01-22-2018, 01:14 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-22-2018, 01:21 AM by dicappatore.)
(01-21-2018, 10:10 PM)syscrash Wrote: 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.
Ok I get it. According to your perspective, since the character, Juliette, said she did not know, she did not know. Because, according to you. You are able to read into the mind of a writer through a fictional character on what they were thinking? In addition, a fictional character on a fictional show can not tell a lie due to a narrative.
She did not know, which? Kelly would not show up? Kelly would not enter the house? Kelly would not be killed or Kelly would not be decapitated? To which does the term "I did not know" applies to? Then you also overlook her admission to her bad behavior she admits to as being a culprit later on the episodes.
Next time I get pulled over for doing 80 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone, when he asks me did I know how fast I was going, i will reply with "I don't know", I can't wait to see how far I will get with not getting a ticket.
Look, OK I get it. We all have opinions. Opinions are like a-holes, we all have one, and they all stink, but some stink more!
You know you are OLD, when you see the Slide Ruler you used in college selling in an ANTIQUE SHOP!!