Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End/Archive 2

Archive
I've archived the first series of discussions, which is accessible in the archive box in the upper right corner of the talk page. Since the existing forum-type discussions were drawing similar forum-type comments, the talk page has been reset to focus on discussing how to improve the film article and not discuss how the film will be. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

1st Trailer
Yahoo! Movies is counting down to the first trailer. Here's the link: http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/piratesofthecaribbeanatworldsend.html;_ylt=AhOc.uCcH415b1ngfloof4VfVXcA  Veracious Rey  T  C  21:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Cute, but we have the information needed on the trailer's release. WikiNew 21:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I'm certainly glad you think it's "cute". Kudos.  Veracious Rey  T  C  21:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Right now the article says, "A trailer is now available in high definition on french [sic] website Allocine, and on Yahoo!." It seems to me that a single link to the specific Yahoo! page (given above by Veracious Rey) would be superior. Yahoo! offers multiple file formats. Allocine's version is larger, but no better resolution, and has French titles. Is there any reason to include both? MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC) [signed retroactively]

Plot points from the Trailer
Reading the plot section, I noticed that some of the details come from the trailer, and I was wondering if these were proven facts, or conjecture. Specifically, I was wondering how we know that the hero's go over the huge waterfall to help rescue Jack and that the battle in the whirlpool was the climactic battle of the movie. They are nice guesses, but that all they would seem to be to me. It is entirely possible that these facts are true. However, I don't think that the trailer is an adiquite source to cite for that information, as the trailer contains multiple scenes from throughout the movie removed from their original context.doublenickle59 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's all conjecture at this point, but Spider-Man 3 takes a similiar approach whilst also citing the trailer. I plan to cite the official site too which includes the story of the film, which shows it starts at Singapore before the waterfall to Davy Jones' Locker. The trailer is mostly accurate in studying the World's End before the battle for piracy. WikiNew 21:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enoughdoublenickle59 03:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think indeed a more detailed plot summary is needed, surely someone paid attention to the film enough to write one. I went to see it myself, but I did not understand the complex plotline.

Cast spoilers
Isn't it a huge no-no to include spoilers in the cast section? I'm afraid to read all of it. Some guy 20:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any spoilers. It's only a matter of time before Sparrow gets out of the Locker. WikiNew 20:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers are allowed on Wikipedia, as long as a spoiler tag is added. If someone reads the tag and doesn't want spoilers, they shouldn't read the page. PureSoldier 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact, spoiler tags aren't even required. See Content disclaimer. QmunkE 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have an issue with the cast spoilers, per se, I just took issue with the wording that Captain Teague "appears to be" Jack's father. Captain Teague most definately is Jack's father.  I'm not able to edit the page for whatever reason, but maybe someone might clean up that language per my request? Zukkie44 13:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll disagree with "appears to be", as the line of dialogue in question is when Jack asks Teague, "How's mum?" leaves things a little vague. This could be taken as either Teague *is* Jack's father, or that Teague merely knows Jack's mother (perhaps even after Jack was born).  Until we hear otherwise from an official source, assuming that Teague is, in fact, Jack's father, may be left as an exercise for the viewer to decide for themselves. SpikeJones 15:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I will clarify my statement here. *in the movie*, it may be purposefully vague about Teague's relationship to Jack.  *in interviews*, Depp and others do refer to Teague as Jack's father. such as here: interview with depp and others

Where are the spoiler warnings on the plot section?! 75.18.220.161 03:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)AnnoyingBookworm

Images
Why are there two images in the plot section for a film that has not even been released yet?  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because they're from the trailer, and they establish the known plot outline. And from what I can see, the second image is actually in the section below. Tphi 17:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a common thing to have 2 images in a film article, under the plot section, when the films have been released and have established FA status. This films is months away, with a "synopsis", not a plot, that is barely a paragraph and a half long. Oh, that image is in the plot section, it's tacked on right after the closing reference citation. At this moment, how can we justify fair use (which neither image actually does on it's summary page) for 2 images in a section that can barely support 1 image. Notice how Spider-Man 3 doesn't have any images in the plot section.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I added them as preparation. I'd guess it'd be ok to remove the icebergs one. Alientraveller 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think one is sufficient until the film opens and true plot can be written. I don't remember them stating that the artic sailing was going to Davy's locker, is that something that's in the citation? If we are just assuming certain things based on narration coupled with images, then we know that they cut trailers out of sync with what usually happens.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I cited it from the official website. It shows the waterfall into Davy Jones' Locker. Alientraveller 17:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember the waterfall, but was it an arctic waterfall, or did that precede the fall?  BIGNOLE   (Contact me)

