Talk:National Treasure: Book of Secrets

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Former featured article candidateNational Treasure: Book of Secrets is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 27, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted

Remember to keep these pages with a neutral

POV. this isn't a fan site. Oldag07 22:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Historic Locations

Where did they say that Mount Vernon would appear in the film? Just out of curiosity. Microbyte 14:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

they were filming there in March/April. **spoiler** they kidnap the president while he's at his own birthday party at Mt. Vernon.
NYyankees51 18:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh... Okay... So the actual birthday party and kidnapping was at Mount Vernon. Cool! Microbyte 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not totally sure but that's most likely the case, so yes :)
NYyankees51 15:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Historic Locations Removal

I went ahead and put this list back in, because it wasn't inaccurate or false. I added references just for technicality, because it's kind of obvious that they would have come from the trailer. I don't see how this warranted removal; request for a reference maybe, but not removal... Microbyte 14:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Rating

I went ahead and undid an edit by an anonymous user who said that the film was rated PG-13. (Be aware that I made the same mistake before.) It was reported as rated at certain sites (Especialy part of the apple.com trailer site), but the majority of sites report it as unrated, therefore that is probably true. Both the MPAA site and the updated official National Treasure site still say it's unrated. Just to let you know why I did that. : ) Microbyte 23:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to turn into an edit war with an anonymous user. If this occurs again, I'll be looking for intervention (And not continuing this edit war). Microbyte 16:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did once change it from unrated to PG-13, but I didn't change it on the 16th.....after Apple put "unrated" I realized how stupid it was, because they aren't even done filming yet, so how can there be a rating? :P
NYyankees51 15:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Right, I did the exact same thing when I saw that on the single page of the Apple site. I was just getting frustrated because it felt like the same person was doing it (similar IP range), but they were still anonymous, so I couldn't post on their talk page. Actually, it might be possible for it to be rated, as it's in post-production. (They may be finishing it up already) And from a fan perspective, the rating posted on that one page wasn't for sure accurate, but it may at least give us an indication of what they're thinking they'll get. That's just my take on it, though. Microbyte 18:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure they still have a few days in France left to do....they're supposed to film there; I don't know when/if they're doing it :). But NT1 was a success because it was good for the whole family. They may go the way of POTC, but NT1 earned $350,000,000 mostly because of that......anyway, it's gonna be awesome :):)!!!!!!
NYyankees51 16:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Even if there is still stuff left, it probably is more minor shots, or even B-Roll type stuff. I know what you mean. A sequel might not be best for the series, and it may have certain things that people could complain about, but I'm still pumped about it! :D But yeah, we can't report on something that isn't official yet. ; ) Microbyte 19:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

suggested article edits

based on observations from other film articles:

  • remove all YouTube video links. Why? because YouTube links are not necessarily valid WP references.
  • remove the trailer section per appropriate WP policy
  • remove discussion about purchased website URLs. Are those really necessary?

Thoughts? SpikeJones (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Plot

The Plot section is terrible written and thoroughly misspelled. A good writer needs to go in and completely redo it, if possible. In the mean time, I will do all I can for spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.230.213 (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not sure if this is in the relevant section, but there seems to be some confusion as to whether Abigail is Ben's estranged girlfriend or his ex-wife. Clarification would be much appreciated.68.145.227.159 (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The plot section should note in some way that the film never explains WHY the discovery of Cibola clears Gates's ancestor of being involved in the plot against Lincoln. Or, if someone has figured out a possible connection, the plot section could be updated to include this crucial detail. A description of the plot that simply says "Gates clears his family name with the discvoery" but doesn't connect these dots (or, at least, point out that the film never does either) is not up to Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.238.194 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the film explains why it clears his name quite well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.40.36 (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it does, the poster above isn't the only one who missed it. However, this isn't the place to put Original Research critiques of the film, or its plot, so I don't think this needs to be mentioned without a source. 69.95.237.129 (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clues and Meanings

The description of the "Laboulaye Lady" clue says that Laboulaye is the sculptor of the statue of Liberty. However, Wikipedia's own article on

Laboulaye states that he was not. Gates states that "he only called one his lady" but I can find no factual reference to that either. Perhaps the clue info could be clarified to at least indicate the difference between the real facts and the facts as portrayed by the characters. Kimmerkc (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I edited that section. Does that help at all? Mkmwrite (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hummingbird was good

So what's the deal with the message mom gave dad?

