[ SECRET POST #158 ]

[shahni.livejournal.com]

⌈ Secret Post #158 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.



Notes:

This is a magic post and I'm not really here. :D

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 58 secrets from Secret Submission Post #023.
Secrets Not Posted: 0 broken links, 0 not!secrets, 0 not!fandom.
Next Secret Post: Tomorrow, Wednesday, June 13th, 2007.
Current Secret Submission Post: Here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: (spoiler warning, before anyone clicks on this collapsed thread by accident)

[cephiedvariable.livejournal.com]

Now, if Elizabeth HAD been Calypso.

Then I'd call Sue.

Even though the moment they brought it up, I figured it was Tia Dalma, I was still terrified there for a second.

Then Barbossa did all his complicated: "WTF, oh, ooohhh, lol Sao Feng I'm gonna con yoooouuu" eyework and I was relieved.

Re: (spoiler warning, before anyone clicks on this collapsed thread by accident)

[i-am-the-apeman.livejournal.com]

It's not because she's a girl. It's because I don't think her character originally came across as a powerful main character. Her character in the first movie is cliche damsel for the most part.

Turning the example gender wise, if half way through Buffy, Joss Whedon came out and said the protagonist of the show was Xander and suddenly started designing plot lines around him, I'd scream Stu.

Now, the comparison is not exact since Buffy is *clearly* the protagonist of Buffy, and you could argue with me that Will isn't the protagonist of Pirates and that Elizabeth should have been all along. But then I'd just have to say, I don't see it. Her character really was used mostly as a plot device and had very little arc. I'll give you that Elizabeth might have been intended to be the storyteller, the one whose eyes we see things through, but that doesn't make her the protagonist.

Re: (spoiler warning, before anyone clicks on this collapsed thread by accident)

[i-am-the-apeman.livejournal.com]

Granted, this information came from wikapedia, but, and I quote, "According to writers Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, Elizabeth is the protagonist of the trilogy."

I believe it, i just thinks it's odd. Keep in mind, I'm technically disagreeing with the writers about *their* character. Basically, I'm saying, regardless of their intention, that's really not how I feel it came across. So take that for whatever that's worth.

Elizabeth was *not* a cliched damsel-in-distress in PotC 1.

This is tricky because I agree and disagree. She had pluck and initiative and took plenty of her own action. More and more I'm beginning to see the other side. It's especially tricky since the movie didn't really follow one character's perspective. It was very 3rd person omniscient in that way. It spent significant time developing Will's character and adventures as well as Elizabeth's.

I guess that would imply that it would be equally both of their story. So why did I have a strong impression it was Will's story rather than Elizabeth's? I guess in the end I keep coming back to the character arc. I really don't know how Elizabeth changed, learned, grew throughout the movie. She started out with a desire for adventure and she got it. I guess that could be an arc? Part of my problem is she seemed just as capable of the adventure at the start as she was at the end. It was Will that started the movie very differently than how he ended it. His potential at the start was totally buried. So when he broke out, it was powerful. His arc is so clear to me, it upstages Elizabeth's "breaking out of her corset" arc. It never really seemed like she was in the corset to begin with.

Re: (spoiler warning, before anyone clicks on this collapsed thread by accident)

[doubtful-salmon.livejournal.com]

Oh my god! We can't have them voting! The next thing you know they'll be wanting to work and get degrees. We can't have that...the world would go to pot.