It is Kelly who tells Nick that Diana should not be with the resistance or royalty.He said it would use that as a weapon without thinking that it would be good for the baby.of course I'm upset with Juliette,she betrayed us, give Nick's mother.simply because he was angry.
what happened to Adalind was different and not because she was.Adalind was desperate they gave to Diana royalty,so she thought.the only one that offers you something is Victor asking that to change.Adalind began to believe not rely on Nick at that time,then delivering her baby made her lose confidence.?on one hand the suffering is good for people including Adalind.I mean the suffering in the soul
(07-23-2016, 08:36 AM)Dian Mclean Wrote: [ -> ]You made some excellent points here. They are all guilty in Eve been a Hexenbeist. I don't think they were that repulsed except Nick, remember he was told that Hexenbeist and Grimm are natural enemies. But regardless of the fact none of them had the right to take away Adalind's child, None of them even the Captain. We all know why Nick Juliette and the gang did it, they all hated Adalind. I myself is not a fan of hers until at her Mother's grave she said she will try to raise her kids the right way. I agree with you on a lot of your views. At the end of the day they are all kidnappers like you said the only one that felt a bit of remorse was Rosalee, again who are they to make that decision. I am rather suprised that Adalind didn't hurt them all. Yes Kelly was the only one that thought that none of them should have the child as she have unusual powers and I think if she wasnt killed she would have trained her to use it the right way. Like you said they are all a bunch of liars and do as they please regardless of who they hurt in the process.
Within a very strict frame, Nick/Juliette hating Adalind and fearing she might remain in Portland is reasonable. Kelly deciding to take Diana and leave Adalind behind based on information from Nick/Juliette about Adalind is also reasonable.
My problem with the characters in the Diana arc is pretty much the same as with any storyline - Team Grimm lives/operates within a system of privilege. Nick & his friends assume because he is a Grimm the laws/expectations that rule everyone else don’t apply to them, whatever they do is sanctioned by their assumed status.
It’s reasonable that Nick dismissed evidence of Adalind’s maternal bond with Diana and believed she wouldn’t be a good mother or mentor. But while circumstances changed during the later part of S4 and all of S5, nothing indicated that Nick ever questioned whether his decision to take Diana might have been wrong, or suggested he wouldn’t do it again.
Using his intuition as a detective and a Grimm, Nick should have picked up on the fact that Adalind never offered an exchange that included giving up her unborn child. If Adalind was only thinking about herself she could have offered Nick his son as trade for protection/escape from Juliette/the Royals.
Consider the rooftop conversation between Nick and Monroe. If Nick was capable of seeing/admitting his mistakes he might have asked Monroe: Adalind is a wonderful mother; were we wrong to take Diana from her? The only thing we managed to accomplish was getting Juliette and my mother killed. What Nick said, in a sarcastic tone, was: Who would have ever thought Adalind would be such a wonderful mother. Followed by a discussion of Nick having sex with both women looking like each other.
Team Grimm & Kelly took Diana to keep themselves safe from the Royals and to prevent the Royals & the Resistance from getting Diana & her powers. At the end of S4: Juliette is a Hexenbiest working against Team Grimm, Adalind is pregnant with Nick’s baby, the Royals are running amok in Portland, Kelly is dead, and the Royals have Diana. It is ultimately the Resistance who takes Diana from the Royals, just as they did in S3. And Team Grimm hasn't even considered they might be even faintly responsible for how f***ed up everything is.
(07-23-2016, 07:01 AM)Robyn Wrote: [ -> ] (07-23-2016, 05:31 AM)jsgrimm45 Wrote: [ -> ]How much does guilt play into Nick and the Scooby's reactions to Juliette? They all had a very good connection to Juliette, and most had some part in making her a hexenbiest so is there a guilt factor to think about?
Rosalee is the only character I recall even questioning the fallout of their actions. She said they stole Adalind’s baby and Juliette is suffering the consequences, and she told Adalind she regretted her part in taking her baby but she offset that with telling Adalind it was necessary to protect her baby.
I don’t see where any of the characters have learned from their actions/mistakes. In S4, rather than assure Juliette she would always be their friend and an integral part of their lives, they set about looking for ways to ‘fix her’. In S5, instead of genuinely welcoming Adalind into their lives, Nick and the others lie, deceive and conspire against her. And then they’re shocked when Adalind takes matters into her own hands to protect her children. Guilt? I doubt it. They would first have to admit that everything they do isn’t right simply because they’re the ones doing it.
Quote:I like this post covers a lot of interesting points but I don't agree mostly the latter part about pretending to be the resistance to take Diana, I was with Kelly that no party with an agenda should have Diana.