"Find where the moon touches the earth and release the hummingbird."

--Mato Rei (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical basis for film

Could we have a section like this dealing with:

  • The real legend of the City of Gold,
  • The Lincoln assassination,
  • British support for the Confederates, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Upland (talk • contribs) 06:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mt Vernon,
  • Mt Rushmore,
  • Resolute desks,
  • Statues of Liberty etc?

--Jack Upland (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need -- just wikilink the appropropriate terms the first time they appear. SpikeJones (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Reviews

This section is very difficult to maintain right now. While typing this, it said there were 13 reviews; and upon loading the reference there were 20, and after reloading 2 minutes later, 21 reviews. I think this section needs to wait, atleast until it cools down in the box office, so I'm deleting it.

talk) 06:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Just because information is rapidly changing doesn't mean you should remove it. Why don't you just update it? ColdFusion650 (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goofs

Why was this deleted. There is nothing wrong with pointing out flaws in the movie. It is not biased in one way or another, just a "goof-up". It's fun, and trivial, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be on wikipedia. SvWrestler (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said it yourself, it's trivial, trivia is for IMDb. Please see
B 04:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Well then in that case, okay. Just wanted to make sure. SvWrestler (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hatnote - opening paragraph - What is this film about and WHAT IS THE BOOK OF SECRETS

