Talk:Elizabeth

Pitch
Isn't a hired muscle having to rescue somebody's daughter the story from the pitch for the first Bioshock?MarcoDelMarco 00:37, August 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * No where close pal. GeneralOwnage55 The Message Box  04:21, August 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * You haven't played a BioShock game, have you.Einsteinium99 04:28, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

She looks very similar to | Gwen From Guil Wars GeneralOwnage55 The Message Box  04:23, August 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the Bioshock pitch book, the original concept was for the player to be Carlos Cuello, a cult deprogrammer hired to rescue an heiress from a cult on a volcanic island. So, Marco is correct and the others are ... rude. Nice work guys.
 * Roygbiv666 Sig 001.png 13:14, August 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Roygbiv666. I said the PITCH, not the game.MarcoDelMarco 13:38, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

OH HELL!!!
So,if you fight Him,Elizabeth will get angry?!I'm curious to know how I'll survive the scene at the end of the gameplay video then.24.112.4.79 04:31, October 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * There's always another way. Just ask yourself what Gandhi would do if he were assaulted by a thirty foot-tall clockwork gargoyle. --Willbachbakal 17:45, October 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * It'll probably be one criteria for what ending you get at the end. Vae Infectus 22:05, October 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, let's remember that gameplay videos and demos are hardly (if ever) the exact same sequence of events that take place in the final stage of the game, the stage that gets sold na dplayed by people all over the world. Having said that, while it's obviously inevitable that you will come across Him and are faced with the choice of whether to fight Him or not, I think it's likely that Him won't simply swoop down and 1-hit KO you (technically not a grammatical error, lol). My guess is there'll be a way to temporarily incapacitate Him, like say, paralyze him with an electrical generator, or cause anenormous heap of rubble and debris to rain down on Him, burying Him and buying you time to escape or deal damage. Personally, when I get this game, I'm gonna go the "hero road" and be a good guy like I did with the Little Sisters in Bioshock 1. Key of Destiny 21:50, October 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * See,I will always go hero when it comes to shit like that.But I'm not sure if I can with this.:/24.112.4.79 05:43, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

He's got a point. How are we supposed to stop Him from murdering Booker without hurting Him to much? And like you two said I'll see wha I can do to stay a hero in the eyes of Elizabeth. Won't wan tot piss her off (I mean, look at her)!69.117.71.119 21:12, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Irrational's 3rd update to Elizabeth
Other than the gameplay appearance altered from the original trailer, the upcoming E3 gameplay shows a 3rd version of her different ft of the previous gameplay video. A photo by an Irrational forum member, sh0dan, showed this image comparison:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/Zer07/BioShock/elizabethcomparison.jpg

Anyone else notice the changes in the new Elizabeth? Evans0305 00:28, May 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, dude. All the iterations of her model have flaws they are slowly working to correct. I remember hating the version to the left because she had this Disney ugly cartoon head. Her head is a lot better now, although the eyes are still a little weird. Hopefully, she'll end up looking normal. ~ Ṃᶒɠą§ɔ î é ɳ č ę { tal k }  00:41, May 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Despite the flaws, I'm going to miss the Christina Ricci/Olivia Wilde version of Elizabeth T_T --Evans0305 03:47, June 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * MAKE THAT THE FOURTH UPDATE ON ELIZABETH:


 * I just watched the Beast of America trailer, and looks like Lizzie got yet ANOTHER makeover:

http://i46.tinypic.com/8xsqwm.png

If you compare it to her other model above, you can see her dress is now completely covering her chest. Her hair looks a little different and she is now wearing a white necklace. Was this due to little boys whining about her boobs hanging out? Poor Elizabeth, when will she ever catch a break? I liked her 2nd look more, if they kept that cute face/hair but gave her different clothes, I wouldn't mind. -_-;; "CarsAndGuitars." 08:48, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think her face had been like that since the last trailer, since her bustline was smaller than the previous demo. As for the clothes, I think she only wore those when being rescued by Booker, since she was trapped inside of a caged room isolated from the citizens. The photograph in the beginning of the trailer showed that she was very childish, wearing the same kind of white outfits since she was a child. The one you showed is almost close to something she wore in the old photograph, not to mention she's later seen wearing her blue outfit later in the same trailer, so this white outfit is probably temporary. I speculate that since the majority of Columbia is looking for her, Booker more likely made her go in disguise, changing her hair and clothes. Evans0305 (talk) 11:00, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Irrational Games used that cosplayer as a face model for Elizabeth now. Her head is noticeably a lot smaller and more proportionate to her body (thank god), her hair is a much darker brown, and she looks a bit older compared to her previous model, too. I'm not complaining, though. I think looks great and I'm loving her new look. I hope IG will never ever change her again. That poor girl went through so many changes already, I'm ashamed to admit that I almost feel sorry for her. ~ Cars And Guitars (talk) 03:42, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

Bioshock Infinite Cosplayer Becomes Official Face Of Elizabeth

Natalie Portman to voice Elizabeth??
Was wondering this because in the E3 2011 Trailer (xbox 360) it sounds as if she is....I may be wrong though.ScXthursday 23:55, June 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't sound like Portman at all. She sounds like she's voiced by Anna Graves, who did voice Naledi Atkins in the BioShock 2 Multiplayer. Despite the character accent, hearing Naledi's yell sounds very similar to Elizabeth's "Hit it now" yell from last year's demo.Evans0305 03:41, June 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Courtnee Draper, FTW. <3 - "CarsAndGuitars." 10:14, October 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL I forgot that I left that there a while ago. Quite awkward now looking back at it. Oh well, that was at the time when nobody knew who was Elizabeth's voice acress, so we just tried to figure that out for a while. Anyways, this is old news, since we already know its Courtnee Draper. Evans0305 (talk) 11:05, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth and Comstock
Is anyone else wondering how Comstock is supposed to help Elizabeth to control her powers? Maybe he can also open tears or such...

Art Dent 20:28, August 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe he was involved in the espiraments done to her.98.164.195.159

Isaac And Elizabeth
I guess that the most recent editor did not quite get what i meant.

Yes, they have their 'drastic' differences, but in general, they're very alike. Look:

Elizabeth isn't the MAIN protagonist of ''Infinite. ''Though Isaac is. But i never said that they both are the main protagonist. I said both are protagonists.

Yes, their powers are different (Isaac's power to see Marker blueprints stored on his mind and Elizabeth's power to open Tears) and what i meant was that they were gifted with '''some sort of very powerful mental ability. '''

Yes, the cities are vastly different, but both play the same role: To shelter civilians and show advance of technology in that universe. Both Sprawl and Columbia, in a resume, are cities settled above the ground where both these characters appear.

Yes, many characters are hunted by two different factions (Or even three) but none of them has the above stated similarities. I'm pulling Unitologists/EarthGov and Vox Populi/Founders on this because i'm comparing Elizabeth and Isaac.

I'm sorry for not leaving this explicit on my edit and i hope i do in next editions.

187.61.142.78 02:52, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

It seems you didn't quite understand why I removed your edit. The reasons you give are too vague to warrant mention: many characters have powerful abilities (Elizabeth's aren't even mental, they're based on the manipulation of parallel universes), many of them far more related to Elizabeth's (like Remilia Scarlet from the Touhou Project, whose power is the manipulation of fate). The concept of the city in the sky isn't rare either, and Columbia is far closer to the city of Laputa from Gulliver's Travels in the sense that's it's advanced, created by jingoists and used as a superweapon.

