The Batman - 2022

[Psyren]

I'd seen a dozen or so versions of Pa Kent before Man of Steel and none of those established the character in my mind in such a way that Snyder's take even seemed off. But even if you convinced me it's the same character in name only, I wouldn't care. For comparison, the MJ in the newest Spiderman is nothing like MJ I knew from prior iterations, I don't care, the actress and the character are fine and do their job in context of the movie they're in. Ditto for Pa Kent.

I see a lot more parallels between MCU MJ and comic MJ (and Raimi MJ for that matter) than I do SynderKent and ComicKent.

And? The scene works fine and supports the overall theme Snyder's going for. It set ups a moral conflict the movie later resolves. Saying they could've made a different movie isn't much of a criticism.

Just because the edgy character fits the grimdark theme doesn't mean those are good choices for Superman.

And to bring this full circle... I'd like to have less of this for Bats too. Sadly I'm probably going to have to wait until after this movie.

[Trafalgar]

I just re-watched BvS a couple of weeks ago (because... boredom). Snyder didn't get Batman right in that movie, he treats Batman like a dumber version of Rorshach.

Spoiler: Batmobile Scene

Show

So the scene starts with Batman using a sniper rifle to place a tracking bug on the truck with the kryptonite in it. This makes sense, it seems like its something that the world's greatest detective would do.

But Batman then immediately attacks the convoy with the Batmobile using deadly force. This was a legal shipment so the guards are just doing their jobs but Batman probably kills a number of them. The Batmobile also rips off the the top of the truck which would destroy/dislodge the tracking beacon. So not only is this Batman cruel, he is also stupid. I can accept a darker, edgier batman, I can't accept a dumb batman.

I do think Snyder's portrayal of Batman in BvS does have some good bits. I think that the Wayne Tower opening scene gives us every motivation for Batman. In fact, I think if removing much of the later dialogue between Bruce and Alfred would improve the pacing. I also like the warehouse scene. But overall, I don't think Zach Snyder gets the character.

On a side note, when do we need to stop putting things in spoilers on this Forum? BvS has been out for 5 years so I don't feel like you need to. Would I spoil Casablanca if I revealed whether Rick gets the girl in the end?

[Peelee]

Would I spoil Casablanca if I revealed with Rick gets the girl in the end?

Welp, guess I can cross that one off my watch list.

[GloatingSwine]

I just re-watched BvS a couple of weeks ago (because... boredom). Snyder didn't get Batman right in that movie, he treats Batman like a dumber version of Rorshach.

Zack Snyder doesn't get Rorschach either. He thinks Rorschach is a cool badass not a pathetic crypto-fascist who isn't a total loser nobody wants to be around, and he thinks Watchmen is about cool superheroes who **** not sad weirdos who can't get it up without pervert suits and violence, which is what Alan Moore thinks it's about.

[slayerx]

Wasn't Batman being an agent of the state the main argument Joker had in White Knight, and won that case?

White knight is an AU story, one that pretty much rewrote batman so that he would fit into the story the writer’s wanted to tell with the joker being sane

Batman has flip-flopped between being part of the police department or not throughout the years. Sometimes he's a vigilante, hated by the cops and hunted just as well as his rogue's gallery, sometimes he's a deputized detective openly collaborating with the police and called to testify in court.

Stop looking for consistency in a character with dozens of different versions by dozens of different authors. Continuity and canonicity in superhero comics are big, fat lies.

The general story about batman’s relationship with the police is that it started out antagonistic and then became proactive. Gotham’s police were corrupt and heavily against vigilantes. After jim gordon became the commissioner, the police force was cleaned up and gordon started working with batman

Zack Snyder doesn't get Rorschach either. He thinks Rorschach is a cool badass not a pathetic crypto-fascist who isn't a total loser nobody wants to be around, and he thinks Watchmen is about cool superheroes who **** not sad weirdos who can't get it up without pervert suits and violence, which is what Alan Moore thinks it's about.

