Talk:Cutler Beckett

message: Come on, "it is unknown what he will get out of this deal"?  Think about it...cutler becket gets control of the seas, and Davy Jones gets 'not death'.  It's pretty clear what they all get out of that deal. --user:70.124.249.166
Don't forget to sign your posts...
'Eunuchs' is mispelled. I'll fix that and link to a definition. I think this article could be expanded a bit, but certainly not by me. --Hector 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, most of Jack's refereces to eunuchs have been directed toward Will Turner, non Cutler Beckett, and seeing as there has been no evidence to suggest that Will is castrated, it is most likely in a deragatory context.66.24.235.78 23:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Come on

message: Is Cutler Beckett really the 'primary' villain of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies?  He's an important character, to be sure, but he only really achieves prominence in the third movie, as he spends a lot of the second not only as an unseen character, but as an unreferred-to character as well.  I think Davy Jones is equally the 'villain' of the three movies; Davy Jones was even mentioned in the first movie (though obviously they hadn't come up with the idea that the actual character would appear at that point as they were just using it in the context of the saying).  In addition, despite the Davy Jones article describing him as an 'anti-hero' in the third movie he seems at least as villainous as he was in the second movie, and the climax of the film revolves around him, rather than Beckett.  I'd consider changing the opening description to 'one of the primary villains', and do the same to the Davy Jones article, as I think that's the best way to avoid constant editing on the specifics of their characters, but of course, I'd like to hear other opinions.  Anyone agree/disagree?  --Malvorean 14:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where Beckett was the most dangerous character in the trilogy, that was largely due to the fact that the third film, of which he was the central villain, had the grandest scale out of the three. He posed only a relatively minor threat by comparison to Davy Jones in Dead Man's Chest, and as for the notion of him pulling the strings throughout the second film, the only character he really manipulated in the film was Will, the other characters who interacted with him were not acting under his orders; Elizibeth, although influenced by Beckett's actions, is acting on her own to undo his actions by forcing him to sign a Letter of marque, and Norrington attempted to broker a deal with Beckett essentially of his own free will, although one could argue that he was on some level coerced into it by the execution warrent, and he himself conceived the plan to bring Davy Jones' heart to Beckett. As for looking at the series as one film, then by that logic, one could also regard Majin Buu as the main antagonist of Dragonball Z (a less than mediocre show, I admit), despite his playing no role whatsoever in the first two arcs; or Kariya Kagetoki as the main antagonist of Samurai Champloo, despite his not appearing until the last three episodes of a 26 episode series, as he was the strongest character in the series. If one is to look at the trilogy as a complete film, then I don't think their really would be a single main antagonist, rather it would have more in common with, say, the epic poem Beowulf, in that three antagonistic characters were present (Grendel, Grendel's mother, and the Dragon) none of them took precedence over the others in regard to the overall plot. 24.24.81.186 02:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: He took precedence over them only during the third film (and technically the last minute or so of the second), but not during the others; that does not seem to qualify him as the series' main villain. Again, this draws similarities the Beowulf poem; where Grendel's mother was more of a threat then her offspring, this does not mean that she was the overarching antagonist of the epic, as she did not act as a threat in the other parts of the poem. Similarly, it does not seem that their is a single, overarching antagonist in the POTC films. Several comparisons have come up between this character and Palpatine, specifically in regards to neither of them appearing until later on in their respective series. Still, although Palpatine was only mentioned in A New Hope, seen briefly in the Empire Strikes Back, and not physically present until Return of the Jedi, he was still standing behind the Empire throughout the whole trilogy, and was indirectly responsible for all the actions taken on their part throughout the series. Beckett, on the other hand, was not manipulating Barbossa and Davy Jones during the first two films, nor was he primarily responsible for the circumstances which led up to the films, he branded Jack a pirate, which means he played a part in Jack's past, but that does not neccisarily make him the primary cause of the series' problems. I will concede that he was a threat on the largest scale throughout the films, that is not the same thing as being the series main threat. For instance, although 'far' less united in terms of overarching plot, the James Bond films have had treats that existed on various different scales, from the Harlem drug trade to World War III. However, the character in these films who played the largest overall threat (probably either the villain from 'The Spy who Loved Me' or 'Moonraker') would not be regarded as the series overall antagonist, as they did not affect the events of the other films. Still, I would like to hear what other people have to say about this character's role in the films, as it may help contribute to the progression of this discussion. 