Current mood:

Fan-Fucking-tastic

Slight POTC Drama
I posted this in my journal and then silvernutmeg pointed out that I should post it in here. I know that some of the most recent wanks have been about Harry Potter and such. But I found a little something that's just a bit different...

The judgement of right and wrong, courtesy and disrespect... over Captain Jack Sparrow's costume of Pirates of the Caribbean on Jack Sparrow Fans.

stini2002 posts some pictures of herself and a friend touching Elizabeth Swann and Jack Sparrow's costumes at Disneyland exhibit. Most think that it's funny and take it with an easy heart and good humor. "OMG, I would've touched it too!! I kissed a poster of him for an hour at the theater! I'm so crazy XD". But then there is the small handful of others... "Well, it's behind a RED ROPE! That means you aren't supposed to touch the blatantly open display of the costume that a man so many people go gaa-gaa over wore", Your oily hands will ruin the fabrics, thus damaging the value and worth of the costume!", "It's not yours. You have no right to touch it and are disrespecting Disney's property", "You give fangirls a bad name", "You're as ignorant as she is if you think that violating policy and the costumes is funny and/or okay", and blah blah, etc etc. But the first part of this is my favorite bit. Okay, so you aren't supposed to touch animals at the zoo, b/c they could have rabies and will bite. But... applying the same logic for Jack's costume? I wasn't aware that touching fabric would cause harm or even bring about injury. Very ill comparison there.

Funny how most of the debate was about Jack's costume and not Elizabeth's. Well... that's due to four obvious reasons though. a) stini2002 is the girl in the last two pictures who decided to post them and who just happens to be all over Jack's costume, not Elizabeth's, b) - more Jackness is shown than Elizabeth, c) - Jack gets more "play" than Elizabeth in the fandom world anyway, it seems and d) - ...it's Jack Sparrow's costume. So... basically, "It's all about Jack."

Not the ultimate wank, I know, and everything seems to be slowing down to a stop. But I found it to be enough for me to point out as well. With about fifty comments, they wanked over something that wasn't even really worth discussion. The girls got to see the costumes and even touch them. So? They didn't commit a horrendous sin and will not be doomed to torment in hell. Taking the risk of being escorted out of the exhibit by security and even banned from Disneyland was their business and decision. It happened, it's over, and done with now. Oh well. At least be thankful that this ignorant, rabid fangirl didn't steal any piece of the costume, right? Fandom can be so anal sometimes.

(Post a new comment)

	soleta 2003-10-14 06:08 am UTC (link)
	you know what I like about this wank? it has NOTHING TO DO with HP. for which favor, much thanks. (Reply to this)(Thread)

herring
2003-10-14 10:38 am UTC (link)

it has NOTHING TO DO with HP. for which favor, much thanks.

*breathes a sigh of relief*

Anyway.

Even though I know all about what it means to step over red ropes and disrespect property by touching it (to be reprimanded for it later), I still sympathize with the offender. Really, all of those people trying to crawl down her throat seemed like they were just jealous folk because omg jack sparrw omg johnny depp omg teh costume!!!!11!! (And the dress looks FAR more expensive to boot ..)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Obigatory Off-Topic Icon Love Thread beccastareyes 2003-10-14 03:27 pm UTC (link)
	I <3 your icon, by the way. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	banal_o_rama 2003-10-15 03:13 am UTC (link)
	Amen! Nice to see that other fandoms have penises. As for the costumes being dangerous, I wouldn't be surprised if you could catch some sort of skanky venereal disease from the Jack one--or at the very least, lice. So really, it's for her own good! No, really! Really really! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	beandelphiki 2003-10-14 10:07 am UTC (link)
	Damn, I keep looking at stini2002's icon and thinking, "He's gonna puke!" (Reply to this)(Thread)

	sagralisse 2003-10-14 04:58 pm UTC (link)
	I think he is gonna puke. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Textiles and touching

anglinsbees
2003-10-14 10:41 am UTC (link)

Ummmmm.
Textile technologist weighing in here.
The anti- touching folks have a point.
Dirt and oils from hands do damage fabric over time. But so does sunlight, dust, and pollution.
Touching museum pieces is a no-no- that’s why museum curators wear cotton gloves when handling any historic piece.