The thing is, by looking for similarities as general as the ones you're proposing, it'd be possible to find a great deal many more characters who'd be as eligible as Isaac Clarke, if not more. Take Sheeta from Miyazaki's The Castle in the Sky, Yuriko Omega from Red Alert 3 or even Jack, pursued by both Fontaine and Ryan. Please think this through. --Willbachbakal 21:02, January 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * The bottom line is that adding personal speculation about similarities is against the BioShock Wiki:Trivia Policy. ~Gardimuer   <font color=#33CC66>{ ʈalk } 22:41, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth and period accurate clothing.
I'm ready to be visciously attacked by completely blindsighted fanboys, but this is seriously irritating me.

Why is Elizabeth running around in, more or less, her underwear? (EG: corset = underwear in the 1920s) If you're going to do that, why not just give her a damn bra to trot about in instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 22:50, 2012 February 19 (UTC). Please remember to sign your posts with ~.


 * Yes, Elizabeth's clothing is definitely not period appropriate. You'd have to ask the designers why they made that choice. ~<font color=#006622>Gardimuer  <span title="Evolve today!" style="cursor:wait"> <font color=#33CC66>{ ʈalk } 02:20, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

That is a good question....one that I have no answer to. I'm sure there's some logical explanation besides catering to fanboys ;D Key of Destiny 23:55, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. Maybe they wanted to portray her as a sexually liberated young woman, free from the shackles of an antiquated dress code?

Or maybe they just wanted to show her tits. --Willbachbakal 00:30, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree, it's simple game design logic: our heroine's MUST be sexy. The designer's could have easily looked up typical period clothing (or Hell, just watch Titanic, that film takes place in 1912), but instead they decided to show off her breasts to appease the average game jockey; I doubt a prostitue would show off that much cleavage at that time. I wouldn't mind it so much if BioShock wasn't a game series that prided itself in its attention to historical details.

Unownshipper 03:49, June 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that her prominent bust is more than a little bit silly, but I like to think that Irrational will justify it somehow in-game. Maybe it's because she was locked away from society since she was a child, so she never learned the etiquette of how a proper lady should dress. But then again, living by herself all the time and having no need to impress anyone, she'd more likely have chosen a more comfortable (less constrictive) outfit.
 * Gasp! Maybe it's all Songbird's doing?? That monster has been using her as a dress up doll and having her wear ridiculous outfits to amuse itself! ~<font color=#006622>Gardimuer  <span title="Evolve today!" style="cursor:wait"> <font color=#33CC66>{ ʈalk } 04:16, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no! You've spoiled the game! It all makes sense now! If our main protagonist were a female, Songbird would try to kidnap you too! Key of Destiny 15:30, June 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * Why does this remind me of the Dollmaker from Alice: Madness Returns? --Willbachbakal 15:59, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Well, she was being held captive for 15 years. Maybe her clothing was gathered for her before her capture? Gamer1191 (talk) 05:42, August 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, then it's even more anachronistic!
 * Unownshipper (talk) 00:56, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Now that the game is out, we know that the dress isn't hers and that she didn't really choose it. It's Lady Comstock's. On the airship, she came out in it and said it was all she could find. I would say that perhaps that means the rest is missing...except that we see Lady Comstock herself wearing it on a statue of her, and probably in other places, too, and she is likewise not wearing a shirt over the corset. And you're also forgetting that Columbia has been cut off from the rest of the US for almost twenty years, so our idea of "period appropriate" won't always apply. Lady Comstock was highly admired by everyone in Columbia, so her wearing that kind of clothing may have influenced the populace's perception of corsets so that it's no longer seen as underwear. 24.150.102.157 22:20, November 23, 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth a parallel to Eleanor? *SPOILERS, just sayin*
1. Both are the "lamb" of thier respective cults

2. Both are held captive by the head of said cults. Both leaders are a "parent" to them in some way.

3. Both were being raised and groomed to succeed thier parent as the head of thier group.

4. Both were experimented on to give them thier powers and to "reach thier potential", to create a utopia. Sophia's collectivist utopia, and Comstock's utopia for his own "American" ideals.

5. Both are rescued by thier "father". Eleanor is rescued by her Big Daddy from her biological mother. Elizabeth is  rescued by her biological (and proper) father, against her "Big Daddy" (as well as an imposter father)

6. Both have fantastical powers, Eleanor via ADAM, Elizabeth via tears.

7. Both are sheltered (and prodigies because of it)

8. Both were kidnapped from thier fathers and brought to a amazing city, just as horrible as they are fantastical.

9. Both are extremely willful and very rebellious against thier "parent".

10. Also, both had a nack for cracking security. Also thanks to thier being raised in a "prison"

11. Even thier appeareance is similar, Brown hair, Blue eyes.

Like Letuce said something like, with each version the traits become different until they dont exist at all. So are Eleanor and Elizabeth basicly alt universe counterparts that have been so far removed they are quite different people, born to different families, genetically different, but still a version of the other? Variables and Constants.

THE FOLLOWING WAS CUT FROM THE MAIN PAGE:

Elizabeth shares some similarities with Eleanor Lamb:
 * They are both seen as god like beings worshipped by the citizens of their respective cities.
 * They are both connected to lambs (Eleanor's surname is Lamb and she is referred to as the "daughter of the Lamb", while Elizabeth is referred to as The Lamb.
 * They can be seen as the "daughters" of both the protagonists and the antagonists of their respective games/storylines.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Side note. Is Booker DeWitt a alternate Mark Meltzer?

They were both fathers sent to a strange city via circumstances to find thier missing daughters. But are stopped by the daughters "guardian". Mark Meltzer gets stopped by the Big Sister, Booker DeWitt by the Songbird (as old Elizabeth said, in her time line, Booker was always stopped by Songbird)

And tho it is never stated, it appears Mark Meltzer was some kind of Investigator. Possibly a PI like Booker. But

these are just guesses.

207.68.242.89 09:50, March 30, 2013 (UTC)Remington "Eagle Eye" Vanderslice

It was never actually stated during "There's Something in the Sea" what Meltzer's profession was, but it seemed (at least to me) that he was an "unofficial" investigator, looking into the disappearances of the little girls because he could see patterns. He was constantly harassed by the police, so even if he were an "official" investigator, it wouldn't have been for the NYPD. As for the similarities between Eleanor and Elizabeth, it's entirely possible that Levine may have decided to use some of those traits from Bioshock 2 for Infinite--remember that 2K made the sequel to Bioshock, not Irrational. Key of Destiny (talk) 13:36, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't remember if there was a preamble of sorts...if there was, it was likely when 2K announced the campaign itself; I've been through every day of the SitS archive, and the "story" begins with Meltzer gathering newspaper clippings on his board. If there was a "prologue", it wasn't part of the archive; might have just been something like "little girls are vanishing all over the world; one man investigates these strange disappearances", etc. Key of Destiny (talk) 13:43, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

"Our" Elisabeth doesn't drown Booker.
"Our" Elisabeth is not part of the crowd drowning Booker; this is the conclusion drawn by many on the official 2K forums. However it doesn't seem the consensus here since my revision to the Wiki was deleted three times. Could you tell me why?

PartTimePlayer (talk) 15:52, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain it isn't based on the fact that "she" is not wearing the badge you chose for her earlier in the game. But that might just be because they, Booker and Elizabeth have both gone back in time before that ever happened.

MBaskerville (talk) 04:04, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

I Baskerville's right, then this should mean that Booker does not have the "AD" branded into his right hand Mrbear420 (talk) 04:10, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

I think there is enough evidence in-game to point to the Elizabeth who drowns you not being "our" Elizabeth. When Elizabeth first introduces you to the lighthouses, she has the same appearance she does at the end of the game and has this appearance until Booker opens the very last door. In addition to this, Elizabeth brings him to the baptism that he rejects and she looks the same as "our" Elizabeth, despite her not even existing when the baptism took place. It is not until Booker enters the universe where he will be drowned that Elizabeth's appearance changes. Booker even comments on this, saying, "wait.. you're not.. who are you?" (paraphrasing).

