Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End/Archive 3

"Captain" Sparrow vs "Captain" Barbosa

All the way through the film Jack and Barbosa are trying to "get one over" on the other, to prove who should be the real Captain. I believe the article should mention someone about the rivalry and one-up-manship between the two. Jay316 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe for the Barbossa article, given he's really Sparrow's foil. Alientraveller 16:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I included a mention about them bickering over who is captain after Jack is found in DJL.PNW Raven 23:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd that both are "pirate lord", suggesting they should both be "captain" during the formation of the group. since only 1 can be captain of the "Black Pearl" at any 1 time, what was the other captain of during the earlier meeting? Akinkhoo 10:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation for use

• Bill Desowitz (2007-06-07). "ILM Meets the Maelstrom on the Third Pirates". VFXWorld. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

The visual effects of water. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

DVD

anyone knows when the DVDs coming out?

no ideaBlackPearl14 05:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing November or early December--in time for Christmas buying season.PNW Raven 23:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Post-Credit Scene

On the last part of the plot, it states

“ In a post-credits scene set ten years later, William Turner III and his mother, Elizabeth, stand at the edge of the cliff, waiting for the sun to set, until a flash of green reveals Will, returned from the netherworld. ”

I was wondering about the authenticity of the scene, since I've watched the movie, but there was no scene... It just ends with Jack sailing in his boat. --Dark Falls ^talk 11:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC) You obviously didn't stay through the end credits, then - this scene happens at the very end. --Theotherness 11:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Before or after the credits? Because I remember staying till the credits finished.. --Dark Falls ^talk 11:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind... Figured it out.. --Dark Falls ^talk 11:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

see the scene AFTER the credits or I WILL DIE! BlackPearl14 05:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay... But you're paying for the ticket, and its awfully expensive in Australia...or I might just live with it. --Dark Falls ^talk 08:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just kidding!! :) - Elizabeth (BlackPearl14 03:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

The movie comes out December 4th. I look it up on google.--Prettywhitekitty 17:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Prettywhitekitty

The need for a post credit scene section

Looking at the article's history, there are a lot of additions and subsequent deletions/reverts regarding what people reckon happens in the post credit scene. Perhaps a section should be added to the main article regarding this? Riksweeney 11:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's in the production section for people to make up their minds. Certainly not everything the writers say is canonical, especially if it was cut. Alientraveller 11:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Pirates! Gold references"

Was I the only one to find that the flags looked completely similar to the flags used for the copy protection scheme in the Pirates! Gold computer game? IMDB says they're the flags of real world pirates, which would explain it, but I think I recognised all of them (being a huge fan of the game) and they really were completely similar... does this belong here? 87.60.160.203 02:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Budget

Isn't it more helpful to readers to provide some idea of the budget than none? For example:

Estimated $200-300 million[1][2]

This makes clear that numbers are not known to any degree of precision, while still informing the reader that this is one of the most expensive films ever made, which is a key, and widely reported, piece of information. I'm unsure as to why this article is annotated to the effect that only a studio quote is good enough: studios rarely release precise information on budgets, and many other film articles cite third-party estimates. Obviously picking one estimate at random out of the many in circulation is inadvisable, but giving a range seems a good compromise. 81.77.25.136 03:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't helpful to publish things that are not verifiable. We might as well stick some random figure in there and call it an "estimate". Neither site is verifiable. I don't doubt that this film is probably THE most expensive film ever made, by the fact remains that Disney has not publicly released the budget information, and BOM and IMDb don't list where they get their information, thus they don't pass verifiability criteria.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Of the top 10 films in List of most expensive films, only Superman Returns cites specific source. Spider-Man 3 which cites a Variety article refering to its "official budget", but they don't say where they got this from. The other films have no citation or cite BOM. Why does this film's budget require better sources than any other? 81.77.25.136 03:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't use Wikipedia as a source. I've been fighting that page for awhile now. It's entire list is unverified. As for Spider-Man 3, Box Office Mojo actually changed their budget when Variety published the new number, they were originally reporting 250 even. Regardless, Pirates has been very secretive, and I'm wary to use anything that isn't from the horse's mouth in this instance. I've read reports that the number could have well been in the 400 million range. Unless you are using BOM to cite box office performance, which is easily verified just about anywhere (Studio's like to publish that info), then it isn't verifiable for budget information. They don't say where they get their information, which makes them unreliable in that aspect. Regardless, you don't need to list a budget. It's a figure that most studios don't generally like to give out, especially when it's high. It isn't a necessity to have. It may be interesting, but it doesn't hinder anything not being there. Also, BOM (before either Pirates sequel was filmed) was reporting the budget for both sequels was 225 million a piece. This was based on an estimation given before filming that they would spend about 450 million for the sequels. The problem is that BOM simply did a "divide by 2", when it isn't always that simple. Since neither film had been shot, no is to say that they would hit 225 million and just stop. It isn't uncommon to go over budget, or be underbudget for that matter. Since they are not listing Pirates 3 as "300 million", they are obviously just following the rumors that believe the number is around there. People also thought the budget for Superman Returns was 250 million, until Singer cleared it up in an interview that it wasn't. Yet, BOM still lists the budget as 270 million.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

