Jump to content

Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starPirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is part of the Pirates of the Caribbean films series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 12, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
October 1, 2010Good topic candidatePromoted
August 12, 2011Good article nomineeListed
March 18, 2018Good topic removal candidateDemoted
February 13, 2021Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Broader Revisions

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

MPAA Rating in Intro Paragraph

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Blackbeard

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Distribution

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Plot

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Star Trek reference

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

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)[reply]

I note the criticism due to "excessiveness". What is excessiveness supposed to mean?203.184.41.226 (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It Was Way Different From This In The Real Pirates

[edit]

We need a bulleted list of the names and aliases of all the pirates, because you all clearly have no idea about the real pirates and their folkways.

69.254.165.61 (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Admiral Electric[reply]

As I read, the pirate societies were socially conservative in the legislature except in the areas of consent and controlled substances.

69.254.165.61 (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Admiral Electric[reply]

Property laws were strict: without exception, one pirate might not take another pirate's property.

69.254.165.61 (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Admiral Electric[reply]

In the case of civic emergency, the usual course of events was that one pirate would be elevated to the status of centralized investor in the solution, in order that public order not be disturbed by riot.

69.254.165.61 (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Admiral Electric[reply]

If you want this in the article, we'll need a reliable source that:
  1. specifically states these facts and
  2. notes that this film contradicts them. --Boycool (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Monaco as Spanish Captain

[edit]

I just want to point out that in the casting section, it says "Gerard Monaco as Spanish Captain". That is incorrect. As you can see in this official Disney image, it says that the character's name is called "Spanish Officer", not captain. So someone needs to change that, if you please. 75.89.201.239 (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara

[edit]

Tamara is not queen of the mermaids. Besides the news articles, NOTHING in the film has suggested "Oh no, it's the mermaid queen! Run for your lives!". So Tamara must be listed as just "an antagonistic mermaid". 75.91.1.5 (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What we take from the movie is our own point of view, but what is in the news articles is sourced material we are obliged to use. --Boycool (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. The only source which we are obliged to use is whatever the producers say, because they do indeed know more than a normal viewer. If some newspaper says "Wow, she is so Queen of the mermaids" it is still no more than a random unsourced POV of some journalist. And there is absolutely nothing that would hint at a special role for Tamara. So, if anybody says that she is more than a random antagonist this person has to justify this statement. And not the other way around. Btw: Reference [33] neither mentions the name "Tamara" nor does it say "queen" anywhere... --80.140.122.94 (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office

[edit]

Really, the box office section is too long.

There is no need at all for such a large amount of detail - it unbalances the article. A table with figures and perhaps a brief comment would probably be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.70.93 (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I want to thank the writer for his hard work in writing all that box office news. I think the reason POTC4 requires such a long detailed box office section is because it has broken many records. However, some parts needs a bit of shortening like Latin of America and Europe. I don't mean a huge cut down but the removal of unnecessary facts and numbers from so many countries. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we make a sub-article about the box-office performance of On Stranger Tides similarly to Harry Potter 7 Part 2? --Spinc5 (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Home media

[edit]

The home media information for the film was released today. Only a little bit of information has been released, but I'm guessing the rest of the press release will follow at some point today. I started a draft for the section, which can be found here. As more information is released, I will supplement it. I would love to get some feedback on it before implementing the edits. Any and all feedback is welcome. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the home media section to reflect my draft. I'm happy to continue discussing the section, with particular emphasis on the detail of the bonus features. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the process of implementing the edits, I noticed that the release section was a sub-section of reception, so I pulled it out as its own section. According to MOS:Film#Release, reception and release can be two separate major sections. --TravisBernard (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILM Assessment

[edit]

Per a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment, I have reviewed the article to see if it should be upgraded from Start class. After reading the majority of the article (I skipped the plot for any future viewing of the film), I went through and made some fixes throughout. Please review my changes for accuracy. There are only a few offhand issues I noticed that should be resolved prior to a GAN review:

