1600s of founding the new world has slaves it's how you treat them is the most important.

And yet, this one scene that tells you practically everything about Jack Sparrow's motivations was cut from the movie.

shaodyn this was AWE, Jack was ready to, if he couldn’t complete the task Jones gave him, then his only other option was to offer up 100 innocent souls... So having a scene of “Im a pirate, cause I’m against the slave trade” and then... “Yeah, lets go get 100 innocent people and practically sell their souls to servitude”

@@alexisoppenheim9609 Having people as slaves is bad enough

@@turok575 So, we agreed on principle... XD

Still pirate though

@@barnwell5471 the means doesn't dot dot dot.

The movies always showed that Jack Sparrow is a great person, i am not surprised, he just tricks the villains into thinking he'll team up with them to save his friends and then defeat the enemies

@@barnwell5471 He's not a real pirate tough idiot

@@tizyman7120 imagine getting mad and calling someone an idiot over pirates of the Caribbean lmfao

in the book series its hinted that Arabella Smith might be the mother of William Turner Jr.

also the hidden island he released the captured slaves on was the same island Tia Dalma lived on that we see in the 2nd movie

Yes it is in books XD

You aren't wrong.

@@Shadowpack95 and thats why they seem to mourn after his death by the kraken..?

So it would seem

When you put like that, it seems like he’s wearing the “P” brand as a badge of honor.

@@benjackson5411 He kinda is. Pirates were degenerates in history but there is a freedom fighter aspect of it. They are rebels against the rich, capitalism, imperialism. They were harming these, that's why they were ended, for standing against the system. Not for morality or anything, because what they stood against were also immoral.

So you have seen him?

Where did he say this line? At which point in this video?

Oh my god I've been wondering about this for years!!

Good Lord that makes so much sense now !!

Jack's only and true desire in life.

Grindelwald really screwed the life part in his movie in the Wizardry world. If he became an sailor in the Wizardry world he'll be Sinbad freeing wizards from branded as villains from their mage masters.

Alexis Oppenheim: I'd pay to see that.

#wickedwench

With this line and "People Aren't Cargo Mate", we really could have had a full picture of Jack's character; his unquenchable desire for freedom. There are probably few things that scream freedom quite as loudly as your own ship, and the open sea

Michael Zahabi: Couldn't agree more.

Who knew Commodore Norrington's remark about Captain Jack's "one good deed" would not be explained until 2 movies later, and only in a deleted scene at that. At first we just thought the "good deed" was just referring to saving Elizabeth's life.

@@Shadow91507 well, good is just a matter of perspective

@@Shadow91507 yeah. just noticed that reference

Damn, and one good deed really did condemn Jack. I never put those 2 together until now

Basically, Jack's good deed resulted in one hell of a butterfly effect.

Put a whole new meaning on him telling Elizabeth that he likes to wave at chances to do the right thing as they pass by. He did it once. It didnt end well

He also got marooned on an island which drove him a little mad as to why his personality is so bonkers. Some people complain about the dream sequence in at world's end but I didn't mind too much because his crazy mind was a result of that marooning

And then he spends the rest of the scene stealing his liquor.

At the end, Jack is clamoring to get his whiskey glass refilled lol

@@samcochran8203 - Probably brandy or claret in this context.

Its truly a heart felt scene and fills in another one of those gaps in jacks life

absolutely. they always placed such an emphasis on the "p" branded on his arm but never bothered to explain that he was branded a pirate for doing something so righteous and not that he was just some guy who saved those people but a part of the crew who rebelled against the authority \he served based on his personal morals.

i think they could keep some stuff from this scene and combine it with some of the dialogue from the final cut

They did... jacks line from this was in the final cut lol

im saying the beginning of this scene they should add to the final cut

His ship was originally named The Wicked Wench. After he made his deal with Davy Jones it was raised from the depths and renamed The Black Pearl. I read the novel Pirates of the Caribbean: Price of Freedom. It is a good read and I highly recommend it. It answers many questions.

CrazyWerewolf444 I've hear of the book and read the reviews. It sounds amazing.

Janet Bui this just blew my mind!!!! And answered sooo many questions!!! THANK YOU!!!!!!!

Where does barbossa come in. He always insisted on the pearl being his.

and then Barbossa lead a mutiny against Jack?

