That scene most definitely conveys Crocodile's character, and the meaning behind Pell's death or survival can most definitely be tied to the conversations being had in this scene. The only points I wanted to make were:
A) Crocodile did not willingly allow himself to be arrested after being defeated by Luffy from what I could find; and
B) many people interpret Pell's survival as running counter to the point of this scene: Pell traded his life to protect people, just like Luffy is doing, rather than being a pawn thrown away for someone else's goals. It isn't a heroic sacrifice if you get up and walk away after it, and the entire speech that Luffy made to Vivi earlier about not shouldering the burden on her own is somewhat watered down by the fact that ultimately Vivi got exactly what she wanted: a victory with no casualties.
I will reiterate, I prefer the way things turned out. I like when characters survive because much like Oda, I enjoy the possibility of them coming back into the story and having more to contribute. It's the entire premise of this theory.
But, there is an argument to be made for narrative themes being undermined by narrative choices. The death of allied characters shows what's at stake, but having everyone miraculously survive gives many readers the impression that nothing is ever at stake. How many times have you seen a character in danger and thought "well, Oda doesn't kill anyone, so it's fine"?
I wasn't worried at all when Pedro pulled out the dynamite because "Oda doesn't kill anyone." It just looked like Pell all over again. It wasn't until Perospero stood back up, missing an arm and Pedro nowhere to be seen that it sunk in: Oda may actually have killed Pedro off.
Then Pound sacrificed himself so that Chiffon could get away from Oven. The visuals gave a strong impression that he had died, and I was perfectly willing to believe that Oda had gone through with it because the arc was nearing its conclusion and Pedro was still nowhere to be seen.
Fast forward to Wano with Tonoyasu up on a cross for his public execution. Hot off the heels of Pedro and Pound, I was finally unsure if Oda was willing to kill off a character because it seemed like he'd finally changed his ways. If the Pound reveal had happened earlier, I probably would have gone back to expecting him to survive rather than feeling the tension of wondering what would happen.
Again, it's a matter of personal preference whether Pell or Pedro or Pound or even Tonoyasu's deaths need to be permanent for the sake of "good" storytelling because either way can potentially serve a different purpose and fill different needs for different readers. Regardless of what your personal preference or mine is, though, the original point I was trying to make still stands: Monet's death is absolutely 100% pointless.
Being knocked out would suffice for stopping the self-destruct sequence, no one is visibly affected or changed by Monet's death, no one even seems to know about it (there's a scene where Doflamingo talks about Monet which has been translated as "you killed Monet," but that's a mistranslation and it's more like "you attacked Monet"). There are no lasting implications or repercussions to Monet's death, but her survival has the potential to shape the entire rest of the story
A) Crocodile did not willingly allow himself to be arrested after being defeated by Luffy from what I could find; and
B) many people interpret Pell's survival as running counter to the point of this scene: Pell traded his life to protect people, just like Luffy is doing, rather than being a pawn thrown away for someone else's goals. It isn't a heroic sacrifice if you get up and walk away after it, and the entire speech that Luffy made to Vivi earlier about not shouldering the burden on her own is somewhat watered down by the fact that ultimately Vivi got exactly what she wanted: a victory with no casualties.
I will reiterate, I prefer the way things turned out. I like when characters survive because much like Oda, I enjoy the possibility of them coming back into the story and having more to contribute. It's the entire premise of this theory.
But, there is an argument to be made for narrative themes being undermined by narrative choices. The death of allied characters shows what's at stake, but having everyone miraculously survive gives many readers the impression that nothing is ever at stake. How many times have you seen a character in danger and thought "well, Oda doesn't kill anyone, so it's fine"?
I wasn't worried at all when Pedro pulled out the dynamite because "Oda doesn't kill anyone." It just looked like Pell all over again. It wasn't until Perospero stood back up, missing an arm and Pedro nowhere to be seen that it sunk in: Oda may actually have killed Pedro off.
