Talk:Davy Jones (Pirates of the Caribbean)

Relevance

How much exactly do we need to put in Wikipedia from movies, let alone modern movies. What purpose does every minutia about a fictional character have in an encyclopedia. Go add references to some physics article or something... sheesh!--67.166.110.86 (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Davy Jones' Hat

What hat is Davy Jones wearing exactly? Some people say it's a tricorne, but I disagree. Could anyone tell me what it is??Likonan 18:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

So....it's a tricorne. Or is there another name for this style? 84.109.23.92 17:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Emotions/expressions

Can Jones actually feel joy or pain? The cutting out of his own heart was done to remove feeling, and everytime he tries to smile his face violently twitches. is it because he's forcing himself to smile but can't really feel joy, or does it have somthing to do with having an octopus for a face? Technobabble1 21:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really, he does find the suffering of others funny and when Jack mentions Will is in love he makes a cute little sad face. But true, deep emotions like compassion and love are no longer there. Then again he did get pretty angry when he found the chest empty. Shouldn't he have cut out his amygdala instead of his heart if he didn't want to feel anymore? -Courtney

According to the junior novel for the third film, he feels emotion most when he is near his heart. LooneyGeoffrey 18:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be sourced and put in the article. BlackPearl14 02:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Musical Locket

The article states that people believe Davy's lover may have been Calypso(despite NO evidence given in the movie at all for this, making it pure fan speculation). Didn't anyone notice that Tia Dalma and Davy Jones BOTH have the exact same musical locket? You see Tia's when Jack is stealing the ring off the table, and you see and hear Davy's when Will is stealing the key. Isn't it more likely that Tia Dalma is the one referred to in the legends? Nezu Chiza 22:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

All good points. Here's another question of mine: does the movie actually say that Davy's pain and weakness come specifically from being left by his lover? I thought the pain of loving her in the first place was enough for it. (Obviously he doesn't have her anymore, but it's still a worthwhile distinction.) --Masamage 03:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Adsartha 08:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)No, I don't think that "just loving her" was enough for it; Tia Dalma mentions that the woman Davy loved (or still loves) was as wild and untamable as the sea, which also implies, somehow, that he was unable to keep her by him, or at least not on the terms he wanted her, as she can belong to no one. And I think the movie has a number of clues that clearly point to Tia being that woman. She does not admit so herself, but I noted when she tells the story of Davy Jones to Jack and the others, she speaks of him with admiration, almost tenderness and regret.

And I do think that this tune which Davy plays on the organ, which is also the tune played by the locket, is not really Davy's theme, but hers, Tia's. I think his playing it actually expresses his painful longing for her. (So much for the effectiveness of ridding himself of that part by taking out his heart; the way Bill Nighy plays him he comes across as emotional enough!) I also find it remarkable when Will tries to steal the locket from the sleeping Jones and accidentally wakes him up - Jones falls asleep again as soon as the first notes of the tune from the locket are played (which suggests the tune or what it represents has a soothing influence on him).

Later also, there is something remarkable in the scene immediately after the Kraken has sunk the ship which Will Turner was on, and where Elizabeth also left her wedding dress behind. There is a shot of the dress floating in the water, and you hear the tune from the locket again - and then a pan to Davy Jones staring at the dress, with about the same expression he has when Jack tells him about Will Turner and Elizabeth. And that dress Tia Dalma is wearing - it's rather tattered and dirty, but it looks very much like the one Elizabeth is wearing for a wedding dress.

Or perhaps I am interpreting too much into this?! Would like to have some feedback on this from any of you here...

I was actually just telling someone the other day, that the musical lockets look the same. And I really see no reason for them to have shown Jack Sparrow steal the ring so clearly--they didn't need to zoom in quite so much--unless they specifically meant for the viewer to notice the crab-shaped locket. 71.217.98.158 03:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This page refers to Calypso (erroneously) as a "legendary sea goddess". Calysps was a minor sea nymph, who seduced Odysseus for 7 years, before being forced to seperate from him by the gods (Athena, Zeus and Hermes, in particular). Ive edited both articles to fix this, and link to the Calypso (mythology) article.

What you're saying is based upon the fact that a name cannot be in 2 different mythologies as different characters. In Greek Mythology, Calypso was indeed a minor nymph of little power. However, in the films, a fictional mythology seems to have been crafted for the pirates - consisting of sea creatures like the kraken, heathen gods such as calypso, dead ships, curses, and all manner of things. In this 'Pirate mythology', Calypso is a heathen goddess - the repition of this name in Greek mythology is pureply coincidence. The 2 characters are completely separate and unrelated. Themoridian (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Saved Bootstrap or Will?

The article says 'Davy Jones also controls the loyalties of "Bootstrap Bill" Turner, whose soul he was given in exhange for saving Bootstrap.' I'm not expert on the matter, but would it make more sense for him to have saved Will? He didn't really save himself at any time.

