Grimm Forum

Full Version: Greenwalt & Kouf are morally indifferent writers.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
I've been binge-watching a lot of GRIMM episodes lately, and I found a consistent pattern emerging from them. Not just the episodes penned by G&K, but the writing staff in general. (Keep in mind they're working under mandates dictated by G&K, the chief writers.) They don't particularly care whether a protagonist's actions are "right" or "wrong," as long as the character goes in the direction they want him/her to go.

I'll try to explain. There's a fine line between writing deliberately "immoral" entertainment (such as Rob Zombie's films), and simply being indifferent to how the behavior of recurring cast members might appear to audiences. The protagonists kidnap a baby from its Hexenbiest mother? Deal with it. Nick is copacetic using a forged illegal passport to travel? Deal with it. Juliette was brainwashed by an uncomfortably pragmatic organization into an emotionless war machine who constantly denied her guilt by projecting it onto another persona? Deal with it.

It's not just GRIMM I'm talking about. This is a recurring bad habit among many writers of different shows who seem to treat character consistency as some kind of inconvenience. If you were to watch a random episode of the classic version of TWILIGHT ZONE or even something from the '80's like KNIGHT RIDER, you'd notice greater care paid to how a character acts from episode to episode, as opposed to him/her getting someone decapitated and everybody gets over the whole thing in record time. Character inconsistency appears to be a part of the current zeitgeist. Is it sloppiness brought about by frantic production schedules? Or are the writers simply too lazy to bother?
Isn't that pretty much how real life is? People come up with all sorts of ways to justify what they do. How many of history's worst characters would have admitted that what they were doing was immoral or evil?

It's the code restriction that produced the moral consistency of TV's past heroes that was unrealistic.
I would have to say one of my favorite shows, Star Trek, TOS, was guilty of moral indifference. Yet, I watch The Orville, which is a kind of Star Trek with a humorous take, and it generally does not go into the realm of moral indifference.
Start reading the bible- ja , ja.-
(03-09-2019, 04:31 PM)Hexenadler Wrote: [ -> ]I've been binge-watching a lot of GRIMM episodes lately, and I found a consistent pattern emerging from them. Not just the episodes penned by G&K, but the writing staff in general. (Keep in mind they're working under mandates dictated by G&K, the chief writers.) They don't particularly care whether a protagonist's actions are "right" or "wrong," as long as the character goes in the direction they want him/her to go.

I'll try to explain. There's a fine line between writing deliberately "immoral" entertainment (such as Rob Zombie's films), and simply being indifferent to how the behavior of recurring cast members might appear to audiences. The protagonists kidnap a baby from its Hexenbiest mother? Deal with it. Nick is copacetic using a forged illegal passport to travel? Deal with it. Juliette was brainwashed by an uncomfortably pragmatic organization into an emotionless war machine who constantly denied her guilt by projecting it onto another persona? Deal with it.

It's not just GRIMM I'm talking about. This is a recurring bad habit among many writers of different shows who seem to treat character consistency as some kind of inconvenience. If you were to watch a random episode of the classic version of TWILIGHT ZONE or even something from the '80's like KNIGHT RIDER, you'd notice greater care paid to how a character acts from episode to episode, as opposed to him/her getting someone decapitated and everybody gets over the whole thing in record time. Character inconsistency appears to be a part of the current zeitgeist. Is it sloppiness brought about by frantic production schedules? Or are the writers simply too lazy to bother?

I watch TV and movies for entertainment not for morals, history lessons or to analyze society. Did I notice some inconsistencies or immoral acts in the Grimm Series? You bet-cha.

If I didn't approve of what was on the screen/contents? I have this unique item with these unique buttons on it. Maybe you heard of it, they call it, (shhhhhh), "A Remote Control". It comes with these quirky features. They are flocking amazing. You can change channels and/or shut the dam screen off.

I feel sorry for all you negative critics of the show Grimm don't have one of these Remote Control. That might explain the constant barrage of constantly trying to change its narrative. Still, I am sure "SOME" of your TV's has at least, on & off buttons.