BOM is by far the most accurate website on the net when it comes to tracking budget numbers. Brandon Gray is well connected in the industry and is able to track overbudget numbers on most productions. In the past he was even able to track prints and advertising numbers until they became closed to him, so I wouldn't pooh-pooh the numbers cited on BOM. Furthermore since its a neutral source it is alot more reliable then some PR from a studio. Alot of times studios tend to hide how overbudget a movie tends to go from the mainstream media. I also wouldn't put to much stock in Bryan Singer because he contradicted the budget numerous times, at one point in an issue of Wizard magazine he said the budget was 220 million, and its possible that he just trying to hide just how overbudget Superman actually went.Giantdevilfish 18:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, you don't fall under WP:V. Disney has not given the budget number out, so leave it. Alientraveller 18:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never touched it. I'm merely explaining how BOM works. Alot of time studios (especially Disney) never disclose the numbers publically. But the numbers do exist. Either or, it doesn't matter. I believe more people are going to get budget information from sites like BOM or the IMDB, rather then the wikipedia, so it's a moot point wether you guys want to post or not. But bear in mind that I've seen alot of budgets for films on this site that list BOM as a reference.Giantdevilfish 18:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but they should find more reliable sources if possible. Alientraveller 18:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

spoiler warning

i think people would appriciate a spoiler warning if they havent seen it. true enough, some people may just go to this page to find out what happens, but, i dunno, maybe they wanna find out who plays who or something. so, if someone could put that up, my reguards. i dont actually know how to put said warning on the page, hence my request that someone esle do it (just so you know tha tim not that lazy!) thanks very much! ~User: Sophiakorichi

Currently, the guideline states that spoiler warnings do not go in sections which will obviously have spoilers (e.g. a Plot, or a cast and characters section). Bignole 22:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

good point. Never mind, then.

Vioce double...

Who did the vioce over for Keira Knightley (as it obviously wasn't her singing...)? ~User: Sophiakorichi

I'm pretty sure that was Keira herself. TakaraLioness 02:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually just got the soundtrack, and it's someone named Delores Clay. So I guess that's settled. But I wish it actually had been Keira! I think that she is a good singer, but I don't actually know. ~Sophiakorichi

If I remember correctly, Keira's singing part is not on the official soundtrack. 194.78.37.122 16:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

True enough, however it does not state only those who were in the soundtrack, but all those involved in the music production of the film. And it doesn't hurt that I also just re-watched it, and it says Delores Clay was, in fact, the voice double. ~Sophiakorichi

Oh. Well, there you go then. TakaraLioness

Sorry if I sounded a bit angry with my last post. I was...distressed, but I did not intend to suond angry! So sorry if I did. ~Sophiakorichi

Elizabeth and Will consummating thier marriage

Referencing to the point of Elizabeth and Will consummating their marriage is better than saying they simply had sex because it is a more humane way of saying it and it is really what happened, because Elizabeth stayed a virgin until after they got married. It makes their marriage seem truer because in this day and age marriage and sex is becoming so meaningless we should at least keep Elizabeth and Will's marriage realistic, considering Elizabeth stayed faithful to Will for ten long years, and if that's not true love, then I don't know what is anymore.Green Pirate 16:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i agree. the other term makes it sound... dirty. Plus, though it is implied, there is nothing shown, while the former term makes it seem as though it is. ~User: Sophiakorichi

What's wrong with the word sex. What are an immature chilid who giggles when he hears the word sex?

