The contents of the Cutler Beckett page were merged into List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters on May 31, 2020 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cutler Beckett redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Come on, "it is unknown what he will get out of this deal"? Think about it...cutler becket gets control of the seas, and Davy Jones gets 'not death'. It's pretty clear what they all get out of that deal. --user:70.124.249.166
Don't forget to sign your posts...
'Eunuchs' is mispelled. I'll fix that and link to a definition. I think this article could be expanded a bit, but certainly not by me. --Hector 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"Jack could have made him a eunuch, which would be the result of, or the source of, his constant referencing of eunuchs."
Is there any proof to this, or is it just someone guessing? --Obsessed 20:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Is Cutler Beckett really the 'primary' villain of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies? He's an important character, to be sure, but he only really achieves prominence in the third movie, as he spends a lot of the second not only as an unseen character, but as an unreferred-to character as well. I think Davy Jones is equally the 'villain' of the three movies; Davy Jones was even mentioned in the first movie (though obviously they hadn't come up with the idea that the actual character would appear at that point as they were just using it in the context of the saying). In addition, despite the Davy Jones article describing him as an 'anti-hero' in the third movie he seems at least as villainous as he was in the second movie, and the climax of the film revolves around him, rather than Beckett. I'd consider changing the opening description to 'one of the primary villains', and do the same to the Davy Jones article, as I think that's the best way to avoid constant editing on the specifics of their characters, but of course, I'd like to hear other opinions. Anyone agree/disagree? --Malvorean 14:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Although he pulled strings behind the scenes most of the time, Beckett still maintained a prominent role in Dead Man's Chest. Beckett and the East India Trading Company had a grand and important introduction in the opening scenes of DMC, and it is clear by the end of the film that he is on top of the villain ladder. And while Beckett received no direct mention in COTBP, the EITC was referred to much like Davy Jones. Viewing the trilogy as a coherent whole, it's obvious that Beckett is the most dangerous and important antagonist our heroes face, and thus the eminent villain. Apparently the writers think that way as well, which is why Beckett had a far more dramatic end (THE most dramatic actually) than say, Davy Jones. If Davy Jones was so important, why didn't he go out in a surreal, slow motion sequence with a climactic score? As a matter of fact, the climax doesn't revolve around Jones at all. He's just the most powerful henchman our heroes have to face in their war against the EITC. The pirates haven't gathered to stop Jones, they've united to stop Beckett (and Jones in the process). --Exor 23:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
But Beckett did take precedence over all the other antagonists didn't he? He ended up in control of Davy Jones; and as for Barbossa, well, he's not even a villain anymore at that point. Why did Norrington betray the crew of the Black Pearl and bring the heart to Beckett? Because of Beckett's Letters of Marque and his loyal adjutant, Mercer. Perhaps Beckett didn't directly manipulate Elizabeth and Norrington, but he planted all the right seeds to get them to do what he ultimately wanted them to do. Not to mention the fact that he manipulates Weatherby Swann as well. On top of that, Beckett is also directly responsible for both Jack's debt to Jones, and Jack's life as a pirate. The threat posed by Beckett in DMC is exactly the same as the threat he posed in AWE. The only difference is that he has Davy Jones under his command, and the means of truly carrying out that threat. --Exor 03:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
With regards to the James Bond comparison that you just raised, Ernst Stavro Blofeld would probably be considered the main antagonist of that series as he was the force behind the major antagonist in several films AND he was the head of SPECTRE, arguably the greatest threat Bond has faced as it played the role of the main antagonist in several films whereas all the other villains have only appeared in one film. Even today nobody is sure if Blofeld is dead or plotting some new outrage although the wheelchair-bound villain who appeared a the beginning of For Your Eyes Only is widely believed to have been Blofeld but we're not here to discuss Bond, we're here to discuss Pirates of the Caribbean and Cutler Beckett in particular. I would have to say that Beckett is undoubtedly the primary villain of the series as he was the mastermind behind most of the problems that the heroes face. Beckett and the East India Trading Company fill as role similar to that of Blofeld and SPECTRE or Palpatine and the Evil Galactic Empire. Were