Talk:Flying Dutchman (Pirates of the Caribbean)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disney Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Disney on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.


The fliying dutchman is a ghost ship doomed to sail the seven seas forever because it's captain was once in love but his one love die so he sell his soul to the devil as an exchange of of being inmortal,so god didn't that so he punished him to sail whitout a definied course across the seven seas.Some other stories tell that his captain play his soul with the devil at the liar's dice.

This is not about the normal Flying Dutchman though! The Shroud 18:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Retiring as Captain

"After that, according to writers Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, if he found his loved one waiting for him, he would be relieved of his responsibilities to live the rest of his life with his loved one, and Calypso would pick a new captain." I'm pretty sure this wasn't in the movie, and changes everything about the ending! Where the hell is the source?!

  • WordPlay is the official site of PotC writers Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio. See this post, and also this one for the problem of it not being in the film. This source needs to be referenced in the article, but I'm not sure what would be the best way to do it. -AndromedaRoach 06:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Edited 09:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I will attempt to add these pages as references with the next few hours (I need to learn how first). Unfortunately, until the Movie's DVD release, that site is are the best source we have. I believe it is sufficiently reliable for use here, but if an experienced Wikipedian believes otherwise, then by all means remove the references and all information based upon them. In that case, I think the widespread online knowledge of and debate surrounding this matter warrants the creation of its own section, separate from information drawn directly from the films. -AndromedaRoach 07:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Done. The writers' comments are very briefly worded and obviously not intended to be used as official references, but that's what they are nonetheless. -AndromedaRoach 09:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Black Spot (under Armament)

Seems like this more properly belongs in the Kraken article, in which the mention of the Spot is not as detailed. --BrokenSphere 01:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crew list

A list of the Dutchman's crewmembers on THIS page is very useful; it would give the reader some important basic information about the who’s who aboard the Dutchman. I shouldn’t be a copy of the ==The Flying Dutchman (under Captain Davy Jones)== section from the List of minor characters, but only a list giving the charactairs’ names and their positions in the crew. (like on the Black Pearl page) For more detailed information about the character, each name should link to the character’s own article or section on the List of minor characters.

I disagree. It basically serves the same purpose as the List of Characters page without providing any information. Also, any precedent by the Black Pearl's page is shaky at best; a brief glance at that page showed a fair amount of speculation and original research, both of which are supposed to be struck from articles. I have no problem with putting up a "See Also: The Crew of the Flying Dutchman" (linking to the list of characters page, at the relevant section) but there is little point in having it here. Dac 09:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons

Why someone always move that? --89.172.225.73 09:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Croatian pirate

Cause it's unknown at the moment, simple as that. Captain Drake Van Hellsing 10:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Carefully count cannons and you will know correct number. --89.172.194.186 12:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Croatian pirate

OK, first of all, the number of cannons is a trivial fact. Second, it was never anywhere stated that the ship type is a galleon, making that original research. And finally, NO FIRST APPEARANCE SECTIONS. This is a three-part series; a first appearance section is extremely redundant for something with so few parts. Dac 12:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
1)Then number of cannons is an important information which is needed to estimate the a ship's firepower. further, in the age of sail, the numnber of cannons aboard was NEARLY ALWAYS given, even if it was an estimation.

2)It also wasn't stated that the Pearl is a East Indiamen or that the Interceptor is a brig, or that Jack the Monkey is a capucine monkey, but all thise facts were clear for those who have seen the movies and have the right knowlage. It isn't original research, but simply an info for those, who don't have this knowlage. 3)Apart from the 3 movies, there are

-The Jack Sparrow book series, consisting (by now) 7 books two more are upcoming.
-a not finished comic series about the events between CotBP and DMC.
-Two video games with own storilines ( Pirates of the Caribbean (video game) & The Legend of Jack Sparrow )

so it's just logical to give a first appearance section.