I don't believe i ever stated that it was bad, nor do i recall acting in any way immature. however, i do understand that i conveyed my reasons for agreeing with the change, and i suggest you tell me what your problem with "consummating" is before you complain about my motives, thanks. ~Sophiakorichi

Review

I can tell you right now, the lead won't pass, and the cast section photo has no fair use rationale.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, did the teaser poster ever really gain any prominence? It seemed like a "test" product, and I don't think any strong sources exist for it. IMP Awards doesn't have it, and I remember that the translation on the poster was from an editor, which is original research. I don't think the poster's necessary, basically. It adds little, if anything, to the article. (That's not the extent of my criticism, though.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally missed that image. I agree. The marketing section doesn't even talk about the poster.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the screen shot in the plot summary seems unnecessary- fair use images should be absolutely required to illustrate the topic.-Wafulz 17:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The plot needs shortenings. Just at a glance, it seems way too long. Marketing should be part of the release section. Reaction should be it's own section instead of a subsection and censorship probably doesn't need its own subsection for such little information. ColdFusion650 02:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't "reaction" be based on the released of the film. You generally cannot react to something you've not seen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I was thinking of several other film FA articles that have them separated when the amount information warrants it, Jurassic Park (film) for example. ColdFusion650 02:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's because of the marketing information in it. It depends on how you look at "Release". To me, any criticism and box office performance is part of the release of the film, just a different subtopic. Marketing is what you do as you are about to release a film, critics judge the film upon release, and audiences either flock to it or distances themselves from it while it is in release.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Layout is subjective. Put another way, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ColdFusion650 02:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 11, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes, but it's not a good idea to list the cast in the lead. Expand or merge the 1-sentence paragraph.

2. Factually accurate?: Looks good.

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes.

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes.

5. Article stability? Stable, but note that Template:Box_Office_Leaders_USA is being considered for deletion.

6. Images?: I would argue that all 3 images in the article body are being used purely for illustration. The poster under Marketing definitely is.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.

Address the concerns in the thread above if you want; the current section layout is sufficient in my opinion. — Carson 05:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you think now? Alientraveller 09:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead is now good, although you can probably refer to it as a trilogy instead of listing the other movies. Carson 20:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Result

It's all fine fora GAC now. So, GA Pass. Vikrant Phadkay 16:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What? You're not reviewing the article. Alientraveller 16:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he might be able to do that. But what about those arguably decorative images? Carson 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's wrap it up

These edits on 13 July need to be verified. It contradicts the Captain Teague article, but I can't say for sure if it's sneaky vandalism (I didn't pay a lot of attention to the characters in the movie). As for the 2 images, I'll leave that up to you guys. They will need to be removed, but as the GA reviewer I won't do that for you, in case you all want to rewrite parts of the article to make those images fair use, or replace them with something valid. New issue: the Calypso entry in Cast: is she really just a witch? There's no need to be all mysterious about it, saying "she is more powerful than the crew realizes." Carson 07:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverted the vandalism. Alientraveller 09:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the images? The cast image is to depict the protagonists (such image is used on The Lion King) and the maelstorm one depicts an event in the plot. Most GA and FA have similar images, why this one isn't enough? igordebraga ≠ 19:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The application of non-free content has been scrutinized more closely in the past few months than ever before. The verdict seems to be that non-free content, screenshots in this case, need to serve more than just identification of the corresponding text, according to fair use criteria. A good example is Branded to Kill -- take a look at the two screenshots and how they are more relevant to the article's content than just for identification. The traditional setup of images for film articles may no longer be appropriate, and it's best to justify a unique fair use rationale wherever possible. For example, if the scene where Rafiki holds up Simba in The Lion King has been widely commented on by critics, that would be a screenshot that could be used, like Dirty Dancing uses a screenshot of a famous scene. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but this case may be an exception, as the poster is so lame. Look at how Transformers uses the poster to identify the main cast. Alientraveller 19:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering that most characters in the film have their own page and thus the staple identification image (like posters are identification images to films), I don't see the necessity in identifying characters here. I'm not explicitly opposing its inclusion, but I think a shift should be made toward stronger, more unique justification of each non-free image we implement. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

About the Calypso being a witch thing: In the Pirates of the Caribbean Official Movie Guide, it says she (as Tia Dalma) is a VooDoo Priestess. Calypso on the whole, however, is the Goddess of the Sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackPearl14 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Passed

I had to jump in to remove those 2 pictures, so now it's GA. Carson 21:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)