I had added a Wikipedia:Hatnote link to the disambiguation page Book of Secrets. I respectfully disagree with the assertion, "this is unneeded as no one would confuse "NATIONAL TREASURE book of secrets" with something else". Google search does exactly that. Thanks, Group29 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The top five search results for "book of secrets" are
The Book of Mysteries also possibly may need one, as some people may be looking there also. Even people who think that the movie is based on a book could be looking at The Book of Secrets (novel). However, no clear thinking person can honestly say that anyone will come here looking for one of those. ColdFusion650 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
ColdFusion650, Please go to http://www.Google.com, put in the two words "book" "secrets" or the phrase "book of secrets" and see what turns up. Also, Ad hominem statements are not effective talking points. Thanks, Group29 (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC) (cross posted from User talk:ColdFusion650)[reply]
I'm fully capable of doing a Google search. This also falls under Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous. ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ColdFusion650, I wanted to find out, knowing already about the movie, what exactly is the "Book of Secrets" that is part of the movie title. There is no article about the fictional movie prop in Wikipedia (yet). There is currently only one sentence about the book in this article. There are a number of articles that use the phrase, including probably the most enlightening article about the
offer some constructive criticism as to where it would be useful to have an explanation of the plot device and whether such a real life counterpart exists. I already have created the disambiguation page and placed the same phrase on all the other pages. I also fixed back the Macedonian movie page. Please use your powers for good to fill in a Book of Secrets section in this article. Thanks much, Group29 (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Disambiguation notices at the top are for an instance where an article title could be interpreted for two different subjects. It is not for "See here for more information about a similar subject," which based on your first sentence is what you are thinking. A link to such an article would either be in the body or under "See also". The lack of information on the actual book is mainly because not much information is given in the movie. If more information can be found, it would probably only be enough to fill a section in this article. However, if enough information is exists, it could warrant an article of its own. ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ColdFusion650, A paraphrasing of "The lack of information on the actual book is mainly because not much information is given in the movie." belongs in the article, along with "what are things also called books of secrets?" The lead paragraphs for this article should be able to answer the question "Why is it called National Treasure Book of Secrets?" It should be able to say which book of Secrets, and it should be clear before the table of contents that it is neither about the Book of Mysteries nor (!) the Heavy metal album by Balance of Power. A line from the previous movie article would be a starting point for the third paragraph "It is an adventure movie set in the USA about a search for _ (fabled city) _ in (George Washington's) (nose), involving _ _ (totally cool Book which I would like to know more about but have no help so far from subject matter experts) _ (.) _ " When I went to Google and you put in Book of secrets, the movie article comes up highest for Wikipedia. OK fine, click on National Treasure:Book of Secrets and hey, nothing about an actual book of secrets. OK start searching more fine tuning of google searching, hmm more articles...including a broken one...who named these anyway?...OK disambiguate. Interesting, there was an ancient book of secrets, but what is the presidential book of secrets? ... Maybe someone else who comes to this article wants to know what the real book of secrets is? Hmm, 2004 article does have a disambiguation for
National Treasure. The ambiguity in this article is not with National Treasure (cleared up in the 2004 movie article), it is with Book of Secrets. Instead of blocking out stuff you don't like, put in the helpful information that belongs. Thanks, Group29 (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not going to pretend that I understand what your trying to say. If the statement in your first sentence can be worked in well, then do it. However, a note on the lack of information is not information itself, nor if it were would it be notable enough for inclusion. The question in your second sentence, while warranting another search on Wikipedia by the user, does not mean the article should include information on books completely unrelated to the article except its name. As to what should be included in the lead: The lead section of an article serves as a quick introduction to the film. The very first paragraph should cover the basics, such as the film's release year, alternate titles, genre(s), setting, country (if not the US), stars, and director (and possibly writer in some cases), as well as one or two of the most notable, verifiable facts about the film, such as "At the time of its release, it was the most expensive film ever made". The second paragraph should be a brief look at the film's impact: whether critics liked the film or not (and why), whether it was a commercial success or not, whether any sequels to or remakes of the film were produced, and whether it had any lasting influence or significant impact outside the world of film. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen the film. I have not seen its predecessor. I came for information and left wanting. That is due to a lack of helpful content that I cannot supply. A link to other secret books was helpful to me. Since capital letters seem to have an impact, let me ask WHAT DOES National Treasure BOOK OF SECRETS MEAN? Yea, IT IS A SECRET BOOK. We get that. It's probably the McGuffin of the movie, although that is not apparent from this article. If I were to compare the opening paragraph of Halloween III: Season of the Witch, a featured article about another film I have not seen, it is evident the article is not wholly bound by those rules stated above. Group29 (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And Happy New Year! Group29 (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know what the Book of Secrets is, the article clearly states "According to Riley, the Book of Secrets contains documents collected by Presidents for Presidents' eyes only, covering such controversial subjects as the JFK assassination, Watergate, and Area 51." So, by "not apparent from this article", you mean not in the first paragraph. ColdFusion650 (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, the book is such a minor part of the overall plot that it really doesn't warrant this much discussion on the topic, let alone a description of the book in the opening paragraph. What the book is or isn't is already covered in the article text. What is being proposed here would be akin to putting some redirect to other types of hope at the beginning of the Star Wars IV: A New Hope article, as there may be other types of hope that someone would be looking for.SpikeJones (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right. ColdFusion650 (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Congress location and MediaWiki cameo?

