Talk:Black Pearl

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 January 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

Game?

Which "game on the official site" gives more of the Pearl's history? I haven't found one - 81.151.186.81 09:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At World's End?

Okay, around I've seen that Will's suppose to be barter Jack's soul to Sao Feng for the Black Pearl, however, hasn't the Pearl been sunken by the Krakken already? So what I'm saying is that is the ship suppose to be coming back again, so to speak? Or is that sort of thing just missleading? Captain Drake Van Hellsing 22:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPOILER In the third film the Black Pearl does indeed come back. Jack is stranded on the ship in a icy place next to the land of dead "at world's end" - the crew come to rescue him and in the process rescue the Pearl.Jack think they are his imaginations 89.241.163.214 22:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six pound guns?

Sounds awfully light. Didn't frigates usually carry guns that threw 12 or 24 pound shot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.155.239 (talk) 07:01, May 27, 2007 (UTC)

I agree - 6 pounder guns were used around this time by land forces as very light guns... 12 pounders were more common, but "heavily armed" would suggest 18 or 36 pounder cannon - although 24 pounders seem more likely because of the time frame. 32 sounds like an unreasonable number of cannon (The smaller ships of the line had 74 or 92, with some of the larger ships carrying 102 or 114) - considering the Black Pearly is said to be a "Galleon" - which Usually refers to a ship of the line 89.241.163.214 22:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the same boat. USS Constitution was armed with 44 guns, not counting caronades on the main deck. While four of those guns were "long nines," I believe the rest, at least those on the gun deck, were twelve pounders, though some may have been 24's. I believe the caronades were either 24 pounders or 36 pounders. Granted, Constitution was an American "super-frigate," but even so, a sixth rate (light frigate), carried around 28 guns, not counting caronades, which would have been 12 pounders.

Now, that's history. But here's some more history: The East India Company was concerned more with the East Indies, not the Western. While the East Indiamen were reasonably heavily armed, for merchant ships, they would not have stood up to a sloop of war. In addition, ships are expensive. The Royal Navy could only get 27 ships of the line to Trafalgar, I somehow doubt a civilian corporation could manage that. And then again, pirates were rarely that well organized. So, I think we might be able to give them a little leeway.

Moreover just from "pop" culture, CS Forester talks about privateers having 6, 8, or 9 pounders while Stan Rogers says of Barret's Privateers their "cracked four pounders made an awful din." Pirates tended not to be particularly well armed. Dastal 05:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A privateer is significantly different from a pirate... the black Pearl seems to be basically a frigate. It was originally an East Indiaman, but then it was transformed by Davy Jones to be "The most deadly pirate ship in the Caribbean" - so it stands to reason that it was upgraded. Audigex (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was the ship itself cursed?

If not, then how was a ship with torn sails able to overtake the HMS Interceptor, which was said to be the fastest ship in the Caribbean?--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 06:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think youve answered your own question!SatuSuro 06:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack himself states, early in the movie before the Pearl even appears and before he had first-person knowledge of the Aztec curse, that it is faster than the Interceptor, so there likely is some logical explanation. Perhaps, even with the torn sails, it had more square-footage of sail than the Interceptor, perhaps it has something to do with its construction (Even something as simple as the boats shape will effect its speed), or maybe it's got more little extras to help its speed, like the oars you see them use when chasing the Interceptor.

