|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Jun 13, 2008 18:22:29 GMT -5
You know, ShantaD, you can try to wrap yourself in professorial claptrap all you wish. However, I dare you to present your thesis to a professor and explain that the person you wish to ID was never identified in the episode, show the back and forth dialogue about possible explanations that we've conducted in the Charmed Cafe, and then casually drop in the commentary from the Official Guide. As your professor will surely agree, supplementary sources can be used to resolve conundra, especially when these sources are recognized by those responsible for the show itself as "official". To hide behind the claptrap of canon, as you are defining it, does little justice to what literary analysis actually is and shows absolutely no understanding of literary analysis as it was advanced in France during the 1960s. (By the way, that analysis has more or less been incorporated across the board in literary departments everywhere.) Let's see: there's Roland Barthes, Simone de Beauvoir, Jacques Derrida, .... Are you familiar with any of these? Mind you: I'm not advocating a structuralist or even a post-structuralist analysis of Charmed or other media. I do think that Michel Foucault can be of use, however..... But, seriously, the realm of literary criticism was mightily expanded in the 1960s; and, even if you are not a rigid adherent to the tenets of structuralism, you can gain some insights. My point is: nothing is always as it seems!
By the way, despite some very good essays in Investigating Charmed: The Power of Magic on TV, a new collection of semi-academic essays on Charmed edited by the Beelers, I'm still not one hundred percent convinced that film school departments are as qualified as English departments to engage in literary criticism, be it a book or a TV serial.
And, don't even get me started on film critics. The good ones are few and far between. Just look at all the hype penned by some of these film critics that accompanies new movies. Yech. Now, on the other hand, Roger Ebert knows what he speaks of. And, if I had the opportunity to watch TCM, I'd like to watch the show that Rose McGowan cohosts with Robert ... Oh, what's his name. He's good, too!
|
|
Holly Combs
Familiar
Michael Jackson a legend that will live forever! I love you Michael
Posts: 428
|
Post by Holly Combs on Jun 13, 2008 19:09:15 GMT -5
but they just cant do that and they soulda let charmed go one but whith there kids
|
|
|
|
Post by K. Aabye on Jun 17, 2008 11:12:15 GMT -5
And the debate continues? It has been proven that she is Piper and Leo's third child. The ones not believing it just don't want to believe it.
There has been a lot of discussions on the wall - Piper's daughter wasn't on the wall so Piper didn't have a daughter. Melinda was on the wall. In the episode, Piper did not say it was her daughter but why would the actress portraying Melinda put it in her resume if she did not play Piper and Leo's daughter?
"Forever Charmed" was taped in early April 2006. Kathleen was just 5 years old at the time. She got the role of Melinda because she has looks comparable to actress Holly Marie Combs (Piper).
|
|
Esmeralda
Charmed
S2 "What If...?"
Fan Fic Winner
Twenty Years Gone....But Never Forgotten.
Posts: 21,920 
|
Post by Esmeralda on Jun 17, 2008 12:45:58 GMT -5
How can you say it's been proven? It never has been and never will be because Kern didn't allow Piper to say that it was. All you can do is ASSUME and when you do that you make an ASS out of U and ME, which you do each time you assume that she is Piper's daughter Melinda. What happens before it's put on the air does NOT matter...what is shown does. Period. Exclamation Point. End of Paragraph. End of discussion.
I keep saying that I *do* think she's Piper's daughter Prudence Melinda, but is someone wants to think she's Melinda or Patty or Penny or whatever and that she's either Piper's daughter or Phoebe's or even one of Paige's twins, they're just as correct as you are.
We very simply don't know and we very simply will *never* know no matter what any actor or writer or producer say. If it didn't make the air, it's not canon and anyone can believe whatever they want.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitelightertony on Jun 17, 2008 17:05:56 GMT -5
What if Spelling Entertainment produced a follow-up movie someday, in which Piper and Leo explicitly address three children -- Wyatt, Chris, and Melinda -- by name, onscreen?
Is that what it would take to convince you that Piper and Leo had a third (female) child?
|
|
|
|
Post by Assassin Witch on Jun 17, 2008 17:51:17 GMT -5
What if Spelling Entertainment produced a follow-up movie someday, in which Piper and Leo explicitly address three children -- Wyatt, Chris, and Melinda -- by name, onscreen? Is that what it would take to convince you that Piper and Leo had a third (female) child? Ew. But, if so, then yes. I do think this debate is over, but that doesn't mean we have to come to an agreement. |
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Jun 17, 2008 19:03:43 GMT -5
That's a curious statement! The debate is over - or seems to be, at least - but everyone is free to believe whatever he or she wishes to. Long live the flat earth society!
|
|
Esmeralda
Charmed
S2 "What If...?"
