Quote:No, that’s actually not self preservation, self preservation would be Adalind trying to head for the hils with the kids as she told Trubel to do while Nick fends of Zerstörer that would be self preservation.

Quote:she was shown in late season 2 doubting that Nick wanted her back after the way she treated him

Quote:She left for the mansion because BC had her daughter hostage, she had a limited Bonaparte had threatened Nick and her children and Diana was crying for her mummy, she was in tears about leaving Nick how’s that not sincere that was all shown onscreen , you can argue your version writers Intent until the cows come home, it’s not going to change Canon.

The fact the Adalind left a note saying she was protecting them, Claire Coffee also said that’s what her character was doing , I’ll ask once again who died and made you master of what the writers meant that you know even more than the actors.

(01-10-2019, 05:15 PM)syscrash Wrote:

Quote:No, that’s actually not self preservation, self preservation would be Adalind trying to head for the hils with the kids as she told Trubel to do while Nick fends of Zerstörer that would be self preservation.

That would make real life common sense. But it was not be consistent with the character development. She was the last man standing when she charged Z, so yes that is self preservation. You can not look at it as what would a normal person do. You ahve to consider how the character is written.

Quote:she was shown in late season 2 doubting that Nick wanted her back after the way she treated him

Yet she did nothing to persuade him one way or the other. Second she was recovering from a spell as opposed to something effecting the relationship. Even when they realized Adalind had sleep with Nick . She did nothing to persuade him. It was not until her helping him get his powers back that the writers even addressed the issue.
Yes she had doubts but once Monroe explained it was magic like what she was suffering under. The doubt was gone. Remember it was her expressing love for him that broke the Muse;s hold. You are trying to compare actions involving magic, with actions based on a situation.

Just before the zombie episode is a good example where we can compare Nick and Juliette with Nick and Adalind. The second time he came over for dinner. Juliette was wondering if they where Ok with each other. She was wondering if he still wanted her. It was Nick who suggested that he was not hunger which lead to them sleeping together. An event followed by Juliette insistence that she no longer be left out. Compare that to Nick and Adalind with Nick being shown lying next to her thinking about their fight and not looking happy. Remember this is how the writers choose to write these two events. Who it was written has significance.

Quote:She left for the mansion because BC had her daughter hostage, she had a limited Bonaparte had threatened Nick and her children and Diana was crying for her mummy, she was in tears about leaving Nick how’s that not sincere that was all shown onscreen , you can argue your version writers Intent until the cows come home, it’s not going to change Canon.

The fact the Adalind left a note saying she was protecting them, Claire Coffee also said that’s what her character was doing , I’ll ask once again who died and made you master of what the writers meant that you know even more than the actors.

My observation is based on how it was written. The chooses the writers made to have the character do something in a certain way. You provide you rational for your reasoning. But you forget it is up to the writers. There is no more danger for her to stand and fight then there is to run. So ask yourself why did they write it that she choose to run.

OK when I say sleeping together i am referring to having sex. They are shown only twice to have had sex. Yes they are shown in bed together but nothing indicates they had sex. But this is one of those things we seem to see it difference. looking at the episodes you sight. You seem to think, two people what seem to be naked in bed means they had sex, i don't. And since the writers make a point at certain time to indicate sex. It makes no sense to assume the other times involved sex. Again you are taking a position of what a person would do. You still ignore what the writer wrote or did not write. if the writer meant to imply sex on all those times, why wouldn't they write something that implies sex. Even the times you sight they are naked in bed indicating they had seek is not conclusive. It is shown neither sleeps in very much, so sleeping naked would be consistent with what is shown. FYI couples, roommates, partners sleep naked and it has nothing to do with sex. And considering this show has a very progressive outlook on sex. Why would sleeping naked imply sex.
As for the kisses. I look at the passion written into the scene. With other couples there is without a doubt passion being expressed something not written into the scenes with Nick and Adalind. That's not to say the kisses do not reflect an infatuation with each other, because they do.

Other then their second dinner and getting his powers back Nick and Juliette are never shown as having sex. But all the times Nick and Juliette are shown together in and out of bed he is never shown to have concerns or apprehension like he is shown to have with Adalind. The frequency that Nick and Adalind are shown together and how they write Nick response, Is another indication of the point the writers are making. We see how the writers show a couple in love, why not show the same actions for Nick and Adalind if being in love was the intent. Instead you argue the nuisance of there actions to prove your point. Where I argue the specificity of how and action is written to prove intent.
Example the statue. Because Adalind was pushed out of the way that proves Juliette was trying to kill her and missed. I look at how her response was written and see intimidation instead of intent. The same is true with the spice shop. That one is even more obvious, that her response was written to show she was not trying to kill. Even if they did show Hank pushed Monroe out of the way.

