Grimm Forum
Diana - Printable Version

+- Grimm Forum (https://grimmforum.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Grimm Universe (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Grimm-Universe)
+--- Forum: Characters (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Characters)
+--- Thread: Diana (/Thread-Diana)



RE: Diana - rpmaluki - 10-15-2017

Whether she guessed or they told her, she showed no residual problems as a result at the twenty year flash forward. She probably figured out the whole story, who did what when and why, including Kelly's own existence. She is happy with the extended family she has because of the present and not the past. She's been shown love from the moment she returned, as she grows I'm sure that plays a bigger role in her interaction with her kidnappers and parents who didn't do everything in their power to hold on to her/search for her at the first chance they got.


RE: Diana - Robyn - 10-15-2017

(10-15-2017, 07:49 AM)irukandji Wrote: Adaind was in denial about Diana's kidnapping. As were Nick and the scoobies. However, I have been reading posts about how Diana began to immediately bond with Nick after the big Z incident. There was enough bonding that she grew to oh so love Nick and call him her Dad. My question is how could Diana bond with Nick if he and Adalind and the scoobies are keeping this huge secret from her?

Unless none of them have a conscience (which is a very likely possibility), Diana is going to guess that something's amiss by the very way they all treat her.

I think the bigger question is how can anyone successfully deceive Diana unless she either wants to be deceived or the writers contrived a scenario that contradicted even her limited characterization.

In utero, she senses her mother’s fear, rationalizes the source of that fear, then quickly determines how to eliminate the threat with precise and deadly force. At one to two days old she’s capable of projecting her image and rationalizes that she can manipulate Meisner into gathering firewood by making him believe she’s been abandoned in the woods.

Yet later when she’s grown and matured the span of several years, we’re supposed to believe she doesn’t have a clue what was happening to Kelly in the next room. I assumed Diana was talking about Adalind when she asked ‘where’s my mommy’ because it never occurred to me that she wouldn’t know what happened to Kelly. Honestly, I just assumed she didn’t care.

Diana throws a telekinetic hissy fit when Adalind says she can’t stay and later pretends to be Renard threatening Adalind into coming to the BC house. But. She doesn’t lift a finger to prevent Viktor, Kelly, or Kenneth & Juliette from taking her away from the mother she suddenly can’t live without.

So either Diana couldn’t sense anything about Nick and Adalind except rainbows and unicorns or the writers simply contrived their happily ever after scene for the finale. Nothing about Diana followed even a somewhat cohesive path.

For me, questioning why Diana did or didn't do something is like questioning why the stove didn't do a better job helping Nick fight off the BC attack. Because like Diana, the stove is either on or off depending on what the plot requires.


RE: Diana - irukandji - 10-15-2017

(10-15-2017, 08:53 AM)Robyn Wrote: For me, questioning why Diana did or didn't do something is like questioning why the stove didn't do a better job helping Nick fight off the BC attack. Because like Diana, the stove is either on or off depending on what the plot requires.

Right. While scripts are helpful to determine accuracies in the story, there's no accurate answer to my question because it was speculative. As js pointed out, we don't know what happened. I just thought it would be something to discuss since Diana herself brought up the cutesy remark that Kelly was named after her other mother.


RE: Diana - rpmaluki - 10-15-2017

(10-15-2017, 08:53 AM)Robyn Wrote:
(10-15-2017, 07:49 AM)irukandji Wrote: Adaind was in denial about Diana's kidnapping. As were Nick and the scoobies. However, I have been reading posts about how Diana began to immediately bond with Nick after the big Z incident. There was enough bonding that she grew to oh so love Nick and call him her Dad. My question is how could Diana bond with Nick if he and Adalind and the scoobies are keeping this huge secret from her?

Unless none of them have a conscience (which is a very likely possibility), Diana is going to guess that something's amiss by the very way they all treat her.

I think the bigger question is how can anyone successfully deceive Diana unless she either wants to be deceived or the writers contrived a scenario that contradicted even her limited characterization.

In utero, she senses her mother’s fear, rationalizes the source of that fear, then quickly determines how to eliminate the threat with precise and deadly force. At one to two days old she’s capable of projecting her image and rationalizes that she can manipulate Meisner into gathering firewood by making him believe she’s been abandoned in the woods.

Yet later when she’s grown and matured the span of several years, we’re supposed to believe she doesn’t have a clue what was happening to Kelly in the next room. I assumed Diana was talking about Adalind when she asked ‘where’s my mommy’ because it never occurred to me that she wouldn’t know what happened to Kelly. Honestly, I just assumed she didn’t care.

Diana throws a telekinetic hissy fit when Adalind says she can’t stay and later pretends to be Renard threatening Adalind into coming to the BC house. But. She doesn’t lift a finger to prevent Viktor, Kelly, or Kenneth & Juliette from taking her away from the mother she suddenly can’t live without.

So either Diana couldn’t sense anything about Nick and Adalind except rainbows and unicorns or the writers simply contrived their happily ever after scene for the finale. Nothing about Diana followed even a somewhat cohesive path.