  1. The image screenshot issues need to be resolved (both currently are tagged on the images' pages. For fair-use requirements, I don't see the reason to have both as Blackbeard is present in the second screenshot with Depp and Cruz. I would recommend removing the first screenshot and there should be no issue keeping the other one (as it is showing the two new main characters in this film). The Depp free image should face the text. Determine if any other free images can be incorporated into the article.
  2. I saw a few blogs and unreliable sources being used in the article. Go through and verify that the current citations meet the RS criteria and see if others cover the material being introduced by the unreliable ones.
  3. Definitely have someone copyedit the article. I found a few sentences lacking a beginning, but possibly missed a few more (sorry, getting tired).
  4. There is a link provided to the list of accolades, but no introduction to any awards received. Start a brief section within the reception section that covers a few of the awards so at least there's an overview.
  5. This isn't a requirement, but I would highly recommend using WebCite to archive the links before they begin to go bad. It would be a shame to lose the large amount of sources that are available for citing this article.

As these can be resolved prior to a reviewer looking over the article, I am going to assesses this as B for now. Please let me know if there are any questions on the above. Good job on cleaning the article up and helping to keep the dedicated topic on the series up-to-date. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: —Mike Allen 06:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC) ✓ Pass[reply]

[edit]
  • The article has two dead links. Ref 31 and Ref 66. (Note that is not reason to fail, but if an archive/another source can be found that would be great)
    • Fixed the first... but the second was working!
  • No dabs
  • To prevent further link rot, you may want to WebCite refs that are likely to go down (see below).

Infobox

[edit]
  • Is clean and concise. However there are two budget figures listed here and only one in the Filming section?
    • Decided to just say the budget is lower in Filmin (reports vary between $150, $200 and $250, better not stick to one).

Prose

[edit]
Plot
Cast
  • I don't think character descriptions (aka plot details) should be used here since there is already a plot section and most of their descriptions is in the Casting section. This should just be a simple list or the list removed altogether since the actors are linked in the plot section.
    • Cut the description for most.
Development
  • I'm confused as to how the some of the punctuation should be within quotations (see MOS:LQ). I think someone else should make a judgement on some of those (mostly in the Production sections).
  • In the last paragraph: "The circumstances of his resignation are unknown, but most speculate he resigned over his conflicting business tactics with CEO Bob Iger. Iger sought out "new ways of doing business", while Cook remained a traditionalist." Is is necessary to leave in that "most speculate"? Who are most people?
    • Removed that part.
Writing
  • The last paragraph: "Initial rumors stated the story had Captain Jack Sparrow and Barbossa meeting up in the newly founded New Orleans, before they sail to find the Fountain of Youth together. A production spokesman debunked the rumors, saying that the synopsis is different and even though location scouts visited New Orleans, production would occur in Hawaii and the United Kingdom." Is that still relevant?
    • Removed (and added NO being considered as a location elsewhere)
Casting
  • There are a lot of "[Actor] was confirmed" bits throughout this section. Could some of it be worded another way so it doesn't sound repetitive?
    • Reworded a bit.
Music
Promotion
  • Merely listing when a trailer was released should be avoided per WP:FILMMARKETING.
    • Reworded the trailer section.
Reception

References

[edit]
  • The article is well referenced to [mostly] reliable sources. About.com ref should be replaced with the original source of Sam Claflin joining the cast, like this one.
  • The citations date styles are inconsistent and should be either the style August 6, 2011 or 2011-08-06. Doesn't matter which, as long as it's consistently used. Make sure all references have an author attributed in the citation (if provided) using last=|first= parameters. Like I said in the peer review, using WebCite to prevent link rot is recommended (but not required). You don't necessarily have to WebCite all 126 sources, but Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter are notorious about going down or being removed from the web. It may be a good idea to WebCite other news sources.
    • Archived EW and THR. Put all authors I could find (the ones that don't have are uncredited).

Coverage and Neutral

[edit]
  • The article satisfies the "broad coverage" criteria for a Good Article and is neutral with no bias.