24.24.81.186 06:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree that if there is anyone who could be considered the main antagonist of the James Bond films, that it would be Blofeld. What I was saying was that characters who only had a role in a single Bond film, but acted as a greater threat in their film than other villains did in their respective films, would not be considered more essential to the series overall. For instance, Hugo Drax from Moonraker intended to commmit mass murder on a nearly global scale, but yet is not considered "the major archenemy of James Bond" due to the fact that he had no effect on the other films. Similarly, where Beckett was the greatest threat in his film, he did not play a central role in regards to the other films. As for the Palpatine comparisons, as I said before, the Galactic Empire, and by extension Palpatine, acted as the major threat consistantly throughout the entire trilogy, where Beckett and the EITC did not act as the primary threat up until the third film. In regards to him supposedly manipulating the events of the previous films, all he really did was force Will to retreive Jack and his compass, his coming into possession of Davy Jones heart was only through Norrington's own actions, which were not orchestrated by Beckett, but were devised by Norrington himself in order to regain his own honor. 24.24.81.186 19:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Where I am not denying that Beckett played an important role in DMC, I would not go so far as to say that he was ultimately pulling all the strings behind the scene. Even though he influenced the actions of the central characters, so did all the characters influence each other's actions throughout the films, for instance in COTBP, didn't Jack coerce Barbossa into attacking the Dauntless, and doesn't Barbossa manipulate Sao Feng into trading the Pearl for Elizabeth in AWE by inferring her to be Calypso? However, I admit that I must have overlooked the mention of Beckett sinking the Pearl, which certainly does give him a greater effect on the series as a whole. As for the dramatic introduction of his character, bear in mind that that was also the introduction for the film itself, which would naturally be attention grabbing in order to pull the audience into the movie. Where is death was very stylized and dramatic, Jones' death was also dramtized, athough in a very different sense. The maelstrom fight, and the subsequent death of Jones, was presented in a very climactic manner which seemed to emphisize it as the final turning point of the trilogy. Further, Jones' last fight against Jack, Will, and Elizabeth, although far less stylized than Beckett's, seemed to have a more personal sense to it, with him looking up to the sky and mourning his percieved abandonment by Calypso. Beckett's death, which was undoubtedly dramatic, put less emphasis on the climactic element, and rested moreso on conveying his utter defeat, depicting his ship being blown to pieces as he came to terms with his end. 24.24.81.186 01:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry about taking so long to respond. Again, I would say that all of the villains had fairly dramatic deaths, it was just that both Barbossa and Jones died during a fairly even battle with the protagonists, so the mood would generally be far more fast paced in order to convey suspence. Beckett, on the other hand, was completely overwhelmed during his battle, so rather than focusing on the climactic element of it, the writers were free to focus on the grandness of his defeat, rather than play it off as an action scene. As for introducing him in the beginning of the movie, his role in that film was to give Will and Elizabeth a reason to enter into the plot, where Jones did not have to come in until later and, by just mentioning Jones and not actually having him appear until later on, it would increase the ominous sense of that character. 24.24.81.186 02:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Villain 

message: This links to the British East India Company. Although the company Beckett works for is obviously at least based on the real institution, is it actually supposed to be the same thing? The names, although similar, are still different, and it is obvious that it's not just an alias for the BEIC since the initials EITC appear on it's products in the movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.95.234.16 (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as a seach for 'East India Trading Company' redirects to 'British East India Company', I would assume that it is referring to the same institution. 66.24.235.78 23:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the symbol used in the film to represent the company is that of the Dutch East India Trading Company. Further, the whole thing takes place west indes. --69.113.106.92 20:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I can not find sources anywhere that confirm the British East India Company ever having operated in the Caribbean. I suspect this to be a case of scriptwriter's license. Of course, no one wants to see a movie with a Dutch trading company ;) --Radioflux 10:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  East India Trading Company 

