04-11-2018, 04:23 AM
(04-10-2018, 10:45 AM)syscrash Wrote:Quote:The point you are missing is, your writers perspective, in my world, does not give you or others the license to change or make up facts. As much as you have the right to express your perspective, I have the right to point out what I consider false or question your claims to prove what we saw backed up with references to the actual show, instead of your reliability to prove it with touchy-feelings goblly-gook.Again you are arguing that the only valid perspective is what is explicitly shown. Understanding the implicit is not making up things or changing the facts. It is about comprehension. It does require being objective, and noticing the clues. You also have to be able to accept that the writers view may be in contradiction of what you think. It is like being able to understand poetry. Taken literally, you see it one way. Understanding the meaning you see the point the writer is making.
WTF are you talking about, clues? What clues, the ones on the screen or the ones you make up in the world of your "writers intent". Going back to the classroom discussion on how we interpreted what occurred when a person walked in and did what they did. if 30 different students wrote that the person walking in the room was wearing 30 different colors of their pants, or were they male or female, that was their perception. If 5 million viewers saw this show, most likely we would have 5 million interpretations of how things happened or how they could have or what was the writers intent.
But once that teacher brought that person back in the class and we all saw and focused and had time to think that he was wearing blue "Blue Jeans" better yet, indigo colored pants. The only dispute, if we wished to have one, would on what shades of the color and no longer if he was female and wore gray, green or red pants! But I guess, if you were in that classroom, you would expect for that guy to pull down his pants down to prove to you he was male.
Once the show ended, as much as the many holes left unfinished many more were closed. As an example, who owned the house. This was a valid dispute until we get to the end of season 4. Once Nick was able to sell the house without Juliette's death certificate, he would be unable to prove if it was left to him or if she was a co-owner. If she did own it and was falsely sold, even as Eve, she could have reclaimed it, especially when she was homeless. That is an example of plugging up a hole. Now I am sure some wackos would still like to dispute this, but they would be in the fringe, not main stream. How is that for "writers intent"
I mean, give me a flocking break. If you read some of these threads you have wacka-doos questioning what we saw in the closing scene of S6, E13 on whom was the father Kelly was living with. And other convoluted far out assumptions. Hey, you have the right to dwell, like a pig in shitz, with your opinions, which is great. I have the right to remind you, the stuff you are dwelling in is still, shitz.
You know you are OLD, when you see the Slide Ruler you used in college selling in an ANTIQUE SHOP!!