Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End/Archive 1

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

Movie Trailer

Does anyone know when the trailer is coming out? I saw The Santa Clause 3, and it wasn't with that. Maybe it will be with the Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest DVD.

Plot

The plot to the film has recently been revealed at DarkHorizons.com and authenticates Jack Sparrow's death in the second film, Will's adventures in Asian waters, and the return of Captain Barbosa (as played by Geoffrey Rush). --Binder

Prove it.
  • At the Hector Barbossa article, it said that he would be a major villian at PotC 3, while here, it said that he would join Sparrow. Could anybody explain this? All information until now are rumors except those confirmed by Disney. In Disney's link to IMBD, it stated that "Elizabeth is captured by the oriental pirate Sao-Feng, while more problems surface and other rescues must be staged." SO I think that this will be the confirmed plot. Chrisyu357 13:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Vfd

On April 4, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pirates of the Caribbean 3 for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 13:58, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

RfD

This was the discussion on WP:RfD shortly thereafter:

  • Pirates of the Caribbean 3 Someone tagged this for speedy deletion as a "faulty redirect", not sure why, maybe wrong target. Not a speedy candidate anyway, the redirect was the result of a Vfd. Kappa 01:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
    • This was a redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean 2, which doesn't make any sense at all.--TheGrza 03:12, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • It was redirected to POTC 2 as a result of a VFD vote, because both POTC sequels are being filmed simultaneously. Since the redirect was a result of the VFD process, I don't think it's appropriate to list it here. Firebug 10:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, setting it to point to PotC 2 was the result of the VfD, let's keep it. Noel (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Redirect

Whomever did the redirect on this page messed up. Redirecting the page to Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest isn't working now that it's being linked to on other pages.--TheGrza 03:29, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, it is of great importance that many of the votes were either regarding the distant release of the film, which makes no sense (See: 2007 in film and Category:2007 films) or that it hadn't started filming, which it now has. Therefore, the VfD is obselete. I don't understand this idea that this vote for deletion was somehow permanent and extended even into the film's production and release. --TheGrza 20:26, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Name of movie.

The Internet Movie Database confirmed that "Pirates Of The Caribbean: At Worlds End" is the name of the third installment of the "Pirates" franchise and that is how it is listed on the IMDB webpage.

it may be called "Pirates of the Caribbean: Worlds End" though this is just a rumour from the web site of one of the actors ( http://www.martinklebba.com/filmography.htm ) --2mcm 08:14:32, 2005-07-16 (UTC)

I think someone also said it may be called "Pirates of the Carribean: Edge of the Map".

So, we're accepting a rumor started at comingsoon.net by someone who claims to work in a Disney store in the UK that "World's End" is the official title? Even if we buy this person's (dubious) claim, this (dubious) title is one of at least three (dubious) working titles rumored for the project. Is this an encyclopedia, or a fansite? RadioKirk talk to me 21:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've heard no official confirmation of the title of the film. "World's End" has been a possible title for a while. On the 27th July 2005 Terry Rossio, one of the writers, stated on the Keep To The Code (official fansite) forum that there were three working subtitles currently being proposed for the third film. That version of the forum is now defunct (though the link to his post, for the sake of sources, was here). The three working subtitles revealed were "World's End", "Calypso's Fury" and "Uncharted Waters". Since then those three titles have been thrown around by a lot of websites, but to my knowledge, no official release from Disney has been made as of yet. Myrana13 22:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's not a confirmed title, why rename the article? Unless I missed something in the article... Blue Mirage 05:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

IMDB.COM STATES "PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 3" AS "PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLDS END" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.130.253 (talk • contribs)