It sucks that the 5th movie kind of retcons the idea of Jack not always being a pirate and the brand upon him for freeing slaves is something he can only be in life. Jack wanted freedom for himself and others, piracy itself is a sense of freedom because those who commit feel they're obligated to abide by the law

So it would seem...

Similar to his character in Blow

What's neat about that line is how PISSED Beckett sounds when he says it. Most of the time, Beckett's lines are delivered with a confident smugness, indicating how much he enjoys lording (pun intended) his authority over others. But here, he's mad. Just goes to show you how much Jack's good deed was an insult to him.

@@dogswifty7800 the 5th movoe does not exist. I don’t consider it canon

Very well put! I would like to add however: The Wicked Wench didn't get black sails and have the hull be shaded into charcoal until after Jones raised the ship, not before since the wiki also says that Jack jumped into a burning destroyed wreckage of the Wicked Wench and that's where he called upon Davy Jones.

It's in the book

That makes the bit where Elizabeth's father edognises him at the start of the second movie and Beckett corrects him with "yes, Lord now, actually" hit different

Supreme Overlorde that Line ("people aren't cargo mate") is in the movie dude

Supreme Overlorde not only that, but it adds to the backstory of jack sparrow. We never did hear the reason why Beckett and jack hate each other, what the betrayal was, and how jack came to make a deal with jones to save the pearl.

They could've replaced a lot of pointless fighting scenes with scenes between characters

The reason they cut this is because it shows Jack can be selfless to help others. They wanted people to question if Jack would choose immortality or to save Will and Will's father.

This scene was crucial to understanding Jack and they took it out. Other scenes could've been taken out and even within this scene, there's just seconds worth of it that are actually needed. Editing saved big movies, but it can equally fuck things up.

Love how he says it.

Great line ....while shows the true inner-self of Jack: A kinda hearted man, utterly wronged ...and now out to get back at the "man", while enjoying every ...single ...moment. Savvy......

Except in PotC2, when he sells his friend Will Turner to Davy Jones... Does that not count because Will is white?

It is a stage of drama. It is the hero coming full circle. You take a pure hero, than you cause him to be "broken via the world" and him to turn against his heroic past out of cynicism, then you cause him in the 2nd movie, the Empire Strike Back movie to have a Fall. Only in the 3rd movie the fallen hero to have a redemption arc. The fallen hero is the hero once again, the old man is now the man who still has the ideals of his youthful self. This is known as monomyth, also known as the hero's journey made famous via Joseph Campbell. You can identify many forms of narrative drama and themes in narrative works where you look at the work as a people playing archetypes, and one of the themes is that people can shift from one archetype, one extreme to another, in order to create the most drama. If your goal is to tell a hero's journey type of story you go from the hero becomes the villain becomes the hero again. Yet in other stories such as teaching kids be wary of strangers you may start with a villain who then does something good and just only to stab you in the back later on. Aka be mindful of traitors, for a traitor once has already shown they are fine with changing their morals and thus have no problem being a twice traitor.

Toa Tahu I think it's implied jack never meant for Davy Jones to keep will

Woodsstories Ikr I want extended cuts of all the movies. Extended cuts are the best. I want to see everything shot.

They won’t do that. Disney cares about one thing and one thing only: money. Stacks upon stacks upon stacks of it.

@@davidmcaninch4714 People will pay to see them, and buy the releases for their collections.

Panthera I don’t even want to know how it looked like when she put it in. She must have missed will A LOT

Oh my

that's why the third movie felt so weird like it had a bunch of holes in it, they cut out many scenes. actually, all three movies did, the first one also had many great scenes cut out that showed more of the characters relationships

precisely

The second movie did the same where is a scene where master Gibs tells will about davy jones before they meet Calypso and he tells will that jack is not afraid of dying and that davy jones prefers punishment over death ( which explain why jack didnt die by the end of the second movie) deep charcater motives cut out again... or the extended dice game between will and davy jones or like the jack, cutler becket scene in the third movie. With jack saving slaves or for him the black pearl being freedom. and not only jack also in the third movie cut out important scenes for no reasons. Even elizebaths father had a deleted scene where he wants to stab davy jones heart and is stopped by norrington. Instead when Elizabeth saw her father in davy joney locker he tells her about the heart scene we didnt see. Cut out again.... It makes the death less impactfull. I really dont know why they cut out such important things in these 2 movies.

