Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales/Archive 1

Archive 1

Orlando Bloom

Bloom was confirmed to be returning by Variety. The sentence read "Orlando Bloom returns to the series to shiver more timbers after skipping the fourth installment, “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides.”. There are no speculative terms or question to it, like "Orlando Bloom is in negotiations to return" or "Orlando Bloom is rumoured to be returning. They state it as fact. Variety has been around for over 100 years. That's not because they operated on speculation. They'd state whether or not this was speculative or not. However, User:DasallmächtigeJ feels we should wait for an official confirmation from Disney, something they've not done for film series such as Pirates. Marvel does it to keep the production hush hush. What should we do? Rusted AutoParts 14:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you forgotten that Disney owns Marvel? So they are identical in their policies. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

But Disney is a minor part in Marvel. They distribute the film. They don't really have say in casting so they wouldn't make an announcement. Variety and Deadline are website studios use to confirm or release news. It's why they're the top sites Wikipedia uses when it comes to casting. Rusted AutoParts 14:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You make it appear as if Variety/Deadline are webistes that film studios actively use for their official announcements. However, they are just autonomous websites that are not affiliated with any studio. Yes, they are more respectable then for example perezhilton.com, but we do not and cannot know if they rely on firsthand information from Disney. The same sites also confirmed Christoph Waltz as a villain a while ago which proved to be a false information. That there is a source for something does not mean that source is reliable. Until Disney or Bloom make an announcement or Bloom is seen on set there is no way for us to know. I mean, Disney already issued an official announcement that featured the plot synopsis, actors and almost everyone involved behind the scenes, yet Bloom was not named. Maybe his part is just an uncredited cameo? Maybe he does not appear at all? How are we to tell and how is Variety?--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That's because they do. Variety/Deadline as I said are the go to place for legit casting news. I can't say much about your Christoph Waltz example as I can't seem to find the article you speak of, but the likely situation from that is Waltz was "in negotiations" or the "frontrunner" for the role and that's what they were reporting, not he was officially cast. If it was about him being officially cast, then it's more than likely it was a result of him dropping out. It happens all the time. What you're using is called a production report, where the studio offers a first glimpse at plot and characters. Casting can still continue after that. So it doesn't necessarily mean Disney uses "official announcements". We use official announcements for the Marvel Movies as the production is very secretive. They frequently deny castings until they themselves announce it. THe Pirates movies never do that. Rusted AutoParts 15:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Being a "go to place" for something is something different then being an official channel for a studio. It simply means that they are more reliable, not that the studios issue their announcement via said websites. So, we still do not know where the information is coming from. And as for the production report, Bloom was confirmed by news sites before Disney issued it, yet he is missing on it. So obviously he was still in talks at the time and we have no confirmation that this has changed. But in order to not drag this discussion on for days, how about we ask for a third opinion on the subject by a knowledgable user, for example an admin from the film project?--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course Variety is a reliable source, and can be cited for casing news. Lapadite (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, nor am I a user here, but I have been following most Pirates-related reports...mainly the more-reliable reports. And while I do think Variety do have their fair share of accurate information (and is one of the more reliable of sources), the part about Bloom appears to be (for now) INaccurate. If you notice, Variety is the only site stating Bloom's involvement as "fact"; other sites either say it's a rumor, unconfirmed, or they don't even mention it at all. And there's the obvious question: if Bloom's role is so important to the film, why doesn't Disney confirm it themselves? It certainly doesn't help when an actor says something and then the studio confirms a completely different thing; of course I'm referring to Bloom's "statement" about his potential return. My opinion, it could be that either Bloom has a small cameo (as DasallmächtigeJ pointed out), or maybe a future film as speculated here and there. My words may mean nothing, but thought I'd share. 71.28.18.255 (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Variety is a reliable source for movie information. However that does not mean that WP needs to report on every newsbit published in there. Claims and announcements about future projects tend to be iffy as they are moving targets and often subject to significant change. Since WP is an encyclopedia and not a news broadcaster it perfectly fine not to incorporate such information into WP articles until the movie is in production or released (and hence the participation and scope of Bloom's involvement is settled for good). So this not a really a question of appropriate/reliable sourcing but rather one of editorial choice/discretion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd understand if Variety used a different wording, such as "Orlando Bloom is currently in negotiations" or "Orlando Bloom is reported", but there's no speculation in Variety's report. "Orlando Bloom returns". Variety has been a staple in the entertainment business, and only report in casting when it's been verified. It be different if was some secondhand blog, but Variety isn't that.

With Wikipedia, there's no rush, I know, but that's if we don't have a solid source. We do. If we have it, we may as well use it. RAP (talk) 11:22 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The moving target exist without speculation, it it quite common that actors get cast for a role but then cancel or get replaced just before the shooting begins or even in the middle of it. Hence it makes sense to wait until the movie is done. As I said before there is no issue with variety as a source, but that only means that can use the information fro variety but not that we need to. The question needs to be settles by editorial discretion rather than policy (policy allows the use of source but doesn't mandate it).--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The significant bit from the Variety piece reads: “Bloom will reprise his role as Will Turner, and Turner’s relationship with his son (played by newcomer Brenton Thwaites) is rumored to loom large in the plot of Dead Men Tell No Tales” (emphasis added). It may be a major role, and it may be a cameo. Either way, it’s verifiable, and WIkipedia’s standard is verifiability, not truth.

