Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

King George II

This article states that George II of Great Britain is a character in this upcoming film. A problem is evident, as George II did not take the throne until 1727, nine years after Blackbeard (another historical figure that is a character in this film) was killed by Robert Maynard. George II could be a character in this film, but this article would have to refer to him as either Prince George of Wales, as that was his title from 1714 to June 11, 1727, or as Duke Georg August of Hanover, as that was his title from birth on October 25, 1683 to 1714. Perhaps it is not George II that is a character in this film, but his father George I who ran the country during Blackbeard's piracy, and it was he who pressed hard on his Navy to stop him. If this film does have George II as king then this film takes place in an alternate universe? - Mdriver1981 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In the POTC universe, Blackbeard wasn't killed in the Battle of Ocracoke Inlet in 1718. He grew old and that's why he's searching for the Fountain of Youth, to become young again. How he survived at Ocracoke Inlet will be explained in Pirates of the Caribbean: Six Sea Chanties graphic novel. Also, the Queen Anne's Revenge still floats, so we can say that this is some sort of Alternate history film.--89.172.199.125 (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

One might also point out that the letter of Marque from the second film bore a portrait of George II, but if Blackbeard is going to be portrayed as an old man then that is probably just a mistake since Blackbeard was only in his later 30s when he died, but would have been in his late 40s when George II took the throne, and since he's being played by a 68-year old man then that would place this movie around the late 1740s/early 1750s (though that goes against the historical fact that Port Royal was not a major port during that time, which again could be answered as simply alternate history). Emperor001 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The presence of Ferdinand VI of Spain in the cast list means the setting must be between that King's accession in 1746 and death in 1759. Opera hat (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This film takes place in 1750 [1]--161.53.27.4 (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That link doesn't necessarily support a 1750 date. The articles says "...there are a lot more realistic elements being brought in from the real world into this one. Black Beard obviously, the Queen Anne’s Revenge, the production designed them the same, there’s a clear date of 1750 because that’s where you obviously got Execution Doc" (sic). Why should a reference to Execution Dock tie the date to 1750? And it's not even the screenwriter who says that, but the interviewer. Opera hat (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's another source for 1750 though. Opera hat (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Barbossa's ship, HMS Providence, is flying the version of the Union Flag that wasn't adopted until 1801 which would set the film in the 19th century (...or may well be an erroneous anachronism!) 80.176.88.21 (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

That's probably an anachronism, because they're using the 18th century version of the White Ensign on their boats.--Max Tomos (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly stated in the movie that the king rules Ireland too, so it would make much more sense if the king is actually King George III... 93.172.147.128 (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

George II was also the King of Ireland.--Max Tomos (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. I was confused because he wasn't the king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. 93.172.147.128 (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Messed Up Infobox

there is messed up text in the infobox. I don't know how to correct this, so will someone please fix it? MistyPony1994 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Filming

It is okay for the film to have an article now, as filming has begun.The Editor 155 (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as sources confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. (WP:NFF). Alex Douglas (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not yet found such as source. It is not "okay for the film to have an article" until a source is found. Alex Douglas (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What about this source, which states that filming has begun? [2]The Editor 155 (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Bruckheimer mentions it on his Twitter page, you can't get more official than that[3]--Gaunt (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks! 124.171.220.211 (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Richard Thomson in Pirates 4

Richard Thomson IS in Pirates 4. I don't know why, but for some reason, the article is missing. It was PROOF that he is in Pirates 4. And I know that we need sources, I am a user at a Wiki(I'm just not too big on joining this Wikipedia, because this is where the most vandalism happens). All I'm asking is that I earn your trust on this, for I am a user at PotC Wiki, I've looked up ALL PotC news(minus the Paul Benzley thing, which again I apologize for), and I am a HUGE fan of the films. So, please allow me to put Richard Thompson's name in the cast list without a source. And I know we have to have a source for these things(I am a Wiki person), but for this one time, can we not use a source? Because that source about Richard Thomson WAS on the internet, but it disappeared for some reason and I can't find it. I wouldn't making it a big deal unless if I had good reasons too. 75.90.114.117 (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No... we really don't have to add anything. Try Google cache. Or add {{fact|July 2010}} next to his name in the article which will tell readers that there is no source and maybe someone will add one. Mike Allen 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But actually, I think I'll do the fact thing(mostly because I've looked everywhere in google for that information). Oh,and just to let you know, my IP address may change from time to time(I don't know why, I'm not a technical person). But I will make changes if necessary. 75.90.114.117 (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Film logo

Hey, if you guys need a pic for the infobox on this film, I'd suggest you get this one. It's the most recent AND it's got GREAT quality. You guys don't have to take it, but if you want it, here it is. :) 75.89.207.133 (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the original source? Mike Allen 02:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I know who did this, it was someone from POTC Wiki. The original original source(where that person got it from), was from the Comic-con Announcement. CJS2.0 (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Budget cuts

This portion of the Filming section

Disney Studios chairman Rich Ross restricted the film's budget to $200 million, $100 million less than At World's End and $25 million less than Dead Man's Chest, in order to cut costs.

