All of this gives the allusion that they had an idea for a trilogy first and a story second and it shows as the plot and story went from here to there, characters and storylines were introduced only to then become less relevant, and all of the executive meddling that happened during such.
Explanation
The statement in question discusses the production of a media franchise, suggesting that the creators prioritized forming a trilogy concept over crafting a coherent story, leading to disjointed plotlines and character development. This is a subjective analysis that reflects the opinion of some viewers or critics who have noted inconsistencies and unresolved threads in storytelling. The term "allusion" is misapplied here, as it typically refers to a reference rather than implying a perception or sentiment. Furthermore, the mention of "executive meddling" suggests external pressures which are often cited in creative projects but may lack concrete evidence in this specific case. The linked sources don't provide definitive proof for the assertion of a disjointed narrative structure due to initial trilogy planning or meddling, hence the statement cannot be rated as entirely true. It presents a perspective that may hold some truth but is not universally accepted and can vary widely among audiences.
Key Points
- The statement reflects a subjective viewpoint on the narrative structure of a trilogy.
- The use of 'allusion' is incorrect in context and should imply perception rather than reference.
- Claims of executive meddling are common in media discussions, but specifics would need further evidence to be fully substantiated.