it not for Beckett Davy Jones probably would have just carried on minding his own business tempting Pirates to join his crew and harvesting souls and doing his job, maybe going on land once every ten years. It's only he's acting on Beckett's behalf that he becomes a world-wide threat to Piracy. The films are all about Pirates and Beckett is out to rid the world of them. Davy Jones might be the physically most powerful villain but he's really just a pawn in Beckett's plan to obtain control of the seas. He is to Beckett what Darth Vader is to Palpatine. He's the most powerful henchman but he's a henchman nonetheless. Beckett is the one pulling the strings behind the events of Dead Man's Chest even though it's Jones who does the most fighting for evil and in At World's End Jones becomes second fiddle to Beckett. As for Barbossa, he's not even worth considering. He's only in two films and he's only a villain for one of them. Anon
But who prompted Norrington to take that route? Had it not been for Beckett, Norrington would have stayed a pirate. In case you weren't aware, Mercer made contact with Norrington at Tortuga before the latter boarded the Pearl. And who does Mercer work for? Beckett. Why does Davy Jones want Jack to begin with? Beckett. That's right. Beckett sunk the Pearl in the first place, which is why Jack had to call upon Davy Jones to raise it from the ocean depths. Who was responsible for Elizabeth and Will going off on their little adventure in DMC? Beckett. You should also take into consideration the weight of character introductions and character exits. Compare Beckett's introductory scene to that of Davy Jones. Which scene seems more important and dramatic to you? When we first see Davy Jones (which takes place already some time into the movie), it's a casual scene depicting Davy looking for people to choose servitude on the Dutchman over death. Beckett on the other hand, has a far more theatrical entrance. Likewise, more time and effort is spent on Beckett's demise than Jones'. So, which character seems more important judging from these sequences alone? If Beckett's importance is stressed in such a manner even in the beginning of Dead Man's Chest, then it would be logical to assume that he is far more influential to the overall plot, and thus the main villain; at least during the latter two films. --Exor 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You're right about Beckett's death conveying his utter defeat. The ends of the other villains signified their defeat as well. But why would the movie go to such great lengths to emphasize the utter defeat of Beckett if said utter defeat wasn't the most important? The deaths of the other villains (such as, say, Barbossa in COTBP) weren't nearly as thorough and grand, so you can't say it was simply because he was the main villain of this particular film. Davy Jones' death, although climactic and important, wasn't nearly as emphasized and prolonged. Anyway, the fact that Beckett was introduced in the opening of Dead Man's Chest adds weight to his presence. It only makes his arrival more prevalent. They could have opted to introduce him later on, but they deliberately gave him the opening scene. Not only does the scene do its job of grabbing the attention of the audience, it also introduces the primary threat our heroes have to face for the duration of the trilogy. Beckett may not be the only one manipulating people, but he sure is the one with the largest number of strings to pull. Everyone wants to make a deal with Beckett; they all fall right into his lap. Everything seems to go his way until the very end. --Exor 20:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, at this point we're merely getting into different interpretations of the material. Let's wait to see what T&T have to say on the matter, if anything, when the DVD is released. I'm not going to place any bets, but I'm fairly certain that Beckett's defeat did not play out the way it did simply because they were "free to focus on the grandness of his defeat" where as the other characters were unable to receive such treatment due to other circumstances. And mind you, the writers could have used any method to shoehorn Will and Elizabeth into the plot. His purpose was much greater than that. It set up for mostly all of the important events in the next movie, and established the pirates' most potent and cunning enemy. --Exor 05:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This links to the British East India Company. Although the company Beckett works for is obviously at least based on the real institution, is it actually supposed to be the same thing? The names, although similar, are still different, and it is obvious that it's not just an alias for the BEIC since the initials EITC appear on it's products in the movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.95.234.16 (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
WHile he clearing wants more power to himself and would do anything to have the seas completly under the East India Trading company's control, I don't think he's a megalomanic, those people want to rule the world examples include Hitler, Attilla the Hun and Alexander the Great. Beckett just want's to be the Bill gates of teh Caribbean.
