Talk:National Treasure (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

trivia[edit]

Will the person who keeps adding "The good guy in the movie use Google and the bad guys use Yahoo!" please stop adding that? Ben, Riley, and Abigail never even use the Internet in the movie, much less Google. I've deleted that part 3 times already, please stoppp!


Actually they do use the internet several times for reference including in the internet cafe and it is Yahoo, not google. Alexkraegen (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical[edit]

User:Eric Urban This article seems to be rather critical of the movie I'm adding a NPOV notice.

It looks like it was re written, although I beleive the content which was removed has some value. Does a page exist on the subject of a conspiracy theory surrounding freemasons?

-- User: Eric Urban 7:15 PM CST 11/28/04

"The villains of the film are mostly British, with one American and one Irishman." The supposed Irishman is actually Scottish, there seems to be some confusion over the accent. I am delaying editing this until I can confirm that this is not a script reference. 86.42.159.7 20:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)bigtomrodney[reply]

The tagline[edit]

The greatest adventure history has ever revealed. Is hollywood really that stupid and bereft of imagination? --Tagishsimon (talk)

Yes. 8^) Securiger 01:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, yeah. :) But it was a good movie. Minami-chan 01:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be credit given to the two Pirates Of The Carribean writers, cuz they ended up polishing the script. --Madchester 21:02, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Renamed[edit]

Article is renamed to "National Treasure (movie)" to free up national treasure which will deal with national treasures in general. See for example National treasure of Japan. Stbalbach 6 July 2005 04:48 (UTC)

Wholly unnecessary move since national treasure and National Treasure can co-exist. Besides National Treasure redirected to the movie. Cburnett 05:52, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Problem is the names are so close that people are confusing the two, see "what links here", it's a mix-up. The (film) tag makes it clear and hard to confuse -- Stbalbach 21:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up all the dab problems. A single capital letter can't be the only difference between the article titles it is far too easy to confuse. Is the US Constitution a "National Treasure"? Or is it a "National treasure"? Further, one could make a case that National Treasure is a proper noun in certain cases and thus fully capitalized (like the difference between www or WWW.) -- Stbalbach 21:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration and influences[edit]

The article credits the Beale ciphers as an inspiration/influence on this film. Is this A) a known fact (e.g., the film-makers acknowledged this), B) a speculation that has been widely or notably reported, or C) a non-notable or simply original observation by the anon who added it (User:128.173.49.45)? We should either cite sources (in cases A or B), or simply remove this (if case C). — Matt Crypto 21:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Idea on the Beale Ciphers issue, but it does strike me that the most obvious inspiration or influence on this film is the book "The Da Vinci code". National Treasure being an American version of same, or is that just me? Nick--NIck Miles 11:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was struck by that as well. We should include the similarity with the The Da Vinci Code if this comparison has been widely or notably made (and I suspect it would have been, though I haven't looked). — Matt Crypto 15:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Da Vinci Code was published in March 2003. According to IMDb, filming of National Treasure started in September 2003. Arguably, that doesn't leave a lot of time for the script writers to find inspiration in the novel. Thuresson 16:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at them at the most superficial level "The Knights Templar discover an enormous secret that allows them to gain wealth and power, and they (either by secretly surviving, or through subsequent organizations who inherit the secret) hide the clues to the secret in varous famous objects" then they seem the same. But I wouldn't call that a connection, because such legends about the templars are common (with the clues being a plot device, otherwise, how would our heroes discover the secret?). Also, National Treasure is a work of fiction, whereas The Da Vinci Code is a fictional story which seems to claim that its (pseudohistorical) views are true (or at least imply it).

The Beale Treasure Many think the Beale Treasure is a hoax perpetrated by an enterprising writer who published a pamphlet "The Beal Papers" under the name J.B. Ward in Lynchburg, Virgina in 1885. I grew up in nearby Roanoke, Virginia, and have followed the tale off and on since childhood. I remember many stories of treasure hunters combing the hills and valleys of nearby Bedford County where the treasure -- an estimated $30M in gold and silver by today's standards -- is supposedly buried. Thomas Jefferson Beale, an adventurous man described by the writer as "...a gentleman, well born and well educated, with refined and courteous manners..." supposedly brought the treasure back to Virginia from Santa Fe with his associates in in 1819 and 1821. Beale created a series of "ciphers" -- cryptograms -- that served as a treasure map, described the loot and gave the names of his associates (some estimates put the number as high as thirty).

