Talk:Elizabeth Swann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 picture 2 Movie synopsys on a character page? 3 Character Page 4 Under Trivia - Drinking Rum 5 I made a HD screenshot of her 6 The compass 7 Verification 8 Infobox 9 Elizabeth Swann? 10 Suggested Move 11 False Information? 12 Poll: Swann or Turner? 13 Kate Winslet 14 In the At World's End Section... 15 Requested move 15.1 Discussion 15.2 Poll 16 Shouldn't she be under the category "Fictional kings"? 17 Marriage 18 Infobox 19 Possible historical connection

[edit] picture

could someone find a picture of her more prominently. this is nice for the movie but i think that it doesn't fit well for the character page. thanks

Sure, I'll do it. Thats my speciality! Jack Sparra 13:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How's that, matey? 169.244.70.148 13:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Um... why does it say Keira Knightley is in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace? I didn't want to change it in case I'm missing something, but Queen Amidala / Padme is played by Natalie Portman not Keira.

Keira plays Padme's decoy in The Phantom Menace ~ Kirsty xx

Regarding the compass: Didn't it point at Sparrow at least once each time she held it. I've seen the movie thrice in the last 36 hours (paying only once, mind you), and seemed to catch that it's heading would alternate between Jack and the Chest. ~ KD

Yeah, it points at Jack occasionally. Buster Sword 00:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Buster Sword

The 'wherestherum' website link should probably be removed from the character bios in favour of somthing better, considering the least of it's fault being the lack of completed character bios...

IMO the picture displayed is bad. It's too dark to be able to see much of her - a different one (during the day) would be more suitable.

Yoda921 05:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Yoda

[edit] Movie synopsys on a character page?

I don't think that entire synopses are appropreate for a page about a character. It should only have stuff related to the character. Information gathered from sources other than the movie would be useful as well. The synopses should first be trimmed to just information about the character, then should be formed into encyclopedia-like paragraphs. --75.24.192.99 04:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought. If there is to be a summary of each movie the character's in, then it should just describe that character's role, and not the entire movie. --KittyCollier 14:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to echo the above. The synopses have to go -- except for information pertaining to Elizabeth herself, of course. I've added it to my "to-do" list (fair warning if anyone wants to jump in before I take out the scissors). 23skidoo 21:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character Page

I agree the character page should be more about the individual character than just another synopsis of the movie. It's OK to recap the film, but only from the point-of-view of how it relates to that specific character. PNW (09-20-06)

[edit] Under Trivia - Drinking Rum

The trivia entry about Elizabeth drinking rum seems irrelevant. Whether Keira Knightly approves or disapproves of underage drinking has nothing to do with her character swigging rum (and it's giving the impression there was real rum in the bottle when she was shooting the scene). It was perfectly acceptable for anyone, even children and babies, to drink rum or other spirits during this time period. There was no legal age limit. Also, being as the rum was the only potable liquid on the island, drinking it would be a life-saving measure as well. And although Knightly was only 17 at the time of the first film, her character, Elizabeth Swann, is supposed to be 20 years old, which is over the legal drinking limit in the UK, so she's hardly setting a bad example for minors. PNW Raven 00:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, and drinking laws, I don't think, were around back in 1723-1726-1728. Gargoyle123 23:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides, you only see her actually drinking rum in the deleted scenes. In the actual movie, you only see her put the bottle to her mouth but she doesn't actually drink any (though it is obvious by the mostly empty bottle that she was drinking). Emperor001 00:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I made a HD screenshot of her

We could use one of these versions I made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Homei (talk • contribs) 21:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

I made one more version that I edited into the article. Sorry for not signing--Homei 21:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The compass

Mention is made of the compass pointing to Jack in the article, though this should be treated with ambiguity. The screenwriters commentary confirms that it's not as straightforward as Liz fancying Jack; when it apparently points to him onboard the Pearl, the writers are careful to state it's pointing "in his direction", not at Jack himself. On Isla Cruces, it continually points at the Chest, though Jack just so happens to be standing in the same direction - 86.152.204.187 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verification

"As a result, he cannot return to land for ten years, and then only for one day. However, a line of Davy Jones' implies that if Elizabeth remains faithful, she and Will might be permanently reunited in ten years' time.

