Jump to content

Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Delete?=

Moved from my talk page - Puck 16:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've put a WP:PROD tag on Pirates of the Caribbean films, as each separate film has a sizeable page already. If there is anything which can only be said about all three films together, fair enough, it should go on the new page, but I can't think of anything like that. Regards, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message, but I think there's a lot to be said about all three films, which better could be described in an article about the trilogy.
Also, there are a lot of wikilinks to to the article about the franchise which I think should go to an article about the films.
Puck 15:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I don't want to delete stuff just for the sake of it, so I'll leave things as they are to give you time to develop the article as you see fit. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this can be made into a disambiguation page if one doesn't already exist.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
There is Pirates of the Caribbean (disambiguation), but I wanted to add more information about all three movies on 1 page (not a disambiguation page)...
After the PROD-tag was added I wondered if it was still a good idea and hoped for more discussion on this page, before I extended the article... Puck 14:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Verbinski quote

hey, I read an opinion article where he said that his comments about gore verbinski were taken out of context, should this be lef ton the page? otherwise an addendum needs to be added that says "but breathead feels his comments were taken out of context" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk • contribs)

Prove it. Alientraveller 09:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

http://adage.com/results?search_offset=0&search_order_by=score&search_phrase=gore, http://virtualpolitik.blogspot.com/2007/05/immaterial-has-become-immaterial.html, http://www.huntleyneighbors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32541 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not impressed with blogs and forums. Alientraveller 08:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if you were impressed with blogs and forums, they got their quote from an la times op-ed piece by breathead, which is a newspaper. anyways, the original breathed quote was reported on in blog, hence, you shouldn't put this up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.94.83.203 (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would you keep up this fight? get a subscription to advertising age, ball is in your court, and it is furstrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.94.83.203 (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC) ---

I agree with Alientraveller. There needs to be a better source than a blog or forums. I own PotC forums, so I can tell if there are rumours of articles floating around, and sure, this may not be one, but there needs to be more of a legitimate source. BlackPearl14 23:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

wait. the sources are advertising age and the la times, not blogs, did you read my post? come on, IT WAS AN ARTICLE BY BEREKELY BREATHEAD! look at it logically: the orignial quote came from a blog, the second comes from an article breathead wrote himself. honestly, i can't understand the hold up here. honestly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I too read the article on the Los Angeles Times website where he retracted his comments. You can see that I am not the same person who posted earlier because our IP addresses are completely different as mine is based in Italy. Please we should take down this Verbinski quote. Alientraveler take down this quote! 82.210.228.21concerned pirate fan (and brand new wiki editor)

Link the LA Times piece please. Alientraveller 11:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I told you, i dont have a description, please, look for it yourself. The advertising age link had a link to the now defunct LA times article, thats proof. in fact, i'll find the wbesite where the quote originally came from. If it is a blog, then you have to tkae your quote down, agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Clearly the only link around right now is Breathed saying Verbinski is sick of pirates and that's that. IGN is clearly a more reliable source than you. Alientraveller 17:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

who did ign link from? listen, have you even tried to look for the la times piece? do you agree with me that thos elinks i posted indicated the breathed wrote an editorial about his comment? don't you feel you have a duty to look for it? you know they exist! also, i would like a week to gather proof, but would like the quote to be taken down for a week while i gather the proof, agreed? lets compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want us to do something, don't make us search for it. Please locate it yourself, we also have our own Pirates work to do! BlackPearl14 20:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

http://mobile.latimes.com/detail.jsp?key=39018&rc=newmedia&p=1 This is article I talk about in early postes. It are about how blog community took coment out of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Do I get an apology, or at least a concession or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cast table

Can someone else with Firefox 2.0.0.8 have a look at the page? The cast box is horribly merged with the infobox on my screen (1280 x 800 resolution), and I don't want to amend the article to fix it just in case it's only me. Cheers, Steve T • C 18:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have the same issue, too. I've implemented a temporary fix. I think there may need to be more content in the lead section or just before the Cast table to fill out the white space. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Much better. That's how it looked in IE anyway. Cheers, Steve T • C 19:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Accidental Deletion

I’d like to apologize for the big deletion on the Future Plans. I was editing something and accidentally deleted the whole thing. Thanks, Alientraveller, for undoing it, I didn’t notice :) BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Insufficient context

