BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man's Chest - Post Release Thread

 
  

Page: 12(3)4

 
 
Brigade du jour
10:09 / 20.07.06
It is partly my fault and partly the film's fault if I doze off during a film, I think.

I feel compelled to take issue with this contention. I've stayed awake through some real dross before (e.g. Anaconda), and yet fallen asleep during films that, on later attempts at viewing, turned out to be brilliant (e.g. Donnie Darko).

My point is this - it's much easier than you might think to fall asleep during a film, particularly in a cinema. It seems an obvious thing to say, but when you're sat in a comfy chair in a big warm dark room ... well, you might get drowsy. So really I'd say it's more the viewer's fault. Although of course, a dull soporific film will only exacerbate an already tired brain, while an engaging meisterwerk might keep it going a wee while longer. I doubt you'd appreciate it as much as if you're wide awake, though.

I should also mention that I work nights and therefore sometimes visit the cinema when my body really needs sleep, so I've kind of learned this lesson the hard but unforgettable way! Mind you, serves me right for going to see Anaconda ...
 
 
Whisky Priestess
10:19 / 20.07.06
Trust me, that is its own punishment.

Fly - in medias res, I think. (Somebody project the Haus bat-symbol!) But I prefer your version.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
14:39 / 20.07.06
I thought that Flyboy was jestering, but that it was "in media res" ~ which seems to be wrong according to galactic authority WIKIPEDIA. Which puzzles me as I thought Latin wouldn't add an "s" to a word that's already a plural, but perhaps it's a... a genitive or something. So, yes, that Haus-symbol.
 
 
Triplets
16:05 / 20.07.06
Stop taking the piss Flyb, you're confusin' the kids!
 
 
MintyFresh
16:13 / 20.07.06
I've seen DMC twice since it came out, and absolutely loved it. The first time I saw it I was excited and jumpy and missed a lot of little things(Barbossa's boots & hat, for example), but on the second go round I was able to relax and pay attention. At least, I was until Barbossa's entrance. I do so love Geoffrey Rush.

By the way, there's a possible rough draft of the third movie script floating around the internet, anyone read it yet? I snuck a peek at it and am now slowly going insane waiting for the third movie.
 
 
Mug Chum
12:21 / 21.07.06
I feel like the biggest idiot in the planet. Only now I've realized the pirate with the glass-eye is Gareth from "The Office"...
 
 
Mono
07:31 / 22.07.06
Cap'n Stoatie will probably string me up for this and make me walk the plank, but....I didn't think it was a good movie, really. It was just toooo all over the place. I liked all the bits but they just didn't fit together.

That IS NOT TO SAY that I didn't thoroughly enjoy it, becasue it was still really, really rad. I haven't read the thread yet...more thoughts later.
 
 
iamus
12:06 / 22.07.06
You're not a........ land lubber..... are you?
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
14:31 / 22.07.06
Oh, Monopaws.
 
 
Mono
16:29 / 22.07.06
A land lubber?!?!?! nay...me great grandfather was lost at sea. maybe he was on that ship with davey jones...
 
 
Chiropteran
16:32 / 22.07.06
No, Mono, I agree, at least as far as pacing/editing. Still loved it, but yeah.
 
 
Mono
04:09 / 23.07.06
I know. It still kicked a snow leopard's ass.
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
11:14 / 23.07.06


Me?
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
13:18 / 23.07.06
Great fun, but fairly comprehensively rubbish. About half an hour needed to be trimmed at script stage to make it stop sagging in the middle. There's no narrative reason to require fully half of the main characters to even be in the movie, and with more being introduced in the next film there's just a sense that the writers tried to cram in everything they possibly could from the first movie as well as some new stuff. The narrative lurches from one set-piece to another without any real cohesion... oy. There's an argument which says that as the second part of a three part story, a lot of the gaping holes are just there to be filled, but even if that turns out to be the case that didn't stop this viewing from being fairly frustrating me. Johnny Depp was... good, but familiarity with Sparrow's faux-drunken ramblings/caperings has bred a lickle bit of contempt in me. The rescue section on the cannibal island was around ten minutes too long, and involved too much Sparrow-slapstick. Sparrow's last minute alleged heroism doesn't make any sense (although I have a feeling that the next movie might explain that there was a different reason than the obvious for his return to the Pearl). Bloom was entirely made of wood as usual (we finally have our own Keanu!), but at least Knightley got more to do... having said that, her fight scenes were rubbish.

