Talk:Cutler Beckett

Come on

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)

"Jack could have made him a eunuch, which would be the result of, or the source of, his constant referencing of eunuchs."

Is there any proof to this, or is it just someone guessing? --Obsessed 20:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Primary Villain

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)

Although he pulled strings behind the scenes most of the time, Beckett still maintained a prominent role in Dead Man's Chest. Beckett and the East India Trading Company had a grand and important introduction in the opening scenes of DMC, and it is clear by the end of the film that he is on top of the villain ladder. And while Beckett received no direct mention in COTBP, the EITC was referred to much like Davy Jones. Viewing the trilogy as a coherent whole, it's obvious that Beckett is the most dangerous and important antagonist our heroes face, and thus the eminent villain. Apparently the writers think that way as well, which is why Beckett had a far more dramatic end (THE most dramatic actually) than say, Davy Jones. If Davy Jones was so important, why didn't he go out in a surreal, slow motion sequence with a climactic score? As a matter of fact, the climax doesn't revolve around Jones at all. He's just the most powerful henchman our heroes have to face in their war against the EITC. The pirates haven't gathered to stop Jones, they've united to stop Beckett (and Jones in the process). --Exor 23:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

But Beckett did take precedence over all the other antagonists didn't he? He ended up in control of Davy Jones; and as for Barbossa, well, he's not even a villain anymore at that point. Why did Norrington betray the crew of the Black Pearl and bring the heart to Beckett? Because of Beckett's Letters of Marque and his loyal adjutant, Mercer. Perhaps Beckett didn't directly manipulate Elizabeth and Norrington, but he planted all the right seeds to get them to do what he ultimately wanted them to do. Not to mention the fact that he manipulates Weatherby Swann as well. On top of that, Beckett is also directly responsible for both Jack's debt to Jones, and Jack's life as a pirate. The threat posed by Beckett in DMC is exactly the same as the threat he posed in AWE. The only difference is that he has Davy Jones under his command, and the means of truly carrying out that threat. --Exor 03:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

With regards to the James Bond comparison that you just raised, Ernst Stavro Blofeld would probably be considered the main antagonist of that series as he was the force behind the major antagonist in several films AND he was the head of SPECTRE, arguably the greatest threat Bond has faced as it played the role of the main antagonist in several films whereas all the other villains have only appeared in one film. Even today nobody is sure if Blofeld is dead or plotting some new outrage although the wheelchair-bound villain who appeared a the beginning of For Your Eyes Only is widely believed to have been Blofeld but we're not here to discuss Bond, we're here to discuss Pirates of the Caribbean and Cutler Beckett in particular. I would have to say that Beckett is undoubtedly the primary villain of the series as he was the mastermind behind most of the problems that the heroes face. Beckett and the East India Trading Company fill as role similar to that of Blofeld and SPECTRE or Palpatine and the Evil Galactic Empire. Were it not for Beckett Davy Jones probably would have just carried on minding his own business tempting Pirates to join his crew and harvesting souls and doing his job, maybe going on land once every ten years. It's only he's acting on Beckett's behalf that he becomes a world-wide threat to Piracy. The films are all about Pirates and Beckett is out to rid the world of them. Davy Jones might be the physically most powerful villain but he's really just a pawn in Beckett's plan to obtain control of the seas. He is to Beckett what Darth Vader is to Palpatine. He's the most powerful henchman but he's a henchman nonetheless. Beckett is the one pulling the strings behind the events of Dead Man's Chest even though it's Jones who does the most fighting for evil and in At World's End Jones becomes second fiddle to Beckett. As for Barbossa, he's not even worth considering. He's only in two films and he's only a villain for one of them. Anon

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)

