(12-17-2016, 11:14 PM)syscrash Wrote: The crimes are only there to give Nick and the others a reason to use their abilities. There is no motivation in their actions.

(12-17-2016, 11:33 PM)syscrash Wrote: When has any of the characters jobs taken precedence over wesen activity. Adalind is the only one who's job relies on her abilities. Bud being a beaver could equate to his ability to fix and build things. But that is an indirect relation. Nick could be a private detective and still work wesen cases. Just not sure who his client would be.

(12-17-2016, 11:33 PM)syscrash Wrote: When has any of the characters jobs taken precedence over wesen activity. Adalind is the only one who's job relies on her abilities. Bud being a beaver could equate to his ability to fix and build things. But that is an indirect relation. Nick could be a private detective and still work wesen cases. Just not sure who his client would be.

Quote:Let's just talk about Nick then. It's a given the crimes offer him an opportunity to show his abilities. But he can't investigate one single crime without being a detective, that's his job. Before he can do that job, he has to be motivated to work. Motivation comes in the form of the fome, and supporting Adalind and their baby.

(12-18-2016, 12:06 AM)syscrash Wrote:

Quote:Let's just talk about Nick then. It's a given the crimes offer him an opportunity to show his abilities. But he can't investigate one single crime without being a detective, that's his job. Before he can do that job, he has to be motivated to work. Motivation comes in the form of the fome, and supporting Adalind and their baby.

Nick could do what he does if he was a private detective instead of a policeman. The difference would be explaining how he gets paid. On most shows they make the detective with special skills a police consultant. Nick has never worried about losing his job because of his responsibilities. It has never made since how his mother was able to take care of her self. It made even less sense when she was hiding with Diana. They implied she was like Meisner a gun for hire.

(12-17-2016, 11:14 PM)syscrash Wrote: The crimes are only there to give Nick and the others a reason to use their abilities. There is no motivation in their actions. Only reasons for the action. That is why when people try and judge by what they feel the characters are thinking. They find the assumption does not make sense. Try and judge based on a characters motivation and the actions start to contradict themselves. That is why people find it hard to rationalize why Nick overlooks Adalind's past. And now why he will overlook Eve past.

• Motivation - the reason or reasons one has for acting or behaving in a particular way.
  synonyms: motive, motivating force, incentive, stimulus, stimulation, inspiration, inducement, incitement, spur, reason

• Reason: cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
  synonyms: cause, ground(s), basis, rationale

(12-18-2016, 12:06 AM)syscrash Wrote: Nick could do what he does if he was a private detective instead of a policeman. The difference would be explaining how he gets paid. On most shows they make the detective with special skills a police consultant. Nick has never worried about losing his job because of his responsibilities. It has never made since how his mother was able to take care of her self. It made even less sense when she was hiding with Diana. They implied she was like Meisner a gun for hire.

Quote:Basically, the characters are simply reacting to contrived situations in a manner that moves the episodes/stories in the direction the writers’ desire. What appeared personal or important to a character in one episode may not exist in the next episode if it impedes the writers’ desired conclusion. Nick is not a detective in order to explore the conflicts of living/operating in two very different worlds, but rather, being a detective supplies the central character access to crimes and operating under the color of law allows an easy flow of storytelling for the writers. The writers never intended to present debatable scenarios, such as Nick abusing his authority and access as a police officer. Questions of morality and integrity are inconsequential to the story being told. Nick abusing his authority and access as a police officer is simply a method to propel the action to it’s conclusion and not a concern for the writers.

It’s finally becoming clear why I was unable to personally invest in the characters and their stories. There’s simply nothing personal to invest in. Nick, Juliette, and Adalind suffering horrific, life altering hardships has nothing to do with the characters growing and evolving or learning to survive and move on. These characters are simply tools used to propel the action to it’s conclusion in an episode. Which is probably why I have no idea who is a bad guy and who is a good guy, other than the show’s character bios. G & K created a central character/hero and his team of loyal sidekicks, and created two recurring villains. That’s my only real clue because while all the characters have behaved as good or bad, it was never due to personal motivation, only what a episode required to propel the action to it’s conclusion.