Maybe the phrasing is just unclear. What I got from it (and the movie) is that Davy Jones saved Bootstrap in exchange for Bootstrap's soul. --Masamage 03:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Bootstrap was stuck at the bottom of the ocean after being tossed there by Barbossa. Unable to move (he was strapped to a cannon) and unable to die (the curse was still upon him), he gave his soul to Davy Jones in exchange for a release from his situation. -Captain JD Sparrow

Exactly so. Though even worse, actually, because it wasn't the canon that kept him from moving, it was the tons of water pressing down on him. He couldn't breathe, either. Not surprising that he went for the way out. --Masamage 17:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

David Copperfield

This is odd but, the name Davy Jones was also mentioned in David Copperfield toward the end of Chapter 2. Was Davy Jones some well known personage or pirate in the past or truly a fictional character? Wiki makes no mention of this name in the book. {{unsigned|69.226.210.211}

The movie character is based on the old legend of Davy Jones. The phrase usually used is to call the depths of the ocean Davy Jones' Locker--that even happens in the first Pirates movie. :) Check out the article! It's interesting. --Masamage 00:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

First? No...

"Davy Jones is not killed in the second movie or even really defeated; a first for a Disney villain and movie." What about Jafar? Cathie 04:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point! Jafar was at least nominally defeated, though... --Masamage 04:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but Davy Jones is also somewhat defeated at the end of this film in that his heart is no longer safe. Isn't the last shot we see of him showing how angry and upset he is at this development? If this isn't somewhat defeated, then we can say that Dr. Claw of Inspector Gadget fame was never really defeated, since this is the position he is in at the end of every episode. Cathie 21:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Entirely a matter of opinion! But I think your edit was very well-placed, and I'll support it. --Masamage 21:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Not that it's crucial to the article, since I'm happy my other small edit was well received, but I find this: "he was actually victorious against the main protagonist" a little unclear, and I'm happier having it say "he was actually victorious against Jack Sparrow" since Jack Sparrow is not really the main protagonist, just as Jay Gatsby isn't really the main protagonist of The Great Gatsby. Even if you still believe Jack to be the main protagonist, I found clarification to be necessary, since there are many "main protagonists" and Jones was not especially victorious against Will, his other adversary. His relationship with Will at the end of the film is more stalemate than victory. Cathie 04:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What about those twin cats from Lady and the Tramp. They to me weren't defeated. ~Wickanprince

Original Legend?

I remember hearing something of the legend of Davy Jones, etc, before the movie came out (something about sailors that sink to the bottom of the sea not dying and being forced to serve her forever). Does anyone have more information about the original legend? --Randomella 17:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)--Randomella 17:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There's info about it in Davy Jones' locker. ^_^ --Masamage 02:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Adsartha 22:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)I also find it interesting that the ship is named The Flying Dutchman, which suggests we have to look at this legend as well...The love of a woman plays an important part in the legend of the Flying Dutchman; as far as I remember from Wagner's opera, it's the love of a woman that the Flying Dutchman can be saved by, so this may apply to Davy Jones as well. Like the Flying Dutchman, also Davy can only set foot on land every ten years - and I wouldn't be surprised if this would somehow come up in the third movie!

Pipe Organ or Calliope?

Lots of edits going back and forth about this. Hash it out, guys. :) --Masamage 03:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If it was a pipe organ, steam wouldn't come out of the pipes as it clearly does. Mallanox

it's sound is that of a pipe organ-but maybe it's neither, but a musical instrument that doesn't exist in the real world.

That's what I'm starting to suspect. --Masamage 23:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Cthulhu?

Is his design based on Cthulhu ? When I first saw him in the movie it reminded me of Cthulhu. ~Wickanprince

His design is based on the same thing Clthulhu's is based on, is how I'd put it. --Masamage 18:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

To be succinct, he's based on squids and octopi. Some people find squids frightening... I found him comical, but that's a matter of opinion. ;D 68.225.240.87 09:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I added something about this to the trivia section. Zerath13

Sorry, but I'm removing it. There's nothing to indicate that Jones was in fact based on Cthulhu's design, so any claims that he was come under original research. Also, you worded it "his appearance is similar". That's trivial OR wording however you look at it. Anyway, I'm removing the Cthulhu note. Find a citation that says he was based on the design and it can stay, but until then, no. Dac 22:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah your right I guess it does fall under O.R. but I'll be a horses ass if Davy Jones isn't in some way inspired by Cthulhu. Zerath13

Well the thought crossed my mind as well, but without a source to put it to there's no way to verify it. Dac 01:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No,... but it is legitimate to put that his design is "similar to"/"reminiscent of"/"vaguely resembles"/ etc Cthulhu. you aren't making any random refutable claims, but true obsevations. it's in the wording. besides, he does "look" Cthulhu-esque Freelancepolice 03:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It matters not that he looks like Cthulhu or that he's reminiscent of it, unless it is outright stated that his design was based on it, anything we right that claims it is original research and a breach of the Wikipedia rules. It's not what we're here for Dac 08:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Powers?