I came close to adding the ((context)) cleanup tag to this article. It contains a tremendous amount of historical information on the franchise project but about two sentences on what it is. It really makes little sense to someone who has not seen the films. -Rolypolyman (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations for use

According to this;

"I hear [Pirates 4] would toss the Elizabeth & Will characters over the side in favor of doing a bawdy buddy picture which would star Jack Sparrow & Barbossa. Where both captains of the Black Pearl would initially be competing for the exact same prize. But eventually all the double crossing would have to stop as these two rivals were then forced to join forces in order to defeat some supernatural terror"

So how reliable is Jim Hill Media? This fella seems to be friends with Disney. Alientraveller (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Not very in my opinion. Jim hill Media is the team that did the crack reporting on the alleged verbinski quote from above. They started the whole mess about verbinski being sick of pirates the breathed had to write a personal opinion aricle to end the controversy. In my opinion, it is a nothing more then a blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.63.22 (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

This article needs a lot of work. First off, tere's a lot of random info under the template at the bottom of the page. Why's that there? Second, the article needs more images. There's only one in the infobox. Third, the Films section needs to be expanded. Fourth, an External Links section would serve more closure to such a substantial article. Lastly, we NEED references in the Box office section, and more in the Future section wouldn't hurt. Leave a note on my talk page when all is fixed! Limetolime (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - it's good to know. We'll work on it! BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 04:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, everything has been fixed that needed to be fixed, so the article has passed. Congratulations!Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 00:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What film?

From the page -- Future: "Walt Disney Pictures has reportedly made tentative plans to shoot a fourth film in 2009 ......... The film has since been produced." What film? Produced? --Dumarest (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's get real about this! In the text of that section, it says "In February 2007, after filming was completed on Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, screenwriter Terry Rossio said he and Ted Elliott may try to write a screenplay" It is now - as can be told by my signature - May of 2008, so has this happened? That last recently added paragraph indicates a "will" happening, and that can't be anything but a piece of personal information? not applicable in a Wiki page. --Dumarest (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
We can't really understand what you're saying. I tried deleting it earlier, much, much earlier, but it was reverted with a sidenote that there is a reliable source. So, therefore, I don't see any reason to argue with that. I did remove the part where it said "the film has since been produced," because it actually hasn't. I think this is just speculation, but no one else, save for you, agrees with me. BlackPearl14The Adventuress 18:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

All I am really saying is that talk about a new film at two years ago, and nothing else happening, seems not applicable to this page. But, with what you took out, and the recent addition also gone, all that is left is I would expect correct, and is referenced. But two years on, and nothing? I and I guess you would just remove that historical trivia. --Dumarest (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I can delete the section with a wikinote, but not right away. Thanks for your input. BlackPearl14The Adventuress 23:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1