From what I've read, the source of this information about the budget cuts is false. If you want more information of what I'm talking about, here is a source of Terry Rossio addressing the budget cut news: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=65778

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Rich Ross didn't make the budget $200 million, I'm just saying we need a more reliable source about anything involving the budget cuts. Because it has been confirmed that the LA times article isn't entirely reliable. CJS2.0 (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Coming Soon article's source is a message board - and message boards are generally considered not to be valid sources for WP references. Besides, this article points out that Rossio "kind of admits that he doesn’t actually know what Pirates of the Caribbean 4’s budget will be". It will be best to keep with the facts at hand, those being the direct quotes from Ross in a newspaper article rather than edits taken from a message board posting that contains conjecture. SpikeJones (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Casting

With the recent editing of this article(concerning the casting), I would like to make a few points(just what I noticed):

Almost everything that was edited in here(from IMDB), is not true. There are only a handful of stuff from IMDB is even true(other than the main casting). The only person I think we can keep that was written in IMDB is "Sebastian Armesto as King Ferdinand". I think that this is the ONLY thing in IMDB, in the case of casting in IMDB, that is true because of what's been revealed about the opening scene of the film(which did include King Ferdinand). CJS2.0 (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that WP is not IMDB. That is, IMDB is a place to have a complete cast listing whereas WP is not a place to include it. It is not encyclopedic to include who "Palace Guard #2" was. SpikeJones (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

wasn't there an asian mermaid? what happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.194.171 (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Mònica Cruz is stand in for her sister due to the pregnancy, but she is not mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.216.178 (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

New Infobox image

I think we should change the infobox image of the teaser poster(which says "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides Summer 2011"), with this image, which does have the release date on it. And it is an official Disney logo, as said here:

http://ramascreen.com/pirates-of-the-caribbean-on-stranger-tides-new-logo-and-updated-synopsis/

I would do it myself, but I don't know how to upload images in WP. CJS2.0 (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

New trilogy?

Is POTC4 the first part of a second trilogy?173.58.53.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

It could be.--Max Tomos (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope not.PNW Raven (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Film poster

The film poster is not correct. The current one is the international poster, indicated by the fact that it says "In Cinemas" on it versus "In Theaters." The correct domestic (US) poster can be found here. The IMAX 3D poster can be found here. If anyone doesn't have an issue with this, I will go ahead a change it. --TravisBernard (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I also check the manual of style and there is no clear indication of how to chose an international version versus a domestic one. Also, IMDb sites the domestic one as the official poster. Thoughts? --TravisBernard (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Broader Revisions

For the past week, I've been working on a series of revisions for this page. Several of these edits help the article meet the standards listed in the Film MOS, while other edits simply improve the organization, references, and flow of the article. The film will be released in less than a month, so I think these edits are both necessary and urgent. A link to my revisions can be found here.

Here's a summary of what these edits include:

• Revised and edited the introduction paragraphs to meet the MOS Film Standards. Used sentence structure that resembled the article for Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. Improved sentence structure and added sources.
• Updated "Info box." Removed release date of May 17, 2011 (Cannes International Film Festival). Although the MOS for Film does say that an advance screening can count as the release date, other films like Tron: Legacy and Up had advance screenings but the release date is still listed as the theatrical release date and not the advance screening date. I included the UK release date because several scenes in the film were shot in London, and the film premieres two days earlier in the UK.
• Changed "Premise" section to "Plot" and reworded the plot. My plot summary meets the MOS for film, while the current version does not.
• Removed information about Angelica being Blackbeard's daughter from the Cast section. Although this information was revealed in an MTV interview by Jerry Bruckheimer, I feel that it is a plot spoiler and should be deleted. I also added the word "Captain" in front of "Jack Sparrow" because that is his official title.
• Made a few minor changes in the "Development" section to give the article a more neutral tone. Currently it seems a little critical of Dick Cook, and I think we need to put this in a more neutral form.
• In the filming section, I reworded the budget. This is a mere estimate, and no official number has been released by the studio. I think referencing the source verbally provides added value.
• Implemented a few minor edits in the soundtrack section.
• Reworded, added sources, and reorganized the promotion section to improve clarity.
• Added "Release" formats and a few international release dates.
• Added additional references to improve overall quality of article.
• Finally, I am proposing adding a few pictures to the article. I included the suggested images in my draft. I think these three highlight the additions made for the film (Blackbeard and Angelica), while also clinging to the roots of the franchise (Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow).