Well, we've seen him teleport at least twice for certain, maybe again when Will challenged him. 68.225.240.87 09:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That, and he can apparently stop people from dying. o_O --Masamage 21:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a mildly important power. Jachra 09:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

---point removed---71.217.98.158 05:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point, but it's still all just original research. Basically the only thing we can put down is he keeps them alive in SOME way since they're still walking and talking, but anything outside that is unproven. Dac 21:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Davey Jones' powers: Teleportation The ability to mutate and give immortality to crew members And still live without a heart -Courtney

I know this is way too late, but for anyone reading it after this point, Davey doesn't mutate the crew, they become mutated by living on a ship that is almost always underwater for potentialy 100's of years (its stated on the commentary that the point of it being 100 years, is by the time thats over, the crew will be too much a part of the ship or just forget, to get off the dutchman)

Lord Loss210

Teleporting, I'm not so sure on, as I've only seen him "teleport" once, from what I recall, and that was in the rain. I wouldn't call it teleporting really, though, not sure on a word for it as he and his crew members only move throughout the damp, nothing else. Cause if they were to teleport, then they would be able to do it whenever, but it's only been done in the damp and that's it. Captain Drake Van Hellsing 10:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, watching the commentary, the writers note that the teleporting (I forget exactly what they called it, it may have been teleporting) is a difficult process that can only be done at night. Dac 12:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In At World's End it is possible to draw from the scene with him and Tia Dalma that he teleported onto the Black Pearl. You could interpret that he swam but his peg leg would have made such a thing nearly impossible. He also vanished by walking into the wall behind Tia Dalma at the end of that scene. Also, its not only his ship he can meld through, which is evidenced when he stepped through the steel bars that made up the brig of the Black Pearl.

Fictional sadists category

I removed this, but someone might disagree with me, so the floor's open for discussion. I think Davy Jones had a lot of weird motives, but pure joy of hurting people wasn't one I noticed. --Masamage 02:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I was the person who put him in that category. During the scene where he forced Bootstrap Bill to whip his own son, he seemed to gain pleasure from Bootstrap's anguish. Later in the film, he also forced Bootstrap Bill to watch the ship his son was on be crushed by the Kraken, although this could have been for revenge for betraying him. Further, throughout the whole film, I seemed to gain the impression that he was something of a malcontent, and vented his sorrow at his lover leaving him by spreading misery to those around him, which he seemed to enjoy. However, this is just my interpretation and I would like to hear other opinions on this. --66.24.238.44 03:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah. I was a bit hasty. Would've put it back in the category, but someone already did! Sorry and thanks! ^_^ --Masamage 00:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Similar appearance to Star Wars species

Notice that Davy Jones has striking physical similarities to the Feeorin pirate Rav and the Quarren. --216.229.165.162 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that really important? Dac 09:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. But there used to be a whole section about who he looks like in the article itself, so if people need to let that stuff out, this is a great spot for it. --Masamage 18:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of similarities, Davy Jones does bear a striking resemblance to another octopus pirate created by Gary Gianni (first appeared as a backup story titled "Autopsy in B-Flat" in a 1997 Hellboy comic ("Almost Colossus"). See bottom of page for picture. The Link says that the character is also named Davy Jones. I don't have the comic on hand to verify the name. -- Rglass 08:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, all these similarities basically come down to original research. So they aren't really necessary anyway, unless a source can be cited stating a connection between Jones and whoever he's being linked to. If a source can be found saying "Davy Jones was based on..." or "this character was inspired by Davy Jones" or something along those lines, feel free to add them. Similarities alone aren't relevant and make the article cluttered anyway. Dac 08:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Category: Fictional pirates

Why that category? Davy Jones is not a pirate. --89.172.196.27 17:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Croatian pirate

No, he’s a pirate because:

  -He was sometimes called a "supernatural immortal pirate" during the promotion. 
  -He sinks ships, that’s an act of piracy.
  -The legend of Davy Jones' Locker says that Davy Jones was originally a pirate boatswain who  stole money from his shipmates.
  -In many other books and moves (for example in One Piece) Davy Jones is called a pirate.
  -He is listed among other fictional pirates on the List of fictional pirates.

Hadras from davey's crew calls the rest of the crew pirates when they leave his head on isla cruces.
how can a captain not be a pirate when his whoe crew has pirates.(Jacoby the Blackbeard 06:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)) 

Pillage is act of piracy. Davy Jones sinks ships but dont pillage them. There are many legends about Davy Jones' Locker. Who says that your is true? Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is not based on One Piece. Davy Jones dont sail under Jolly Roger or called himself a pirate. In movie, no one call him a pirate. He's a some kind of sea Devil but not a pirate. And "List of fictional pirates"; you forget that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. --89.172.229.155 14:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Croatian pirate

-According to definitions of piracy, sinking of ships is an act of Piracy just as pillage of ships or kidnapping of crew member or passengers.