Zac Efron

There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on regarding whether Zac Efron is in the fourth movie - people are citing assorted dubious sources to back up this claim. Should we not be waiting for OFFICIAL confirmation instead of adding rumour and speculation to this article?--Gaunt (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is being flooded by IPs adding this, regardless of it being an unreliable rumour, but we editors are bound by WP:3RR. Thank you for deleting it as I was unable to, and some IP tried to revert my 'rumour' wording. Now let's hope an administrator changes his mind and protects the article. Alientraveller (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I spoke too soon: the IP is still reverting under new addresses. I checked WHOISes for all four of them and they all trace to the same person. Alientraveller (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Would it help if a few more people reported this illicit editing to an admin?--Gaunt (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
If there are reliable sources reporting it, then we can repeat what reliable sources have reported. MTV seems reliable enough to me. If it turns out to be wrong later down the road, the sentence changes to "It was initially reported that..." –xeno (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, we've wisely moved this here. It's a rumour. Rumours do not belong on Wikipedia: we did not report any of the silly disproven rumours that Sacha Baron Cohen or Russell Brand would play Sparrow's brother, and we should not give to an Efron-obsessive IP. Alientraveller (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, MTV is reporting it as slightly more than a rumour, they're reporting it as news. –xeno (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
As you will be aware, even news channels are often wrong. We should wait for official confirmation from an official Disney press release.--Gaunt (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
We are free to report on what is said is reliable sources, as long as we accurately report what they've said. –xeno (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
So in that case you just perpetuate the rumour? I could start off a rumour telling everyone that the queen of England is a man and could no doubt get it into the papers, but does that make it factual? Of course it doesn't. People should wait for OFFICIAL confirmation from Disney. That's all there is to it.--Gaunt (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
As long as we accurately report what the reliable sources say, the information can be included. At least as far as I know from my limited understanding of our mountain of guidelines and policies... Nevertheless, I'm going to step back, I've said my piece. Please be mindful of 3RR - you're way over =). WP:V does seem to back up these edits, however: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. –xeno (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I fully protected the article for 48 hours so that we can all come to a consensus here, although clearly we can lift the protection far before that expiration if we come to an agreement. Tan | 39 19:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I've solicited more opinions from WP Films. Please add the protection template and also split the combined refs (add </ref><ref>) for the sentence in contention. –xeno (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the information should be added to the article per WP:V. Waiting for an official Disney press release is waiting for truth, not verifiability. What we can do here is indicate that MTV announced that Zac Efron will be in the fourth film and that it reports Efron getting a £6 million salary. I think that MTV is a reliable enough source to use here; it's not Joe's Movie Blog. With my suggestion, we can ascribe the information to the source so it is not necessarily treated as the gospel truth. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The statements on Zac Efron are a valid inclusion in this article. It is sourced by two reliable sources, meeting WP:V. A quick look at Google news shows that several other sources have also already picked this up. An "official statement" from Disney is completely unnecessary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
After the 'revelation' that Efron knows nothing about his supposed role in the movie, it just goes to show that you really can't trust what you read, unless it's from an official source. I'm pleased that people have finally seen sense and removed the rumour. Should we have a rule here that anything to do with the fourth film is not included unless it's from an official (or 100% reliable) source? If not, how can we prevent a repeat of the debacle the other day with various unregistered users constantly adding the erroneous information?--Gaunt (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This still speaks to what Erik says above. I don't particularly care that the paragraph is being trimmed now, in the grand scheme of things its probably not a notable occurrence that helps to understand the subject; however, the initial reports were completely justified in being written into the article. As long as it's verifiable, it can be included. –xeno (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
You see, this is what puzzles me - if it's only verifiable via some media source who could well be wrong, should we include it? Waiting for an official press release can of course be a lengthy process, so does this Wikipedia article become, in some cases, simply part of the chain of rumours?--Gaunt (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
We cannot predict if a reliable source will be wrong or not in providing verifiable information. We include it in the meantime, and if the information turns out to be inaccurate, there are two ways that it could be handled. Sometimes the press circulating around a rumor might be substantial enough for inclusion, but on the other hand, the rumor may turn out to be pretty silly and not worth adding to the encyclopedic article. It's basically something whose importance is to be decided by consensus; there's a lot of verifiable information that could be said about any film, but sometimes an item might be too miniscule to really warrant inclusion. I am fine with excluding Efron from the article since the casting information was refuted and it is not that important, but if editors come in to add this information, we may want to keep it around for a little longer until it becomes old news and ultimately irrelevant. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

Can that last source in Future be fixed. They are mushed together right now, making it hard to evaluate for the discussion. Specifically change this:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3232739/Zac-Efron-signs-for-Pirates-of-the-Caribbean-4.html|title=Zac Efron 'signs for Pirates of the Caribbean 4'|date=2008-10-21|accessdate=2008-10-21|publisher=[[The Daily Telegraph]]}}{{cite web|url=http://www.mtv.co.uk/channel/mtvuk/news/455101-zac-efron-to-star-in-pirates-4|title=Zac Efron To Star In Pirates 4|publisher=MTV UK|date=2008-10-21|accessdate=2008-10-21}}</ref>

to this

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3232739/Zac-Efron-signs-for-Pirates-of-the-Caribbean-4.html|title=Zac Efron 'signs for Pirates of the Caribbean 4'|date=2008-10-21|accessdate=2008-10-21|publisher=[[The Daily Telegraph]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mtv.co.uk/channel/mtvuk/news/455101-zac-efron-to-star-in-pirates-4|title=Zac Efron To Star In Pirates 4|publisher=MTV UK|date=2008-10-21|accessdate=2008-10-21}}</ref>

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tan | 39 20:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

2nd edit request

{{editprotected}} Well we all knew it wasn't true, could an administrator add this in:

"When interviewed by MTV, Efron denied the rumor, which originated from The National Enquirer.<ref>{{cite news|author=Shawn Adler|title=Rumor Control: Zac Efron NOT in ‘Pirates 4,’ Star Insists|work=[[MTV]] Movies Blog|date=2008-10-22|url=http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/10/22/rumor-control-zac-efron-not-in-pirates-4-star-insists/|accessdate=2008-10-22}}</ref>"