Watchmen was meant to be about why more gritty and realistic superheroes actually suck, but a lot of people including snyder thought it was cool

[lord_khaine]

Watchmen was meant to be about why more gritty and realistic superheroes actually suck, but a lot of people including snyder thought it was cool

Are there not a million oppinions over what Watchmen is about?
Though i will mostly say, its not like you can call the majority of the people in it either super or heroes.
I believe the only one Super is Dr Manhatten.

[The Glyphstone]

Ozymandius is arguably a super in the sense Captain America is - "peak human ability" has a new meaning in comics. He did catch a bullet, which is beyond any real world human ability.

[Peelee]

Ozymandius is arguably a super in the sense Captain America is - "peak human ability" has a new meaning in comics. He did catch a bullet, which is beyond any real world human ability.

Psh. I can catch a bullet. Depending how how hard you throw it, of course.

[Anteros]

Zack Snyder doesn't get Rorschach either. He thinks Rorschach is a cool badass not a pathetic crypto-fascist who isn't a total loser nobody wants to be around, and he thinks Watchmen is about cool superheroes who **** not sad weirdos who can't get it up without pervert suits and violence, which is what Alan Moore thinks it's about.

To be fair, I think a lot of people like Watchmen for different reasons than why Alan Moore thinks it's good. It would hardly be the first or last time a creator made something great without actually understanding why that product was so popular.

Moore and Snyder do have something in common though. They both hate comics and think that they're better than the people who read them.

[Trafalgar]

To be fair, I think a lot of people like Watchmen for different reasons than why Alan Moore thinks it's good. It would hardly be the first or last time a creator made something great without actually understanding why that product was so popular.

Moore and Snyder do have something in common though. They both hate comics and think that they're better than the people who read them.

The meaning of a work is not determined by the author or artist. It is determined by the reader or viewer.

[Peelee]

The meaning of a work is not determined by the author or artist. It is determined by the reader or viewer.

He's the one who likes all our pretty songs and he likes to sing along and he likes to shoot his gun but he knows not what it means.

Alternatively, if you like the hip hop side better, frat kids can play Fight For Your Right to Party but that doesnt make it any less satirical or mocking of those same frat kids.

Or, if alt rock is more your style, then the wealthy and/or powerful who enjoy Rage Against the Machine are still massively missing the entire point.

Or, if you just like to chill out to classic rock, there are still more lyrics than just the refrain to Born in the USA.

Or.....

People can read whatever they want into a work. But if the author has a message they want to impart, a specific meaning to their work, then that's what it means. You could also argue the case for a second, different meaning, or that the execution was lacking, or that the meaning was jumbled or contradictory, but there's still an inarguable meaning imparted. Death of the Author is not worthless, but it is vastly overrated.

[Lord Raziere]

He's the one who likes all our pretty songs and he likes to sing along and he likes to shoot his gun but he knows not what it means.

Alternatively, if you like the hip hop side better, frat kids can play Fight For Your Right to Party but that doesnt make it any less satirical or mocking of those same frat kids.

Or, if alt rock is more your style, then people in power who enjoy Rage Against the Machine are still massively missing the entire point.

Or, if you just like to chill out to classic rock, there are still more lyrics than just the refrain to Born in the USA.

Or..... People can read whatever they want into a work. But if the author has a message they want to impart, a specific meaning to their work, then that's what it means. You could also argue the case for a different meaning, or that the execution was lacking, or that the meaning was jumbled or contradictory, but there's still an I arguable meaning imparted. Death of the Author is not worthless, but it is vastly overrated.

Agreed. I don't like the idea that once the work is finished that the author loses all rights to what they intend to mean and everyone else can just twist it to whatever they want. Art is an expression of self or at least what we want to express. If we do not respect the intended message and meaning, it is in my opinion that the author isn't truly respected at all.

[Anteros]

That assumes that the author is inherently deserving of respect. If it's someone like Moore who openly holds his readers in contempt, and their work is primarily popular for reasons he never intended, I don't particularly care what his intentions are.