Maple Dream I think they took it out because it portrayed Jack too much in a heroic light & Disney wanted to keep his status as an anti-hero.

Moreover, it would be confusing if viewers never read the backstory. "People not cargo" would be hard to incorporate into the story given its already massive plot

It also enhances the meaning of the ending where Jack saves Will. Allow me to elaborate: The reason the initial scene was cut was because Gore Verbinski thought it made Jack look like too good of a person and it conflicts with his devious, self-centered nature. But the reason why this should've been kept is this: Jack is a devious, self-centered person BECAUSE he was a good person. He worked for the East India Trading Company, captain of his own ship, making a good living, and content with his life's choices. He adhered to the principles of being an honest citizen as a merchant sailor. But when Beckett asked him to transport 100 slaves, he knew that this was wrong. Acting upon his good conscience, he freed the slaves because it was the right thing to do. His morals trumped his duty for the EITC, and he was a good man for it. But then Beckett brands him a pirate, marking him as nothing more than a common criminal. He destroys his reputation, his livelihood, and his ship. Everything he worked for in life, gone before his very eyes. All because he wanted to do the right thing. Recognizing the hypocrisy of Beckett for labeling him as "evil" despite the very nature of slavery being evil, Jack became a pirate of his own free-will, now that his former life as an honest sailor is in tatters. Doing the right thing cost him everything, so from that point on, he only cares about one person: himself. But when he sees Will dying, he's reminded of the good man he once was. He has a chance at immortality, and he sacrifices it to save a friend. He does the right thing even though he has nothing to gain from it. He's a pirate because he wants to deny his selfless nature, but he can't stop himself because Jack Sparrow is a good man.

jeffairlin rousseau Eh, I don’t think it would show Jack as a “good person” so much as give him some layers. I mean, hell, even straight up *villains* will have that one thing that they can’t and won’t abide by, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are good people.

@@theotherghostgirl337 Yeah, everyone has a line that they won't cross. A point where even they will say, "This is going too far, even for me." I do like the interpretation of him being good at heart, too, though.

LMAOO

Another reason why they should have kept this scene

You are right on why they cut it out and completely understand their reasons. But sometimes narrative is just as important as character details. They still could have kept that information in while trimming this scene out and keeping everything else intact. It gives Jack Sparrow a more in depth personality something I wished was addressed more as there were certain scenes in the trilogy that did this and did it well.

I don't know, we know from the first movie that he values freedom very much, "what the black pearl really is....is freedom" Also when he didn't shoot will even though he was keeping him from escaping, he's not entirely selfish

I agree....But it atleast shows why he didn't stab jones's heart at the end and gave it to Will. Its shows why Sparrow is a good man rather than a good pirate.

He didn't shoot Will because he was saving that specific bullet for personal revenge. I feel like in 3 Jack had a change of heart (no pun intended) rather than him being good the entire time. He literally sold Will into slavery to save his own skin... His slave-freeing origin doesn't actually make any sense given his actions and character later, which is too bad, because this scene is absolutely awesome...

Actually, with this scene it enhances the ending where Jack saves Will. Jack frees those slaves on impulse, knowing that there's something wrong and he does what he believes is right, and what happens to him afterwards? He's branded a criminal and an outcast from society, and his life as an honest sailor for the EITC dies at that moment. After an experience like that, Jack decides that he doesn't want to be the hero anymore, because it's given him nothing but loss and pain. He resolves to act in self-interest because being selfless only hurt him, and he continues this throughout his life despite his inherently good nature. For him to be on the chosen path of selfishness really heightens Jack's character, because he has no reason to do the right thing again. But he comes around and saves Will's life, because in the end, Jack Sparrow is "a pirate, and a good man."

Tracy Ngo Bruh! I think hes an amazing villain!

Tracy Ngo He has a very lovely voice.

@@Michegrey I wouldn't even call him a villain, the pirates are the bad ones, aren't they? For Beckett it's just... it's just... Good business

It depends on whose perspective....most pirates were regular sailors that couldn't afford the taxes on most ports and had to turn to crime to make a living

@Alexander Brunnrgaard and how about in term of freedom fight?? What u mean by abiding the law?? And how u see east india company as they plaunder their colonial and kidnap their people for slavering..

and then Jack is at the other side of the room murmuring "Peanut."