Good presentation

[edit]

It is a tricky job to write in depth about a movie covering all aspects. The job is well done and the attitude to make revisions suggested deserves credit.--Camdolly (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stability

[edit]
  • The article appears pretty stable now, compared to the IP edits from August 3rd and 4th. However you may want to request protection, citing an on-going GA in progress.

Images

[edit]
  • I don't think the non-free image File:Depp Cruz McShane POTC4.jpg really conveys anything useful to the understanding of the article. It seems there was or is a dispute about the image. Can you look on Flickr to see if there are any set images (if they are non-free, you can ask the uploader if they will release it under a free license). Some free images of the actors could be added to the article.
    • Removed.

All of this should not take long to do and should be passed by the deadline to make a Good Topic.

Now I just need to motivation to check this "punctuation inside quotes" thing. igordebraga ≠ 05:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of copyedits

[edit]

Um, I would like to know why the copyedits I made were reverted. They were made on a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests by... ahem, it seems the very editor who has now reverted my edits. The requester did ask that the copyedits be made before the article was reviewed for GA status. Unfortunately, none of my compatriots had a chance to get around to it by then. But, I see nothing wrong with copyediting an article while it is being reviewed. Certainly, I've done it several times before, and we do want to try to make the best possible article, don't we? Most of my edits without question improved the clarity of this article, in my opinion -- but I'm afraid my bridge is burned now. Bobnorwal (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit suggests that he had a bad internet connection and reverted your edits on accident. --Boycool (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poster

[edit]

Is this poster not real or something? I'm sure it was up before and I can't see how the current one, featuring one character, can be considered better than one that compensates for four NFC images by featuring all 4 main characters.

http://www.impawards.com/2011/pirates_of_the_caribbean_on_stranger_tides_ver9.html

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one you are looking at is the international poster. If you look at the bottom, it says "in cinemas." This is usually the easiest way to determine if the poster is from the UK vs. US. The current one on the page is the official poster from the US release of the film.--TravisBernard (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception Summary

[edit]

Consider these facts:

  • Rotten Tomatoes verdict is "rotten" (33 %)
  • Metacritic gives "mixed or average" (45 %). However, a quasi-random sample (first page of movies tarting with "M") has a median of 57, a result of 45 if about at 25 % from the bottom. This makes it a far below average.