In the film, two things stood out to me that I expected Wikipedia to know about. First, the actual Library of Congress numbers and what is actually filed in that location in the real Library of Congress (probably something completely unrelated but the fact is of interest - I'm curious) and second, in a brief glimpse of the screen of Riley's laptop during the Buckingham Palace scene in which Riley is looking up the Queen's birthday, we see a web page with a dark blue background that basically looks like it was adapted from the Monobook Mediawiki skin. Does that page actually exist online anywhere or is it just a copy of Wikipedia's content? Just wondering. --75.43.31.181 (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a question about the content of the Library of Congress article, you may be better served by asking your article-specific question on that discussion page. As for your other question about the movie itself, you may want to try a movie discussion board, such as those found over at IMDB. Hope this helps point you in a direction to find what you are looking for. SpikeJones (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: Origins of the President's Book of Secrets conspiracy theory. I'm almost sure I'd heard of it prior to the movie. Are there any real books like the imaginary one written by Riley that talk(ed) about a President's Book of Secrets prior to the movie? --75.43.31.181 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Wikipedia. At first I thought it was because it does indeed have the same basic layout. But instead of the Wikipedia logo it has some off brand name. Without being sure it's based on Wikipedia, I don't think we can include it. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just wondering if it's a real web page, and if so, then the article should link to it. I've been doing searches to find the Library of Congress number in the film. Of course, I don't remember the number having only seen the film once, but I thought some web site might have it. None of my searches have come through so far. --75.43.31.181 (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to find the real page, watch the movie again. I know the title of the site is clearly visible, although I don't remember what it is. Then just search the internet to see if such a site exists. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry, i dont know how to use the discussion very well) i remember the number from the movie, its XY234 is the section, 3794 is the actual book number. the website was something like look-info.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.88.216.104 (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the book number was XY234786. The entry code on the electronic lock was 3794. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.238.194 (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel?

Is there another National Treasure movie in the works? If not, what was on page 47? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.184.62 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to ask your question on a movie discussion board, instead. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Good luck in your search. SpikeJones (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be ("secret") advertising campaign Whats On Page 47, so I guess that means sequel (and no, they are not paying me for this (unfortunately...)).--91.153.25.56 (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheney?

Imdb.com does not state Cheney as part of this movie. Is the credit here a joke, or true? 212.251.133.163 (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had reverted that days ago. Apparently something happened. Fixed now. Whether he was in it or not, a 2 second cameo does make him part of the "cast". ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Total Gross

I don't know who keeps changing the article to say "[it] grossed $133,263,682 worldwide, making it the tenth highest grossing film of 2007", but that's just silly. $133 million wouldn't break the top 40. The movie is ranked among 2007 films because it was released in 2007. Its ranking is determined by total profit regardless of year, that includes 2008. It is ranked in the top 10 films because of its $451 million gross. The article does not state it made $451 million in 2007. It states that it made $451 million dollars, which puts in the top 10 films of (read as: which were released in) 2007. I didn't realize this was such a complicated issue, but I hope this clears things up. ColdFusion650 (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree with me that the entire sentence (perhaps paragraph) is incorrect. It currently reads It stayed at number one for 17 days before dropping to number two, and grossed $451,923,952 worldwide, making it the tenth highest grossing film of 2007. The point is, how much of that money was made in 2007? It opened at the end of December 07, so it couldn't be "the top grossing film of 2007" at all, unless it earned all that money in those final days (which you say it didn't). My question to you, since you seem to know and/or care about that portion of the article, is what exactly are you trying to say? My your logic, the
Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope article would need to be adjusted to say that it has earned $460m, making it the top grossing film of 1977, even though a chunk of that money came from subsequent re-releases over the next 20+ years. If you mean the article to say that it has earned $xx, then that's fine. Make sure the opening paragraph is adjusted accordingly to, as that reference is only about the number of days it took to surpass the original film's earnings, not the total earnings overall. SpikeJones (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
According to the cited source, Box Office Mojo, it is the 10th highest grossing movie worldwide for 2007. That figure is based on a total gross of $451 million. So, changing it to $133 million is just wrong. ColdFusion650 (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've been able to bring it to your attention, please re-read all the paragraphs that refer to revenue and make sure that they are contextually correct. There was one sentence that was continually being updated, even though the sentence was referring to only the first 38 days of release. Sometimes it takes editing with a giant eraser to get people to notice that something is amiss on the page overall. SpikeJones (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name change?