Then Pound sacrificed himself so that Chiffon could get away from Oven. The visuals gave a strong impression that he had died, and I was perfectly willing to believe that Oda had gone through with it because the arc was nearing its conclusion and Pedro was still nowhere to be seen.
Fast forward to Wano with Tonoyasu up on a cross for his public execution. Hot off the heels of Pedro and Pound, I was finally unsure if Oda was willing to kill off a character because it seemed like he'd finally changed his ways. If the Pound reveal had happened earlier, I probably would have gone back to expecting him to survive rather than feeling the tension of wondering what would happen.
Again, it's a matter of personal preference whether Pell or Pedro or Pound or even Tonoyasu's deaths need to be permanent for the sake of "good" storytelling because either way can potentially serve a different purpose and fill different needs for different readers. Regardless of what your personal preference or mine is, though, the original point I was trying to make still stands: Monet's death is absolutely 100% pointless.
Being knocked out would suffice for stopping the self-destruct sequence, no one is visibly affected or changed by Monet's death, no one even seems to know about it (there's a scene where Doflamingo talks about Monet which has been translated as "you killed Monet," but that's a mistranslation and it's more like "you attacked Monet"). There are no lasting implications or repercussions to Monet's death, but her survival has the potential to shape the entire rest of the story
This could really be the explanation of her survival, which I surely believe.
Post automatically merged:
Once again another one.......
MyAnimeList-Linux_2020 user said: "Pell made it because the explosion happened on mid-air on an open area in which Pell can escape it by gaining Altitude...
But the same can't be said to Monet's fate..even if she can fly there's no way she can escape easily in an closed area like caesar's laboratory, even if she managed to go out SMILE will just engulf her in seconds petrificate and die... Either way her chance of surviving are slim".
Also I found this interesting one on a Oro Jackson closed forum, I don't know if you saw this before but I think it's really detailed and corrective though. I really wish was those Oro Jackson forum was like, those must've have been the good theory days.
Former User: There is one main thing everyone must consider when factoring in if the the stab to Monet's Heart did in fact kill her.....And yes, she was stabbed, directly in the heart, and the panels shown leave very little room for debate.....But It does not mean the Stab killed Monet...The one thing that could have saved Monets life (And it is very plausible) is the Cube that was encasing it. When a person's heart is punctured in a manner that doesn't cause the heart to explode (Ex. a bullet), one of the very first things they do is immediately lose consciousness, but they don't die right away. The heart's main function is to continuously keep the blood pumping throughout the body, which in turn keeps the brain functioning. When the heart is pierced, it can no longer steadily keep the blood flowing, which in turn shuts the brain down. One of three things happen when your heart is punctured, you either become Brain dead, and die, or if the puncture is big enough, you bleed out and die before going brain dead, or by some miracle, you make it to a doctor in time, and survive...
This is where the Cube, and the panel you showed @Syphin comes into play. As we can clearly see, Ceasar did infact remove the spike from Monet's heart, and it was logged in the ground next to the cube. What we can also see, is that there is no longer any blood spilling out from the cube, in the same exact panel. Now I don't know exactly how the cube works, but it is possible, that the second Caesar removed the Spike, the cube closed back up, minimizing the blood loss from Monets heart, just in time to get the blood pumping back through her body, and keeping her alive.
Now I'm not saying Monet is alive or dead....But I figured I'd offer my input on how I believe it's possible she could have survived. Remember, the Ope Ope no Mi, is one of the most Haxed Devil Fruits in existence, and I'm sure Law wouldn't have given up his heart so easily if he knew that if that cube was punctured in any way shape or form, it would have resulted in his immediate death.....
And apparently you have a 1 and 3 chance of surviving being stabbed in the heart.
According to a seven-year study on penetrating cardiac injuries involving more than 20,000 consecutive trauma patients, the survival rate for patients who were stabbed in the heart was 32.6 percent.
Last edited: