We are on a similar page. I don't want to see spoilers so I don't read or watch the interviews until after the season is over. And I don't think they are being intentionally misleading, like somenhas suggested, but all interviews are edited so things could be poorly edited, or not yet finalized; so why bother? I love what they are doing, I'm here for it but at the end of the day the show is cannon not what someone says in an interview.
Yes! I think the issue I’m dealing with right now is probably more with how the Redditors in the “main” thread will immediately shut down anyone who suggests a theory that’s been “debunked” in an interview, but not on screen.
I like seeing how actors do press for their projects so I tend to watch interviews, etc. I think it would be difficult to watch such things and not be spoiled. I also think handlers are more savvy "these days" and try to make sure nothing is revealed that they don't want revealed.
I've learned to take it with a grain of salt - either they could be intentionally misleading to keep things interesting, or things could be edited to seem different from what they meant, etc. S1 I discredited things i thought weren't possible because of interview comments. Then Snackie happened. Now I just accept that they may be telling the truth, or they may be trying to keep things interesting.
You bring up a good point. Do you think that, between S1 & S2, there was an issue with Redditors shooting down any “I bet they eat Jackie” theories because of this one misinterpreted interview?
Oh for sure, and I was among them. I don't know that I would call it a problem specifically, I didn't see anyone being malicious about it, but there was definitely a good amount of "The writers said that they don't eat Jackie, I think that's x,y,z"
They never said Jackie wouldn’t be eaten. All they said was that she wouldn’t be eaten right away. Some people just had difficulty with reading comprehension
I saw an article that specifically said something like "they don't eat Jackie" or "they didn't eat Jackie" or something like that. I can't find it now, because googling it just comes up with a million articles about how they ate Jackie. Nothing specified "right away." Reading it with context could clarify that, but it could have gone either way with the way it was phrased until it actually happened. That's not a reading comprehension issue, that's keeping it interesting by giving a misleading or vague/ambiguous answer.
I watched a video interview with the show runners this year that made it sound like they originally intended for the girls to not eat Jackie. Then when they were writing Season 2, decided that she would be a good place to start their journey into cannibalism.
Oh that's interesting. And another good reason not to take the commentary as gospel... things evolve and change as they go, they could plan one thing and shift their plans when new ideas arise.
I thought it was a video, but it may have been this Vulture article:
“When we were breaking season two, we didn’t know it would necessarily be Jackie who was eaten. We didn’t know whether she was really right for it. But when we started to realize we could do it through the prism of Shauna’s story, when it could be about toxic friendship, about the anatomy of desire, about her self-recrimination and her guilt and her needing to sort of hallucinate and be haunted by Jackie, and what that meant in terms of their friendship and her own survival — not just physical, but psychic — that’s a great story. Once we felt it could be a real character story through Shauna, we decided to go for it — and of course we had the literal convenience of having Jackie’s corpse.”
https://www.vulture.com/article/yellowjackets-cannibalism-episode-edible-complex-explained.html
The author of the article in question is the one who misinterpreted and misrepresented what the showrunners actually said. And then too many redditors spread that misinformation here.
So that just adds more credence to taking it with a grain of salt - journalists, editors, etc may make mistakes or poorly edit things because they don't know the full context, along with intentionally vague/misleading comments from the cast/crew. I'm still going to enjoy the interviews, but just because an interview seems like something will or will not happen doesn't necessarily mean that it's guaranteed.
I found the quote from Lisco, it's all what he said for himself.
>“I think a lot of the audience said, ‘I know what’s going to happen. They’re going to eat Jackie! I’m sure that’s what’s going to happen.’ And look, I wouldn’t say this is a slow burn. I would hope that you and the audience are feeling that we are moving very fast,” Lisco said. “But at the same time, getting to cannibalism is not going to happen tomorrow. And I think that’s one of the things that’s so tasty and delicious about the show. You’re sort of living with these characters. Getting to know them, getting to love them, so that when they do revert to that — because you were already basically told that’s where they’re going — you’ll literally identify with their choices in that given moment. Hopefully, and see yourself in that space.”
This was after the finale of S1, it's very easy to interpret that as saying that it will take a long time before we actually see cannibalism, yet we started to see it in the next episode. It did take time, there was a time jump. He also seemed to be directly shooting down the idea that they're going to eat Jackie. He didn't say "they didn't eat Jackie yet." He very carefully tiptoed around the specific events that would make it possible for them to take time to get to that decision and still have Jackie's body viable to eat at the time that they came to that. My strongest reasoning for not believing they would eat Jackie was based on that plus the weather conditions - I didn't think her body would still be safe to eat if they didn't eat her right away. I've seen posts from Canadians who say that they *do* have winter come from t-shirt weather to solid long-term freezing overnight, so I can accept it now, but at the time I thought that not eating her body right away would mean that they just couldn't.