There are 3 cryptograms. No. 2, describing the treasure, was the first to be deciphered and is based on the Declaration of Independence. The third (No. 3) describes the members of Beale's party, and the first describes the exact location of the treasure (no one has cracked No. 1). Beale supposedly entrusted the ciphers, secured in an iron strongbox, to an associate named Robert Morriss, proprietor of the Washington Hotel (a.k.a. Washington Inn) in Lynchburg in 1822. Beale gave Morriss explicit written instructions to only open the box in the event that he did not return after his next planned trip west. Morriss was also to wait 10 years to be sure Beale was not returning (he supposedly waited until 1845 before breaking the lock on the box). No doubt "National Treasure" writers borrowed heavily from this tale; the writer who published the pamphlet is thought to be a Mason, and one theory is that he wrote the piece to show that men will seek monetary fortunes their entire lives without ever discovering spiritual fortunes. At any rate, the legend makes for great reading. Google "Beale Treasure" and you'll see what I mean. MacDougle

"solomon's temple"[edit]

The movie claims that the Knights Templar discovered the treasure underneath Solomon's Temple. This seems like a particularly outrageous claim in a movie full of outrageous claims, since the Temple of Solomon was destroyed by the Babylonians in ~580 BC. Perhaps it would have been more believable if the narration had said that they discovered the foundation of Solomon's Temple, and the treasure beneath that. Aaronimo 18:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point? The purpose of the Talk Page is NOT to bash the movie - it's to discuss possible changes to the article. If you think it's such an "outrageous" claim, don't watch the movie. SkittlzAnKomboz 23:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis a good refutation that SkittlzAnKomboz presents. It's easier to call it "Solomon's Temple" rather than saying "Underneath the ground where Solomon's Temple Was"; just because they don't specify that it was the under the ruins doesn't mean that they didn't mean that or anything. BTW, did you ever get the memo that this was a fictional movie? Microbyte 01:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Line from the declaration[edit]

What is the line from the Declaration of Indep. in the movie?

"But after a long train of abuses and ursurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such goverment and provide new guards for future security" It's at Wikisource too. --Firehawk1717 05:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Father's House / Driving into Phildaelphia[edit]

It has been said that the father lived in Maryland, not Philadelphia. If this is correct, why did they take the Ben Franklin Bridge into Philadelphia? To be able to do so, would mean that they would have went over either the Delaware Memorial Bridge or Commodore Barry Bridge; and then go through congested traffic on Route 76. This would make sense if the father lived in Haddonfield or a ritzy area of South Jersey.

-Probably because a) it's another reference to Ben Franklin, for those who know the bridge, and b) it looks better on film!

"British Based Nations"[edit]

The trivia section claims the United States and Ireland are "british based." Regardless of poor wording, I am sure many Irish would be extremely offended and largely correct if someone claimed Ireland was some how "based" on The British Empire, Britain, or England. I changed the wording to "both of which were at one point a part of the British Empire" from "both of which are British based nations".

Offended or not, it would be correct. I suspect the offence would be taken mostly by those "Irish americans" whose knowledge of Ireland is as weak as their actual 'Irishness'. When Ireland was part of the British Empire, it fully participated in those actions people rush to condemn. The two nations are not as different as you love to assume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.245.198 (talk) 23:08, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

It would not be correct, Ireland did not fully participate in the actions of the British Empire. The Protestants, on the other hand, who considered themselves to be British, certainly did. Sbfenian1916 (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC) how much was the treasure worth? 10 billion USDLizzie Harrison 18:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silence Dogood[edit]

Are there more or less than 18 Silence Dogood letters?

Summary[edit]

The summary seems to contain a large amount of spoilers. I will trim down the details a bit, no reason to spill all of the movie's highlights. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.3.154.118 (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nick Cage accident (triva[edit]

I am the one that added the information about Nicholas Cage causing an accident when the school group looked up at him. This information was gleaned from questions I asked of staff members at Independence Hall. (In other words, no hard-copy reference is available.) Is there protocol for citing this?

Product Placement[edit]

Has anyone else noticed the large amount of product placement in the movie? Distinct examples: Cage's character magnifies the $100 bill with an Aquafina bottle, Cage's team uses Hewlett-Packard computers, the team buys new clothes at Urban Outfitters. Less noticeably, one of Bean's henchmen is wearing a The North Face jacket with a large logo. The instances that show distinct brands do not contribute to character development (like Cage's father's Cadillac, which shows his affluence). The product placement, especially for Aquafina and Urban Outfitters, is blatant. Anyone else agree? - Gamma632 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.253.103.173 (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Britain[edit]

I delinked the word "Britain" in this article because it linked to a disambiguation page. Wikilinks are not supposed to link to dab pages; they're supposed to link to relevant articles. Depending on the age of the artifacts referred to, "Britian" could be piped to Prehistoric Britain, Iron Age Britain, Roman Britain, Sub-Roman Britain, Britain in the Middle Ages, or possibly, Great Britain. Someone familiar with the film can check the articles and see which one is relevant if he would like to link it. --Steven J. Anderson 23:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kidnapped[edit]