69.248.180.133 06:47, April 3, 2013 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this, and I must say I agree. It doesn't seem to be "our" Elizabeth. The badge is gone when it was there right up to that point, and Booker even says to her, "…Wait. You-You're not…y-you're not… Who are you?" Probably precisely because the badge is gone. Then there's the fact that right before this, he says, "Wait…why are we back here?" and she replies, "This isn't the same place, Booker." That's rather puzzling, as well. (Anyone have any theories on that?) In any case, the wiki probably shouldn't claim outright that it's not, but simply point out that it might not be, based on that. 24.150.102.157 22:13, November 23, 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth's Age
At the end of the game, Elizabeth says this while in Booker's apartment, "You shared this room with your regret for almost 20 years... til one day, a man came to you... offered you a chance of redemption."

Doesn't this imply that she is indeed 19 years old, but nearing her birthday? I have yet to see anything but outdated info to prove she is 20.

69.248.180.133 23:21, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

I think the assertion that she is 20 is sound, because the timeline in the Hall of Heroes suggests that she was born in 1893. That would make her 19 if it were accurate, but she appeared to be about 1 year old when Booker gave her to Robert, making her 20 overall.

Molotov.cockroach (talk) 21:09, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

She is definitely 20, at minimum. The chart you find in Monument Island charts her power level by age. http://i.imgur.com/MqRT3Wt.jpg The line on the graph terminates at age 20, meaning that was the last measurement of her power taken before the facility was abandoned. Given that Lutece was in charge of this research, she'd have an accurate birthdate for Elizabeth. Furthermore, the satement that he shared the room with his regret for almost 20 years only means that it's been nearly 20 years since Elizabeth was given away. Like above commenter said, if she was a year old at the time, that'd make her 20 now. Regardless, by the chart she must be 20. I'm more incliend to believe the chart than the Hall of Heroes timeline, because the Hall of Heroes version of events is already a lie anyway. (For example, it states Elizabeth was put in Monument Island after Lady Comstock died, not before.)

As a curiosity, it would also imply that the research on Elizabeth's powers started when she was about two and a half, as that's when the line on the graph starts.

Mankoi1701 (talk) 03:27, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Comstock?
Elizabeth adamantly rails against having anything to do with Comstock, and no one in the game ever calls her this, not even him. It seems disingenuous to call her by that name.

Molotov.cockroach (talk) 21:56, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is unnecessary to call her that, it is never said in-game, Elizabeth does not know of the relation herself, and it is a spoiler right in the title, which should be evaded, as no one can even see a link without having that relationship spoiled. And the relationship is not clear from the start, it only becomes in the Hall of Heroes. I agree it should be called just "Elizabeth", as that is, for all in the world, her name. --Fijure (talk) 22:15, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Family Section = Massive Spoiler!
I feel it should be noted that the family section underneath Elizabeth's portrait is a huge spoiler that isn't supposed to be known until late into the game, and isn't officially stated until the flashback sequences at the finale.

I came into the wiki to see what general info I could find about her without having anything major spoiled for her, except right below her portrait, directly next to the "SPOILERS BELOW" icon I see "Family - Booker DeWitt (Father) and nearly did a spit-take.

It is really inconsiderate and counter-productive to the spoiler free approach to have that information displayed where one can see it without realizing theyh're about to encounter unlabeled spoilers. Anything that significant should be limited to what can be included in spoiler tags.

75.82.33.111 23:53, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for making my point for me. I came to address that exact same thing.

I'll move my comment up here instead: I would really strongly suggest we do not list Elizabeth's family relations in her character infobox. This game has even been out for two weeks, those character boxes are not spoiler-tagged, and that is pretty much THE spoiler for the game. I think it's just plain courteous to not do that. Molotov.cockroach (talk) 02:11, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

Molotov.cockroach (talk) 02:12, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth dead?
If Elizabeth kill every Booker DeWitt, before he reborn, does it mean she never born?--Bloodhit (talk) 13:39, April 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * They killed the Booker that was going to become Comstock. Based on the stinger, it seems that the "normal" Booker remains alive, and thus Anna is still born. HOWEVER, this DOES mean that Columbia is never created and Anna never gets taken, thus the person we call "Elizabeth" doesn't exist. So, in a sense, the answer to your question is "yes". 24.150.102.157 06:14, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Elizabeth became "dead", but rather "nonexistent", if Booker DeWitt died before he could father Elizabeth, which is why at the end of BioShock Infinite when DeWitt dies, all the various Annas and Elizabeths just simply vanish. Technically, you can't kill somebody that no longer exists if the person who fathered or mothered them is dead. End of story and discussion on my part. (Vic George (talk) 12:07, November 24, 2013 (UTC))

About the New Profile Picture...
...Elizabeth's new profile picture is so gosh darn beautiful. Huge props to whoever uploaded it. The new Booker profile picture is great, too. Finally these two amazing characters finally got a proper picture added to their respective wikia pages. Great job! ~ Cars And Guitars (talk) 23:17, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

There isn't really a general comments section on the wiki as far as I know, so I'm just going to add to this comment. The screenshots look really good in general for all the major characters, props to all of you with beefy PCs putting up these high-res screenshots, they look really good. Thegreatvortigaunt (talk) 23:48, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Stuff that didn't belong under the "Behind the Scenes"

 * It is possible that the Elizabeth with whom Booker travels during the events of the game is not present at his drowning. This is evidenced by the fact that the Elizabeth in this lighthouse/universe is not wearing the bird/cage pendant, nor does she exhibit bruises and scratches from being recaptured by Comstock. Booker, aware of her absence in the moments leading up to the drowning, turns to the parallel universe Elizabeths and says, "Wait, you're not, who are you?"
 * Elizabeth shares many parallels with the Little Sisters in Rapture: aside from being both young girls, they are also the most coveted source of power within their respective cities. Elizabeth's guardian, Songbird, is itself similar to the Big Daddies of BioShock and BioShock 2, and both play a part in their wards' isolation from the outside world. Both are also used for their power at the cost of their own freedom. This parallel is made clear once Elizabeth transports herself, Booker and Songbird to Rapture and watches her jailor die: in the background, a Little Sister can be seen mourning over the body of her fallen Big Daddy, mirroring Elizabeth's own loss.
 * Though this was more possibly unintentional, Elizabeth role also parallels Eleanor Lamb from Bioshock 2. Both are very young girls who grew up in isolation from others. While they were in isolation, Elizabeth and Eleanor would self teach themselves many things like history or electronics. Each of their parents raised them in hopes they will uphold their own ideals after they pass on and are used for the powers they hold within them. Both girls had a close bond to the player character of their respective games and would become a helpful character AI during gameplay (though Eleanor helps during the climax of Bioshock 2). Interestingly, the player character in the games are a "father" of some sort to the girls. Although Booker is revealed to be Elizabeth's actual father, it's a debatable subject among some fans whether Subject Delta is Eleanor's real father or not; though their was a removed plan by Bioshock 2's developers that would have proven he was.
 * The fate of the final Elizabeth present at the end of the game is left intentionally ambiguous. It has been suggested that she also disappears, and the credits roll just before she does. However, it has also been theorized that this version of Elizabeth, having attained incredible powers after the destruction of the Siphon, was able to transcend space and time, and thus wasn't affected by the destruction of Comstock's reality.
 * It is possible that the "original" Elizabeth is not present at the drowning, as the central Elizabeth does not have the cage/bird pin on her choker which was present up until this final scene. Booker also appears to recognize that the Elizabeth in front of him is not the same person prior to allowing himself to be drowned. If this is the case then it is also possible that the "original" Elizabeth is still in the sea of lighthouses, as this is the last place that we see her, pin and all.

