suggest using a theatrical poster over DVD art in the first place. --Bishop2 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh for Christ sakes, friends. Here's the deal on this specific article; Since the DVD cover art more accurately depicts the main cast member(s), that is what we've tried to use. The GUIDELINE lends preference to "Style-A" or teaser posters, yes that's true. However, since the movie is decidedly NOT just about Jack Sparrow, the DVD cover art is a better fit, period. The guideline ALSO makes allowances for this, in that its leader text states quite plainly that "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Call this "Exemption A", if you will. Either way, I also see Bishop2's concern that a mere 3-2 is NOT necessarily a consensus. That's why we need to RFC this particular issue, to get a broader opinion. NO CANVASSING! (Now, I really don't need to say that, do I?) Edit Centric (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Got it. I understand the Consensus thing, I was merely quoting him. Look: "3 to 2 isn't much of a consensus." I was trying to say that the consensus was an 'agreement' for the time, but yeah, I know the consensus doesn't really...erm...count. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 20:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good on ya, BlackPearl14! :-D Edit Centric (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I also feel consistency across the Wiki is an issue. Since both the Black Pearl and Dead Man's Chest pages feature the final theatrical poster, I'm inclined towards doing the same here. I don't think Disney's unfortunate marketing decision in regards to how they promoted the film should affect consistency in presentation, myself. --Bishop2 (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point, Bishop2. However, I just looked at the other two articles, and THOSE infobox pictures clearly show not ONLY Jack Sparrow, but the other two main actors of the movie series. One could argue that using the DVD cover art here actually lends to the selfsame consistency argument that you so eloquently posited, since this would make all three articles consistent in the character depictions!

Now don't get me wrong. Being ex-military, I feel there's a LOT to be said for consistency and standards. However, in the military we also had those things called "waivers", that allowed for exceptions to the standards. In this case, consistency in presentation is best served by using poster art on 1 and 2, DVD cover art on 3. Browse across them, Bishop2, you'll see what I mean. Edit Centric (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the DVD art looks more like the first two films' theatrical posters than the final theatrical poster for AWE did. I'm just not sure that a desire for a similar aesthetic should affect a consistency in source material. But I see where you're coming from here. --Bishop2 (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that quality-wise the DVD is not that similar to the posters from the first two films. It's obviously much more shoddily done artistically (especially when it comes to the actor's images) and seems to me to be a poor choice to use just for the sake of continuity. Regardless, it was the Walt Disney company's decision, for good or ill, to not make the third film poster for their movies in the same style, and I think trying to force a false feeling of aesthetic continuity between the three products by using a secondary marketing image is both un-encyclopedic and rather POV.

Also, why the heck is the image showing or not showing the entire cast even an issue? On most featured film pages, if it is decided the cast should be exhibited, it is done using a screenshot or screenshots from the film in the "Cast" section.-- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

FU has become tighter lately. If you look at the Star Wars or Rings or Spider-Man articles, you'll see cast images have been dropped in favour of the poster. Alientraveller (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandpafootsoldier - Think about what you typed there. Aren't those arguments just as POV? "...obviously much more shoddily done artistically..", "..seems to me to be a poor choice to use..." and "trying to force a false feeling of aesthetic continuity..". All of these are from your point of view. Now, no one is trying to "force" anything here. What we ARE doing at this juncture is attempting to get a consensus as to WHICH image best suits the article, based upon the different factors affecting it. Usually the term that is used would be "IMHO"... Edit Centric (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I already said "it seems to me" when referring to the art, as you quoted yourself. I would think for most people that would be enough to indicate that it is my opinion on this talk page. If, on the other hand, you are going to decide that Walt Disney did a crappy job advertising their film, and we here on this site can represent it much better by using their DVD art instead, that seems to me (did you get that?) to be an actual issue of POV. Oh, and I was obviously using "force" to refer to aesthetics, not to someone trying to get their way, so don't try to to criticize me for using that terminology.

