Q: We've all read the numerous interviews with you and others on the subtext in the series. The common response always seemed to be "Whatever the characters do on their own time is their own business - we'll leave it up to the imagination of the audience." i.e. everyone could interpret it as they saw fit, because you guys were writing about warlords and ancient gods.
But there's been this lingering rumor (in some internet fan circles, anyway) that what was said in interviews may not have been true - that on set, and in story conferences, it was a foregone conclusion that the characters were being written, acted, and directed as lovers, even if specific love scenes or references to them were never filmed. So was that the case? In story conferences, was it ever discussed that X and G specifically were lovers in a literal 20th/21st century way (i.e. not "they love each other" or other ambiguous lines?)
To your knowledge, did the directors ever specifically direct the actresses to portray the characters that way, or did you or any of the writers specifically write that into any treatment or script, or did the actresses ever say "I'm playing the role specifically this way, regardless of the dialogue? Or was it intentionally left as an unanswered question?
Sears, on 05/12/05 at 8:04 PM:
First, the answer no, not the answer to were they/werent they, but the answer to your question: It was left as an unanswered question. Always.
Now, the details. First, I wasnt on the set, so I cant vouch for that on a word for word basis. But when the subtext started to take on a life of its own, we were aware of it and we certainly enabled it. But we thought more along the lines of what can we give that will be subjectively interpretational without stating anything as fact to violate interpretations? As you can see from that convoluted statement, it wasnt something that was easily done. But no matter how each individual writer wrote the characters (and we were all pretty distinct in that) we all had to write in a way so as to not violate the interpretational rules.
There were many times when things were written into the scripts that were subtle, but we knew Okay, theyll get that. Then there were other times when someone on the set, or Lucy or Renee, would give a reading or take on a line that would do the same thing. But it was never overt and never intended to be overt. And, by the way, that goes for the shippers side. We never wanted to violate their interpretations any more than the subbers. Now, to certain extents, you can argue back and forth about whether we were consistent about that, but I think we put enough out there that worked for people. The amazing thing is that we were able to do it at all. That it is still being debated to this day means that we walked that line pretty well. Not perfectly, but better than most.
I think the thing that I liked about it is that there were many times that we were able to put things in that were totally missed by one segment (because in their world, it had no context) but completely embraced by the other segment (because it was extremely relevant to theirs). DAY IN THE LIFE is a great example. But there are many others.
......................
My Questions to Rob Tapert:
Q: There have been a thousand rumors over the years which you can put to rest right now if you choose. Writers, directors and actors come and go on episodic tv, and it seems like you had very good fortune to keep many of the same ones for a fairly long time. Were there ever any staffers (or cast members) that left because of any conflict or difference of opinion on thematic content of the show, and/or because of audience perceptions of their work?
A: Nope
Lucy didn't get along with one director but he didn't come back because he went on to other things.
What were the rumors?
Q: You and others have said that the "Are they or aren't they?" question was not what the show was about, and that you wanted to keep it ambiguous and open to anyone's imagination. Yet there remain lingering rumors that behind closed doors, it was decided at some point that yes X and G were lovers, but that this should not be openly portrayed because of issues with the studio execs, advertisers, segments of the audience, etc. Was it a "don't ask, don't tell" decision, or do you still feel that the question was never answered, and still open to individual interpretation?
A: For the writers and for Lucy and Renee, it was not important to us to sexually define the characters. I understand for fans why this is important. Thus we tried to give everyone enough of what they wanted or needed to help the characters bring empowerment into their own life.