It's like when Rowling came out after the fact and said that wizards defecate in their pants and then use magic to clean it up. It's not in the story, and the story isn't better for it, so why in the world would I accept it? When you write something, your work is what you write and what your readers read. Your intent is irrelevant if you can't convey it properly.

The author of 50 shades is on record stating that it's a depiction of a perfectly healthy relationship. The author of Twilight thinks that having his character sneak into his ex's house to watch her sleep is depicting a romantic relationship, and that it's perfectly normal for the main character's ex to fall in love with her infant and take her away for grooming. It really doesn't take very much critical thinking at all to see that author's intentions should not be universally respected. Fortunately, we're all capable of critically thinking and analyzing these things ourselves on a case by base basis.

[Fyraltari]

Psh. I can catch a bullet. Depending how how hard you throw it, of course.

"So, what's my job in the army? Overseeing the supply carts? Something like that?
-Oh, I have a job just for you. You're just before the frontliners and you're tasked with catching enemy arrows. With your head."

[Lord Raziere]

That assumes that the author is inherently deserving of respect.

No it doesn't. Don't assume stuff about me. Disrespect all you want as long as you remember that is what your doing, and that your not going to have good conversations with people who respect things you don't.

[Peelee]

That assumes that the author is inherently deserving of respect. If it's someone like Moore who openly holds his readers in contempt, and their work is primarily popular for reasons he never intended, I don't particularly care what his intentions are.

It's like when Rowling came out after the fact and said that wizards defecate in their pants and then use magic to clean it up. It's not in the story, and the story isn't better for it, so why in the world would I accept it? When you write something, your work is what you write and what your readers read. Your intent is irrelevant if you can't convey it properly.

The author of 50 shades is on record stating that it's a depiction of a perfectly healthy relationship. The author of Twilight thinks that having his character sneak into his ex's house to watch her sleep is depicting a romantic relationship, and that it's perfectly normal for the main character's ex to fall in love with her infant and take her away for grooming. It really doesn't take very much critical thinking at all to see that author's intentions should not be universally respected. Fortunately, we're all capable of critically thinking and analyzing these things ourselves on a case by base basis.

Yeah, I shouldnt have said "the author is absolutely right and you cannot disagree," I should have said "you are free to disagree with the message and say it was badly done or a hack job or actually ours forth other messages or is stupid all you want".

Oh wait...

[lord_khaine]

Ozymandius is arguably a super in the sense Captain America is - "peak human ability" has a new meaning in comics. He did catch a bullet, which is beyond any real world human ability.

Ozymandius is indeed a border case. Well honestly his bullet catching is rather odd. Since it involves a degree of superhuman attributes thats not otherwise displayed.
All the same i still didnt include him as a Super, because it mostly feeling like a parlor trick. Its superhuman. But not enough to make a difference.

Personally my estimate is based on "how would this person measure up to a SWAT team in solving problems. Or in a direct fight (if robbed of plot armor).

Its only really Dr Manhatten who crush that test.
And he in turn is to disconnected from humanity to be a hero. Hence my "No Super Heroes in Watchment" stance.

[The Glyphstone]

From what I've read, Veidt's actual 'superpower' was his brain. He didn't catch the bullet simply from reflexes, but by super-braining the speed and angle and calculating exactly where to put his hand at the exact moment to intercept.

Its just hard to judge that because every other person besides John is 100% mundane. Maybe its a parlor trick, or maybe that same super braining would let him win a fight via gun kata. Either way, he is at best a super villain, not a super hero.

[Anteros]

Yeah, I shouldnt have said "the author is absolutely right and you cannot disagree," I should have said "you are free to disagree with the message and say it was badly done or a hack job or actually ours forth other messages or is stupid all you want".

Oh wait...