Fan Fic Winner
Twenty Years Gone....But Never Forgotten.
Posts: 21,920
|
Post by Esmeralda on Jun 17, 2008 19:12:19 GMT -5
What if Spelling Entertainment produced a follow-up movie someday, in which Piper and Leo explicitly address three children -- Wyatt, Chris, and Melinda -- by name, onscreen? Is that what it would take to convince you that Piper and Leo had a third (female) child? Ew. But, if so, then yes. I agree. That would do it. And if they have that show and explicitly say that everything that happened in Forever Charmed was just Piper's illusion as she died after Kill Billie Vol II, will you believe it? OR if they explicitly say that the little girl existed and her name is Prudence Melinda and is called Prue, not Melinda OR they say that she's actually Phoebe's daughter or one of Paige's twins--the reason she's not up on the !@#$%^&*()_)(*&^%$#@! wall-- OR that she also died young and that all the other members of the family outside of Piper, Leo, Wyatt, Chris and their kids are dead, then would *you* believe that?? OR if they have a spinoff called "The Charmed Sons" and there's no mention of a sister, would you agree that Piper's daughter never existed outside of the alternate dimension visited by Prue, Piper and Phoebe in "Morality Bites" since in our dimension, she's Wyatt? Because they could come out with any of these and SURPRISE! be just as consistent with the show as saying that the little girl with Chris and Wyatt is Piper's daughter, Melinda. But until that happens (and personally I don't think it ever will), everyone is right and everyone is wrong because there are NO right and NO wrong answers, all thanks to Kern not taking the time to have Piper care enough for that little girl to name her, the reason why so many are sure that she is NOT her daughter, besides not putting her up on the !@#$%$^&%^$#@! wall! I do think this debate is over, but that doesn't mean we have to come to an agreement Assassin Witch is right. Time to agree to disagree. Period. Exclamation Point! End of Paragraph! End of Discussion! |
|
|
|
Post by whitelightertony on Jun 18, 2008 4:49:28 GMT -5
Well, glad to see you two have appointed yourselves the discussion board schoolmarms.  Yes, I'd believe that if the producers chose any of those inane storylines to follow up the Charmed saga...although I don't see why they would bother. I mean, what would even be the point of doing a follow-up movie if both Rose and Alyssa were unavailable? Out of all of the possible retcons you listed, only the option of naming the daughter "Prudence Melinda" seems even remotely believable. Only if the characters of Wyatt or Chris specifically confirmed through dialogue that they have no other siblings. |
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Jun 18, 2008 10:13:15 GMT -5
It wasn't Piper's daughter. It was Prue. She possessed some random child and inserted herself into the series finale. How clever of Brad Kern!
Too bad there's not a scintilla of evidence to support this. But, as Emeralda wishes to decide by fiat, I'm as entitled to this belief as anyone else. To heck with logic, reason, best evidence ... once again, the self-appointed canonistas decree that the Earth shall be flat or spherical. It doesn't really matter. Anyway the wind blows .... Uh, oh ... I'm being possessed by Freddy Mercury.
Gotta go!
|
|
|
|
Post by K. Aabye on Jun 18, 2008 11:22:36 GMT -5
How many times do you want me to tell you SHE WAS ON THE WALL? She was on that wall! They just didn't zoom in on the picture. And I can prove it to you. Here is the picture of the wall that you so nicely put "She is not on that wall" take a good look at this picture   ^ That picture is from Katie's my space page from a gallery of different pictures. If you look closely, it is the exact same picture as the one in the frame. Wyatt, Chris, Melinda, one of Phoebe's daughters, Henry Jr., Paige's twins are in that picture. |
|
Reality Bites
Familiar
When witches don't fight we burn.
Posts: 452 
|
Post by Reality Bites on Jun 18, 2008 14:23:01 GMT -5
Wow, I love that you discovered that picture and posted it here for all to see. I never noticed it before now, and I think it's a great treasure. I bless you.  |
|
|
|
Post by vandergraafk on Jun 18, 2008 17:24:00 GMT -5
Melinda, did your link disappear? I would like to see what you are referring to. In the event, rest assured that you won't convince the canonistas. But, then there are those who insist that the Earth is only 4000 or so years old. And, they also believe that dinosaurs and mankind existed simultaneously.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitelightertony on Jun 18, 2008 17:43:39 GMT -5
And they don't like the possibility that Melinda could exist because it would "ruin" the relationship between Wyatt and Chris... |
|
|
|
Post by ShantaD on Jun 18, 2008 21:02:16 GMT -5
Funny, I don't see the children named in that picture.  There are seven children in the picture. It could be Wyatt and Chris, Henry Jr and Paige's twins and two of Phoebe's daughters. |
|
|
|
Post by Ashiee Pie on Jun 18, 2008 21:12:11 GMT -5
if it is pipers daughter you could say that in that pic is pipers daughter, chriss and wyatt and pheobes 3 daughters. but the first pic which is circled in blue looks like it has been taken from a front on view how ever the on underneath is taken from the side :: |
|
|
|
Post by K. Aabye on Jun 19, 2008 3:10:26 GMT -5
Because Katie's mother has taken that picture and the picture in the frame is taken by a photographer on the show - it is the same one though just from the side, I don't see how that makes a difference.
