Factual error: During Jack's sliding down the rope scene, it is very noticeable that each one of the English soldiers fire their weapons more than once, which is impossible for that time, knowing that repetition weapons weren't invented until the mid 1800s. (00:20:00)
Suggested correction: The first repeating firearm was invented in 1718.
I think you are talking about the Puckle gun from 1718, which was a crewed gun, not a rifle. The earliest repeating rifle is from 1630, with more variants made till the era the movie takes place in (early 18th century). However, these had all what you call single-action triggers (manual repeating), meaning they need a large lever to reload after firing. The guns in the movie obviously don't have such a lever. What the poster probably meant by repetition weapons is double-action trigger rifles.
Trivia: The Aztec chest that the medallions are in is the same chest used in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Suggested correction: Actually, the only chest in Raiders of the Lost Ark (the one that contains the Ark) is totally different from the Aztec chest.
Plot hole: In the shot where two of the pirates find Jack Sparrow in the prison, you see the moon shine out over Port Royal and the pirate's hand around Jack's neck is skeletal. While this is happening we know that Elizabeth is being led onto the Black Pearl by two pirates. If the pirate in the prison turns skeletal, why don't the pirates with Elizabeth turn skeletal? It's clear that they don't as Elizabeth only discovers the curse later on aboard the Black Pearl.
Suggested correction: This can be explained that on the route from Elizabeth's house to the ship there is a lot of fog, smoke from fires and gunpowder explosions, so the moon doesn't get through. The moon only get through once they are underway again and the fog is cleared. The prison is much further and higher than the town and so the moon does get through (only sometimes) there.
You're very much mistaken. In later scene pirates turn skeletal when marching underwater, at the bottom of the ocean. Moon is easily able to get through water and this smoke isn't thick enough to block the moon.
How does water compare to fog? Of course the moonlight comes through the water, its transparent. Fog isn't transparent. You can go technical and question how much the moonlight is reflected away before the effect wears off, but obviously the effect wears off when there is no direct moonlight hitting them, as is the case with fog and smoke.
Plot hole: Elizabeth goes to drop the medallion over the side of the Pearl. Barbossa and the crew gasp and take a step forward revealing they want/need the medallion thus giving Elizabeth the upper hand in the negotiations. Why not let the medallion drop into the water below the Pearl and simply "take a walk" to get the medallion off the ocean floor? The crew can walk under water as shown later in the film so this shouldn't be an issue. (00:38:15)
Suggested correction: Why not "simply take a walk" to retrieve that medallion? They have spent many years trying to find this bit of precious gold. If it's dropped, the underwater currents will most certainly carry it away, and if they walk underwater their feet will kick up the seabed making it even more difficult to locate. These cursed pirates have finally found their last missing piece, which would once and for all end their miserable curse, so they will not risk it being dropped into the sea.
Suggested correction: They only got startled from the idea, not realizing yet they could reclaim it easily, they are so close after all. Barbossa is not pleading to her, and they were hardly negotiating, Elizabeth was even only demanding they leave, nothing yet about the gold. All the scene does is give the dialogue needed for them to think her name is Turner, so they would keep her onboard and not just the gold. It's not an important part of the plot that they let her think she has the upper hand, if at all.
Factual error: The scriptwriters revealed that they placed the story in a thirty-year environment set loosely between 1720 and 1750. Port Royal was destroyed by an earthquake on 7 June 1692, which had an accompanying tsunami. An initial attempt at rebuilding was again destroyed in 1703 by fire. Subsequent rebuilding was hampered by several hurricanes in the first half of the 18th century. I don't remember if the movie was set in a big, undestroyed Port Royal. However there was also set a huge fortress in Port Royal, which is definitely a factual error.
Suggested correction: This is also not the real world. It's set in an alternate reality which doesn't have to exactly match our reality.
Although the film series falls into the fantasy genre, it is set in a real period and place in history. Fictional events taking place in a historical setting is not the same as an "alternate reality." The anachronistic use of a real city as an important locale in the story is not artistic license, it is a historical error.
