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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Well I'm certainly glad you think it's "cute". Kudos.   Veracious Rey  T  C  21:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st Trailer 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plot points from the Trailer 

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Cast spoilers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Images 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Article Merging

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Film Rating Citation 

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Historical anachronism of Chow Yun-Fat's character

message: 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)
thread_title:  Budget 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Only PG-13 Disney? 

message: *
:About the film's production design. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Title says it all. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Nighy speaks. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for use 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Everything Pirates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I fail to understand your point. Alientraveller 20:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry; I mean to say that it is only released on May 24th in Select Theaters.Gargoyle123 16:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Premiere? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Critical response 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: 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)
replies: text: Wouldn't that make it "moved a day later"? 193.65.105.175 09:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Global release? 

message: Wow. Long plot summary, but there's a few details missing.  
*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]
I'm not sure if these details are important though.  -  « hippi ippi » 11:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Details 

message: 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)
replies: text: Is that even important...?  That's an observational fact... would you call it Trivia? —  « hippi ippi » 07:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Read the post above.--$UIT 18:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit Needed 

message: ::"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.  —  « hippi ippi » 07:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you, Hippi. Don't recall that being said. --Soetermans 15:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Can someone verify? 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title:  Punctuation 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Age of the child 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Review section bullets = "bad prose"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  B.O. inconsistency 

message: 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. —  « hippi ippi » 03:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Better 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Keith quote 

message: "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)
replies: text: Indeed, "renegades" is not appropriate in this case.  I have changed it to "reneges".  --  timc  talk   10:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Renege and Renegade 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wow. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Shipwreck Cove 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bill Nighy did more than voice acting 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 'Nuff said. --Soetermans 22:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pirates 4 ( Including: Will & Elizabeth) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I do believe that was the very sword that stabbed will in POTC 3 and appeared in POTC 1. Interesting observation! * sherMOO =] 15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out James_Norrington#Sword which I just wrote :) Tphi 13:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sword that stabbed Will Turner 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Plot hole? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dinghy type 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pirate Lord of 'Blank' Sea