-Who says that it’s not true?

-Of course not, but Davy Jones himself is a character from an old Nautical lore, and he was mentioned in many books and movies, and some of them clearly calls him a Pirate (One Piece is only one of them)

-It’s not necessary to sail under a Jolly Roger or call yourself a pirate to be one. In fact, many pirates sailed under other flags or without any flag.

-Yes, no one call him a pirate in the movie, but informations from other canon sources were used in many articles (for example about Jack Sparrow or the Black Pearl).

-Being a both a sea Devil and a pirate is not a contradiction.

-Yes, Wikipedia can’t be used as a source for itself, but I think there should’n be contradictions between two articles in Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.144.70.134 (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm Going to sign on, but first. No. He is a pirate, you're all wrong, really. he's supposed to be a pirate and a monster which can also be both. really.

I have to agree he is a pirate in a sense as he is captain of the Flying Dutchman and has a crew under his hand. Also, in the trailer for "At World's End", he is seen sword fighting Jack on top of a crow's nest. Those, and he also exchanges cannon fire with the Pearl too in the third movie's trailer. So, in a good sense, it's good to call him a pirate...well, in my opinion anyway. Captain Drake Van Hellsing 03:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC

Davy Jones was regarded as the Pirate Lord of the Atlantic, and he participated in the first Brethren Court, which makes him a pirate...

I th being branded a pirate). Furthermore, Jones is not wanted for piracy by any authority. Therefore, I do not think he ink his status depends on what his occupation is. Saying somebody's a pirate on the basis of their attire is like saying all people who wear Arab headresses or turbans are terrorists. Jones was certainly not a pirate when serving Beckett because his actions were illegal. Besides, Jones is a law unto the world, and pirate is just somebody who engages in illicit deeds along the lines of theft, economic disruption (e.g. Jack Sparrow freeing slaves in Africa he was supposed to take to Beckett in Port Royal, which resulted in himis a pirate, at least since he became cursed.

No that wasn't Jones. You're thinking of Genlteman Jocard. Jones is ruler of the ocean depths, but not a pirate lord.

Actualy he was a pirate lord of the Scottish Loch and it is at least hinted in the movie that he is the one who 'bound her to her bones' this kinda says pirate out loud to me. - wickanprince

Accent

OK, I'm really, really, really, really tired of reverting the accent back to Scottish. I don't care what people who have seen the film have to say about the accent, whether they think it sounds Scottish or not, because the actor stated in the cited interview that it is Scottish. Here's the quote for good measure:

“I think so. I hope so. I was astounded when I actually first saw stuff I had done, because it is quite broad, in terms of performance. It is quite big. Our choice to do it Scottish was also kind of radical, in terms of that accent. Actually for once in my life…I am not a fan of myself, I am happy that other people like it, but I don’t watch myself very much.”

Henceforth, from here on out, any changes made to the accent will be regarded as vandalism, especially if the article is removed. Thank you. Dac 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course the accent is Scottesh! What did other people say it was?

What I don't understand is why someone with such an archetypal Welsh name as Davy Jones is portrayed as a Scot. . . . (86.133.26.6 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

You may be reverting the accent, but you should leave in the point about the name being Welsh. That is also true Cmjrees (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Beard

The beard is composed of octupus-like arms, not tentacles. Tentacles are two very long, club ending appendages that squid have. Tentacles only have suction cups on the club-like ends, not the entire length as can clearly been seen in the movie.

Point taken. Next time you use the talk page, though, can you both separate your new section from the one above it, and sign your post? Makes things a lot easier. Thanks. Dac 03:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

~*~ That all may be true, but I think it's perfectly alright to refer to them as tentacles seeing as that's what they do in the movie itself. For instance, here's a few quotes from the movie in where they refer to the octupus-like arms as tentacles:

Mr. Ragetti: You mean, he wasn't always... tentacley?

Cpt. Jack Sparrow: I don't have the face for tentacles... but immortal has to count for something, eh?