Disney has it as National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets on its website[1]; any explanations out there (like distribution wise like how Ice Age sequels were marketed, and should it be mentioned in the article? Islandtimes (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, we have it as that too. Or did you mean something else? RC-0722 247.5/1 03:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He means, why is there no "2" in the article title? The short answer is this: there is no 2 in the movie's title. Watch the movie, or just look at the poster in the article. ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think they did add that for the DVD titles. They didn't market the theatrical release as that, though. I don't know which would be best for the article. I'd personally pefer just National Treasure: Book of Secrets, but that's just me. Microbyte (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Treasure 3

I added just a release date for the sequel, since it's been listed in pre-production at IMDB Pro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.66.149 (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was reverted already but maybe we could add a sequel section that talks about the development of a part 3. I found some links and if anybody wants I could try to write something up using the links I found or someone else could write it. Here are some links I found
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/1697907/ (I think is will be an ok source to cite)
http://hitsusa.com/blog/406/national-treasure-3-page-47/ (this one is a blog so I am not sure if we could use it) Rosario lopez (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National treasure 3 could be based on Legend Of Atlantis.Link- [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkarthikeyan248 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Movie Really Say Queen Victoria Was Pro-Confederacy/Slavery?

Someone please correct my memory of the movie. It didn't actually say Queen Victoria was sympathetic to the Confederate cause thus slavery and was trying to find ways to help if not join the fight against the Union does it? I'd think that would be highly offensive to hundreds of millions around the world today, no less than if the British made a movie where FDR was portrayed as trying to find ways to support the Nazis. So I must be mistaken in my recollection of this movie mustn't I?

Everything I recall from history class, and just a quick search on the internet here under "Queen Victoria Sympathy Confederacy", indicates the complete opposite. She was not only against war period, she is recorded as acting within her power to prevent British aid to the Confederacy. The British Parliament itself must've been stuck between capitalist lobbyists on one hand(in favour of cheap cotton from the Confederacy) and humanist/abolitionist lobbyists on the other hand, changing British law against slavery since before the American Revolution.

As for claims the British were pro-Confederacy/Slavery, the only times I recall even the British being close to considering taking up even separate arms against the Union was when Union ships illegally boarded and seized people from British ships and protection; even then I can't find any mention the Queen was so inclined. As a Native Canadian/American(we have dual citizenship) we have a very different view of Queen Victoria and find it odd the movie didn't even touch on the historically proven massacre of the Black Hills Lakota Sioux whose sacred lands were stolen for the Rushmore monuments. Instead we practised human sacrifice? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rushmore/peopleevents/p_sioux.html

So why make up lie about someone who doesn't deserve it and completely omit a racial incident they were standing right on?

I must be wrong. Americans wouldn't slur a British & global heroine like that would they? Someone please remind me in the movie where we misunderstood.

It can't be claiming the British were pro-Confederacy when they were promoting the abolishment of slavery ever since the American Revolution(British Civil War)...ever since the proclomation of British citizenship-rights to any escaped slave or slave liberated at sea even from American ships by the Royal Navy and something called the Underground Railway.

I may not be a Royalist, but I'd rather our Rez kids watch "Amazing Grace" and "Amistad" which I think is a more fair representation of Brit global leadership against slavery, and I mis-heard the claim our Soiux cousins cut out sacrificial hearts too.

It can't be the condemnation of Britain's recognition of the Confederacy's claim to independence, when the very same Union expected the same from the world when she had her Civil War(American Revolution) with Britain.

It can't be claiming that Britain was supporting the Confederacy by accepting non-British blockade-runners when the Americans did even more of the same by Napoleon with the British European Allies blockaded him.

It can't be the American claim they have the right to stop, board and steal away from British ships people who no longer claim to be Union citizens, when the Americans themselves started the War of 1812 over similar complaints?

It can't be claiming the British didn't support the Union eventhough they could have saved (supposedly according to some sources below), 2 million jobs in a country of 17 million by using their superior Royal Navy to break the blockade. Given America's population of 300 million today, how many of us think we'd agree to stay neutral with 35 million unemployed because a trading partner blockaded our other trading partner in a Civil War?