message: WHile he clearing wants more power to himself and would do anything to have the seas completly under the East India Trading company's control, I don't think he's a megalomanic, those people want to rule the world examples include Hitler, Attilla the Hun and Alexander the Great. Beckett just want's to be the Bill gates of teh Caribbean.
*Thar's exactly what I said. Instead, I put "the greedy Beckett", but apparently this page belongs to ONE user and must not be touched by anyone else (!).
::Please, no personal attacks.  I removed the word 'greedy' because it is POV, as is the "megalomaniac" term.  The latter was added by an overenthusiastic unregistered member, and as it was subjective, I removed it.  Likewise, the term 'greedy' doesn't really show a neutral point of view so it, too, was removed.  Dac 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, you have to consider that what could be seen as a personal attack against a living person might not have the same effect if directed toward a fictional character. For instance, if someone wrote a character with the intention of depicting greed, referring to said character as greedy would not be an insult so much as a character descriptor. Where if someone were to refer to Bill Gates as "the greedy Bill Gates", that would obviously be a reflection of their personal opinion, referring to Beckett, or any other fictional character for that matter, as having a negative quality would not seem to carry the same meaning. 24.24.87.228 02:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It was pretty much outright stated that that was the mark on Jack in the second film. 24.24.87.228 21:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Megalomania

message: He is referred to as "Lord Beckett" throughout the film and is so a lord in his own right (a baron, viscount, earl or marquess). Therefore the style "Lord Cutler Beckett" is incorrect. Only the younger sons of dukes or marquesses would be referred to in such way. He would be referred to as "Lord Cutler" if his full title was "Lord Cutler Beckett". However, as he obviously holds a landed title of some sort he should be styled as "Cutler Beckett, Lord Beckett". Benbristol 21.53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well obviously the people who do the films aren't that fussy about that sort of thing. 
Anon
Or ignorant. I know what my money's on. Benbristol 22.04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:I just added a bit about his title to the article. Opera hat (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You would need to remove it, because you need a source. I am reverting it right now. AparnaBlackPearl14 17:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added two sources: Debrett's and the Ministry of Justice. Opera hat (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job :) AparnaBlackPearl14 16:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Lord Cutler Beckett"

message: I've removed the unsourced speculative section comparing Beckett to Bush. It should stay that way unless anybody has sources for it. --Hemlock Martinis 20:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How idiotic.  What source do you expect to get?  The makers are not going to come out and say it, but it's a pretty obvious analogy - watch the first scene of At World's End again.  Pirates = terrorists.  Habeus corpus = habeus corpus.  It's not rocket science. Caleby 11:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your POV.  Remember, keep your politics and social commentary to yourself or to your blogs. Mdriver1981 (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. You might like to know that here at Wikipedia we require sources for claims, particularly those of a potentially controversial nature. What you have suggested constitutes Original Research and as such is unacceptable, no matter how 'obvious' you may think something is. Incidentally, I believe the phrase you are looking for is Habeas Corpus. Latin's not rocket science either. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That's not the way we do things here. --Hemlock Martinis 23:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly doubt Jerry Bruckheimer would associate himself with a film that openly mocks President Bush.  He just might be the biggest supporter of the president in all of Hollywood.  Besides, I thought the people that dislike Bush point out what they perceive to be his lack of intelligence.  Cutler is a very intelligent character. I think his character is based on Chaloner Ogle, but I might be been wrong.  I regret writing it in the article... it is my POV.Mdriver1981 (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  George W. Bush comparison 