However, in this article[1] Disney denies that this is the correct title. I'm inclined to believe Disney. BryanG(talk) 02:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The official name of the movie was anounced at Walt Disney World Resort. It was anounced at the Pirates of the Caribbean ride as they have closed it to add Jack Sparrow to the ride. The official title is Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.18.184 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That may well be, but Disney has already denied that title. Do you have a recording of the announcement? Please wait for a consensus (or more lucid source material) before changing the title. --Pcj 13:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop changing the title back to Pirates of the Caribbean 3!!!!!!!!!! The official title of the movie is PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END!!!!! They anounced it at Walt Disney World Resort at the Pirates of the Caribbean ride!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.18.184 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please try to curb your enthusiasm, and reply to my query. Oh, and sign your posts. Thanks. --Pcj 13:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

they may name it potc: uncharted waters--jesusfreek2 16:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Cast list

Is there really any value in a cast list including uncredited extras or very minor supporting characters? Seriously, if somebody's uncredited, he's playing third pirate from the right in scene 42. Most movie articles concentrate on major roles. Just a suggestion. Fan1967 14:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - and, how is it we have a cast list, when the movie's not even close to being released yet? Especially, how is it that we have "uncredited" roles listed?! - Brian Kendig 13:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that IMDB (the source of the listings) has been fooled before into listing "uncredited" cast members who weren't actually in the movie. Fan1967 15:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There used to be all sorts of plot info here. What happened to it? Jack Sparra 11:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Okaay, now youv'e got more info, but can ya prove it, matey? Were are the references? And is Barbossa really gonna help Sparrow? Sounds like a good plot. Jack Sparra 16:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Cast list is from Internet Movie Database. If they have it, wikipedia should have it.

And yet Christina Ritter isn't on the IMDB page of full cast and crew. Please just stop, FameLiveForever. Mak (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler Warnings

I came in here to possibley look at the plot, if it had spoiler warnings it would obviously spoil 2, but it didn't so I read it. Thanks alot guys, now the Second movie's been spoiled for me. I'm not even gonna bother putting the user date blah blah blah thing at the bottom, I'm too pissed off. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takuthehedgehog (talk • contribs)

1. If ya dont like what ye see, fix it. 2. Don't swear, especially at fellow wikipedians, ye son of a barnacle. 3. Don't complain, if you didn't want to be spoiled, why did ya read it? Jack Sparra 11:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Jack Sparra. Since this is a series of movies, you can accept that details from previous movies in the series will tie in with the later ones. Therefore, events in POTC 3 will tie in with events in POTC 2. If you didn't want to know said events of POTC 2, why read those of POTC 3, threatening to spoil both movies. -Captain JD Sparrow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.217.20 (talk • contribs)

infobox

What happened to the infobox? Can anyone fix it? Jack Sparra 11:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop renaming the article to "World's End"

Please stop renaming this article to Pirates of the Caribbean: World's End and putting the title "World's End" in the article. This is not the announced title of the film. It's only a rumor; even if the rumor is true and this is the title being used in development right now, there's no guarantee that this title will actually stay with it. Until there's any concrete evidence (namely, a press release from Disney), the title "World's End" is nothing more than an unfounded rumor. - Brian Kendig 03:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the source for the "World's End" title is here. I work at a Disney Store in the UK and we had loads of information on upcoming Disney Films up until 2009 on the notice board. The one thing that I found interesting was we had the full title to Pirates of the Caribbean 3...It's full title is Pirates of the Caribbean: World's End. I would not call that a reliable source. - Brian Kendig 04:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Disney announced that "World's End" or "At World's End" were not the final titles of the movie. They were merely rumours, possibly working titles for the film, to be changed at a later date. Disney is announcing the final title in a few months. -Captain JD Sparrow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.217.20 (talk • contribs)

  • I know that I changed the article and it's title one time. My apologies, I didn't realize that it was just a rumor. I got confused because many other websites were calling it At World's End (databases, review sites, Amazon.com, etc). My bad. – Aidje talk 15:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Video game link

Could someone sort out the PotC 3 Viedo game link, at the moment it redirects twice and ends up on a non-existant article. SillyWilly 11:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the redirect and the link from this article. The video game article was deleted because there's no encyclopedic information available on a PotC3 video game yet. - Brian Kendig 14:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, we've got to finish it first :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.45.20 (talk • contribs)