So someone please remind me where in the movie they pointed out Victoria, loved and celebrated no less than Lincoln by hundreds of millions, was not the villain I recall the movie making her out to be.

The Brits did alot of terrible things to us, but one should give credit where credit is due too.

I can't find my old history books, but just a quick search on the topic of 'Queen Victoria Sympathies for Confederacy" revealed the following, all contradicting the claim.

http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Quarter/2926/Queen_Victoria.html
http://www.civilwarhome.com/americanquestion1.htm
http://www.insiders-guide.com/wilmington/sb-overview3.htm

If it's just total fantasy make-believe, then why feel the need to smudge real people's reputation whether it be a queen or native americans?

AthabascaCree (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The movie never says that the British were pro-slavery. It says that Britain supported the Confederacy because of the cotton it needed for its textile mills. According to all my school history books, that's true. Of course, you also think that America started the War of 1812. That's not really true. After the revolutionary war, the British thought that we would soon collapse. (Who could possibly live without the British?) We had no infrastructure, not much of an economy, etc. When they realized that we weren't going to, they invaded again, trying to bring us back into the fold. And... the entire thing is a work of fiction. No need to get worked up over one sentence in the movie. ColdFusion650 (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITS ONLY A MOVIE - an action adventure movie not an historical documentary or commentary. As stated by ColdFusion it is a work of fiction for entertainment. You're reading too much into it. The British weren't pro-slavery, however they supported the confederacy to an extant because of economic reasons. The cotton trade/"King Cotton"
See King Cotton and Cotton diplomacy. 121.219.7.31(talk) 07:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's etiquette here to sign your posts.
Second, do you even read your own links? They actually prove the opposite, that the Confederacy was shocked their Cotton lobby DID NOT WORK.
Third, if you knew your history, you'd know that the British did more to end slavery GLOBALLY, not just in their country as did Lincoln, during THE VICTORIAN ERA, as even Americans call it, than any other nation on this planet.
Fourth, when you insult your own country as well as others, then it's 'just a movie' or 'just in fun', but when you offend ONLY other countries(actually iirc, the British were the bad guys in the 1st movie too weren't they?), then it's a political statement. That's like saying "everyone's ok with it" when YOU are the ONLY one tossing out the insults.
I sincerely doubt that if the next Indianna Jones movie, for instance, portrayed Abraham Lincoln as being secretly for slavery because he agreed to hear what a Reb emmissary had to say, that Americans would say it was 'just a movie'. What hypocrisy.
There is a world of difference between the "Police Story" comedies insulting real historical heroes(first of all they do it to American as well as others), and a movie claiming to be based on historical events insulting someone's legacy.
The whole story-line was about the importance of honoring and correcting someone's legacy. That a fictional character would be granted that importance over a real historical heroine can't be anything but an intentional insult. All they had to do at the end was show that the letter never existed or said "#&&# off" to the Rebs and the movie would've been just as entertaining. The fact the movie would do it for a fictional character and not a real one has to be deliberate.TheBalderdasher (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no conspiracy to defame the British. In the first movie, Ian was the villain. He was British. So? That doesn't mean "the British were the bad guys". Or are you are talking about the Revolutionary War, where the British really were the enemy? And for the record, if you read Abraham Lincoln's 1860 platform, he was not against slavery. He was against the spread of slavery. And even after the Emancipation Proclamation, there were still slaves in Washington, DC. So, if Indiana Jones portrayed him as pro-slavery, it wouldn't be a big stretch. ColdFusion650 (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off all I don't have an account if I did I would sign my posts, maybe later I would get one but nowadays I am mostly too busy to be on wikipedia.