People can read whatever they want into a work. But if the author has a message they want to impart, a specific meaning to their work, then that's what it means. You could also argue the case for a second, different meaning, or that the execution was lacking, or that the meaning was jumbled or contradictory, but there's still an inarguable meaning imparted. Death of the Author is not worthless, but it is vastly overrated.

Emphasis mine.

Seems pretty straight forward that you believe the work has to always mean what the author intended, and that we can only argue whether or not it's a good portrayal of that intent, or whether it has a secondary meaning. Neither of which is true in my opinion. It's entirely possible for an author/artist to make something that becomes known for entirely unintended reasons and means things to their audience they never intended. You're placing more value on the author's intent than the reader's interpretation, which I don't agree with. I could just as easily argue that the work will always mean what the reader believes and the author's intent is secondary.

This type of thing happens all the time in art. Look at Salvador Dali's "Persistence of memory" that got famous for its depiction of melting clocks representing the malleability of time. You know what Dali actually intended? He was just trying to make the clocks look like melting cheese. That's it. No symbolism at all. Van Gogh painted a picture of his brother, and it got famous as a self portrait. And woe unto every art student who tried to make a picture of a flower or a candle and accidentally depicted female private parts.

Farenheit 451 was originally intended to be a criticism of television replacing books. Alice in Wonderland was about math. I can think of plenty of other famous examples that are too close to modern politics for me to talk about here. The list goes on and on.

The author of a work only gets to decide what they work means to them. Everyone else is free to decide for themselves.

[Peelee]

Emphasis mine.

Seems pretty straight forward that you believe the work has to always mean what the author intended, and that we can only argue whether or not it's a good portrayal of that intent, or whether it has a secondary meaning.

I make no such distinction between "primary" and "secondary" meanings. Works can have multiple meanings, period. Fahrenheit 451 is a perfect example. Almost everyone agrees that it makes an excellent point about censorship. This does not in any way take away from the intended point about television, and both meanings can exist at the same time. The censorship meaning is arguably much stronger, more easily taken, and exists alongside the original authors meaning. Just because you can read censorship into it doesn't mean that it suddenly does not mean what the author intended. This isn't a binary issue.

Or, for another much more blatant example, The Boss's song may be played by people who take it to mean "being born in the USA is all I need", but that does not mean that it doesn't also mean "it should be better than this" as the author intended. Itd always going to mean that, and if you strip away the original creator's intent the second they are done creating, then you're ultimately going to lessen creators wanting to create. The entire reason they create things is to put forth their messages into the world. Saying "your message is irrelevant, all that matters is my message I'm putting into your work" is flat out disrespecting the creator as much as can be done.

Between the two of us, you're the one arguing that if more interpretations exist, one must trump the other. If you dislike that thought, then you certainly can't blame me for putting it forth.

Not to mention the fact that if the author's meaning is irrelevant to the reader and the reader establishes their own meaning, then I can simply thank you for agreeing with me in your last post since I can take whatever meaning I want from it and disregard what you intended to mean entirely.

[Fyraltari]

From what I've read, Veidt's actual 'superpower' was his brain. He didn't catch the bullet simply from reflexes, but by super-braining the speed and angle and calculating exactly where to put his hand at the exact moment to intercept.

That still requires superhuman acuity of the senses, superhuman speed to move his hand into position. And superhuman resilience to not have the bullet go through his hand like it ought to.

[Mystic Muse]

if you strip away the original creator's intent the second they are done creating, then you're ultimately going to lessen creators wanting to create. The entire reason they create things is to put forth their messages into the world. Saying "your message is irrelevant, all that matters is my message I'm putting into your work" is flat out disrespecting the creator as much as can be done.

Yeah. In fact, every time I see this argument put forth, it puts me off ever trying to get any writing done.

"I can interpret what you're saying to mean whatever I want." Brings up so many awful memories for me that I see no reason to put myself through that willingly.

