(04-10-2018, 08:28 AM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:How is this for "writers intent"? The moderator of this forum has put aside a category called "Fan Creations" This is where we all can divulge all our expectations and fantasies on how we could have changed or added to the narrative of the show.
Fan Fiction is changing the perspective. Writers intent is understanding the current perspective. What I see as you missing the point. You argue based on what you see. You argue from the perspective of an explicit understanding. What I was pointing out based on the writers prior work. There is an implicate perspective. I was opening the discussion to see if we could find that perspective.
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.
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.
(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.
I don't understand the debate on "writer's intent" beyond what actually happened on screen. What they wrote was their intention or else we would have seen something different. We can't twist what actually happened on the show if it actually contradicts what we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears in order to fit a narrative that's sympathetic to our own views of these characters and not as they were written, directed and acted. Our interpretation will never trump what amounts to "facts" presented in filmed footage.
Ironically enough, the writers' intent has often been questioned or disregarded entirely on this forum particularly when these writers have gone out of their way to expound on their own work in various interviews, deleted scenes included in DVD packages. So why even bother harping on their so called "intent" that's not even supported either by writers' interviews and additional material often found in official packaging for the show? What we perceive and what was intended will often than not be two very different things due to being fed incomplete/contradictory information. For example, my perception of N/J was that J didn't love N as much as he loved her or she didn't love the person before her only what she wanted him to be but the reality is that she has shown/done something that proves she did in fact love him such as curing him of the muse's influence on him, helping him with the zombie infection, re-grimming him. Unfortunately this was undone with her hexenbiest rage trip to destroy Nick no matter what so this may have inadvertently reinforced my perception as factual. My perception of J's culpability implicit in her role in the events at the end of S4 vs her saying she didn't know. The only thing settles this issue at the end of the day, is what I see on screen and my version of how/why things play out the way the did will become secondary.
We all see things differently but that will never change what actually happened on the show no matter how passionately we feel about certain elements that are perhaps not to our tastes. For me, the only "writers' intent" that matters, is the show as it's screened, what's in the DVD packages which includes deleted scenes, episode commentary etc and writers' interviews given throughout the duration of the show. I may not like every pertaining to the aforementioned but at least it's something concrete from the writers themselves and not my own views spun to substitute opinion as fact.
Quote:person walking in the room was wearing 30 different colors of their pants, or were they male or female, that was their perception.
This is not a case of perception. Perception has to do with understanding not observation. Perception would be you understanding the experiment as an exercise in observation. When actual it is an exercise in human behavior. It is human behavior because what is going on is, most people do not notice details. But the mind has a habit of filling in what we do not know. It is what makes an optical illusion work.
Because the teacher was framing the exercise with a certain explanation you assume that was the purpose. Except the exercise requires a misdirecting explanation to prevent the participant from focusing on the true intent. The true intent being able to see what students think for them selves and which students follow the norm. It is the same with rabbit / duck optical illusions. If you are told it is a duck you see a duck. If you are told it is a rabbit you see the rabbit.
Quote: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.
depending on what the person looked like, outward appearance would surface in determining gender. But considering the person could be transgender. Outward appearance is not always an accurate determination. But that was not part of the exercise. Unless the person was in fact a male that they had wearing a dress. Which further enforces the true nature of the experiment. To see which people think for them selves.
It is like the surgeon joke that most don't get, because the punch line is that the surgeon is female which is not the first thing that comes to most peoples minds.
Quote: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
this is a good example of what the experiment you mention was trying to show. In the subject about the house you fill in the blanks to make the solution fit your rational understanding. The Nick and Juliette relationship is shown to be traditional and modern at the same time. That is why the conflict in discussions. It is also why defining ownership would sway the position.
Quote: you have wacka-doos questioning what we saw in the closing scene of S6, E13 on whom was the father Kelly was living with.
Here again you are filling in the blanks to make the solution fit what you want. Where in fact there is no definitive answer to who was Diana referring to. Ambiguity exist all through the show. It is the best way to satisfy the wishes and beliefs of many people.