Budget

The infobox says this movie has a $200 million dollar budget, which would put it as one of the most expensive movies ever made. Is there any documentation of this? - Ozmodiar.x 08:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The IMDb lists the budget for the first film at $140m, and the sequels at $200m each, although I suspect that the $200m figure applies to 2 and 3 combined. One of the reasons for filming them back to back is to share costs, so I'd be surprised if the two sequels combined cost three times as much as the original. — sjorford++ 10:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The budget for part 3 as well as part 2 is still under dispute. BOM.com lists both as 225 million each, which, as you just pointed out, would be odd since they are being filmed so close together, with portions of part 3 filmed during part 2. Secondly, it's unlikely they would even have the exact same budget, seeing as all LOTRs were filmed together and they didn't have the same budget for each film. Bignole 00:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Barbossa?

According to this Gregory Rush is returning as Barbossa. Seeing as he is dead I kind of question this little bit of information. Maybe a citation would aid in this article. Him returning seems very weird to me for the plot. He was an awesome bad guy, but bringing him back from the dead? How are they going to do that? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormacalian (talk • contribs)

Since when did a character dying stop them from being in a Pirates of the Caribbean movie? ;) I've just seen Dead Man's Chest and can confirm he will be in part 3. So there probably should be some sort of spoiler warning at the top of the article, at least for the first few weeks of DMC's release.
True that. Further, he was shot before the last coin actually dropped into the chest. I'm sure they'll say he was never dead. scsgoal31 16:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
We did however see blood spilling from Barbossa's chest from the gunshot wound, something he wouldnt have done had he been immortal. More then likely Hell spit him back out, OR, the voodoo lady resurected him.(Cablebfg 23:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

of the choices of he was spat back out of hell or the voodoo lady(for the record, her name's Tia Dalma) resurected him, believe me, it was the latter.71.127.212.76 14:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)ladysparrow

Translation of Sao Feng

Is there a source available anywhere regarding "Sao Feng" meaning "demonic?" I'm Taiwanese, and reasonably fluent in the language, and I can think of no phrases that both sound like "sao feng" and mean "demonic."

Renameing the article

I made a change in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl were in the article I changed where it said "the second sequel of Prites Caribbean is Priates of the Caribbean 3" I changed Priates of the Caribbean 3 to Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End since it was the title of this article. Shortly after I made that changed I got a message saying:

" Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

We're sorry, but your edit has been reverted. This is a rumored title until a reliable source is provided for it being chosen, and your edit did not provide one. Thanks again for your contributions and happy editing! RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)"

If wikipedia won't allow Priates of the Caribbean 3 to change to Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End because it's a rummored title shouldn't this article be renamend to Pirates of the Caribbean 3? It even says that in this article that it's a rumored title. It should be made clear that Pirates of the Caribbean 3 is only the title of the article untill the offical title is realesed and it should renamend to the offical title.--Scott3 00:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the move log this the name of this article was changed not to long ago:

"# 02:43, 22 June 2006 PurpleKoopa (Talk | contribs) moved Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End to Pirates of the Caribbean 3 over redirect (Reverted. If you really think it's called World's End, guys, please discuss so on the talk page, because right now, I don't see why this is...) (revert)"

I'll revert it to Pirates of the Caribbean 3 and I'll put somthing in the article that this is what it's "codename" is currently by the rumored titles. I just reread the revert. Why hasn't this article been change to Priates of the Caribbean 3 yet?--Scott3 00:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

sounds like at world's end to me. http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2006-07-09-box-office-analysis_x.htm&hl=en jj 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/717/717692p1.html According to this IGN article, a Disney rep has said that At World's End is not the title for the third film and that the official title will be revealed in the next few months. Can we please rename the article back to Pirates of the Caribbean 3 now? >_> TranscendentWarrior 17:56, 10 July 2006

Release date rumored to be tomorrow?

Um there's a section in the article talking about how the release date is rumored to be tomorrow.....what exactly does that mean?

I think it should taken out. I don't understand why the reallse date of a sequel would the day after the movie that it's a sequel to would be the next after it's release. It's just unoffical rumors anyway.

