cracking the screenwriters

I just wonder if Jack and Liz will treat each other bad in this next one. How do you just go back to treating someone like nothing happened when they left you to die, or you left them to die? They have to at least fool themslves into thinking they're mad at the other if they are still denying their feelings, so I can see Liz getting mad for a while, definitely, especially when she gets traded to Sao Feng. But Jack? We all know he's not mad at her, and that he doesn't care too much about what people think of him so long as they think of him, so I wonder how he will treat her.

Jack doesnt seem to be but she's treating him "really bad"..Jack sort of slipped up IMO by puting her on Sao Feng's pear shaped..it might be extra reason why he is a bit iffy with him..Jack is actually in love by this point it seems..you read that bit from the draft scrip in that "choke on it" thread? It shows that he's in love with her and is hurt by her...

but its all what happens in the stages she's at.

Jack was like it too when he was at that stage

He's actually at the stage whjere he has to face consequences fot gaing the reward .and IMO Liz is a consequence too as well as Will..and possibly even himself

i just dont get liz.

she totally betrayed Jack in 2, so why cant he get even in 3? i dont think she has any right to be mad at jack for trading her to sao feng... because she should know she had it coming.

plus she's been a jerk to jack up to this point in the script. she needs to come to her senses already. this is dumb. i dont blame jack at all for trading her. give her a taste of her own medicine. plus he's already died for her once, and she's not acting like she appreciated it much.

why does she always treat jack so bad? gosh it drives me nuts.

yeah Jack is totally in love with her... its obvious... and PAINFUL... cause i just dont see a good way for this work out. i just want jack to be happy. liz is being retarded though. seriously.

maybe she does^^ but she's trying to supress it..IMO all this behaviour is her trying so desperatly to make Jack out to be a bad man..she's trying to supress her feelings.."you always hurt the one you love" especially when you hate admitting your feelings for them

why the hell did I say Sao Feng's pear shaped?? LMFAO thats not what I said I swear 😂

I mean he puts her on his ship thinking he's gonna see her again and things go pear shaped

lol.

if i were jack, i woulda done the same thing. is that terrible? they are peas in a pod. "i saved your life, you saved mine, we're square". "you trade me, i trade you. we're square."

plus, Liz never actually gets hurt. He doesnt hurt her in 1, he just asks her to put his hat on him and stuff. She doesnt get hurt by Sao Feng, she escapes. Jack actually DID get hurt by what she did.

i just dont think they can go much longer with this denial theory. If liz doesnt start coming around pretty early on in the movie, it wont make sense for her to change her mind in the last 5 minutes and suddenly confess everything. that kind of change has to be gradual or it wont work. the fact that she is totally treating him like sh** and putting up barriers between them seems sad to me--- because this is past the middle of 3, this scene is. Thats getting too late in the film to whip things back around, IMO. but who knows.

I kind of get Liz, but I could have her completely wrong. I don't think she's intentionally mean to Jack. The curiosity and persuasion scenes are more playful banter and she bit off more than she can chew when it comes to Jack. And she's not rejecting him because she thinks he's lower than she is. She's not a snob. She's rejecting him because she's very protective of Will and has convinced herself she loves him.
And chaining him to the mast? Well, we all agree to some level she did it either completely or partially because she was afraid to have him around her anymore, but I think she convinced herself so well that she was doing it for the group. One life to save everyone else's, not just hers. "It's not US." It was misguided, but still noble in a way and you could see it broke her to do that. So I don't think she's necessarily mean to him, she just doesn't put up with his crap, and he gives her a lot of crap.

yeah I agree with you..its why the compass tells her she wants to save Will most in this world but the man she wants most is Jack

it explains the end in a weird way too lol...once she has the thing she wanted most when it came to Will...all thats left is the emptyness. The man she wants most is now gone.

remember when she found the chest? the compass must have lead her there but its burried..so she's found it..so it doesnt need to point there anymore so it points right at Jack...it ecchos what happens later in the hut IMO..she's found Will..he's safe...but now the man she wants most is gone and she feels empty

IMO this explains that opening too..where she is widowed before marriage..She's with Will but the emptyness is there

here's a cool interview from ted and terry, if you guys want to have a look:

Box Office Mojo: Is Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest exactly the movie you wrote?