Oy...OK then.
1. Estimation is SPECULATION. And are we in the Age of Sail now? No. Number of cannons, I am now being more lenient on, because word is information on them is/has been released in an informative source. However, to the other points...
2. I don't watch the Black Pearl or Interceptor pages. I occasionally drop by and remove the more blatant violations, but for the most part I don't. As for the monkey, it was stated in the special features somewhere of one of the movies, I forget which. And we're talking about movies fraught with supernatural occurrences, in which, for example, a supposed East Indiamen travels faster than is logical with torn sails. It has NOT BEEN STATED in any sources that the Dutchman is a galleon, hence it is unproven, and therefore comes under original research.
3. Most people don't care whatsoever about the EU books, comics or games. When someone says Pirates of the Caribbean in a conversation, only two things are going to come up: the ride, or the movies. We are running on the system of the core series, and the core series comprises ONLY of the movies. And since there are only three, I say again, a first appearance section is extremely redundant for something with so few parts. Dac 09:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
2)I don'know, who was the first who claimed that the Dutchman is a galleon, but i suppose that he had some information, and i agree with this opinion; the Dutchman fits the criteria for beeing classified as a galleon.
3)It's unimportant what do the people care about, this stuff is canon and therefore first appearence sections are neccesary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.144.84.136 (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
As far as the galleon thing goes, it fits the criteria for being a galleon: what information are you basing this on? Anything stated in any of the filmmaking diaries, notes or features? Because if not, this ship which goes UNDERWATER and is crewed by DEFORMED MONSTERS cannot by any Wikipedia guideline be classified as a galleon. If it resembles one in some way, it matters little; the filmmakers took some aspects from a galleon and made a completely unique ship for use in a work of fiction. That happens. Logic is of little use here; the Black Pearl's hull design is not designed for speed yet the ship accomplishes it, the same thing happens here. Just because the ship resembles a galleon in a few ways doesn't make it one.
As far as the EU sources go: ARE they canon? Through the films, many things are unclear. These are what the EU stuff covers, yes? Well they take creative liberties, and some of them are bound to make contradictions. And find me a statement from the filmmakers saying they're to be taken as canon, and not as some stuff made to cap off the success. We're going on the CORE SERIES. Books, comics and games, unless STATED OUTRIGHT by the licensed owners of the films, are NOT part of the core series. First appearance sections are redundant.
I'm not engaging in an edit war over this. Let's leave it at that. Dac 11:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
a Galleon is a type of ship, if a ship have the right hull construction, it's one. It's absolutely unimportant who crew this ship or which magic abilitys it have; The filmmakers do not need to point this out anywhere.
At least the books & comics were published by Disney Press. Disney own the Rights on the potc stuff, so the books ARE canon.
Again, show me somewhere that the filmmakers say that what you claim is true and I'll allow it. But all of this apparently is based on your personal opinion and assumptions, and that leaves us with nothing but original research and speculation. So in closing, we don't know it's a galleon, and we're running on the core series. Thank you. Dac 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
On all the following pages the Dutchman is called a galleon, the last one is an official disney site. In the german novelisation by Wolfgang Hohlbein the Dutchman is also called a galleon. Is that enough?

[1] [2] [3] [4]

There, was that so hard? Go ahead and add it. Dac 21:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did it. I only wanted to avoid a edit war.
That's fair. That's all I intended to do as well. I might just toss that last link in as a citation, just to be clear. Dac 08:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Explanations for Stuff

The ship itself was probably Davy Jones' original ship, minus the triple guns and Kraken Hammer. The Hammer looks like something that he would have gotten from the Devil when he sold his soul, like all his supernatural abilities.

The Flying Dutchman never makes port, so it must salvage all of its supplies from other ships. This may have led the crew to take more advanced weaponry (such as the triple guns) from their prey.

Davy Jones himself seems to have come straight from the early Baroque or late Renaissance era. This can be heard in his theme music, and seen in the highly stylized portholes on the side of the ship. He must have been in his line of work for a while, considering the standard service time is a century. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.90.213.22 (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Common

What the hell? I was reading this article and now the new movie was spoiled beause of the infobox saying that Will Turner is the Captain. Thanks a lot. Don't put that stuff at the top of the article, and put a spoiler when it comes. Jeez. Armyrifle 03:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Spoiler warnings are being phased out or something. You really shouldn't read anything online about movies you don't want to have spoiled, especially near the time of release, and REALLY after they have been released! This has been on so much as the list of current threads on the movie's IMDb page for months now. I'm trying to find out why Davy Jones and his crew turned into "monsters" while Will and his crew did not. -AndromedaRoach 08:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • ...And now I know. Putting it in. -AndromedaRoach 08:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh wait, it's already there. Cool. -AndromedaRoach 08:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green Flash speculation