So how exactly are the reviews not "mostly negative"? --91.10.25.182 (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for some help at WT:FILM because apparently I can't explain this well. Usually, our mixed/positive/negative statement comes from Metacritic (if they have a consensus available). In this case Metacritic says mixed. Frequently, when there is a dispute over that interpretation, we simply jump straight to the stats and omit the consensus mixed/negative sentence entirely; it helps avoid edit warring. I used to think it was based more on their percentages (both RT and MC), myself, so I understand being confused in that way. Their percentages are based on the scores the reviewers give the film. If you sit down and play with the math it starts to make more sense. As a hypothetical, say 2 positive reviews give the film a 6/10 and two negative reviews give it a 2/10 and 1/10 each. When you average those scores you end up with a 3.75/10 (or 38%, rounded) which seems like the negative end of mixed. But you had 2 positive and two negative reviews which is mixed evenly between reviewers who liked and disliked it. Saying "mostly negative" implies it was panned (or nearly so) which has not been the case at all. Millahnna (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, there is a whole paragraph starting "On Stranger Tides also had positive reviews", implying that everything mentioned before is negative in some way.
I think the numbers (33 % and 25 % from the bottom) make it a "mostly negative", in that there are more negative than positive reviews. (It should say "overwhelmingly negative" or "universally panned".)
Just to avoid confusion: I don't even know the movie and have thus no opinion on it.
What about my latest change? --91.10.25.182 (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I haven't seen it either (haven't worked on the text in that section for that matter). I tend to try and avoid ranges like that myself, but I do think it's more accurate than just negative and I don't see anything wrong with it. It's when people put "mixed to mostly negative/positive" that there's an issue since that's "sort of to essentially meaningless" when you break down the language. I know some other editors edit away from ranges entirely, so someone else might change it, but that works for me.
Whoever wrote the section focused on the negative reviews first for whatever reason (nothing wrong with that); that's why there's that shift to positive. In the few reception projects I've done (procrastinating a big one right now) I've noticed the pattern for that sort of thing changes depending on how all of the reviews shape up. SO sometimes it's easier to do pos/neg/pos/neg and sometimes it's easier to start with one and then the other. It just sort of depends on how each review is written (do the people who like it have very little negative to say or do they like it despite some major flaws).
Seriously though, film project peeps who might be reading this... I'm rubbish at explaining this without getting into the math which is why I asked for help. If you can think of a way to word this stuff that would help me not go into arithmetic mode, I'd really appreciate it. Millahnna (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So let's keep the range and wait for somebody to come up with new arguments. --91.10.25.182 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Metacritic says 45, and flat out says "mixed or average" on the site. RT is more negative and says flat out "rotten". It is not fair to give Rotten Tomatoes special privilege to decide what the outcome of the film reception was, and I say that as someone who say through all 2 hours plus of that boring waste of time and money. Metacritic collects 32 positive/mixed reviews to 7 negative while RT collects reviews from hundreds of sources, some of what wikipedia would consider less important or notable. Therefore I believe it fairer to say mixed/average reception. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Metacritic's 45 is a quarter up from the bottom, far below average. BTW, It is not fair to give Metacritc special privilege to decide what the outcome of the film reception was. Unless there is a reasoned consensus about this of course. Also, Metacritic collects 28 negative/mixed reviews to only 11 positive. --91.10.25.182 (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also Rotten Tomatoes has a score of 5 out of 10, which I would say is mixed. —Mike Allen 22:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RT has a score of 33 %. Also: Make up your minds, is it the description ("rotten" & "average/mixed") or the numbers (33 % & 45 %). In both cases, "mixed to negative" matches. --91.10.25.182 (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I should have been clearer: RT has a rating average of 5 out of 10. Why does everyone seem to dismiss that? —Mike Allen 00:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because we don't always have it in articles and it's in a fairly small font on RT's website, relative to the rest of the page. Millahnna (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

[edit]

According to IMDb, the film has received 10 nominations but not all of them appear on here, neither on the franchise's awards page (even though when you count you'd think it does). Nominations missing:

  • World Soundtrack Award
  • Artios Award from the Casting Society of America¨
  • Annie Awards
  • ALMA Awards

I also noted the film received a nomination from the Art Directors Guild for Fantasy Film, see here http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/art-directors-guild-announces-nominations-277724 I don't know which awards should appear on both pages or which ones should ONLY appear on the main awards page.--Sofffie7 (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

[edit]

I was wondering: it says that the film's budget is between $150 million and $250 million. There are references for both prices. But the reference for $250 million is from the Box Office Mojo, which is a VERY reliable source. The reference for $150 million is some reviewer who isn't citing where he got his information. The box office mojo is an official website that basically gets their information right from the studio. I would like to delete the "$150 million" thing and say it's budgeted at $250 million. Can anyone back me up? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection. Elizium23 (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BOM gets its info from where everyone else gets it, thin air. Studios rarely release budgets officially for good reason, most budgets are just estimates and BOM has picked one and ran with it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So... can I do it? I need your permission. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American in lead paragraph

[edit]

when I try to add "American" to the movie , Darkwarriorblake revert it, the movie is from United States, so need to have the "American" Thanks. MervinVillarreal (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mervin is correct. WP:FILMLEAD says "ideally, the nationality of the film should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is ambiguous, clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph." Since the nationality is not ambiguous as far as I am aware, we can use "American" in the lead sentence. Elizium23 (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so? 190.198.26.57 (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From speculation to clear plot details

[edit]

It said on the (edit screen) main page that Syrena's reasoning for taking Philip underwater is never explained. I know that others may have different opinions to this, but to me, it's perfectly clear. At White Cap Bay, Derrick (one of Blackbeard's pirates) said, "I heard it said that a kiss from a mermaid protects a sailor from drowning." The pirates were then dragged underwater and eaten because of their evil hearts and evil intentions. But Syrena saw that Philip was not like them. Philip fell in love with Syrena and she reciprocates his feelings. She saved him and gave him the power of protection from drowning and took him underwater so they could be together. Other's may disagree with this, but that's the way I see it. I hope others will as well. High Orbit (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion over the budget

[edit]

There have been some recent edits replacing the $378.5 million figure with a range of $180–250 million. The $180–250 million figure is out of date information; when the film was released back in 2011 there was a range of estimates from news outlets such as Variety ($150 million), LA Times ($200 million) and Box Office Mojo ($250 million), but recent developments make these amounts irrelevant.