Right now it is all speculation, but I can safely say the crew steal a ship from Singapore after explosive chaos, go over the waterfall and into the Locker to rescue Sparrow, before bumping into Feng once more as they hear of the Beckett-Jones alliance. It's a similiar piece-mealing to the Spider-Man 3 plot. Alientraveller 18:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Merging
Should the article Brethren of the Coast be merged with this one? Personally, I don't think so, as the closer to the opening day we get, I think the other article can get expanded, but I can see a case made either way. Smooth0707 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see us merging Jack Sparrow, so no to merging this list of characters. Alientraveller 17:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Brethren of the Coast is fancruft. The meeting and the rest of the film's story can be covered just fine when the film comes out. Don't even merge; just redirect. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How is this fancruft if this is a list of characters, as sourced from the official site? Alientraveller 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can understand the encyclopedic value of a character like Jack Sparrow, who has appeared in these films and is prominent in other kinds of media, even though that particular article is not up to standards like Jabba the Hutt. However, a simple meeting in the film does not deserve its own article.  Should we create articles for the final battle, too?  Maybe even about the pirates' initial invasion on Port Royal in the first film.  It's extraneous detail and lacks encyclopedic value.  I'm sure that this film article will be able to explain the meeting just fine; what good does it do to give a meeting its own article? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't about the meeting, it's about those characters. Alientraveller 18:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Erik may be right, but I think its difficult to judge its relative importance until the movie actually comes out. Smooth0707 18:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Film Rating Citation
So, it is indeed rated PG-13. Just checked this with the MPAA site - http://www.mpaa.org/FilmRatings.asp. Guy who originally added the rating info cited a near-identical site - http://www.filmratings.com/ - and, since they operate almost identically, I assume, without bothering to actually look at the DNS and WHOIS info, they are tied together. Thing is, the way they are set up, we cannot link to a direct citation, just to the point where a user can enter search info in and (hopefully) find it themselves. Main movie site doesn't yet list the rating. If someone has a good citation, please add it. This would be a very silly point to get a revert war going over. --Reverend Loki 18:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT, listing ratings is something I would find quite trivial, unless there is some controversy over it. Now take Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl. That needs some discussion over being the first Disney PG-13 film. Alientraveller 18:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can only assume you are referring to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'd have to disagree - an MPAA rating is not at all trivial.  It conveys a fair amount of information about the nature and the content of the film.  I'm not saying that several paragraphs need be devoted to it, but it certainly warrants a sentence.  Hell, I could even understand if someone wanted to move it out of the lead paragraph and into a later topical section.  But edit it completely out?  Nah, I don't see that. --Reverend Loki 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with Alientraveller. The rating is inconsequential to this film.  There is no notability to be found in a film whose franchise has already established this rating.  If this film were rated R for whatever reason, then that would be ideally encyclopedic to mention.  Otherwise, it is unnecessary detail that does not need to be catered. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. I had responded to this earlier today, but I guess I did something boneheaded like forgot to save a preview. Oh well.  Anyways, if the consensus here is that it is trivial, well, so be it.. though I would honestly like to see the opinions of more than 3 people here.  Well, 4, if you count the anon who entered the info in the first place.  When it comes to what is and isn't trivial, I try to place myself in the place of the knowledge seeker, and ask myself what I would expect to find in a WP article, and honestly, rating is one of those things.  At least in a sidebar infobox or something.  --Reverend Loki 21:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Historical anachronism of Chow Yun-Fat's character
I'm assuming that this movie is set in the mid to late 1600s. Of course, it isn't supposed to be historical fiction, but it is trying to evoke a particular era and does tend to stick with it in many regards. Back then Singapore would have only been known as "Singapura" (which officially, it still is today, though "Singapore" is far more common). Also, almost every person from Singapore in that time would have been of the Malay descent. The fact that he is clearly Chinese is a bit ridiculous given the racial make up of Singapore at the time.

First off, are you saying Chow Yung Fat's character is from singapoor? Because I think you'd be mistaken. Second, it is not set in the 1600's. For further information on the date in which the film is set, see the page for the first film --75.6.212.253 15:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I was off on the date, but it doesn't change the validity of my point. Chow Yung's fat is clearly from Singapore. It is stated in the trailer. Up until much more recent times than these films are set, Singapore would have been known as "Singapura" and it is unlikely that pretty much any Chinese heritage people were living in Singapore at the time.

And don't delete this, it is perfectly valid discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.189.242.205 (talk • contribs).


 * What exactly are you trying to address for the article?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. This is a forum discussion and I will delete it unless the IP can address any article-improving intent. Alientraveller 19:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, first off, Alientraveller is right in that this is not a forum. This isn't a proper place to discuss the movie, what we liked, what we didn't, etc.  This is the proper place to discuss the article.  And I just don't see anything you added having anything to do with this article.  If CNN does an expose about the historical inaccuracies of this fantasy film, we can maybe discuss it then; until then, if you still doubt, you might want to review the policies on original research here at Wikipedia.  However, and this is for you, Alientraveller, it's against the policies to edit other peoples comments on talk pages except for certain specific instances, delineated here.  So, we need to leave it here.  However, it would be good form for the poster to kindly remove their own comment, as it has nothing to do with the article, in which case (and only such case) they (or someone else) has permission to remove this comment as well.  Otherwise, here it sits until such time as this page gets archived.  --Reverend Loki 19:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Per talk page guidelines, the talk page is restricted to discussions about how to improve the subject's article. Your argument belongs into a more open forum; I would suggest the IMDb page for At World's End. This section probably doesn't need to be deleted now due to the attention that's been drawn, but further commentary that is not contributive to the article will be removed. I highly recommend going to IMDb or another forum; they are probably more open in the topics that can be discussed. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Budget
It's becoming more and more clear that this film is probably THE most expensive film ever, but the problem is that Disney isn't letting in on what that budget actually is. There's lots of reports of it being in excess of 300 million (BOM.com says 225 million....idiots still reporting numbers from 2 years ago), but nothing is definitive. I don't think, unless Disney comes out and says otherwise, that we'll be able to find a number for the infobox. I do think that we may be able to create a subsection, once all is said and done, with a brief discussion about the "controversy" about the budget.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Boxofficemojo has updated the budget to $300 million.

But they have no reliable sources, so it's effectively an uncited Wikipedia. Alientraveller 20:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Only PG-13 Disney?
Hardly. Not only is there M. Night howeveryaspellit's movies (Or at least The Sixth Sense), Wild Hogs was just released this year under the Disney lisence and a PG-13 rating.


 * His name is spelled M. Night Shyamalan. :) Gargoyle123 01:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy movies are the only movies that have been released under the Walt Disney Pictures label to be rated PG-13. Wild Hogs was released by Touchstone Pictures, which is owned by Disney. So Disney did release Wild Hogs, just not under the Walt Disney Pictures label. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.48.126.255 (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Citation for use

 * About the film's production design. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * About the film's production design. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Title says it all. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Title says it all. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't find the second interview all that. A shame there's not a lot on the designs of the series: I'd love to learn who's idea was it to have Davy Jones have a beard that was able to play an organ. Alientraveller 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.cinemablend.com/new.php?id=5132

The above URL is probably what the anonymous IP saw in the article's last edit. I'll see if there's a more attributable source out there to back up Cinema Blend. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't think cinemablend would fall into RS. It would be interesting to note, since an 8pm showing would not pass the midnight mark, unless the film is 4 hours long, and would technically be released illegally (unless Disney is pushing the release at that time intentionally).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think they may be trying to do it intentionally. Here's what may be the primary source.  Not much better, but I'm sure if this is real, it'll be on more sites in the course of the day. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nighy speaks. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nighy speaks. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the link to Reference 19 (Terry Rossio. "Re:Ah, that Davy Jones curse thing...", Wordplay Forums, 2007-05-23. Retrieved on 2007-05-26) should be http://www.wordplayer.com/forums/movies/index.cgi?read=98662 and the additional important information of the author is in http://www.wordplayer.com/forums/movies/index.cgi?read=98721 However that direct linking seems to be problematic sometimes. Is everybody able to successfully navigate to those forum posts?