Character Info Box Picture
I think the image made by User:NewBH is very nice, but, for the purposes of keeping the basic format of all pages standardized, I think there should be an in-game image of Elizabeth just like all the other major characters of the game. So, unless there's a large protest, I'd like to change the picture back.

Unownshipper (talk) 21:33, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Who's Elizabeth's voice actor when Stephen Garrett was voicing Booker in the 2010/2011 gameplay trailers?
75.51.144.9 09:10, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Can I change the history?
The history on Elizabeth's page needs to follow her actual history (i.e. her birth, Booker selling her, etc.) It's too cinematic and not presented factually. I tried doing it before but someone edited it. Can we please make her history in order? If it is spoilers we need to worry about we can just put a warning, besides, you shouldn't be on the wiki if you haven't finished the game yet.

--Gearslover01 (talk) 14:13, August 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, it should be presented more factually like on Booker's page.
 * Pauolo (talk) 14:19, August 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason why we don't, I think, is to not give away spoilers.


 * Geekius Maximus (talk) 14:54, August 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't say? Then why does Booker's page start with a spoiler section?
 * No, the real issue, and that doesn't only concern those two pages, is that we should be able to hide the spoiler sections with a hide/show template or something like that, like for summary tables. I suggested that once but it seems that might be an issue with people who don't have the appropriate browser.
 * Pauolo (talk) 15:58, August 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's not get mean here guys. Why not write the "History" section here the way you'd like it to be presented (ie, less cinematic) and if everyone's cool with it, replace it afterwards? That way no one will get in an editing war. Just do the moments before BioShock Infinite up to when Booker DeWitt finds her in the tower, then we can just relabel the section marked "Biography" with "BioShock Infinite"


 * Unownshipper (talk) 19:36, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

Burial At Sea
I wonder what's going to happen to the information regarding the Elizabeth from the upcoming Burial At Sea DLC for BioShock Infinite, whether that might warrant a separate page for that version of the main character or what. (Vic George (talk) 11:07, October 12, 2013 (UTC))

Pendant
The reason I always choose the bird for Lizzie's new pendant is because the free-flying bird represents personal freedom. But the cage represents imprisonment and restricted space. ZanyDragon (talk) 14:28, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

Aged Elizabeth model
I noticed when I was watching the cutscene with the aged Elizabeth giving you the key to stopping Songbird that while her face is aged her hands appear to be the same. Is it possible that they simply reused the young Elizabeth model and put a new face on and gave her slightly different clothes without doing anything to the rest of her? I'm hoping some one else can confirm this. If so could they please put it in the behind the scenes section of the main article. --SpartanD14 (talk) 02:22, December 4, 2013 (UTC)

FINALE :
Elizabeth catches up with the Luteces who are the real cause of all this and obliterates them with herself (she can kill them because she too is 'pan dimensional' ). SO in the end it was just all a dream....

Burial at Sea version
Why is the Burial at Sea version listed as an alternate Elizabeth? It's confirmed here that this version is the same Elizabeth that accompanies the player in Infinite. Well, at least the Episode 1 Elizabeth is. If I understood Episode 2 correctly, Episode 2 is where it stops being prime Elizabth. --114.108.212.64 21:04, March 25, 2014 (UTC)


 * I concur. TenCents (talk to me!) 22:40, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

Which Death?
on this page it says that she died 1959, which she did, but then she's back, not like the Luteces but as a mortal (Luteces can't die, but Elizabeth can) and then she dies again at the end of episode 2 in 1960. should we add both?

Shacob (talk) 16:17, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

1960? Pretty sure the New Year's Eve Riots took place on the eve of 1959. Jack enters the city in 1960, which is when the first game takes place. So, the real question is whether she died in 1958 or 1959. Key of Destiny (talk) 15:15, March 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * The New Year's Eve Riots started on the eve of 1958. 114.108.212.64 15:27, March 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, well when Elizabeth has a bag on her head we can hear Atlas say something like: Kashmir here we come, and then after the doctor puts Elizabeth to sleep, she wakes up two weeks later, stated by Atlas.
 * Shacob (talk) 16:17, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

Er yeah, I meant the eve of 1958, because the Rapture Civil War lasted a single year: 1959, the year before Jack arrives in Rapture (1960). Key of Destiny (talk) 16:19, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

oh, oops Elizabeth died in 1959. my bad

Shacob (talk) 16:23, March 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * That's only one Elizabeth, though. If she was born in 1893, then the Anna from the crib at the end of Infinite should be in her 60s at that point. Most people aren't dead by that age, so there's a good chance that while "Elizabeth" is dead, "Anna" is still alive well past the events of BaS II. This is why Anna and Elizabeth should have separate articles just like the Luteces. 63.153.190.66 08:55, March 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Well yes Anna is most likely alive but the Elizabeth we knew is dead. she jumped through a tear to get to rapture so the laws of time and space was broken.
 * Shacob (talk) 13:22, March 31, 2014 (UTC)


 * How would that have broken the laws of space and time?Sir,Bitchalot (talk) 19:23, March 31, 2014 (UTC)

Oh! That was not what I was supposed to talk about at all... I most have gotten of track somehow...The thing that I was really going to talk about was: Should we add the date of death, of when she died the first time in the Department store by a big daddy as well?

Shacob (talk) 21:29, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about?? (46.7.95.98 10:41, April 13, 2014 (UTC))

Are you dense? Suchongs/ Fink interaction during the Columbia timeline has them interacting long before the events of Bioshock Infinite, when Elizabeth was a young baby or child (Did you not watch the short movie of young Liz and the whole "Lion with the thorn in its paw" bit?). This is evident as Suchong acknowledges that Fink had cut off connections once Fink found a way to have Songbird imprint on Elizabeth (Voxophone) and why his labratory was "moth-eaten". 161.38.221.223 18:49, April 14, 2014 (UTC)

Huh...I need to keep track on what talk pages I contribute to...The thing I was referring to back then was this: Elizabeth is first killed right after the events of Burial at Sea - Episode 1 by a Big Daddy, she is then scattered (just like the Lutece's) and ends up in her version of Paris. Elizabeth then feels the quilt of leaving Sally to die and returns to Rapture. Now the events of Burial at Sea - Episode 2 takes place is killed by at the end. And that counts as two deaths, so I was asking if we should include both, but back then I was not 100% how everything worked and now I'd say that including both is not needed. --Shacob (talk) 00:11, February 21, 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you meant: technically she dies first on New Year's Eve by the Big Daddy, is "resurrected" by the Luteces and dies definitely in January by Atlas's hand. I think we should only retain her definitive death to avoid too much confusion and necessary explanation right at the page's start. Pauolo (talk) 13:45, February 21, 2015 (UTC)

Death = 1959 Burial at Sea - Episode 2
My question is: why do we have the game she died in next to her death date, when we don't have the game any other character died in next to there death date

Elizabeth:

Died                1959 (Burial at Sea - Episode 2)

Andrew Ryan:

Died                1960

We don't have "BioShock" next to his death date.

Shacob (talk) 06:17, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

I believe that's because due to the nature of the Infinite multiverse, it's impossible to say if a character's death is their final death at all. Of course that's impossible to fit into the template, so they probably just chose one death (in the last game released), but specified which game they were referring to. 64.231.98.47 18:35, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, the (Burial at Sea - Episode 2) part was added during a editing war right after the episode was release and I think it was good that we had it there to stop the vandals/scientists. But now that the whole fiasco is over and we know that Elizabeth is dead for sure, how about we remove that part?

