Grimm Forum

(10-16-2016, 10:16 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]Yet, Juliette, who was a friend to all of them, doesn't even get that much credit. Adalind told Rosalee, "YOU don't know what it's like" when she was talking about the hexenbiest taking control. Adalind should know, and yet that's not even enough to excuse Juliette.

1) We've seen Hexenbiests on the show who've had a better time keeping their nastier impulses under control. Henrietta and Renard's mom are examples. All the same, try saying "It's just my nature" to the son of the woman you helped to murder, or the relatives of the families who were slaughtered by the Verrat on the same night just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's like a former Auschwitz guard trying to justify his job by saying he was German. That excuse can only get you so far, especially in a court of law.

2) Juliette's pathetic explanation for her betrayal - "I didn't know Kenneth was going to do that" - could only imply she was either lying, or intensely stupid. I have a feeling most Hexenbiests try to rationalize their own cruelty in a similar fashion, but it amounts to the same bullshit line: Projecting your guilt on something that's supposedly outside your control.

On a side note, I've always been a little disturbed how you keep attempting to twist the blame for Kelly's murder ON KELLY HERSELF. It wasn't Juliette writing her an email to lure her into a trap that got her killed. It wasn't Kenneth ripping her head clean off her shoulders that got her killed. Nope, the only real cause for Kelly's head winding up inside her box was her own naivete.

Yes, it might have been dumb on Kelly's part, but the fact remains she implicitly trusted Juliette. Juliette violated that trust. THAT'S why the fanbase refuses to "get over" Juliette's crimes. Given how the writers have glossed over the other felonies you've listed, they probably assumed they would have been able to gloss over Juliette's as well. They were very, very wrong.

(10-16-2016, 10:37 AM)Hexenadler Wrote: [ -> ]On a side note, I've always been a little disturbed how you keep attempting to twist the blame for Kelly's murder ON KELLY HERSELF. Yes, it might have been dumb on Kelly's part, but the fact remains she implicitly trusted Juliette. Juliette violated that trust. THAT'S why the fanbase refuses to "get over" Juliette's crimes. Given how the writers have glossed over the other felonies you've listed, they probably assumed they would have been able to gloss over Juliette's as well. They were very, very wrong.

Hexenadler, you've never been disturbed over what I write and that is a fact. The fact is, when it comes down to it, Kelly got herself killed. Juliette and company didn't go to her hideout and ambush her without her knowledge. SHE came to them. Furthermore, SHE knew the royals were in town. SHE knew they were after Diana. SHE knew Nick was a target. Yet all of the sudden she doesn't know that an email from Juliette might be a setup? Really?

And fine, you don't want to believe Kelly got herself killed. I get it.

However, there was an innocent there who could have easily gotten killed. Instead, she got kidnapped. There is no one to blame for that mess except for Kelly.

It's amazing to me how everyone is all upset over Juliette threatening Adalind's baby. Yet, no one says anything about the threats that became Diana's realities because of Kelly.

(10-16-2016, 10:51 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]Hexenadler, you've never been disturbed over what I write and that is a fact. The fact is, when it comes down to it, Kelly got herself killed. Juliette and company didn't go to her hideout and ambush her without her knowledge. SHE came to them. Furthermore, SHE knew the royals were in town. SHE knew they were after Diana. SHE knew Nick was a target. Yet all of the sudden she doesn't know that an email from Juliette might be a setup? Really?

And fine, you don't want to believe Kelly got herself killed. I get it.

However, there was an innocent there who could have easily gotten killed. Instead, she got kidnapped. There is no one to blame for that mess except for Kelly.

Dear lord. Did you really just say that? Did you actually type those words on your keyboard and click the "Post Reply" button without a second thought? You've basically just absolved Juliette AND Kenneth, the vilest characters in this story by far, of any blame with that one sentence. I don't care how you try to rationalize it, what you're doing is morally reprehensible. Just STOP already.

