(01-10-2019, 07:10 AM)syscrash Wrote: you do understand when doing interviews the actors are responding from their characters point of view. They never comment on the story. Only the writers comment on the story.

(01-10-2019, 08:53 PM)syscrash Wrote: the actors never talk about the story. They are bound to not release anything about what is going to happen. They can not even give away anything about their character that could indicate what is going to happen.
When talking about previous episodes. They only talk about what and why they or some other character did something. What they never talk about is why something was written the why it was. They never talk about what something meant. The absolutely never try and clarify or interpret the writers message or reasoning.
There is an exception, and that is when an actor is an executive director, or director. Take the episode that David directed. In interviews we got a lot of information dealing with his creative thoughts that went into that episode. But even then it was from what he was directing and not the overall view of the show. Though he talked about the message of the episode. He refrained from talking about the message of the show.

WE will get a lot of insight about what a lot of these things we debate where meant to show, later when a reunion is done. We saw this in the shows Buffy, Angel, charmed and so on. The writers dumped a lot of information about what they where think. Why they did something. Why characters where changed. But this kind of information is never released while a show is active.

(01-10-2019, 08:53 PM)syscrash Wrote: the actors never talk about the story. They are bound to not release anything about what is going to happen. They can not even give away anything about their character that could indicate what is going to happen.
When talking about previous episodes. They only talk about what and why they or some other character did something. What they never talk about is why something was written the why it was. They never talk about what something meant. The absolutely never try and clarify or interpret the writers message or reasoning.
There is an exception, and that is when an actor is an executive director, or director. Take the episode that David directed. In interviews we got a lot of information dealing with his creative thoughts that went into that episode. But even then it was from what he was directing and not the overall view of the show. Though he talked about the message of the episode. He refrained from talking about the message of the show.

WE will get a lot of insight about what a lot of these things we debate where meant to show, later when a reunion is done. We saw this in the shows Buffy, Angel, charmed and so on. The writers dumped a lot of information about what they where think. Why they did something. Why characters where changed. But this kind of information is never released while a show is active.

(01-11-2019, 02:17 AM)syscrash Wrote: This is what is said
"you do understand when doing interviews the actors are responding from their characters point of view. " So yes when actors talk they talk about their characters. They talk about how they got into a frame of mind to play a part. Yes they talk about what in the show provided them the reasoning and motivation to take the character in a new direction. But that still does not change that they do not talk about or comment on the story. You never heard any of them take a position, if BC was good or bad. They may talk about a character being afraid of BC. You never heard Clair say if Adalind was good or bad. You never heard any of them say is Juliette or Eve good or bad. They do not past Judgment. They may say they do bad things. There is a difference.

As in the post above a comparison was made between my post and a book report. "analyze what was the message the author was trying to convey to its readers. ". In my post there is no interpretation of the writers message. There is a difference in the message being projected and the intent for a given scene. In other post I have done analyses on things like the plight of BC as compared to that of minorities. That is speculation. Pointing out when something is shown and when it is not, is not speculation. You do not see me creating conclusion as to why something is written a certain way, unless there is some technically reason like a certain actor leaving the show. Then i may speculate that is why a scene was writing a certain way.

There is a reason why actors a limited to what they can talk about. How they portray a character is theirs. The actor develops it with the writer and directors consent. The story itself is covered under intellectual property making it off limits to distribute. And actor talking about the story would be distributing the story. There are certain character that also fall under intellectual property. Take Gal Gadot she has done many interview about wonder women. She talks about what is was like playing the character. She has repeated the marketing definition of the character. What you will never hear is opinion about the character, or what she thinks the character would do. The developers want to maintain complete control how the character is perceived so in those cases the actor does not have the luxury to define the character like Bitsie did when describing Eve.

It is these limitations that exist is why I say. Drawing an inference from what actors say in interviews may or may not be what the writers are going for. The only thing you can be sure, it is what they say is writer approved. That being said writers and director are known to mislead. Season 6 of Grimm is a good example. How many of the ideas that came from the pre season interviews actually happened. Take Clair statement about how Eve was going to throw a wrench into Nick and Adalinds relationship. (It's in the video in the first post). In the show Adalind thought Eve was going to be a problem.But we know Eve was not even interested in being with Nick. We know that from the story point of view there was never even the slightest chance of their being a love triangle.