It really is no big deal, but I'm just saying that it wouldn't be incorrect if the article refers to them as tentacles, seeing as it seems to be okay to do just that in the source. ~*~ Aozame

Two Uncoverd secrets from the Pirates of the Caribbean Dead mans Chest

As my sister and I watched the 2nd Pirates of the Caribbean movie we found out two things as you may remeber the first time Jack Sparrow and his crew visited Tia Dalmas hut she explained that Davy Jones could not set foot on land so she gave Jack Sparrow the Jar of dirt to use against davy Jones so that he will be protected also we saw Jack steel a ring from Tia Dalma when he did this we saw a neckalce on her table which was an exact replica of Davy Jones's Musical Locket and we heard her say that he had a alove for a woman and the sea the woman that he loved was Tia Dalma the evidence that supports this is the locket like wedding rings they mached the necalace and the locket seved as wedding rings and this was the evidence that supports there marriage!!!--Dr.olaf 19:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Dr.olaf

First of all, as far as I can tell, the only evidence you could find was the musical locket, which has already been noted in the article. Second, to make any conclusions in an article based on evidence that is hinted and not outright stated is speculation. Sorry. Good work and all, but it doesn't change much. Dac 23:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Trailer for At World's End?

Does anyone know if the trailer for "At World's End" is online anywhere?

No idea. Go check on some film message boards, they should know. Also, don't forget to sign your posts. Dac 07:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Yahoo, the trailer will be released on March 19, 2007. -Bootstrap Bill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.67.31.251 (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Umm the film itself is out now, so yeah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.137.26 (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

THE HEART OF DAVY JONES

The heart of Jones is the key to killing Jones. However it requires a type of person to stab the heart. A living person cannot stab the heart because his/her heart still beats. A person who is already dead, whose heart does not beat , is the only one who can stab the heart. Poor Will stabs the heart thus turning him into Davy Jones. Only someone already dead, like one of the Dutchmen's crewmen, can stab the heart.

Oh really. And where was this "information" retrieved from?Dac 09:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind that! What about this:

"Davy Jones' act of removing and concealing his heart draws on a well-established theme in which the villain is rendered immortal by sacrificing his or her humanity. Examples of this range from ancient mythology to modern concepts of the Undead and Demons."

I'd like to see some proper references regarding that statement. I was very frustrated when I saw this film since it's drenched with plot holes, which I feel were inadequately explained. For example, this whole "heart-plot" was as central as the "aztec gold-plot" was to the first movie, only immensely more vague. Now, could someone give a likely explanation to how on earth Davy Jones simply ripped out his own heart in order to control the kraken (and thus the seas) without dying, cause if it was that simple why doesn't everyone with delusions of grandeur rip out their own hearts in order to become invincible, immortal, rule the seas (or even better, the mainland!), acquire supernatural powers etc.? C'mon, the advantages (apart from not being able to set foot on land for a couple of years - Hey, you've got an entire eternity to spend!) greatly outnumbers the disadvantages, right! Or are we just left to buy the old cliché that his heart was already broken, and thus it didn't matter whether it was still beating inside his chest (torso chest, that is)? Personally, I believe that if they (the script writers) do not come up with some proper explanation to this in the third film, that could spell the worst plot disaster since Neo got to use his special abilities OUTSIDE the matrix at the end of the second Matrix film, and all the consequences that little event had on the whole of the concluding film. Now, I know this is just a film and I don't expect total realism here (obviously), but there ought to be some damn logic in order to build up a believable experience, don't you think? Now, any suggestions?81.232.114.123 17:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

He was cursed with calypso's love... how's that?

Well, that I could buy...IF the concept was somewhat more developed. One doesn't simply become cursed by someone else's love, unless there's some sort of spell involved. As for film number 2, we've seen no concrete evidence or reference of such a spell. Sure, certain hints have been made about a connection between Jones and Calypso, but that's it. Furthermore, that still doesn't explain the connection between Jones, The Flying Dutchman, and his ability to summon the kraken (or perhaps that came with the curse? Like a toy in a cereal box!). The kraken seem like a far too awesome creature to be controlled by a simple sonar device. Well, now that the third film's up and running, perhaps someone with a bit more updated knowledge have got some sort of explanation? 81.232.114.123 14:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Calypso, goddess of the sea, he was inlove with her, she made him the captain of the flying dutchmen, to farry the souls of the dead to the afterlife, but at the end of the 10 year service he had to do, she never met him, and he was trapped, gave up farrying the dead to the afterlife and became the version of him in the movie, and he was the one who led her being trapped in tai's body. somebody else can finish i don't liek to give out the fact i'v seen it.--Covex 20:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoever said a living person can't stab Jones's heart, what are you talking about? Will was not dead, he was only severly wounded and on the verge of death. Why would Jack contemplate stabbing Jones's heart if a living person couldn't do it? Emperor001 01:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Land

What exactly happens if Jones goes onto dry land? They say he can't, but never what will happen.

that is part of his legend and folklore.davy jones is the devil of the sea,so he is bonded with the water.probabily he is bloked by some sort of invisible energy

There is also a loophole to the no land thing as seen in At World's End, Jones can stand in buckets of water. Emperor001 01:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I cleaned up some of the rather execrable prose on this page; however I was overcome by hopelessness at the last 'World's End' paragraph and left it for someone braver than I. 26 May 2007