Plus points - Bill Nighy can act through prosthetics and CGI! The man's awesome. Stellan Skarsgard rules. The waterwheel fight was great - dumb as cunting fuck, but great. In fact, that's a good description of the whole film - stupidly conceived, well-executed. The Kraken was fantastic, but then I love anything with leviathan in it. Fully half the reason this film was so much fun, what stopped it from being mediocre, is BECAUSE IT'S A PIRATE MOVIE. But I'll probably wait until it comes out on Sky before watching it again, and I ain't buying the fucker. Not a patch on the original.

*waits for baffled ribbing to commence from Stoatie*

Oh, actually, can anyone help me out with this? I thought the Aztec curse from the first movie was lifted. Why is the monkey still undead? Did I miss something?
 
 
Evil Scientist
17:18 / 23.07.06
Why is the monkey still undead? Did I miss something?

It got batted off of the ship at the end of Black Pearl and there's a sequence after the end credits where it appears in the treasure cave and snatches a cursed coin from the chest, re-skeletonising it.

Presumably the crew captured it when they returned to Isla Muerte to find all the treasure had been washed away in a storm.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
17:24 / 23.07.06
mono and hellbuny- I shall be having stern words with the pair o' yez.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
19:05 / 23.07.06
Well, if the monkey nicked a coin, do we think that's important? Is the curse reinstated? Is that why Barbossa is back and how Jack is going to survive Kraken stomach acid?
 
 
Evil Scientist
20:05 / 23.07.06
I'm personally hoping we'll see undead pirates versus Deep One wannabes, but I don't know how likely it'll be. The Aztec gold was suposedly washed out in a storm so it'd have been scattered.

I suppose Barbossa could have survived long enough to take up the curse. But that doesn't explain why he's so merry about eating an apple.

I think the undead monkey isn't essential to the plot beyond it being rather entertaining.

Part three is called World's End by the way (I'm wondering if it's anything to do with where Jack stole the key picture from).

I'm speculating that World's End = Pirate Valhalla/Limbo.
 
 
Whisky Priestess
20:35 / 23.07.06
Nah, I reckon it's that pub in Camden.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:55 / 23.07.06
Last time I was in there they were advertising a pirate night next door...
 
 
*
18:50 / 24.07.06
So, I finally saw this last night, so I now have a little bit more right to talk about the racism etc. and also what I liked about the movie.

Here's a brief enumeration of the parts I thought were based in racist stereotypes:

1) The Cannibals. Yes, it's been said before. The portrayal of Carib people as cannibals harms actual people who are actually living today, so it's not "excusable" as harmless fun in a fantasy world by Disney. Disney would say that people should be able to tell the difference between "fantasy" island cannibals and the real Carib people. But little kids go see this movie, and they are less critical of the difference between fantasy and reality. Even when you know these depictions are fantasy, it's easy to let them affect your opinions of people with darker skin or people from certain parts of the world.

Further— it's not just the people on the island who were cannibals. Remember the stereotyped Jamaican guy on the dock? "Long pig, mmmmm MMMM!" So apparantly, at this point in the movie, all dark-skinned people are potential cannibals.

2) The Cowardly PoC. From the Jafakean's apparently Haitian brother in the boat (unconscious reflection of the Haitian refugee stereotype? all right, that one's tenuous, we'll leave it be) to the cage full of Treacherous PoC (see 3), people who aren't white are usually portrayed as cowardly vs. the brave white people.

3) The Treacherous PoC. The cowardly vaguely middle-eastern types are prepared to betray the rest of the crew, including the white stars and a few token PoC in the background who are never very visible.

4) The Stupid PoC. Except they give away their plans by accident. And they keep climbing when doing so will give away their escape. And the cannibals are easily fooled, time and time again. And then they worship the dog after the credits finish rolling. Which brings us to...

5) The Worshipful PoC. The Cannibals want to worship the white people as gods. Not the dark skinned people. Not members of their own tribe. Failing that, a dog will do. Anyone miss the Black people holding candles as the white crew members sail by, their eyes upturned in what looks like worship, while the white characters sail to the home of...