[Anteros]

I make no such distinction between "primary" and "secondary" meanings. Works can have multiple meanings, period. Fahrenheit 451 is a perfect example. Almost everyone agrees that it makes an excellent point about censorship. This does not in any way take away from the intended point about television, and both meanings can exist at the same time. The censorship meaning is arguably much stronger, more easily taken, and exists alongside the original authors meaning. Just because you can read censorship into it doesn't mean that it suddenly does not mean what the author intended. This isn't a binary issue.

Or, for another much more blatant example, The Boss's song may be played by people who take it to mean "being born in the USA is all I need", but that does not mean that it doesn't also mean "it should be better than this" as the author intended. Itd always going to mean that, and if you strip away the original creator's intent the second they are done creating, then you're ultimately going to lessen creators wanting to create. The entire reason they create things is to put forth their messages into the world. Saying "your message is irrelevant, all that matters is my message I'm putting into your work" is flat out disrespecting the creator as much as can be done.

Between the two of us, you're the one arguing that if more interpretations exist, one must trump the other. If you dislike that thought, then you certainly can't blame me for putting it forth.

I'm arguing that interpretations are down to individual and cultural perception. Back to 451, it doesn't matter to most readers if the author intended to criticize television if the vast majority of readers never even realize that's the case and simply take it as a message about censorship. It has nothing to do with intentionally disrespecting the author. If they failed to get their intended message across to the vast majority of people who read their work, that's their own failing, not the reader's. Once you put something out to the public, it's the public's to interpret. If you want to keep private control over something, then keep it private. Like it or not, that's simply how it works.

Not to mention the fact that if the author's meaning is irrelevant to the reader and the reader establishes their own meaning, then I can simply thank you for agreeing with me in your last post since I can take whatever meaning I want from it and disregard what you intended to mean entirely.

Only if you genuinely believed that I was agreeing with you, which obviously isn't the case. Thank you for comparing my posts to a work of art though.

But yes, if I made a post and everyone who read it thought meant one thing while I intended another? That would be my failing as a writer to express myself properly. People can only read the things you actually write. Not the things you intended to write but didn't.

[Vahnavoi]

The whole argument about author's meaning versus interpreted meaning can be captured by communication and cryptographic theory.

To wit: the author's idea or intent (aka "the message") is the plain text. They then encode this meaning in words, pictures etc.. The interpreter then has to have the proper code key to decode the message - in case of writing, that means being able to read the same natural language, in case of visual art, it means knowing certain cultural symbols etc.

There's many ways the original message can be lost. First, the original author can just forget, so they then have to decode their own meaning from their own work just like everybody else. Second, the original author can forget the code key (the linguistic and cultural assumptions they used when making their work etc.), so they know what they meant, but can't explain how to get that from their work. Third, the original author can missapply their code key (using bad language etc.) so the message gets garbled when making the work. Fourth, the interpreter can lack the proper code key (not speaking the right language etc.), so they can't understand the message. Fifth, the interpreter can accidentally use the wrong code key (related but different language etc.) and get a seemingly valid but still wrong message out of the decoding process, instead of the original one. Sixth, the interpreter can willfully missapply the code key (because they think the original author hates them or some other form of motivated reasoning ) to twist the original message into something it isn't.

Those are all distinct from simple disagreement and criticism. Disagreement is "I got your message and think it's wrong"; criticism is "I got your message but you would've sent a better message if you did something differently". Fair disagreement and fair criticism of a message are only possible when you actually get the message.

The only time when all interpretations of a work are equally valid, is when there is no valid message to begin with - it's all random nonsense etc.

Some works get famous because people repeatedly misinterprete them. This means nothing for validity of those alternate interpretations - they are still wrong, those works are literally famous despite their messages, not because of them.

All of the above is just the basics; it's not getting into the weeds like complex and layered messages, where the same encoded symbol, when properly decoded, gets you more than one interpretation. Puns and other double meanings are an obvious example. A pun is funny BECAUSE it can be interpreted more than one way - the humour is in intentionally BAD communication.