Shacob (talk) 16:21, February 13, 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem removing it. sm --Solarmech (talk) 18:15, February 13, 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be no objections so I will delete it. --Shacob (talk) 00:11, February 21, 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Assumtion in After the Revelation section
Anna/Elizabeth loosing a body part does NOT seem to be a constant. Some of the other Elizabeth's in the ending of BSI have all their fingers. --Solarmech (talk) 11:31, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

You have to prove there is a pegleg. Unless there is sold proof of a constant it is just an assumtion. Not a fact.--Solarmech (talk) 19:24, June 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe they lost a toe. Based on what's been said by the creators, it seems to be a constant. If they didn't "leave apart of themselves" in another dimension, then HOW would they be able to open Tears?


 * Unownshipper (talk) 21:51, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

If the creatorss said it was a constant, then let's see where they said it. As for "Leaving Parts of Yourself" in other dimensions. I think some people are taking it wrong. It's more like the person being split between two dimensions. Not that there are pieces of the person in two different dimensions. But that the person was split into two peices by dimensional forces. In Anna's case it was the portal closing and severing her finger. --Solarmech (talk) 07:34, June 18, 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay...your stream of consciousness is clearly running at a tsunami force, please sign your posts. In response to Solarmech, how can you be sure that simply travelling from one's original dimension to a new one (if that is indeed what you are asserting) is what causes the powers? Wouldn't that mean Booker should gain them too? Note how when Elizabeth loses her powers in Burial at Sea - Episode 2, she regains her pinky


 * From The Source of Her Power:


 * transcript = What makes the girl different? I suspect it has less to do with what she is, and rather more with what she is not. A small part of her remains from where she came. It would seem the universe does not like its peas mixed with its porridge.


 * Doesn't this seem to confirm it's the severed digit? It's fantasy psuedo-science trying desperately to be presented as possible, but it's just a game. We're just trying to make sense of it.

Unownshipper (talk) 21:36, June 18, 2014 (UTC)


 * "then shouldnt it result in some messy explosion like the classic Sci-Fi scenario when two of the same person meet from parallel universes they cancel out each other"...No. No, it absolutely shouldn't have to. Or, more specifically, it doesn't have to. All of this is theoretical science fiction, AKA impossible to test/prove. There's no reason that the pseudo-science presented in this piece of media has to follow the science presented in some other game, book, movie, etc. If we assume everything in narrative fiction has to operate similarly, then we are less inclined to take risks with new material.


 * It's not fair of you to say this is "her theory." Levine and the creators intentionally had Rosalind Lutece explain the phenomenon this way to represent their explanation of how Tears work. Who else would explain it? It'd be pretty farcical to have Jeremiah Fink, Daisy Fitzroy, or even Zachary Hale Comstock try to explain it. If she says this is how they work, we must take it as "word of God," so to speak. Otherwise, we're over complicating an already messy narrative.


 * Are we still trying to blame the Luteces for the evil shit Comstock does? Listen to the Voxophone A Window again. It's clear that their intentions for the Lutece Device were purely scientific, but Comstock . I believe it too. Someone can be book smart and create an amazing invention but not street smart enough to recognize their financier has less than honorable intentions for it.


 * Unownshipper (talk) 18:44, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

While the Luteces certainly are not culpable in everything that COmstock did or had planned, they certainly are responsiable for Anna being taken from Booker and turning her into a killer. As well as at least one torture and murder (The Lighthouse Keeper). The Luteces may be funny, but they are NOT nice people by any means. (Comedic Sociopath) --Solarmech (talk) 19:37, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth's Legal Nationality
Probably won't be put up anyplace, but might be worth thinking about. Legaly Elizabeth is an American. She was kidnapped from the US and taken to Columbia. But her official legal status will not have changed. Columbia may claim she is a citizen, but since she was taken as a minor and she herself never renounced her US citizenship (as the people of Columbia did), it has not legaly changed. I doubt Elizabrth herself really cares if she is a US Citizen though, but she certainly does not want be a Columbia one.

Are we going to both putting partial native american decent in her description? She is Booker's child after all. ;) (Yes, that is a joke.) --Solarmech (talk) 20:18, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

Last Name?
So recent conflict over Elizabeth's surname got my attention (And I am assuming yours to) so I'm setting the discussion here to stop unnecessary edits and undos.

We took up the subject in Jack's talk page some time ago and the only time Elizabeth is called "Elizabeth Comestock" is by Andrew Ryan in Burial at Sea - Episode 2 in the elevator to Frank Fontaine suite.

So what do you think?

Shacob (talk) 19:37, June 29, 2014 (UTC)


 * Obviously when Comstock abducted Anna Dewitt he didn't just change her name to Elizabeth. He would of given her his own surname Comstock. Since the page is named after the name Zachary Comstock gave her then we should include the surname too.
 * (Night at the Kashmir (talk) 19:50, June 29, 2014 (UTC))


 * Any attempt to give Elizabeth a surname would be a pointless effort as she had her name taken away and she never seems to choose another one. When Zachary Hale Comstock abducted her, he gave her his surname. If you're held hostage and someone tells you your last name is now the same as there's does that make it so? Hell no!


 * The other option is that her surname is "DeWitt" as this was her birth name. However, just as renaming Jack, "Jack Ryan" would be problematic/spoilerific, so too would naming Elizabeth "Elizabeth DeWitt."


 * One's surname is more than just a signifier of who your parents are/who raised you. When Elizabeth learns the truth about Comstock, she repeatedly rejects him ("I'm NOT your daughter"). There's NO WAY that she'd willingly keep calling herself "Elizabeth Comstock" afterwards. It seems unlikely that she'd call herself "Elizabeth DeWitt" either. Anna DeWitt metaphorically "died" the night she was taken through the Tear, and like Zachary Comstock at the baptism, she was "reborn" as "Elizabeth" (the only difference is she had no choice in the matter). She's just "Elizabeth."


 * Burial at Sea complicates things (once again). In Episode 2, Andrew Ryan addresses her as "Miss Comstock," but she says to "Booker" over the Radio something along the lines of, "We DeWitts just can't let things be…" (or something like that).


 * Did she falsify a Rapture document so that she could stalk Rapture's "Booker DeWitt?" If she did, that'd explain why Ryan calls her that. She couldn't call herself "DeWitt," that'd draw too much attention (especially from her intended victim). Whatever the explanation, there's no reason to give Elizabeth a surname.


 * Unownshipper (talk) 20:39, June 29, 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the reason that Ryan calls her "Miss Comstock" is that he had been studying her for some time and figured out that she was "the" Elizabeth from Columbia, but not knowing her true history. After all why would Ryan offer her a job, if he wasn't rather sure about her ablities. As Unownshipper says there is no reason to give her a surname. --Solarmech (talk) 12:31, June 30, 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth's/Anna's Birthdate?
We know Booker's birthday. But have we ever heard Elizabeth's/Anna's birthday. Comstock certainly faked one for Elizabeth (October 8 1893 most likley) but I wonder what the real one is. --Solarmech (talk) 06:48, August 5, 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's ever given.


 * Unownshipper (talk) 02:36, August 6, 2014 (UTC)


 * Since this subject has come up again. TECHNICALLY Elizabeth could be considered to have been born Oct 1893. But that is only because that was when she arrived in Columbia. And that is what her public records kin Columbia would say. ( Anna/Elizabeth was taken Oct 8, 1893. ) Of course the public records are a lie. When Anna/Elizabeth was taken she clearly was not a newborn or even close to it. So Anna/Elizabeth's real birthdate in NOT Oct 1893. Other information in the game points to Elizabeth being twenty years old (the growth chart of her powers on Monument Island goes past the 20 year point.) As well as the "wanted poster" giving her age as twenty years old IIRC. However, in order for her to be 20 years old she would have been born in 1892 and the baby we see in BSI does look to be 10 months old. So we are left a bit of impasse with contradictory information. Maybe someone will think to ask Levine next time he answers questions on Twitter or it is coved in the novel. sm --Solarmech (talk) 13:30, February 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the wanted posters in this artwork which describe her to be 20 years old, though it could be from an older version of the script. Pauolo (talk) 14:35, February 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * Direct confirmation from Ken via Twitter or a video during a con would be much better than a supposed phone call.