Than there is Juliette helping Kenneth she was the one who said the resistance nor the royals should have Diana, so now she thinks the royals should?
I like posts that make one think about another angle to a question and believe this post does that with good points. Thanks
My point wasn’t about who should or shouldn’t have Diana, it was that Team Grimm made Viktor believe the Resistance came to Portland and took Diana from him. Team Grimm, and specifically Kelly & Renard, would know that Viktor would retaliate against the Resistance and they didn’t bother to warn them because it would compromise Kelly going underground with Diana. They’re right about that, but I was noting the disregard for the lives of others (those outside their core group) their decision expressed.
As for no party with an agenda should have Diana - what establishes that Kelly didn’t have an agenda? While Meisner/the Resistance were helping Adalind/Diana escape the Royals, nothing indicated they didn’t intend to keep mother and child together. Kelly only wanted the child with powers.
What was Juliette’s motivation when she said the Resistance nor the Royals should have Diana? At that time: Juliette was Nick’s partner, Kelly was Nick’s mother, and Juliette & Nick hated Adalind. So was Juliette motivated by her conscious or the players involved? If Diana had been their child, would Juliette have believed Kelly should take her to keep her away from the Resistance and the Royals, or was it because Diana was Adalind’s child and they weren’t willing risk their lives for Adalind’s child? I don’t think Juliette’s way of thinking changed, but rather, her alliance changed.
And I think Juliette switching her alliance has a lot of viewers upset. The basic rule of Grimm seems to be that the crime or sin isn’t important as long as it’s not perpetrated against Nick or someone he cares about.
When it comes the telling the resistance about Diana would in IMO have defeated whole plan, plus we know that the royals and resistance were in a way at war already.
With Adalind and Diana not going to the resistance we can only guess if they would have left them together maybe maybe not. I do agree with Kelly having an agenda also but I see it as trying as much as possible to raise Diana as a normal kid but I is only my guess.
(07-23-2016, 08:36 AM)Dian Mclean Wrote: [ -> ] (07-23-2016, 07:01 AM)Robyn Wrote: [ -> ] (07-23-2016, 05:31 AM)jsgrimm45 Wrote: [ -> ]How much does guilt play into Nick and the Scooby's reactions to Juliette? They all had a very good connection to Juliette, and most had some part in making her a hexenbiest so is there a guilt factor to think about?
Rosalee is the only character I recall even questioning the fallout of their actions. She said they stole Adalind’s baby and Juliette is suffering the consequences, and she told Adalind she regretted her part in taking her baby but she offset that with telling Adalind it was necessary to protect her baby.
I don’t see where any of the characters have learned from their actions/mistakes. In S4, rather than assure Juliette she would always be their friend and an integral part of their lives, they set about looking for ways to ‘fix her’. In S5, instead of genuinely welcoming Adalind into their lives, Nick and the others lie, deceive and conspire against her. And then they’re shocked when Adalind takes matters into her own hands to protect her children. Guilt? I doubt it. They would first have to admit that everything they do isn’t right simply because they’re the ones doing it.
Quote:I like this post covers a lot of interesting points but I don't agree mostly the latter part about pretending to be the resistance to take Diana, I was with Kelly that no party with an agenda should have Diana.
Than there is Juliette helping Kenneth she was the one who said the resistance nor the royals should have Diana, so now she thinks the royals should?
I like posts that make one think about another angle to a question and believe this post does that with good points. Thanks
My point wasn’t about who should or shouldn’t have Diana, it was that Team Grimm made Viktor believe the Resistance came to Portland and took Diana from him. Team Grimm, and specifically Kelly & Renard, would know that Viktor would retaliate against the Resistance and they didn’t bother to warn them because it would compromise Kelly going underground with Diana. They’re right about that, but I was noting the disregard for the lives of others (those outside their core group) their decision expressed.
As for no party with an agenda should have Diana - what establishes that Kelly didn’t have an agenda? While Meisner/the Resistance were helping Adalind/Diana escape the Royals, nothing indicated they didn’t intend to keep mother and child together. Kelly only wanted the child with powers.
What was Juliette’s motivation when she said the Resistance nor the Royals should have Diana? At that time: Juliette was Nick’s partner, Kelly was Nick’s mother, and Juliette & Nick hated Adalind. So was Juliette motivated by her conscious or the players involved? If Diana had been their child, would Juliette have believed Kelly should take her to keep her away from the Resistance and the Royals, or was it because Diana was Adalind’s child and they weren’t willing risk their lives for Adalind’s child? I don’t think Juliette’s way of thinking changed, but rather, her alliance changed.