Title and plot

I've changed the title of this article back to "Pirates of the Caribbean 3" again, and removed the "Plot Synopsis". The variations on the "World's End" title are only rumors and are completely unverifiable at this point, and the plot is even further into the realm of speculation. If you disagree with me, if you feel the article should be renamed and the plot should be part of the article, then please post your reasoning here; otherwise I will continue reverting changes to the article's name and attempts to give a plot in it. - Brian Kendig 14:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please change it back again? i find it ridiculous that the there should be a subtitle when the article itself acknowledges that there has been no official announcement. Why are people so intent on changing. We can recognise in the article that there are rumours - jees! Variety have an article on thier homepage that reports the title as "at the end of the world" or similar. i can't access it as i am not registered, but i think that anyone who can should add it to the rumours paragraph, as variety are pretty reliable. Amo 10:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the title change. Again. Seriously, I don't understand why there's the fervor to jump on a rumor and keep renaming this article. If you can provide me with a link or other reference to the information in Variety, I'll add it to this article if it's noteworthy. - Brian Kendig 20:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a rumor when USAToday reports it as fact http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2006-07-09-box-office-analysis_x.htm jj 15:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


well, i dont know about u guys, but i got a rough draft of one of the scenes from the 3 PotC.

JACK SPARROW sits with his head lowered, alone in the dunes of a vant desert. A dry wind blows. This is Jack's purgatory. sand in all directions, endless. Jack drags himself to his feet. he staggers to a rope lying in the sand. Picks it up and turns, the rope over his back. He leans forward and PULLS - - His feet dig into the and; he drives forward but goes nowhere. The rope angles up behind him; Jack pulls but makes no progress, gradually sinking down COME AROUND TO REVEAL: at the other end of the rope is the Black Pearl. Towering above him, stranded in the middle of the vast desert. Jack keeps tugging, to no avail. Nearby are several SMOOTH ROUND STONES. Weirdly, the stones begin to rock back and forth, like eggs hatching. Cracks appear and the stones transform into crabs. One of the crabs turns toward Jack, watching him. Clicks, annoying, like it's laughing. JACK SPARROW Perfect. What would my torment be without freaky crabs here to mock me? Jack grabs a handful of sand and flings it. the crabs flinch back. Jack collapses into the sand. JACK SPARROW (CONT'D) I'm talking to a crab.

D

you guys can thank me later. oh, by the way: PETE WENTZ IS HOTT!!!!!(but so is jack. if not hotter.) 71.127.223.169 00:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)ladysparrow

I'am removing this part of the article.

"Chow Yun-Fat will play Sao Feng, an Asian pirate who figures as a major antagonist in the film, as he takes over the Black Pearl[citation needed]. According to Taiwanese media the name "Sao Feng" translates as "demonic.""


There Is no citation and someone elese removed the plot. If the plot has been removed this should also be removed.--Scott3 23:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

At world's end

It's not a rumor when USAToday reports it as fact http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2006-07-09-box-office-analysis_x.htm jj 17:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets just keep Priates of the Caribbean 3 untill there more previwes and stuff. I also don't see a direct quote form anyone who would be responible and know what the title is going to be.--Scott3 19:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is highly anticipated and, as an encyclopedia, we are concerned that the info is accurate, which I have attempted to show. This site will be high-traffic. Box Office Mojo also shows this as the tite. It is accurate, and will be important very soon. jj 19:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It should be moved back. Just today, Disney denied "At World's End" was the title.[2] 68.85.185.223 23:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It should remain POTC:3 until there is more definitive proof, as an encyclopedia, we should be able to present accurate citations for the information given, there is ongoing dispute, but so far no definitive title has been given. (Cablebfg 01:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC))
The USA Today article had no named source, and Disney has denied the title. I'll trust Disney.--ShaleZero 02:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for moving it jj 14:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