Movie costumes less than three years old hardly rate as historic in my book, but if every fan-dweeb who happened along fingered the sleeves, yes, they would be damaged. If you really value any textile, and want it to last, well, hands off! Touch it, exhibit it, or heaven forbid, wear it, and you are contributing to its destruction. Textiles are perishable, and can be loved to death.

Touching any roped off exhibit is, at the very least rude, and that’s worth a mini-rant in my book, but I am biased.

It doesn't begin to compare to the atrocities committed by the moviemakers who made "Titanic". Anyone who loves historic clothing should be rightly horrified by that fiasco. (Hundreds of actual historic garments were destroyed in the making of that movie.)

Ok- that was probably wanky in itself. Mock away if you will, but my button was pushed.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

rann
2003-10-14 11:33 am UTC (link)

Movie costumes less than three years old hardly rate as historic in my book, but if every fan-dweeb who happened along fingered the sleeves, yes, they would be damaged.

Well, see, if that's the case, then Disney dumbfucks that they are needs to take a little more in the way of precautions than a loose velvet rope, with the costumes apparently close enough to reach out and touch them. (Dunno, didn't actually go to the link to see the pics.) Like, y'know, putting the costumes further back, putting them behind glass, having someone in the general area watching, any of the three would work. ~~But then, the Disney people are a bunch of lazy, cheap bastards. I'm not bitter at all, noooo.~~
I can understand the outrage if it was, like, the gown from Gone With the Wind, or something like that, but I'm sorry, only to teeny fangirls is Pirates of the Caribbean an important piece of cinema history. It's a summer action flick. The jacket Arnold wore in Terminator 2 might be really cool to see, but I doubt it will ever become a serious piece with historical significance. (And at Planet Hollywood, they know enough to put the movie memorabelia BEHIND GLASS.) And, which isn't to say that no movie made nowadays is going to become a historic piece of cinema and elevate the props in it to actual bits of history that should be preserved...
I just don't think that a Disney pirate movie with monkey jokes is gonna be one of 'em. c.c

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	flax 2003-10-14 01:43 pm UTC (link)
	Was that a disparagement of monkeys? I really hope it wasn't a disparagement of monkeys. basicaly, it's uncouth... and certainly disrespectful to Disney. Can I do anything about it? nope... but your parents should =\ I like how everyone treats that as obvious. Is there not /one/ PoTC fan over 15? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	allen 2003-10-14 05:29 pm UTC (link)
	Well, yes, but they don't make themselves look like fools by posting pictures of themselves humping empty costumes. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2003-10-14 11:40 pm UTC (link)
	Is there not /one/ PoTC fan over 15? waves hello I'm flamedame over at LiveJournal. I'm even gainfully employed. Also, I can spell and use grammar correctly most of the time. And there are more of us than may be readily apparant. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	flax 2003-10-15 12:30 pm UTC (link)
	gasps, shocks, dies Good to know. ;) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2003-10-15 04:42 pm UTC (link)
	Er... It's spelled "apparent," not "apparant." (Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Textiles and touching

sagralisse
2003-10-14 05:23 pm UTC (link)

If anybody knows how to take care of their property while showing it off to millions of visitors it'd be the folks at Disney. If they want it kept pristine they'll put it behind some glass.

Or they can let the fangirls can fondle it as much as they like and if it gets worn out replace it with one of the other two dozen identical costumes they probably have made up already.

Yes, one would expect more politeness at a museum where actual irreplacable stuff is on display.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Textiles and touching

iczer6
2003-10-14 08:45 pm UTC (link)

[Or they can let the fangirls can fondle it as much as they like and if it gets worn out replace it with one of the other two dozen identical costumes they probably have made up already.]

