![]() | National Treasure: Book of Secrets is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Remember to keep these pages with a neutral POV. this isn't a fan site. Oldag07 22:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Where did they say that Mount Vernon would appear in the film? Just out of curiosity. Microbyte 14:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
based on observations from other film articles:
Thoughts? SpikeJones (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Could we have a section like this dealing with:
--Jack Upland (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
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. Grsz11 (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
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. 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
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. 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
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)