Second, That’s the whole point: their plan was use the demand of cotton(Southern plantations generated three-fourths of the world's cotton supply) to force European intervention in the war - in order to negate the North’s industrial strength, however it did not work because cotton production was increased elsewhere. I am sorry that I didn't clarify it for you and go into detail. The war in the beginning was perceived as conflict concerning 'States rights' and the British(and French) were sympathetic to the Confederate cause early on, however after the emancipation proclamation and the battle of Antietam, it became a war of/against slavery something which the British were against; public opinion in Britain turned against the Confederacy because of slavery.

The CSS Alabama and CSS Tallahassee were built in British shipyards early in the war and many other ships were purchased second hand via third parties to serve in the Confederate Navy. The British Pattern 1853 Enfield was the major Confederate rifle during the war. "The Confederates imported more Enfields during the course of the war than any other small arm, buying from private contractors and gun runners when the British government refused to sell them arms after it became obvious that the Confederacy could not win the war. It has been estimated that over 900,000 P53 Enfields were imported to America"

Third, I don’t deny that the British did more to end slavery globally, where did I state that?(And I do know my history) British support of the Confederacy was not the result of it being pro-slavery, but whatever support the British gave was political and economic opportunism. See -

Britain and the American Civil War
.

Fourth, "...the British were the bad guys in the 1st movie too weren't they"? No! WTF? Sean Bean played the villain - a financier, although he had a British accent never in the movie was his nationality an issue or was it mentioned. His henchman, I think were American. What insults? You are making assumptions that "National Treasure" is one anti-British conspiracy and there was never anything said about slavery except about sympathy of the Confederacy.

Again its just a movie - an action adventure movie not to be taken seriously, it is based on history but not historical fact, the movie is filled with inaccuracies and anachronisms: The Olmecs were in Mexico not near South Dakota, "Factual errors: Dr. Appleton says that the Indian language is Olmec. However, the Olmec people inhabited south-central Mexico, and their language nor culture never reached 2,000 miles north to present-day South Dakota. Therefore, the entire premise of the city of gold is misplaced by a continent." IMDB The HMS Resolute wasn't decommissioned until 1879 and the Resolute desks were not made until 1880 too late to serve the storyline.

If everything considered or perceived as insulting or offensive, half or more of what we see on T.V, movies and popular culture would have to be censored. Dictators and totalitarian governments justify censorship in the name of preventing insults and protecting the populace. We’ll have to ban Jon Stewart, Jay Leno or Conan O’Brien for making jokes about the President because it’s an insult on America. People have a right to call Queen Victoria an old hag and George Bush a dumbass. It’s called freedom of speech and freedom of expression, if you don’t like something or find it insulting you have the right to ignore it. The truth is that Queen Victoria was, like all human beings, not perfect and there may have been may have had another side to her rule.

First off Indiana Jones would probably not involve a story with Abraham Lincoln, the premise of Indiana Jones is one of finding artefacts, which have supernatural properties. i.e. Ark of the Covenant. And speaking of Indiana Jones the Russian communist party wanted Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull to be banned in Russia because it portrayed the Soviet Union in a negative light, the same Soviet Union – It was seen as an insult. The same Soviet Union in which millions of people spent years and later died in gulags. See - Indy 4

I think you are reading too much into it, over one sentance in a movie.
124.176.188.65 (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that WP is not a discussion board, and this talk page is to be used to discuss improving or correcting the article's content - not for plot debates. Thx! SpikeJones (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some people think and say too much about movies. This is a work of fiction, not a documentary. Britain did not do a lot of bad things to America. And supporting slavery was not one of them. The UK opposed slavery - the US did not until the 1860's. The UK did not support the confederacy, or slavery. Britain was neutral in the US civil war. But most people in Europe and the UK were sympathetic to the South. The north was disliked by many foreigners, as it still is today, for many reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Treasure: Book of Secrets. 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:

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Treasure: Book of Secrets. 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:

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Treasure: Book of Secrets. 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:

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Honors English 250H VL1

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2023 and 4 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mgferris13 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Highspeed2, FloatingLarGibbon.

— Assignment last updated by Mgferris13 (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Treasure:_Book_of_Secrets&oldid=1204210916"