Alientraveller, even if cast shots have now been dropped from film articles, I'm pretty sure it was not "in favor of the poster" given that many films do not have the entire cast (or any of the cast) on the them anyway. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this trilogy has the main cast on the first two posters, therefore it would be a better idea to post the actual DVD cover as the the main image, as it is. Seeing as it actually shows the protagonist cast in the cover, I think we should leave it as is. Do we need to make it look like a vote for a consensus? (I'm not inviting a vote, I'm just merely questioning the entire necessity of this entire issue) BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 20:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandpafootsoldier - I didn't mean to offend you with that last entry, if I did then I apologise. I was just drawing attention to the fact that each of us has our own opinions regarding this issue, nothing more. This thing is hardly worth getting in a tiff or tizzy over. What I find interesting though is the "un-encyclopedic" take you voiced on this. Not saying that you're wrong, or even right, just that I'm curious as to where that perspective is coming from. Now granted, if we're talking print encyclopedia, for instance Britannica, I can definitely see that as being true. However, IMHO, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia unlike any other that one can find or read, not only due to its being web-based / click-through / 21st century, but also due to the community-editing factor as well. (I'm not sure if I'm getting my point out here...) I really do want you to expound on that piece, I think it might be of value to this conversation, as well as other article editing and formatting as well! Edit Centric (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Amazingly, no new comments have been added to this section after requesting comment. So basically we're still stuck with no consensus. I still think we should go with the final theatrical poster for all three of the PotC films. By and large, that's considered the most ideal source by Wiki policy; there's nothing that says you should use something else just to maintain similar appearances. Indeed, I'm not sure why that should be a priority at all. First release marketing is more important to show in terms of sharing information in an encyclopedia, I'd argue. --Bishop2 (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The only problem is the template issue regarding the Requested Comment. I would hope that you, like the rest of us, are patient enough to wait for it to appear. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 19:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that I'm coming to this late but I was always under the impression that it was US Film, US Poster, UK Film,UK Poster etc. I don't think that the portrait of Jack takes anything away from the article and most people went to see the film for Johnny Depp's performance anyway, the other characters are secondary to that. (Quentin X (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, but people going just to see Johnny doesn't really add to the reason for there being this supposed dispute. Ah well. Just keep waiting, I suppose. BlackPearl14^{Hermione Granger's Muggle Alias} 01:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Necessity?

Not sure what to think, but this is what I found in the article. I'm not sure if we should fix it or delete it.

Peter Travers praised Richards and Rush but felt "there can indeed be too much of a good thing," regarding Depp's character.[40] Peter Traver's (of Rolling Stone) declared the film the year's Worst Soul-Sucking, Dumb-Ass Bottom Feeder on his list of the Worst Movies of 2007, giving it the Michael Bay award..[41]

I don't mind the first sentence, but the second one seems like it's written by a "fledgling" writer - one who isn't quite experienced. Your thoughts? BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that actually what he called it? He's a fairly high-profile reviewer, so if that's a direct quote then fine... but it definitely needs a little copy editing. I just did a quick trim. --Bishop2 (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Box Office REVISITED

Since another user added the box office figures, AND since they look halfway decent, I'm wondering if we're going to keep this section. If so, I'd like to go in and tweak the table, align the graphics left, and check the math. If not, I'll leave it for deletion... Edit Centric (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Teague Sparrow

Forgive me if this is already said somwhere, but do we know that this is his father? Wouldn't it be also possible, and indeed more likely, that it was his brother? If it was his father, I think he would look older. But is there something definitive we have to indicate which relation he is? I (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is where a bit of "attention to detail" pays off. After the conference of the Brethren Court, Jack walks up to Teague, and engages him in a short conversation about staying alive, in which Teague replies that the trick is "being able to live with yourself, forever". Then, Jack asks him specifically; "How's Mum?" Teague then holds up the shrunken head of Jack's mother, to which Jack retorts "She looks great."

Besides that, Soleil, how old do you WANT Keith Richards to look!? Hell, I have kids older than you are, I'm 38, and Keith belongs to my parents' generation. The guy looks ancient already, I think... Edit Centric (talk) 08:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he has Jack's mothers's head doesn't prove that he is his father. He could just as easily be his brother with that evidence. He didn't look that old to me, particularly, but that is immaterial I suppose. I (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, however that, accompanied with his opener; "You're in my way, boy." THAT, coupled with Jack's reaction, would definitely indicate to me that Jack is intimidated by Teague, as he quickly becomes quite contrite and moves over post-haste. Oh yeah, that's his father alright, you can definitely tell by the exchanges that they have throughout that entire sequence. Edit Centric (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You might think so. But I'm asking if there's any actual cited evidence, which is required, not "you can tell". I (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well geeze, Soleil. Alright, what I suggest is we go on a hunt for the info. If we don't find that mentioned anywhere that we can cite, then I'd say it would be fair to remove that small detail note... Edit Centric (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The information is available in the Pirates of the Caribbean Visual Guide, among other things. By the way his name isn't Teague Sparrow, it's Captain Teague, Edward Teague. At least reputedly-by info from video games.BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 03:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

WHOLLY COW!!!