[lord_khaine]

That still requires superhuman acuity of the senses, superhuman speed to move his hand into position. And superhuman resilience to not have the bullet go through his hand like it ought to.

Its why i did assume it was a trick. Jumping in correctly so the bullet glance off an armored patch or something.
Since just casually catching it is a rather mean feat. That generally require a Flash Tier Character.

The whole argument about author's meaning versus interpreted meaning can be captured by communication and cryptographic theory.

A reasonable explanation.

[BloodSquirrel]

The whole argument about author's meaning versus interpreted meaning can be captured by communication and cryptographic theory.

This is out-and-out wrong. It's based on the premise that Death of the Author is about disagreement regarding what the author intended. It isn't. It's about disagreement over whether the author's intent matters.

It isn't about saying "Your story would have been better if it was about X instead of Y," it's saying "I find interpreting your story to be about X more interesting than interpreting it to be about Y, and so I'm going to do that regardless of what you originally intended".

Case in point: Was Palpatine really losing to Mace Windu, or was he faking weakness in order to get Anakin to attack Windu because it would force Anakin's fall to the dark side? Personally, I find the latter explanation more interesting. I don't care what George Lucas originally intended- both explanations are consistent with the text, and I enjoy the story by interpreting it that way.

You don't even have to stick to one interpretation. You can interpret a story in one way today and come up with a different interpretation tomorrow just because both give you something worthwhile to think about. Your reaction to finding out that someone has a different interpretation should not be "This town isn't big enough for the both of us", it should (assuming it's actually a decent one) "Well, that's neat- you've just added another layer to this story for me".

Once of the greatest examples I've seen of this lately is covered by SuperEyepatchWolf's "What the Internet has Done to Garfield" video, where he goes through how people have re-interpreted the comic strip as being about depression, despair, and cosmic/psychological horror. It's an exercise that is entirely beyond caring what Jim Davis meant for people to take away from his comic about a goofy cartoonist and his cat. The interpretation is valid because it creates a space for people to express themselves.

It's amazing to me how many people just can't get the fundamental thrust behind Death of the Author. It's not about original intent being unknowable. It's about it being irrelevant. It's fundamentally about the fact that something's value is determined by what use you can put it to, not what the person who made it was thinking about at the time. Whoever designed the filing cabinet that I have sitting next to my desk never intended it to be a cat bed, but it turned out to be the perfect size and height to serve as a spot for a cat to sleep while I'm at my desk. It's also got wheels, so I can roll in or out from under my desk depending on whether she's there or not, and she can be as close to me as possible without being in the way. The author intended it to mere be a place to store files, but I interpreted it as a cat bed, put a towel on top of it, and the cat agreed with my interpretation. The validity of that interpretation rests on the fact that it works- completely regardless of whether the cabinet was designed with that in mind.

[GloatingSwine]

Its why i did assume it was a trick. Jumping in correctly so the bullet glance off an armored patch or something..

It’s artistic license for a comic book, but the bullet isn’t aimed at him, it’s aimed past him at his secretary so even if it doesn’t work he’s not the one dead (and it does mess up his hand).

(You can argue with the author but you can’t argue with the text and you have to change the text a lot to get to Snyder’s version of Watchmen. You can tell because he did in his movie, glamourising every part of it that the comic makes ugly. Example: Watchmen very deliberately excludes action lines in scenes of violence. It shows the aftermath, the hurt, but never the action.)

[Anteros]

It’s artistic license for a comic book, but the bullet isn’t aimed at him, it’s aimed past him at his secretary so even if it doesn’t work he’s not the one dead (and it does mess up his hand).

(You can argue with the author but you can’t argue with the text and you have to change the text a lot to get to Snyder’s version of Watchmen. You can tell because he did in his movie, glamourising every part of it that the comic makes ugly. Example: Watchmen very deliberately excludes action lines in scenes of violence. It shows the aftermath, the hurt, but never the action.)