At no point is Abigail kidnapped. After they find a safe place after the chase, she is discussing that the Declaration needs to be returned. At one point Ben gives here the Declaration to hold on to and she tries to run away. Ben catches her, rangles for a second, takes the Declaration back and tells her to "shoo". She says that she is not leaving the Declaration behind AND she knows where they are going next. So her future involvement is voluntary. There is no coercion made by Ben even though he knows she knows where they are going.--12.28.101.34 16:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on your point of view of kidnapped when Ian Howe takes Chase. Personaly, I see it as kidnapping. If it's not, do not forget Ben's dad was too kidnapped by Howe. Son of Jadoja 15:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies[edit]

There is a claim that the character Ian Holme knowing where to be to steal the Declaration of Independence is inconsistent, due to the fact it was Ben's plan to have the Declaration transfered to the preservation room, and thus unexplained how Ian would know what room to break into. It should be checked, but the movie seems to have this answered. According to the movie, the preservation room is on the same floor as the vault which is used to store the Declaration. They're also accessed through the same hallway, it's just that the vault has much more security. It could be assumed that Ian planned to break into the vault rather than the preservation room, and ran into Ben by coincidence before his intent was shown.

Yet another:

  • Obviously Ben buys two Declarations in the Gift Store (one real, and one copy). However, when Security reviews the video tape of the purchase, Ben is seen taking back his money after the purchase, and there is only one "Declaration" on the counter to be purchased.

This is claimed in said, but it's wrong. Ben bought ONE copy, which is the one Declaration as seen at the check out counter. He bought one and then there was the original, making two. Going by this poster's line of thinking (if I'm not mistaken), he's saying there should be THREE on hand with Ben. Am I reading this right??? I'm pretty sure it's wrong. 216.39.200.103 01:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this was accurate. He payed for the real declaration (With the cashier under the impression it was a replica) and an actual replica. So he would have been purchasing two. Therefore, we'd assume there'd be two on the counter, as he didn't need to hide it any more. I'd say stick it back in. Microbyte 00:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. He wasn't planning to get a decoy; he paid for a copy so he wouldn't get busted by the clerk. We don't see what happens after that. I figured that having paid for a copy, and having given his name with the credit card, he decided to pick up a copy while the clerk wasn't looking. We never see him with both; it would spoil the twist.
—wwoods 14:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is becomming very confuzzling. The knowledge that he bought a decoy can't be know until later, otherwise it'd ruin the suspense. However, the purchase of the decoy could be an afterthought of Ben's, after that scene. So I guess it'd not be an inconsestiency... :S Microbyte 19:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trivia - comment[edit]

"The movie states that Charles Carroll was a Freemason, although this is highly unlikely due to the fact that Carroll was a Catholic, and Catholics are forbidden from being Freemasons."

I personally know a freemason who's Catholic...--Capt sisko 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, as far as we know, Carroll was not actually a Freemason. [This] page lists the founding fathers who known to have been members, and he isn't on the list. But for the sake of argument, he could have been. While the Church banned Catholics from becoming Freemasons in the 1730s, the Freemasons do not reciprocate... as far as the fraternity is concerned Catholics may join if they wish to... and we all know that some Catholics are willing to be "somewhat selective" as to which Church teachings they obey. Had Carroll wished to become a Freemason, he certainly could have. Finally... this is a movie... a work of fiction. Reality does not matter. Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember the very real possibility of a Catholic being excommunicated by the Church if he becomes a Freemason. In the 1700's, when people still had an overwhelming "fear of the Church" instilled upon them, it would be very unlikely for such a prominent member of society to disobey the church. Sbfenian1916 (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are still talking about the movie that presents the Freemasons as an organisation whose sole purpose and intent was to smuggle treasure to America, aren't we? TomorrowTime (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How tall is Independence Hall's tower?[edit]

I'm not a regular, so I don't feel competent to change this, but I do question this passage from the "inconsistencies" section:

A fact that would certainly make the whole movie impossible, is that the bell tower was several hundred feet shorter at the time of Benjamin Franklin. It was built taller in the mid 19th century. This means the shadow of the tower would not land on the specific brick as depicted in the movie.

I can't find any information online about the height of the bell tower, OR about an addition in the 19th century. But just from LOOKING at Independence Hall, it seems obvious to me that the current tower is not "several hundred" feet tall, and thus could never have been "several hundred feet shorter."

