[ SECRET POST #158 ]

[shahni.livejournal.com]

⌈ Secret Post #158 ⌋

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

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.



Notes:

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

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

Comments

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

[cephiedvariable.livejournal.com]

Oh, they actually SAID Elizabeth was the protagonist? XD That makes me bizarrely happy since I always assumed they meant it to, ultimately, be Will's story.

Though honestly, it was a journey she and Will took together. They even took turns being the damsel in distress!

Although someone's just going to argue that her "being the most important character" only further proves she's a Sue. :P

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

[cephiedvariable.livejournal.com]

Now, if Elizabeth HAD been Calypso.

Then I'd call Sue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[doubtful-salmon.livejournal.com]

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

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

See, I think that's exactly why I find her annoying. Even though all of you have made extremely logical and sensible arguments about why she's not a Sue, I still keep feeling like she is. And I think it's because of that very thing.

I guess I always felt like it was more naturally Will's story. In the first movie, he's the one with the Pirate father. He's the one with an adventure that takes his character on an arc. At the start he hates Pirates, and by the end he learns to appreciate his heritage. At the start he's too wimpy to try to get Elizabeth, and by the end he learns the initiative to win her. What was Elizabeth's arc? At the start, she though pirates were cool, and by the end she still thought pirates were still cool. At the start she wanted Will to pay attention to her, and by the end Will started to pay attention to her, but what did she *do* or *learn* that made that happen? Elizabeth was the plucky damsel in distress with plenty of initiative, but she was still more of a plot device to get Will on the his adventure or a goal for Will's happy ending than a protagonist.

I guess it just seemed artificial to me that suddenly Elizabeth was the one rallying the pirates to war. She'd been artificially (IMO) thrust into being *the* main character. And, to me, that's the Sue-ist thing of all--when a character steals all the attention from the character who's story it truly is.

[doubtful-salmon.livejournal.com]

I totally disagree. I mean, I even saw the movie in the first place because I'm a huge Lord of the Rings fan, and I never thought that it was Will's story. The first person you see onscreen is Elizabeth. She is the object of the first film...she is the reason that everything happens. It is she who finds Will, it is she who dreams about him, she who falls in the water, she who asks to meet up with Barbossa and call off the hunt, she who lies, and she who is chased after when she is finally stuck not necessarily because of her gender but because she made a mistake. Will is only an important character, at least in my eyes, because Elizabeth makes him one. All his actions, in the whole movie, seem to be fueled by Elizabeth...and almost all of hers are her own.

So yes, Elizabeth is a plot device, but actually, so are all protagonists. They're not mutually exclusive.

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

The first person you see onscreen is Elizabeth...Will is only an important character...because Elizabeth makes him one.

In my eyes, these two things make Elizabeth the narrator of the story, but that doesn't necessarily make her the protagonist. For example, in "The Shawshank Redemption", Red is the narrator, but Andy is the protagonist.

It is she who finds Will, it is she who dreams about him...

You have a very valid point with all of these examples. You're right in that a lot of action not only revolves around Elizabeth, but she takes a lot of action. But again, I come back to the question of arc. And it doesn't really feel like Elizabeth has one, definitely not when compared to Will. To me that is what differentiates between a character who's integral to the story and a protagonist.

[doubtful-salmon.livejournal.com]

I don't know...if we were going to argue it that way, I'd say that the protagonist is Jack Sparrow. After all, the love story is an equal share Will and Elizabeth's...but the catalyst for a lot of the story is Jack Sparrow's desire to get back the Pearl.

[cephiedvariable.livejournal.com]

This is how I interpreted Elizabeth's journey: in CotBP, you get the feeling that she's ill suited for the life she's living. Keira Knightly likes to say that Liz is a 20th century girl living in the 18th century. She's restless and bored, but she doesn't actually seem to realize it. Over the course of the movies she is thrust into adventure for one reason: kidnapped, trying to rescue her boy toy, ect. ect. and learns what's she's actually capable of- both good and bad. Her journey is one of inner discover, while Will discovers *external* things about himself (and I hope I'm not giving the movies TOO much credit when I assume it was written this way on purpose).

I suppose this kind of character arc could be Sueish if she actually HAD stolen all the attention from who the viewers felt was SUPPOSED to be the main character, but Will's character arc was still strong. She just got to do more cool stuff in AWE. But EVERYONE did cool stuff in DMC. Jack fought on the mast of a ship, Barbossa sailed through a maelstrom (while fighting and reciting wedding vows SIMULTANEOUSLY), Will got to talk smack to the villains and Ragetti freed a Goddess. It was a movie full of people doing cool stuff. :P


... that was a markedly less coherent argument than I anticipated it would be. -___-;;

[cephiedvariable.livejournal.com]

*in AWE, not DMC

No one did cool stuff in DMC. Everyone SUCKED in DMC, which was kind of the point. :PPP

[panksters.livejournal.com]

iawtc. I'm glad there are people about with real talkin skillz that weeuns don't have round heer who I can agree with.

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

[panksters.livejournal.com]

Uh, if a guy had learned how to sword fight, sail, become a ship's captain, have everyone fall in love with him ever, be mistaken for a god, and give a giant bravery speech while being extremely attractive, I would have labeled him a Stu. LOL.

But on that note, it's less believable for Elizabeth to be put in charge and be respected and a tough fighter, because she's an aristocratic lady. ;)

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

[panksters.livejournal.com]

No, because you're forgetting that the writers write that shit. Elizabeth didn't have to be mistaken for Calypso. They could have just gone SHE HAWT I WANT 2 BONE HER LOLOL or something. They could have done anythign they wanted to, so saying she had to do this and this and this is retarded. The writers wrote her that way instead of doing something else. They made her extremely central, lovey, strong, and the pirate king like any suethor would.

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

[cephiedvariable.livejournal.com]

Sao Feng's assumption that Elizabeth was Calypso was mostly for exposition's sake, honestly. And didn't have much to do with her being attractive- he ignored her until she spoke about what a pirate's duty should be. And then he was all: "Oh, a woman with Barbossa who says bold things. Women cannot be on the seas so obviously it must be Calypso! Of course, I am brilliant!" I mean, we ALL knew Calypso was Tia Dalma, but I think the writers were trying to draw out the mystery a little more. Make it a LITTLE less obvious. They failed pretty badly, of course, but y'know. PotC ain't the smartest movie around. I'll give it brownie points for trying.

If he had just wanted to bone her, the entire endevour would have been empty and meaningless. Maybe Elizabeth could have won her Pirate Lord title with some actual FIGHTING, which I would not have objected to, but that would have made Sao Feng look like even MORE of a sleaze and given us no juicy plot information about Calypso. :P

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

[panksters.livejournal.com]

I guess this argument just doesn't do anything for me, because I thought Calypso was really retarded. And I didn't really like the movie :(

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

[cephiedvariable.livejournal.com]

:P I loved the movie passionately but also think it's kind of totally flawed and actually not very good in a good many ways, so I can respect that. *thumbs up*

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

[panksters.livejournal.com]

Uh no, because I liked her in the first two movies, and that sounds like something that would have happened to her.

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

[cephiedvariable.livejournal.com]

Well DUH. Because isn't simply disliking any given female character grounds enough to call her a Sue?

Though if Elizabeth WERE a Sue, she'd certainly be more at place in her time period.

OOOOH, YEAH, I JUST TOOK A CRACK AT VICTORIAN LITERATURE.

... AND I DID IT EVEN THOUGH POTC IS TOTALLY, LIKE, 70 YEARS TOO EARLY FOR THAT TO APPLY.