Terry Rossio: It's not an easy question. There are things I would change. But there are aspects that exceed what we wrote as well. The trade-off is probably worth it—

Ted Elliott: —life is full of these little trade-offs—

Terry Rossio: —and there are relatively few. They amount to quibbles. I'd say it's 90 percent of what we wanted.

Box Office Mojo: Did you choose the darker tone?

Terry Rossio: I'm not sure it is darker. You could just as easily say it has more slapstick. Maybe it extends further in each direction—maybe there are occasionally darker alleys. Hopefully, those are balanced.

Ted Elliott: We didn't intend to have sequels. The first [movie] is a story in and of itself, a sort of capital 'r' romance in the Prisoner of Zenda sense that ends in an idealized love between Elizabeth and Will. So, what happens after that? Ideals are very difficult to [achieve] in this world. It's much more interesting to watch somebody struggle, where it's not so easy to know what's the right thing to do at all times.

Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Terry Rossio: In the first film, Jack Sparrow wants to get his ship back, and that's what he's focused on. Though he does some underhanded things, he's aligned with the heroes for the most part. That's kind of uplifting. In the second [movie], Jack Sparrow is more desperate. His needs put him at odds with pretty much everybody—his crew, Will and Elizabeth and, obviously, Davy Jones. His desperation is magnified, and that may go a long way toward that impression that it's darker.

Box Office Mojo: Davy Jones talking about death is definitely darker.

Ted Elliott: Well, we're using the same palette that we used in the first movie. But we're definitely using different values in different combinations and, yeah, we actually do set out to suggest the world of pirates is darker. The darkness was implied in the first and we're making it more apparent in the second [picture] because we are ultimately leading to this climax [in the third picture]. It's a far more interesting type of drama to see people operating in this morally ambiguous world.

Box Office Mojo: When did you first ride the Disneyland attraction?

Ted Elliott: I was seven or eight years old. We grew up in Orange County [California], so Disneyland was always about 15 minutes from the house. I spent a lot of time there. Before we started working on the movie, I'd probably been on the ride at least a hundred times. It was my favorite ride. Number two was Monsanto's Adventures Through Inner Space—I just liked the idea of things getting really tiny and walking around in that environment—but number one was Pirates of the Caribbean.

Terry Rossio: My experience was similar. I'd been on it maybe a hundred or two hundred times before we even contemplated doing the movie.

A scene from the Pirates of the Caribbean attraction at Disneyland
Box Office Mojo: Were you drawn to the attraction's horror features?

Ted Elliott: It was the totality of the experience. That ride begins with what is a dark ride feature. It really does—the skeleton, the cursed treasure—it's always been part of the ride. Right at the beginning, the skeleton warns you to keep your hands and arms inside [the boat] and says that Davy Jones is waiting for those who don't obey. It always had this supernatural aspect of legends that we all associate with the sea. But there had never been a movie that tied pirates to it.

Terry Rossio: For me, what the ride accomplishes so well is that sense of a fully realized fantasy. It's a tip of the iceberg feeling—like [you are entering] a world that has its own rules and is its own reality. It's like going into the world of Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. The ride felt like little vignettes or episodes that feel as if they have a larger story behind them. I was curious to find out: how did those guys get there? How did the dog get the key? What's going to happen? The fun of doing the Pirates of the Caribbean films is that you get to create a world. I think that's what audiences like—they want to go visit that world. They want to visit those characters and look around corners and see where that path leads or where that ship came from.

Box Office Mojo: Are you writing The Jungle Cruise movie?

Terry Rossio:[laughs] No.

Ted Elliott:[laughs] No—although that movie was already made. It's called Congo. Congo is The Jungle Cruise. If you watch it, even the hippos are there.

Terry Rossio: There's nothing about doing The Jungle Cruise as a movie that's inherently restrictive to making a great film. You could end up with The African Queen—

Ted Elliott: —If the Jungle Cruise [attraction] hadn't already started with The African Queen. All I know is that they put the guns back into the ride. I personally thanked Disney for that.

Box Office Mojo: Is there more gunplay in the sequel?