I will attempt to be that brave soul, I already re-worded the opening paragraph and arranged the article in a more encyclopedic fashion. --MajinVegeta 05:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I alright I moved the previous picture of Jones in Pirates 3 to that section of the article. I put the picture of him shown in Pirates 2. Before anyone goes and changes it; give me a valid reason why the one with the red backgound is more appropriate. It looks cheap becuse it actaully says At worlds end on it and has all the movie information on it; not good for a lead picture. It literally belongs in that section. The picture of him shown when the second movie came out is much better because it shows his whole character; not just his face and also is just a picture and has no movie text on it.-Darknessofheart

I don't care what you do, I think that people like the "At World's End" one it has better lighting and it is more cinematic. However, I always like seeing pics of characters at their introduction movies/scenes. It gives it a more "this is this guy" feel. But I also believe that lighting and dimensions is a major key in choosing what pic to use. The one that you put up is a little dark, sometimes it's hard to see the characters. Perhaps cropping the pic and then re-uploading? And we don't need a full body shot either, I never thought that Jones's feet were very interesting anyway. --MajinVegeta 21:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Undead

Where exactly is there evidence that Jones is Undead? It never said that the carving out of his heart and placing it in the Dead Man's Chest killed him. Also, I don't remember it ever being stated that to be the Captain of the Flying Dutchman it was necessary to be dead. So can some one explain this?

He is immortal and can only be killed via the stabbing of his heart. However, his heart is still beating, so he is alive.

yes he is alive and have "living function" like sleeping tearing and when jack slash one of his beard tentacle it bleed a little.William also demostrate a scar(guarigion) and a "sane color" skin little after the removing of the heart, most important of all, he can impregnate Elisabeth

Actually Will impregnated her before he was captain. - W —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wickanprince (talk • contribs) 04:33, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

no he didnt, he did when they are on the beach, after his heart was cut out. to back this up its stated that their son is 9 when will comes back to see them, after the 10 years. if he made her pregnent before he was captain, the child would be older than 10 -Lord loss210

Fair use rationale for Image:Davyjonesandcrew.JPG

Image:Davyjonesandcrew.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 00:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Similarities to Darth Vader

Fans of Pirates of the Carribean frequently like to compare its characters to characters from Star Wars. I was thinking that Davy Jones is uncannily like Darth Vader. They both have a tall dark, menacing appearence, they were both good men who have become evil as a result of losing someone they love and both of them answer to someone even more evil and megalomaniacal than themselves. In Vader's case Palpatine, in Jones's case Cutler Beckett. Beckett himself is frequently compared to Palpatine so I think this warrants a mention.

Anon

No, it can't be added, it's purely speculation and OR. Wikipedia is not a messege board or a fan page, it is an encyclopedia. Theories, OR and speculation are not allowed. see here: WP:OR. --MajinVegeta 15:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. Just an interesting thing I noticed.

Anon

Fictional dicator category

Um... how does Davy Jones qualify as a dictator? Cutler Beckett maybe, but Davy Jones? I don't think so. --Exor 21:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because he runs his ship more like a dictator than an honest captain and his crew don't dare question his authority. Anon

Ah, it must be because he apparently rules over the mermaids and sirens. --Exor 00:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, and the sea.

Anon

The Kraken

It seems like the only time that Davy Jones cries is after the Kraken dies, should that be noted? Hjerpinig 16:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Jones was not crying because of the Kraken's death. He was crying because his heart was onboard his ship. The closer his heart is, the more emotional he gets. That's why he cut it out of him in the first place; he couldn't take the emotions of losing his love with his woman.

He also shed a tear while he was playing his organ. --Exor 20:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what we're referring to. I don't think he crys other than that scene. That's when the EITC bring onboard his ship. That's why he sheds a tear; his heart is closer to him. When he sees the tear he gets angry because he knows that the company brought it onbaord to further tighten their power over him and his crew.

Anti-hero?

How is Jones even remotley like an anti-hero. An anti-hero is someone who is willing to do bad things, but their overall goal is good. Jone's goal in the third movie was to reclaim his heart to get out of his servitude. From there he would continue to inflict pain on others on his own accord. That is no where near a noble goal. He kills Will at the end, enjoys seeing Elizabeth distrought over it, and killed dozens of people. Jones showed emotion in this movie, but no nobleness. He didn't help the heroes in any way and only added to the conflict. He was still a pretty evil and cruel villain.-Darknessofheart

Nobody's disputing that he isn't.

Anon

Yeah, but someone keeps on changing the secondary villain line in the beginning to ant-hero in the third film.-DarknessofHeart

~*~ I don't belive that an anti-hero is "someone who is willing to do bad things, but their overall goal is good." From my understanding, an anti-hero is someone who is not the antagonist but not the protagonist, all while being someone that the audience can sympathize with, despite the anti-hero's tendency to go against social norms or what society percieves as "the right thing to do."