Due to a one-day honeymoon on a beach, Elizabeth conceives and later gives birth to Will's son, also named William Turner. Both of them are at the beach ten years later, awaiting Will's return, and see a green flash that indicates that the curse has been broken, and Will is seen sailing back to his family."

Is this correct at all? What I heard in the movie does not back any of this up. For starters, what did Davy Jones say? And isn't the green flash the soul thing where it means that a soul has returned to earth? — « hippi ippi » 13:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. None of this seems accurate to what was in the completed film, so it's most likely extrapolated from trailers, preview shorts and possibly a novelization. Cybertooth85 21:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now the article says this:

"However, he can now step on land for only one day every ten years. Will and Elizabeth use this one day to consummate their marriage. However, this curse will be broken if the Dutchman's captain's love remains faithful for the ten years he is away"

I agree with the first two sentences. The last sentence, however, I do not agree with. Where in the film was this piece of information revealed? — « hippi ippi » 03:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a deleted sequence with Davy Jones and Tia Dalma where it was discussed. It was cut for running time, but left everyone very confused. Ted and Terry have also said on various places on their forum that the curse was broken, the flash of green being the indicator. Go to wordplayer.com and search around their MOVIES forum and you'll find an answer from one of them. Hope this helps. Vicster200

[edit] Infobox

I don't understand why this article (and articles like it) needs an infobox. Most of the information could easily be conveyed in the article. I can understand maybe just a photo, her name, and the actor portrayal. What do others think of this proposal? Ripberger 02:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Swann?

I believe that Elizabeth Swann (the article name) should be changed to Elizabeth Turner. Elizabeth Swann Turner would also be appropriate. In Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (I should know, I'm obsessed with this movie), Elizabeth Swann marries Will Turner in the Maelstrom Battle and therefore becomes Elizabeth Turner. Her title is no longer Elizabeth Swann. It is Elizabeth [Swann] Turner. --Molybdenum44 16:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See discussions below. There is no consensus for such a move. --NeilN 16:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Move

Shoud the name be moved from Elizabeth Swann to Elizabeth Turner, her name at the end of the third movie since she is now married to Will? Emperor001 22:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False Information?

It seems that someone has been going through all the Pirate articles and adding a "fact" which purports that Will Turner and Elizabeth will be reunited permanently after ten years because she was faithful.

No one has been able to verify this, and no one seems to remember that from the movie. I sure don't, and I just saw it a few hours ago. I say that this reference should be removed from each article it is mentioned in.

That's what I have been saying in Talk:Elizabeth Swann#Verification. I have been on numerous forums and the overall concensus is that Will is to be the captain forever (unless someone comes along and destroys his heart) and must ferry the deceased. He is allowed to return to the living world once every ten years. That is what I, and many others, got from the movie. Other people are saying that Will and Elizabeth were reunited in the scene after the credits because there was a flash of green light, which indicated Will's return. That is complete bull. Other people are saying that Will and Elizabeth will be together because she was faithful, becuase the writers dropped a scene which explained that. That, I think, is also complete bull. Why would the writers drop such a scene if that is the case? Are they trying to mess with the audience? I don't think so. Writers don't fool around like that.

There's lots of evidence that Will must stay as the captain of the Flying Dutchman and ferry the dead.

1. Bootstrap Bill clearly states after Will becomes captain, that "one day every ten years" is a very long time. Will states "Depends on the ONE DAY". One day. Not "Well, it will all be over in ten years."
2. Dutchman must always have a captain - currently, this is Will. Nothing will stop him from being Captain except for the destruction of his heart - This has been metioned many times in the movie
3. It was never mentioned that The duty of the captain of the flying dutchman was a curse. Never. It was simply Calypso appointing Davy Jones to carry that task out. No curse, therefore, no "cure".
4. The movie also never stated that Davy Jones would have been free from his duties if Calypso waited ten years for him. It was only stated that Jones waited ten years and Calypso did not meet him.

You got evidence that Elizabeth "lifted the curse"? Bring it. — « hippi ippi » 13:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the forums that Ted Elliot & Terry Rossio post on is down due to mass hits, but here is a quote from IMDB summarizing what was said on the manner. Basically, the two scenes that were supposed to describe this all were cut from the film.

