Can anyone confirm this game is set in the 17th Century, and if so, how can we reconcile the Black Pearl's appearance? - \\Captain Kwenn// Ahoy! 10:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • An opening cut scene in the game labels it as 1630. I'm not sure how you could reconcile the appearance of the Black Pearl ... You could argue that it is a different ship of the same name. Or you could say that, during the Black Pearls pursuit of the lost medallions, they discovered and used a means of time-travel? It sounds ridiculous but this is the trilogy that gave us fish-men, skeletal pirates, an-army-of-crabs-that-previously-looked-like-rocks, a giant voodoo priestess and the "fountain of youth". Perhaps time travel isn't so unlikely? ~John Bellamy

Recent revert Edit

I recently edited this article to rid it of red-links, which were aesthetically unpleasing. These links also didn't involve Pirates of the Caribbean and for that reason I assumed that articles on these topics would not be needed on this wikia. Those articles include: Xbox, Microsoft Windows, Akella, Bethesda Softworks, Sony PlayStation 2, Flying Tiger Development and Walt Disney Internet Group. These are computer programs, games consoles and publishing companies. As these are computer programs, games consoles and publishing companies they do not relate to Pirates of the Caribbean. Unless you're suggesting that they relate to Pirates of the Caribbean because POTC games were published for these consoles ... if that's your reasoning then we should also have articles on DVD Players, VCRs, Cinema Projectors etc. etc. ~John Bellamy

  • Yes, but not to that extent. They're specific companies related to PotC and so, for completeness, should be added. Note larger wikis such as Wookieepedia have articles on game consoles and developers, so I don't see why we shouldn't. It's a useful way of grouping merchendise by developer and platform. Also, I removed some of your redlinks from the post above because they are completely unnecessary and will clog up Wanted Pages. It doesn't help your argument - \\Captain Kwenn// Ahoy! 17:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Admittedly I added all the unnecessary links for the sake of irony. A bad move. But the fact that Wookiepedia has such articles still strikes me as more than a little wasteful, but I'll let the matter be. Anyway I'd like to address the other issue of the "citation needed" notice you put next to the games date. [1]Here is a screenshot of a cut scene taken from the game with the date "1630" marked in red. Can we remove the notice now? ~John Bellamy
    • Thank you. That's the kind of proof that's needed before a citation tag can be removed. That's the point of them - \\Captain Kwenn// Ahoy! 18:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Why don't you replace the redlinks in the article and on this page with links to corresponding wikipedia pages? El Chupacabra 14:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Has this game's canon status been stated officially? I know the Black Pearl's appearance doesn't gel with the films, but there doesn't seem to be anything else that contradicts the trilogy - Captain Kwenn Talk 19:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The game features a non-authentic Black Pearl captained by Barbossa and crewed by the cursed crew, although it is set in 1630, more then a century prior to CBP and decades before Barbossa was born and the Pearl built.
And the real-world aspect: The game was originally developped as the second part of the Sea Dogs series and the whole PotC content was added at the final stage of developpement, presumbably in order to make publicity for the game with a well-selling brand. El Chupacabra 10:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
In addition to be converted from Seadogs II, the game was most likely created with nothing more than a premise and some concept art. Jack Sparrow in the Gameboy Advance game looks like the concept art at the end of the Jack Sparrow article rather than like Johnny Depp. They mostly likely gave Akella and TDK Mediactive the same stuff. --Wanderingshadow 13:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
But, nevertheless, there is PotC material in there, no matter at what point in development it was added. Forget the Pearl for a mo: is there anything else condradictory about the game? - Captain Kwenn Talk 14:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I dont think there is, I noticed that all of the game material has been given non canon tags, im quite dissapointed by that, I like imaganing how nathaniel hawk might have fited into the first or second brethren court.--\\Captain KAJ// 18:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
If we would regard everithing which includes PotC material as canon, we would have to remove the Noncanon tag from the Kingdom Hearts II article and allowe to put in fanfictonal material as long as it do not contradict to the movie stuff. The anacronistic and non-authentic Pearl is (in my opinion) a very grave contragiction to the defintly canon material, and as all the characters, ships etc. appears only in this game, it is just logical to tag articles on them as noncanon as well. El Chupacabra 07:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, KHII is obviously non-canon because it contradicts the entire storyline of the film -- Jack never meets Sora and co., they don't accompany him and help kill Barbossa. And your second point doesn't make sense: it's part of the franchise, so it doesn't matter if the characters are exclusive to that single game - Captain Kwenn Talk 16:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed its published under the official trademark, and seeing as it's set centuries before the films its only natuaral that characters from the film dont appear in it, therfore no contradiction and therfore nothing to suggest its not canon.--\\Captain KAJ// 18:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, the charcters may be canon, bu the main plot (with the anacronistic Pearl) can't be. El Chupacabra 14:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Is the Pearl actually part of the storyline, or more of an easter egg? Could it simply be part of gameplay mechanics rather than a canonical, irrefutible part of the story? - Captain Kwenn Talk 14:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Correct the main plot involves reppeling the French invasion of coloniel England, the Black Pearl is merely an easter egg, and is seen very briefly and very rarely.--\\Captain KAJ// 18:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The Black Pearl is indeed only an easter-egg and affects the plot very little, probably not at all. Perhaps, considering time travel is referenced in both The Trouble with Pirates! and The Timekeeper, the Black Pearl was forced to travel through time at some point during their pursuit of the medallions, if only long enough for their easter-egg appearance to occur. I've already suggested this before but it seems to me to be a not-so-unlikely prospect.--John Bellamy 20:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The article says "Nathaniel Hawk" (the player) actually destroys the Black Pearl during the course of the game. If Barbossa is the captain according to the game's code and the ship is destroyed in 1630, how can it possibly fit with the films? I think this is like the argument that the films take place during the reign of King George II based on a children's book even though Dead Man's Chest and At World's End depict/mention King George, not his son. Disney obviously has cared very little for continuity and accuracy regarding the products they have released outside of the films, and the films themselves should ALWAYS take precedence over such inaccurate products. One finds the same problem when trying to introduce books and video games to Star Wars canon. George Lucas is just as loose as Disney when it comes to approving things regardless of endless continuity errors and nonsensical plot lines. The products may make for interesting reading, playing, or what have you, but it nonetheless becomes nearly impossible to piece together a unified storyline without having to ignore innumerable flaws and even at times sprinkling in a bit of intellectual dishonesty for good measure. How else could the Black Pearl be destroyed in 1630 while the trilogy takes place during the reign of King George II even though both points directly contradict what is shown in the films that spawned the genre to begin with? It is understandable that fans want the storyline fleshed out more ergo it is understandable that Disney would attempt to do so, if for no other reason than profit. But it is hard to justify wrapping it all in the banner of canon when Disney makes no apparent effort to maintain any standard of continuity. It would seem best to chalk up such items as this game as being fluff unworthy of being considered canon. Of course, I would say the same of books meant for an audience of prepubescent children that directly contradict items from the films. There is a core that should be considered sacrosanct (the films), and anything that contradicts such a core in part or as a whole should be seen for what it is: namely, fluff designed to cash in on the popularity of the films rather than a sincere effort to add depth and breadth to the overall storyline. At least, that's my view. 14:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The appearance of the Black Pearl in this game is non-canonical, just like in the Kingdom Hearts II. Savvy?--Uskok 12:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Some things to do Edit

First, can somebody find some better image of the Black Pearl from the game than this one? Second, after watching some POTC gameplay videos on YouTube, I've noticed several differences between the Black Pearl from the game, and Jack Sparrow's Black Pearl.

  • There is a spritsail topmast at the end of the bowsprit, with two sails.
  • The ship has at least four cannons on the stern castle.
  • There is no figurehead on the bow.

And finally, this edit by Captain Teague makes me wonder, are the Black Pearl from the game, and Jack Sparrow's Black Pearl, the same ship at all? I don't know how much Captain Teague's information can be reliable, but if she's right, we have the case of two ships with the same name. And if that be the case, the appearance of the Black Pearl in the game isn't non-canonical, because the Black Pearl from the game isn't Jack Sparrow's Black Pearl.--Uskok 19:10, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

I call for a vote Edit

I propose that we make a second article for the Black Pearl from the game. We could name it Black Pearl (frigate). Who's for?--Uskok 10:25, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

We should create an article for the Black Pearl from the game Edit

We shouldn't Edit


  • I'm all for making it. But is the game itself non-canonical or was it just because of our thoughts of the Pearl appearing(as well as Jack and Barbossa)? J Fan SigBlack Pearl,HMS Interceptor,Queen Anne's Revenge 01:22, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
The game was considered non-canonical only because of the appearance of the Pearl. But now that we know that the Pearl from the game is a frigate, she can't be Jack's Pearl.--Uskok 08:56, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Ah, so the Pearl from the game isn't the ship we know from many POTC material(films, prequel novels, etc), so therefore the game is canon now. I got it now. Alright, with the knowledge I now know, I agree with this decision even more now. J Fan SigBlack Pearl,HMS Interceptor,Queen Anne's Revenge 23:53, February 17, 2011 (UTC)