Could the mark that Cutler Beckett talks about be the scar/branding that Jack Sparrow has on his left arm - signifyind that he was marked as pirate by the East Indy Trading Company? This was reveled in the first movie when Jack was first caught in Port Royal. John
I am getting tired of reverting these edits saying Beckett may be a eunuch. We don't know if he is or not. To say he MAY be is original research, especially when the only lead we have to go on is the fact that Sparrow hates Beckett and makes inconsistent references to eunuchs. He's never even mentioned the words "eunuch" and "Beckett" in the same part of the movie! How can the two be connected through that?
I know this is old, but now this page is starting to look like a forum. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 17:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
He is referred to as "Lord Beckett" throughout the film and is so a lord in his own right (a baron, viscount, earl or marquess). Therefore the style "Lord Cutler Beckett" is incorrect. Only the younger sons of dukes or marquesses would be referred to in such way. He would be referred to as "Lord Cutler" if his full title was "Lord Cutler Beckett". However, as he obviously holds a landed title of some sort he should be styled as "Cutler Beckett, Lord Beckett". Benbristol 21.53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well obviously the people who do the films aren't that fussy about that sort of thing.
Or ignorant. I know what my money's on. Benbristol 22.04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the unsourced speculative section comparing Beckett to Bush. It should stay that way unless anybody has sources for it. --Hemlock Martinis 20:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Beckett's smart and Bush is ... well, less than so.
I think the idea of Beckett being homosexual that someone further up the page mentioned was an interesting one. It would explain what "mark" Jack Sparrow left on Beckett. Maybe the two of them were lovers but Jack decided to go straight leaving Beckett bitter and out for revenge. That would also explain what Beckett was on about when he mentioned Sparrow's "betrayal". It would provide an alternative explanation as to why the compass points at Jack when Beckett is holding it and it would make sense as to why the "mark" is never explained in any of the books or the films. Because homosexuality is a bit too mature a theme for the younger members of the audiences so instead it is merely implied and the elder members of the audience are left to piece together the clues. Of course my speculations might be dismissed as OR but it's still an interesting theory.
Um, okay. Not that I'm saying that this idea is impossible, but I highly doubt that this is the story Ted and Terry are telling. It's just doesn't fit. The charcater of Jack was made to be straight; even though Depp said he plays Jack as a bisexual. The actors potray the character, but the writers have the actual qualities of the chracters mapped out. I think Beckeet was turned into a enuch since that seems a little too gruesome to put in this movie; so they left it out. I just don't think that would be the theme they want in this movie. I think it would be more present in the others ones then. Also, I don't think Beckett acts all that gay. He seems a little girlish in his movements sometimes, but the thought of him being homosexual never really crossed my mind. You also have to look into the other movies; they don't deal with this subject. So, I doubt this theory is right.
I have done. I've been blocked.