Quote:The writers were never trying to raise suspicion over Adalind's motives for going to the mansion. The show doesn't do subtle. We know exactly why she went to the mansion. They even went the extra mile of spelling it out, literally, why Adalind went in the letter she left for Nick. There wasn't even anything in the later episodes to suggest Adalind was lying when she wrote it.

Just think back to when Adalind asked Nick to sleep with her because she was afraid to sleep alone. If she were truly manipulating him, G&K would've shown Adalind having some sort of sly or mischievous smile on her face once she turned her back to Nick. There was nothing of the sort in that instance or for the rest of the series where Adalind did anything like that to Nick for anything.

Quote:What you’ve written above has nothing to do with how the writers wrote the show, is merely you rattling off a number of excuses for Juliette and condemning Adalind.

(01-10-2019, 05:30 PM)syscrash Wrote:

Quote:The writers were never trying to raise suspicion over Adalind's motives for going to the mansion. The show doesn't do subtle. We know exactly why she went to the mansion. They even went the extra mile of spelling it out, literally, why Adalind went in the letter she left for Nick. There wasn't even anything in the later episodes to suggest Adalind was lying when she wrote it.

Just think back to when Adalind asked Nick to sleep with her because she was afraid to sleep alone. If she were truly manipulating him, G&K would've shown Adalind having some sort of sly or mischievous smile on her face once she turned her back to Nick. There was nothing of the sort in that instance or for the rest of the series where Adalind did anything like that to Nick for anything.

You argument is based on how a person would be expected to react. You point out the reason using the dialog. Yet you ignore the writers choose to have her leave with only leaving a note after several scenes having covert meetings. You can use the dialog to justify why this happened. But you can't explain why the writers choose to structure the event the way they did. Your argument hold if we where recounting something that actually happened. But we are discussing something that was created. something where every word and action is scripted. They only thing that squares these two things is. Adalind doing what it has been shown hexenbiest do.

---

Quote:What you’ve written above has nothing to do with how the writers wrote the show, is merely you rattling off a number of excuses for Juliette and condemning Adalind.

The entire post is about how something was shown, not a rationalization about why the character did it. You point out implications. I am sticking with how something was or was not shown. I point out the extent the writers go to implicate something. Yet do not use that same approach on other things that you try and draw a comparison to. Take kissing. The writers have shown passionate kisses in couples. Passion not shown between Nick and Adalind. You take the approach of rationalizing why. I am taking the approach if that is what the writers wanted that is what they would have written and no rationalization based on the character will change that.

Quote:Your not sticking to what was shown your cherry picking what was also shown was a heartbroken Adalnd in tears at leaving Nick, what was also shown was Diana begging her to come see her what was also shown were Bonaparte’s threats to Adalind and her family . We were shown her taking multiple taxis to avoid anyone finding Nicks location. We were shown her defying Bonaparte and Renard in the Mansion to the point of being turned to stone and nearly killed via a force choke. Then when tortured via that force choke to reveal Nicks location she makes up for it rigth away by getting Diana to help them. The writers choose to show all this as well.

(01-10-2019, 05:15 PM)syscrash Wrote:

Quote:No, that’s actually not self preservation, self preservation would be Adalind trying to head for the hils with the kids as she told Trubel to do while Nick fends of Zerstörer that would be self preservation.

That would make real life common sense. But it was not be consistent with the character development. She was the last man standing when she charged Z, so yes that is self preservation. You can not look at it as what would a normal person do. You ahve to consider how the character is written.

Quote:she was shown in late season 2 doubting that Nick wanted her back after the way she treated him

Yet she did nothing to persuade him one way or the other. Second she was recovering from a spell as opposed to something effecting the relationship. Even when they realized Adalind had sleep with Nick . She did nothing to persuade him. It was not until her helping him get his powers back that the writers even addressed the issue.
Yes she had doubts but once Monroe explained it was magic like what she was suffering under. The doubt was gone. Remember it was her expressing love for him that broke the Muse;s hold. You are trying to compare actions involving magic, with actions based on a situation.