message: I know Beckett has taken many lives, but they were mostly executions. Execution is not the same as murder. All those people were pirates or related to piracy in some way. Beckett got permission from the king himself to execute them. It's not like he took a knife and started slaughtering people in the middle of town. These executions are considered legal where as murder is illegal. So, I think it's really debatable if Beckett is a mass murderer. I know it makes him sound all the more evil, but I really don't consider him a true mass murderer. Otherwise, Will and Elizabeth could be considered too as they killed many soldiers.-Darknessofheart
But that was in self-defence. Beckett carried out those executions en masse without any verdict, simply because the people were pirates and thus jeapodised his plans for domination of the Caribbean.
Mass executions qualify as mass murders. --Exor 20:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any death at the hands of another person is murder, unless it is self-defense (though sometimes people disguise murder, calling it "euthanasia"). There is no such thing as a justified death, therefore it must qualify as mass murder. Beckett didn't need or ask for permission: lest we forget, the East India Co was actually considered a threat to Britain itself. So to keep the company from making any moves against Britain, Britain made sure the EIC got whatever it wanted. So Beckett wants to kill a guy, Beckett kills a guy. Beckett might claim they are pirates for legal means, but in actuality he could accuse anyone of anything and they were basically guilty, as long as you had authority. Its somewhat like the inquisition. They could "acquire" false witnesses to testify against a man if they had to. 
Keep in mind not all of the men, women, and children facing the gallows were pirates. Lieutenant Groves also mentioned sentencing to death all those found guilty of simply "associating" with those convicted of piracy. That could mean absolutely anyone Beckett doesn't like. Just because Beckett has the legal authority to execute these people doesn't mean it isn't mass murder. Tarkin had the legal authority to destroy Alderaan and murder billions as well, yet he's still in the mass murderer category. --Exor 03:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass Murderer? 

message: Perhaps this is just my interpretation, but it seems as though this article is written largely from a fan based point of view, and that much of the summary of this character's role in the films is written out with needless details that are not nessicary in order to explain this character's role. The entire 'Personality' section seems to be purely speculation on the character's nature based on the opinions of several editors, and not really a decription of any specific events from the films. Again, this could just be my interpretation, but the overall tone of this article comes across as far too decorative. 24.24.81.186 21:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The the main emphasis did seem to be on the flag, as the body itself was obscured, though why would they show a body fall on the flag unless it was that of a major character, they could have just shown a flag floating around in debris and it would have gotten the point across. I would also like to bring up a point mentioned at the beginning of this topic, specifically in regards to whether or not the details of the article were too excessive, or if character description was limited to the point of view of several fans, and written in what could be seen as an "in-universe" style. 74.74.84.169 23:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive details in summary and EITC flag 

message: :Image:CutlerBeckett.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 21:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:CutlerBeckett.jpg

message: :Image:Lord Cutler Beckett.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Lord Cutler Beckett.jpg

message: Someone further up the page suggested adding Beckett to the category of Supervillains. I have to say I agree with it's inclusion. A supervillain doesn't necessarily need superpowers. Just look at Lex Luthor. Indeed, most supervillains rely on their intellect rather than any supernatural abilities. --Illustrious One (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Re:Supervillain

message: Should it be Cutler Beckett or Lord Cutler Beckett? I know we're not really supposed to use titles for fictional characters but to cite an example it doesn't stop the article on Voldemort from Harry Potter from being called Lord Voldemort. --Illustrious One (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: Call me thick, but I've seen the Pirates movies several times and can't remember any of that material. Anyone help me out?Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should check our sources - the official ones. As per the back-story, Beckett ordered Jack Sparrow to pick up some cargo for him from Africa, back when Jack was a cartographer, before becoming a pirate. When Jack picked up the cargo, which he found was a group of slaves, he released the slaves, and therefore was branded pirate. His ship, The Wicked Wench, was torched, later to be raised from the depths by Davy Jones and rechristened the Black Pearl. Sources include videogames and some of the books on the world of Pirates of the Caribbean. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 00:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Slave Trading