6) The Magical Negro. It's important to notice about the magical Negro phenomenon that the MN is "the good Negro" because she helps the white people, but doesn't try to do anything on her own. The MN is othered for her maaaaaajykul paaawahz, but despite all her maaaajykul paaaaawahz she doesn't notice Jack stealing from her. See Stupid PoC, in 4 above. Also, her main motivation for helping?

7) The Lusty PoC. People of color lust after our white flesh. Obviously. Because in a swamp surrounded by all those beautiful people who were holding candles staring worshipfully at the white people, the men she finds attractive are apparently Jack and Will— Jack, whose poor hygiene is commented on by Elizabeth, and others, plenty of times.

Are there non-racist moments in the movie? Sure, and thank fuck for that. Let's see what they are:

Sexist moments:

1) Female anger depicted as impotent hysterics for laughs— Elizabeth on the beach flinging sand at the menfolk, not noticing while the ex-undead pirates walk away with the chest.

2) Threat of rape played for laughs, a few minutes later, when Elizabeth realizes she doesn't have her sword and the same pirates advance on her menacingly. Please note that unlike the last movie, they're on the good guys' side now, and we're meant to root for them in a lot of scenes. Now they're getting ready to rape Elizabeth, and this is supposed to be funny. Good job.

3) Sex used by a female character to manipulate a male character. Several times. Yes, this reinforces the idea that women are weak and manipulative, and the only way they have of getting what they want is trading sex for it.

On the other had, generally speaking, Elizabeth is a better and stronger character in this movie than in the first. She's tough, she makes decisions, and she's a damn good fighter.

Homophobic moments:

1) Homophobia played for laughs, when Jack thinks Elizabeth is a man and turns down what he thinks is her sexual advance, signaling to Gibbs not to let the fag on board. Just the once, that I noticed, but it's telling.

Absences:

Well, first a virtual absence: Invisible people of color in the background, so that the producers can point at the screen in the six seconds they're on camera and say "Look! There's a good person of color! A strong character! See the way he's hauling on that— wait, let me step the DVD back for you..."

Every single character came back! Even the dog! Every single— well, not Anna Maria. Why? Maybe it's because she's a strong person of color with her own agenda, and would ruin their streak. Maybe it's because they couldn't get that actor back. Maybe it's because she read the script and went "What is this horseshit? Nope, not playing; find someone else." Or maybe it's sheer coincidence. But the effect is that there's not even one PoC here who is not a stereotype. Even "invisible person of color in the background" is such a cinema trope it's a stereotype in its own right.



I don't think I'm going to see the third one. I know how it will work— Jack survives all Jonahlike. Davy Jones is reformed and his heart put back in his actual chest. Maybe Tia Dalma is even the woman he loved, who knows. Norrington does something vaguely heroic, and the governor is instrumental in getting him his commission back. Probably part of the plot is releasing the souls from Davy Jones' locker (which must be different from the "dead man's chest" because of what Bootstrap said to Jack at the beginning). Seeing more of Jack Sparrow's flair just isn't a good enough draw to keep me funding this racism.

But to one thing I liked about the movie, which so far I don't think anyone has mentioned: the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea references. Davy Jones is a teuthid Captain Nemo. Nemo also elected to sail the seas "forever" (albeit not literally) because his heart had hardened against humanity, due to some betrayal (if I recall correctly; it's been a long time). The first pipe organ scene, down to the glass window, is directly out of 20KL. Then there's the Kraken. And also the scene where Davy Jones orders the ship to dive. All a very effective homage, I thought.
 