Also, I don't see how you can say that Jones' goal in the third movie is to get his heart back just so that he can inflict more pain on others. It is certain that he wants to get his heart back, yes, but not to continue hurting people.

That being said, I really do believe that Davy Jones is an anti-hero. Sure, he's a villian, but he's still an anti-hero, nonetheless. If he is an antagonist in the third film, which is not exactly the same as a villian, then he would be, by definition, trying to stop the protagonists from reaching their goals. In the beginning of the third film, the goal of the protagonists is to rescue Jack, and I'm sure Davy Jones would love to stop them from reaching that goal, except that he can't. He's in a situation that keeps him from being the antagonist, and that is the fact that he's being controlled by the East India Trading Company.

Then, later on in the movie, while the different heroes have different goals, the mutual goal of the group seems to be the undoing of the East India Trading Company's control of the sea and the prevention of the destruction of the pirate infrastructures. Obviously, Jones hates the East India Trading Company just as much as the heroes of the third film do, so he isn't trying to stop them from reaching that certain goal. And yes, he would want to stop them from saving Jack, but why not? If you think about it, Jack did make a deal with Davy Jones and, in that light, Jack deserves to be in the Locker. As an audience member, I'm glad they saved him from that fate, but I can still understand why Davy Jones wanted to keep Jack in the Locker.

Davy Jones' top priority seems to be to reclaim control of the Flying Dutchman, which he eventually does. After that, quite interestingly enough, Jones doesn't seem to have a specific goal regarding Calypso. He declares that he wants her murdered, but that seems to be quite the opposite when he talks to her in the brig of the Black Pearl. And, most importantly, the audience understands why. They sympathize with him and probably want him to succeed in finding peace in his heart.

In contrast, the audience doesn't sympathize with Lord Cutler Beckett, who is the main antagonist. That shows, to some degree, the difference between Jones and Beckett. Beckett, as the antagonist, is trying to stop the protagonists from reaching their main goal, while Davy Jones is, put in simple terms, just doing his own thing.

In short, I believe Davy Jones is in fact an anti-hero because he is "against the heroes," but he is by no means allied with the antagonist, all while being a character that the audience can easily sympathize with.~*~ Aozame

~*~ Regarding the article: Not to sound snide or anything, and please don't take this personnally, but I think it's safe to say that the points that the user Darknessofheart brought up provide little, almost no, evidentiary support towards the claim that Cpt. Davy Jones is not an anti-hero. The main points brought up are that Jones does not fit the description of an anti-hero and that his goal does not fit the description of that of an anti-hero's goal. However, my argument has pointed out that the definition of anti-hero, as provided by Darknessofheart, is a false definition. Also, there is no proof at all that Davy Jones' goal in the movie is to get his heart back soley so that he can continue to hurt people.

As of now, the article reads "secondary antagonist/anti-hero". That's fine for right now, but as I've stated before, earlier in the third film, it is possible for Jones to maintain his agonistic role, but he cannot do to his situation and the simple fact that he's unaware of the plan to rescue Jack Sparrow from the Locker. Therefore, I move that we change "secondary antagonist/anti-hero" to "anti-hero" and be done with it. ~*~ Aozame

I don't think anti hero id the right term to use, but at the same time I don't think he was really a secondary antagonist either. As soon as he kills Mercer, Lord Beckett loses any control he had over Davy Jones, and the major climatic battle of the movie is clearly the fight between the Black Pearl and the Flying Dutchman, with Beckett's death being little more than an afterthought. I'd liken the situation to movies like Thunderball, The Net, Dark City and The Long Kiss Goodnight, where the main villain was not the one ultimately in control, but the one who was set up as the major villain. Davy Jones got far more promotional exposure than Beckett did, even in AWE, so I think he should at least be considered "an antagonist" as opposed to "a secondary antagonist". Like Aozame said, there's nothing really stopping him from maintaining his antagonistic role except for Beckett threatening him (which ultimately proves futile as Dany Jones takes advantage of the confusion to seize control of his ship back anyway.

Of course, I'm aware that's only one opinion, but rather than spend ages changing his description back and forth, it might be an idea just to simply label him as an antagonist. Anyone have any thoughts on this?--Malvorean 14:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

~*~ You bring up really good points about his "antagonistic" parts in the movie, but I still think it should be mentioned somewhere that he was an anti-hero, at least in most parts of the film. I would settle for "antagonist/anti-hero" to be in the article, but not just "antagonist." ~*~ Aozame

How about 'sympathetic antagonist'? I think as a descriptor that's probably slightly more accurate than anti-hero. You feel a certain empathy towards him, but you still don't believe that what he's doing is truly right.--Malvorean 19:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Jones' killer has to take his place

It is not mentioned in the article that Jones' killer has to take his place as the captain of the Flying Dutchman, as it's shown in the At World's End. This is crucial to the plot, as Jack Sparrow thinks about whether or not he really wants to kill Davy Jones, thus achieving immortality, but for a price of having to ferry the dead souls to the other world and not being able to step on land but for one day every ten years. This is also the thing that saves Will Turner from dead.