The speculation over the Green Flash within this artical certainly should be cleaned up in terms of the Movie or lore of the story line. The green (or often times blue) flash is a natural phenomenon (as natural as the Aurora borealis) and happens with all sunset and can be viewed within the right conditions. It is often sought after by photographers but happens so quickly is often not photographed. It certainly does not last as long as dramatically shown in the movie nor does it Blast so large throughout the sky. The artical reads like original research in this area Slysplace | talk 01:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Fascinating. Is there an existing article on the phenomenon? If not, should one be created, or would a reference to the natural origin of this superstition suffice? The green flashes seen in the film are clearly not intended to be interpreted as a natural phenomenon. The writers briefly refer to the final one here. I believe the article as it is adequately explains that this was intended to show that Will had been "resurrected," yet the earlier flash could mean that every trip of the Dutchman to and from the other world triggers one. -AndromedaRoach 07:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have added a preliminary explanation of the flash as described within the movie, as well as reference links regarding its further significance as intended by the writers. Hopefully this "cleans up" that part of the article sufficiently while this matter is considered further. -AndromedaRoach 09:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • There is a wiki page on Green flash actually, and a search on google simply for "green flash" returns over 308,000 hits and "green flash sunset" narrows further to 1330 hits. The cleanup of the article helps some but again I think it promotes Myth more than Phenomenon this may only be my POV (which is why I wont edit this section) not to say a little more research may indeed find mythology involved or related to green flash. Slysplace | talk 18:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Just saw the movie yet again, and early on in the dialog as they approach the worlds end and everyone is freezeing Barbossa asks "have you ever gazed upon the green flash" there is must speculation by the crew and Pintal States "Some say it's a lost soul returning" (I may have in other discussions mistakenly said it was the superstitious Gibbs) either way Barbossa also states in his dialog that Many go through life without ever the sight of it (not an exact quote paraphrased by my old memory. I'm just clarifying my earlier statement that it's only speculation in the films dialog by crew and never asserted that it's a lost sole returning. Slysplace | talk 00:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Since so far, every pirate superstition dwelled upon in the films is proven to be entirely true within that universe, I think it's safe to consider it a supernatural phenomenon as described, especially given its two uses at the end of the film matching the unnatural disappearance and reappearance of the Flying Dutchman (there should also have been one when they flipped the boat over, but I don't recall seeing it if there was). However, additional mention of the real natural phenomenon would certainly be appropriate and helpful. What's seen in the film seems to be a "green ray," given the descriptions in that article. I would have expected some mention there of a similar superstition surrounding the phenomenon, but since none is given I suppose research is needed to find out whether the film actually invented this one. -AndromedaRoach 07:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • This is quoted from from the script. I think it's accurate; if so it's a bit different from how I remembered it.
BARBOSSA: On rare occasions, when the sun sets, there is a green flash on the horizon. They say -
GIBBS: -that’s the only time a soul can transition between worlds.
So it's not a result or sign of a journey, but rather means that the time is right for one to take place. This would allow natural explanation for the phenomenon itself.-AndromedaRoach 08:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I agree with this statement, it is easily confirmed within the dialog of the scenes involved, I'm just not sure the article conveys the same... Slysplace | talk 21:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Here's another, more recent version of the script. I guess this is what the film used after all.
GIBBS: I reckon I've seen my share. (to Will) Happens on rare occasion, at the last glimpse of sunset, a green flash shoots up into the sky. Some go their whole lives and never see it. Some claim to have seen it who ain't. Some say -
PINTEL: -it signals when a soul comes back to this world from the dead. (Gibbs glares at him) Sorry.
It's already been demonstrated that I'm not well up for research, but here are some preliminary results from personal websites.
CruiseNews 38 - Supersition - Just then the sun set. As we watched its upper limb hit the horizon, we were treated to a green flash. Many people consider the green flash, the end of a rainbow, and a dolphin dancing in your wake to be good luck. Gee, it's too bad we're not superstitious…
That's not very helpful!
Mythology's Mythinglinks - He and I have been corresponding on the lore connected to "green flashes" -- lore from sailors as well as from mystic literature and mythology ranging from ancient Egypt to the New World (my own suggestions include the Grail as an emerald falling from the crown of Lucifer as he plunged into the fires of hell; Hildegard's vision of the "Sapphire Christ," the Navajo name of "Turquoise Man" for the sun, etc.)
None of which are related to the meaning in the film.
Green-flash Fallacies and Misconceptions - Another favorable myth, this one from Jules Verne.
Finally, I searched the scriptwriters' WordPlay Forums, finding only this page which has nothing to do with the writers' source for the idea. At this point it seems they simply heard of the phenomenon and invented this superstition for the story to fit the plot, but that's by no means certain. By the way, how can I properly format a reply like this containing multiple paragraphs? -AndromedaRoach 08:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality standards?

