FANDOM


Forums: Index > The Faithful Bride > The Mark on Bekett, a Theory


So, I've noticed while browsing through the Information on here, and on the Normal Wiki, that no one has yet really offered much in the way of a Theory on 'The Mark Jack left on Bekett', While, i have one...

It seems that if Jack did indeed leave a 'Mark' on Bekett, then it would obvioulsy be something very...Serioius...otherwise, it would be something obvioius, and we would know about it by now....

Well, It seems that if that is the case, and the Mark was something 'Intense', they would at least give us Clues, No? Well, i think They did...

I personally think that the 'Mark' left on Bekett by Jack, was something more, It was in fact, more of a Removal then an Addition.

Follow me Yet? Jack Made Bekett into a Eunich...

The signs are all there, really. In the first and Second Films, Jack shows quite a facination with the idea of Castration. In the First Film he asks Will if he is a Enuich During they're fight, then again brings the idea up when they are taken prisoner on Boared the Black Pearl. In the Second Film, He again refers to Will as a Eunich when he is taken prisoner by the Canibals. 'Eunichy, Snippy Snippy.." Will also questions Bekett as to what 'Mark' Jack left on him during the scene where Bekett offers his Deal to Will. Bekett simply looks away, Clearly, not interested in Sharing that information.

Well, if the suggestion that seems to exist in the Film is not enough, then perhaps, the scene with Jack and Bekett in 'Worlds End' offers a little more? In the Scene where Bekett offers his Bargan to Jack, and Jack Steals the Bekett Figurine, there is a little more evidence. Elizabeth. Bekett asks, "What of Ms. Swan?" Jack offers back, quite sugestivly, "What intrest do YOU have in Elizabeth." A question Bekett again, will not answer. There is clearly no obvious reason why Elizabeth would be worth anything to Bekett, but Bekett seems to think that she may mean something to Jack, which she does not. Jack, of course, turns this idea around, adding insult to Injury, and reminding Bekett that she is of no interest to him, seeing as how he is without his manhood.

So, What do you think. Clearly, Jack has left some kind of 'Mark' on Bekett, but What? Well, if you followed the suggestive evidence, of something Disney would not allow the writers to Say clearly, there seems to be an Answer.... Unsigned comment by Synntheticangel (talk • contribs).

  • I don't think the writers would even have attempted to get something like that in the film. Besides, note Beckett's interest in Elizabeth's "understanding" when she arrives in his office. His tone is suggestive, and she quickly pulls her pistol on him. As a eunuch, he wouldn't really have been able to do much if Elizabeth had had another kind of persuasion in mind. And yep, the eunuch theory has been floating around for a while, but there's not really any proof - \\Captain Kwenn// Ahoy! 07:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I assume that the mark that Jack left was probably a scar. It's not unreasonable to think that Jack and Beckett crossed swords. Of course, there's absolutely no evidence supporting my idea. --Wanderingshadow 14:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It seemed to be more than just a scar to me; although its possible that even a scar would have a large impact on someone like Beckett, who seems to pride himself on appearances. I assumed it was something more, though - \\Captain Kwenn// Ahoy! 14:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Perhaps Jack branded Beckett by touching him with a glowing item (probably a sword), like the donkey in The Curse of the Black Pearl, this left both a scar and a brand. - El Chupacabra 11:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Maybe he left a scar, but it was in the shape of an S for "Sparrow." Sort of like how Zorro leaves a Z on that one dude in the Mask of Zorro. ---Wanderingshadow
            • Harr harr, I love how the eunuch theory actually does make quite a lot of sense - but, as Kween pointed out, hardly a Disney thing to do. Still, the writers DO possess a sense of humour, and if it would never be stated outright anyway, what would be the harm... ^_^Or, seeing as Beckett is portrayed as a rather arrogant guy, something to do with dignity? Perhaps he thought that he had captured Jack, and then of course Jack escaped and humiliated him at the same time...? It does seem to be Sparrow's forte. zombie 10:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
              • An S-shaped scar is an intresting idea, but i think, it's not the right one because it's much more difficult to scratch an S then a Z. El Chupacabra 06:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that Jack left on Beckett the same mark that Beckett left on him; P (pirate) brand. What would be more terribly for man who hates pirates like Beckett. -- "USKOK"
  • On some of the other websites, it talks about books that are accounts previous to the first movie. It was suggested was that the mark left on Cutler was more financial than a physical mark. The story went that Sparrow actually worked for the East India Trading company at one point, and that when Captain Sparrow found out that the "merchandise" he was transporting was to be African slaves to be sold elseware, he actually freed the slaves. --Tortugagirl
Yep, that was backstory dropped from DMC and AWE. However, his mark and Jack's refusal to transport slaves haven't ever been linked - Captain Kwenn Talk 20:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the only canon thing we know about Beckett's "mark" is that he doesnt seem to like to talk about it. Sparrow does seem to give Beckett trouble, so another theory is that the mark is on Beckett reputation with the EITC. Or a scar. I doubt the "eunich"theroy. - J. Sparrow 20:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I would think it to be a psychological mark. The real mark, then, is the haunting memory for Beckett of slipping up and Jack escaping captivity.--ScungiliGuy 03:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

JMan2.0 05:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)I was hoping it would be told in At World's End. I had always guessed that maybe Jack Sparrow took of one of his legs and that he had a wooden one. That was my guess. I with they would just say what it was.


  • LOL I have always came up with Beckett is eunuch idea/ XD but that seems unprobable... well what i know about eunuchs is that they were common in China and India at the time and Jack probably met them there -in the far east instead- also why he don't make more insulting comments about Beckett then... he should if Beckett really would be eunuch... also Beckett sounds like normal men when Eunuchs usually have high pitch voice due hormonal consequenses of castration.... so actually believe that Sri Sumbhajee is eunuch instead...it was common in India and he is hindu holy man.... Beckett's mark may be same P brand -but in different place... :PSwashbuckler1138 09:59, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

And the candle sticks breaking off the walls in the first and second films seems to nod toward the eunuch idea as well. Almost a sort of euphemism..Gigamyte 22:27, July 19, 2014‎ (UTC)

Actually, "the mark" wasn't physical. Because of Jack's betrayal, Beckett's patron Lord Penwallow didn't receive the promised cargo of slaves. Beckett was marked by this failure and his quest for the title of Lord was seriously slowed down. UskokSea Queen, Nemesis 09:39, July 20, 2014 (UTC)