Kelly’s ludicrous death scene was the result of an actor not returning to a role followed by lazy & bad writing making her the dumbest Grimm to ever live. And I didn’t think there could be a Grimm dumber than Nick Burkhardt, but G & K proved me wrong with Kelly’s completely out-of-character return to Portland. Prior to being killed/written off, the show would have never had Kelly waltz to the front door. She would first attempt to contact Nick then get a lay of the land before going to the house. That said, we deal with what the show provides. And the show provided a very uncharacteristically stupid Kelly.

This debate isn’t any different than fans hate Juliette because of Kelly’s death but not because of the neighbor’s death, or they hate Hexenbiest Juliette because they never liked human Juliette to begin with. That aspect of the discussion trivializes the life & death of the characters involved.

Kelly does hold some responsibility in her death. She’s too smart to walk into a trap, especially with a small child in tow. But most of all, Kelly was absolutely certain she was the only person qualified to protect and teach Diana. So certain she chose to kidnap Diana from her mother. If so absolutely certain, she wouldn’t have made any move that risked keeping the child under her protection. If she wasn’t genuinely certain about her role in Diana’s life, then she was simply arrogant and believed herself to be judge, jury, and executioner.

Regardless of her motivation, I can not understand why Juliette is so horrible when conspiring with Kenneth to kidnap Adalind’s daughter, but just going about her usual day when conspiring with Kelly to kidnap Diana from Adalind. Yes, one abduction resulted in a death. But would there be outrage had Adalind or Renard died during the first abduction, or would it simply be an inconsequential death from the bad-guy list?

Where is the outrage that Juliette wanted to kill Adalind and the unborn child’s death was trivial collateral damage? Where is the outrage that Juliette willingly handed over a child to someone as violent and callous as Kenneth? There’s much outrage over Nick in a relationship with his rapist. Where is the outrage that Nick kidnapped a baby, and that ‘his rapist’ was forced to conduct a spell that required her to have sex with her baby’s kidnapper?

I can not understand this sliding scale where one character’s heartache or death causes outrage while another character’s heartache or death is meh… he/she is a bad guy or we don’t really like him or her, so who cares?

I don’t like Nick, at all. Actually, I don’t like any of the Team Grimm characters, and consider them morally reprehensible people. However, while I feel they bring much of their woes on themselves, I don't consider their emotional pain trivial or deserved, or hope for a sooner rather than later demise. I believe Kelly's death was a result of her kidnapping Diana, but I don't consider her death just rewards.

irukandji is right, all the characters have dirty hands. No one on Grimm is qualified to teach an ethics class, but they all should take one. I just don’t understand why one character’s dirty hands are so much worse than another character’s dirty hands. Or why the characters are cast in these unyielding molds of absolute good or absolute bad that prevents them from evolving.

If G & K kept a straight face while writing that Adalind is in love with Nick, I can keep a straight face if they write that Nick doesn’t blame Juliette. I don’t find either scenario more acceptable or unacceptable than the other, because I don’t give more consideration to one character’s motivation or heartache over the other. Whether I like the character or not, he/she deserves consideration.

Hexenadler you completely ignore Kelly is a experienced Grimm. She lives by the rule of Her job is to kill wesen. She is not an innocent victim. There are so many reason why the Juliette hatred is so unwarranted. Lets start with Adalind put the attack on Kelly in motion. How about Nick putting in motion Kelly killing Adalind mother. Yet Adalind does not hold that against him. She even offered to forgive Kelly if she would help. From the stand point of Kelly is a Grimm, Juliette is a Hexenbiest. By definition wesen instinctual try and kill Grimms. You say Juliette was naive in her explanation that Kenneth was going to kill Kelly. We have seen several abductions before and after. Kelly was the only one that ended in death. Even from an outside view why would death be a given. How about the fact that Kelly's death was a surprise to everyone that watched the show. How many theories where put forth that Kelly was not really dead. Yet you put forth the idea the Juliette should have known. Lets consider even the writers had Juliette upstairs. So there would not be any confusion that Juliette did not kill her or could have intervened. The made sure Juliette was keep in the dark about Kenneth intentions. Lets consider, Nick has no problem working with Eve, even saved her life. Is that something that would happen if he really felt She killed his mom or held a grudge. The show started her return with saving everyone's life. From there it was nothing but Eve helping Nick on his mission to defeat BC. She even almost died trying to save Nicks life. Yet people only want to see Eve as evil. I have yet to see Adalind put her neck on the line.