Rossio: "[...]But the basic requirement is that Will agrees captain the Flying Dutchmen (in return for what the film reveals) and that he can step on land but once every ten years, and that at any time, if he finds a love that is true (this is part of the original Flying Dutchman opera by the way) then his attachment to the ship is broken."

http://www.wordplayer.com/forums/movies/index.cgi?read=98721

Obviously, this cannot be confirmed until the forums are back up. --LadySunflower 01:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also started discussion on this in the At World's End article. Perhaps we should all talk about it there, since it's more relevent there. Someone just said the same thing as you said above in the AWE discussion page. So I will paste my responce here:

"If what that writer said is true, then we have a problem. As the audience, we are supposed to obtain all the information from the film itself. We shouldn't be going on to websites and seeing whether or not the writers intended something to mean something else. And also, this is an encyclopedia article. We are supposed to write what happened in the movie, not what should have happened in the movie. It's supposed to be an unbiased account of the film. However, I am not saying that the 'One day every ten years' thing should stay. I'm not quite sure right now. But the 'one day every ten years' thing is definately what you get from the movie. How can we solve this problem?" — « hippi ippi » 06:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"One day every ten years" is definitely what I got from the movie, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't mention the original script, and this article is more about the character than the movie itself. We mention appearances in both video games. Why not the writers' idea of what happens to her after the films? I'll see if I can dig up this interview so that we can cite it. Darkfrog24 21:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A Question-Answer paper that came with my DVD says that Will's gonna be captain forever (at least until his heart is stabbed). Emperor001 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poll: Swann or Turner?

I would like to hold a Poll, which do you think would be more appropriate for the article: Swann or Turner? I have changed it previously to Swann (because that is her name through out the majority of the series) but someone keeps changing it back to "Turner". Granted she got married, but that doesn't justify changing her name on the article because it is not her name for the majority of the series, and it is not the name that people commonly call her by, Also I believe that if we have it as "turner", it is a spoiler for the people that have not seen the third film. State your opinion and why you believe that it should be that name. Thanks. --MajinVegeta 02:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion, not poll.--$UIT 03:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It should just be "Swann." That is her birth name, and the one she has throughout the trilogy. Otherwise it just confuses readers and is also a spoiler.PNW Raven

It should not be Elizabeth Turner Swann, which is what the page has now. She's been Elizabeth Swann and Elizabeth Turner, but never Elizabeth Turner Swann. --Roothog 05:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thx to whomever just changed that. --Roothog 05:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I just changed it to "Elizabeth Swann Turner." Elizabeth is married, so legally, her name has changed to Turner; Barbossa even calls her "Mrs. Turner". This way, her name is technically correct and up to date, but it includes the name we are all familiar with, "Swann." Arwen Undomiel ^talk 05:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I vote for Turner. That's her name now, and articae name should be changed to reflect that. CaptPicard 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I vote for Turner or Swann-Turner--Count Mall 00:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I vote for Swann. She was not Turner until she got married, which was very late in the trilogy. This was her birth name, and it may be confusing to call her Elizabeth Turner as most people call her Elizabeth Swann. JamesNorrington

Elizabeth Swann. We are discussing a fictional character here and should not treat them like real people. Afterall, we're not going to describe Ebenezer Scrooge as a lovely, generous man who loves Christmas, when we all know him as a git as the story starts. Alientraveller 14:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I vote Swann. The purpose of the title is to clarify what the article is about and to make it easy for interested readers to find the information that they want. She's only Elizabeth Turner at the very end of the story. There is also a spoiler issue, as Raven and Majin have pointed out. Darkfrog24 16:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I vote Turner or Swann Turner because that is her name at the end of the most recent movie. Emperor001 01:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Her name does not depend on recentism. Alientraveller 20:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Alientraveller, fully agree. A good example would be (spolier for the series Alias) that the character, Sydney Bristow, got married in the last episode of the series, but her birth name is what is displayed on the character's article. Not only from a massive spoiler point of view, but from the view that the people reading the review would be confused because it is referencing a term that doesn't come in play until the final 1/16th of the film series. The character was named Elizabeth Swann for two entire films and almost the entire run of the final film. If she was listed as Turner in the credits, there might be some creedence to the point. Keep it as it is. Radagast83 03:50, 18 June

I vote Swann. Just because Barbosa called her Mrs. Turner doesn't mean she legally changed her name. After all she is clearly a femenist, which would make her keep her own name.

