yeah, and charlie died on lost hahaha. You Brits really do get the short end. You dont even get credit for the shows that american producers rip off from you all. Violins are playing you all.
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
I'd say the main protagonists of Season 1 were clearly Peter, Hiro, Sylar, and Claire, given how individual yet significant their storylines were. However, the significance of Claire's role seems to have lessened with Season 2 (despite her getting the most screentime! ), as has Sylar's, with Matt's rising quite significantly.
I'd say Peter and Hiro definitely stand out the most.
And what sick individuals can kid themselves Sylar is a protagonist?
So there's two British actors in the cast, neither of them are what you would call you're archetypal protagonist, and one of them is simply a villain, but honestly, what about the rest of Europe, the other continents?
The writers could touch upon alot more comtemporary issues if there were Heroes in Palestine, and another Israeli would help, what about Mohinder going back to India and witnessing the events happening in Pakistan right now? Third World Hunger, the Middle East, hell even try the English-Scottish Union. But no, America saves the world yet again.
A protagonist, as in a central figure within a storyline, which Sylar was in Season 1. Sylar hunting down the different Heroes on the list to gain their abilities, and the plan to end the threat of Sylar were some of the most significant storylines featured in season 1, and Sylar was at the center of both of them. He was set up as the main Villain, while Peter was set up as the main Hero, and their Ying-Yang relationship was a heavily explored theme. Sylar was one of the main protagonists, and the only sick individual here is the on that would question that.
Err, no. Sylar is an antagonist, not a protagonist.
Mr. Bennet is a bad-ish guy who is a protagonist, but NOT Sylar, so get your definitions straight before you simply lazily reflect an insult.
Anyway, I do not see what all the fuss is about. it; an American series, of course the focus is on the US, as are the various equivalents in all countries are on their own country.
Relatively soeaking it has been quite a bit of cross-cultural effort; I am surprised to hear it being attacked on these grounds.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Nov 6th, 2007 at 02:20 PM
You're using a limited definition mush (the hero definition). A protagonist can also refer to a central character featured within a particular story, so I'd suggest you get your definitions straight, Sir Limitus.
The definition of an antagonist is a character whom the protagonist is trying to overcome, the one that sets up the obstacles and dramatic opposition. As you yourself point out in your definition, this is exactly what Sylar is to Peter.
Sylar has no role in the story other than being a villain, a foil for the Heroes. This makes him an antagonist, and you cannot be a protagonist and antagonist at once- the two are mutually exclusive.
Just because you do background work into an antagonist, just because you focus on him... this in absolutely no wy at all makes one a protagonist. In fact it is very much expected that decent antagonists are explored so. The name of the series giuves it away- the series is abbout the Heroes. They are the protagonists, not their nemeses.
My definition is not limited, it is correct. There is absoluely no way at all- not one- that the term 'protagonist' can be used with Sylar.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Yes, I was saying I was right and you are wrong- which is true. Sylar is NOT the main character. He is a foil TO the main character. Go look up what an antagonist is- and try re-reading my last post again, this time with some actual care/
Most of what you say is just irrelevant babble and is not impressing anyone at all- rather like your feeble insults
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Are you having trouble clicking the link I provided? Aww, poor Ush, hasn't quite mastered how to move the mouse yet.
No, but he is one of them, hence why I said "one of the protagonists," which perfectly fits given the definition I've provided. Is this too hard for you to understand?
Which essentially makes him a primary character, in other words, a protagonist. I'd suggest equipping your reading glasses, old man, because you seem to find reading my posts troubling.
I don't need to, because unlike you, I can actually speak English. An antagonist is simply one opposed to the main Hero featured within a storyline (which would be your limited definition of protagonist), and the antagonist and protagonist are only mutually exclusive when using your limited definition, not when using mine.
Read it perfectly, but it's mostly simply irrelevant given that we're dealing with different definitions; something you don't appear to understand. Here's another word to look up: ambiguity.
I'm sorry you feel that way Mr Dictionary Hater, but the facts are:
1. Sylar is a primary character that was featured in season 1 of Heroes.
2. A definition of the word "protagonist" would fit the above.
3. You've failed to realise the ambiguity (seriously, before replying: LOOK.IT.UP.) of the word "protagonist," and have attempted to counter what I was saying whilst falsely assuming that I was referring to what you perceive to qualify as a protagonist.
Both myself and the Dictionary are against you here, and you're plain wrong. Clearly Mr Moderator can't take being wrong. Cry me a river mush, but please, please try not to drown in it.
That ridiculous attempt at sarcasm of yours, nmensfinest, just underlies that there is absolutely nothing to your argument.
There is no limited definition here, jsut the definition that is ALWAYS used in books, films and tv- and certainly the definition exanda was using, that everyone else will understand he was using, and what any reasonable person would use. You just trying to rely on an irrelevant description from the dictionary without any form of context or analysis is pretty ridiculous.
The rest of what you say- more feeble insults and all- is just a waste of everyone's time. All I can do is point you back to what I already said.
Keep using terms like 'Mr. Moderator'- which is simple trolling- ansd you will be warned once more. On the road to a ban here, and I doubt anyone will be sorry.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"