Good point. I mean this isn't an irreplaceable costume from say The Wizard of Oz, or Casablanca. Hell the movie still pretty recent, it came out when, June, July? It's not even a year old.

Was it a silly, fangirly action? Yes but she shouldn't be raked over hot coals for it.

Icz

(Reply to this)(Parent)

*SCREAMS*

livviebway
2003-10-15 12:45 am UTC (link)

It doesn't begin to compare to the atrocities committed by the moviemakers who made "Titanic". Anyone who loves historic clothing should be rightly horrified by that fiasco. (Hundreds of actual historic garments were destroyed in the making of that movie.)

I was never really interested in Titanic and by the time I gained my massive interest in history and historical clothes it had long since passed. But... THEY DESTROYED HUNDREDS OF REAL CLOTHES!?! *goes to weep in corner and mourn for the lost lovely clothes*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: *SCREAMS*

anglinsbees
2003-10-15 09:33 pm UTC (link)

Yep.
Went into the studio costume collection and pulled hundreds of actual stock garments that had been in the collection ever since the studio had existed. (Many werefrom the silent film era.) They used them on extras, and what is most horrifying, is they used them in the water scenes, which destroyed them entirely.
One take, and the garments started to falll to pieces, and the extra had to be re-outfitted.

Caused a huge scandal in the historic costume and museum communities when word leaked out. Word is that before that movie was filmed the studio had one of *THE* largest collections of actual period garments of all types in existance.

Now its almost entirely gone. Sacrificed to the watery gods.
*Weeps*

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2003-10-14 01:47 pm UTC (link)
	"Oh, we can't touch it, dad! It's behind a velvet rope!" feels the rope "...A velvet rope.." (Reply to this)(Thread)

	rann 2003-10-14 02:05 pm UTC (link)
	You've gotta put a kinda wavery reverence in your voice for the last bit. "A vel~vet ro~ope~..." (Reply to this)(Parent)

	oxydosic 2003-10-14 03:17 pm UTC (link)
	Well i don't think they should have touched it either, but then i'm one of those weirdos who's neurotic about following rules. To me, velvet rope=boundary no part of you should cross. But, i wouldn't go so far as to flip out on the people who did it either. (Reply to this)

sanguinary
2003-10-14 04:58 pm UTC (link)

Worked at a museam for a summer, so I'll contribute my two cents.

They shouldn't have touched the clothing. Again, as it was stated above, we have oils on our skin that do cause fabric and cloth to break down over the course of time. Hence, the no-touchy ropes. Plus, oil can also leave stains and discolourations in the fabric.

In reality? If those clothes make it 50 years, I'll be suprised. If anyone even remembers the film 50 years from now and thinks that the set peices/costumes/etc need to be preserved because it's such a dramatic, heartfelt peice of cinamatic genius... they really need to remember that it's a movie based on a ride. A good ride, but a park ride none the less. And there's no point in getting upset over a hunk of fabric that you'll most likely outlive.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	sagralisse 2003-10-14 05:28 pm UTC (link)
	You underestimate Disney I think. They never let anything die. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	starfish 2003-10-14 07:50 pm UTC (link)
	... except Bambi's mother!!! ::is still scarred:: (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sagralisse 2003-10-14 08:15 pm UTC (link)
	snerk My daughter became a vegetarian after seeing "Babe." She lasted for about 18 hours or so. She was young! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	rann 2003-10-14 08:56 pm UTC (link)
	Except good taste. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	calluna 2003-10-15 08:08 pm UTC (link)
	Except Gargoyles. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Anonymous)
2003-12-24 08:26 pm UTC (link)

just browsing by and saw your entry. i think that' what you said is bloody brilliant and correct. true, they did what they did and that was their choice, and others just need to erm, chill out maybe?

personally, i would've chosen a couple of er, better pics for that than those but eh, who knows what happens when you get caught up in the moment. there should be a whole study on fangirls, and they're behavior.

love the anal pic as well, made me laugh outloud. well cheers mate, and happy holidays,

Puck

(Reply to this)