 * Unownshipper (talk) 23:19, February 20, 2015 (UTC)

Tears just start opening up...
Much hillarity ensued when a tear opened up to planet LV-426 and a visitor came through to Rapture and Columbia....

The version in part 1 is well known to be the same as the Elizabeth we know from the main game, as made evident by the thumble on her finger. However, this version was killed by the Big Daddy as we realise in part 2, not soon after being drawn attention to the fact that she is shorter and has all her fingers intact. It is then explained that this version of Elizabeth, after having regret of leaving with Sally in danger, desides to use the Lutece Twins to help her enter a reality of which she stayed to help Sally, ultimately being killed by the big daddy. And then of course we know that in return of getting a second chance of saving Sally and to fix her mistake of leaving her behind she does have to lose her powers.

However some people who are reverting my edits are saying that this is the same version of Elizabeth, even though it is made VERY CLEAR that she is NOT the same. I thought this would go without saying, but no, she did not shrink a few inches, regrow her little finger and change clothes in the time between part 1 and 2. Heck you even SEE the taller version with the thumble - clearly the one in the main game and part 1 - lying dead infront of you at the start. How could, let's say Version A Elizabeth, leave rapture, have a moral dilema, find and consult the Lutece Twins, use them to re-enter Rapture, discover her own dead body, rescue Sally and her version ultimately dying (again) all while lying dead in the wall? Dakirel (talk) 18:30, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

The alternative Elizabeth in Burial at Sea part 2
The version in part 1 is well known to be the same as the Elizabeth we know from the main game, as made evident by the thumble on her finger. However, this version was killed by the Big Daddy as we realise in part 2, not soon after being drawn attention to the fact that she is shorter and has all her fingers intact. It is then explained that this version of Elizabeth, after having regret of leaving with Sally in danger, desides to use the Lutece Twins to help her enter a reality of which she stayed to help Sally, ultimately being killed by the big daddy. And then of course we know that in return of getting a second chance of saving Sally and to fix her mistake of leaving her behind she does have to lose her powers.

However some people who are reverting my edits are saying that this is the same version of Elizabeth, even though it is made VERY CLEAR that she is NOT the same. I thought this would go without saying, but no, she did not shrink a few inches, regrow her little finger and change clothes in the time between part 1 and 2. Heck you even SEE the taller version with the thumble - clearly the one in the main game and part 1 - lying dead infront of you at the start. How could, let's say Version A Elizabeth, leave rapture, have a moral dilema, find and consult the Lutece Twins, use them to re-enter Rapture, discover her own dead body, rescue Sally and her version ultimately dying (again) all while lying dead in the wall? Dakirel (talk) 18:30, September 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * The Elizabeth in Burial at Sea Part 2 is indeed the same Elizabeth we see throughout Infinite and Part 1. The game stresses this as Elizabeth recalls what actually happens and remembers all of the events prior to the point the player plays as her, no alternate paths or dialogue of an event that the player didn't experience. The moment that Elizabeth died sometime between part 1 and part 2, Elizabeth removed herself, or her state of being rather, out of Rapture believing that her business there was done. Therefor, one Elizabeth's death by the hands of a Big Daddy and the one, we the player, play as. Alternate Elizabeth's would be like the aged Elizabeth who bought the player in Infinite to an alternate future or the multiple Elizabeth's at the end of Infinite, or the many alternate Bookers including the Comstock acting as Booker in Rapture. Basically, if we as the player play a certain character throughout, they are indeed the same and NOT an alternate version because we see the story unfold through their eyes. Tricksteroffools (talk) 18:47, September 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * We already know what Elizabeth is capible of experiancing the same memories and feelings as alternative versions of herself, as etablished by her empathy and identification with the version that was beheaded by Comstock. Furthermore, she is evidently shocked when she finds her own dead body, and THEN she recovers memories of what happened. It seems odd that she'd remember Comstock dying as well as her bound with Sally without even remembering that she died. The game stresses the exect opposite, it brings attention attention to how her height is different and her pinkie is intact. If age counts, then growing up to be an entirely different height certainly does. Also, the fact that the both are controled by the player doesn't really mean anything. There are tons of games out there that you change characters halfway through, even the whole Burial at Sea story follows two completely different charaters taken controled by the player. As long as the player knows the characters and backs their intentions, there really isn't a problem in switching to an albeit marginally different character. Dakirel (talk) 19:16, September 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * When is implied that other alternate Elizabeths are capable of experiencing the same memories? Like the Booker we've known and played as, the player begins to learn of the alternate selves including Booker himself. This makes him the main timeline Booker. So he has the knowledge of alternate selves thus far, just as Elizabeth has of hers. Notice how alternate selves such as aged Elizabeth don't recall any of the alternate's experience, just what they remember from their timeline. Even while playing as "Booker" in Burial at Sea, he does not recall his previous life until Elizabeth triggers a memory. Even then, that Comstock only recalls what happened in his timeline/ lifetime (Accidently causing the death of baby Anna and traversing to Rapture). And how exactly does the game show a height difference? I never heard a comment from her that she was shorter or implied height comparisons. Her pinkie is intact due to what the game calls, a quantam superposition. It was only when Elizabeth returned to a world where she died that she became normal and therefore mortal.Tricksteroffools (talk) 19:32, September 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * When is implied that other alternate Elizabeths are capable of experiencing the same memories? Like the Booker we've known and played as, the player begins to learn of the alternate selves including Booker himself. This makes him the main timeline Booker. So he has the knowledge of alternate selves thus far, just as Elizabeth has of hers. Notice how alternate selves such as aged Elizabeth don't recall any of the alternate's experience, just what they remember from their timeline. Even while playing as "Booker" in Burial at Sea, he does not recall his previous life until Elizabeth triggers a memory. Even then, that Comstock only recalls what happened in his timeline/ lifetime (Accidently causing the death of baby Anna and traversing to Rapture). And how exactly does the game show a height difference? I never heard a comment from her that she was shorter or implied height comparisons. Her pinkie is intact due to what the game calls, a quantam superposition. It was only when Elizabeth returned to a world where she died that she became normal and therefore mortal.Tricksteroffools (talk) 19:32, September 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually Elizabeth remembers all the other Elizabeth's. That is because they are all merged into her at the end of BSI. BUT she remembers them as being *different people*. She does NOT confuse them with herself. (She talks about with terms such as "she" and "her", never "I".) --Solarmech (talk) 19:39, September 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * It was stated on the boat ride that Elizabeth would have problems with her memory. So her not remembering her death means nothing. She does not remember going back to Rapture either. SHe only rembered Paris. Elizabeth gave up her powers to return to a Rapture that she died in. The Luteces could have done the same thing but chose not to. Read the Lazurus Project http://bioshock.wikia.com/wiki/The_Lazarus_Project Elizabeth surivived her death becasue she was in a state of Quantum Superposition. She is in two places at once. Returning to Rapture causes her to drop out of the Superposition State and be a normal person. There is NOT a second Elizabeth. --Solarmech (talk) 19:33, September 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * Trickster, it is said that she has seen all of what the other Elizabeths have seen, and so it is logical to assume that she would have also seen the events that happened to the version killed by the Big Daddy. Booker delibretly forgets and represses his memories to escape for the guilt of killing "his" daughter, Elizabeth on the other hand is deliberately caught up on the moment she left Sally because she feels to redeem herself for leaving her in the vent (again, this wouldn't make much sense if it was the Big Daddy that prevented her from saving Sally and not herself). And lastly, she tells Booker that she's shorter than she remembers when Booker says something along the lines of "Tell me, have you been feeling yourself lately?", just before she finds her own body.


