Talk:The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists!

Correct Title

Should 'The Pirates! Band of Misfits'be the title? Seeing as the original name used by Aardman studios, and the book it is based off is 'The Pirates! In an Adventure With Scientists'

The Misfits title appears to be the title for the US. --109.149.54.111 (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As Peter Lord, director of Pirates, said: " In the UK it's 'The Pirates! in an Adventure with Scientists', other territories are going with 'Band of Misfits'."

I think it should stay named as it is, because it is the worldwide title. --Carniolus (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a UK based work, so surely the original/UK title is the one that should be used still? --IanExMachina (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it is UK based, but it has Aardman and Sony Pictures Animations credited side by side in the latest trailer, and this page is listing both UK and US as countries of origin. If US stay listed, then the US title is as valid as the UK title. If it is per wiki rules, maybe we can move this page to "The Pirates! in an Adventure with Scientists (film)", and redirect this page there. But that will be a lot of redirections, because of the wider use of the US title. --Carniolus (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It should go with the UK title for the same reason as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film): there may be an alternate US title, and an American Film Studio may be involved, but in both cases the Films are being produced in England by an English Production Company and the Films are based on English Books, with the US Studio only acting as financer and Distributer, thus making them both very English Films and therefore giving the English title precidence, regardless of what US/International titles exist.--92.233.236.234 (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

//Misfits// is the North American release version, or at least the rationality-averse US market, but it's going under a wide variety of names in other language areas. To say the //Misfits// title is the "international" title is hence incorrect. I really think the controversy about the name, and the downplaying of Darwin for the religious wingnuts, deserves a mention, at least in the Production section.Gymnophoria (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Leprosy Scene kept, dialogue replaced

I've seen the movie today, the leprosy scene remained the same just that the voice of the leper pirate was replaced and instead of "leper", he said "plague". 86.181.73.71 (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The American cut definitely uses "plague". --Fez2005 (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Why does voice cast need sources?

A few days ago I contributed that Anton Yelchin is the voice of the Albino Pirate in the American release, but it was removed for being "unsourced". I am confused by this reasoning... my source is the film itself! If the editor who did this would care to explain, please do so by all means. Otherwise I am making another revision. --Fez2005 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed him because I could not find any reliable source to confirm his replacement. Except for Rotten Tomatoes, where are Yelchin and Tovey both credited as Albino Pirate - what could also be interpreted as an error. Beside that, the US version of the film hasn't been officially released yet, so it can't be the source for the cast. Or else anybody could add just anything and claim that the film is his source. --Carniolus (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because it has not been publicly released, that does not mean it has not been screened yet. Just saying... --Fez2005 (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

US spelling

The article is currently using US spelling. Is that the consensus? Varlaam (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It probably should use UK spelling (and if necessary, DMY dates). If we're starting with the British release name for a British film studio, yea, we should be consistent. --MASEM (t) 01:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Anything Aardman, and you expect UK. And I'm saying that as a Canuck with our 20% US spelling.

However the initiator sets the standard.

It is certainly not unheard of for someone to start off an article in UK, and then some helpful American comes along and "fixes" all of the spelling "errors".

My PC is quite slow, so I can't search the log in real time.

That would be the next step -- to see whether the article began as UK.

Varlaam (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Reception

Could anyone care to explain why there are two "Reception" paragraphs in the article?. I tried to remove one, but my edit was reverted. Lanc Vanc (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

You're quite right, there shouldn't be two identical sections. I think that because you didn't leave an edit summary, someone just saw that you'd removed a whole section and thought it was a mistake or vandalism or whatever and automatically put it back. I'm guilty of it too... at some point I deleted both of the sections by mistake and then restored them both by mistake, never even noticing the duplication! Ooops. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"Well yes, but actually no"

During the home media release's short So You Want to Be a Pirate! the Pirate Captain replies to a question with the following: "Good guess, but actually no." Due to pronunciation, it could be heard as "Well yes, but actually no." This misread became a meme. Could we mention this?

Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

References

England rules the waves?

"In London, 1837, Queen Victoria is told that England rules the entire ocean…"

In 1837 England was (and still is) not a political entity. Victoria was not Queen of England, for example. The statement would only be true in some sort of poetic fashion. Is "England: the term actually used? --Pete (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)