However, the boat itself certainly isn't cursed, because you clearly see it taking damage during its battles. In fact, Jack makes reference to the damage actually affecting its performance. The pirates, however, were never actually hampered by bullet holes or sword cuts, and their limbs continued to work even after they were amputated. Additionally, how could the ship be cursed? To be cursed you need to take one of the coins, and a ship can't do so, nor could it possibly return its blood to the gold, and its clearly established that all the blood needs to go back before the curse is lifted (And the other pirates were cured). Sorry, the Pearl is just a normal ship. JBK405 20:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is from ages ago, but I'll add the ship was definitely abnormal under Barbossa's command, whether it was cursed or not. Not many ships tow their own personal storms. --77.99.30.226 13:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pearl itself is cursed.It has to be.First it has its fog folowing around.after the curse is lifted the fog is gone.The ship's sails are totally ripped but still it has a lot of speed.And when the curse is lifted the sails are fixed.(Jacoby the Blackbeard 11:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I know this is really late, but in the begining of the second movie, there are great big patches on the sail, showing that the crew fixed the sails themselves. - Lordloss210 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.255.250 (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ship did become cursed with its crew after they stole the Aztec gold - but the curse had little effect apart from the tattered sails and mist which shrouded the ship at night.

SPOILER The Black Pearl is so fast because she was created from the wreck of an old ship by Davy Jones. Jack Sparrow agreed to serve Jones on the Flying Dutchman for 100 years if Jones made the Pearl the fastest ship in the Caribbean, and allowed him to captain her for 13 years.

Cooper 25 (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting Aberdeen

Maybe this piece of Text is interesting for the article. It's taken from the Wikipedia page of Aberdeen / Washington:

Aberdeen is also the homeport of the tall ship Lady Washington, a reproduction of a smaller vessel used by the explorer Captain Robert Gray, which is featured in the two Pirates of the Caribbean movies (The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) and Dead Man's Chest (2006).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.143.34.149 (talk) 01:58, July 21, 2007 (UTC)

Speed

According to the article the Pearl is fast because of the large sails. I believe it was terry Rossio who said in the writers commentary that the ship is fast because it has oars that the crew can use to row. Can anyone confirm this? -Fredvdp 17:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both? It's fast with the wind because of it's big sails (and the fact it was magically tranformed by Davy Jones), and with little or no wind it also has oars put in place by Barbossa. These actually existed, they were called sweeps and were relatively common on smaller frigates/sloops of war. Audigex (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Captain

Wasn't Will the Captain temporarily while Barbossa and Jack went ashore to the Kraken's corpse in AWE? BumblePooh16 22:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Black Pearl

When I was on holiday in Malta, I saw a sailing ship called the Black Pearl. I took a picture to prove it, but I'm unsure how to add it to this artical (as in the information since it will likely be removed because of lack of references)? Can anyone help me?Wild ste 13:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that ship has any relevence to the article. Unless it was a historical ship, it probably doesn't matter. Flamingtorch372 (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is relevant because the real Black Pearl was owned by the original Hollywood pirate Errol Flynn. Isn't it it ODD that Hollywood would use the same name? Rfsnyder2752 (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pearl upside.JPG

Image:Pearl upside.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 (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pearlsea.JPG

Image:Pearlsea.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 (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rights

How could Disney be denied rights to rename the ship on the ride if Disney owns the ranchise? Emperor001 (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I think that statement is a lie; mostly because it seems impossible. Disney owns all licensing rights to the ride and to everything in the movies, so I don't see who would be denying them rights, they would have to be denying themselves. It would be like saying Disney wanted to include Mickey Mouse in the ride, but were denied the rights. 173.186.162.56 (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how long is the black pearl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.17.69 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rock?!

The title of the infobox says Black Rock while it's Black Pearl so I will change it back to Black Pearl.-- And Rew 23:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real ship?

The article includes two photos of what looks like (and is identified as) an actual ship. What's the deal? Did someone actually build a galleon for the movie? Is it some other historical replica in costume? Amongst all that marginally-useful in-universe detail, could we get some actual real-world facts on this interesting point? Laodah (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black Pearl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No heading