Just before the zombie episode is a good example where we can compare Nick and Juliette with Nick and Adalind. The second time he came over for dinner. Juliette was wondering if they where Ok with each other. She was wondering if he still wanted her. It was Nick who suggested that he was not hunger which lead to them sleeping together. An event followed by Juliette insistence that she no longer be left out. Compare that to Nick and Adalind with Nick being shown lying next to her thinking about their fight and not looking happy. Remember this is how the writers choose to write these two events. Who it was written has significance.

Quote:She left for the mansion because BC had her daughter hostage, she had a limited Bonaparte had threatened Nick and her children and Diana was crying for her mummy, she was in tears about leaving Nick how’s that not sincere that was all shown onscreen , you can argue your version writers Intent until the cows come home, it’s not going to change Canon.

The fact the Adalind left a note saying she was protecting them, Claire Coffee also said that’s what her character was doing , I’ll ask once again who died and made you master of what the writers meant that you know even more than the actors.

My observation is based on how it was written. The chooses the writers made to have the character do something in a certain way. You provide you rational for your reasoning. But you forget it is up to the writers. There is no more danger for her to stand and fight then there is to run. So ask yourself why did they write it that she choose to run.

OK when I say sleeping together i am referring to having sex. They are shown only twice to have had sex. Yes they are shown in bed together but nothing indicates they had sex. But this is one of those things we seem to see it difference. looking at the episodes you sight. You seem to think, two people what seem to be naked in bed means they had sex, i don't. And since the writers make a point at certain time to indicate sex. It makes no sense to assume the other times involved sex. Again you are taking a position of what a person would do. You still ignore what the writer wrote or did not write. if the writer meant to imply sex on all those times, why wouldn't they write something that implies sex. Even the times you sight they are naked in bed indicating they had seek is not conclusive. It is shown neither sleeps in very much, so sleeping naked would be consistent with what is shown. FYI couples, roommates, partners sleep naked and it has nothing to do with sex. And considering this show has a very progressive outlook on sex. Why would sleeping naked imply sex.
As for the kisses. I look at the passion written into the scene. With other couples there is without a doubt passion being expressed something not written into the scenes with Nick and Adalind. That's not to say the kisses do not reflect an infatuation with each other, because they do.

Other then their second dinner and getting his powers back Nick and Juliette are never shown as having sex. But all the times Nick and Juliette are shown together in and out of bed he is never shown to have concerns or apprehension like he is shown to have with Adalind. The frequency that Nick and Adalind are shown together and how they write Nick response, Is another indication of the point the writers are making. We see how the writers show a couple in love, why not show the same actions for Nick and Adalind if being in love was the intent. Instead you argue the nuisance of there actions to prove your point. Where I argue the specificity of how and action is written to prove intent.
Example the statue. Because Adalind was pushed out of the way that proves Juliette was trying to kill her and missed. I look at how her response was written and see intimidation instead of intent. The same is true with the spice shop. That one is even more obvious, that her response was written to show she was not trying to kill. Even if they did show Hank pushed Monroe out of the way.

(01-10-2019, 05:30 PM)syscrash Wrote:

Quote:The writers were never trying to raise suspicion over Adalind's motives for going to the mansion. The show doesn't do subtle. We know exactly why she went to the mansion. They even went the extra mile of spelling it out, literally, why Adalind went in the letter she left for Nick. There wasn't even anything in the later episodes to suggest Adalind was lying when she wrote it.

Just think back to when Adalind asked Nick to sleep with her because she was afraid to sleep alone. If she were truly manipulating him, G&K would've shown Adalind having some sort of sly or mischievous smile on her face once she turned her back to Nick. There was nothing of the sort in that instance or for the rest of the series where Adalind did anything like that to Nick for anything.

You argument is based on how a person would be expected to react. You point out the reason using the dialog. Yet you ignore the writers choose to have her leave with only leaving a note after several scenes having covert meetings. You can use the dialog to justify why this happened. But you can't explain why the writers choose to structure the event the way they did. Your argument hold if we where recounting something that actually happened. But we are discussing something that was created. something where every word and action is scripted. They only thing that squares these two things is. Adalind doing what it has been shown hexenbiest do.

---

Quote:What you’ve written above has nothing to do with how the writers wrote the show, is merely you rattling off a number of excuses for Juliette and condemning Adalind.