Terry Rossio: No. There's more pet violence perhaps. But don't overlook the rather brutal moment [in the first picture] of the butler coming to the [governor's residence] door and being shot.

Ted Elliott: Also, the first death we see in the first movie is Will throwing an axe into somebody's back—when the pirates are invading Port Royale—and he doesn't know that the pirates are unkillable. From Will's point of view, he is the first person to commit actual violence.

Box Office Mojo: Is the third picture done?

Ted Elliott: No. We still have a couple of months left to shoot. We shot the location work simultaneously with Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest but the plan was always that we would have something left to shoot.

Box Office Mojo: Is the title Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End?

Terry Rossio: That's what we're campaigning for—but it's not set.

Ted Elliott: I like it because then you could say 'POTC: AWE.'

Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Box Office Mojo: Johnny Depp has received widespread praise for his portrayal of your character, Captain Jack Sparrow. How much of your writing remains in that characterization?

Ted Elliott: We wrote a very specific character and Johnny played that character but his performance was one neither of us could have imagined. We wanted to create this trickster. If you go all the way back to [Robert Louis Stevenson's novel] Treasure Island, we kind of borrowed the moral ambiguity of that story. The whole thing comes down to [young boy] Jim Hawkins making the call as to whether [pirate] Long John Silver is a good man or a bad man—that's the emotional crux of that story. Silver does kill people—he betrays everybody—and this moral ambiguity is inherent in the pirate/swashbuckler genre. To that regard, the trickster archetype seemed appropriate. That's what we wanted to do with Jack Sparrow. Whether Johnny identified that consciously, he definitely found a perfect performance.

Terry Rossio: The world wants there to be movie stars and, in a sense, the story becomes Johnny Depp—because people want that. In terms of understanding why he's [created] an iconic character, the story becomes 'Johnny Depp is brilliant' which of course is true because Johnny Depp is brilliant. People are not necessarily as interesting in pedestrian reality. You still have a storyboard artist who comes up with a visual of Johnny first stepping onto the dock as the ship sinks. We wrote that [scene in which Jack Sparrow is introduced]. We wrote lines like: 'you're the worst pirate I've ever heard of—' and [the response] 'but you have heard of me.' People quote those lines. If the character had walked on screen and just stood there and said, 'hello,' it wouldn't be the same. So, clearly the screenwriting goes into the creation of the character. And I have to credit Gore Verbinski's direction.

Ted Elliott: When we were writing and making the first movie, [we had in mind] the Sergio Leone [spaghetti] Westerns like The Man With No Name [movies]. The Clint Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef characters are essentially gods compared to all these mortals. They can shoot better, they can ride better, they're smarter, they're faster and they don't say much. To some extent, that's what we were playing in the first [Pirates], that Jack and [Captain] Barbossa [played by Geoffrey Rush] are kind of pirate gods. They come into the lives of these two mortal characters—

Terry Rossio: —and we continue that into At World's End—

Ted Elliott: —and, to some extent, Jack is the demi-god, the trickster. He straddles both sides. Is he on the side of the gods—is he opposed to the gods?—is he on the side of the mortals? He's on his own side.

Terry Rossio: You can also track the dialog in those [spaghetti Westerns]: the less words you say, the more god-like you are—and, in Pirates of the Caribbean [pictures]—

Ted Elliott: —pirates talk.

Terry Rossio: —the less Johnny says, the more truthful he is. The more words he uses, the more you should mistrust him.

Ted Elliott: So, yes, there is some conscious thought given to the behavior of Jack Sparrow.

Keira Knightley and Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

here's the rest of the above interview.

Box Office Mojo: Does it concern you that Jack Sparrow will be perceived as less likable in this movie?

Ted Elliott: More interesting, not less likable. I can't say what everybody's going to feel, but, certainly the intent here was for people to be surprised by what Jack is doing. My argument against making him more likable is that he [ought to be] understandable. Everything he does is perfectly within character and, in a way, all we're doing is revealing greater character depth. His character in the first movie included things that were less than admirable, less than likable.