 * And Solarmech read the comments I left on my user talk page. Dakirel (talk) 19:48, September 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, she only, the main Elizabeth, would have the combined memories of all Elizabeths. Thing is, she could not recall her death in completely different universe that was not part of her Columbia timline, and even then, Elizabeth was so focused on the past and the wrongs that she left the future as a side note, even as far to change it (Her "original" future would have been the aged Elizabeth). Who's to say that she didn't already know she would have died? Way she would have seen it, she was done in Rapture, she accomplished her goal to kill Comstock and thought she'd have no more reason to traverse back to the underwater city. Now there is the thing, why would Elizabeth feel the need to rescue Sally if she didn't go through the events of part 1? What is this alternate Elizabeth's story, what is in her past? This isn't some alternate timeline, this is a continuation. She doesn't tell Booker she's shorter, she tells him she feels strange and "smaller", less powerful and not all seeing as when she had her abilities. Notice she says after that "I can't see the doors, what's behind the doors. I- I CAN'T see the FUTURE..." Tricksteroffools (talk) 20:08, September 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSGGl9G5Jnw here's a video that explains it pritty well, its long but that should answer many if not all questions.
 * Shacob (talk) 20:16, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth's year of birth and the phone call with Ken Levine
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi. My brother edited Elizabeth's page yesterday to change her year of birth to 1893, and it got reverted by another user, Unownshipper, asking if it could be proved.

<p class="MsoNormal">Well, it depends what you mean by "proof". It's true that we didn't actually tape the conversation, but I do have a screencap from an email Ken Levine sent me confirming that it happened: Phone Call from Ken Levine screencap (let me know if you have any problems viewing this -- I imagine I can upload the image to the wikia, but it's been a long time since I used a wiki and I thought this would be easier)

<p class="MsoNormal">The story is as follows: my brother, who's autistic, was so upset by the end of Burial at Sea that I ended up emailing 2K to ask if Elizabeth was really dead, where I got a lovely reply from a very pleasant lady who worked in Human Resources, who said she'd pass my email on to PR, as they might be able to answer my question. I nearly fainted two days later when I had an email from Ken Levine himself! Turns out he was so moved by the email about my brother that he wanted to have a telephone conversation with him to discuss the end of BAS. How many creators of multi-million selling, multiple Game of the Year award-winning video games would be willing to do that for a fan? Literally one of the nicest people ever. Anyway, I gave him my number and he called up three days later; first he talked to me all about the ending of Burial at Sea,   and then asked if my brother might want to know a few other special facts about Elizabeth, including her birthday (day, month, and year). He also mentioned that the Luteces and Tenenbaum were, like my brother, on the Autism spectrum. Then I passed him on to my brother, and Ken Levine went through with him what he'd told me. And once every question had been answered, he and my brother had said goodbye to each other and put the phones down, Ken Levine sent me a lovely email to thank me for the phone call. What a guy.

<p class="MsoNormal">I wrote down everything Ken Levine said right after we'd had the conversation for posterity, but this story, the screencap, and my document of what he said are the closest it gets to actual proof. We kept the whole thing to ourselves for a long time, because we didn't want to put Ken Levine in an awkward position if we started blabbing it around, but he told us in a lovely email at the beginning of January (we sent him an email wishing him a Happy new Year) not to worry about it and just do what made us happy – but we've still been a bit hesitant to talk about it because we thought it was unlikely anyone would believe us.

And that is the story. So, it really is true that Elizabeth is 18 when Infinite first starts, as she was born in October 1893 – though whether you choose to believe that or not (I would be interested to see your source confirming her year of birth as 1892) is up to you.

BellaCavalier (talk) 01:13, February 21, 2015 (UTC)


 * The "Poster" showing Elizabeth's age as being 20. Elizabeth's official birthday in Columbia would be Oct 8, 1893 because that's when she arrived in Columbia. But this does not mean that it's her (Anna's) real birthday. Given how baby Anna/Elizabeth looks she is a clearly not a newborn. She is several months old at the very least. Though I must say I very much doubt that she looks old enough to have been born in 1892. Not the best judge of age by ANY means but from how baby Anna looks (an acts) in the game she is three or four months old at the least. Now want to make it clear I do NOT think you are lying or that you were not told this information. Just that it does not seem to match up with the information in the game. sm --Solarmech (talk) 13:31, February 21, 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I totally get that you're not calling me a liar! But all I can tell you is, Ken Levine has a special Elizabeth document that he read out from when he was on the phone to me (I could hear him scrolling down it while he was talking to me), and he definitely said 1893. After he answered the question about Elizabeth's fate at the end of Burial at Sea, he asked if there was anything else my brother might want to know, and it was really important to my brother to know exactly when Elizabeth's birthday was, so the exchange went like this: Me: "Do you know when her birthday is?" Ken Levine: "Um…she has got a birthday." Me: "Really?!" Ken Levine: "Well, yeah, I mean, I gave her one. I'll just check what it is." (Sound of him scrolling down on his laptop) Ken Levine: "We did a timeline and everything for her, and we've got a document about her and stuff…she was born in 1893...I think it was 1893…" And he found it on the document, and he told me her full birthday, and the year was 1893. From a logical "fits with the game" perspective, bear in mind that if she had been born in 1892, even if she was born right at the end of it, she'd still be about ten months old when you see baby Anna, and I don't think she looks nearly old enough to be 10 months old! At ten months old, she's old enough to start talking. I agree she's big for a new born (and she's got  a lot of hair), but I think it's just a case of her being a big new born, with a lot of hair. Secondly, looking at it logically, you're much more likely to sell your child within a week of your wife's death. If you've had 3-4 months or so to think about your situation, I don't think you'd be nearly so likely to do that. I don't know when that poster was released (I couldn't find a date on the page), but is there any chance that it was quite early in Infinite's development? Anyway, thanks for your reply – as I say, all I can tell you is what Ken Levine told me! BellaCavalier (talk) 02:02, February 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay – I've had a very busy weekend!


 * I can totally buy Anna/Elizabeth being born in 1893, it was the October 1893 I had a problem with. :) I suspect she was likely born July or August do to her size and that she is able to recognize Booker and no be parted from him. (Be funny if she had been born July 4th or 6th) Thank you for the info. sm --Solarmech (talk) 13:56, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Hello – here are all the links to the correspondence, as promised to Unownshipper:

<p class="MsoNoSpacing">01 My first email to Chris at 2K Part 01

<p class="MsoNoSpacing">02 My first email to Chris at 2K Part 02

<p class="MsoNoSpacing">03 Reply from Chris at 2K

<p class="MsoNoSpacing">04 My response to Chris at 2K

<p class="MsoNoSpacing">05 Ken Levine's 1st Email

<p class="MsoNoSpacing">06 My Reply to Ken Levine's 1st Email

<p class="MsoNoSpacing">07 Ken Levine's 2nd Email

<p class="MsoNoSpacing">08 My reply to Ken Levine's 2nd Email

<p class="MsoNoSpacing">09 Ken Levine's 3rd Email (after the phone call; the one I showed above) <p class="MsoNoSpacing">10 My reply to Ken Levine's 3rd Email <p class="MsoNoSpacing">11 New Year's Message to Ken Levine Part 01

<p class="MsoNoSpacing">12 New Year's Message to Ken Levine Part 02

<p class="MsoNoSpacing">13 Ken Levine's 4th Email (New Year's Reply)

<p class="MsoNoSpacing">14 My reply to Ken Levine's 4th Email

<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Sorry again for the delay; I've had a lot on, plus I'm chronically ill which really messes up my schedule. Also, I would be grateful if no one would point out that I addressed my original email to a "Mr" Chris at 2K, and they turned out to be Christine, a female. I already know. I was just being an unintentional sexist because when I found the email address, I saw it was a person in authority called Chris, and naturally assumed they'd be a man.