But who prompted Norrington to take that route? Had it not been for Beckett, Norrington would have stayed a pirate. In case you weren't aware, Mercer made contact with Norrington at Tortuga before the latter boarded the Pearl. And who does Mercer work for? Beckett. Why does Davy Jones want Jack to begin with? Beckett. That's right. Beckett sunk the Pearl in the first place, which is why Jack had to call upon Davy Jones to raise it from the ocean depths. Who was responsible for Elizabeth and Will going off on their little adventure in DMC? Beckett. You should also take into consideration the weight of character introductions and character exits. Compare Beckett's introductory scene to that of Davy Jones. Which scene seems more important and dramatic to you? When we first see Davy Jones (which takes place already some time into the movie), it's a casual scene depicting Davy looking for people to choose servitude on the Dutchman over death. Beckett on the other hand, has a far more theatrical entrance. Likewise, more time and effort is spent on Beckett's demise than Jones'. So, which character seems more important judging from these sequences alone? If Beckett's importance is stressed in such a manner even in the beginning of Dead Man's Chest, then it would be logical to assume that he is far more influential to the overall plot, and thus the main villain; at least during the latter two films. --Exor 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

You're right about Beckett's death conveying his utter defeat. The ends of the other villains signified their defeat as well. But why would the movie go to such great lengths to emphasize the utter defeat of Beckett if said utter defeat wasn't the most important? The deaths of the other villains (such as, say, Barbossa in COTBP) weren't nearly as thorough and grand, so you can't say it was simply because he was the main villain of this particular film. Davy Jones' death, although climactic and important, wasn't nearly as emphasized and prolonged. Anyway, the fact that Beckett was introduced in the opening of Dead Man's Chest adds weight to his presence. It only makes his arrival more prevalent. They could have opted to introduce him later on, but they deliberately gave him the opening scene. Not only does the scene do its job of grabbing the attention of the audience, it also introduces the primary threat our heroes have to face for the duration of the trilogy. Beckett may not be the only one manipulating people, but he sure is the one with the largest number of strings to pull. Everyone wants to make a deal with Beckett; they all fall right into his lap. Everything seems to go his way until the very end. --Exor 20:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Ok, at this point we're merely getting into different interpretations of the material. Let's wait to see what T&T have to say on the matter, if anything, when the DVD is released. I'm not going to place any bets, but I'm fairly certain that Beckett's defeat did not play out the way it did simply because they were "free to focus on the grandness of his defeat" where as the other characters were unable to receive such treatment due to other circumstances. And mind you, the writers could have used any method to shoehorn Will and Elizabeth into the plot. His purpose was much greater than that. It set up for mostly all of the important events in the next movie, and established the pirates' most potent and cunning enemy. --Exor 05:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

East India Trading Company

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).

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)

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)

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)

Megalomania

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)

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)

Could the mark that Cutler Beckett talks about be the scar/branding that Jack Sparrow has on his left arm - signifyind that he was marked as pirate by the East Indy Trading Company? This was reveled in the first movie when Jack was first caught in Port Royal. John

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)

Beckett a eunuch

I am getting tired of reverting these edits saying Beckett may be a eunuch. We don't know if he is or not. To say he MAY be is original research, especially when the only lead we have to go on is the fact that Sparrow hates Beckett and makes inconsistent references to eunuchs. He's never even mentioned the words "eunuch" and "Beckett" in the same part of the movie! How can the two be connected through that?

Hence, any further edits saying Beckett may be a eunuch will be regarded as vandalism and treated as such. Thank you. Dac 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

True. For all we know, Sparrow could have left a scar on Beckett's stomach or chest or something like that. Jienum 18:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The only real evidence that Beckett could be a eunich is when Beckett says he wants Elizabeth and Jack asks "And what purpose would you have for her?" This is very ambiguous statement, however; it's every bit as likely that Beckett is misogynist or homosexual. Of course, that might also explain his hatred of Jack Sparrow (though many characters seem to hate him for other reasons, including his uncanny ability to surivive everything)