Everything Pirates
Try this site for info and behind the scenes on the film

Everything Pirates

It is the official site for POTC 3 to Australia.

SpecialWindler 10:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we already have the official site on Disney. Alientraveller 10:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a review that could be added:

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End Review

Release Date
The author's original text stated that the global release date was May 24. I took the liberty of rewriting those as May 25 because May 24 is only the limited showing-sneak view of the movie, being done as this may well be the last Pirates of the Caribbean movie. I know this because I have tickets on May 24.Gargoyle123 21:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's out in many other countries too on May 24. Alientraveller 16:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Check the Pirates website; on the top it should say "Get the secret before the secret's out!"Gargoyle123 19:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand your point. Alientraveller 20:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry; I mean to say that it is only released on May 24th in Select Theaters.Gargoyle123 16:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What matters here is that in most countries, and the USA, the film is out May 24. If it's being shown, it's being shown. Alientraveller 16:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry, my mistake. I'm looking at the USA version, so... Gargoyle123 23:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Soundtrack
Any word on the soundtrack? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.205.70.254 (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

The soundtrack article exists in the navigation box. A "Soundtrack" section can be created if more information comes on how Zimmer has made his score unique from the previous two. Alientraveller 09:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Premiere?
The world premiere has already been shown, hasn't it? Could someone update this article, maybe someone who saw the premiere? 121.44.234.44 09:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Critical response
Why haven't the critical responses been added to the article?

Yes it has, and please sign your comments Dorgana. Alientraveller 17:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary
How come the plot summary hasn't been added yet? The release is only 2 days away.

Because barely anyone has seen it Dorgana. Sign your comments with four tildes (~). Alientraveller 17:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the plot should have something about how Will Turner was freed of his duty as the Flying Dutchmen because Elizebeth was faithful to him for ten years. (74.241.80.110 22:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Global release?
I saw it yesterday, on the 23, it was in nearly every cinema in Israel, and it came out even earlier in other countries. I think it should be rephrased to US release, because you're not the entire world.

English-speaking countries, and please sign your comments! Alientraveller 07:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

English speaking countries aren't the entire world either. List of countries where PotC 3 opens prior to May 24th: Bahrain, Belgium, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Indonesia, Israel, Italy and Japan.

Yes, English-speaking countries, English encyclopedia, "English-speaking countries had the release date moved a day early." Alientraveller 09:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that make it "moved a day later"? 193.65.105.175 09:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the original date was May 25. Remember, this is the English encyclopedia, that's why we got other language encyclopedias for different perspectives. Alientraveller 10:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And may I remind people to sign their comments! It's not hard, you just have to click the button below the edit box! Alientraveller 09:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot Details
Wow. Long plot summary, but there's a few details missing. I'm not sure if these details are important though. -   «   h i p p i  i p p i   »    11:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Will Turner "betrayed" the crew - he made a deal with Beckett
 * Jack Sparrow also made a deal with Beckett
 * The Nine Pieces of Eight are not mentioned
 * Davy Jones' duty of directing dead souls to... [the other world? - I'm not sure]

The plot needs condensing to the most important plot elements. Gags do not apply. Alientraveller 11:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot needs to be concise, like all long movies "small details" always bear quite some importance. Thanks to all who have contributed to the article so far. It would be nice to see less complaining though. Shermoo 17:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's getting shorter, keep going fellow editors! Alientraveller 17:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag. There are numerous featured articles on other creative works with plot summaries longer than this. Don't be paranoid; plot summaries are not Satan, and some people do rely on Wikipedia as the only place that will give a reliable account of the entire story. Zeality 04:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just saw the film; the script specifically refers to Sao Feng as Lord of Singapore (or some such), *not* as "Lord of the South China Sea". We'll need to verify/confirm.  As an aside, I still find the giant paragraph under "reviews" to be extremely hard to read.  Any reason why bulleting each individual review's comment was reverted earlier or otherwise not permitted here? SpikeJones 04:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Official Site by Disney states that Sao Feng is indeed the Lord of the South China Sea. (Click on the interactive map to see all the pirate lords from the four "corners" of the world.) *sherMOO =] 05:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

--- I would suggest that Bootstrap Bill Turner displayed symptoms of a form of Alzheimer's, rather than amnesia. 199.106.103.254 20:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

--- Just wondering how the mention of Will being 'released' from his duties as captain of the Flying Dutchman came about in the after-credits ending summary? (i.e. reference?) Correct me if I'm wrong - isn't he bound for eternity until someone takes his place? Or is it that he ferries dead for 10 years, then gets released? (In which case a reference of SOME sort would be adequate to clear that up) a "deleted scene" between Tia Dalma and Davy Jones supposedly confirms that the fidelity of the 'loved' one lifts or lessens the curse (The link isn't working on my computer, maybe it'll work on yours: http://www.wordplayer.com/forums/moviesarc08/index.cgi?read=98721)... apparently.I'm not saying I know the answer, but can someone with a reliable internet connection clear that up??? Spiralteardrop 05:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
I have some trivia but i'm not sure if i'm allowed to add it, it isn't really necessary but its an interesting fact:


 * In At World's End Will and Elizabeth kiss twice, in both previous movies they only kiss once--JG ROX 58.173.8.87 20:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:AVTRIVIA. Alientraveller 20:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that even important...? That's an observational fact... would you call it Trivia? —    «   h i p p i  i p p i   »    07:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got another one:


 * In the part after they fall of the waterfall, the screen goes black and some sounds start. Most of them (if not all) are from the Pirates of the Caribbean amusement ride in the Disney Parks, including the infamous "Dead men tell no tales". The waterfall is also a reference because just after you hear that phrase in the ride, you go down a waterfall.

JRRC17 18:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the post above.-- $U IT  18:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting one: The only scene throughout the entire trilogy in which we see Jack Sparrow (Depp) not wearing any eyeliner is when Jack is sword fighting Davy Jones in the rain. This is most likely because of multiple takes for this scene, the rain washing his eyeliner off. - PiratePrincess22

Why are you not reading the whole discussion? Alientraveller 17:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit Needed
Just a quick edit needed in the character summaries, where it says James Norrington stole Davey Jones' heart, when it should be Tia Dalma.

No, Norrington literally stole it. Alientraveller 21:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone verify?

 * "The pirates emerge victorious, but learn that the Flying Dutchman must stay in the undersea-world and can only come to shore for one day, every ten years. Until then, Will must ferry the dead for ten years, and will be trapped on the ship if his love is not true."