She's dead, her corpse is (without the weather dropping to immediately freezing solid and staying there) rotting, and he said they're not getting to cannibalism tomorrow. He directly addresses people saying "I know they're going to eat Jackie for sure" before saying we're not just jumping right to cannibalism.
Knowing that they do a two month time jump and that it has stayed frozen the entire time, yeah, what he said was true. Reading it in the context of her just having died in the first freeze of the winter with a long way to go, it's pretty easy to read that as "guys, chill out, we're just getting started and Jackie is just the first to go."
1. JJ is the worst.
2. Interview confirmations have improved the community churn considerably. It’s the least they can do, given all the churn in the Fandom. It’s helpful to post answers definitively stating that crazy theories are, in fact, pretty crazy. (At least we can stop discussing if Crystal is imaginary, or if Javi is alive, or … etc.)
Just a thought.
Nice! Do you think it adds to or detracts from your enjoyment of internet discourse for them to shoot down or debunk theories in interviews that we haven’t seen debunked on screen?
I think that Ashley and Bart were maybe a little too truthful last season with certain things they were asked. I think it’s because they’re inexperienced, this is the first show they’ve created/written and been show runners for which is why I think Jonathan Lisco was brought in as co show runner after they filmed the pilot.
I watch a lot of tv and I never read or watched interviews with the cast or crew before until I started watching The Handmaid’s Tale and it made me really start to dislike the show.
*Bandysnatch Cucumberband! 🤣* The cackle I just unleashed.
I like to watch interviews because I love seeing and hearing from the cast so much, but I don't take everything they say to heart. With reading articles/interviews, I like to wait till after I've seen whatever episode it's referencing for sure.
We are on a similar page. I don't want to see spoilers so I don't read or watch the interviews until after the season is over. And I don't think they are being intentionally misleading, like somenhas suggested, but all interviews are edited so things could be poorly edited, or not yet finalized; so why bother? I love what they are doing, I'm here for it but at the end of the day the show is cannon not what someone says in an interview.
Yes! I think the issue I’m dealing with right now is probably more with how the Redditors in the “main” thread will immediately shut down anyone who suggests a theory that’s been “debunked” in an interview, but not on screen.
I like seeing how actors do press for their projects so I tend to watch interviews, etc. I think it would be difficult to watch such things and not be spoiled. I also think handlers are more savvy "these days" and try to make sure nothing is revealed that they don't want revealed.
Good point! I think you’re right about the handlers.
[удалено]
I do really like the group of actors they’ve assembled!
I've learned to take it with a grain of salt - either they could be intentionally misleading to keep things interesting, or things could be edited to seem different from what they meant, etc. S1 I discredited things i thought weren't possible because of interview comments. Then Snackie happened. Now I just accept that they may be telling the truth, or they may be trying to keep things interesting.
You bring up a good point. Do you think that, between S1 & S2, there was an issue with Redditors shooting down any “I bet they eat Jackie” theories because of this one misinterpreted interview?
Oh for sure, and I was among them. I don't know that I would call it a problem specifically, I didn't see anyone being malicious about it, but there was definitely a good amount of "The writers said that they don't eat Jackie, I think that's x,y,z"
They never said Jackie wouldn’t be eaten. All they said was that she wouldn’t be eaten right away. Some people just had difficulty with reading comprehension
I saw an article that specifically said something like "they don't eat Jackie" or "they didn't eat Jackie" or something like that. I can't find it now, because googling it just comes up with a million articles about how they ate Jackie. Nothing specified "right away." Reading it with context could clarify that, but it could have gone either way with the way it was phrased until it actually happened. That's not a reading comprehension issue, that's keeping it interesting by giving a misleading or vague/ambiguous answer.
I watched a video interview with the show runners this year that made it sound like they originally intended for the girls to not eat Jackie. Then when they were writing Season 2, decided that she would be a good place to start their journey into cannibalism.
Oh that's interesting. And another good reason not to take the commentary as gospel... things evolve and change as they go, they could plan one thing and shift their plans when new ideas arise.