Or, the question could have been put forth sarcastically, with Jack knowing the answer to begin with. One thing that seemed noticable is that Beckett had a relatively different reaction to Jack's question than to Elizabeth's question about his 'mark', which he appeared to be ashamed of. It is also likely that the mark that Jack left on him could have been damage to his reputation, rather than any sort of physical disfigurement. 24.24.87.228 02:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The PEARL!!! That must be it!! The Black Pearl used to be one of Beckett's ships, Wicked Wench, and Jack (in a way) took it from him and re-named it Black Pearl!! Beckett had to destroy one of his own ships because of Jack's defiance!! The loss of a ship! That must be the mark!! But then again, it's MY opinion, so it could be false. Jienum 17:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, that's wrong, the Wench always belonged to Jack. I've got a couple of sources I could show you all... BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 00:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I know this is old, but now this page is starting to look like a forum. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 17:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Lord Cutler Beckett"

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)

You would need to remove it, because you need a source. I am reverting it right now. Aparna^BlackPearl14 17:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Added two sources: Debrett's and the Ministry of Justice. Opera hat (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Great job :) Aparna^BlackPearl14 16:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush comparison

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)

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)

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)

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)

That's not the way we do things here. --Hemlock Martinis 23:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Beckett's smart and Bush is ... well, less than so.

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)

Homosexuality

I think the idea of Beckett being homosexual that someone further up the page mentioned was an interesting one. It would explain what "mark" Jack Sparrow left on Beckett. Maybe the two of them were lovers but Jack decided to go straight leaving Beckett bitter and out for revenge. That would also explain what Beckett was on about when he mentioned Sparrow's "betrayal". It would provide an alternative explanation as to why the compass points at Jack when Beckett is holding it and it would make sense as to why the "mark" is never explained in any of the books or the films. Because homosexuality is a bit too mature a theme for the younger members of the audiences so instead it is merely implied and the elder members of the audience are left to piece together the clues. Of course my speculations might be dismissed as OR but it's still an interesting theory.

Anon

Um, okay. Not that I'm saying that this idea is impossible, but I highly doubt that this is the story Ted and Terry are telling. It's just doesn't fit. The charcater of Jack was made to be straight; even though Depp said he plays Jack as a bisexual. The actors potray the character, but the writers have the actual qualities of the chracters mapped out. I think Beckeet was turned into a enuch since that seems a little too gruesome to put in this movie; so they left it out. I just don't think that would be the theme they want in this movie. I think it would be more present in the others ones then. Also, I don't think Beckett acts all that gay. He seems a little girlish in his movements sometimes, but the thought of him being homosexual never really crossed my mind. You also have to look into the other movies; they don't deal with this subject. So, I doubt this theory is right.

It doesn't matter if the theory is right or not. It's speculative original research and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. --Hemlock Martinis 23:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right of course. Just an interesting theory I thought I'd bring up. Oh and on a further note, he does appear to be flirting with Will Turner a little during Dead Man's Chest in the way that he's posing whilst talking to him. Then again I suppose you're right and the whole homosexuality theory original research. But by the way, just out of curiosity what makes everyone think Beckett's a eunuch? And is that how you spell eunuch?

Anon

Anon, why don't you register an account? --Hemlock Martinis 03:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have done. I've been blocked.

Anon

I'm guessing people think Beckett is a eunuch because of perceived asexual tendencies? That and they somehow connect Sparrow's comments about eunuchs to the "mark" he supposedly left on Beckett. It's more likely that the "mark" was nothing more than a financial loss and humiliation. As for being a homosexual; give me a break. --Exor 18:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This theory would sound horrible in they put it in the movie or even a deleted scene. You actaully think they would have Beckett say "Jack was my lover and then he went straight. He left a mark in my heart." No dude, just no. I'm not homophobic, but this would be just plain nasty if they had this in a disney film. It's not only disturing and nasty, but it sounds retarded. I mean I would never be able to take the story or the characters seriously again. As for the whole flirt with Will, I think your looking at that scene in a wrong way. I really don't want to go back to the second film and say Oh so Ted and Terry made this scene to show Beckett flirting with Will. Kinda ruins the image of the film. I mean why would anyone think this is the answer. Beckeet acts more asexual than homosexual. There is no sense in this theory.-Darknessofheart