Well, looks like Alientraveller has made some sweeping changes to the article. (Personally, I like most of them!) However, in light of these mass changes, I think a reassessment is now dictated, to ensure that the GA still applies... Edit Centric (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, don't worry mate. It's still well-written, referenced, FUed and so on... Many films go under a major revision once the DVD is out. I got my copy for Christmas and watched all the special features. I just made a few structural revisions, that's all. Stability refers to if an article is being heavily revised every day. Alientraveller (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you had to wait until Christmas for your copy? We've (the family) had ours for about three weeks now. The one I picked up for Christmas was the "Curse of The Black Pearl" 2-disc set, it was the only volume we didn't have yet.

As far as the article, I went ahead and listed it for reassessment, but if what you've said is true (and IMHO, it is!), then the reassess is just a formality... Edit Centric (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no need. Alientraveller (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You think so? Just a sec...HUH! My addition to the reassessment page didn't take, for some reason. Just as well, I was about to remove it anywho... Edit Centric (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow....exactly what did you mean by reassessment? I didn't quite catch it! BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 23:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries about it anyway, unless you read through the article now that Alientraveller's changes are in place, and it looks the worse for wear, which I personally don't think it does. It still reads well, is a bit more concise, so again, no prob! :-D Edit Centric (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad Info

• I'm changing the end of the very first paragraph because Davy Jones did not lead the EITC with Beckett. Why would he do that? EITC want to destroy piracy but Davy Jones IS a pirate......well, an undead pirate! --The Dark Lord of Wiki (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

War Song

The song sung by the pirates in the first scene is the song that summons all nine pirate lords to the fourth brother in court. Added to the plot. Apoorv Khurasia (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not the fourth Brother In Court, the Fourth Bretheren Court. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor plot edit

I was re-reading through everything, and it occurred to me that I remembered Pintel, and NOT Gibbs, saying that bit about the soul returning from the dead. I cued up the movie (there HAS to be a better way, I can't wait until tax time, new LCD screen for the 'puter!) and cut to that scene, and sure enough. I knew my memory wasn't going just yet! ;-) Edit Centric (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I doubt that your memory would wander off somewhere ;D I saw it a couple nights ago, so I could confirm that...though you already checked :) Wow, I'm in quite the cheery mood right now. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 00:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

....brother in court...LOL!! I had one of those, he was found guilty of possession of stolen property, and put on probabtion! Edit Centric (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, puts a good feel in your heart knowing people can make you laugh [though sometimes unintentionally]BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 01:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Scenes

What happened in the deleted scenes? Also, shouldn't what happend in them be mentioned in the article? Emperor001 (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing really happened in those scenes, just Jack and Barbossa arguing about who owns the ship, etc. BlackPearl14^{Hermione Granger's Muggle Alias} 18:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Will's son

Even though we see keira knightly at the end of the movie with a young boy, who is to say its orlando bloom's characters son. A source should be provided here. To be entirely accurate it could be a curious boy who wants to see a big ship, just a thought but Im sure a source must exist somewhere Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Give a source that it's not Will's son. Alientraveller (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If i changed the article to say that its not will's son I would gladly add a source, but as the article stands it mentions it is his son, which has not been verified at this point and I find questionable to a degree and should have a source to keep the claim that it is indeed Will's son to remain in the article. happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing prove he's Will's son so you may not affirm that !!! You should say Lizabeth and her son. In the same order of idea nothing prove that Will and Liz consummate their "marriage "(although this one is not valid ) on the island. Thye say goodbye end of the story, don't try to impose your POV , watchers could thougth they consummate or not, so don't affirm this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.205.11 (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Me thinks the Sparrowbeth editor doth protest too much. Can't believe I just used that term :P Alientraveller (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Based your article on what is on the screen : a farewell (no marriage consummate) and Liz and a boy (not Will's boy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.205.11 (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

peanut

hi, shouldn't there be a little section for things like the peanut and other little things like that that are not really important but are still little fun facts people would see and think about and laugh about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.201.138 (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

by the way, when i was talking about the peanut, i was talking about that peanut that pops up everywhere, like with jack in DJL and in his prison cell, with the monkey at the end, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.201.138 (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's called trivia, and we try not to bother with it. It's just not very notable.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 23:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)