I'm guessing people think Beckett is a eunuch because of perceived asexual tendencies? That and they somehow connect Sparrow's comments about eunuchs to the "mark" he supposedly left on Beckett. It's more likely that the "mark" was nothing more than a financial loss and humiliation. As for being a homosexual; give me a break. --Exor 18:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This theory would sound horrible in they put it in the movie or even a deleted scene. You actaully think they would have Beckett say "Jack was my lover and then he went straight. He left a mark in my heart." No dude, just no. I'm not homophobic, but this would be just plain nasty if they had this in a disney film. It's not only disturing and nasty, but it sounds retarded. I mean I would never be able to take the story or the characters seriously again. As for the whole flirt with Will, I think your looking at that scene in a wrong way. I really don't want to go back to the second film and say Oh so Ted and Terry made this scene to show Beckett flirting with Will. Kinda ruins the image of the film. I mean why would anyone think this is the answer. Beckeet acts more asexual than homosexual. There is no sense in this theory.-Darknessofheart
The only times Jack mentions eunuchs is when talking about Will whom he teases for being younger and somewhat less manly than Jack. I'm not gay myself but I fail to see what's disturbing and nasty about Beckett being homosexual although it is a bit too mature a theme to be stated outright as such in a Disney film as I stated earlier and no he wouldn't say that because as you say it sounds silly. So the producers merely hint at it and the elder members of the audience are left to piece together the clues. I might be wrong but the theory does make sense. It would provide an explanation as to what "mark" Sparrow left on Beckett, it would explain why the aforementioned "mark" is never revealed, it would provide an alternative explanation as to why the compass points at Jack when Beckett is holding it and it would explain what Jack means when he says "What would you want with her?" Also I was reading a novelisation of the film today and in the cabin scene Sparrow says to Beckett "You know how you get when your advances are spurned" and shows the brand. I don't remember that being in the film although they do often put lines in the novelisations of books that they didn't have time to put in the film. I was probably reading a little too deeply into it when I said that Beckett appeared to be flirting with Will. That was probably unintentional. Finally I fail to see any evidence to suggest that Beckett is asexual other than the fact that he never forms any romantic relationships during the films but he's a little too busy conquering the world to have time for that sort of thing. Other than the fact that he seems relatively unenchanted by the beautiful Keira Knightly but that could be put down to the homosexuality theory as well. Oh and you misspelled Beckett.
You misspelled "Knightley"
The reason the compass pointed to Jack is due to the fact that Beckett wants Jack dead. Jack himself called that one didn't he? After all, he considered shooting Jack with his pistol immediately after that little exchange. As for the "betrayal" Beckett speaks of, that has to do with something that was explained in the prequel books. I'm still unsure as to what his line about Elizabeth meant, but I doubt it had anything to do with homosexuality. Most likely Beckett was prodding Jack to see whether or not he cared for her, but that's just my interpretation. So no, I don't think the writers had any intention of making Beckett a homosexual. Ted Elliot said Beckett views relationships as "weaknesses to be exploited". You decide what that says about Beckett's "preferences" or what have you. Homosexual, asexual, a eunuch, this is all wild fan theorizing with negligible evidence at best. --Exor 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes I knew that thing about the compass pointing at Jack because what Beckett wants most is him dead. I just thought that maybe that wasn't actually the case. Maybe it actually pointed to Jack because Beckett had a crush on him and he pointed his pistol at him anyway because his lust for power and vengeance was greater than his lust for ... well, Jack. But like you say, it's theorising at best. On an unrelated note I wasn't aware that Ted Elliot said that thing about Beckett considering relationships to be "weaknesses to be exploited" but it's interesting.
Yes you're probably right.
Beckett is not homosexual. That was considered a taboo and people who acted this way were severley punished. I don't think someone with Beckett's ambitions would take that kind of risk or he would loose his standing in society. Emperor001 01:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Beckett also seems to be someone who would be homophobic. He probably would exterminate them if he was given the opportunity. We already know he supported slavery.
True. But that doesn't mean he wasn't homosexual. One cannot help their sexual orientation. If he was gay he would probably just cover it up.
Interesting philosophy. Anon
I was thinking maybe Beckett should be installed into the category of Supervillains. He was in the category for Fictional evil geniuses before that was deleted so I think he belongs in the above category.