The opening paragraphs of Section:Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End described events concerning the ship based on trailers and other previews; this was acceptable before the film's release, but had since led post-release explanation of the events surrounding the transfer of captaincy to completely ignore their context within the plot, since the battle itself had been touched on in the preview-based speculation. I have tried to take the important elements from that area and work them into the summary of the ship's role in the film, especially the final battle. However, the section now strongly resembles the plot summary in the main article. Is this acceptable, or should some information be removed? Also, tense is a mess of both past and present. I've tried to make it consistent within some areas, but I'm not sure what the official policy regarding this is. It's tempting to describe events in the first two films in the past tense, while describing At World's End in the present because it is "happening now." Parts of he article seemed to follow this standard before I arrived, but while I doubt it's the preferred way to write, I am reluctant to change it. Could someone direct me to the relevant help page? -AndromedaRoach 09:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, the article is about the Flying Dutchman, so I think some (plot) information should be removed. I agree that the tense is a mess, but I'm not sure how to deal with it. Davtra 10:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think what definitely should be there (in the sections on the movies) includes events regarding her captaincy, important events directly involving the ship, and minimally worded further details as required to give sufficient context, whatever that may be. It seems excessive to include everything that occurs on the ship. For example, is Jack's duel with Jones worth the mention just because it occurs on her yardarm? -AndromedaRoach 11:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the matter of the spoiler warning. Assuming we are to keep it, it currently spans through all of the movie sections and most of "Life Aboard," ending just before the last paragraph in that section. Despite the accuracy, this seems incredibly awkward to me, since one might assume that spoilers end when the movie sections end, and the "endspoiler" is not easy to find for those to whom it is intended to be of assistance. In order to avoid spoilers, they would probably have to either text-search for "spoilers end," or scroll to the bottom of the article and work their way up until they found it. The problems of endspoiler have been discussed here. Also, as mentioned above, the spoiler warning seems futile given that the info box at the upper left necessarily contains a spoiler in its own right! -AndromedaRoach 11:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing data: Life Aboard

It looks like someone has tried to edit the "Life Aboard" section, but messed up. Should it be reverted or re-written?

  • User:218.186.8.11 deleted a chunk of information. The article has been reverted :) - Davtra 09:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

A friend of mine was looking at this article and she failed to understand, in the History, the area titled Pirates of the Caribbean: Jack Sparrow. She never read the books. I think, therefore, there should be more of a detailed explanation on it. -Elizabeth (BlackPearl14 00:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Liars' Dice

When the crew was wagering years of service by playing liars' dice, were they trying to gain or loose years of service? For some, it would make sense to gain (i.e. to forestall their final judgment), but for others, they would want to leave asap (for those like Bootstrap who only joined to escape an unescapable predicament). Could there have been a mixture of those trying to gain or lose years of service? Emperor001 21:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving

When one finished his years owed to Davy Jones, what happened to him? Did he die or did he leave in the same condition he was in when he joined? For example, if Sparrow simply served his debt, uppon release, would he die of old age, or leave the ship the same as he was when he came one and be free to live the rest of his life? Emperor001 21:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Will Scar.JPG

Image:Will Scar.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dutch rain.JPG

Image:Dutch rain.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dutchman.jpg

Image:Dutchman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Flying Dutchman Underwater.JPG

Image:The Flying Dutchman Underwater.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ship's Appearance

Shouldn't this page include what the ship looks like after it undergoes its "metamorphosis" at the end of At World's End? If you take a closer look at how she emerges with Will as captain, you'll see that the sails and the hull are much lighter, the gunports don't resemble demons anymore, bur more something like angels, and that sort of stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.93.141.209 (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)