Alientraveller (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on the new information, edit warring is no longer a concern, I've unprotected the article. –xeno (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

it should read on wikipedia that "It is speculated tha Zac Efron is in the fourth Pirates movie, but has not been confirmed" --RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210    16:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Alientraveller (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Russell Brand

I hate to possibly start a ruckus similar to that which clearly has surrounded this Zac Efron issue, but I have read that Russell Brand could play a role as Jack's brother in Pirates of the Carribbean. Earlier, I wrote this:

It has been speculated that British comedian Russell Brand will play the character of Sparrow's brother. <ref>{{cite news | author = Matthew Moore | title = Russell Brand 'to play Johnny Depp's brother in Pirates of the Caribbean' | work = [[Daily Telegraph]] | date = 2009-04-06 | url = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3376282/Russell-Brand-to-play-Johnny-Depps-brother-in-Pirates-of-the-Caribbean.html}}</ref>

What's the problem? It seems informative enough, it has a reference, I would have thought this would be an interesting fact to put in this encyclopedia. 86.134.8.157 (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's speculation, not fact. And if you look at the date at the top of the article you'll see that it was written on 4th November 2008. --Gaunt (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

plot disambiguation

One of the reasons for the poor critical reception of the sequels was the difficulty of following the story. There are so many characters, each with their own goals and motivations, that it's often unclear "who is doing what to whom, and why". Carefully written plot summaries would help. (I consider these well-written and well-directed films that deserve more respect than they've received.) WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge On Stranger Tides

Per WP:NOTFILM, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." We should merge Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides into this article, as its article is almost entirely copied from this one anyway. ShadowUltra (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support that. It should merge here until Stranger Tides actually commences production. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but only if the article is split again when filming starts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.48.167 (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
That's the usual practice. Usually there isn't much worth putting in to an article until it is actually filming as it is mostly rumours and hints.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Support redirect. SpikeJones (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Support redirect. Flamedude (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Support redirect. Cliff smith talk 05:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Support redirect. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 07:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Note: If creator of this article still wants to keep the article, please keep in a subpage.
Un-Support redirect. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Support redirect. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Support until production begins, which is not a guarantee. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. (JerzeyHellboy (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC))

Wait a second, guys: didn't disney confirm it at the D23 convention event? BlackPearl14[talk•contribs] 19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Intent to produce a film does not always mean that a film will be produced, unfortunately. We use the start of filming as the threshold to create a stand-alone film article because at that point, the film is very likely to be produced and released. Before filming starts, though, the project can be hindered by factors like scripting and casting or even strikes like the WGA strike not too long ago. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
In addition Johnny Depp recently made comments that suggest he doesn't want to take part following the removal of the Disney film head, so this could never happen. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Sadly it is a fact of life that films often get cancelled for a variety of reasons - which means reasonably enough that even if they are the next installment in a long-running series (James Bond, for instance) they don't merit an article under current rules. There is however an argument to be made that major films that were cancelled in the past The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (although this has now been re-started) could qualify under notability grounds. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Reception: Box office revenue

You have "Box office revenue" for the three films. But you should also have the budget for the three films as a comparison. - 4.240.78.135 (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately no one knows for sure what the true budgets of the films were. $175 million? $200 million? $225 million? $250 million? $300 million? Which number will wind up being the real final pricetag for "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest"? Alientraveller (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 Done I've updated the whole table. To be fair just about all budgets are estimates unless stated directly from the producers/directors/writers, therefore we can only go by Box Office Mojo or The-Numbers' data (or whatever reliable source cites the production budgets). --Mike Allen talk · contribs 21:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

On Stranger Tides: revisited

A user has created Pirates of the Caribbean:On Stranger Tides by copy-pasting a section from this article (Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)) (sans refs, weirdly). I came across it in new page patrol, and had added a link to the talk page to attribute the page history, before I discovered (by trying to move it to the correctly-punctuated Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides) that this had all been fought out before. Not being familiar with the subject I don't know if enough has changed since September to justify the article's independent existence now, so handing it over to you guys. I don't want to clean up the article if there may be no consensus that it should exist at all. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pirates —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.219.19 (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