The only times Jack mentions eunuchs is when talking about Will whom he teases for being younger and somewhat less manly than Jack. I'm not gay myself but I fail to see what's disturbing and nasty about Beckett being homosexual although it is a bit too mature a theme to be stated outright as such in a Disney film as I stated earlier and no he wouldn't say that because as you say it sounds silly. So the producers merely hint at it and the elder members of the audience are left to piece together the clues. I might be wrong but the theory does make sense. It would provide an explanation as to what "mark" Sparrow left on Beckett, it would explain why the aforementioned "mark" is never revealed, it would provide an alternative explanation as to why the compass points at Jack when Beckett is holding it and it would explain what Jack means when he says "What would you want with her?" Also I was reading a novelisation of the film today and in the cabin scene Sparrow says to Beckett "You know how you get when your advances are spurned" and shows the brand. I don't remember that being in the film although they do often put lines in the novelisations of books that they didn't have time to put in the film. I was probably reading a little too deeply into it when I said that Beckett appeared to be flirting with Will. That was probably unintentional. Finally I fail to see any evidence to suggest that Beckett is asexual other than the fact that he never forms any romantic relationships during the films but he's a little too busy conquering the world to have time for that sort of thing. Other than the fact that he seems relatively unenchanted by the beautiful Keira Knightly but that could be put down to the homosexuality theory as well. Oh and you misspelled Beckett.

Anon

You misspelled "Knightley"

The reason the compass pointed to Jack is due to the fact that Beckett wants Jack dead. Jack himself called that one didn't he? After all, he considered shooting Jack with his pistol immediately after that little exchange. As for the "betrayal" Beckett speaks of, that has to do with something that was explained in the prequel books. I'm still unsure as to what his line about Elizabeth meant, but I doubt it had anything to do with homosexuality. Most likely Beckett was prodding Jack to see whether or not he cared for her, but that's just my interpretation. So no, I don't think the writers had any intention of making Beckett a homosexual. Ted Elliot said Beckett views relationships as "weaknesses to be exploited". You decide what that says about Beckett's "preferences" or what have you. Homosexual, asexual, a eunuch, this is all wild fan theorizing with negligible evidence at best. --Exor 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I knew that thing about the compass pointing at Jack because what Beckett wants most is him dead. I just thought that maybe that wasn't actually the case. Maybe it actually pointed to Jack because Beckett had a crush on him and he pointed his pistol at him anyway because his lust for power and vengeance was greater than his lust for ... well, Jack. But like you say, it's theorising at best. On an unrelated note I wasn't aware that Ted Elliot said that thing about Beckett considering relationships to be "weaknesses to be exploited" but it's interesting.

Anon

Still, although the novelization could be interpreted as inferring Beckett to be homosexual, bear in mind that film novelizations often reflect a considerable deal of speculation on the part of the author. For instance, the Revenge of the Sith novel carries a theme of "extinguishing the ego" whic was never mentioned outright in the movie, and the Batman Begins novelization adds a scene during which Bruce buries a cloth stained with Ra's al Ghul's blood near his father's grave. Even still, "I know how you get when your advances are spurned" could have been meant sarcastically by Jack. Regardless, the film never made any obvious inferrences into Beckett's sexuality, nor did he show any perticular signs of infatuation when around Jack, and seeing as the compass pointing toward Jack was followed shortly by Beckett pulling a gun on him, it seems to be inferred that his 'desire' toward Jack was a desire to see him dead. As for the eunuch comments, Jack never really came across as being brutal enough to willingly castrate a man. If the eunuch references were referring to anyone in perticular, which I personally don't think they were, it was most likely toward the pirate who spoke with a high pitch, a trait often used as a metaphor for castration. Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the mark was some sort of damage to his reputation or social standing, not to him physically. 24.24.81.186 03:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes you're probably right.

Beckett is not homosexual. That was considered a taboo and people who acted this way were severley punished. I don't think someone with Beckett's ambitions would take that kind of risk or he would loose his standing in society. Emperor001 01:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Beckett also seems to be someone who would be homophobic. He probably would exterminate them if he was given the opportunity. We already know he supported slavery.

True. But that doesn't mean he wasn't homosexual. One cannot help their sexual orientation. If he was gay he would probably just cover it up.