I really wish they'd left this in the movie. I don't care how much longer it would've been, some of those deleted scenes should've been left alone. Especially when they help tell the story. I wonder how pissed off actors get when they work hard one a scene and then find out it didn't make the cut

So both are same now, Jack isn't any better person.

@@lopamudra5398 except for fact that he still don't kill people unless needed and kills bad people Spared angelica

Another thing that helped shape Jack's behaviour was the mutiny. Gibs says so in the first movie

@@lopamudra5398 true. However the difference is that Beckett MADE Jack that way.He wasn't always so jaded and manipulative. How would you feel if you saved a child from being hit by a drunk driver and then that same person burns your house down and made it look like you did it for the insurance. You'd become a tad self serving and traitorous too

1000% agree

It would've made his character too cemented in the moral sense, which wouldn't work for the movie -- he needed to be kept in the line of being a chaotic neutral hero.

There could be many reasons. Maybe they didn't like the scene? Maybe they felt the movie needed to be shorter?

Sometimes, good character development is better than narrative. In this sense, in my opinion, this scene should've been kept.

@@GamesCooky " Maybe they felt the movie needed to be shorter?" At World's End definitely needed to be a lot shorter, and I can think of like 10 scenes that could have been cut to achieve that if it meant keeping this one.

@@luvahadowsdolls You can still be "chaotic neutral" and have certain ethical lines that you won't cross. Dipping into slavery is definitely a crime against humanity that would turn a chaotic neutral character into neutral evil.

He actually takes 2 shots back to back at 2:16

That’s nothing for captain jack sparrow

They're just shots.... literally everyone does them at a bar that quickly sometimes...

Wow I perceived it differently. For Jack, to be forever branded a criminal if it means freeing 100 slaves, it's a decision worth making. Captain Jack Sparrow has never regretted it.

@@Shadow91507 then Pirates of the Caribbean dead men ruined that by simply having him be a pirate before that.

@@m.032 Huh. Sounds like Dead Men ruined both ideas, unless Dead Men's inconsistent with the overall universe? Cuz Jack supposedly nvr became criminal until branded so by Beckett for freeing 100 slaves. It's been a while since i watched the movies.

Mario Sotelo Jack’s dad was a pirate so he might’ve quit the pirate life, then returned after his ship burned

Well I wouldn't say snapped, I think that happens later for unrelated reasons this is simply the roots of his past and true morality.

beckett is his true enemy, that's why his death scene on 3 was satisfying!

@@badomens8465 especially since he racked up the highest death toll of any Disney villain (not including MCU villains like Thanos).

@@sparkshark789 oh i didn't know that , that's cool

I mean Beckett is Jacks foil (opposite). He repersents everything Jack is not. Beckett thrives in order. Jack thrives in chaos. Beckett hates when things are out of his control. Jack was almost never in control the entire series. Beckett has no desire for adventure or liberty (his obsession with maps and filling them in) while Jack loves that. Beckett, more than anything, wants respect. Titles. Jack hates all that. He wants freedom; to be away from all the politics and governemnts and monarchs and civilization. He wants to be out on the open sea. Beckett hates piracy and everything it stands for. Jack, despite a lot of it being horrible and vile, loves and embcraces piracy because as much as we see all the ugly, disgusting looking pirates in the films which all repersent the stealing and killing and pilligaing parts of piracy, the aspects of free will and adventure and freedom is what Jack repersents. "What a ship is... what the Black Pearl really is... is freedom."

That's what happens when you offer a pirate captain free rum.

+Buddy Do you know the story he is refering to? I'ts awesome

***** I guess that's a sub par generalization of a way of saying it.. but sure

Buddy and it's slightly historically accurate too. I think at some point, a good percentage of old pirates were old slaves; and I think you could bet that their liberators might just have the same profession because they have no where else to be after turning traitor against a gargantuan of an Organization like the East Indies Company.

"Why is the rum always gone?"

0g0dn0 apparently the scenes of a child being hung were fine, but slavery references were no bueno

the other ghost girl: Where's the logic in that?

0toHero Because it gave Jack more of a heroic quality. Disney probably wanted to keep his status as an anti-hero

Because it would've muddled the climax of the film.

Actually, the climax would be enhanced. Jack did the right thing once, and he lost everything because of it. He acts more selfishly afterwards as a result. Him choosing to save Will instead of gaining immortality for himself is a full return to his heroic nature.