Watchmen shows plenty of action though? The confrontation with Veidt, Rorschach in jail, Rorschach vs the police...etc.

[GloatingSwine]

Watchmen shows plenty of action though? The confrontation with Veidt, Rorschach in jail, Rorschach vs the police...etc.

Not in the visual language of comics it doesn’t.

In comics actions, particularly dynamic actions like violence, are denoted by action lines. They show things like the arc of a punch to draw the eye along it and lend dynamism to the still scene and make it exciting.

Watchmen does not. It is deliberately not showing a dynamic scene, it is showing the moment after. The focus is on the hurt caused not the dynamism of the event.

Violence in Watchmen is not cool and entertaining. But it is to Zack Snyder so that’s what he did in his film, using his usual visual tools to accentuate the action of violence.

[Vahnavoi]

This is out-and-out wrong. It's based on the premise that Death of the Author is about disagreement regarding what the author intended. It isn't. It's about disagreement over whether the author's intent matters.

Wrong. I'm not talking about Death of the Author specifically in my post. But since you want to talk about it: Death of the Author argues against using biographical context and direct statements from the author to give a text a single meaning - and from the viewpoint of communication and cryptographic theory, this is bad practice, full stop. It falls under what I said in my post: "Sixth, the interpreter can willfully missapply the code key (because they think the original author hates them or some other form of motivated reasoning ) to twist the original message into something it isn't."

Disagreeing on whether an author's intent matters can only be fairly done from a perspective from which it is known. Or like said above: "Fair disagreement and fair criticism of a message are only possible when you actually get the message." Case in point:

It isn't about saying "Your story would have been better if it was about X instead of Y," it's saying "I find interpreting your story to be about X more interesting than interpreting it to be about Y, and so I'm going to do that regardless of what you originally intended".

If you know what the original intent was, this is a distinction without a difference. If you don't know what it was, you are being unfair.

Case in point: Was Palpatine really losing to Mace Windu, or was he faking weakness in order to get Anakin to attack Windu because it would force Anakin's fall to the dark side? Personally, I find the latter explanation more interesting. I don't care what George Lucas originally intended- both explanations are consistent with the text, and I enjoy the story by interpreting it that way.

See points from above: "First, the original author can just forget, so they then have to decode their own meaning from their own work just like everybody else. Second, the original author can forget the code key (the linguistic and cultural assumptions they used when making their work etc.), so they know what they meant, but can't explain how to get that from their work. Third, the original author can missapply their code key (using bad language etc.) so the message gets garbled when making the work."

Also:

"All of the above is just the basics; it's not getting into the weeds like complex and layered messages, where the same encoded symbol, when properly decoded, gets you more than one interpretation. Puns and other double meanings are an obvious example. A pun is funny BECAUSE it can be interpreted more than one way - the humour is in intentionally BAD communication"

There can be intentional ambiguity to that scene, and George can be wrong about whether there's intentional ambiguity to that scene. That's what I'm talking about - you trying to boil it to what's more interesting is ignoring my actual points.

You don't even have to stick to one interpretation. You can interpret a story in one way today and come up with a different interpretation tomorrow just because both give you something worthwhile to think about. Your reaction to finding out that someone has a different interpretation should not be "This town isn't big enough for the both of us", it should (assuming it's actually a decent one) "Well, that's neat- you've just added another layer to this story for me".

You don't understand the point. Of course changing your code key, the way you are interpreting a work, changes what you get out of it! This just doesn't mean what you think it means. If you allow for arbitrary code keys, you can get any message out of any work - even out of random noise! There's a point past where the interpreted message tells more about the interpreter than the work.

In short, there is a line where a person moves from valid interpretations of a work to just doing their own work. Just like, with a filing cabinet, there is a line where you go from "that's how it was made to work" to "that's not how it was made to work but I can see why you use it like that" to "okay, now you just broke the cabinet and made it into something entirely different". And if you continue far enough, "only someone genuinely clueless or insane would think that's a good use for a filing cabinet".