OK but then why does the 'on stranger tides' section link to it's own article, which then redirects back here? Very tiresome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.35.16 (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Pirate Code of the Brethren is not original research

Please stop deleting the Pirate Code of the Brethren on WP:No Original Research grounds. The original research rule excludes information that has not been published. The rules of the Pirate Code of the Brethren, and their application, are stated in the movies themselves, which are published. Pirate Dan (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The film is the primary source, we need secondary sources for such to be included. —Mike Allen 20:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a different subject. There is no rule against using primary sources, the guideline just says "While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution."
But I'm not going to get into an edit war over interpretation of WP:RS. I'll just order "Joshamee Gibbs'" The Pirates' Guidelines by interlibrary loan and give you chapter and verse, at which point this perfectly good material will be impossible to exclude any longer. Pirate Dan (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing that establishes the need to discuss this in-story element here, as this article primarily deals with the production of the film series. The paragraph as it stands is full of original research and in-universe trivia. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

I love the Pirates of the Caribbean series, however I'm really disappointed to learn that Kiera Knightly and Orlando Bloom are not going to reprise their roles as well. Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom and Kiera Knightly all made the movie work. I hope they will reconsider in recasting their roles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.156.55 (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Section

May I ask permission to remove the section On Stranger Tides so I can create the article about the film and after that rewrite it again?Federollo (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Principle Cast

It would make much more sense to move the new members of OST to the bottom of the list, instead of right under Depp and Rush, and keep the list as chronological as possible. I'm terrible with Wiki's tables though, so could someone please handle this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.72.8.203 (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Run time

The article lists the run time of the series as "671 minutes (1, 2, 3 and 4)." If I'm correct, this implies that the run time of the fourth film is 208 minutes. That's significantly longer than the other films, it's not a figure listed on the "On Stranger Tides" page, and I don't believe we *could* know this fact, since they only just finished shooting. It hasn't been edited & there almost certainly isn't a run time at this point. Where did this number come from? If we don't know, it probably shouldn't be included. Macronage (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Home Media

I noticed that the home media section is missing from this page. On March 1, 2011, the Pirates trilogy was released as a 7-disc Blu-ray package. On March 1, each of the films' movies were also released as separate Blu-ray/DVd combo packs. For example, there is a DVD/Blu-ray combo pack for At World's End, a DVD/Blu-ray combo pack for Dead Man's Chest, and one for the Curse of the Black Pearl. Perhaps we should add a new section and include this. Thoughts? Source: http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/pirates-of-the-caribbean-trilogy-blu-ray-review/ --TravisBernard (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Twister/Chopper as Prison Dog

Twister did not portray the Prison Dog. It was revealed by Chopper's dog trainer that he was in the first 3 films(video evidence here). 75.89.201.239 (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Triangle of the Bermude??

Why is there a new column about 'The Triangle of the Bermude (2012)' there's no reference that the 5th movie has that name nor is there any evidence to support that Orlando Bloom and Kiera Knightly are in the movie.

From what I can see it's just been added in by somebody because that's what they want it to be. I've done a few searches and found no evidence for either the name nor these actors for the fifth movie.

If this is true can somebody actually show some evidence for it?

122.107.47.110 (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like nonsense, especially with this strange franglais title, so I've removed it. Mezigue (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"Beyond the Sea's World"?

Where and when was this title confirmed for the fifth film? Didn't see it cited anywhere, and I haven't heard of this in any news.

MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I too can't find any mention of it anywhere. I've gone ahead and stripped out the references to this title. Barry Wom (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

"The Lost Abyss" is a fanon title

According to the very first page of a Google search, "The Lost Abyss" is a title some fans have been attaching to the 'next' Pirates movie since 2003 (!). There is also a fan script on the Fanon Wikia. Whatever the title of the fifth film will be, it won't be this. I hope some registered user will revert the page soon. 203.91.84.227 (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Films Five and Six Back-to-Back?

Are films five and six being shot back to back then, as it mentions they are earlier in the article but later on where film five has been confirmed it doesn't mention anything about film six. Frogkermit (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

According to official sources, mainly Bruckheimer and Johnny Depp, they're only working on 5. Writer Terry Rossio even said on his website Wordplay; note that this was before Jeff Nathanson came into the picture. Plus, if you think about it, Disney only gave a release date for 5 and had never said anything regarding plans for 6. 173.186.160.217 (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

6 june 2013 edits

Can anyone check the 6 june edits? I am not sure of them (especially the last one).Super48paul (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted them. It was either vandalism or the editor's browser didn't fully upload the change; either way it can't stay as it is. Betty Logan (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Pirates "trilogy"?

