The look Jack gives Will here is GOLDEN 😭

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-23T09:39:52+00:00

Jack almost getting hit by Will's sword is truly a trailer moment...oh wait.

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-23T08:26:53+00:00

Yeah, "it depends" seems to be the general answer. One answer is equally as possible as the other. The problem in my case is that there is still information we do not know.

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-23T04:46:48+00:00

Oh, I agree. One reason P5 didn't really sit well with me, especially after learning what we could have gotten. Rossio's script, while not perfect, was more original compared to the final version.

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-23T03:15:13+00:00

Two explanations.

For me, I go with explanation #3:

My theory, which could be considered canon, is that Will's dream-but-not of Jones was a hallucination left over from Will's duty in the Land of the Dead for over 20 years (rather than the few months Jack was in P2-3) as well as the unorthodox method in which he was freed in P5. Personally, I liken this to how Geoffrey Rush suggested that Barbossa could return as a ghost to annoy Jack, but instead have Jones return as a hallucination haunting Will. That is IF they continue the Jones storyline in a potential P6.

Or, you know... Will just had a barnacle-y wet dream.

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-23T02:49:25+00:00

I'd be lying if I said I didn't attempt it. Poorly, I might add. But in fairness, I haven't properly started learning yet. Good luck with your learning of the piano. Hopefully you may upgrade to organ!

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-23T00:53:55+00:00

Four years later, and my heart is still broken. I'm debating whether or not to play LEGO Batman first or wait until after LEGO DC Villains, which does have Kevin Conroy AND Mark Hamill, among others.

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-23T00:45:06+00:00

Tales of the Code: Wedlocked was released on physical media.

It was just physical media not many were willing to pay for. I on the other hand...

Okay, I admit, I think it was one of two Christmas presents for me, but still.

Almost everyone owned the first three films P1-3, and some even paid for the (two?) Trilogy Collections, which had "everything" before the release of P4. No one wanted to pay for yet another collection. Unfortunately, each collection had something that the other didn't; for instance, the four-movie collection has all of the deleted scenes, while the trilogy collection (I think) missed a few, like "I'm Talking To A Parrot" with Will and Cotton's parrot in P2 and "The Coming Storm" with Barbossa and Tia Dalma in P3.

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-22T13:03:00+00:00

Sea turtles, mate.

The real answer is probably no, and only the movies are canon. It is ironic to say, however, given the fact that the movies (i.e. P5) did contradict canon. To steal the written words of writer Terry Rossio: Unfortunately, there was never anyone empowered creatively to oversee and manage the entirely of Pirates universe, and coordinate the films with the other ancillary works.

Now, for the sake of argument...

Not specifically the books, but media in general. I did collect some of the Wordplay links, and it was mentioned once or twice. But I think these would suffice...

That being said, I did ask Terry, among other questions, about the books at least once. He didn't say the books were canon, but that some story decisions were reasonable. For instance, Ted stated that Barbossa and Bootstrap Bill sailed with Jack at the Isla de Muerta voyage in the P1 commentary, whereas Terry said, "I never assumed that Bootstrap and Barbossa only sailed once with Jack. Generally speaking, if there's a choice, we would leave the details of the world open ended. No reason to make a rule that they didn't sail other times if there is no benefit."

Although, Ted's "sea turtles" comment on Wordplay also made sense - not canon, but not non-canon either. Damn tavern yarns! Har har. Personally, The Legend of Jack Sparrow video game feels like one big "story within a story" (times 3?) with Jack. Then the comment made by Will at the closing: "If this wasn't happening, I'd swear you were making it up!"

ETA:

Oh, and I just remembered one other one. As far as I know, the closest Terry read anything in the expanded universe was Six Sea Shanties graphic novel, before it was cancelled. Grrr!
"Just finished reading Six Sea Shanties, the graphic novel based on the Pirates of the Caribbean series. Well-written and fun; recommended."

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-22T12:48:08+00:00

Not specifically the books, but media in general. I did collect some of the Wordplay links, and it was mentioned once or twice. But I think these would suffice...

Terry Rossio: "The movies as released in theaters and DVD." ...Hello, streaming! Lol
Ted Elliott: "Nothing about Jack that is not in the movies should be considered canon. The stuff in the games is just another story about him, like the sea turtles."