I didn't pick up the second bit at all. I thought Will was "doomed" to his duty forever, as the Captain of the Flying Dutchman. This would explain why the Captain is immortal (unless someone kills his heart), doesn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong. —   «   h i p p i  i p p i   »    07:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm with you, Hippi. Don't recall that being said. --Soetermans 15:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just wanna ask something else, no point starting a new thing. I haven't seen the film, but the summary currently makes out that the entrance to the locker is literally the world's end (as in, flat earth). This sounds extraordinarily unlikely. Does the film actually say this? I'd taken it, despite the waterfall, to be a figurative thing, more related to the idiom concerning ends of the earth. --77.99.30.226 16:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You'll have to see the film to understand fully how to get to DJL. Sailing to... then over... the end of the world is only part of it. SpikeJones 16:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The curse of Davy Jones lasts for ten years. If after ten years Davy Jones returns to land and if his lover has been faithful to him then he is allowed to resign his position on the flying dutchman. The curse is broken.

=
Charma Caballero's response: The curse IS broken. Jerry Bruckheimer, during an interview, confessed that 20 minutes were cut from the actual movie and that does not include the end credits. In one of the scenes cut, it was a conversation between Tia/Calypso and Davy Jones. In that scene, Davy Jones asked Tia why she did not show up after 10 years of him ferrying the dead. Apparently, the curse can be broken if your lover stays true to the cursed captain for 10 years. If, after 10 years, your lover has remained faithful and true and is there to meet you, the curse can be broken and the captain is free to return to the world of the living.

The passage of a living to the dead and the dead to the living are represented by the flash of green light during sunset. We saw these in three scenes only: (1) When Sparrow and the others rocked the ship so it will overturn. The flash of green light signaled their return from the dead. (2) When Will Turner turns away from Elizabeth Swann to start his tenure as the captain of the Flying Dutchman - signaling that he has moved from the living to the dead. (3) When Will Turner, after 10 years, returns to the land of the living, after remaining faithful to his task to ferry the dead for 10 years. He, of course, remained true to this task that's why he and his crew retained their humanity sans beard tentacles.

Tia/Calypso, it was revealed in the brig scene with Davy Jones, failed to show up after his 10 year tenure as captain of the Flying Dutchman and so Davy Jones was left to his fate. This angered Davy Jones so he decided to: (a) turn back on his duty and for this, he and his crew were sentenced to slowly lose their humanity (by turning slowly into sea creatures) (b) tell the Brethren Court how to bind Calypso into a limited and controlled form of a human being.

If it was intentional that Bruckheimer left it ambiguous, then it could only be because of 2 reasons: (1) sequel. Pirates 4. (2) DVD - Director's Cut. It has certainly generated enough buzz and confusion to merit an explanation. How about bringing back the 20 minutes that were cut from the initial release version? Maybe put back THAT scene that explains HOW the curse can be broken?

Punctuation
"Davy Jones' Locker" should be "Davy Jones's Locker" since the "s" after the apostrophe is only dropped when the preceeding "s" is in a plural. 13:05, 25 May 2007 82.41.207.52


 * If this is the case, then we'll need to address this on Davy Jones' Locker (Pirates of the Caribbean) and on Davy Jones' Locker.  I'd check on those pages first before making the change here, as there is already a discussion on this very topic going on over there. SpikeJones 17:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe Davy Jones' Locker is correct. At least that's what I was taught in my English classes. Even those ending in z would have an apostrophe, like Sam Mendez' Locker. Berserkerz Crit 20:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Davy Jones' Locker" is correct. The rule of which you speak -- s-apostrophe denoting possessive plural -- only applies in the case of ordinary nouns.  Proper nouns ending in S and Z get only the apostrophe.Nolefan32 01:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Age of the child
"A young boy nine years and three months of age..." Seriously, where does it possibly state such an exact age? This line is going to get altered to an approximation unless someone can dig up an exact source. DudleyScardsdale 15:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And does it really matter? Alientraveller 17:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, let's calculate: Will can only return to the world of the living every 10 years. The boy is his son, thus he has to have been conceived the last time he was with Elisabeth. Pregnancies usually take 9 months, thus he was born 9 months after that day and thus must be 9 years and 3 months old when he returns after 10 years. It is correct for all we know but if it's important is another question, true. --SoWhy Talk 21:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest though we don't "know" the child is his. --BenWoodruff 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but the movie hints at it very strongly. Maybe something like "Elizabeth waits ashore with a child who looks to be about ten years old." That would provide the strong hint the movie gives without coming out and saying anything. The child certainly isn't four, and isn't 16, so about ten seems fair enough, given the situation. Wrad 20:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe just say he was conceived ten years earlier or something. Wrad 21:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Or say that he is roughly between nine and ten years of age. --Unsigned comment from Marudita

Again, it's not in the article, it is not important, so stop using the talk page as a forum. Alientraveller 20:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There's also a credit for "Young Will Turner". Unless I missed a flashback scene, that's got to be the kid at the end. Vashti 07:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously Will & Elisabeth child, why would Elisabeth turn up to see her husband with someone elses kid. Don't be stupid. 80.229.169.189 16:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Its Elizabeth. With a Z not an S.