One question; why? A supervillain needs to possess some level of supernatuarl abilities, or more appropriately; superpowers. That's what makes a villain a supervillain. Beckett posses absolutly no superpowers. He controls other villains with power; Davy Jones. He is in no way a supervillain and putting him in that category would be riduculous.-Darknessofheart
I suppose. Anon
I know Beckett has taken many lives, but they were mostly executions. Execution is not the same as murder. All those people were pirates or related to piracy in some way. Beckett got permission from the king himself to execute them. It's not like he took a knife and started slaughtering people in the middle of town. These executions are considered legal where as murder is illegal. So, I think it's really debatable if Beckett is a mass murderer. I know it makes him sound all the more evil, but I really don't consider him a true mass murderer. Otherwise, Will and Elizabeth could be considered too as they killed many soldiers.-Darknessofheart
But that was in self-defence. Beckett carried out those executions en masse without any verdict, simply because the people were pirates and thus jeapodised his plans for domination of the Caribbean.
Mass executions qualify as mass murders. --Exor 20:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Why didn't I just say that?
Mass execution qualify as mass executions. Execution is a legal term for taking a life. Murder is another matter entirely. These people commited crimes; they were pirates. Pirates are outlaws and therefore are legally branded to be hung. Beckett got permission to do these executions. I can understand if he did the executions without any type of permission, but he did. You can keep the mass murderer category, I just don't think Beckett is truly a mass murderer in that sense. I guess with him commanding Davy Jones to kill people on the ocean can qualify him as a mass murderer in that way. Doens't matter to me; just wanted to adress the issue.-Darknessofheart
Keep in mind not all of the men, women, and children facing the gallows were pirates. Lieutenant Groves also mentioned sentencing to death all those found guilty of simply "associating" with those convicted of piracy. That could mean absolutely anyone Beckett doesn't like. Just because Beckett has the legal authority to execute these people doesn't mean it isn't mass murder. Tarkin had the legal authority to destroy Alderaan and murder billions as well, yet he's still in the mass murderer category. --Exor 03:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this is just my interpretation, but it seems as though this article is written largely from a fan based point of view, and that much of the summary of this character's role in the films is written out with needless details that are not nessicary in order to explain this character's role. The entire 'Personality' section seems to be purely speculation on the character's nature based on the opinions of several editors, and not really a decription of any specific events from the films. Again, this could just be my interpretation, but the overall tone of this article comes across as far too decorative. 24.24.81.186 21:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
It's your interpretation. The 'Personality' section is based on facts that are derived not only from the films, but also from both writer commentary and additional published materials. And who keeps removing the portion of his death that details the body falling on the flag? That's a very important part of his demise. --Exor 23:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Do we have any proof whatsoever that it really is Beckett's body lying on that flag? He was standing in the middle of the explosion and would most likely have been burned and blasted into tiny pieces. Chances are that the body on the flag is rather one of the 900 or so other EITC men onboard, in which case it still symbolizes Beckett's, and the EITC's defeat.
I don't think the creators would make such a big deal of a random body falling unless it was the main villains'. It's pretty obvious that it has to be Beckett; he led the company to a fall.
I wouldn't say he led the company to a fall. It was his demise that led to the company's fall.
From a creator's point of view, wouldn't it seem a bit overkill to show a clip of Beckett's body on that flag, IMMEDIATELY after a five - minute long ( IMO already overdue long) death sequence on the deck? I mean, he was basically done for when the ship exploded, so further showing of his body is unnecessary for the audience. As per today, whether Beckett's body is on that flag or not is purely speculation. You can post it in a fanfic forum, but I was under the impression that encyclopedias like this are based on etstablished facts rather than what-ifs and maybes. If someone with really sharp eyes can identify the body as Beckett then fine. And if anyone thinks I'm completely wrong and wants to have the flag thing on the article, would you PLEASE at least state that it is a possibillty that it is Beckett's body?
So it's only overkill to show a body landing on the Flag if it's Beckett's. Hmm, that makes sense. It's obviously Beckett's. Was anyone else wearing a hat like his? I don't think so. What would be the point in showing a body landing on the Flag if it wasn't Beckett's? Like somebody further up this page said, "the creator's wouldn't make such a big deal of a random body falling unless it was the main villains'". And I don't think it's overkill at all. It was done to show that Beckett was well and truly dead by that time. Oh and by the way, did we eventually agree to have him in the category of Fictional mass murderers?