Couldn't barbossa just make her to her original size when he got the sword from black beard like they had the bottle but couldn't he just do all that stuff soo any answers??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raccoon Official (talk • contribs) 02:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I've restored the notability tag, this aritcle is very problematic - 99% fancruft, tiny and poorly referenced section on filming. A new AfD is likely needed. The best source we have is this, which was mentioned in the old AfD and that nobody bothered to add to the article until I've done so two years ago. But GNG requires multiple in-depth soruces, and that's just one. I'll ping User:Jclemens, and User:Daranios - we might as well try BEFORE before AfD? Anything strikes your fancy as helpful in rescuing this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thanks for bringing this up here, much nicer to brainstorm without the pressure of and AfD. I've found this academic publication, quite brief, but aligns nicely with the ign article. This might be interesing, but I cannot access it. Can anyone? But what I think can solve the issue as a second significant source is Postmodern Pirates: Tracing the Development of the Pirate, p. 64-65, which looks at a completely different angle: After having a look at Jack Sparrow's potential homo- and heterosexual interests, this book discusses the Black Pearl as his "one true love interest" for a full page (including a comparison to the Millennium Falcon :-).

If further sources should be need, search is slighly hampered by "Black Pearl" being part of the first film's name, so I recommend looking further through the hits of these searches: Scholar and Books. Daranios (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios Mungan, C. E., & Emery, J. D. (2011). Rolling theBlack PearlOver: Analyzing the Physics of a Movie Clip. The Physics Teacher, 49(5), 266–271. doi:10.1119/1.3578415 is on LibGen. I don't think it meets in-depth requirements, as it doesn't discuss the Black Pearl in depth; instead, after a brief nod to the idea of showing a movie clip in class to make students pay attention, it cites some day from our (Wikipedia's) article on parameters of a typical Spanish galeon, then launches into some math/physics calculations (presumably intended to be used with the students). A cute idea for making some science class interesting, but not really helping in estbilishing the notability of our topic.

The two or so paragraphs from the book are more helpful. I'd call them borderline in-depth, but combined with the IGN, it helps. Sadl that the Designing Ships for Pirates of the Caribbean II is shorter than most of our stubs (unless I am missing something). For now I think we can leave the notability tag, pending someone adding the sources to the article, which, all things combined, is probably a little bot over our bar on notability - thanks for finding the sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated, but I feel I should share the fact that the comparison to the Millenium Falcon was made in the Disney+ series Prop Culture, when Jim Byrkit was interviewed and specifically made the reference. 2601:902:4301:DF50:3583:BC4D:4ED8:9A9E (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have a reference for that? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the show itself? Sadly, no. 2601:902:4301:DF50:3583:BC4D:4ED8:9A9E (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the show available on YouTube or such, so that we could mention the fact and reference it (a particular episode, minute mark, etc.) that way? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the assumption that I'm lying, I don't see why some of the information is needed. I don't think I can satisfy you much with the answer. Again, the show is called Prop Culture, it's available on the Disney+ streaming service, and only there. Specifically episode 4, simply titled "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl", information which could have been found through a simple Google search. Minute mark, taking a look myself, the following is quoted around the 16-17 minute mark:

Jim Byrkit: And so, the Black Pearl, we needed it to feel very different than the others. It's haunted, it's a special place. Wherever you look, you feel like you're being watched. This idea that the sails actually had personality to it, the way they were ripped, they almost had faces coming out. And yet, it's Jack Sparrow's Millennium Falcon. You know? It's his ship that he loves so much. So you have to not hate it, you actually have to think it's kinda beautiful.

To close on that, I should suggest to the Wikipedia folk that they may as well create an article about Prop Culture, as it does have 8 episodes, 30+ minutes each, covering behind the scenes information such as this. 2601:902:4301:DF50:D99:2D78:1986:C532 (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We assume good faith here, but at the same time, we need to list sources. And I, at least, have no access to Disney+ service, so I could not verify the facts. Now that we have all the details, I think it is totally fine for the fact+reference to be added the article. Per WP:BEBOLD, you are welcome to do it yourself (and I'd also encourage you to create an account, which facilitates communication and gives you access to a myriad of useful tools and features). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]