Wikipedia is not a newspaper; our responsibility is not to accurately report fact, but to accurately report what reliable sources report as fact. If Variety turns out to be wrong, or if another reliable source contradicts them, then great, we’ll fix it.

On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so there’s no need to repeat every bit of relevant news before multiple sources pick it up. So we’re justified in whichever decision we make; let’s just make sure we do it for the right reasons, and not because of editorial opinion about Variety. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

How about the simple fact that it's been 3 months since the film started production and Bloom is currently no where in sight. That's reason enough to not add his name yet. His comments about potentially returning to the franchise (whether it be by this film or maybe, speculatively-speaking, another future film) should be enough. 71.28.18.255 (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

That's original research and speculation. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources have to say, not what individual editors feel is true. We have a reliable source – possibly the most reliable in the entire entertainment industry – and that's good enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Then why is Variety the only website "confirming" this. It seems every other site either says Bloom is a rumor or do not say anything at all. Note how Hollywood Reporter, Comingsoon (who have mentioned Bloom up to this post), IGN, and Entertainment Weekly. And no one's perfect, not even "reliable" news sites; I'm sure someone already mentioned Variety's blunders in the past. 71.28.18.255 (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not the only source. Entertainment Weekly has confirmed it, too: [1]. If it turns out to be wrong, we can fix the article later. Right now, it's been confirmed in two high-profile, reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Where is Pirates 5's teaser trailer? When is Pirates 5's teaser trailer coming out online? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3AB8:2A70:A992:EA12:69B6:9114 (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Depp Rehab citations should be deemed spurious

   However, by late March it was revealed that problems were much more severe than a broken wrist; Depp reportedly injured his hand drunk off-set. He spent time back in the US in an "at home rehab program" for alcohol problems after family members and Disney executives pushed him into seeking help. [1]

Apparently a story about this was retracted by People as it couldn't be verified [2]. Probably Wikipedia should be at least as careful and look for more sources about this sort of claim. Arided (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Simonot, Suzanne (May 28, 2015). "Pirates of the Caribbean workers stood down as 'drunken sailor' Depp undergoes treatment for alcohol problems". Gold Coast Bulletin. Retrieved May 7, 2015.

Well there are several reports that he hurt his wrist drunk, so I guess we could simply back that up with more sources to make it less dubious.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Use of British spelling

Why does this article use British spelling for an American movie? Specifically the use of "colourful" instead of "colorful". Would it be appropriate to correct this? 2605:E000:AA1F:E400:18A6:228A:5968:FE14 (talk)

Yes, it shouldn't use British spelling, given that this is a US production. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

A bit excessive?

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (to be released in Spain, France, Italy, Brazil and Vietnam as Pirates of the Caribbean: The Revenge of Salazar and in United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Netherlands as Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar's Revenge)...

Seems a bit excessive. This is an American film, thus it really only needs the American title, unless there's some particularly noteworthy reason to list the other names. I suggest that those alternate titles be redirects to here and let the "Release" section cover those alternate titles (which it currently does). --JDC808 ♫ 16:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The quote "to be released in France, Spain, Italy, Brazil and Vietnam as Pirates of the Caribbean: The Revenge of Salazar" is false. The title of the movie is in absolutely no country "The Revenge of Salazar". The mentioned countries use titles in their local language. --87.78.233.70 (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we could word it as, "to be released in foreign territories as Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar's Revenge" and that would be fine. That's what it's called in the UK, and while I can't speak for every language on this list, I know for a fact that in French, the only way to say "Salazar's Revenge" is to say "The Revenge of Salazar." There's no possessive morpheme as there is in English. So considering all of that, let's just say "Salazar's Revenge" in some foreign territories, and let readers infer that there may not be an exact translation.-RM (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I keep trying to remove the fake title but someone (Max Tomos) keeps adding it back. I'll report them if they do it again. — Film Fan 13:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The title is not fake. Several countries will use the title "The Revenge of Salazar" in local languages. Bulgaria - Карибски пирати: Отмъщението на Салазар, Brazil - Piratas do Caribe: A Vingança de Salazar, Spain - Piratas del Caribe: La venganza de Salazar, France - Pirates des Caraïbes - La vengeance de Salazar, Italy - Pirati dei Caraibi - La vendetta di Salazar, Poland - Piraci z Karaibów: Zemsta Salazara. As you can see, at least six countries will use that title. You may like that or not, but that's the fact.--Max Tomos (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

So it's a translation of the title used in countries neither in the English-speaking world nor the country of origin. It wouldn't be be relevant even if it wasn't a translation. This is absolutely crackers. Enjoy fighting this one. No one's gonna back you up, mate. — Film Fan 20:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I argue that "The Revenge of Salazar" should be removed. It is simply a fleshed-out translation of "Salazar's Revenge" which has already been established as an alternative name in English-speaking countries. Because of this, there's no need to also translate the title additionally as "The Revenge of Salazar". I vote for just the two English-language titles.  – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 19:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Whaleyland. There is obviously consensus on this, with Max Tomos being the only voice of dissent. If you could remove the third title from the article, that would be brill, as I don't want to get into an edit war, and I've already reverted a couple of times. Cheers. — Film Fan 21:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this needs to be listed in the Release section. I don't think it's necessary to list all those titles on the first line.