Review section bullets = "bad prose"?
To Alientraveller, as you are the one who insists on reverting my suggested edit: lists may be "bad prose" in your opinion, but a giant paragraph containing a summary of each reviewers' review (and selected ones at that) is difficult to read. Aside from your apparent personal desire to keep that section in paragraph form, can you explain how those particular reviews were selected instead of others, and how keeping it in paragraph form lends itself to readability? Obviously, I'd rather discuss it here (or on your talk page, as I started a few days ago) instead of going into an unnecessary edit war. SpikeJones 20:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My view is that reviews should point out the most common praises and criticisms of the film, so I picked the reviews I found to have the best wordings. Lastly, yes, a list is bad prose, it is rejected in all GA/FA articles, and for your sake I did trim it. Alientraveller 20:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the response and your effort to shorten that area, but I will voice a slight disagreement with you. According to WP:EMBED, available from the What makes a WP Good Article page in the section on how a well-written page should be formatted:  However, it can be appropriate to use a list style when the items in list are "children" of the paragraphs that precede them. Such "children" logically qualify for indentation beneath their parent description. In this case, indenting the paragraphs in list form may make them easier to read, especially if the paragraphs are very short..   The reviews section, to me, certainly qualifies as an ideal use of this, and compares favorably to the example used on the EMBED page as allowable WP style. SpikeJones 20:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally unsure: what I'm trying to write with the Release section is a paragraph detailing mixed reactions, yet I also want to show that despite this the film is going on its way to being a huge success, as represented in the Alex Billington quote. Also, I feel a list would allow editors to indulge. I'm not aiming for a really-detailed break-down of everything, like Spider-Man 3. Alientraveller 20:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oy. Hadn't seen that page, and I'll agree with you that THAT page's 'review' section is awful.  I think that if you're trying to show mixed reactions, you can certainly do it in more of a summary format.  Such as... some reviews were particularly harsh1 2 3, while others were quite complimentary4 5 6 7 8. as opposed to having to list each individual review.  Listing each review can lend itself to the question of how those reviews were selected over other (perhaps more visible or reputable) ones. SpikeJones 20:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, Spider-Man 3's review section is an excellent documentation, but it's not what I'm aiming for. Your suggestion wouldn't merit GA. Alientraveller 20:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, SP3 is certainly excellent documentation, just a darn mess to read. I'll stand by my original bullet suggestion not preventing GA status, based on WP documented style guidelines.  A year from now, where hindsight can be used to compare criticisms and how it relates to BO performance, you may want to reconsider my suggestion when you revisit this section.  Cheers! SpikeJones 21:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

B.O. inconsistency
The article quotes ComingSoon as saying PotC3 made $58mil. Yahoo News / the AP is reporting that the number is $57 mil (and only if you combine Thurs and Fri numbers together). BoxOfficeMojo is also reporting $57mil. SpikeJones 21:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Read it more carefully. $58 million was "worldwide", and that was only for Thursday. It just hasn't been updated.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot Better
I agree that the plot summary is better. Whoever cleaned it up and added the correct details, I congratulate you. I myself tried to do so, but *shrug* I didn't know how to integrate some details with the existing summary, I suppose. Good work! However, I thought that Will Turner, as the Captain of the Flying Dutchman is to forever guide the dead but he can return to the living world once every ten years. Isn't that why the Captain of the Flying Dutchman granted immortality? But of course, Davy Jones neglected his duty and so, became mutated. —   «   h i p p i  i p p i   »    03:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU to all those who have contributed to the plot, its much much much better now! * sherMOO  =] 05:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Grammer Edit
In the third paragraph of the plot "Feng renegades on his deal with Beckett..." should be "Feng reneges on his deal with Beckett..."

Keith quote
Does anybody know Keith Richards' exact "living forever" quote for the Wikiquote page? I don't know the exact wording but the quote does belong on that page. Wwwhhh 05:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, that's it!
I'm with Hippi Ippi on this one. The movie *as presented* strongly produces the impression that Will is fated to sail the seas *forever*, only getting a shore visit once every 10 years. No suggestion about breaking the curse with true love or anything is to be found anywhere *in the film*. Bear in mind as well that Jack wanted to replace Davy Jones so he himself could live forever. And if Will leaves the ship, where's the replacement that the movie states he must have? The plot summary should reflect the nature of the film, not deleted scenes or stated intentions from the writers that are in fact nowhere in evidence in the film itself.CardinalNZ 23:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry for raising this again, but I must. The bit about the Captain of the Flying Dutchman having to guide the deceased for only ten years is wrong! It's forever (unless his heart is destroyed), but he is allowed to return to the living world once every ten years!

Although this is not a good way to verify, I have been on numerous forums and what I said above is correct. That is what I, and many others, got from the movie. Some people are saying that Will and Elizabeth were reunited in the scene after the credits because there was a flash of green light, which indicated Will's return. That is not true, as the flash of green light only indicates that a soul has returned to earth - Gibbs and some crew member said this while they were sailing towards the world's end. Other people are saying that Will and Elizabeth will be together because she was faithful, and the writers dropped a scene which explained that. That, I think, is also complete bull. Why would the writers drop such a scene if that is the case? Are they trying to mess with the audience? I don't think so. Writers don't fool around like that.

There's lots of evidence that Will must stay as the captain of the Flying Dutchman and ferry the dead.
 * 1) Bootstrap Bill clearly states after Will becomes captain, that "one day every ten years" is a very long time. Will states "Depends on the ONE DAY". One day. Not "Well, it will all be over in ten years."
 * 2) Dutchman must always have a captain - currently, this is Will. Nothing will stop him from being Captain except for the destruction of his heart - This has been metioned many times in the movie
 * 3) It was never mentioned that The duty of the captain of the flying dutchman was a curse. Never.  It was simply Calypso appointing Davy Jones to carry that task out.  No curse, therefore, no "cure".
 * 4) The movie also never stated that Davy Jones would have been free from his duties if Calypso waited ten years for him. It was only stated that Jones waited ten years and Calypso did not meet him.

You got evidence that Elizabeth "lifted the curse" or that Will's job only lasts ten years? Bring it. For the time being, I've only changed the plot summary in this article. —   «   h i p p i  i p p i   »    13:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The writers stated explicitly on their website forum (http://www.wordplayer.com/) that the curse was lifted. Currently the website is down until Monday, but here's a quote from Ted Elliott that was found there:  "That green flash was what Terry was referring to when he said it was possible, but very difficult, to figure out from the movie that the curse was broken."


 * The writers also stated that several scenes were cut from the movie without their knowledge - including the scene in question. The writers have no say over the final editing process. 80.177.168.160 20:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you kindly add the direct url for me, so I can absorb the info into production? Alientraveller 20:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As stated above, the website is currently down until Monday. It should be up again at "Monday at 10:30a (Pacific)."  However, when it returns, I think the url for the post I quoted above was http://www.wordplayer.com/forums/forumemo.html?read=98678 80.177.168.160 21:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, first off, regardless of what the writers say, if you listen to the dialogue when the crew are sailing towards Davy Jones' Locker, they explain that the green flash just means that a sould returns to earth. Nothing about a "curse" or whatever.