In July 2014 Forbes magazine reported it had obtained financial statements revealing the cost of the production at $410.6 million, minus a $32.1 million rebate under the UK's Film Tax Relief system. As the reporter explains in the article: "Shooting in the United Kingdom made it eligible for a government film tax credit scheme which entitles movies with expenditure of more than $34.1 million (£20 million) to claim back up to 20% of their production costs. The expenses of movies qualifying for the scheme are consolidated in a single company which is unusual in the film industry. It makes it easier to work out a movie’s entitlement under the tax credit scheme and it gives great insight into its finances."

While the article does not explicitly give the budget, it gives the cost ($410.6 million) and the rebate ($32.1 million) so it is possible to calculate the budget by subtracting the rebate from the cost (permitted on Wikipedia by WP:CALC). This is made clearer in the case of John Carter where Forbes do bother to provide the budget figure: "It filed four sets of financial statements between 2010 to 2013 with the latter becoming available this year. Total costs came to $306.6 million (£192.6 million) and peaked annually at $130.6 million (£85 million) in 2010 when 435 staff worked on the production ... The financial statements reveal that the British tax authority handed Disney $42.9 million (£27.1 million) to make John Carter ... The tax payment to John Carter gave the picture a net budget of $263.7 million which is far more than estimates predicted."

Now, if editors take the time to read the two Forbes articles it will be clear to them that these figures are not estimates, as is usually the case with film budgets. They are taken from accounts submitted by Disney to the British government under its tax relief scheme, and audited by the UK tax authority. There is absolutely no reason to defer to outdated estimates when we have audited figures at our disposal. Betty Logan (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