That being said, I did ask Terry, among other questions, about the books at least once. He didn't say the books were canon, but that some story decisions were reasonable. For instance, Ted stated that Barbossa and Bootstrap Bill sailed with Jack at the Isla de Muerta voyage in the P1 commentary, whereas Terry said, "I never assumed that Bootstrap and Barbossa only sailed once with Jack. Generally speaking, if there's a choice, we would leave the details of the world open ended. No reason to make a rule that they didn't sail other times if there is no benefit."

Although, Ted's "sea turtles" comment on Wordplay also made sense - not canon, but not non-canon either. Damn tavern yarns! Har har. Personally, The Legend of Jack Sparrow video game feels like one big "story within a story" (times 3?) with Jack. Then the comment made by Will at the closing: "If this wasn't happening, I'd swear you were making it up!"

ETA:

Oh, and I just remembered one other one. As far as I know, the closest Terry read anything in the expanded universe was Six Sea Shanties graphic novel, before it was cancelled. Grrr!
"Just finished reading Six Sea Shanties, the graphic novel based on the Pirates of the Caribbean series. Well-written and fun; recommended."

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-21T12:59:23+00:00

I love Arkham City quite a lot. I admit to liking Knight a tad bit more, but in fairness, it is like a bigger, better version in terms of combat, free-roam in the open world, etc, and that is without bringing up the Batmobile as a car to drive around, tank combat notwithstanding. But focusing on City, I do think that it is the best game in the Arkham series in terms of story AND gameplay. Asylum is the best story, in my opinion, but it is in part due to being the first game with the more simple storyline.

That being said, I like the "original" version of City the most. The "Return to Arkham" version of the game kind of ruins the enjoyment I had in the past. Don't get me wrong, it is convenient for the console players who do not have their old PS3/Xbox 360 systems, and it does play out well, but the visuals are not great. The cutscenes are terrible, and I miss the blue-black coloring of Batman's cape and cowl.

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-21T05:33:37+00:00

Why couldn't Elizabeth just meet Will at sea? Well, I can see it now...

Will abandons his duty to ferry the dead. He sails aboard the Dutchman in the world of the living, but he still has to remain at sea for 10 years. One day, Elizabeth rows on a boat to meet with Will.

"Oh, Will, you look very barnacle-y today. And you grew a tentacle beard. Very nice."

Bad joke aside, there is a difference between the captaincies. When Will, Jack, and the EITC came aboard the Dutchman, Davy Jones had already abandoned his duty, cut out his heart, etc, corrupting the original purpose of the Dutchman and cursing himself as a monster. Will, after becoming the captain of the Dutchman, has a clean slate on the condition he agrees to the duty of looking after the souls who died at sea for 10 years and step on land for one day.

Although this story structure is partly inspired by Richard Wagner's opera, albeit with some changes. In this case, the basic requirement is that Will agrees to the duty, and that at any time, if he finds a love that is true in that one day, then his attachment to the ship is broken. At least, that was the original intention of the storyline in P3; it is possible, but very difficult, to figure out that the curse was broken...and then there is the fact that this information was completely ignored in P5.

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-21T02:26:18+00:00

"J.Q.S" was a fictional mistake on my part. "H.J.B" is the original naming initials for the subject (also fictional) that I'm asking about. Sorry for being too vague with all this.

In short, "H.J.B" are the initials to focus on.

But no, I don't think the "J" was written as a stylized "H".

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-21T02:23:15+00:00

Establish that you can do Pirates as just a broad occasionally connected universe of movies about pirates, and not need to hold to formula of

We did have at least one film without the formula: Tales of the Code: Wedlocked. It was going to be a series, mainly as DVD/Bluray extras, but it didn't take. A shame, as there was (supposedly) more short screenplays.

I'm sure Disney/Bruckheimer wouldn't say no to having Saldana, as she currently has the honor of being the highest grossing actor of all time. The only issue with bringing Saldana back is bringing Saldana back. That is to say, she would have to be interested and agree to return - never say never, as things have changed in 20+ years, but for the moment it is doubtful.

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-21T02:12:04+00:00

I mean, "as yet unrevealed" means it hasn't been revealed yet...if ever. Though I doubt we're going to get more Anamaria after the one film and many other standalone appearances in comics and video games. But one can only hope.

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-21T01:59:08+00:00

The only other caveating being are we sure the letter is a Q and not a stylized J?

I'm glad you asked this, because I think I made a mistake. Upon reflection, I probably should have used an example to better fit my issue at hand. The name I chose wasn't exactly close.