Terry Rossio: The most important commandment is to sustain interest—if you do that, everything else follows; you can move people emotionally, you can make them laugh, you can do all sorts of things. It's most important to demonstrate character complexity or to let characters do things that create interest, because that's how we live our lives day to day. Same thing with complexity. For some reason, there's a focus when people talk about movies about the idea of somehow 'getting it,' like things should be easy or clear. What really goes on in movies is that things are beguiling or intriguing and interest is sustained by seeing glimpses of a world or a story. That's what happens in real life. People have to navigate the world based on incomplete information. That can draw people into a story. Yet, for some reason, people don't understand that and they're resistant to that technique. Luckily, we get to do it in these movies, which I think actually works. Likability and simplicity are not all they're cracked up to be.

Box Office Mojo: What is the meaning of the series?

Ted Elliott: It's a study of what is a pirate. How free can you really be? What are those trade-offs? Jack kind of represents the ultimate free man—he really has no obligations to anybody, and, obviously, if you make an obligation to somebody, you're limiting your own freedom. But, if you're not willing to limit your own freedom, you can't have those relationships. If you look at Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest from that point of view, you kind of see what really leads to Jack's ultimate fate and why Elizabeth does what she does.

Box Office Mojo: Jack Sparrow's an anarchist?

Ted Elliott: Essentially, yes, he really is.

Terry Rossio: I wouldn't say he's a complete anarchist—

Ted Elliott: —he's opposed to social structures, he's opposed to government—

Terry Rossio: 99 percent of that's correct but Jack has his own internal moral landscape. The choices he makes are not necessarily inconsistent with forming relationships.

Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Box Office Mojo: Is there an inner goodness to Jack Sparrow?

Terry Rossio: No. Jack says it clearly [in the first movie:] there's what a man can do and what a man can't do. Those words encompass his inner contradictions—that's what's so beautiful about them—he's saying you cannot generalize, you cannot philosophize, you cannot come up with a simple [moral code]. It's almost saying each situation calls for its own resolution; there is simply what you will do and what you won't do.

Ted Elliott: He's also saying, judge by deeds, not words.

Box Office Mojo: Do all the characters return in the third movie?

Ted Elliott: Yes.

Box Office Mojo: What are the mechanics of your writing partnership?

Terry Rossio: We do the back and forth exchange of files. One of the techniques we learned while working in animation [on Shrek] is to work in sequences. For me, it's easier to attack a three-page thing than the entire script.

Ted Elliott: I know writers who actually work in the full draft and I can't figure out how they do it. If you have a hundred pages, if you want to get to a scene in the middle, you have to go through all that other stuff. Whereas, if you've broken it up into sequences, you only have to deal with exactly the part you need to work on.

Box Office Mojo: How do you take a step back and look at the big picture?

Ted Elliott: That's why the cards are up on the storyboard. We work out the story on index cards to break it down.

Terry Rossio: Truth be told, sometimes, you don't get that view of the Big Picture until opening day. Also, it's a very immersive job; you wake up and you're on a set and talking to actors and going to story meetings and, with the amount of time you spend understanding how a story should work, you don't necessarily have to go to the boards. You're living the film as it's being made, and you can sometimes tell [what to write] because you know that world so incredibly well. You [already] have the context of the larger movie.

Box Office Mojo: How do studio pressures affect the writing process?

Ted Elliott: You're ultimately trying to create a physical object. It's wonderful to imagine, but once you start rendering the script as something physical, you have to deal with the physics. It really comes down to the physical constraints on what's mostly intellectual. The reason I became a screenwriter is to make movies. If I just wanted to write screenplays, that's all I'd do. If I just wanted to be a writer, I'd never write screenplays. There is much more satisfactory work than writing a screenplay because it's not the final work. You're not actually writing to communicate with your intended audience; you're writing to communicate with the people who are making the movie.

Terry Rossio: Sometimes the physical constraints on a movie are the people working on the movie and Ted's much more able to navigate that.

Ted Elliott: I come at it from the point of view that, if Terry, for example, doesn't get my idea, I'm not communicating my idea—not if it's really a great idea—or, it may not be a great idea or, in Terry's subjective opinion, it's not a great idea for the movie. [Director] Gore [Verbinski] may initially disagree with an idea [in the script] and we may have arguments. But what eventually develops is a new idea that we're all satisfied with.