Well, that is disputable, but lets not get into an argument. I do agree that if he was homosexual, he would cover it up because admitting it would be suicide in such an ultra-conservative world that existing in the 1700's. I do like the idea, however, that he made Beckett a eunuch. (Yes that is how eunuch is spelled.) I'm sorry, but the financial loss thing just doesn't cut it. And I've heard another theory about the "mark" being the compromise of character forced on Beckett after his dealings with Jack. I think he may once have had only the best intentions and belived firmly in his ideals; after his encounters with Jack, he realized that there are people who will take advantage of you if you are too naive and he also came to the conclusion that he had to be willing to resort to any means possible to achieve a desired end, or else he would not achieve his goals.

Interesting philosophy. Anon

Supervillain?

I was thinking maybe Beckett should be installed into the category of Supervillains. He was in the category for Fictional evil geniuses before that was deleted so I think he belongs in the above category.

Anon

One question; why? A supervillain needs to possess some level of supernatuarl abilities, or more appropriately; superpowers. That's what makes a villain a supervillain. Beckett posses absolutly no superpowers. He controls other villains with power; Davy Jones. He is in no way a supervillain and putting him in that category would be riduculous.-Darknessofheart

I suppose. Anon

Mass Murderer?

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)

Why didn't I just say that?

Anon

Mass execution qualify as mass executions. Execution is a legal term for taking a life. Murder is another matter entirely. These people commited crimes; they were pirates. Pirates are outlaws and therefore are legally branded to be hung. Beckett got permission to do these executions. I can understand if he did the executions without any type of permission, but he did. You can keep the mass murderer category, I just don't think Beckett is truly a mass murderer in that sense. I guess with him commanding Davy Jones to kill people on the ocean can qualify him as a mass murderer in that way. Doens't matter to me; just wanted to adress the issue.-Darknessofheart

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)

Extensive details in summary and EITC flag

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)

It's your interpretation. The 'Personality' section is based on facts that are derived not only from the films, but also from both writer commentary and additional published materials. And who keeps removing the portion of his death that details the body falling on the flag? That's a very important part of his demise. --Exor 23:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any proof whatsoever that it really is Beckett's body lying on that flag? He was standing in the middle of the explosion and would most likely have been burned and blasted into tiny pieces. Chances are that the body on the flag is rather one of the 900 or so other EITC men onboard, in which case it still symbolizes Beckett's, and the EITC's defeat.

I don't think the creators would make such a big deal of a random body falling unless it was the main villains'. It's pretty obvious that it has to be Beckett; he led the company to a fall.

I wouldn't say he led the company to a fall. It was his demise that led to the company's fall.

From a creator's point of view, wouldn't it seem a bit overkill to show a clip of Beckett's body on that flag, IMMEDIATELY after a five - minute long ( IMO already overdue long) death sequence on the deck? I mean, he was basically done for when the ship exploded, so further showing of his body is unnecessary for the audience. As per today, whether Beckett's body is on that flag or not is purely speculation. You can post it in a fanfic forum, but I was under the impression that encyclopedias like this are based on etstablished facts rather than what-ifs and maybes. If someone with really sharp eyes can identify the body as Beckett then fine. And if anyone thinks I'm completely wrong and wants to have the flag thing on the article, would you PLEASE at least state that it is a possibillty that it is Beckett's body?

So it's only overkill to show a body landing on the Flag if it's Beckett's. Hmm, that makes sense. It's obviously Beckett's. Was anyone else wearing a hat like his? I don't think so. What would be the point in showing a body landing on the Flag if it wasn't Beckett's? Like somebody further up this page said, "the creator's wouldn't make such a big deal of a random body falling unless it was the main villains'". And I don't think it's overkill at all. It was done to show that Beckett was well and truly dead by that time. Oh and by the way, did we eventually agree to have him in the category of Fictional mass murderers?