The IGN article DOES NOT name their source either. Who at Disney did they talk to? A janitor? The coffee boy? When the Will Ferrell NASCAR movie was filming the title was leaked to the press, the studio then went to the papers saying that the title that was leaked was not the official title. Come to find out, the title that the studio said wasn't going to be used, was the EXACT title that was used. It's called a misinformation campaign. Disney likely leaked the title they're going to use (At World's End) to a few press outlets where they knew they would get published (i.e. USA Today) and now they're going to deny it and say that no official title has been named to keep people guessing even more. I'd bet the farm that in two or three months they'll name the official title and it will be "At World's End." Batman2005 14:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not the IGN article is indeed a ploy to cause misinformation and likely stir up talk about the much-anticipated 3rd film is irrelevant, until Disney actually names the movie, we should just keep the rumors as rumors and make notes of that, but do not present them as fact until Disney publishes a statement, etc. of the title of the third installment. More then likely it will be "At World's End" but until it is confirmed by Disney itself we should leave it as speculation. (Cablebfg 18:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Template

The template for POTC is wrong. When you click the third film it redirects to the second film. I don't know how to fix it as I am still learning so can a professional fix it? Thanks -ScotchMB 02:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. For reference, there's a list of all the template a page uses at the bottom of its edit page. Click the link there to go to something you can edit.--ShaleZero 02:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Release Date

The release date given seems to have been changed recently, or maybe i read it wrong a few days ago when posting the release date on a forum, BUT, i cant find any specific information on the release date of May 25, 2007, and no citation is given. If Disney has indeed announced a specific release date, can we give a citation, please. (Cablebfg 19:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It is released. Saw it yesterday at local cinema. The title is Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Mans Chest.--John Lake 20:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
You are referring to Dead Man's Chest, when this is a discussion about the release date of the third Pirates of the Caribbean film, not DMC. (Cablebfg 20:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC))
I see you are right, I thought Dead mans chest was the 3rd one was the third one.--John Lake 22:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Main characters

Why does it say Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightly, and Mackenzie Cook? Mackenzie Cook is just comic relief, not a main character. Someone needs to replace Mackenzie Cook with Geoffrey Rush. Geoffrey Rush is a main character in the third one. No one should have a VALID problem with that.

I agree to a point, the article does not say, "The main characters are...." it simply says that the third film will star said list of actors. BUT, u do have a point, Mackenzie has a small role in the first two movies, and i dont see a problem with Geoffrey Rush being put there instead. At the same time however, Geoffrey Rush had a miniscule role in the second film, and to say that he is a returning star from the second film is somewhat odd, as he was in the movie for a whole 20 seconds, whereas Mackenzie did appear throughout the 1st and 2nd film. (Cablebfg 19:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I changed it to what is more than likely a closer starring list. I also removed Keith Richards from the "Starring" list, as a cameo role is NOT a starring role. Batman2005 04:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean Franchise proposal

I was wondering whether of not an article on the film series/theme ride would be in order? --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 18:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. (Also for Shrek, BTW.) —Nightstallion (?) 13:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the need. There is not Batman Franchise or Superman Franchise to cover their sets of films. Perhaps if you explain exactly what you think should be in that article... CovenantD 15:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I went Bold and started the article. Care for anyone to expand? --21:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
NOT a good idea after asking the question and having received a negative reply. Smacks of ignoring consensus. CovenantD 21:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyone willing to help me? --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
No, we don't. no one agrees, so stop trying to start that article. Besides, Pirates of the Caribbean does just fine.

Jack Sparra 13:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

worlds end...again

Erm, does not the fact that Tid Dalma uses the phraser 'World's End' kinda give credence to the possibility that the movie will be called worl's end? Jack Sparra 20:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Or the fact that USA Today reported it to be "At World's End"? I sure thought so, but filmforce claimed otherwise. Anyhow, we don't report possibilities as facts. It may be that filmforce was wrong, but, exclusing that, Disney hasn't said anything to my knowledge. I personally doubt Filmforce slightly due to credibility issues, but as the sources contradicted, I hold my peace. a PR from Disney should be out within 3-4 months, or it'll leak (and may akready have, just be patient, jj 21:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Also see the conv. above--I think many good points were made by Cablebfg and Batman2005 jj 21:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sea urchins?