Box Office Mojo: Can you give an example of an idea you refused to compromise?

Writers Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio at the Walt Disney Studios in Burbank, California
Photo Credit: Scott Holleran
Ted Elliott: In the very first meeting we had on Pirates 2 and possibly Pirates 3, we kind of pitched to Gore, [and producers] Jerry Bruckheimer, Mike Stenson and Chad Oman how the movie ends—I don't want to spoil it—with Jack, Will and Elizabeth. We said 'this is what we want and then in Pirates 3, this happens.' They were like, 'nyahh.' But we've learned an important lesson, which is that the right idea at the wrong time is a wrong idea. So, we stopped and said, 'alright,' and talked about what more we wanted to do with this movie. A couple of weeks later, Gore had come back to those [same] ideas and, now, they're there. There is a point where the writer has to be allowed to take responsibility for the work—or not take responsibility for the movie.

Box Office Mojo: How do you filter the demands of your previous success—with Shrek and the Pirates pictures?

Ted Elliott: [Pauses] What Terry and I like to write happens to be what audiences like to see. When we're working, we're concerned about how we're affecting the audience, but we're not basing decisions on whether the audience will like it—it's based on us trying to manipulate the audience to experience the story the way we want to tell it to them.

Terry Rossio: You would think those things—the pressure of previous work and living up to the success—matter. The irony is that there's a story you have to solve and it's incredibly difficult. External pressures don't help solve it but they also don't make the process any harder. If you solve the difficulty of writing a good screenplay, you're already there and everything else kind of falls away. Nothing can make it better or worse.

Box Office Mojo: What is it you're trying to express with your stories?

Terry Rossio: We often have a theme that emerges: to accept responsibility for your actions—

Ted Elliott: —and always question authority.

Holy sh** you guys check out THIS interview and tell me this isnt totally in line with all our hopes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 😄

The writing team behind the Disney franchise speak

They've created some of the most iconic characters in modern movie history - based on an amusement park ride. Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio will now forever be associated with Captain Jack Sparrow, Will Turner, and Elizabeth Swann - along with all the other supporting characters in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.

In the second of the series, Dead Man's Chest, they've brought in a few new characters to shake things up for our trio of heroes - mainly, Davy Jones, played by Bill Nighy and Bootstrap Bill, played by Stellan Skarsgard.

What you may not know about this franchise is after the first film did so well, Disney had the idea to make both the second and third movie together. Their's and producer Jerry Bruckheimer's first demand was to hire back Ted and Terry to write the stories. That was quite a task for the two, but they were definitely ready for the challenge.

When I had the opportunity to talk with Ted and Terry, I knew I was going to be talking to two of the most imaginative people. We even got into a little bit of what will be happening in the third and final movie of the trilogy Here's what we talked about:

When you get down to writing the second and third movies, what do you talk to Johnny (Depp) and Orlando (Bloom) and Keira (Knightly) and the rest of the returning cast about these characters?

Ted Elliott: Well, actually, Terry spent more time playing chess with Orlando than he did talking about the character.

Terry Rossio: I have to say I remember going up to Keira once, on Pirates 1, and said, 'So the character, the story, anything, do you have any questions you want to ask, or back story? How you're thinking about it?' She said, 'No.' I said, 'Ok.' That was it, she got it, she played it.

Ted Elliott: With Johnny, a lot of it is talking about story, about the character. He's very aware that you need to have a really good story to have the character work.

Because Keira was so young in the first one, how much growth did you see in her between the two movies?

Ted Elliott: It really was having Keira in that story; we wouldn't have done that story without Keira. We know Johnny can play Jack, and we know Orlando can play Will. But we got Keira to make this story work; she's extraordinary.

Terry Rossio: Keira, in a way, you can say she didn't grow because she was so good to begin with. But what we discovered that anything needed to be done, if she was in the scene, it was going to turn out great - action, comedy, romance - it was going to be great.

What would you say was the hardest part about writing these two?

Terry Rossio: Leading up to the first one.

