+- Grimm Forum (https://grimmforum.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Grimm Universe (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Grimm-Universe)
+--- Forum: Grimm Discussions (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Grimm-Discussions)
+--- Thread: Hexenbiestdom (/Thread-Hexenbiestdom)
RE: Hexenbiestdom - FaceInTheCrowd - 07-30-2018
I disagree on that point. Critiquing the real world aspects of the series is perfectly valid in any discussion of it. We did it when the show was being made, so why not now? And sometimes there's just no alternative to "wtf were they thinking when they wrote that?"
RE: Hexenbiestdom - brandon - 07-30-2018
I focus on the characters, I do not question about the writers.
The same when read a book.
RE: Hexenbiestdom - Hell Rell - 07-30-2018
I try to separate what I think happened in the series from what I would've liked to have happened. I find both to valuable discussions to this forum as long as the two don't intertwine and we don't get confused on which is which when a poster makes a reply. That's the real issue in our discussions because there have been plenty of times where posters have interjected their personal preferences into the discussion and let their opinions of the characters color how they see that character and what they actually said or did in the show. Sometimes the reality of what the character said or did differs greatly from what someone claims the character said or did.
That being said, I don't see any problem in questioning the writers as long you acknowledge what they actually wrote. Saying wtf were they thinking is perfectly valid and can lead to great discussions. Acknowledging what they wrote is very important because I don't see how you can criticize them without knowing what they wrote in the first place. That would only lead to "What exactly are you criticizing them for because that never happened?" responses.
There's one main distinction I make between good writing and bad writing. I can disagree with Hank or Rosalee and ask why Nick or Renard did this but as long as I'm referring to the character it's good writing because I'm still immersed in the story. On the other hand, me asking why the writers had Adalind or Wu do something is bad writing because I'm no longer immersed in the story because I'm thinking about what's going on behind the scenes. I'd much rather be concentrated on the puppet than the puppet master.
RE: Hexenbiestdom - FaceInTheCrowd - 07-30-2018
Could be my thoughts just get bumped out of stories too easily. My perspective may be a bit skewed, having spent more than a few long nights shivering in the rain for the sake of a scene that ended up lasting all of two minutes on the screen.
In a well-written story (not saying that Grimm was always well-written, but it was better than some I've worked on), no character ever does something just because he/she is "evil" (whatever that means to you). Characters' actions are determined by what they're thinking and feeling, even if what they're thinking and feeling is totally deluded or influenced by magic or mind control, and in their minds their actions are always justified.
If it's clear what thoughts or feelings might be behind a character's actions and you are just unwilling to accept that someone in that situation might think or feel that way, that's you as a viewer being unwilling to suspend disbelief. But if the character's motivations are impossible to discern, that's just bad writing (or acting or directing) and there's nothing more to be done than to acknowledge it and move on to the next topic.
RE: Hexenbiestdom - dicappatore - 07-30-2018
(07-29-2018, 04:37 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: If we believe what Adalind later told Rosalee about hexenbiest emotions and thought processes, then what Juliette did was probably inevitable.
Nick and Juliette's relationship was troubled from the moment G&K decided to have Nick try to conceal what was happening to him in S01. It created an undercurrent of doubt in Juliette's mind that undermined just about everything between them. Adding on the stress of being turned into a hexenbiest just blew away her capability for rational thinking.
(07-30-2018, 06:50 AM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: I disagree on that point. Critiquing the real world aspects of the series is perfectly valid in any discussion of it. We did it when the show was being made, so why not now? And sometimes there's just no alternative to "wtf were they thinking when they wrote that?"
(07-30-2018, 09:38 AM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: Could be my thoughts just get bumped out of stories too easily. My perspective may be a bit skewed, having spent more than a few long nights shivering in the rain for the sake of a scene that ended up lasting all of two minutes on the screen.
In a well-written story (not saying that Grimm was always well-written, but it was better than some I've worked on), no character ever does something just because he/she is "evil" (whatever that means to you). Characters' actions are determined by what they're thinking and feeling, even if what they're thinking and feeling is totally deluded or influenced by magic or mind control, and in their minds their actions are always justified.
If it's clear what thoughts or feelings might be behind a character's actions and you are just unwilling to accept that someone in that situation might think or feel that way, that's you as a viewer being unwilling to suspend disbelief. But if the character's motivations are impossible to discern, that's just bad writing (or acting or directing) and there's nothing more to be done than to acknowledge it and move on to the next topic.
Please read my previous post again. I never said that it is improper to critique the writers. I only objected to that practice is when an opposing opinion is discounted on actual content given by the writer and the opposing remarks are relegated to, well the writers wrote it that way.
Which goes back to my whole point. I agree, we all should use what the writers wrote and what the actors are feeling and their interpretations of the character. Case in point. When someone claims that Nick was the one to betray Juliette and I proved that it was Juliette doing the preliminary deceit of their relationship in Season 4. I am not referencing S1,2 or 3. but if you wish to include them, so be it.
The point I an trying to make is, using the writers to offset a counter opinion is basically admitting that opinion was baseless.
(07-30-2018, 09:05 AM)Hell Rell Wrote: I try to separate what I think happened in the series from what I would've liked to have happened. I find both to valuable discussions to this forum as long as the two don't intertwine and we don't get confused on which is which when a poster makes a reply. That's the real issue in our discussions because there have been plenty of times where posters have interjected their personal preferences into the discussion and let their opinions of the characters color how they see that character and what they actually said or did in the show. Sometimes the reality of what the character said or did differs greatly from what someone claims the character said or did.