 
Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER
19:41 / 24.07.06
Hm. Having seen the film, I'm sort of really concerned about it, because I really, really enjoyed it (while being worried by the cannibals, &c, and therefore to some extent want to excuse the various things id entity's brought up in this thread. Which I'm not sure is healthy as such, but anyway.
That is to say, for example, looking at the cannibal sequences, it's fairly clear that the people in the cannibal village are in fact a mixture of various different peoples - there are both (and I use these terms very cautiously and with an awareness of their being problematic) "African"-looking and -dressed characters and those who appear to be dressed and resemble more Amazonian tribes. A friend of mine interpreted this as being intended to signify that the cannibals are in fact a group of castaways from varying cultures. Which could have worked rather well, actually, with the cannibals being a played as a rather thick group of castaways who like to eat other people, and being escaped from by the courageous and resourceful pirates, &c. The problem is that all of the cannibals were dark-skinned and represented as being from (what are often seen as) "savage", "tribal" cultures. Which is racist and makes the whole setup less effective. (Wouldn't it have been thematically more interesting had the cannibals been a group of white castaways turned "feral" over the years, considering the treatment of the EIC?) I mean, I can see the problem of trying to use an older genre with inbuilt racist assumptions, and it's debateable whether or not it's entirely possible to get rid of them entirely, but there's not really an excuse for this bit. (Unless, of course, the writers' original draft was altered by Disney or whatever, iun much the same was as Whedon's original proposal to include far more non-white characters was nixed by Fox. However, there's not really any evidence for this and as much as I'd like to think it, it would just act as a justification for racism). Which this post is starting to sound like. Argh. What I'm trying to get across is that while I'd agree that PoTC is racist, I'm unsure how racist, and how intentional it is (and to what extent the latter is relevant). For instance, I'm convinced that I remember the "stereotyped Jamaican guy on the dock" warning about the cannibals on the island rather than anything else, but I have a horrible feeling that I've sort-of-deliberately misrembered this...

On the sexism, I'm less sure - in the scene where Elizabeth is shouting ineffecually - "hysterically"? - at the three male characters fighting on the beach, it seems to me more as if it's at the expense of Jack, Will and Norrington - they're so preoccupied with their power-games that they completely fail to notice the encroachment of an army of undersea marauders. However, it could be argued that the fact that it is possible to interpret elements of works of art as -ist is still unacceptable, I suppose.
This is probably rubbish--[While conceding that the racism of certainly the "cannibal" section is overt and unforgivable, I still think there's an underlying question of to what extent one can identify sexism, homophobia and racism if they are present in small doses. That is to say, it is clear when these malign ideologies are present in any large concentration in a piece of art, but in smaller doses, it's difficult to tell whether a particular character just happens to behave in ways that coincide with stereotypes because the writer is -ist, or bec ause the character is just "like that".]
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
20:04 / 24.07.06
Yeah, I wouldn't want any time spentpicking at individual examples to be seen as an attempt to deny that there is racism and sexism in this film, as there is in so much popular culture, but I do feel that a few of id entity's examples slightly misrepresent what's actually happening in the story at that point. Elizabeth may miss the chest being snatched but she's at least marginally smarter than the three men at that point. Equally, taking The Cowardly PoC... the Jafakean's apparently Haitian brother in the boat (unconscious reflection of the Haitian refugee stereotype? all right, that one's tenuous, we'll leave it be) - (of course you haven't left it be at all, but hey, we all pull that kind of trick all the time) - but anyway, the point is that the guy stays in the boat because he KNOWS what's on the island, and Will doesn't. He's not cowardly, he's smart - the joke's on Will.

I'm not sure how one can take both Anna Maria's absence and Tia Dalma's presence as indicators of the film's racism, either - I think they're both problematic characters in similar ways. And I really don't think Jack has got one over on Tia Dalma for a moment by stealing that ring, but that's a plot point we shall have to wait and see the outcome of.

But you're dead right, id, about the "threat of rape played for laughs" (why oh why did they bring those two characters back, and why are we supposed to think it's all okay when they save Elizabeth from the Kraken later?), and Jack's disappointingly heterocentric response to Elizabeth-in-drag.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
21:14 / 24.07.06
Well, first a virtual absence: Invisible people of color in the background, so that the producers can point at the screen in the six seconds they're on camera

I know what you mean, I think, but I am a bit confused by this phrasing. People of colour who are featured in the foreground are identified in your reading (which I would mostly agree with) as problematic representations.

People of colour in the background, who have to be freeze-framed, are also problematic in your analysis because they're not on the screen for long. If they're not on the screen for long, I'm not sure how we can know it's a "positive" role that should be foregrounded, or another stereotypical role that might as well be better inthe background.