Ted Elliott: Actually, that's not really true; the first one has so much power by the fact that it's different, I think people underestimate that. The first one, people were surprised in that kind of summer movie. The second one, you do not get the advantage of surprising the audience. The challenge is how to re-create that thrill without being able to surprise them, the thrill of the discovery. They want more of the same, and we need to change that.

Terry Rossio: People want that new experience of discover and new-ness. So it was a matter of creating a new story with these characters.

What was the gamble of making these back to back?

Ted Elliott: There's a ridiculous gamble of making these films in the Caribbean during hurricane season, constructing these ships.

Terry Rossio: I was just thinking about a scene where it called for sailing on the Caribbean, on the ship are Naomie Harris, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightly -

Ted Elliott: This is shooting for 3 -

Terry Rossio: And I was thinking anyone of those actors can open a movie - Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Chow Yun-Fat, Kevin McNally - I was looking at that and there are four movies right there.

Ted Elliott: And we also knew Bill Nighy and Tom Hollander were lurking around in the background somewhere. And Bill Nighy's performance blew me away; he was acting through what he had.

Where did Davy Jones come from?

Terry Rossio: The power of a villain can come through some kind of human aspect of them. Davy Jones' character is reacting to some kind of heartbreak. It's so much fun to write.

Ted Elliott: To make it an interesting character to play or write, there had to be some human aspect to him.

What are you looking forward to for Pirates 3 and beyond?

Terry Rossio: The thing I will say about 3 is the ending - we have to end the trilogy.

Ted Elliott: You have to find an ending that plays naturally from the beginning of the first film and know that people can walk out of the theater, having experienced a climax.

Terry Rossio: There's a part in it that has about 16 speaking parts to it and it's an incredibly pivotal scene in the story and I'm looking forward to seeing it. It's been a challenge to write and it and we have it.

Ted Elliott: It's really been fun to do different things and trying something new. In Pirates 3, the emphasis is on love, on finality, making final decisions; we're actually doing stuff that's different.

Terry Rossio: When we ended up the shaping of the ending to 2, there was skepticism, but it definitely worked.

Boy, you can say that again - it worked big time! Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest opens in theaters July 7th; it's rated PG-13.

WOW!!!
awsome!!

What are you looking forward to for Pirates 3 and beyond?

Terry Rossio: The thing I will say about 3 is the ending - we have to end the trilogy.

Ted Elliott: You have to find an ending that plays naturally from the beginning of the first film and know that people can walk out of the theater, having experienced a climax.

Terry Rossio: There's a part in it that has about 16 speaking parts to it and it's an incredibly pivotal scene in the story and I'm looking forward to seeing it. It's been a challenge to write and it and we have it.

Ted Elliott: It's really been fun to do different things and trying something new. In Pirates 3, the emphasis is on love, on finality, making final decisions; we're actually doing stuff that's different.

Terry Rossio: When we ended up the shaping of the ending to 2, there was skepticism, but it definitely worked.
Boy, you can say that again - it worked big time! Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest opens in theaters July 7th; it's rated PG-13.

There is definitely hope I'm aboard the ship again yuppie!!!

i'm kind of concerned though. those interviews are really clear, but it still could go either way.

they keep saying the ending dmc in a realy definitive way. does that mean that Liz would kill anyone to save will, or did that mean that liz couldn't control herself with Jack and so had to get rid of him??? im still confused. lol.

and with "love, finality, making final decisions"... gosh i am going nuts...

and their quote about being skeptical about whether the end of 2 would work-- and then it did--- does that mean the they think the audience understood that liz was just saving will, or did they mean that the audience fell in love with the idea of liz and jack?!

gah... they are so cryptic.

[/i]Originally posted by katelovespirate [/i]
they keep saying the ending dmc in a realy definitive way. does that mean that Liz would kill anyone to save will, or did that mean that liz couldn't control herself with Jack and so had to get rid of him??? im still confused. lol.

IT could be both, I believe that Liz would have given up what she most wanted (Jack) just to save Will. And yes she couldn't control herself around Jack, I think she was afraid of her feelings, she didn't want to have those feelings, she wanted to Love Will only Will. That is why I though she got rid of him. Jack is gone, temptation is over. So guess what??? she was wrong

and with "love, finality, making final decisions"... gosh i am going nuts...