I'd love to get some feedback on my draft so that we can bring this article up to speed. As previously mentioned, the film is coming out on May 20, so I think there's an immediate need to get these edits implemented. Any and all feedback is welcome. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I made the above edits, except for adding the pictures. I'd like to keep an open conversation about the edits, and feedback is greatly encourage. --TravisBernard (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The pictures have been added, along with captions. If anyone has suggestions for the captions, please let me know. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

MPAA Rating in Intro Paragraph

MPAA ratings are typically not included within Wikipedia articles unless it is extremely notable (see Rio (film)). Even if we decide to include this, I don't think it should be in the introduction paragraph. Instead, it should be moved to the production section. Thoughts? --TravisBernard (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I keep meaning to just delete the information as it is irrelevant to the article and unless it has some major impact, i.e. Alien going from R to PG, then it isn't worth mentioning. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this change. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The only reason why I added it in the first place is because it's the first Disney movie to be rated PG-13 for any form of sexual content (in this case, "sensuality and innuendo"). That makes it notable, doesn't it? --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Not particularly. Spider-Man being a 12A is notable because the rating was created JUST for Spider-Man. It's not like this is the first Disney film to be filled with sexual innuendo, most of their kid shows are pimping out underage girls (see:The Ring (South Park)). You can always ask other opinions of course, I don't control the article but my personal opinion is that it isn't notable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film they will be able to tell you if it is notable or not. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Blackbeard

Should we make a new article for the POTC version of Blackbeard? We could name it Blackbeard (Pirates of the Caribbean).--Max Tomos (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, as more information is released for this version of the character. --Boycool (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Woah, woah, no. He's a character that appears in one film that isn't even released yet. There is nowhere near enough information to warrant him his own article.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Darkwarriorblake. Let's wait until the release of the film. The topic doesn't meet the notability guidelines quite yet. If it has a significant box office opening, I think that's enough to give it notability. --TravisBernard (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that would make the character notable since for Blackbeard to be notable there needs to be significant coverage of the character himself not simply the fact that he was in a successful film since notability is not inheritied.--76.66.185.169 (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Distribution

I have a question regarding the Studio and Distributed by section of this film's infobox (and others like it). If the film was released by Walt Disney Pictures, should it say Walt Disney Pictures in both the studio category and the distribution category or should the company's distribution arm (Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures), also be credited as distributor? I am confused on whether who's specifically the distributor for the film. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The first movie in the series which features fictional versions of historical characters.

This is wrong, the majority of the Brethren Court in At Worlds End were historical pirates. 78.86.8.163 (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

All members of the Brethren Court in Pirates 3 were fictional pirates, and only two of them were based on historical pirates, Mistress Ching (based on Ching Shih) and Sri Sumbhajee (based on Kanhoji Angre). Aside from that, there was not a single historical pirate in Pirates 3.--Max Tomos (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Plot

Does anyone else think that the revised plot contains several spoilers? I've seen the movie twice already, and I believe the plot sections should be trimmed down, and spoiler free.--TravisBernard (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a spoiler free zone. Those wishing to not be spoiled about subjects should avoid encyclopedia entries that describe said subjects in detail. --Aml830 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That's that a valid point, but I think the issue stretches beyond spoilers: the plot is also way too long. It should be reduced to 500-700 words. Currently it is over 1,000 words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TravisBernard (talk • contribs) 21:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It can be longer than 700 if 700 isn't enough to adequately explain the plot. That said I haven't seen it yet so I don't know if it is a particularly complex film and I won't read the plot lest I spoil myself, so if you have a problem with it, feel free to edit it, if it shouldn't be over 700, reduce it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek reference

The design of the Fountain of Youth in the film is clearly a nod to the 1960s Star Trek episode The City on the Edge of Forever (see the infobox). A review here mentions this, is this reliable enough for the article?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the source is reliable, but I don't think the reference is notable. If multiple reliable sources report on the Star Trek nod, then it could be considered notable. Something like an interview with Jerry Bruckheimer that mentions this would probably be the best source. That would indicate that it was clearly intentional. --TravisBernard (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Worldpremiere Johnny Depp 12.05.2011 Westfield London

Pirates of the Caribbean - On Stranger Tides (4) [[4]] 634,767,000 Dollar

Boxofficemojo [[5]] [[6]] (1) [[7]] (2) [[8]] (3)

Worldwide (USA): 2.683.864.165 DOLLAR BOXOFFICE + Film 4 = BOXOFFICE 3.318.631.165 Dollar [[9]]

USA: 1.038.150.155 DOLLAR BOXOFFICE+ Film 4 = BOXOFFICE 1 .202.117.155 Dollar

DAYS	Film 1 USA 2003 [[10]]	Film 2 USA 2006 [[11]]	Film 3 USA 2007 [[12]]	Film 4 USA 2011 [[13]]	Film 1-4 2011 worldwide [[14]]
1	$13,509,262
2	$10,486,019		$13,240,044
3	$14,841,094	$55,830,600	$42,910,392	$34,860,549
4	$17,414,693	$44,443,225	$37,701,051	$31,921,474
5	$14,374,903	$35,360,729	$34,121,377	$23,369,935
6	$7,504,567	$18,140,271	$25,069,370	$8,143,152	$286,500,000 [[15]]
12					$470,800,000
13	$138,339,699	$266,277,457	$228,969,881		$3.318.631.165

62.200.86.169 (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

62.200.73.57 (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Reception

In Germany, 1.32 mio. viewers came to the cinemas in the first week from Thursday to Sunday, making it the highest debut week for a film in 2011, surpassing Till Schweiger's Kokowääh which had 838,000 viewers in its first week. This made the film also the 1st one in 2011 to reach 1 mio. viewers as early as the debuting week and stopped Fast Five from becoming the most viewed film of the week for a 4th time by far. source--79.199.54.183 (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)