That being said, I don't see any problem in questioning the writers as long you acknowledge what they actually wrote. Saying wtf were they thinking is perfectly valid and can lead to great discussions. Acknowledging what they wrote is very important because I don't see how you can criticize them without knowing what they wrote in the first place. That would only lead to "What exactly are you criticizing them for because that never happened?" responses.
There's one main distinction I make between good writing and bad writing. I can disagree with Hank or Rosalee and ask why Nick or Renard did this but as long as I'm referring to the character it's good writing because I'm still immersed in the story. On the other hand, me asking why the writers had Adalind or Wu do something is bad writing because I'm no longer immersed in the story because I'm thinking about what's going on behind the scenes. I'd much rather be concentrated on the puppet than the puppet master.
Same here HR. I immerse myself into the story. I don't want to look at the technical aspects creating a scene or the writers intent. That is why there is a set, actors and dialogue and don't forget, music. Those are the factors that the writers use as "writers intent".
Hate to repeat myself and I will try to reword my point I was trying to make. Ending a discussion of varying opinions by an opinionated contributor referring to the writers as making an error in replying to a contradicting fact is basically saying. Oops, never mind my opinion, move on. I never said that.
RE: Hexenbiestdom - irukandji - 07-30-2018
I find it interesting how one here tries to cloak himself under some type of literary nobility. Since when is calling a character or another poster names a sign of allowing for various opinions?
RE: Hexenbiestdom - brandon - 07-30-2018
If there is a thread to talk about the writers.
In this we talk about the characters.
RE: Hexenbiestdom - irukandji - 07-30-2018
(07-30-2018, 11:17 AM)brandon Wrote: If there is a thread to talk about the writers.
In this we talk about the characters.
No one is here seeking a doctorate in what constitutes an opinion. If a person want to interject writer intent, realism, fantasy, or an opinion, they should be free to do so. No one has the right to tell them that they cannot.
RE: Hexenbiestdom - syscrash - 07-31-2018
What I see is some can not understand that right and wrong, good or bad are not absolute concepts. People are forever trying to classify the character and their actions. Because someone thinks a character is bad because of something they did. Does not mean the writers meant it to be seen that way. Especially if there is no character that support that view.
In Grimm how many pages where used to debate how Adalind took Nicks powers. Most where based on personal beliefs. That I can understand. It is when they consider those that see it another way are wrong. That is not to say the those of a different view are right.
With Adalind taking Nick powers there was the rape argument. Even though no where in the show is that stated or implied or a character shown to see it that way. At best Nick was shown as being tricked. But considering they showed him will to sleep with Juliette looking like Adalind. That kind of negates the writers intent for it to be seen as rape. You then had the argument that is was not consensual because Nick thought it was Juliette. Both of these topic caused name calling . Commentators mortality called into question. What was infuriating was they where insistent that it was obvious what was right or wrong.
Even this topic, which is basically what is a hexenbiest. There are many that are adamant about them being bad. And everyone of these arguments is based on something they did. Yet they never consider how the other character received the action, only how the commentator feels about the action.
Take Eve why is she labeled as evil. She has only been shown helping the group. You get the argument that there was no redemption. Even though the writers choose to make the negative acts be performed by Juliette. You then get the comments that shout BS. You have the, she was brained washed. Yet there is no implication of that, it does show she is part a a military special ops to explain her change. Even Juliette's negative events the writers made her parts negligible. Yet there are those that argue Juliette to the evilest character on the show.
I understand these arguments. I also understand the writers do write things to elicit a certain reaction. Because the story is not about these salacious points of view. They do not right anything to support them. If the writer wants a character evil they leave no doubt. One good way is to have characters refer to them that way in a statement. Not when making a bombastic remark. Such as Elizabeth calling Adalind a slut when she did the hat trick.
One thing I have learned. There are actually people who can not or will not look behind the curtain. They believe whatever makes sense and sounds good to them.
RE: Hexenbiestdom - irukandji - 07-31-2018
(07-31-2018, 02:37 PM)syscrash Wrote: In Grimm how many pages where used to debate how Adalind took Nicks powers. Most were based on personal beliefs. That I can understand. It is when they consider those that see it another way are wrong. That is not to say the those of a different view are right.
I can think of two more situations where posters' personal beliefs were adamant. There were no fake statements about basing opinions on the characters' actions as presented on the screen.
One is the ongoing debate whether Juliette was controlled by the hexenbiest or not. Most have argued that Juliette freely accepted the hexenbiest and all decisions were her own. Yet, we have Adalind's statement to Rosalee which seems to contradict that argument:
"You don't understand what it's like being a Hexenbiest-what it does to you, the way it makes you think and feel. It's not good."
The other ongoing debate is whether or not Juliette knew Kelly was going to be murdered. Most argue that Juliette knew. Yet, we have Juliette's statement to Nick:
"I didn't know Kenneth was going to do that".
If objective statements were being made rather than personal views, there wouldn't be pages and pages of debate in this forum. Personally, I prefer the debate. That's much more interesting rather than reading something that's fake and utterly laughable, not to mention hypocritical.