since the quoted in forbes was released the dollar/euro exchange rate has changed not its £240.7 million which at todays exchange rate is $311,923,130.00 US Dollar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.80.120 (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The value of the pound dropped significantly after Brexit. Prior to then the pound-dollar exchange rate was stable and should reflect the value at the time the film was made, not the value today i.e. Disney were buying pounds at the 2010/11 rate, not the 2016/17 rate. Betty Logan (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The forbes link measures the budget up until 2013, which could include marketing costs. Traditionally, the wikipedia budget doesn't include that. The film's actual production budget is likely smaller than 370 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.138.149 (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marketing and finance costs are not eligible costs according to https://www.rawlinson-hunter.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BTG-Film-Tax-Relief-Oct-152.pdf. Cost are limited to pre-production, production and post-production. It is likely there is some lag i.e. costs incurred in 2011 will probably not be rebated until the 2012/2013 fiscal year. Betty Logan (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The UK Tax credit consider in the budget even the actors partecipations. 95.249.150.5 (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Profit participation is not an expenditure incurred during the pre-production, filming and post-production stages, so no, HMRC does not credit participations to the cost of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They number is wrong. All of thr claims appear to be substantiated by a qualitative look at the film itself. Disney is also on record to investors that the film came in on budget. The insane number come from the Uk tax rebate which i m pretty sure give systematically higher numbers than the ones generally reported in the trades.
Everyone associated withe the film was on record talking about how much lower this film's budget was then Pirates 3.
Heck Is not possible way to consider this movie more expensive than Avengers: Endgame. Wikipedia commonly accepted the movie budget of $379 million but is wrong if you look the evidence when you see the movie, there's a lot of public statements that the film had a reduced budget relative respect at Pirates 3.
New York Times article said that On Stranger Tides was expensive despite the budget pressures, costing an estimated $400 million to make and market and explicity claiming Stranger Tides had fewer shooting days and reduced budget from Pirates 3. Same thing with Hollywood Reporter article of the making of the movie.
"but he brougth it in under budget and ahead of schedule, Jerry Bruckheimer says and the were talking already about Pirates 5.
Los Angeles Times - Even Jerry Bruchkeimer movie have budget cuts.
Although it's still large - north of $200 million - it is at least a third less the last Pirates 3 and includes far fewer shooting days and visual effects shots.
It's easy to lie about a film's total budget , but it's not hard for reporters to confirm the actual number of shooting days on a film. It would be a strange thing to insert an unprompted lie about.
The original $410/$379 million came from Forbes article in 2014. However that article also notes that Disney's financial statements publicly confirm the film came in on budget. "the directors consider the company's key financial performance indicator to be whether Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is produced in line with the agreed budget. At the period end, the estimated cost of the film was in line with its budget cost and the film continued to be funded by the financiers.
There really is no evidence that Pirates 4 was over budget and there are numerous public statements suggesting it was on budget and said budget was massive but below the prior films in the franchise. 87.16.36.34 (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming tedious now. Unless The New York Times has seen the accounts then they are just guessing, or just regurgitating Disney PR. It is well known that the budgets published in the trades always low-ball. The numbers submitted to HMRC come from Disney themselves, they are not estimates, they are expenditure during the production phase audited by HMRC. This has been discussed in detail at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Budgets_revisited_/_Caroline_Reid_and_Forbes.com, where interviews with the Russo brothers confirm the HMRC figures are accurate for films like Infinity War and Endgame. Audited accounts are far more reliable than guesstimates and Wikipedia deals with facts, not the opinions of editors. Betty Logan (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the same Forbes article said that the film came one the agreed budget. Also the producer Jerry Bruckheimer that contribute to make this movie confirmed that the budget was in line with that agreed by the production 87.16.36.34 (talk) 09:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the budget was in line with that was agreed at the time when the movie was produced in the line between $200-250 million. 87.16.36.34 (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suck-you-byes as Mermaids reference

[edit]

Was told to bring it up here to reach consensus with other editors, so here goes. As noted, the fourth Pirates movie uses elements from Tim Power's book On Stranger Tides. What isn't noted, however, is what the "brief mermaid reference" was actually referring to. Taking what was actually written in Powers' book, they were not referred to as "mermaids" but "suck-you-byes". Personally, I'd rather note what was in the book itself (assuming it's enough as a "cited source") rather than mislead the readers with the un-referenced mermaids...of course, that's assuming anyone actually reads the book.

If I may be so bold as to suggest this paragraph, or something similar to it, as the final edit should it be made...

The duo decided to employ another sea myth alluded in the previous episodes: mermaids, which are briefly referenced in the book. Although Tim Powers stated mermaids weren't in the novel, there was a brief reference to "suck-you-byes" as "female demons that weirdly and erotically occupied the last hours of men marooned on barren islands". In the film, mermaids appear to be siren-like; succubus took the form of a siren in real-world folklore.

Please put some insight into this semi-important matter. At least for actual book-readers. Thanks for any input! 71.30.30.122 (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The budget

[edit]

Betty Logan change the budget. Pirates 4 today cost $331 milion, no $410 milion Jacopo Alighieri (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, another sock puppet for Carlo Galanti. Foodles42 (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In any case both figures should be included, see Template:Infobox film " If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range. " -- 109.79.167.172 (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have two conflicting estimates then both to the infobox is the proper thing to do, but we shouldn't be adding out-of-date estimates from WP:OLDSOURCES to the infobox when an audited figure from the HMRC exists. Betty Logan (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmrc can always tell lies 95.249.150.5 (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they were telling lies they would most likely low-ball the costs to reduce the size of the rebate. In fact, they are quite stringent and exclude any costs incurred prior to the film being green-lighted, so sometimes the cost of the script is not counted in their figures. Betty Logan (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pirates_of_the_Caribbean:_On_Stranger_Tides&oldid=1213065789"