This is a Nick and Adalind video thread. People forget Nick and Juliette where already a couple which does not lend it self to the courtship seen between Nick and Adalind. What we did se between Nick and Juliette and Nick and Eve was a since of trust and dependency. Not once has Nick put his fate in Adalind hands like he has with Juliette and now Eve. A number of times Eve has shared inside information that Nick needed to know. Adalind having inside information about Sean never shared any of it.

syscrash, your counter argument is diminished by the use of the writers strategically positioning Juliette upstairs or Nick working with and trusting her alter ego. Regardless of where Juliette was standing, it was obvious that something was going down and she chose to stay upstairs. It was evident that Nick didn’t consider Eve to be Juliette, and actually considered ‘his’ Juliette to be dead. So the fact that he worked with/trusted this Eve person is irrelevant to his feelings about Juliette and her prior actions.

That Adalind not sharing information on Renard with Nick notes a lack of dependability is a personal opinion, and not shared by the character or the actor. Nick stated that he doesn’t blame Adalind. DG stated that the character Nick understands Adalind was acting on mother instincts and put her children first.

But given that the actors, writers & characters turn on a dime, their actions and opinions in one scene or interview mean little in the next. So if the show wanted Juliette’s lack of involvement understood, they should have had her arrive at the house after Kelly’s demise, and at the very least have her question the need to kill Kelly. And if the show wanted us to understand that Adalind not forthcoming with valuable information meant she wasn’t dependable, they should have told their lead actor.

A side note to offer a different opinion. Adalind did not put the attack on Kelly in motion. Kelly put that ball of mess in motion by deeming herself the only person qualified to protect & properly teach Diana, then failing miserably. Adalind grasped any opportunity available, as any mother would. I don’t know of anyone who would put the kidnapper’s wellbeing above getting their child back, other than a character in a contrived & unbelievable story.

Your response does not consider all of the scenes.
Juliette being keep upstairs was the writers creating a a case of plausible denial. They wanted Juliette to be a victim of circumstance. Consider they had Adalind directly involved in her actions without good reason. Thy over exaggerated Juliette reasons for what she did. They then spent all of season 5 with Eve making up for her actions by doing nothing but good. Season 4 she apologizes, Season 5 she expresses regret. Yet people insist on seeing it just the opposite.

AS for Adalind leaving, like Eve said there is always a choice it is the reaction that make the choice good or bad not the person. That Adalind made the choice to leave does not make her bad or him blame her. He just does not agree with her choice. He is truly mad at her choice and willing to kill to change the situation.

Having Juliette waiting outside would have blurred her involvement since Kelly was beheaded outside. Upstairs was the farthest they could put her from all the action with no way for her being involved. As for her questioning Kenneth actions. This is a guy that just removed the head of a Grimm. Who in their right mind would question or challenge some one like that. Besides she still needed Kenneth for her plans to start a new life. The whole purpose for helping in the first place.

People keep making Kelly actions to protecting Diana as a bad decision. People make an emotional argument that Diana is Adalind child and belongs with her mother. Yet no one says how Adalind would have been able to protect Diana from Viktor. How Viktor would not have just killed her an taken the child. They already showed Viktor has no problem killing whoever displeases him. Remember no one liked Adalind why would they risk their lives to protect her. Also people feel sorry for Adalind. Remeber she had and sold Diana to get her powers back. Not really a mother of the year. If not for Sean She would have been dead in Vienna and Viktor would have had the child anyway.

Why I say Adalind set Kelly's death in motion is because she trusted the guy who put he in the dungeon. Instead of who is keeping her child from the guy who put her in the dungeon. Common sense would say once she realized viktor did nto have Diana and Kelly did. Sean would be a better bet to seeing Diana then Viktor would. Under what condition did she think Viktor would let her keep Diana any way. She even admitted to Sean that she realized after Viktor got Diana he would have no need for her. Did she not realize that when she was giving up Kelly's name.