An editor has been splitting the films section into the "Priates trilogy" and "Stand-alone films": [1]. I won't profess to know if they are considered a trilogy (in the way that say Star wars is regarded as two trilogies rather than six films) but I do know that we need sources that refer to the first three films as a trilogy in the context of the later films. I am reverting back to the previous state, and I would appreciate it if appropriate sources are cited if the edit is reinstated. Betty Logan (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well depends if you want official sites, movie news articles, or sites like Amazon. Regarding bigger sources, only 2 come to mind, but depends on what Wikipedia prefers. One is a Movieweb article, quoting director Gore Verbinski as saying it was a trilogy. The other are 2 presskits that appear to be Disney's:
  1. At World's End presskit - Referred to as trilogy throughout the article.
  2. On Stranger Tides presskit - referred by writer Terry Rossio in one section, and mentioned in several of the cast/crew's resume at the bottom of the page.

Not to mention a source from ScreenRant(which was linked into the reverted edit) which reported that On Stranger Tides as well as future installments are meant to be standalones. Should make perfect sense given the difference between the first 3 films and the fourth film - and quite possibly the 5th. Certainly hope this explains my actions. 173.186.164.37 (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem though is that most sets of three films are considered "trilogies" before a fourth film is made, which is what those sources basically refer to. To my knowledge there was never a plan to make a trilogy from the outset (they made one film, then they made two, and then one more, and now another). In that sense it is essentially no different to Indiana Jones or Die Hard etc, where the terminology ceased to be applied once the fourth film was made. All Verbinski is really saying is that he's not going to continue the plot from the first three films. Current sources don't seem to distinguish between the "trilogy" and the "standalone" films from what I can see. Betty Logan (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
How about looking at the fourth film. The fact that of all the known cast only 3 or 4 returned. Or maybe it wasn't really connected anymore with the "three films" save for a few plot elements. And not to mention the fourth was considered a "fresh start" by reporters - like Collider, who wasn't debunked by the statement, or an interview with Johnny Depp in Entertainment Weekly (and wouldn't you know it, he referred the first films as a trilogy). Is all this not enough to distinguish them? 173.186.164.37 (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I honestly don't know that much about the series except we don't generally introduce divisions like this, so I am going to post a message up at the Film project and see what they say. Betty Logan (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Having reviewed the evidence, there is no doubt that the first three films were always considered a trilogy prior to the release of the fourth. Now, however, official sources do not mention this, and they are referred to as a series. WP:COMMONNAME could be argued for the trilogy, but I think it's more common to say "the Pirates films", rather than "the Pirates trilogy", so I don't think it's relevant here.  drewmunn  talk  12:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

are these the best movies ever?

I consider these four movies to be the best movies of all time Bawsbaws (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Try a movie forum? --NeilN talk to me 22:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Premature to add actors to Dead Men Tell No Tales grid?

Seems to me that adding actors to the grid for Dead Men Tell No Tales is quite premature. Though some of the mains may be confirmed, the film is 3 years away from release, and it is too early to tell whose roles might be cut, or which actors might die, etc. If nobody else has a problem with this, I still think it would be helpful to those (like me) who are looking to curtail vandalism to require inline sources for additions to the grid. I'm currently watching IP 37.6.162.234 make these 17 edits and wondering, "Hmm, bullshit, or not bullshit?" Thanks mateys. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Kevin McNally in infobox

Hi, I don't have an agenda one way or the other, but re: the recent back-and-forth about whether or not McNally's name should be included in the infobox, I'll point out that per Template:Infobox film, we usually base the starring roles on the theatrical poster billing block. McNally's name does appear in the billing block of the theatrical posters for Dead Man's Chest, At World's End, and On Stranger Tides. Now it could be argued that since we're attempting to cover five films at once, it may be cumbersome to list everybody whose name appears in the billing blocks, and maybe a local consensus might be warranted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

George Brandis

Schalhotrod has decided, in regards to the filming of the fifth film, to remove the name of the Australian Arts Minister George Brandis' name on the basis that it is unsourced. I pretty sure Senator Brandis will be insulted by this.

