if he wants to turn his project into a joke, that's his call. Or maybe he could just deal with it, and tell his story the way he wants it to be told, and let his audience do what they will with the result.
Roadhouse stuff aside, I think Kripke seems to be leaning more towards this side of things - or at least production team folks like Kim Manners seem to be.
I was thinking about the gay subtext question, and JA's response to it, in relation to another question that was asked at the panel - someone asked whether Dean took more after John or Mary. JA's response to that was that Mary didn't really have any characterisation - She appeared very briefly, twice, and all she did was give "motherly looks" (that's pretty much his exact response, there).
That makes me think that folks on the production side of texts have a completely different concept of the text itself than the fans do, and a completely different relationship with it.
A couple of years ago I was friends with a girl who acted in Australian TV, and it was around the same time monkeycrackmary and I were hardcore into fandom and media academia. We used to argue with this actor about analysis and interpretation of texts; with her perspective she had a completely different concept of what the text did, should and could mean.
JA's answer that Mary wasn't given a character kind of infers to me that his concept of the text doesn't extend out beyond exactly what's printed onto film. Similar with his "they're BROTHERS!" response to the gay subtext question - and his description of EK's response.
But it's almost like we're speaking a completely different language. The questioner wasn't asking JA, as an expert on Dean's character, whether Dean and Sam were fucking. She was asking about subtext and interpretation, which doesn't seem to be taken a lot into account by production!
no subject
if he wants to turn his project into a joke, that's his call. Or maybe he could just deal with it, and tell his story the way he wants it to be told, and let his audience do what they will with the result.
Roadhouse stuff aside, I think Kripke seems to be leaning more towards this side of things - or at least production team folks like Kim Manners seem to be.
I was thinking about the gay subtext question, and JA's response to it, in relation to another question that was asked at the panel - someone asked whether Dean took more after John or Mary. JA's response to that was that Mary didn't really have any characterisation - She appeared very briefly, twice, and all she did was give "motherly looks" (that's pretty much his exact response, there).
That makes me think that folks on the production side of texts have a completely different concept of the text itself than the fans do, and a completely different relationship with it.
A couple of years ago I was friends with a girl who acted in Australian TV, and it was around the same time
JA's answer that Mary wasn't given a character kind of infers to me that his concept of the text doesn't extend out beyond exactly what's printed onto film. Similar with his "they're BROTHERS!" response to the gay subtext question - and his description of EK's response.
But it's almost like we're speaking a completely different language. The questioner wasn't asking JA, as an expert on Dean's character, whether Dean and Sam were fucking. She was asking about subtext and interpretation, which doesn't seem to be taken a lot into account by production!
Anyway, I hope THAT makes sense, hee.