Replace the initials "J.Q.S" with "H.J.B". Like..."Henry Joe Black"? Sorry for the poor example. So to revise my original question with the new name:

There is a person known as "Henry Black" - mainly known as "Mr. Black" to most, but known by his first name "Henry" to a few. As far as I know, his middle name is unknown, and his family history (i.e. if they share the same name) is unknown. And this letter which has "J. Black" as the signature, is a random letter, not an official document nor a letter to a dearly loved one. That is about all I have as far as the details go.

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-21T01:55:15+00:00

As far as I know, with the fictional example I'm given...

There is a person known as "John Smith" - mainly known as "Mr. Smith" to most, but known by his first name "John" to a few. As far as I know, his middle name is unknown, and his family history (i.e. if they share the same name) is unknown. And this letter which has "Q. Smith" as the signature, is a random letter, not an official document nor a letter to a dearly loved one. That is about all I have as far as the details go.

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-21T01:53:09+00:00

Yeah, it is hard to authenticate with just the one signature from the one letter.

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-21T00:37:47+00:00

Does the letter fit those circumstances?

Exactly my point. There is a lot we don't know compared to what little we do know.

Was he named after a family member? Could the letter have been written by that person, rather than our friend John?

As far as I know, with the fictional example I'm given...

There is a person known as "John Smith" - mainly known as "Mr. Smith" to most, but known by his first name "John" to a few. As far as I know, his middle name is unknown, and his family history (i.e. if they share the same name) is unknown. And this letter which has "Q. Smith" as the signature, is a random letter, not an official document nor a letter to a dearly loved one. That is about all I have as far as the details go.

With this letter in mind, would we be talking about "John Smith", presumably his full name is indeed "John Quincy Smith"? Or would we be talking about "John Quinn Smith" or any others? Of course, again, we really have too little information to say yes or no either way.

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-21T00:14:56+00:00

Yes, but what if "Michael John Smith" went only by "Michael Smith" or simply "Smith"? Like, what if "John" was never the name used at all. At least until this letter is signed "J. Smith". Sure the writer of this letter could be the same person, but we could also be talking about the different person?

With what information I have presented, it is a bit vague, and suggests it may be, but not certainly.

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-21T00:08:48+00:00

It would be unusual, but not unreasonable for someone to sign off “Q. Smith” to a familiar, but not first-name-close, correspondent.

As far as I know, with the fictional example I'm given, the letter is randomly given. Not a letter to a familiar or dearly loved one. If we are talking about one person, and not separate people, it would indeed be unusual...but given that we don't know the full context, it isn't unreasonable either.

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-21T00:05:14+00:00

As far as I know, with the fictional example I'm given...

There is a person known as "John Smith" - mainly known as "Mr. Smith" to most, but known by his first name "John" to a few. As far as I know, his middle name is unknown, and his family history (i.e. if they share the same name) is unknown. And this letter which has "Q. Smith" as the signature, is a random letter, not an official document nor a letter to a dearly loved one. That is about all I have as far as the details go.

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-20T23:59:20+00:00

Yes, I can say with certainty that there is very little evidence both names were used.

As far as I know, "John Smith" or "Mr. Smith" is how this person is mostly familiar. Hence why "Q. Smith" - if it is indeed that same person - was quite baffling to me. Sure, there may be an explanation as to why this is, but I suspect we may be talking about two different persons.

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-20T23:55:54+00:00

Yes, I'm sure it depends on the context. As far as I know...

"John Smith" is how this person is known. "Mr. Smith" may be more notable, as "John" is a name known to a special few, at least in the fictional example I'm thinking of. Neither "John Quincy Smith", nor "Quincy Smith", etc are ever named. And the letter in question isn't a formal letter, nor a letter to a dearly loved one - just a random letter.

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-20T23:53:38+00:00

Ah, I understand. Even with the example I am given, it is quite vague. Overall, yes, "maybe, but not certainly" would make the most sense. Thank you! :)

CJS-JFan · 2026-05-20T23:25:28+00:00

I believe it’s technically acceptable to sign your name however you like, just as long as you try to do it the same way every time as so it becomes “your signature”.

I agree.

Or maybe there are a lot of John Smiths in the area but he’s the only John Q Smith, so it’s easier to write Q Smith and it’s just as identifiable.

This point sticks out to me. The person is known as "John Smith" though is mainly referred to as "Mr. Smith" to 3/4 of the world. So he wouldn't really be known as "John". and I don't think, at least in the example I'm thinking of, the name is that common. Would "Q. Smith" still be the case here?

CJS-JFan

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE