(07-27-2016, 03:10 PM)jsgrimm45 Wrote: [ -> ]I think we are miscommunicating as I see it this way you say Juliette said she didn't know as a statement true. You take it as true as I see it I could be wrong but that is what I think you are saying. I don't take it as true or false but to debate I took the other side as if not it was because she chose not to know.
So in this case and in this way yes I guess you could say I stepped out of pure fantasy. I was a viewer and I didn't believe this was possible with all the planning she helped with. On the other hand to me that is what fantasy is the viewer adding their view your view is her statement my view is her actions where she created a fantasy world of her own not to know what would happen to Kelly.
With I see as fantasy is viewpoint in Grimm I can decide the viewpoint. Is Grimm real no we both would agree no tv series is real most of the time. Bones series I can't change the storyline because I'm not a scientist so I have no idea how much is correct or not, so I can't debate the series to me it is yes or no and I don't know which. Grimm I like because this one I can take either side to debate. I likely add some of my own fantasy ideas to the debates.
We debate the series often we almost never agree but we debate what we see that is the fun of the forum. See the other angle. Now there are times when someone posts something that changes my view or the will bring out an interesting question or subplot I totally missed.
If you and I both were Supernatural fan we would likely have more in common because that series is so fantasy related no connection to the real world we disagree in Grimm likely because it is a real city and a real police dept being used.
My issue with Grimm is not that it's based in a real city or that a real police department is being used. My issue is that Grimm consistently fails to define parameters for the main characters. Take Nick, for instance. He's a Grimm. What is a Grimm? Is it really Nick making it up as he goes along? Because that's generally what we see.
You brought up something in the Kelly/Diana thread that I thought was interesting so I wanted to touch upon it here:
Quote:Marie had told Nick to hunt down and kill the bad ones not all wesen.
Because Grimm has never really defined good and bad, what in the heck was Marie talking about?
Take Monroe, for instance. Is he a "good" wesen? Based on what? When Nick and Monroe were in Germany, Monroe starts to talk about his hunting excursions with his grandfather? (I think it was the grandfather). From the way Monroe talks, we get the idea they were hunting humans. When Nick interrupts and asks, Monroe gets the point and doesn't go further with the story.
Now, if you think about what Monroe just related, you could look at him as a "bad" wesen. After all, he doesn't show any remorse or regret over the people he murdered for food. In fact, he remembers the hunts with fondness. Because Grimm has never defined good or bad, we just don't know. So Marie's comment was just another oddity in Grimm that has never been clarified.
In the show Monroe is a reformed blutbod. Yes he was one of the bad ones. That is why his family has a history with aunt marie.
(07-27-2016, 02:57 PM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]What you people are arguing is would a reasonable person have known the possible out come?
The show never gave Juliette direct knowledge of what Kenneth was going to do. There are no prior examples of covert operations ending in death. Based on the level of common sense the characters have shown. It would not be reasonable the character would draw that inference. That would make them more aware then any other time on the show.
In the real world a cynical mind might look for the worst case scenario. But even in the real world using a gun to commit a crime, you do not think someone will die. The attitude is more with a gun no one will challenge you. That is why people use fake guns, they only want the intimidation factor.
Because the Royals have put death on the table when it comes to Diana. Death is a reasonable inference. Except on this show every character has shown a lack of common sense. And that is the problem. Juliette would have had to read between the lines to come to the conclusion that people would die. Reading between the lines is something that none of the character on the show has ever done. For Juliette to have made the inference that people think a reasonable person would make would not be keeping with the show.
IMO in the real world Juliette would have suspected something. In Grimm where the obvious is over looked or ignored. It is unresonable to think a character would read between the lines to figure something out.
The show’s theme might be based in fantasy, however, G & K have infused much of the real world in their story and character arcs - forced/unwanted sexual encounters with multiple partners, undesired familial relationships, child abductions, forced indoctrination, racial classification/profiling, off-the-book government operations, police corruption, premeditated murder…
I don’t think the issue is whether viewers should accept the creative team will ignore the obvious for the ease of storytelling, but rather, should the creative team infuse these types of real world scenarios when they’re not willing to expand their focus to include the obvious and the expected.
If the creative team prefers to ignore the obvious they should stick with the Wesen of the week format. A Wesen who is clearly identified as bad/evil causes harm, Team Grimm kills/neutralizes said Wesen, the credits roll.
(07-27-2016, 04:46 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]My issue with Grimm is not that it's based in a real city or that a real police department is being used. My issue is that Grimm consistently fails to define parameters for the main characters. Take Nick, for instance. He's a Grimm. What is a Grimm? Is it really Nick making it up as he goes along? Because that's generally what we see.
You brought up something in the Kelly/Diana thread that I thought was interesting so I wanted to touch upon it here:
Quote:Marie had told Nick to hunt down and kill the bad ones not all wesen.
Because Grimm has never really defined good and bad, what in the heck was Marie talking about?
Take Monroe, for instance. Is he a "good" wesen? Based on what? When Nick and Monroe were in Germany, Monroe starts to talk about his hunting excursions with his grandfather? (I think it was the grandfather). From the way Monroe talks, we get the idea they were hunting humans. When Nick interrupts and asks, Monroe gets the point and doesn't go further with the story.
Now, if you think about what Monroe just related, you could look at him as a "bad" wesen. After all, he doesn't show any remorse or regret over the people he murdered for food. In fact, he remembers the hunts with fondness. Because Grimm has never defined good or bad, we just don't know. So Marie's comment was just another oddity in Grimm that has never been clarified.
The creative team ignores addressing issues that would interfere with their preferred method of storytelling or committing to anything as fact, because once fact is established continuity comes into play.
Monroe is a good example of the show’s ambiguity regarding the characters’ background and storyline. Monroe is neither good or bad based on his past or present actions. He’s a ‘good guy’ simply because his ‘bad’ deeds predate the show and weren’t against Nick. By comparison, Juliette being evil and her actions unforgivable have far more to do with who her actions targeted than anything she actually did. Had Hexenbiest Juliette only aided the Royals in taking Diana to hurt/punish Adalind, her actions would have barely registered a beep from the other characters or many of the viewers.
The show uses real life and it's scenarios as inspiration is true. I see people complain because the show violates someones moral views. The show is not trying to promote a message, or teach a lesson. The show has only one purpose. That purpose is to entertain. This is done by creating a scenario to achieve a particular payoff. The episodes create a story arc. Continuity is not a prime concern. If they need to add a gimmick to the scenario to get the payoff they do. Even if it does not fit. Example Elizabeth stopping time.
(07-27-2016, 06:05 PM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]The show uses real life and it's scenarios as inspiration is true. I see people complain because the show violates someones moral views. The show is not trying to promote a message, or teach a lesson. The show has only one purpose. That purpose is to entertain.
The show does more than that, syscrash. I would bet today that if a poll were taken, many people here would label Nick a hero. That's not an entertainment fantasy. That's people taking attributes of a hero and pasting that onto him. What they see is a detective taking on this heavy burden of a tragic family legacy and he is the only person to stand between the vicious wesen element and the poor innocent, (not to mention grossly clueless) public.
Quote:Robyn wrote:
Monroe is a good example of the show’s ambiguity regarding the characters’ background and storyline. Monroe is neither good or bad based on his past or present actions. He’s a ‘good guy’ simply because his ‘bad’ deeds predate the show and weren’t against Nick. By comparison, Juliette being evil and her actions unforgivable have far more to do with who her actions targeted than anything she actually did. Had Hexenbiest Juliette only aided the Royals in taking Diana to hurt/punish Adalind, her actions would have barely registered a beep from the other characters or many of the viewers.
Juliette betrayed Kelly, and in many people's eyes, that's the worst of the worst.
Now, consider Kelly's history for a moment. This woman gave her child to her sister years ago, supposedly to protect him from danger. She gave him to Marie, a sister who had a worse reputation than she did. In essence, by doing so, Kelly put him in even more danger. There was no guarantee Marie wasn't going to be targeted. But Kelly didn't stop there. She completely abandoned Nick, leaving him to believe she was dead. I doubt she would have ever returned if the coins hadn't shown up. Kelly's no motherly example to Nick. Quite the opposite in fact.
This is what I mean when I say people have labeled Nick a hero. Because he's looked at as a hero, his mother is above reproach and Juliette's betrayal of her is unconscionable.
if it had been that betrays Monroe,that had also been like Juliette.nobody expected that Juliette.It was a very cerebral person,but all that came after the disturbs.
Monroe consider developing differently,I think that not be denied what was.He had his moment of falling prey to the beast within,used to hunt with his family.he learned to control himself,
I not think it was the diet change.Kelly trust his own sister to protect Nick.she was selfish to let go on believing that.Diana was his new opportunity to make things right,raising a "Wesen".
Marie leave everything to raise Nick.although it is not known more about his past and his relationship with Farley.
(07-28-2016, 06:16 AM)brandon Wrote: [ -> ]Monroe consider developing differently,I think that not be denied what was.He had his moment of falling prey to the beast within,used to hunt with his family.he learned to control himself,
I not think it was the diet change.
Maybe Monroe switched to being a vegetarian as a result of diet or maybe he switched because he no longer wanted to hunt humans. We don't know. That's just one of the stories that's imbalanced as Grimm.
However, if Monroe gave up eating humans because he finally saw the error of his ways, I would expect him to have some kind of remorse for what he did. Monroe has no remorse. He remembers just the opposite, how much fun it was to hunt with his grandfather. That isn't all about being with the grandfather. Some of it has to do with the thrill of the hunt. Nick gives him a free pass on that one. Is there anything to prevent Monroe from hunting humans today if he so chooses? Not a thing as far as I can tell.
Part of the question "is Nick a hero?" depends on your definition of "hero". Is it a flawless person who always does the right thing at the right time(Dudley Doright) or is it a flawed person we admire because of the results (Odysseus of the Odyssey, Hercules). Dudley is a good guy who ends being the butt of jokes. Odysseus lied, stole, cheated on his wife, and ended up getting his crew killed. The Greeks loved him. Hercules did heroic things(the 7 Trials) but ended up killing his wife and kids and had to be saved by the gods. Romans erected statues to him. I see Nick as a stranger in a strange land who tries to do the best he can with what he's got - the books basically tell how to kill, not how to get along. Because he never uses his gifts to enrich himself - extorting money from wessen, killing for hire, making female wessen his sex slaves - choices i would probably be tempted to do - I see him as a hero. Depends on your viewpoint.
monroe never showed hunting humans,only mentions a relative-Marie in the hospital-who he was killed by "GRIMM".Monroe tells Nick that not hunted pigs-nor his friends-
(07-28-2016, 06:54 AM)brandon Wrote: [ -> ]monroe never showed hunting humans,only mentions a relative-Marie in the hospital-who he was killed by "GRIMM".Monroe tells Nick that not hunted pigs-nor his friends-
But the point is that Monroe has never shown any regret or remorse for hunting humans. In fact, he remembers hunting them fondly because he did it with his grandfather. What's to prevent Monroe from hunting humans again if he so chooses? Not a thing. He has no conscience to prevent him from doing so. I think that's one reason he can so easily go with Nick and kill with him. There's no conscience there to prevent him from killing.
(07-28-2016, 06:50 AM)eric Wrote: [ -> ]Part of the question "is Nick a hero?" depends on your definition of "hero". Is it a flawless person who always does the right thing at the right time(Dudley Doright) or is it a flawed person we admire because of the results (Odysseus of the Odyssey, Hercules). Dudley is a good guy who ends being the butt of jokes. Odysseus lied, stole, cheated on his wife, and ended up getting his crew killed. The Greeks loved him. Hercules did heroic things(the 7 Trials) but ended up killing his wife and kids and had to be saved by the gods. Romans erected statues to him. I see Nick as a stranger in a strange land who tries to do the best he can with what he's got - the books basically tell how to kill, not how to get along. Because he never uses his gifts to enrich himself - extorting money from wessen, killing for hire, making female wessen his sex slaves - choices i would probably be tempted to do - I see him as a hero. Depends on your viewpoint.
Do you view Hercules and Odysseus as heroes, eric?