 * If what that writer said is true, then we have a problem. As the audience, we are supposed to obtain all the information from the film itself.  We shouldn't be going on to websites and seeing whether or not the writers intended something to mean something else.  And also, this is an encyclopedia article.  We are supposed to write what happened in the movie, not what should have happened in the movie.  It's supposed to be an unbiased account of the film.  However, I am not saying that the 'One day every ten years' thing should stay.  I'm not quite sure right now.  But the 'one day every ten years' thing is definately what you get from the movie.  How can we solve this problem? —    «   h i p p i  i p p i   »    06:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well... I don't know about you, but when I watched the film, this ending was what I thought happened. I don't know what you mean by saying there wasn't a curse - the 'curse' is that Jones has to sail the ocean for eternity looking like a monster, something that's clearly established.  Jones refers to Calypso as "one who delights in cursing men".  In the scene with Calypso in the brig he mentions how it was because she was unfaithful that he looked as he did then (in other words, her unfaithfulness brought about the curse).  This strongly implies if a love is faithful to the Captain of the Dutchman, they will be free.  This ties in with the original Flying Dutchman opera, where a love had to remain true to free the captain from his curse.


 * By the post-credit scene, Will had already served his "one day on land, ten years at sea" deal. Nowhere was it stated he'd have to do this several times over.  Jones only served this multiple times because Calypso was unfaithful the first time.  Elizabeth was faithful to Will, and so he only had to do it once.


 * It was also stated several times in the film that the green flash means a soul returns to life from the dead. Therefore in the post-credits scene, someone must be coming back to life.  The logical conclusion (and the writers support this) is that Will is revived.


 * I don't want to get in an argument over the details. The simple fact is this: the writers say there was a curse, and the curse was lifted.  Personally I believe this was obvious in the film if you knew what to look for.  You can disagree with me on that point as you will, but considering the writers said this, I believe some mention of it should be incorporated into the article. 80.177.168.160 09:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And indeed I have. But being deleted, it is non-canon: afterall, deleting information on Jack's magic compass in the first film led to the writers reworking its purpose in the sequels. Alientraveller 09:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would argue that it is canon as all the basic information remains in the film - Will's conversation with Jones on the Endeavour, Jones talking with Calypso in the brig, the establishing that the green flash meant a soul returned from the dead and the subsequent green flash post-credits. All that was deleted was part of the brig scene that made it more explicit to the audience.  As it is, it just means the audience has to think harder to reach the conclusion, and I think it'd be nice if the article helped them along with this.


 * But thank you for including it at some point in the article - as long as the information is somewhere, that's the most important thing. :) 80.177.168.160 09:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I also do not want to get into an argument. But I must back myself up.


 * First of all, you say that to be the captain of the Flying Ductman (hereafter known as FD) and to carry out the duty of guiding souls is a curse, and Davy Jones' horrific appearance is the result of it. In the film, it was never stated that the duties of the captain of FD are a curse.  It was just something Calypso appointed Jones to do.  However, because he is allowed to return to the living world once every ten years, he decided to meet Calypso on that one day.  Calypso, however, forgot, which caused Jones to be angry.  Because of his anger, he neglected his duty, hence souls were stuck under the sea (see the scene where Elizabeth meets her father for the last time).  As a result of this, he turned octopus-ish.  This is all explained in the scene where Calypso is in the brig with Jones.  Just as you said that the movie never mentioned that Will will return as the Captain of FD after 10 years, I'm saying that no one ever stated the Captain is cursed.


 * If it is indeed a curse, then why would Calypso put it on her lover? That's just illogical.  Ok, maybe the writers wanted it that way.  And also, you have disregarded all the other evidence I presented above.


 * If the whole "ten years only" thing is valid, and it was what the writers wanted, perhaps some mention should be made. The scene which explains this was cut, was it not? This article only covers what is in the film, not what should be and/or what the writers originally wanted. Having made that point, I, myself am unsure of what to write in the plot summary. It would be nice if more people joined in this discussion. —    «   h i p p i  i p p i   »    12:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you need to use only the information that the film is giving to you, you should consider that nobody in the film is talking about the green flash like the light that appears when the ship is coming back every 10 years... The Green flash indicates ONLY that a soul is coming to life again. So, we've got a point, at least Will is alive when he is coming cos the green flash is appearing. There are 2 more clues: Elizabeth is waiting for him (one thing that Calypso didn't do to Davy Jones) and Will is not a "human-fish"... So, like other movies you have to think a few about the final part of the movie and I think that it's obvious that you only want to understand the film in a superficial way... Anyway, if next monday the link shows what the article's author is saying I think that all of this discussion is not necessary... ;) User:focalabestia

Considering that we are discussing the film though, not an article like Duties of the Captain of the Flying Dutchman, we must keep it as neutral as possible. Alientraveller 13:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not having been involved in your previous discussions, as a reader I feel the information about the lifting of the curse should be included. When additional information is available, whether through the script writer or other source, it becomes part of the story -- background or otherwise. This, as all encyclopedias are, is a place where people can come not only for the obvious but for ADDITIONAL credible information on a subject. I think the writer's input adds an additional footnote that rounds out the story. On the Harry Potter characters would one leave out information from JK Rowling simply because it is vague or not in the films? Of course not. Adding the writer's insight is much like history books, (and encyclopedias) which include paragraphs on subjects that state, "many historians believe..." And finally, by presenting all available information, readers are free to accept that information into their experience with the characters or not.

Yes, and that information lies in "Production". Happy? Alientraveller 17:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if you are going to include the Writers side of the story in that the scene that explained the film you need to add that the film itself actually contradicts what they say. To say that what they are saying is right is wrong. First of all because until the premier they didn't even know the scene was cut. That along with contradictory dialogue would suggest that many scenes were changed as well to fit the current ending, that the job is for an eternity stated 2-3 times through the film. It does not need to go under production but under trivia as what they say has no merit on the final film and is not canonical. If it isn't in the film it is not canon. If you didn't stay for the scene at the end you would have never know he had returned. Also if you have to go online to find out the truth then somehting is wrong. The film was changed from the writters original ending. Put this under trivia not production. Wrathofjade 18:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia is outlawed on Wikipedia. Alientraveller 18:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Moviegoers have been interpreting the ending differently, and I think that needs to be taken into account. Just Google the latest reviews - several people thought Will was freed, regardless of scenes being cut. It therefore doesn't strike me as very neutral not to mention the possibility of Will being revived in the main Plot Summary at all - though I'm definitely a supporter of putting a more detailed account of what was cut in the Production section.