Schaldotod's reason to remove Brandis' name is utterly baseless because the source concern does mention Brandis' name: "Disney are yet to officially announce they are filming in Australia, and Minister for the Arts Senator George Brandis could not be reached for comment"

In fact there is no need to ask for the source of the minister's name because it is easy to look that information up. So Schaldotod's reasoning to remove Brandis' name is essentially the same as one being asked to prove that the number 4 is the answer 2 + 2. It just simply absurd. On Scalhotrod's page it says: "My overall viewpoint towards Wikipedia is that is it a place of learning and a means to counteract ignorance and bigotry"

Yet him removing Brandis' name is an example of the prevention of learning and promoting ignorance of the known facts. 58.109.94.172 (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC) 58.109.94.172

This comment is longer than it need be. All you had to do was provide a source. Not everybody is familiar with the various Arts Ministers of the various nations of the world. And, as I'm sure you might imagine, much of what regular Wikipedia editors have to do all day is manage vandalism. If you submit to Wikipedia, please provide sources to avoid this inconvenience. WP:REFB Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
It is exactly what I said before as I have been asked yet again to provide a citation for what 2 + 2 equals to and I am not convinced that Cypoidbomb has read all I have said for him to understand the message I was conveying.
As I said before Brandis' name has been mentioned in the source article and therefore his name should be included in this Wikipedia article.58.109.94.172 (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The simplest approach would have been preemptive: along with your contribution, adding an edit summary that explains "Mentioned George Brandis, the Australian Arts Minister. His name appears in existing source". There's your simple 2 + 2 = 4. But shifting the burden of verification to other users is never going to fly in a community editing project like Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Fifth film

Lots of information, the article needs to be created for it to tidy the series' page up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.219.127.17 (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Original trilogy

In these edits [2][3] two different IPs (maybe the same editor?) has reorganized the films into "Original trilogy" and "Stand-alone films". I think this rearrangement warrants an explanation and discussion, hence this post. Anyone have any thoughts? I don't know whether or not this was first conceived as a trilogy, only that it did, at some point, become one, but it's also become a four part series, and will become a five part series. Do we need the reorganization? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It's only a trilogy as far as some of the cast and characters ago. It is not "narratively" a trilogy to my knowledge. They made a standalone, and then back-to-back sequels, and then another standalone. In view of that it is better to maintain the existing structure. Betty Logan (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Principal cast revisited

We keep having issues with people adding names to the Principal cast table. For example here we get additions like Stephen Graham as Scrum and a few others who the contributing IP editor describes as supporting characters. More Scrum here and here. The scope of the table is "Principal cast", not "Supporting cast". In the interest of keeping this cast table manageable, it seems intuitive that we should use very specific criteria for inclusion. As I have previously noted on the talk page above, at Template:Infobox film we base the |starring= parameter on the billing block from the theatrical poster. That seems to make sense for inclusion here, since otherwise we're relying on subjective judgments about a character's importance to organize the table. I'm sure everybody has a favorite character, I'm sure, but I don't think it's practical to try to include them all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, agree completely.Pincrete (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pirates of the Caribbean (film series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pirates of the Caribbean (film series). 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Henry's Identity

Several users have changed Henry to "Henry Turner" (and added other information) without adding a source. If there is a reliable source giving this information, it needs to be cited. I am bringing this here per WP:BRD. If any of those users have a link to a reliable source, please add it using the proper citation tools. If not, I believe the information should be excluded from the article until it is confirmed by outside sources.

Thanks, Michelangelo1992 (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit: As provided by another user, the source is found here: http://screenrant.com/pirates-caribbean-5-dead-men-video-will-son/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelangelo1992 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth Swann in movie 5

Several users have been adding an unsourced theory that Elizabeth Swann will make a cameo in Dead Men Tell No Tales. While this is a possibility, this information needs to be supported by a reliable source. Please discuss here before adding this information again. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It's no rumour. The information comes directly from the newly-released Japanese trailer now available on YouTube. – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 22:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Over-riding default image size

CapLiber has twice now configured a hard pixel size for the infobox image, thus over-riding the default (see [4] and [5]). Setting a hard pixel size overrides a user's default settings and contravenes MOS:IMGSIZE which states "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width". The default width for infoboxes—and therefore images—is 220 pixels. Hardcoding a setting can cause problems for people who use small resolutions or need to increase the font size because of eyesight problems. Please leave the default size setting alone; if you have good reasons for increasing it then discuss them here and obtain a consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pirates of the Caribbean (film series). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.