<p class="MsoNoSpacing">So, yeah – I hope this helps in any way it can, and any questions, go right ahead and ask. Obviously I've blurred out surnames and email addresses, and a couple of personal things in the conversations too. :) BellaCavalier (talk) 23:01, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

The Bird or the Cage or ???
What's up with her brooch in this scene? It doesn't look like the bird or the cage. And its definitely not just on this image, I watched a couple of let's plays and all show that strange almost skin colored cameo.

--Shacob (talk) 04:46, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

I think its just the brooch glitching through her neck (46.7.95.98 22:34, March 6, 2015 (UTC))

It is a glitch, but it's not showing her neck. The image shown on the cameo is probably just a placeholder that would normally be covered up by the bird or the cage, depending on what was picked. Alas, what is shown looks like a bizarre china doll's face, I thought there was a close up of it posted here. I'll see if I can find it.

Unownshipper (talk) 03:23, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

That would be great, thank you!

Shacob (talk) 20:22, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth's last name in Rapture
Elizabeth HATED Comstock (ALL COMSTOCKS) and was there to kill the last remaining one. The last thing she would do is call herself by the last name of the man she hates so much. The poster for her with Cohen only says "Miss Elizabeth" BTW. If she was using Comstock it would have said so. As for Ryan not knowing about Comstock or that Elizabeth is from Columbia, listen to what he says.

"Do you know what they call someone who enters a man's home uninvited? A thief. And I do not remember inviting you into my city." He is clearly saying he knows she is not from Rapture.

"I don't claim to understand what you are. But I know that you are special." Notice he says WHAT you are, not who you are. Saying he knows about Elizabeth's (former) powers.

"You're one of a kind in this world, or others." CLEARLY saying that he knows this Elizabeth is the only remaining Elizabeth. And that he knows about alternate realities as well.

Do you really think that Ryan wasn't watching what Suchong was doing? Look at all the screens he had se up around the Tear Machine. Those were not put there by accident. Ryan knew about the Tear Machine and Columbia. He was just smart enough to figure out that the Elizabeth in Columbia is the same one that showed up in Rapture. Unlike Suchong. sm --Solarmech (talk) 14:35, March 21, 2015 (UTC)

There's no evidence to support that Ryan knew anything about Columbia. He knew that there were Tears to other worlds and he knew that Elizabeth came through one, but there's nothing to suggest he Knew about Zachary Comstock or what Columbia was even called. Suchong was in contact with Fink but we don't know exactly how much information Fink shared with him or if Suchong even told Ryan about the things going on in Columbia, after all, he stole Finks drinkable Plasmid formula and told Ryan it was his own. I find it hard to believe Elizabeth could just tell people her name was Miss Elizabeth no questions asked, she would have needed a full name. (Night at the Kashmir (talk) 16:21, March 21, 2015 (UTC))

Oh, Elizabeth certainly told people a last name, but it certainly would not have been Comstock. The reason the last name Elizabeth used isn't mentioned is because it didn't mean anything. It was extraneous. From the lobby of the Silver Fin you can see that Suchong learned a great deal about Columbia separate from Fink. Pictures of the Luteces, Fink, Booker and Elizabeth. As well as the Handymen, scenes around Columbia and the Vox revolt. There is even a model of one of Columbia's floating buildings. Suchong had figured out a LOT about Columbia (and Comstock is all OVER Columbia) and Ryan would have made very sure to get the info from Suchong, even if Suchong didn't know it.

As a point, Drinkable Plasmids were developed under Fontaine, not Ryan. Fontaine was bitching that they used 10 times more ADAM, remember? Suchong may have tried to sell the drinkables as being his to Ryan, but you can be certain Ryan knew better. Ryan was a control freak and strangers with the ability to enter Rapture at will would have hit his paranoia about "parasites" finding Rapture right where it lived. He would have gone to great lengths to find out all he could. sm --Solarmech (talk) 17:34, March 21, 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth would have used the name Comstock as a constant reminder of who her enemy was. None of the photographs or models used by Suchong say "This is the city Columbia, we're very religious and this is our leader Comstock". The audio diary by Fontaine is also dated wrong and doesn't make sense with any of the other info given to us. (Night at the Kashmir (talk) 23:41, March 21, 2015 (UTC))

You are correct about the dates, Suchong did create them after Fontaine "died". But that does not mean the date on Product Recall is wrong. Suchong knew Fontaine was still alive as Atlas (Remember what Atlas told Elizabeth to remember him to Suchong when she saw him). Fontaine was clearly worried that the use of the Drinkable Plasmids would use up most of Raptures ADAM supply before he had a chance to take over the city.

As for Elizabeth needing a reminder of what Comstock did to her, she has millions of memories of being tortured by him, as well as one of being decapitated. She needs no reminder and in fact it's clear she didn't mind forgetting. As for irony she doesn't seem to be much into that and pretending to be a Comstock would be like spitting on Booker's memory.

As for Suchong not knowing about Comstock, he knew about people that much less widely known than Comstock. He knew about Booker who had only been in Columbia a few hours. Try to say that Suchong didn't know about Comstock would be like looking a long time at Rapture and never hearing about Andrew Ryan. It's just not a credible idea, particularly since Suchong has a picture of one of Comstock's statues. There doesn't have to be a specific mention of what Suchong knew because the important things he knew can be logically deduced. sm --Solarmech (talk) 12:48, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

Ryan actually calls her by the name "Miss Comstock," in the elevator to Fontaine's office. Here's the source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grqC4lvwUe0 at 2:07:36 (Andrew Ryan: "And who exactly are you speaking to. Miss Comstock?"). He either knew enough about Columbia to call her Miss Comstock or she used that surname.

Shacob (talk) 19:10, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

Yep, he certainly does. By itself it can mean she either used the Comstock name or Ryan knows she came from Columbia. 50/50 either way (actually more likely she used the Comstock name). But when you add in additional information, Elizabeth *hating* Comstock, Ryan's references to Elizabeth's powers and her being the only Elizabeth left, it greatly changes things. Making Ryan calling Elizabeth "Miss Comstock" a result of his knowing that she is from Columbia and is supposed to be Comstock's daughter. (IE calling her by her "proper" name. Ryan does try to be correct about such things).

I wonder if anyone in Rapture suspected that "Booker DeWitt" was from a Columbia as well. After all his friend was the Sullivan, Head of Rapture Security. Seems odd that no one would think to run a check on him at some point. That's not proof though. sm --Solarmech (talk) 21:24, March 22, 2015 (UTC)


 * I personally still think that she likely forged an ID document and chose "Comstock" as a surname simply b/c she couldn't go running around without one (at least, not easily). However, any of the above mentioned theories are just as likely as the others. Unless Levine just explains it all, nothing is going to be conclusively gotten even from these discussions. The circumstances of the name reveal are just too open to interpretation.


 * In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter much whether Ryan knew about Elizabeth or not. For him, the problem was taken care of, her story ended, and nothing can change the course of history Rapture followed.


 * Unownshipper (talk) 22:21, March 22, 2015 (UTC)