Perhaps a compromise could be reached? As the Plot Summary stands the final line is: "In a post-credits scene, Captain Will Turner meets Elizabeth and their son ten years later." Maybe we could add another sentence, mentioning that as the Dutchman surfaces it is accompanied by the green flash, and that this could possibly signify the permanent return of Will? A few words are all that are needed, and I think that might be the best way to clear this matter up. Kaellana 18:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well as it stands the plot is very neutral: the final sentence gives off no connotations of Will being freed of his curse. So all is well. Alientraveller 18:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but by not even mentioning the green flash, it strongly implies Will is not freed - and I don't think that is particularly neutral in itself. I understand we want to cut down the summary as much as possible, but I think at least a mention of the final green flash should be made.  As seen in the discussion above, that one little point can prompt major debate.  I don't think it should simply not be mentioned at all. Kaellana 18:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What I am going to do with you funny bunch... Well the green flash isn't mentioned at all anyway. Alientraveller 18:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies - it was requested above that more people join in this discussion. In that case, I suggest the green flash should be added, unless anyone has any major objections.  It's a plot point that could have major significance, and it'll only take a few words to incorporate it in the relevant places. Kaellana 18:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the current summary works fine, it's better than twisting our fingers. The whole debate could also be rendered as original research. Alientraveller 18:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole debate aside, I must disagree with you on it working fine - I wasn't aware there were no references to the green flash in the Plot Summary, and I think they should be included. I've carried out a minor edit to include the information - feel free to reverse it if you strongly oppose it.  Kaellana 18:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of the documented information was taken offline meaning Jerry, Disney, or writer's have intentions of doing something with it. However, I am against including that it is for eternity no exceptions -- obviously there are ways out; otherwise Davy Jones would still be it's Captain. "Eternity" or "until death" are contradictions as well.

I think including the flash should stand -- it is there in the movie -- no arguments. The rest can proabably lie until the DVD, fourth script or TV special emerge.

I can't believe this is even being discussed? There is precedence for this sort of thing - when a credible source (ie, the writers) provides information about the characters or plots outside of the movies/book/etc, it is taken as fact. This is alive and well in the Harry Potter fandom where JKR continually releases information on her website about characters - such as their birthdates - which is taken as fact on Wikipedia. If the writers need to clarify that the curse is broken because it was not immediately apparent in the films, then that doesn't mean it isn't canon. Wikipedia allows verifiable facts from reliable sources to be included - at any rate, the idea that the curse wasn't broken is mere speculation as well, as the events from the movie can be derived either way. --LadySunflower 23:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The difference between Pirates of the Caribbean and the Harry Potter franchise should be obvious. In the latter, one woman has complete control over all matters of plot. This is true even when one considers the Harry Potter films in addition to the novels, as J.K. Rowling has acted as a consultant with the final say in the production of the movies based on her works. If Rowling says that a fact is a certain way, it has become a solid fact of the Harry Potter universe.


 * Franchises like Pirates of the Caribbean are inherently different, for the end result is not the product of one mind. On their website, the scriptwriters have declared their intent that Will's curse would be lifted. However, the dialogue declaring this was cut out of the final version of the film. Citing the intentions of the scriptwriters is no different than citing an early version of the script. It may be interesting for an chronological view of the film's development, but it is in no way official.


 * If we wanted to, we could edit the Snakes on a Plane article to say that there was only one reptile loose on the plane - after all, the original screenwriter wrote the story that way. His intent was for a single venomous creature to be aboard an aircraft. Instead, however, that article correctly states facts from the final version of the film, in which many snakes were crawling around the plane. The version presented to audiences is the official vision of a film, and for At World's End, it is not one in which the curse has been lifted.

This afternoon the link about this discussion was up (now there's an intermission again in the website) so I read all the posts about the end and the meaning of the green flash and the author of this article is Right! Will Turner can break his attachment with the ship if he finds a love that is true waiting for him in the "once every 10 years" day. This is the explanation that appear in the website: Pretty close ...

Posted by Terry on Wednesday, 23 May 2007, at 12:31 p.m., in   response to Re: Ah, that Davy Jones curse thing ..., posted by    curious mate on Wednesday, 23 May 2007, at 8:55 a.m.

I don't know that I would say, "forbidden." There might be some story to be told where Elizabeth manages to make a trip to the land of the dead, with the help of someone, etc., etc., to find Will, etc.

But the basic requirement is that Will agrees captain the Flying Dutchmen (in return for what the film reveals) and that he can step on land but once every ten years, and that at any time, if he finds a love that is true (this is part of the original Flying Dutchman    opera by the way) then his attachment to the ship is broken.

I think that the article has to contain all this information about the meaning of the end of the movie. 89.130.28.86 22:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)focalabestia.

I 100% agree. Although no one person is controlling this "pirates universe," I think that as with the Harry Potter franchise, credible information from authentic sources (ie writers, approved novels, etc.) can and should be incorporated to provide information. I mentioned this above -- this is an encyclopedia and should include simply more than just the obvious. Originally I came here because after seeing the film there was dialogue, plots, etc., that lost me. I wanted not just dialogue clarification but also credible background to explain what I missed/forgot.

There was also a green flash when the Dutchman left after Will had his first day with Elizabeth before leaving for ten years. So, the green flash might just signify the appearance and exit of the Dutchman. Which doesn't make sense, of course, since earlier it was explained that if meant a soul was returning from the dead. For example, there was no green flash when the crew entered Davy Jones' locker earlier in the film but it was present when they exited with Jack. 67.80.91.42 04:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)DetectiveFork


 * The writers have stated that that second green flash (when the Dutchman left after Will and Elizabeth's one day) signified the return of the crew (except for Bootstrap, who chose to stay) to life. Ted Elliott talks about it here:   http://www.wordplayer.com/forums/movies/index.cgi?read=99614 (go to the website and then paste the address in your address bar, otherwise it re-directs you to the main page).  80.177.168.160 13:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not write in the summary something along the lines of "There is debate over Will being released or not from his duties as Captain of the Flying Dutchman" then one point from each arguement in two sentences? I think rather than debating the "yes he is" vs "no he isn't", a more informative balanced article would give mention of the ambiguity, show why, then let the reader decided... or at least know that it's undecided. Then everyone's happy. Doesn't that sound better? Spiralteardrop 03:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Renege and Renegade
"Feng renegades on his deal with Beckett" is meaningless; "renegade" as a verb simply means to become a renegade. "Renege" is the proper word here. Korossyl 17:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, "renegades" is not appropriate in this case. I have changed it to "reneges".  --  timc  talk   10:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Most people don't even know what renege means: renegades is the more commonly used term and actually identifies what happens. Alientraveller 18:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Renegades isn't even a verb.  I cannot renegade.  I can become a renegade, I can accuse someone of being a renegade, but I cannot renegade a car.  I can, however, renege on a deal.