Quote:One thing still confuses me, syscrash. You have had negative reactions to Adalind’s behavior on numerous occasions.
Why question Adalind’s intent when she took Kelly and went to Renard and Diana? The story was about Nick temporarily losing his son, Nick vs. Renard/BC. Adalind was simply behaving in a contrived fashion that would aid in propelling the action to it’s conclusion. So why have any negative reaction to Adalind’s behavior?

(12-19-2016, 01:37 AM)syscrash Wrote:

Quote:Basically, the characters are simply reacting to contrived situations in a manner that moves the episodes/stories in the direction the writers’ desire. What appeared personal or important to a character in one episode may not exist in the next episode if it impedes the writers’ desired conclusion. Nick is not a detective in order to explore the conflicts of living/operating in two very different worlds, but rather, being a detective supplies the central character access to crimes and operating under the color of law allows an easy flow of storytelling for the writers. The writers never intended to present debatable scenarios, such as Nick abusing his authority and access as a police officer. Questions of morality and integrity are inconsequential to the story being told. Nick abusing his authority and access as a police officer is simply a method to propel the action to it’s conclusion and not a concern for the writers.

It’s finally becoming clear why I was unable to personally invest in the characters and their stories. There’s simply nothing personal to invest in. Nick, Juliette, and Adalind suffering horrific, life altering hardships has nothing to do with the characters growing and evolving or learning to survive and move on. These characters are simply tools used to propel the action to it’s conclusion in an episode. Which is probably why I have no idea who is a bad guy and who is a good guy, other than the show’s character bios. G & K created a central character/hero and his team of loyal sidekicks, and created two recurring villains. That’s my only real clue because while all the characters have behaved as good or bad, it was never due to personal motivation, only what a episode required to propel the action to it’s conclusion.

Robyn these two statement sum up my view and observations better then I have ever been able to express.
They also explain why so many comments have a problem with the show. You are right it is hard if not impossible to get involved with the character because we have now idea who they are. we only see what they do. So many try to summarize the who they are from the what they do.

Quote:One thing still confuses me, syscrash. You have had negative reactions to Adalind’s behavior on numerous occasions.
Why question Adalind’s intent when she took Kelly and went to Renard and Diana? The story was about Nick temporarily losing his son, Nick vs. Renard/BC. Adalind was simply behaving in a contrived fashion that would aid in propelling the action to it’s conclusion. So why have any negative reaction to Adalind’s behavior?

At times I try and draw logical conclusions even when their are none. Also in engage in intellectual arguments as to why people develop the opinions they do. If you notice I am quick to point out when people are arguing based on a belief instead of a fact. So many have developed a perception of the character that mirror what they feel the character should do or be.
My objective view of the Adalind character is she is created to be very calculating but has very little foresight. I find fault in what Adalind does as a means to show the biased perception people have of Juliette / Eve.
To me Adalind is a perfect example of what a hexenbiest is. Where Hexenette / Eve are still human learning to be a hexenbiest. Even in season 5 Adalind reacts exactly like you would expect a hexenbiest to act. The only time Juliette / Eve reacted like a hexenbiest was burning the trailer. My only objection she should have done it with more style instead of throwing a tantrum. As Eve she was a mercenary with hexenbiest powers. Example killing the guys in the truck. A hexenbiest would have done it with flair and style. Adalind would have let the truck drive away, then blow them up, smiling as the truck slowly coasted to a stop. She would have then turned walked away. The one thing you can say about Adalind she has style.

(12-19-2016, 01:53 PM)MarylikesGrimm Wrote: Season 5 both the actor and character acted like a mother and Adalind was sorry about what she did and she had low self-esteem. Adalind of season 2 was like that.