(10-16-2016, 10:57 AM)Hexenadler Wrote: [ -> ]Dear lord. Did you really just say that? Did you actually type those words on your keyboard and click the "Post Reply" button without a second thought? You've basically just absolved Juliette AND Kenneth, the vilest characters in this story by far, of any blame with that one sentence. I don't care how you try to rationalize it, what you're doing is morally reprehensible. Just STOP already.

Since you're implying that I think Kelly deserved to die, let me set you straight. I don't and have never stated otherwise.

That said, I also expect that as a Grimm and a mercenary, she should be smart enough not to blindly venture into unknown circumstances. That also includes using common sense not to trust an email, no matter who it was from. You seem to be under the impression that because Juliette typed it out, Kelly shouldn't question it at all.

And even if Kelly does all her homework and crosses all her t's and dots all her i's, she still has to reasonably expect that if she ventures into the unknown, it just might end her life. She is a Grimm and not known for her charitable works, so that will automatically increase her enemies. She's also a mercenary and no doubt hasn't made any friends over the years with that profession either.

So let's talk about morally reprehensible for just a moment, but instead of relating it to me, let's relate it to Kelly.

She's been entrusted with a baby. A baby who she insisted on taking care of. The baby is not just any baby, but one who has the power to change events on a global basis.

So what does the intelligent Grimm and mercenary do? Responds to the email from an unconfirmed source, goes into an unknown situation weaponless and takes a child into a potentially deadly situation because she hasn't bothered to do her homework ahead of time.

You're all upset over Kelly's death? What were her moral responsibilities with regard to Diana? Did she show responsibility in taking Diana to Nick's house simply to find out what kind of danger he was in? I wonder at her line of thought and how effective she thought she was going to be with a toddler in tow.

Let me bring up some more of Kelly's moral indiscretions. She had her sister take care of Nick while she went off to be a Grimm and a mercenary. Talk about morally reprehensible. What happened to her responsibility to Nick? Oh wait, I forgot, he was in danger. There's only one problem with that. Nick was in danger because of her. Her actions got her husband and a friend killed and put Nick's life in danger. Not only that, but according to the story, it forced her on the run.

So, did she run until she found a safe haven for her and her son to live in peace? No. She continued her hazardous life. Let's not forget the biggest lie, where her son was forced to believe she was dead.

Morally reprehensible? Where's the outrage over Marie's death? Marie willingly gave up her Grimm life to raise Nick. Kelly couldn't be bothered. She continued to be a Grimm and a mercenary. Her lifestyle and her complete stupidity in relying on an email resulted in her death. She got herself killed.

dalind and her mother may have had their problem but she was their to raise her. Kelly may have gave birth to Nick but she did not raise him. In fact he did not even know her. Both time she showed up it caused him a ton of trouble.

If people accept Adalind able to forgive Kelly. Why do they have such trouble seeing Nick forgiving Juliette. You blame Juliette for setting up Kelly. Nick told Kelly about Adalind's mom. I did think it was strange that Nick was more emotional about his mothers death the Aunt Mari's the women who raised him. He does not have a problem with Sean. In synchronicity they stated that Nick knew Sean was the one the killed Mari. His accuse was "she was a Grimm and had a key". Buy that reasoning Juliette was a hexenbiest, Kelly was a Grimm with a hexenbiest child.

The writers did back flips to give us reasons to justify or at least excuse Juliette. Yet certain people still make her the worst villain on the show.

Fans are very selective about characters. As said in another thread, one of the reasons people hold Juliette's actions against her is because of her prior relationships with the people she's betrayed.

When Nick discovered Renard's duplicity, he stopped viewing Renard as an ally but the show backtracked a lot with Renard's character (due to his popularity) by maintaining a relationship between Nick and a known enemy and exploited Nick's (other) adversarial relationship with Adalind much more despite her being Renard's puppet all of S1.

People have preferences plain and simple and the truth is Juliette hasn't been well liked even when she was just plain old human Juliette. That was amplified to a thousand fold when she betrayed her friends. Those who didn't have a reason to like her graduated to full on hate because how dare she burn the trailer or try to make Nick murder his best friend or plot with Kelly's killers.

Try making someone who couldn't stand Juliette since before the cat scratch forgive her for all the things she did, I have a feeling you'll be waiting a very VERY long time.