Grimm Forum

My question was what events led to this opinion, not that your opinion was different or wrong. Looking at the four-episode span from birth to kidnapping, I don't see anything that supported the characters' rationale that Kelly taking Diana was the best or only option, but the resulting devastation that occurred in S4 confirmed it wasn't the best or only option.

The only thing clear to me is that the creative team wanted to get the baby character out of sigh out of mind until they were ready for her in the Nick/Juliette/Adalind storyline, and either didn't care how the characters came across or assumed viewers would accept the kidnapping because they're 'the good guys'. Is the good guys did it an acceptable substitution for establishing convincing motivation?

It might have been easier to accept the kidnapping had the show not chosen to present Adalind’s about face beforehand. But because they did, the good guys come across as arrogant and self-serving, while the supposed bad guy is desperately trying to keep her baby safe then equally desperate to get her back. And seasons 5 & 6 only makes them look worse, including Adalind.

I agree that Kelly loved Diana but that didn't give her any right at all to kidnap her from her mother. She should have shared her concerns with Adalind instead of excluding her regarding decisions about her own child. Adalind was willing to go on the run with Diana to South America and Kelly knew that, no reason to just kidnap the child like she did.

I think we can all agree that the Royals were going to be relentless in their pursuit of Diana. There was no way at the time that Adalind could have protected her daughter; no way. That was why the group decided that Diana's best chance at a normal life was for Kelly to take the child and disappear. The Royals were coming to collect the baby the night the gang staged kidnapping; Sean knew this was the best alternative and Nick and the others were in agreement.

I wonder what could be the motivation behind deciding on such a radical plan if not to give Diana the best chance at a life apart from both powerful and competing groups. Renard always loved his daughter as far as I am concerned. He also saw the danger, so he went along with the attempt to fool the Royals into thinking Diana was kidnapped by the Resistance. That gave Kelly the chance at a clean escape. Including Adalind was out of the question because there was no time to make her part of the operation and she would probably represent an increased likelihood of the Royals tracking them down.

As to Kelly's right to intercede on behalf a child she believed was in danger, I offer the following. The baby playing with Kelly's necklace (with Nick's picture inside), and the way Kelly took to her are two examples. The baby's ceasing to cry when Kelly walked into the room at Monroe's house is another. The things she said about Diana demonstrated her concern for Diana's well-being and safety told me that she loved the child, no doubt.

I realize that no one's opinion of the event will change, so I respectively state that as much as I believe in my interpretation, I also know there's no authority that can say I am right

I have to be honest, I don't think I'll ever understand why Kelly and the group thought they had the right kidnap a child. They had no authority to do so, especially since Adalind would have left with her baby had they just told her. Kelly had that cruel talk with Adalind which was so wrong because Kelly made her choice to give up Nick but didn't give Adalind one. Nick made the absurd comment that his mom would get the chance to be a mom again like it was a legal adoption and not a kidnapping. They had to convince Sean to go along with it. The baby protected Adalind twice so we see she cared for her mother and had no problem leaving Kelly to go with Adalind to Sean's. The baby liking Kelly didn't nullify Adalind's parental rights. And in the end, Dianna wasn't safer.

Oooh, this is turning into opinion vs. opinion. Maybe we could redirect the discussion to what the creative might have been attempting long-term, if anything other than writing the cool action drama they wanted to tell.

The creative team chose for Adalind to experience a positive change in behavior & attitude when Diana was born, and before the kidnapping. Since Nick wouldn’t have reason to even consider that Adalind was any different than before, was the timing of her ‘epiphany’ meant to spur compassion from viewers? That she was the victim of her past behavior/actions despite her current intentions?

Once learning that Nick/Adalind were planned for S5, the events in S3 made sense - until I saw S5, and then none of it made sense. I thought S5 would be about Nick & Adalind realizing and coming to terms with being victimized by their violent history, and how/why that violent history led to Nick kidnapping her baby at the time Adalind realized how much she wanted to be a mother.

But I never saw anything remotely close to that. No learning and acknowledging who they had become opposed to who they were . Nothing. They simply played house, then Nick suddenly became distrustful and distant while Adalind fell madly in love. Then bam, they’re a committed couple in S6. I spent the better part of S3 - S6 thinking Nick was an arrogant, selfish jerk and Adalind was a mousy, dependent imbecile. Can’t imagine the creative team intended that reaction, so did it simply go over my head?

What do you think the creative team hoped to accomplish with the characters between Diana's birth and the series ending?

In my opinion, G&K never wrote for long term or planned a multi season arc. Writing in Claire's pregnancy is proof of that to me, it was a last minute plot just for drama. And I feel like they never really planned the storylines out all the way through, they just thought up ideas that would be more dramatic and jumped around from place to place. I don't think they had real goal for the characters, just thought of things to do to fill up episodes.

Well, I see it the same way, but was hoping someone might offer some insight that had alluded me.

I know Greenwalt stated in an interview that he and Kouf realized or decided several episodes in that Nick/Adalind wasn't developing the way they wanted so they just up and changed it midstream. That's why they were strangely cozy in the beginning followed by Nick's unexplained shift to distrustful and distant.

So I guess if they didn't see their mistake until five or six episodes into the season they couldn't have been paying attention to what was being written and aired. Or if they simply changed the characters' behavior because they changed their minds, then they don't care that the characters appear strange or wishy-washy for no apparent reason.

Which I guess also means they didn't really care that the characters appeared self-serving and arrogant in S3, they just wanted the baby kidnapped and out of the story until they could age her for later use.

That's beyond sad, and really, I'd prefer we were wrong in our conclusions.

I liked and enjoyed the show, I wouldn't have stuck around until the end if I hadn't, I just wished they had put more effort and follow through in some of the storylines. The initial premise was great and the characters/actors were good, except for Juliette in my opinion, so I kept watching but I realized around season 3 that there was no grand 6 season story laid out. The writers were just throwing stuff out there and saw what stuck to the wall. I don't think continuity or a strong story line was that important to the writers.

(04-23-2017, 08:21 PM)Circe27 Wrote: [ -> ]I liked and enjoyed the show, I wouldn't have stuck around until the end if I hadn't, I just wished they had put more effort and follow through in some of the storylines. The initial premise was great and the characters/actors were good, except for Juliette in my opinion, so I kept watching but I realized around season 3 that there was no grand 6 season story laid out. The writers were just throwing stuff out there and saw what stuck to the wall. I don't think continuity or a strong story line was that important to the writers.

You and me both. I love the show but was just as disappointed by their inability to write cohesive stories.

I've found that it is quite possible to acknowledge a lack of commitment to holding to a central theme of a storyline and at the same exact time, to just go along with it as a viewer. I know this because it's why I'm okay with everything the writers did to the series' deviation from a central theme that made so many fans protest; to me, it was closely aligned to the pecularities of real life.

I'm perfectly okay with everything that happened from beginning to end because I was an audience to the story and didn't have any desire to have had a voice in its telling. I just wish the mortally damaged cohesiveness of Grimm could have occupied less of a role to other viewers than it obviously did when scanning through this fan site. It's failure to carry fans along proved the center didn't hold.

I remain fine with the show in its entirety.