I feel I see what you mean, but firstly if they're worth commenting on in the background then I'm not sure that "invisible" and "absent" are the clearest terms to use, and secondly, you've highlighted problems with all the people of colour who are "visible" and "present" too, so it seems sliiightly odd to comment that the darker-skinned people we see momentarily should be in the film for longer, and at the front of the shot.
 
 
Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER
21:27 / 24.07.06
Apart from anything else, the wooden-eye and really-dirty pirates don't make any sense character-wise - some of the time they're comic relief, some of the time they're heroic members of the crew, sometimes they're disturbing would-be-rapists, and at worst, they're two of these at once...
Also, the more I think about it, the more the bit where Jack motions to have Elizabeth-in-drag thrown over the side rankles - at this point in the film he'll even enlist the sot Norrington because he needs souls for Davy Jones, and thus the only explanation for his dismissal of the disguised Elizabeth is simple homophobia. Which is both ugly and out of character - one of his defining traits in the rest of POTC is his openmindedness, and to have this scene inserted for cheap laughs buggers it all up. Ugh. I really, really want to like these films, but I'm not sure I can live with myself...
 
 
miss wonderstarr
21:40 / 24.07.06
Also, the more I think about it, the more the bit where Jack motions to have Elizabeth-in-drag thrown over the side rankles - at this point in the film he'll even enlist the sot Norrington because he needs souls for Davy Jones, and thus the only explanation for his dismissal of the disguised Elizabeth is simple homophobia.

I agree this is like the equally dashing, charismatic and open-minded (or pansexual) Captain Jack in Doctor Who quivering in disgust at the idea of a young man fancying him, but I thought Jack Sparrow said something along the lines of being very flattered but he was married to the sea... perhaps a tiny bit less homophobic than you remember it.
 
 
Triplets
22:02 / 24.07.06
I want to change the summary to Bill "he's got my dad!" Nighy

Also: Depp Ones.

You know it makes sense.
 
 
*
22:04 / 24.07.06
It's not the fact that they're not on screen for long, or the fact that the more major PoC characters ARE on screen for long, that's the problem. The problem is we have racist stereotypes on the one hand and cardboard token characters on the other. They're there as support, as backup, as set pieces. They are effective in this regard in that in the last movie, the crew looked a little whiter and that was weird, given what pirate crews looked like in the Caribbean at the time. But do we ever hear them speak? I think we hear two of them speak when they are doing the "bad attitude among the servants" grumbling about Jack, and then we later see these same folks among the Treacherous PoC in the other cage. That leaves us with the main problem, which is that there is no PoC who is not a stereotype. This could be relieved by making the PoC who are already on-screen for a long time not stereotypes, or it could be relieved by making the token PoC more than just set pieces and also not stereotypes, but as it is, both things are problems. I don't see a contradiction here.

Apologies, though, for mentioning in brief something I knew wouldn't stand up to criticism— the Haitian in the boat. I originally mentioned his nationality because I found it improbable that a Jamaican man speaking English would refer to a Haitian man speaking apparently only French as his "brother" at this point in time. But no one ever accused this movie of being historically accurate, and it probably shouldn't be. (Still, what was the point of calling him "my brother"? Just to show off another bit of contrived Jamaican patois?)

And I would agree that his staying in the boat is just an act of prudence and an event that foreshadows the events on the island— except that Will's courage is consistently lauded and frequently contrasted with the behavior of people of color, and so I think there's a larger pattern to look at here.

You're right, Flyboy, about Anna Maria being problematic in her own way, but she also had her own agenda without being vilified. I could see another movie being made where the story centered on her, her adventures, her being captain of her own ship— and it's sort of too bad that movie didn't happen to be Pirates I OR Pirates II. With the information we have now, I can't see a whole movie being made about Tia Dalma— so far she has no independent motivation, no complexity, just an accent and some bits of magical crab shell. I like her, don't get me wrong— but I like her because I like the magical hermit archetype, which is my own problem.

I thought Jack Sparrow said something along the lines of being very flattered but he was married to the sea... perhaps a tiny bit less homophobic than you remember it.

I remember exactly what he said, as well as his body language clearly indicating "Anything to get rid of this freak." When he's lying, we can't take his words at face value, so they don't do much to relieve the homophobia here. To be fair he doesn't attack Elizabeth or call her names, and there's no "shudder of revulsion" moment, so it could be worse.
 