The part about a massive fight scene involving sea urchins sounds like nonsense to me - where'd they hear that? --67.161.77.104 00:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It was in an issue of Entertainment Weekly, during an interview with Gore Verbinski about the making of Pirates II and what they were doing for Pirates III. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheScottishGuy2 (talk • contribs) 17 August 2006

Now that the title's been revealed

Excellent, what a relief. Can someone move the page, though please? I don't have much experience of it, and i'm sure i could seriously muck it up, seeing as it must link to so mny articles...Amo

No apostrophe? Isn't that kind of... wrong? —Nightstallion (?) 12:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Tell that to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, that spelled their title "Texas Chain Saw Massacre" originally. There is no apostraphe at the end, because maybe it isn't meant to imply that it's one "world's" end. You only use it for ownership purposes and it's never been said that it is about one specific world's end. Bignole 12:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if it's plural, it'd need to be "Worlds'" or "Worlds's", but as it is, it could be a proper name at best... —Nightstallion (?) 10:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
If it's plural then it's "Worlds". If it's plural possessive then it will be "Worlds'". You never put an apostraphe "s" when there is already an "s" on the end. Bignole 11:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you sometimes do. Actually, many people do, although I think it looks horrible... Check, for instance, a google search for "James's". As far as I know, either variant is correct; "At Worlds End" is incorrect, then, though, isn't it? Unless "Worlds End" is a placename which lost the apostrophe, which happens often enough. —Nightstallion (?) 09:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, either variant isn't correct. It's all dependent on the pronouciation of the "s" at the end of the word. Either way, Disney wants no apostophe, so there's really nothing to debate about. Bignole 11:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Up to now, I've heard that with [z,x,s] at the end, it's your choice if you make it "*'s" or "*'"... But if there's a rule, I'd love to hear it. —Nightstallion (?) 10:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Go look up "apostraphe". Yes, it CAN be "your" preference, but it's usually not acceptable to put "class's", or "James's" because of the gramatic structure of the word and the fact that it looks rather odd. Regardless, no one can try to interpret what they are using, because we don't know what the title is meant to say anyway. It could mean at end of the all the worlds (i.e. another dimension). Bignole

Suggestions for improvement

  • Move Title section below Plot and Production sections because it's not as important
  • Purge weasel words from the article, especially the Plot section (speculated, appears to be, etc)
  • Use Cite news and Cite web templates to reference articles (see The Dark Knight or Spider-Man 3 for how this is done)
  • Compress Plot section; too many minor details for the section, such as comparing the Locker to Skull Island
  • Move Orin Aviv-title mention to Title section (reference it as well) or just remove entirely

I don't have time to make the changes I've suggested above right now, but I plan to clean up the article over the weekend. There are too many poorly-phrased sentences that need to be rewritten to sound more factual and less speculative. The movie's not even out, and the article's a mess. Let's shape it up so we can add new information with ease when the release date gets closer. --Erik 17:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've inserted tags requesting citations for information that did not seem available in what currently exists in the Footnotes section. One of the issues with this article is that information has been drawn from an early draft of the script. The article itself says that Ted Elliott called it an "extremely early 'budget draft' portion of the script", which means that any information drawn from the script is potentially inaccurate. I suggest removing all information that may have been drawn from this script (probably most of what I've tagged in need of citation) and focus about official sources in regard to the story, not "Internet leaks". --Erik 21:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Trailers and Posters

Does anyone know when the first trailer and posters are coming out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.18.184 (talk • contribs) 03:46, September 26, 2006

The teaser poster has already been shown at Comic-Con 2006, according to ComingSoon.net. For some reason, the image keeps getting reverted despite the citation. No clue about upcoming trailers. In the future, add new sections to the end of talk pages, not the beginning. --Erik 13:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Can we find a better teaser image? I don't know if it's the way it is supposed to look, but to me it's really a poor quality image. Bignole 13:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I've looked for something better and came up with nothing better. The image meets fair use considerations, though, and suits the article for the time being. --Erik 13:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I was just hoping there was just a better quality image at the actual site or something. I guess we'll just have to wait. Bignole 15:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Title? Confused!