According to our own article on Independence Hall (United States), you are correct in that the current height is the same as it has been since construction in the mid 1700s, at around 90 feet, certainly not 'Hundreds'... --Jmeden2000 18:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You all lie to the world i hate you!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.119.113.107 (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent inconsistencies[edit]

The last inconsistency suggests that the only surviving copies of the declaration are Dunlap copies, including the one on display at the national archives. The article on the declaration disagrees with this, there was another handwritten copy made and signed around the time of the original, and it is the one on display at the archive. Anyone care to comment on this? --Jmeden2000 18:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as the one on display at the archives is at least this other signed copy that you refer to, then there isn't an inconsistency. If Mr. Matlack had written this one, and the signers had signed it, then there's no reason that the map shouldn't be on this one rather than the original. Of course, if there is an error regarding this on the Decleration page, then it'd be in that article that this would need to be brought up. Microbyte 00:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if this does not pertain to the original topic under the title "Inconsistant Inconsistancies", but, looking over the list of 'Inconsistancies' lain out on the public 'National Treasure (film)' page, it seemed that many of the 'inconsistancies' had very little factual or practical basis at all and can be described as none more than "picky" per se. I'd like a second opinion on this, but I believe that comments such as those on the specifications on Washington Metro buses and trains obscure the inconcistancies in the section with more factual, explanatory, or even entertaining merit. I'm sorry if I myself seem a little picky on the matter but adding things to the encylopedia for the sake of it is irresponsible. Sec'qr-euin 02:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a "picky" inconsistency I noticed. I don't have the mathematical knowledge to plot out the sun angles from Independence Hall to know if there's anything to this or not. Riley was quite pleased with himself for being the only one to know about Daylight Time. This meant that 2:22pm in 1776 was the same as 3:22pm today. Well not quite because Standard Time wasn't invented until 1883, each town went by its own local time until then. Independence Hall at 75° 9' West is very close to the 75th meridian that Eastern Standard Time is based on though and the difference is less then one minute. The film makers, if aware of this distinction probably ignored it to avoid confusing the audience. At first I thought the sun angles wouldn't matter then because the sun dial runs between about 15 minutes fast to 15 minutes slow against local time when all variations are averaged out to a 24 hour day. A sundial shadow within 15 minutes would probably have led Ben Gates to the right spot. Then I realized the tower is straight up and down, not at an angle like a sun dial. Shadows in the winter would be longer and angled more northward then in summer. Depending on the time of year the shadow could easily miss the right spot at 2:22pm EST/3:22pm EDT. Then again the film makers could say this all took place in early July anyway :)
Skywayman (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film Flub?[edit]

In the shaft leading down to the treasure room, as they are dangling from the rotted wooden staircases, I noticed metal nails (shiny ones) as the boards separated. Did they use metal nails back then? Would they be shiny silver? or did they use wooden nails/dowels instead? Bytebear (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They did have hand crafted iron nails back then... However, it is unlikely that they would still be all sharp and shiny today. Unless, of course, they were using those special "Masonic" nails (could this be the key to the plot of the third movie? Pyramid Power is real!)Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Harris and Helen Mirren[edit]

Actors Ed Harris and Helen Mirren both had significant parts in this movie, and yet are not mentioned in the movie article here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.14.158 (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of them were in this movie. ColdFusion650 (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, they were in the second movie, not this one. 12:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.57.203 (talk)

Reception[edit]

There is no section attaining to the reception of the film. Would Somebody please add this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.91.159 (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Song[edit]

The actual output in this music that sings in your heart when you love.Gustav Mean (talk) 18:38, 20 December 190002154632548 (UTC)

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Ucucha 18:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


National Treasure (film) → National Treasure —

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Treasure (film) → National Treasure — The example of Red Meat vs. Red meat given at WP:PRECISION suggests that this article should be moved to National Treasure. WP:CAPS#Page names that only differ by capitalization also accepts names only differed by capitalization. Special:WhatLinksHere/National Treasure shows that most of the time it refers to the film rather than national treasure. Quest for Truth (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose we just talked about this in January! What's changed? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. When did our guideline on dabbing by caps only change? That definitely used to say that it was a bad idea and shouldn't be done. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then when did our policy on article titles change? And WP:DAB, the guideline on dab, does not prohibit dab by caps only. If anyone still believes that a policy or guideline says it shouldn't be done, please provide a link to that page for reference. --Quest for Truth (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's what I'm asking. It definitely said in the past that doing this was not a good idea. It no longer does, therefore it must have changed. That doesn't change that it is not a good idea, and the discussion above concluded as much. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While articles with differing caps can coexist, it's not ideal since many users might not be typing with such precision. In this case, there is only one letter differentiating the two. See also WP:PRECISION: "In case of very minor differences, a parenthethical tag should be added as if the title forms were identical, as in Streets of London (song) and Streets Of London (computer game). — AjaxSmack 03:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bedroom?[edit]

There was nothing suggesting the map at the end led to the bedroom. That's an interpretation, not a fact, and should be removed. For all we know, she hid his car keys or wallet and gave him the map to find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.63.23 (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on National Treasure (film). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Treasures of a multinational multiracial nation?[edit]

National Treasure (film)

Treasures of a multinational multiracial nation?

Do you even know what a nation is, a race? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.174.114.63 (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Treasure_(film)&oldid=1211282351"