 
*
22:07 / 24.07.06
Also, Withiel, I like your idea for making them feral white people; I think that would have been really effective. I thought about that when I first saw the one dancing in the judge's wig, but I already knew Disney hadn't gone that direction. I wish they had.
 
 
Triplets
22:12 / 24.07.06
Elizabeth Swann: I'm here to find the man I love!
Jack Sparrow: I'm deeply flattered, lad, but my first and only love is the sea.


See, the way I read that moment both as acted and scripted is Jack trying to bluff off a stalker.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
22:21 / 24.07.06
I remember exactly what he said, as well as his body language clearly indicating "Anything to get rid of this freak."

OK, but for the sake of fair discussion, you didn't relate exactly what he said when you first touched on this scene ~ these were your words

1) Homophobia played for laughs, when Jack thinks Elizabeth is a man and turns down what he thinks is her sexual advance, signaling to Gibbs not to let the fag on board. Just the once, that I noticed, but it's telling.

~ and it does seem that his dialogue and performance are open to interpretation. "I'm deeply flattered, but..." could conceivably be something the freewheeling buccaneer Jack might say to a woman as well, if she seemed too obsessive (didn't Elizabeth announce she'd come to find the man she loved?)

Of course I accept that to you, the body language "clearly" said get rid of this fag, but maybe the scene is more interesting and ambiguous. I really don't know as I don't recall his performance well enough, and if you take my comments here as a challenge id entity then I'm sorry for that and I don't want to question your take on it. It isn't worth an argument, to me ~ it is worth a bit of a discussion in terms of analysis of character and script, is all.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
22:25 / 24.07.06
Sorry, "freak" not "fag". I didn't check what you'd written.
 
 
Whisky Priestess
23:33 / 24.07.06
Of course, it's equally fair to say that a large number of the white characters are also stereotypes; the ballsy heroine, the redeemable bad-boy, the jut-jawed young hero, the absent/villainous father (also redeemable), the upright man gone to seed, the vicious imperialist English toff, the twin bumbling sidekicks, etc. etc.

Basically, I don't think Disney's in the business of creating mould-breaking, stereotype-busting characters; any charm they have is down primarily to the actors who play them (which is probably why I'm so bored by Bloom and Knightley ...). The assumptions behind the film do nobody any favours, IMO. But on the other hand, when did you ever see a PC pirate?

But what the hell, I liked it. Just not as much as Black Pearl.
 
 
*
05:57 / 25.07.06
Oh, hell, miss wonderstarr, I'm not taking offense. I'm just making lively conversation. And, yeah, my interpretation of his body language is debatable; your interpretation is as valid as anyone's. I figured Disney had noticed the outpouring of slash fiction and decided to make it perfectly clear that Jack wasn't interested in men, and since I'd do him in a heartbeat (and in a shower, ideally) and maybe I was a little bit stung. (I'll go write furious Johnny Sues in my seekrit fan fiction eljay now.) But the homophobia is a side issue to me since there was only one thing that seemed homophobic, or heterodefensive, to me, and there were many things that seemed racist and quite a few that seemed sexist. Neither of which issues I am invested in in terms of my own identity, so I could be off the mark.

My point is not that I think Disney should be a particular paragon of sensitive characterization (PC? Et tu, Whiskey Priestess?) but that this kind of thing happens in movies, in general, a lot more than many privileged people notice, and I think it's bad that it happens and I think it's bad that we don't notice. I think noticing it is the first step on the path to wisdom, at least insofar as ending racism in entertainment is concerned.
 
 
Mug Chum
06:40 / 25.07.06
I saw someone mentioning "the heroic act" from Jack at the end. Wasn't that bit supposed to be funny, by being made in such a heroic way? It seemed like a poster, a painting that BenStiller-character from "Dodgeball" would have on his wall, a cheap book cover or something, so ridiculously giant heroic presentation in that moment for Jack Sparrow... I thought it was supposed to be funny in a parody-way that turns out to be not so much parody. Like the ressurection in his reintroduction at the Osirian coffin.
 
  

Page: 12(3)4

 
  
Add Your Reply