There has never been an official annoucement from Disney what the title of this movie will be. "At World's End" is still fan speculation at this point. This article needs to be changed until the title is official. 69.231.194.152 03:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

IGN: Pirates 3 Title Confirmed, which is cited in the article. Is the screenwriter's word not reliable enough? --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 03:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Official title

Well, yeesh! What a wild goose chase it's been. Based on the poster (see full), there is an apostrophe after all. We should probably purge the "Title" subsection, too, since it's wholly inaccurate, apparently. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 01:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this teaser poster real? The poster's image is on a foreign site, why hasn't the image been released everywhere? My only problem is that this page has fish tailed back and forth with spellings and now we're basing the move on a poster only released in a foreign market, when we have a quote from the screenwriter explaining that it doesn't have the apostrophe. Bignole 22:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Damn. I'd hate to go through another change, especially since the page history was moved. Any suggestions? I didn't consider the fact that it was from a foreign site. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what to do. I mean, the poster's been around for awhile and I haven't seen any US sites actually comment on it, not even on the foreign poster, let alone announcing that a new poster was planned to come out. What if the poster only has an apostraphe on foreign posters. I wouldn't know why, but we don't know why they do a lot of things. Bignole 22:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Film images

At comingsoon.net there are 2 images from the film that can be added to this article if agreed upon here. Here is the link.[3] --Nehrams2020 03:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Chinese in the poster

  • Means "Good luck, captain Jack." 219.79.93.6 12:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And I thank you for that. What dialect though? Wiki-newbie 22:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Most, if not all, Chinese dialects share the same written form. It's accurate to just call it "Chinese." Bhamv 06:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot - "English Pirate Charles Roger Macias III"

"...Will, who in this installment leaves Port Royale to study Chemistry with world renowned Chemist, W. Patrick Cunningham. Seeing that Will has left to persue Chemistry, and maybe even teaching religion, Norrington seizes the opportunity to take Elizabeth for himself. This all changes when we first meet English Pirate Charles Roger Macias III (Trey), who had a cameo role in the first movie (look for him in the credits), shows up and teams up with Davy Jones. After forming a band made of completely bongos and an organ, they write a song for Elizabeth called, "My heart beats for you in a buried chest" Elizabeth instantly falls for Trey and Trey becomes the happiest man on earth. The two sail off into the horizon on The Black Pearl after taking it from the hands of Barbossa. They settle onto a small secluded island with a population of a little more than 4,000. It has been rumored that Trey and Elizabeth, along with their two kids (pirates, of course), return in the fourth installment of the Pirates of the Caribbean story to save Will Turner from the trance that had been put onto him by the renowned chemist."

The addition of Charles Roger Macias sounds extremely suspect (viewed 12-27-06). I can find no corroborating information for this name and, to be blunt, it sounds like bad fanfic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.251.83.232 (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

It obviously is bad fan fiction.--SUIT 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

New Posters

Here are five new character posters, if it decided to included them or not on the article.[4] --Nehrams2020 23:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think character posters are difficult for choosing. I'd rather stick with the current teaser poster until there's a poster that can show multiple characters (like the previous films' theatrical posters). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Title

In Disney's annual letter to shareholders they referred to this movie as 'At World's End' so this is pretty much an official announcement so it should end any debate over the (').

http://corporate.disney.go.com/investors/annual_reports/2006/int/lts2.html

Info Box

There should be a "Pirates of the Caribbean" info box to be used on all POTC related articles Mhrmaw 12:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Where!!

Where is the damn Trailer, the film is to be released in two months and there is no trailer!!!!!111111

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pirates_of_the_Caribbean:_At_World%27s_End/Archive_1&oldid=1137087019"