The picture of the next generation is from Katie's Myspace page and you have to be her friend to view that. The picture is one of 4 from the Charmed set. It's from a slideshow there. No, you don't see them named but if you take a very good look at Paige's 3 children in her scene and then look at them in this, you will see it's them.
The two of Phoebe's daughters doesn't look like the other girl in it and the only explanation is that it's Melinda - Piper's daughter. I have no idea where Phoebe's other daughter was at the time of the photo.
In the second pic, the boys and girls are all looking at something else (The photographer taking that pic for the frame) the only one who noticed Marlayna was Tanner (Wyatt).
I think that the people who doesn't want Melinda to be Piper's daughter even though she is - is trying to make up excuses that seem good so everyone will start to believe that she isn't. I really don't understand why. It is ridiculous.
Adair Tishler and Sierra Paris - Phoebe's daughters
Tanner Fox and unknown actor - Wyatt Halliwell and Chris Halliwell
Kathleen Teresa Scott - Melinda Halliwell
Unknown twins and unknown actor - Paige's twin girls and son
If they had used the same actress for Phoebe's daughters and for Piper's, I would have believed Melinda was Phoebe's, but they didn't. So how can Melinda be Phoebe's daughter? Please tell me that. Please
|
|
|
|
Post by ArchAngel on Jun 19, 2008 20:37:32 GMT -5
Melinda, did your link disappear? I would like to see what you are referring to. In the event, rest assured that you won't convince the canonistas. But, then there are those who insist that the Earth is only 4000 or so years old. And, they also believe that dinosaurs and mankind existed simultaneously. Don't even get me started on the difference between beliefs and "faith", "Truth" based on outlook and point of view, and facts....and how people often mistakenly switch them around to suit them As far as the girl. Kern himself said that she was Piper's 3rd child in a interview with the Magazine...end of line As far as Christian creationist beliefs in 4000-6000 year earth, they are pick and choosing out of the quite misinterpreted "Genises" stories as if you were to count the ages and years of the generations from Adanm to Noah (were the average huan lived 800-1400 years and were cranking out children till they croaked) then just from Adam to Noah is 14,000 years, and there is 7,000 years between Noah and Jesus. Not to mention if you read the books of Isiah and the Pslams they talk abou 5 civilizations of other creatures existing on earth before "adams"(humans) and the more proper interpetation of Genises 1:1 is "In the Beginning the world was laid waste" and the story tells how the Elohim(plural) "shaked and baked" the shattered earth (Tera-Formed the earth after a metor storm from the planet between Jupiter and Mars exploding taking out that planet's civilization as well as the ones on Earth,Mars, and Venus) and genetically engineered animals and plants to survive in the new enviroment with one mutant being a version of them...."Adams"(Humans) But i digress as this site is about Charmed and the subject is about whether Melinda Prudence Halliwell was being seen off by her parents Piper and Leo along with her brothers Chris and Wyatt....which she was. |
|
|
|
Post by whitelightertony on Jun 20, 2008 2:10:23 GMT -5
Well, in the flashforwards we only see Phoebe pregnant with her youngest daughter (while Billie babysits the two older girls)...so it's possible that, in terms of the Charmedverse, the photo was taken before Phoebe's youngest daughter was born.
Melinda -- how come you know Tanner's name, but not the names of the child actors who played the Matthews-Mitchell children and Chris?
|
|
|
|
Post by K. Aabye on Jun 20, 2008 2:20:22 GMT -5
Because Tanner's name was released and The Mitchell twins' names wasn't. But in that picture, Phoebe's newest girl wouldn't have been born or if she was, she would have been newborn, so it's not Phoebe's daughter. Secondly, why would Marlayna (who is Katie's mother) take pictures of a group of people where Katie isn't in? When all the other pictures has Katie in it. Katie played Piper and Leo's young daughter, Melinda who is supposed to look around 6 years old in the scene. Katie was 5 years old but turned 6 a month later.
|
|
[glow=blue,2,300]Thanks to ME! For my banner[/glow]