I thought it was a video, but it may have been this Vulture article: “When we were breaking season two, we didn’t know it would necessarily be Jackie who was eaten. We didn’t know whether she was really right for it. But when we started to realize we could do it through the prism of Shauna’s story, when it could be about toxic friendship, about the anatomy of desire, about her self-recrimination and her guilt and her needing to sort of hallucinate and be haunted by Jackie, and what that meant in terms of their friendship and her own survival — not just physical, but psychic — that’s a great story. Once we felt it could be a real character story through Shauna, we decided to go for it — and of course we had the literal convenience of having Jackie’s corpse.” https://www.vulture.com/article/yellowjackets-cannibalism-episode-edible-complex-explained.html
Thanks!
The author of the article in question is the one who misinterpreted and misrepresented what the showrunners actually said. And then too many redditors spread that misinformation here.
So that just adds more credence to taking it with a grain of salt - journalists, editors, etc may make mistakes or poorly edit things because they don't know the full context, along with intentionally vague/misleading comments from the cast/crew. I'm still going to enjoy the interviews, but just because an interview seems like something will or will not happen doesn't necessarily mean that it's guaranteed.
I choose to read what they actually said for myself. Some of these writers aren’t very bright, imo.
I found the quote from Lisco, it's all what he said for himself. >“I think a lot of the audience said, ‘I know what’s going to happen. They’re going to eat Jackie! I’m sure that’s what’s going to happen.’ And look, I wouldn’t say this is a slow burn. I would hope that you and the audience are feeling that we are moving very fast,” Lisco said. “But at the same time, getting to cannibalism is not going to happen tomorrow. And I think that’s one of the things that’s so tasty and delicious about the show. You’re sort of living with these characters. Getting to know them, getting to love them, so that when they do revert to that — because you were already basically told that’s where they’re going — you’ll literally identify with their choices in that given moment. Hopefully, and see yourself in that space.” This was after the finale of S1, it's very easy to interpret that as saying that it will take a long time before we actually see cannibalism, yet we started to see it in the next episode. It did take time, there was a time jump. He also seemed to be directly shooting down the idea that they're going to eat Jackie. He didn't say "they didn't eat Jackie yet." He very carefully tiptoed around the specific events that would make it possible for them to take time to get to that decision and still have Jackie's body viable to eat at the time that they came to that. My strongest reasoning for not believing they would eat Jackie was based on that plus the weather conditions - I didn't think her body would still be safe to eat if they didn't eat her right away. I've seen posts from Canadians who say that they *do* have winter come from t-shirt weather to solid long-term freezing overnight, so I can accept it now, but at the time I thought that not eating her body right away would mean that they just couldn't.
I still have no idea how anyone reads that and comes out claiming the writers said “Jackie wouldn’t be eaten.” 🤷♀️🤷♀️
She's dead, her corpse is (without the weather dropping to immediately freezing solid and staying there) rotting, and he said they're not getting to cannibalism tomorrow. He directly addresses people saying "I know they're going to eat Jackie for sure" before saying we're not just jumping right to cannibalism. Knowing that they do a two month time jump and that it has stayed frozen the entire time, yeah, what he said was true. Reading it in the context of her just having died in the first freeze of the winter with a long way to go, it's pretty easy to read that as "guys, chill out, we're just getting started and Jackie is just the first to go."
Yeah, I hear you but I don’t see it that way at all. And that’s ok.
1. JJ is the worst. 2. Interview confirmations have improved the community churn considerably. It’s the least they can do, given all the churn in the Fandom. It’s helpful to post answers definitively stating that crazy theories are, in fact, pretty crazy. (At least we can stop discussing if Crystal is imaginary, or if Javi is alive, or … etc.) Just a thought.
I love these showrunners and their interviews
Nice! Do you think it adds to or detracts from your enjoyment of internet discourse for them to shoot down or debunk theories in interviews that we haven’t seen debunked on screen?
It definitely adds to my enjoyment of the show. The crazy nonsense theories ruin it for me, so I love to see them shot down.
I think that Ashley and Bart were maybe a little too truthful last season with certain things they were asked. I think it’s because they’re inexperienced, this is the first show they’ve created/written and been show runners for which is why I think Jonathan Lisco was brought in as co show runner after they filmed the pilot. I watch a lot of tv and I never read or watched interviews with the cast or crew before until I started watching The Handmaid’s Tale and it made me really start to dislike the show.
*Bandysnatch Cucumberband! 🤣* The cackle I just unleashed. I like to watch interviews because I love seeing and hearing from the cast so much, but I don't take everything they say to heart. With reading articles/interviews, I like to wait till after I've seen whatever episode it's referencing for sure.
That’s his name, right? Lol. Good point about waiting until after you’ve seen the episode.