  • 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) 03:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Great work! ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

1-3 Comedy film?!

It is classed as comedy on their seperate pages for 1-3, (where I will also post as might be different editors than here and also different pages) but they are listed as a fantasy swashbuckler comedy.

Comedy? Is there any source for this? I've seen films that are funny, but they are not comedies. Peter Jackson's King Kong is funny at quite a few times, but never would I thought it being classed as a comedy?

Any source or reference for this inclusion in the lead? If not, I will remove them. 82.44.112.108 (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed mention of 'comedy' for those three films, as it has been over a week and and no replies. If you want to add it back in, on their talk pages say why and with valid sources. 82.44.112.108 (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Fourth film

Why do people removing the fact that Depp has signed up for a fourth film? There's numerous press sources for this, yet it keeps being deleted from the main page. Why? --Gaunt (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you read it to see it's already there? Alientraveller (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, it wasn't there when I last looked. Must be getting confused by all these edits, re-edits and edits of re-edits.--Gaunt (talk), 28 September 2008 (UTC)
If anyone's looking: it's on the top of the paragraph; I added in a little snippet with the source so it works out ;) BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!] 01:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It is confusing, I'd suggest a re-write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.188.25 (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It's only confusing if you read this little... section. Leaving it alone. BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!] 04:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Will the fourth film be the last film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.13.147 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not known if it is the last or if there will be more. Disney would probably do more if Johnny Depp signs on to do more. If Johnny Depp wants to do more, then there will be more films. --75.89.204.150 (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Pirates 4 cost only $250 milion, no $378 milion. The research of Forbes in 2014 i false. Jackson 96 (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source which states a different figure? Where is your information originating? DonIago (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
He's getting the info from Box Office Mojo, which published a $250 million estimate at the time of the release. It was one of many estimates and it is out of date information, because Disney submitted their expenses to HMRC. These are available via a FOI request as of 2013. This is all discussed in greated detail at Talk:Pirates_of_the_Caribbean:_On_Stranger_Tides#Confusion_over_the_budget. The problem though is that many of these publications don't bother updating the out of date info meaning that editors repeatedly try to restore this incorrect content. The audited HMRC figures are used on several articles simply because they are the true figures, but this particular editor has been conducting a campaign to replace them with the out-of-date estimates. He has had three accounts blocked already (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carlo Galanti/Archive) and he has been blocked several times as an IP. He is currently evading his block once more so it is best to revert him on sight. Betty Logan (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Betty. DonIago (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Betty Logan change the budget of Pirates 4 Please. I tell you that today with excange rate Pirates 4 cost $332 milion, The Most exspensive movie ever. Jacopo Alighieri (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Betty Logan today the £240.7 milion equivalent to $332 milion, no $410 milion adjusted for inflation Pirates 4 is Most exspensive movie ever made with Star Wars 7 that cost $567 milion according new research by Forbes. Jacopo Alighieri (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Jacopo is another Carlo Galanti sock puppet. Foodles42 (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Removing "Pirate King" and "Barbossa" from character names in "Recurring cast & characters" section

203.97.69.2 (talk · contribs) has proposed removing "Pirate King" and "Barbossa" from their respective character names in the Recurring cast & characters section of the article. Their edit summary was "unimportant for elizabeth while Carina was officially credited as Smyth, might change on the 6th one..". I've reverted their edit (which was under pending changes). Please discuss the change here. — Newslinger talk 00:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Newslinger (talk · contribs).. Your argument to keep them is This information might assist people who are searching for the characters on the page. The title Pirate King and the twist surname Barbossa does not help people when they're searching for the character on the page, because they're hardly ever mentioned anywhere else in the page, which suggests its not an important information for the character on the said page, could be different on the films' individual pages. Even on characters page the subtitle is Carina Smyth NOT Carina Smyth / Barbossa same with Elizabeth. Even Elizabeth Swann personal page hardly mentioned Pirate King. 203.97.69.2 (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

reboot

There's been reports indicating that Disney is rebooting the series with the Deadpool Writers Reese and Wernick with Bruckheimer still as producer. I think, even though it is still a report and Disney has not make an official announcement, it is still a worthy piece of information. 182.253.184.178 (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Not without a reliable source. DonIago (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pirates_of_the_Caribbean_(film_series)/Archive_1&oldid=1239650855"