May I point out that the main focus of the shot might have been the flag itself, and not whoever lying ontop of it (is the body even wearing a hat?). Showing the EITC colours sinking down to the depths along with the dead is a good way of illustrating the Company's defeat, rather than just adding further screentime for a desceased main villain. I just don't think that we can automatically assume it's Beckett based on a viewing of the back of a body (you cannot even really tell the details of his uniform because of the lighting). If the director had wanted to point out that "Beckett is really dead", wouldn't he have shot a clip of his body from above (suitably posed in a defeated villain kind of positure)? And COME ON GUYS! Beckett's death scene was soo dragged out. He spent a full five minutes walking in slow motion down from the poop deck and then, still in slow motion being sloowly devoured by the explosion. It's almost like the guy that is run over by the steamroller in Austin Powers. (Sorry, lost my temper) What I mean is that a death scene in slow motion has to be the greatest cliché happening in any big screen motion captures in these days, and Gore Webrinski knows better than to add insult to injury. I repeat myself: Maybe the scene is about the flag and the Company as a whole, rather than the body??
I don't mean to be rude, but you'd have to be a little dense not to recognize that as Beckett's body. Not only does the outline of the body match that of Beckett (right down to his signature bicorne, which miraculously seemed to have stayed on his head), but it would be incredibly pointless to display a random body fall on the flag. It is obviously Beckett's body. Your opinion on the length of Beckett's death scene is completely immaterial, and the scene was blatantly created with a surreal cinematic flair with no regard for realism whatsoever. This isn't speculation, it's fact. Oh, and Beckett's final strides lasted only 39 seconds before the explosion.--Exor 03:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. By the way, did we eventually agree to have him in the category of Fictional mass murderers?
I think we're still debating if Beckett is really a mass murderer. It really doesn't matter to me. I think alot of people agree that Beckett was the dude who fell on the flag. It gives more symbolism to the whole flag sinking since Beckett was the leader of the company; he and the company are sunk. Also, I don't think Beckett's death was overly long. I mean look at Jones; his was overly short, so I think it was short just to make more room for Beckett's death.
Yes I quite agree. I think Jones's death was short but dramatic though. Uttering his lover's name then falling from the ship into a swirling vortex of doom. Pretty dramatic.
How is this article stub class exactly. It has multiple and detailed topics that show a depth of knowledge about the subject drawn from a variety of sources and to go with it all it's got a image. The only problem is that it discusses the subject in a primarily in-universe style but I think it's definately more than a stub and probably more than start-class.
Image:CutlerBeckett.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 21:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Lord Cutler Beckett.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) 23:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone further up the page suggested adding Beckett to the category of Supervillains. I have to say I agree with it's inclusion. A supervillain doesn't necessarily need superpowers. Just look at Lex Luthor. Indeed, most supervillains rely on their intellect rather than any supernatural abilities. --Illustrious One (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Should it be Cutler Beckett or Lord Cutler Beckett? I know we're not really supposed to use titles for fictional characters but to cite an example it doesn't stop the article on Voldemort from Harry Potter from being called Lord Voldemort. --Illustrious One (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Call me thick, but I've seen the Pirates movies several times and can't remember any of that material. Anyone help me out?Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the use of the word "genocidal" in this sentence: "Beckett is a character written as a ruthless, manipulative, and treacherous man harbouring genocidal hatred towards pirates." Genocide is the systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. Despite the movies' romanticization of pirates, they are not such a group.ImbolcNight (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Pirates are portrayed as an actual racial group in the films. After all they do have their own society and system of government, etc despite still being held accountable for their actions by the state. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the first post. There are many words that could be used here, but "genocidal" is not one. The Mafia, similarly, have quasi-governmental institutions, but that doesn't make the FBI "genocidal" in trying to shut them down. "Fanatical" might be a better word. And the Pirates really are not portrayed as a racial group in the film.195.27.20.35 (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)