Love, final decisions, all of this sounds good to me

and their quote about being skeptical about whether the end of 2 would work-- and then it did--- does that mean the they think the audience understood that liz was just saving will, or did they mean that the audience fell in love with the idea of liz and jack?!

gah... they are so cryptic.

I understood that they were a little bit skeptical about the idea of Jack and Elizabeth falling in love and, how the audience were going to react towards it.

Originally posted by katelovespirate
i'm kind of concerned though. those interviews are really clear, but it still could go either way.

they keep saying the ending dmc in a realy definitive way. does that mean that Liz would kill anyone to save will, or did that mean that liz couldn't control herself with Jack and so had to get rid of him??? im still confused. lol.

and with "love, finality, making final decisions"... gosh i am going nuts...

and their quote about being skeptical about whether the end of 2 would work-- and then it did--- does that mean the they think the audience understood that liz was just saving will, or did they mean that the audience fell in love with the idea of liz and jack?!

gah... they are so cryptic.

no no no ..its what I've been saying..when she's with what she THOUGHT she should want...all her thoughts go back to Jack..when I left that cinema I didnt think she had chosen Will at all..infact the two were further apart than ever before. When she's with what she thinks she should want her thoughts go back to Jack..she feels widowed from him..when ever she thinks she's happy with Will there is an obvious emptiness and it reflects back to good ole Jack lol it happens 2 times in DMC at the start and end...IMO its gonna happen at the end of AWE

her final decison in DMC? refusing to forget Jack and going back to him of course 😄

my opinion anyway

and did we not learn that she wants to save Will most in this world but she actually wants Jack most in this world 😄

IMO its clear she's protective over Will like he's her family

but with Jack..he protects HER

and thanks for the interview hun xx

and I'm so happy..I knew they were giving his character more depth..thank god I wasnt thinking nonsense

By the end of DMC Jack desired her all the more according to the novel of the story...so yeah..Jack has made a choice by the end of it. He's going to love this woman.

and IMO its clear that Elizbaeth has no one else intruding on her thoughts except Jack..even when she chains him up it means that she's totally not ready for him..she's behind him in terms of her feelings for him..its why she was so afraid..he's ready and verty bold when it comes to making statments to her about accepting her in his life..that ending where he came back it was the call of adventure to Liz "leave the ordinary world (will) and be with the special world (me)" the hero is always terrified of the special world at first.so she ran away from him..but she did cross the first threshold before the story ended I notced..meaning she wants him back in her life..she's fully stepping into the special world for the first time.

"Ted Elliott: Also, the first death we see in the first movie is Will throwing an axe into somebody's back—when the pirates are invading Port Royale—and he doesn't know that the pirates are unkillable. From Will's point of view, he is the first person to commit actual violence."

What I've been saying over and over again and people dont believe me..well now ted has said it so take that muahaha

with what we're wanting though, the story is going to have to TURN at some point... ya know?

Cause with what we know of 3 so far... Liz is still in denial, still trying to make things work with will, and Jack is still growing more and more the victim of unrequited love.

there would have to be a turning point... and i would hope the turning point wasnt the last 4 minutes... and the way its looking, how are they going to pull that off?

I think its a definite possibility, as far as will stabbing the heart, and then liz and jack being left alone together...

BUT we are going to HAVE to see her character change... we are going to HAVE to see her finally acknowledge to herself that she loves Jack, and make a choice to pursue it.

and that cant happen after will is gone or it won't make any sense. she has to recognize and react before the ending, or else we have no hope... ya know what i mean?

Very, very interesting.

I read the first interview too. I posted the link on another thread. This is really exciting, hopefully Ted/Terry would be kind and give the audience what it wants:

A Jack/Liz Ending.

You know, I was just watching a video on You Tube. It showed Elizabeth after she chained Jack to the ship and was on the boat with Will. He was all, 'Where's Jack' and she gave him a really mad look. A look with pure hatred, and when she talked back, she sounded so cold.

Like she was angry at him, because it was him, afterall, that she had killed Jack for. And she realized that it was his fault that she couldn't be with Jack, his fault that she was doomed to live her life in Port Royal, his fault that she can't be free.

His fault she killed her love.