--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Poster

There are now official posters being released, one of which includes the main characters and the villain - as well as the movie title logo. Any time I upload pictures they are reverted. I think that one of those should be uploaded as the page's photo now, as it more effectively shows what the film is about. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Henry's Identity

In light of the same information being changed on several pages, please see discussion here so we can collect any relevant information about Henry and ensure that all changes are supported by reliable outside sources.

Thanks, Michelangelo1992 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Found a more reputable source for the budget

Could someone update the budget information for this film? According to an article from the Hollywood Reporter today - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/johnny-depp-a-star-crisis-insane-story-his-missing-millions-1001513 - the budget for this film is $230M. The Reporter is one of the main Hollywood trade magazines, and I think it's a much better source for this information that the $320M figure currently there based on some blog. I would make the edit myself, but the article is protected at the moment. Thanks in advance! 173.52.247.194 (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I updated to include the range. Given the budget of the prior movie, I suspect the $320 million is more accurate, but who knows. Be nice if Disney would just confirm a hard number. Foodles42 (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Every time that the "$320 million" figure was used by sources, every single source qualified that figure with the adjective "allegedly".... Until a more firm statement can be found, Variety 's & Box Office Mojo 's figure of $230 million is the most verifiable and most reliably-sourced. Shearonink (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox film rules are quite clear, if multiple sources give a range, then so do we. Given the budget of the last film, the higher amount is likely more accurate. Foodles42 (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Then there should be a noted caveat in the infobox or elsewhere in the article that the $320 million figure has been characterized with the weasel word "allegedly" by sources. The $230 million figure is cited by Variety and Box Office Mojo as definitive. Regardless of my or your opinion that the higher figure is more likely to be true that dollar amount is not completely verifiable. Shearonink (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the sources being used to bolster the $320 million price tag:

• sfgate.com's ref for the $320 million is the highlighted-linkage stating that "Pirates” cost a reported $320 million" which then links to the International Trailer 2 at KinoCheck's Youtube Channel ("Dead Men Tell No Tales International Trailer 2"). I was unable to find any definitive figures cited by KinoCheck....just miles of Comments.
• stuff.co.nz just states the figure.
• CinemaBlend says "its budget allegedly came in at around $320 million" (underlining mine)
• Consequence of Sound states "to the alleged $320 million price tag on the film" (underlining mine)

So two out of the sources being used for the $320 million claim characterize the figure as alleged or allegedly and regardless of what sfgate states in their article their cited dollar amount falls verification so it would seem to me that we are left with stuff.co.nz's figure coupled with the 2 "alleged" cites versus Variety & Box Office Mojo... I've gone ahead and added back in all the previous sources (including the sfgate ref that I have been unable to verify), fixed the mangled BOM ref, and, per Template:Infobox film listed out the two differing budget amounts separately. Shearonink (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Any mention of the budget is going to be an "alleged" budget or an estimate. Very few sources actually get a verified number and when they do, it's usually because the location where the project shot is required to disclose it due to transparency laws for shows getting a subsidy. A source using the word "alleged" is not somehow diminished as a result. Ideally, Australia would just get transparent the way the UK, New York, California or other production hubs are. Box Office Mojo never lists their sources and there are multiple examples of them using old outdated budget estimates even after the official budget number has been confirmed by public sources, like a film commission. I understand they are RS, but I do wonder if they deserve as mush deference as we give them. In any event, I don't mind how you have it in the infobox. It's not the range model that many other film pages use, but it works.Foodles42 (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Disney confirms the budget of this movie on The Hollywood Reporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travatar91 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Imperial eagle?

In the trailer, one of the sails of Salazar's ships displays the German Imperial eagle. Why is that? It should furthermore be mentioned in the article as trivia. It most likely was meant to represent the Spanish coat of arms, but as far as I know Spain never had a double-headed eagle with the exception of the time when it was ruled in personal union by the Holy Roman Emperor which wasn't the case in the 18th century, though. -- Orthographicus (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2017

Please change 'Barbossa arrives at the island and decides to help Jack; he breaks the Black Pearl out of the bottle and returns it to its original size.' to 'Barbossa arrives at the island and decides to help Jack; he breaks the Black Pearl out of the bottle, with his acquired Blackbeard's enchanted sword, thereby returning it to its original size.'

Thank you Bprashu77 (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: This does not appear to add significant value to the plot description at the loss of concision. Why should we make this change? Izno (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

atrocious writing on the third paragraph

"The film despite receiving some negative reviews have positive reviews by the critics for his smart and epic plot, the performances, visuals, actions scenes, comedy, music and shorter running time; much critics considered the film an improvement over its predecessor."

this is written like an intern at disney was trying to make the film sound better but english wasn't their first language