May I point out that the main focus of the shot might have been the flag itself, and not whoever lying ontop of it (is the body even wearing a hat?). Showing the EITC colours sinking down to the depths along with the dead is a good way of illustrating the Company's defeat, rather than just adding further screentime for a desceased main villain. I just don't think that we can automatically assume it's Beckett based on a viewing of the back of a body (you cannot even really tell the details of his uniform because of the lighting). If the director had wanted to point out that "Beckett is really dead", wouldn't he have shot a clip of his body from above (suitably posed in a defeated villain kind of positure)? And COME ON GUYS! Beckett's death scene was soo dragged out. He spent a full five minutes walking in slow motion down from the poop deck and then, still in slow motion being sloowly devoured by the explosion. It's almost like the guy that is run over by the steamroller in Austin Powers. (Sorry, lost my temper) What I mean is that a death scene in slow motion has to be the greatest cliché happening in any big screen motion captures in these days, and Gore Webrinski knows better than to add insult to injury. I repeat myself: Maybe the scene is about the flag and the Company as a whole, rather than the body??

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)

I don't mean to be rude, but you'd have to be a little dense not to recognize that as Beckett's body. Not only does the outline of the body match that of Beckett (right down to his signature bicorne, which miraculously seemed to have stayed on his head), but it would be incredibly pointless to display a random body fall on the flag. It is obviously Beckett's body. Your opinion on the length of Beckett's death scene is completely immaterial, and the scene was blatantly created with a surreal cinematic flair with no regard for realism whatsoever. This isn't speculation, it's fact. Oh, and Beckett's final strides lasted only 39 seconds before the explosion.--Exor 03:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. By the way, did we eventually agree to have him in the category of Fictional mass murderers?

I think we're still debating if Beckett is really a mass murderer. It really doesn't matter to me. I think alot of people agree that Beckett was the dude who fell on the flag. It gives more symbolism to the whole flag sinking since Beckett was the leader of the company; he and the company are sunk. Also, I don't think Beckett's death was overly long. I mean look at Jones; his was overly short, so I think it was short just to make more room for Beckett's death.

Yes I quite agree. I think Jones's death was short but dramatic though. Uttering his lover's name then falling from the ship into a swirling vortex of doom. Pretty dramatic.

Still a stub?

How is this article stub class exactly. It has multiple and detailed topics that show a depth of knowledge about the subject drawn from a variety of sources and to go with it all it's got a image. The only problem is that it discusses the subject in a primarily in-universe style but I think it's definately more than a stub and probably more than start-class.

Anon

Change it then. If you know without doubt that it's not a stub, then there's nothing stopping you. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I would Ashy, I would. But the thing is, uh, I don't exactly know how.

Anon

Fair use rationale for Image:CutlerBeckett.jpg

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord Cutler Beckett.jpg

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)

Re:Supervillain

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)

Article name

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)

Slave Trading

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)

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. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 00:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Genocidal Hatred"

I disagree with the use of the word "genocidal" in this sentence: "Beckett is a character written as a ruthless, manipulative, and treacherous man harbouring genocidal hatred towards pirates." Genocide is the systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. Despite the movies' romanticization of pirates, they are not such a group.ImbolcNight (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Pirates are portrayed as an actual racial group in the films. After all they do have their own society and system of government, etc despite still being held accountable for their actions by the state. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur, only I think they are portrayed as somewhat of a national group. Therefore Beckett's being referred to as genocidal is fine. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 20:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first post. There are many words that could be used here, but "genocidal" is not one. The Mafia, similarly, have quasi-governmental institutions, but that doesn't make the FBI "genocidal" in trying to shut them down. "Fanatical" might be a better word. And the Pirates really are not portrayed as a racial group in the film.195.27.20.35 (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, not racial, but somewhat of a "national" group. Let's reinstate the facts:

• There's a set of rules and laws to which all Pirates must abide (The Pirata Codex contains said laws)
• There are ruling "governors" of each area (Pirate Lords)
• There is one ruler that issues commands to each of the "governors" (Pirate King)
• If someone is caught not following the code, they are punished (Teague shoots whoever he sees)

There are more, but I think this pretty much sums it up for now. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 16:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)