For me, questioning why Diana did or didn't do something is like questioning why the stove didn't do a better job helping Nick fight off the BC attack. Because like Diana, the stove is either on or off depending on what the plot requires.
All true but this also applies to all the characters. Like chess pieces, they were all moved by the writers to fit the story they wanted to tell, good or bad.


RE: Diana - Hell Rell - 10-15-2017

It's really obvious that shows like Grimm, OUAT, and GoT don't concern themselves with consistency. This isn't The Wire which often sacrificed drama for coherency. It's no surprise that a bunch of us here praise AoS. It's much more consistent and respectful of the characters than someone would think a Marvel TV show would be. They do a great job of respecting the characters while providing a great plot. The most recent arc, the Framework arc, was a masterpiece.


RE: Diana - Robyn - 10-15-2017

(10-15-2017, 09:09 AM)rpmaluki Wrote: All true but this also applies to all the characters. Like chess pieces, they were all moved by the writers to fit the story they wanted to tell, good or bad.
Absolutely, all the characters were fitted and at times retrofitted into a characterization a story needed. I've often referred to the characters a props being moved around the scene.

I don't know if Grimm actually did it that much more than other shows I've watched or if it's more obvious to me because I connected so little with so many characters.


RE: Diana - rpmaluki - 10-15-2017

(10-15-2017, 09:28 AM)Robyn Wrote:
(10-15-2017, 09:09 AM)rpmaluki Wrote: All true but this also applies to all the characters. Like chess pieces, they were all moved by the writers to fit the story they wanted to tell, good or bad.
Absolutely, all the characters were fitted and at times retrofitted into a characterization a story needed. I've often referred to the characters a props being moved around the scene.

I don't know if Grimm actually did it that much more than other shows I've watched or if it's more obvious to me because I connected so little with so many characters.
I don't believe this type of storytelling is unique to Grimm, even juggernauts like GoT do it (since they ran out of books to adapt).

Regardless, all characters are props in fiction, the issue is how skillfully these props are moved from point A to point Z cohesively, maximising good characterisation and plotting. Not every writer is exceptionally skilled, at best it's the idea that sells the story, not necessarily the characters.


RE: Diana - irukandji - 10-15-2017

(10-15-2017, 09:27 AM)Hell Rell Wrote: It's really obvious that shows like Grimm, OUAT, and GoT don't concern themselves with consistency. This isn't The Wire which often sacrificed drama for coherency. It's no surprise that a bunch of us here praise AoS. It's much more consistent and respectful of the characters than someone would think a Marvel TV show would be. They do a great job of respecting the characters while providing a great plot. The most recent arc, the Framework arc, was a masterpiece.

I would add to this, Longmire, one of the best shows I have ever watched on television.


RE: Diana - Robyn - 10-15-2017

(10-15-2017, 09:00 AM)irukandji Wrote: Right. While scripts are helpful to determine accuracies in the story, there's no accurate answer to my question because it was speculative. As js pointed out, we don't know what happened. I just thought it would be something to discuss since Diana herself brought up the cutesy remark that Kelly was named after her other mother.

I think Diana would be an interesting topic to explore, it’s just that her character profile is so lacking that there wouldn’t be an opinion too extreme for the character. At any given moment Diana would kill without hesitation just because someone pissed her off or be the sweet little girl who wanted nothing more than her mommy and daddy to love each other and be happy. This kid saw her parent’s mangled and bloodied bodies on the ground and acted like she’d just walked past a dead cockroach. But, that behavior goes along with her hugging Nick in the final present-time scene instead of embracing her parents who were magically alive. And that’s another stumbling block for me when analyzing characters, removing Nick as the defining influence on a character’s evolution.

So here goes… The one constant for me that had the least interruption and contradiction was that Diana loved Adalind and her safety & happiness was always important. Because of that, I can see Diana willingly joining the Grimm cult because it would make Adalind happy and keep them together. That said, I don’t think Diana would allow Nick and Adalind to conspire against Renard unless he was obviously jeopardizing their safety. But I do think that if Diana had to chose, she would choose her mother over her father, even if that meant referring to Nick as Dad. Because really, she did it with Kelly; so would it be that much of a stretch if she did it with Nick?


RE: Diana - Hell Rell - 10-15-2017

(10-15-2017, 09:36 AM)irukandji Wrote:
(10-15-2017, 09:27 AM)Hell Rell Wrote: It's really obvious that shows like Grimm, OUAT, and GoT don't concern themselves with consistency. This isn't The Wire which often sacrificed drama for coherency. It's no surprise that a bunch of us here praise AoS. It's much more consistent and respectful of the characters than someone would think a Marvel TV show would be. They do a great job of respecting the characters while providing a great plot. The most recent arc, the Framework arc, was a masterpiece.

I would add to this, Longmire, one of the best shows I have ever watched on television.

I bingewatched the first three seasons of Longmire and loved it. It was surprising since it's not the type of show I would usually be interested in. I pretty much like all the characters and I like how they integrate the "Res" into the storylines and how they show how respectful Walt is of Native American traditions without it coming off as pandering or sappy.