[edit] Kate Winslet

I was checking out some of my favorite actresses and actors page and I went to Kate Winslet's. At the bottom on her list of roles in films it said Pirates of the Caribbean 4 and then it said her role would be Elizabeth Swann and the date was 2009, but next to that it said "in talks", is this true, are the writers thinking about replacing Kiera? Could someone check it out and answer me here, I'm doing research on that. Thanks alot! ManofSTEEL2772 May 30 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.94.228 (talk • contribs)

Quite frankly, I'm not sure if this is true or not, but there have been rumors. In the future, however, please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum and refrain from asking these questions unless it pertains to the article. Thank you. Arwen Undomiel ^talk 23:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it's true, but if it is, then that would be a horrible mistake casting Kate Winslet. The way I see it, only my Keira could play Elizabeth. Flamingtorch372 23:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, oh and to Arwen undomiel, this was related to the aritcle, about Elizabeth Swann and who would be playing her in upcoming films, if there were any. ManofSTEEL2772 May 31 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.94.228 (talk • contribs)

In talk, you might want to just right that this is crystal-balling and that writing that sort of information (before Disney or some sort of official representative says so) is some original research. BlackPearl14 03:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In the At World's End Section...

It mentions that Tia Dalma also tried to kill Jack, but I have found no information on it in any interviews or in the biggest Pirates of the Caribbean archives (which I am creating; bots still searching around). Please find more verifiable information. BlackPearl14 02:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the film, while they're in the Locker. Jack says that "four of [them] tried to kill [him] in the past" and Jack confirms that Tia Dalma is one of the four. Then Tia Dalma says something like, "But don't tell me you didn't enjoy it at the time...?" and Jack agrees that he did enjoy it. We're not told how she tried to kill him, but she did try, it seems, in Jack's eyes anyway. TakaraLioness 02:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I just wasn’t sure if there was any info anywhere as to how she tried, maybe by poisoning. We should ask Ted and Terry on Wordplay. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 02:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Oppose Elizabeth is femenist and thus would keep her name. The only evidence of a change is Barbosa's calling her Mrs. Turner which is simply his way of acknowledging that she is free to be with will.

[edit] Shouldn't she be under the category "Fictional kings"?

I understand she's female, but she is elected the Pirate KING, and not once is she referred to as a queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speyeker (talk • contribs) 19:11, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I agree. She's not the Pirate Queen. She's the Pirate King. Flamingtorch372 01:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed again. Elizabeth Turner should be put under the category "Fictional Kings" because she is, in fact, voted Pirate King, not Queen. Gender should make no difference in the matter. For what it's worth, Will Turner is sometimes referes to as Pirate Queen seeing as he is the King's husband. This doesn't change their sexuality or anything. King and Queen are just titles. Get used to it.--Molybdenum44 16:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I put her under "Fictional Kings" but I see that someone reverted it... BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 02:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage

One thing I learned from a book called Contrary to Popular Belief is that Elizabeth and Will technically aren't married. As the books title suggests, it points out common miconceptions such as the fact that sea captains are not allowed to perform marriages unless they are part of the clergy and I highly doubt that Barbossa is a priest/pastor. So shouldn't it be mentioned in the article that they technically aren't married and that she's still Elizabeth Swann, not Turner? Emperor001 21:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as the story is concerned, they’re married. If the scriptwriters themselves say otherwise, source their comments and let me know. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 02:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Referring to the character as "Elizabeth Turner/Swann" and as Pirate/Captain in the cutline under the infobox picture is far too much detail for the infobox. Not to mention technically incorrect as the image comes from Curse of the Black Pearl in which the character is simply Elizabeth Swann, teenager. 23skidoo (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible historical connection

This may be just a massive coincidence, but am I the only one who sees a lot of similarities between Elizabeth Swann and Anne Bonny? Wealthy upbringing, set to marry someone else, falls in love with a pirate and becomes one, supposedly quite attractive yet tough as hell. There are noted differences, however Hollywood has cited history with far fewer connections than this case. Even if there was no intentional analagous on the part of the writers, I find it very curious and worth looking into. -- HurricaneERIC - Class of '08: XVII Maius MMVIII 07:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that's quite correct. Perhaps I could look in to that, but it wouldn't belong here...mainly because it isn't sourced or cited anywhere. The Adventuress^BlackPearl14 15:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)