01-21-2018, 10:10 PM
Both dicappatora and Hell Rell you are both trying to make a point contradicted by narrative provided by the writers. Maybe you do see it that way. The point I am making is the writers provide narative to explain there intended perspective. To continue to site scenes and actions to support your view are made null and void by narratives that state something different.
Like I keep saying the writers added to the prologue the statement " I did not know" That is the perspective of the writers. If you see it different that is you . It is just not what the writers meant. Basically your view is fan fiction.
You keep wanting to asses responsibility. Yet you ignore their intent. They never showed her in conversation on the plan to kill. Even when it happened the writers placed her upstairs. Even when Rispoli called the did not mention killing. All of your positions rely on assumptions. None of it deals with what the writers wrote.
here is the difference in how the writers made a difference. With Adalind she was injecting the needle. That is the writers showoing intent. with Juliette she dropped the statue exactly where Adalind was standing. With Monroe the writers had her wait till Monroe was out of the way . Perception no intent. The other thing you have to consider is the response after the act. With Adalind she responds with expression of failure. With Juliette and the statue she shows she intended to kill her. With monroe there was no signs of intent. This is not because of what the characters think or the situation they where in. It is all about the perspective the writers wanted the viewers to see.
It just amazes me that you continue to argue against the writers as if they are wrong. The whole bases of your argument is The writers may have said one thing , but you see something else. Has it dawned on you that you might be seeing it wrong. Has it dawned on you that the writer might have considered viewers might see it a way not intended so the writers added narrative to illuminate ambiguity.
Like I keep saying the writers added to the prologue the statement " I did not know" That is the perspective of the writers. If you see it different that is you . It is just not what the writers meant. Basically your view is fan fiction.
You keep wanting to asses responsibility. Yet you ignore their intent. They never showed her in conversation on the plan to kill. Even when it happened the writers placed her upstairs. Even when Rispoli called the did not mention killing. All of your positions rely on assumptions. None of it deals with what the writers wrote.
here is the difference in how the writers made a difference. With Adalind she was injecting the needle. That is the writers showoing intent. with Juliette she dropped the statue exactly where Adalind was standing. With Monroe the writers had her wait till Monroe was out of the way . Perception no intent. The other thing you have to consider is the response after the act. With Adalind she responds with expression of failure. With Juliette and the statue she shows she intended to kill her. With monroe there was no signs of intent. This is not because of what the characters think or the situation they where in. It is all about the perspective the writers wanted the viewers to see.
It just amazes me that you continue to argue against the writers as if they are wrong. The whole bases of your argument is The writers may have said one thing , but you see something else. Has it dawned on you that you might be seeing it wrong. Has it dawned on you that the writer might have considered viewers might see it a way not intended so the writers added narrative to illuminate ambiguity.
Embrace your inner Biest..... We all have one