However, I am not sure as to which section should this be added to.

Also, at the end of the At World's End section, there is: "Jones, knowing that Jack would hesitate (to stab Jones' heart) due to his indecisive nature, plunged his sword into Will's chest." However, at least to me Jack Sparrow is not indecisive at all. It should be mentioned there why Sparrow hesitates to stab the heart - because stabbing the heart leads to him becoming the immortal captain of Flying Dutchman, which he isn't sure is the thing he's ready to do. Chjoodge 14:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

~*~ I don't think that's really why Jack hesitates at that crucial moment. I think that's just him deciding whether or not to forfeit being the captain of the Flying Dutchman to save Will's life. But that's just my interpretation. ~*~ Aozame

In the end, Jack indeed has to make the decision you're talking about, but he can stab the heart even before Davy Jones kills Will and at that moment I think he really thinks only about if he wants to become the Dutchman's captain or not. He isn't decided about that, as was shown few moments sooner in the scene with Jack locked in the jail speaking with his imaganary himselves.

However, my primary point was that it should be added to the article that Jones' killer is to take his place. I appended that to the Powers and abilities section. Chjoodge 11:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars resemblance

There is the following reference in the Design and Appearance section: "Davy Jones design was borrowed from a character from Star Wars Episode VI: Return of The Jedi, Squidface Tessek." Is there a support for this, or is this, like other similarities referenced above, a result of personal research, and simply a coincidence?

In any case, for the time being, I am removing it. -EarthRise33 16:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Reuniting with Calypso

I had a lot of sympathy for Davy as well, and I would like to believe that he was reunited with Calypso after death, but as it is now its pretty much original research. We can't just go "This is what some fans believe" because there's probably a lot of different theories. So, until we have a more concrete source, I removed it.--CyberGhostface 02:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Human Davy Jones.jpg

Image:Human Davy Jones.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 03:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DetailtofaceofDavyJones.jpg

Image:DetailtofaceofDavyJones.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) 19:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories

I was wondering if maybe we should add Jones to the category of Fictonal portrayals of Satan as he does play the role of a satanic character in POTC. --Illustrious One (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm not a "Pirates" expert, but this is the first time I've heard that Davy Jones is a metaphor for Satan. Has this been mentioned in any interviews or commentaries or whatever?--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In one word: no. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 20:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Piratedavyjones.JPG

Image:Piratedavyjones.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 ensure 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) 16:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

I think that the timeline here is off. Barbossa took over the Pearl 2 years after Jack had it ressurected. Then the Pearl and Barbossa spent 10 years trying to find the cursed medallions to reverse the curse. Elizabeth, on the crossing from England, saw the Pearl after rescuing Will when she was 10, and she's 18 at the start of the first movie, (Will was 12 when rescued and is 20 in the first movie) so that means she saw the Pearl 2 years after Barbossa mutinied, so 4 years into the total 13 years. So, at the end of the first movie, its basically 12 years after Jones resurrected the Pearl. The second movie then happens about a year or less after that, and the third movie picks up where the second left off, basically. Think about it...would Will and Elizabeth really wait 13 years after she dumps Norrington to get married? And the Governor would've certainly noticeably aged, as would the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corypark (talk • contribs) 11:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Davey -> Davy

There were 35 instances of "Davey" or "Davey Jones" on this page, and 27 instances of "Davy" or "Davy Jones"... now they should all ready Davy, which is as it should be (I checked IMDb/Disney to make sure this was correct). Also, I don't believe any links were broken as a result of the changes, so that's a plus.

It was interesting reading this page, Davy Jones is my favorite character in the PotC series. Thanks guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.232.105.201 (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Primary Sources

The critique in the note at the beginning of the article makes no sense. In all research with which I am familiar, primary sources are always prefered to secondary sources, as being more authoritative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

There is an explanation about how Wikipedia treats primary and secondary sources at WP:PRIMARY. Deli nk (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Davy Jones (Pirates of the Caribbean). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.postmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&tier=4&id=04D9DB02305B436E9A74F578F460E476
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070307120228/http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/07/07/104046.php to http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/07/07/104046.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Cthulhu

In six years, no evidence to support the Cthulhu claim. The same anonymous editor made many non-constructive edits elsewhere and this edit is clearly OR that was unfortunately not reverted at the time. Elsewhere writers have noted that the resemblence is partial -- Cthulhu is also winged and 100' tall. I have kept hopefully just enough to quiet Lovecraft enthusiastists, and reinserted other text from before that dubious OR 2011 revision.

I don't know who designed Davy Jones, etc.; that is what started me down this detour.GeeBee60 (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)