Most people who care saw the first movie, where I'm pretty sure they used renege. -Unsigned comment by Marudita

"Renegade" is indeed more often used than "renege", but the two are not synonymous; "renegade" does not describe the action. It's simply the wrong word. Korossyl 11:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor Mistakes / Improvements
To administrators - "song of the nine pirate lords" the real name of the song is "Hoist the Colours".

The plot is a little off. Barbossa doesnt sail the black pearl to rescue jack.

Wow.
This movie was full of betrayal and massive plot twists- are these things worthy of being mentioned in some section? Chozen1 01:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

not realy, the plot section covers that

Shipwreck Cove
Why does every mention of Shipwreck cove on this site say Shipwreck Island. No one called it Shipwreck Island in the Movie, the friggen Site even says Shipwreck cove. Whose the moron that dubbed it Shipwreck Island. 68.237.207.237 04:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Gibbs says it's "Shipwreck Cove on Shipwreck Island wherein lies the town of Shipwreck." then remakes on how Pirates are uncreative when it comes to naming. The island itself is called Shipwreck Island.71.38.17.7 04:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bill Nighy did more than voice acting
The article says "Bill Nighy provides a small scene of live action, motion capture and the voice for Davy Jones", actually, he acted out all scenes as Davy Jones under a latex mask. Only the moving parts of his beard were CGI, his face was all makeup. I don't have a reference, I just heard it in an interview, but someone should find a source (or whatever, implying it as being CGI is unsourced too) and fix this.

Na-ah! (or whatever the phoenetics of that sound is when people answer the question incorrectly on game shows). Watch the DVD of Dead Man's Chest, or read the article for that matter. Alientraveller 11:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course he is 100% cgi. The original poster should watch the extras on the DVD. Bill Nighy acted on the set wearing a grey pajama with dots on it, but that's exactly what they mean by "motion capture". Fredvdp 18:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers Tag
Guys, this needs a spoilers tag. It just doesn't feel right without it.--Seth Goldin 21:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Why wasn't there a spoilers tag placed there in the first place? 75.74.187.60 02:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Better yet... why isn't there one now? Spiralteardrop 03:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it was decided that sections that will obviously have spoilers do not get tags. And by definition, the plot has spoilers.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Pirates 4 ( Including: Will & Elizabeth)
First of all, the ending of the third movie gave the feeling of a sequel, for we are not sure what the green light is. Verbinski also stated that there could possibly have a Pirates 4 in the near future. I don't know if this convince but I would like to hear your opinions. Also, there's a big thing I would like to argue about. It isn't fair of Will having Elizabeth as his wife, for he didn't made such cause of salvation. I think Jack would certainly be the one, for he saved her more times than Will (since in the first movie). We can see there's a stronger but kind of quiet relationship between them. I would certainly like to hear your opinions. Mr. Mario 192 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a page for discussing the article, not the movie itself. Tphi 01:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Nuff said. --Soetermans 22:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What those two said, although I'd love to see a fourth...

Stop using this as a forum. Alientraveller 18:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a shipper or slash site. &#8212;M (talk • contribs) 13:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The sword that stabbed Will Turner
I noticed this but I'm not sure where on Wikipedia to place it, so I'll just note it here and hope an experienced editor finds a place to put it:

To refresh your memory from the first pirates movie (taken from http://saintvitus.com/Pirates/Songs/Pirates_of_the_Caribbean.script.html):

Will: Good day, sir. I have your order. [opens case and takes out the sword] Governor Swann : [takes the sword and unsheathes it] Well. Will : The blade is folded steel. That?s gold filigree laid into the handle. If I may. [balances the sword] Perfectly balanced. The tang is nearly the full width of the blade. [flips the sword and presents it gracefully to the Governor] Governor Swann : [takes the sword] Impressive. Very impressive. Ah, now, Commodore Norrington is going to be very pleased with this. Do pass my compliments on to your Master. Hmm? Will : I shall. A craftsman is always pleased to hear his work is appreciated.

Then in At World's End we see Norrington receive an 'old friend' from Lord Beckett, which must be his same sword. As Norrington is helping Elizabeth escape from the flying dutchman we see Davy Jones take the sword from Norrington, commenting that it is nice. Finally Jack knocks the sword from Davy Jones' hand, only for Davy Jones to recover it and finally stab Will with it. I find it an interesting bit of irony that Will got stabbed with his own sword. -- Teoryn 01:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I mentioned over on Norrington's talk page that a section on his sword should be included. You're right, its a massive irony about the sword ending up how it did. Would a section in Norrington's own page be best? Also, I seem to remember the sword appearing in the second film, though I can't remember when.. And what happens to it after its used to stab Will? Is it the sword that then gets broken and is used to stab Jones' heart? Tphi 01:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No I think the sword that is used to stab the heart is the broken one that Captain Jack is using against Davey Jones. Remember Jones grabs it with his claw hand and breaks it. 207.171.180.101 16:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)\


 * I was discussing the sword that actually stabbed Will, not the sword used to stab Davy Jones heart. Teoryn 16:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do believe that was the very sword that stabbed will in POTC 3 and appeared in POTC 1. Interesting observation!  * sher M O O =]  15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Check out James_Norrington which I just wrote :) Tphi 13:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot hole?
I think a crucial step was missed in the plot: I don't think Will Turner was present when it was revealed that Davy Jones had betrayed Calypso ... yet he revealed it to the goddess. I could be mistaken. Can anyone confirm this? 203.17.70.161 01:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He was present. Davy Jones revealed it to Cutler Beckett and Will Turner at the same time, after Will was picked up by the EITC. PureSoldier 00:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dinghy type
It looked to me that the type of dinghy's used in the movie were round sided dories. Most likely a group of Swampscott Dory 207.171.180.101 16:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Pirate Lord of 'Blank' Sea
If these various lordship locations can be verified, then we need to add citations to the article text. --Bishop2 14:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.myspace.com/atworldsend Scroll 1/3 way down the page and click on the "Interactive Map". This official Disney myspace page says which pirate lord commands which part of the sea. Hope this is helpful and someone will cite it.  * sher M O O =]  15:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)