Before I was enticed to watch GoT, I based my dislike of the show from various rumors and some biased publications. Once I was told by a close family member of its quality and with me, having an open mind, I gave it a shot.

IMO, it is one of the worst immoral series I have watched on broadcast TV. Being born without the gift of "writers intent". As far as character development goes? The only consistency, for this amateur critic was able to determined, was? For the most part, they end up dying.

Going against all my predisposition about the show, I ended up enjoying the entertainment. I did end up using that quirky item a lot. Usually to speed up the start of the next episode.
The Bible contains episodes that could be considered "morally indifferent". Moses knew the Angel of Death would ignore any home with the blood on the doorway. There is no reference to Moses telling his flock to take in good Egyptians children to save them. Let the good die with the bad!!!
(03-09-2019, 06:06 PM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]For the most part, they end up dying.

Isn't that what the G in GoT is? Characters killing each other for dominance like chess pieces knocking each other off the board?
(03-09-2019, 06:11 PM)eric Wrote: [ -> ]The Bible contains episodes that could be considered "morally indifferent". Moses knew the Angel of Death would ignore any home with the blood on the doorway. There is no reference to Moses telling his flock to take in good Egyptians children to save them. Let the good die with the bad!!!

Why would it? It's about the Israelites, not the Egyptians.
(03-09-2019, 06:12 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-09-2019, 06:06 PM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]For the most part, they end up dying.

Isn't that what the G in GoT is? Characters killing each other for dominance like chess pieces knocking each other off the board?

It sure does Face. "Games" is the key word.

It reminds me of an old joke about a French king having to leave his Throne to go fight in the Crusades but he fears his gorgeous, irresistible horny Queen will be unfaithful.

So he summons his 3 most trusted knights to oversee her fidelity 24/7. But to be on the safe side, he has his blacksmith install a small guillotine by the entrance of her private part, in his presence, of course.

Once he returns, his fist act is to summons those 3 most trusted knights, one at a time to his throne room. As the 1st knight stands at attention, he orders his royal guards to pull down his draws. To his surprise, the 1st knight has no swinging member dangling between his legs, so he orders to loose his head using a full size guillotine.

He calls in his 2nd most trusted knight and the same scenario is repeated. He also ends up ordered to loosing his head since he also had no swinging member between his legs.

Now being so disgusted of the betrayal of 2 of his most trusted knights. He fears the 3rd one will have the same resolve. But alas, when the 3rd knights draws are yanked down, there it swings, a full sized member between his legs, proving, he was trustworthy and able to resist his alluring Queen.

Being proud of his 3rd knight, his Majesty stand up to shake his hand and to reward his most trusted knight, as he asks him, how was he able to resist the temptations of his un-resistable Queen.

All the 3rd knight could do was, to reply with mumbles. (his tongue was cut off)

Hey, i did mention he was a "French" King!
(03-09-2019, 05:12 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't that pretty much how real life is? People come up with all sorts of ways to justify what they do. How many of history's worst characters would have admitted that what they were doing was immoral or evil?

There's a difference between trying to justify one's actions (however flimsily), and simply not giving a damn at all. The GRIMM writing staff didn't give a damn. The old "but that's real life!" argument is a common defense for what amounts to careless storytelling.

Quote:It's the code restriction that produced the moral consistency of TV's past heroes that was unrealistic.

I hope that's not how you view life in general. If it is, it's an awfully cynical perspective. "Moral consistency" is exactly what made television characters of previous decades more likable (and yes, identifiable) than the current crop. Having a character act the saint in one episode, and then abruptly switching him to asshole status in the next, isn't "realistic." People are more altruistic than you think, although the media likes to dwell on the more negative aspects of the human race, and since most storytellers these days just claim they're depicting the world that's around them, the negative aspects are all they see.

But let's forget about the question of moral ambiguity for a moment, and just concern ourselves with the issue of positive role models. More children than we know are watching shows like GRIMM every day. What are they to make of a lead character with an incredibly flexible conscience? Michael Knight might not meet your standards of a realistic protagonist, but I'd definitely prefer my kids to watch HIS exploits than Nick Burkhardt's.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19