If you watch the show objectively you will see some things are made ambiguous with no clues as to intent. Others are ambiguous with clues add later. This method still allows viewers to see the show the way they want, keeping more people happy. What I have been commenting on is the intent, pointing out clues provided to resolve some of the ambiguity. That does not change how viewers are meant to see the show.
just like a magic trick, knowing the secret does not change how it was meant to be seen.
Another thing, what is intended (planned/aimed) doesn't always come through in the final product. hence the show tending to change direction mid season when the writers realised it didn't work. They intended for N/A and E to go a certain way in S5 but they ended up doing something completely different. We know this because the writers themselves said so. So we can't really argue the importance of "intention" if it's not supported by actual script filmed and screened because it come across more as opinion than anything substantial or even objective.
(04-11-2018, 05:09 AM)rpmaluki Wrote: [ -> ]I don't understand the debate on "writer's intent" beyond what actually happened on screen. What they wrote was their intention or else we would have seen something different. We can't twist what actually happened on the show if it actually contradicts what we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears in order to fit a narrative that's sympathetic to our own views of these characters and not as they were written, directed and acted. Our interpretation will never trump what amounts to "facts" presented in filmed footage.
Ironically enough, the writers' intent has often been questioned or disregarded entirely on this forum particularly when these writers have gone out of their way to expound on their own work in various interviews, deleted scenes included in DVD packages. So why even bother harping on their so called "intent" that's not even supported either by writers' interviews and additional material often found in official packaging for the show? What we perceive and what was intended will often than not be two very different things due to being fed incomplete/contradictory information. For example, my perception of N/J was that J didn't love N as much as he loved her or she didn't love the person before her only what she wanted him to be but the reality is that she has shown/done something that proves she did in fact love him such as curing him of the muse's influence on him, helping him with the zombie infection, re-grimming him. Unfortunately this was undone with her hexenbiest rage trip to destroy Nick no matter what so this may have inadvertently reinforced my perception as factual. My perception of J's culpability implicit in her role in the events at the end of S4 vs her saying she didn't know. The only thing settles this issue at the end of the day, is what I see on screen and my version of how/why things play out the way the did will become secondary.
We all see things differently but that will never change what actually happened on the show no matter how passionately we feel about certain elements that are perhaps not to our tastes. For me, the only "writers' intent" that matters, is the show as it's screened, what's in the DVD packages which includes deleted scenes, episode commentary etc and writers' interviews given throughout the duration of the show. I may not like every pertaining to the aforementioned but at least it's something concrete from the writers themselves and not my own views spun to substitute opinion as fact.
rp, i have no clue either where this is going. The only thing I can think of is for some to, somehow, continue the show in it's absence by looking at situations from various angles to expand and continue the show on these threads. I, myself miss the show, with all its holes left unanswered and sometimes I wish I had the patience and the ability to rewrite some of the episodes or at least condense some of the main characters arcs as its been done under the "Fan Creations".
But my kid pushed me to get involved into watching "Game of Thrones" and it's taking up any free time I have. She bought me the 1st two seasons to get me started and I have to admit, I find it a bit intriguing with less nudity that I had expected, as seen so far. I already have a favorite character and it is Arya Stark. The second I saw her shoot that arrow, in Episode 1, she caught my eye. The ones I hate, lets just say it is a long list.
(04-11-2018, 05:54 AM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]Quote: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.
depending on what the person looked like, outward appearance would surface in determining gender. But considering the person could be transgender. Outward appearance is not always an accurate determination. But that was not part of the exercise. Unless the person was in fact a male that they had wearing a dress. Which further enforces the true nature of the experiment. To see which people think for them selves.
It is like the surgeon joke that most don't get, because the punch line is that the surgeon is female which is not the first thing that comes to most peoples minds.
OK, here you go again and inserting more complications that did not exist on what took place. This occurred in the early 70's. Almost 50 years past, that is a half century ago. Back then we still had boys and girls bathrooms, period. They were still teaching script writing and people weren't as confused. Given, from what you have divulged about your age, I guess you were ahead of your time, even back then.
FYI, just in case it went over your head. That last sentence should be considered "sarcasm".