And I think Juliette switching her alliance has a lot of viewers upset. The basic rule of Grimm seems to be that the crime or sin isn’t important as long as it’s not perpetrated against Nick or someone he cares about.
You made some excellent points here. They are all guilty in Eve been a Hexenbeist. I don't think they were that repulsed except Nick, remember he was told that Hexenbeist and Grimm are natural enemies. But regardless of the fact none of them had the right to take away Adalind's child, None of them even the Captain. We all know why Nick Juliette and the gang did it, they all hated Adalind. I myself is not a fan of hers until at her Mother's grave she said she will try to raise her kids the right way. I agree with you on a lot of your views. At the end of the day they are all kidnappers like you said the only one that felt a bit of remorse was Rosalee, again who are they to make that decision. I am rather suprised that Adalind didn't hurt them all. Yes Kelly was the only one that thought that none of them should have the child as she have unusual powers and I think if she wasnt killed she would have trained her to use it the right way. Like you said they are all a bunch of liars and do as they please regardless of who they hurt in the process.
Again to me it a question of keeping Renard, Adalind, and Elizabeth alive as to why they took Diana. Viktor said he would have them all killed and yes he knew where Elizabeth was. I will agree that Nick and crew didn't like Adalind but IMO this was one time they worked to keep even her safe.
Juliette is a hexenbiest because she chose to be with Nick after finding out all of the things that had happened to him as a Grimm. She could have walked after being in the coma and losing her memories. She could have walked after Nick became a zombie when Eric tried to kidnap him. She could have walked several times BEFORE Kelly showed up at the house with Adalind and Diana, but she CHOSE to help get the baby away from Adalind, when she KNEW that Adalind had her powers back. Juliette by now wanted to be a member of "Team Grimm" and she whined like a baby after Adalind struck back after Kelly took off with her kid. Juliette wanted to run with the big dogs and she ended up being bitten. This dead eye character should have died while in the coma and we would not have to put up with her crap.
(07-23-2016, 12:47 PM)jsgrimm45 Wrote: [ -> ]Again to me it a question of keeping Renard, Adalind, and Elizabeth alive as to why they took Diana. Viktor said he would have them all killed and yes he knew where Elizabeth was. I will agree that Nick and crew didn't like Adalind but IMO this was one time they worked to keep even her safe.
If Black Claw’s agenda had been to get Kelly because they believed the child of a Grimm and Hexenbiest would be the ultimate weapon, would it be acceptable for Meisner to deceive Nick then kidnap the baby and send him off with a stranger to prevent BC from cutting a bloody path through Portland? Once Nick learned the truth, should the others expect him to accept it as necessary for the greater good?
Switch Nick/Adalind, Meisner/Kelly, baby Kelly/Diana, Black Claw/the Royals and you have the S3 scenario.
We do not have to switch. Nick is in the exact position Adalind was in. Kelly is not with Nick to protect him and the others.
(07-23-2016, 03:02 PM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]We do not have to switch. Nick is in the exact position Adalind was in. Kelly is not with Nick to protect him and the others.
I have no idea what that statement means.
What happened to Adalind/Diana in S3 did not happen to Nick/baby Kelly in S5.
Yes, it has happened. When Adalind took Kelly and going to Sean.
In S3, Diana was kidnapped and Adalind was deceived about her whereabouts. In S5, Adalind told Nick that Renard knew the Resistance had Diana and feared he would use Diana as bait to get her to do something she wouldn’t want to do. Nick’s only reaction was for Adalind to tell him if Renard contacted her again. When Adalind’s back was against the wall, she took Kelly and went to Renard/BC. But. She left Nick a letter explaining her actions and her reasons. Adalind's objective was not to take Nick's son from him by deception or force. The two scenarios are completely different.
Quote:In S3, Diana was kidnapped and Adalind was deceived about her whereabouts. In S5, Adalind told Nick that Renard knew the Resistance had Diana and feared he would use Diana as bait to get her to do something she wouldn’t want to do. Nick’s only reaction was for Adalind to tell him if Renard contacted her again. When Adalind’s back was against the wall, she took Kelly and went to Renard/BC. But. She left Nick a letter explaining her actions and her reasons. Adalind's objective was not to take Nick's son from him by deception or force. The two scenarios are completely different.
This entire post ignores the point. in season 3 Diana was removed from Adalind by Nick for the greater good. In season 5 Kely was removed from from Nick by Adalind for the grater good. You are trying to read into the situation with a complexity far beyond how this show is written.
You are comparing the details. I was looking at the intent. Intent is the only thing the show controls. things like motive and purpose is left for the viewer to speculate.