The entire post is about how something was shown, not a rationalization about why the character did it. You point out implications. I am sticking with how something was or was not shown. I point out the extent the writers go to implicate something. Yet do not use that same approach on other things that you try and draw a comparison to. Take kissing. The writers have shown passionate kisses in couples. Passion not shown between Nick and Adalind. You take the approach of rationalizing why. I am taking the approach if that is what the writers wanted that is what they would have written and no rationalization based on the character will change that.

(01-10-2019, 08:07 PM)syscrash Wrote:

Quote:Your not sticking to what was shown your cherry picking what was also shown was a heartbroken Adalnd in tears at leaving Nick, what was also shown was Diana begging her to come see her what was also shown were Bonaparte’s threats to Adalind and her family . We were shown her taking multiple taxis to avoid anyone finding Nicks location. We were shown her defying Bonaparte and Renard in the Mansion to the point of being turned to stone and nearly killed via a force choke. Then when tortured via that force choke to reveal Nicks location she makes up for it rigth away by getting Diana to help them. The writers choose to show all this as well.

Yes the writers wrote these things. Yet you fail to explain about things leading up to and after these events. Just because ADalind has an emotional reaction does not change or is in conflict with what I see as her motivation. Take how she left. Yes it would make perfect sense she would be emotional. It makes sense she would feel lost. It makes sense she would consider the ramifications. That still does not change the way the writers had her leave. let's consider they showed her telling Wu to tell Nick. Yet the writers had the message not delivered. To you her telling Wu is proof of your position. Yet you fail to account for why the writers did not have the message delivered. There was no need for her immediate departure. So why did the writers not have her wait till Nick got home. Why did the writers not have her go to Nick. Saying it was an oversight does not hold because several scenes where built on the issue that Adalind left in secrete. Add to that several characters addressed the issue of ADalind leaving so we know it was intentional to have her leave that way. Even if you argue it was done that way to create the rationalization for the drama Nick expressed discovering she had left. There are many ways they could have written her leaving to still provide the rationalization for Nick reaction and not create the air of suspension.
lets compare with how they wrote Kelly taking Diana. It was written to where Kelly's action where the only viable solution. They showed what the Royals where capable of. But no where did they leave us asking why did the character not solve it this way or that way. For the mansions writing to match Kelly taking Diana. The would have needed to show example of Nick not being able to protect her. Like they showed the Royals killing the leader that had failed. But instead of showing the group was vulnerable. They showed Eve could handle any wesen threat that would come their way. You can't argue Adalind and Eve where not getting along. or why would Eve protect Adalind. Eve was introduced saving all of their lives that established her POV of the group. I am not using this action to prove a theory. I am mentioning it as one of the things that the writers used to preface subsequent actions. Having Eve kill a warehouse full of wesen in about 30 seconds has a purpose. It says she can make multiple kill simultaneously. Consider they showed the result but not the how. There is a reason for that, showing the how opens up discussion of it's legitimacy. Doing it the way they did creates a definition of her abilities that can't be refuted.

(01-10-2019, 04:42 PM)Hell Rell Wrote: "Just because she had a baby".

That is not the only reason Adalind changed nor did I ever say it was the only reason. It was never that simple. I did say it was a game-changer. She most likely would not be the person she ended up as if she didn't have kids. I don't see how that can even be argued. Her priorities would be much different if she weren't as fertile as she is. Adalind certainly wouldn't be with Nick if she didn't pregnant the second time.

Other things influenced how she changed and not just Nick. Nick's treatment of her wouldn't matter nearly as much to her if the Royals, Renard, and her mother didn't treat her like shit. Being around people like Nick and Rosalee meant a lot to her because of the treatment she got from the people she was usually around.

Adalind wasn't manipulating Nick into bed. She was honest about why she wanted him to sleep in the room with her. Adalind didn't even attempt to be sexy or come onto him. They slept together for several episodes before they kissed and there were no signs that she tried to up the ante. Even when they kissed, Adalind was the one who stopped it. I guess you might say she was playing hard to get.

Quote:I'm saying Adalind didn't use any type of manipulation on Nick. I think there are times where I would've preferred her to and show some fire like the old Adalind but she was always genuine with him. She didn't even manipulate him into bed. She was actually being sincere when she said she was scared of sleeping alone and felt safer with Nick in the room with her because he could kill anything that walked through that door.

Quote:Throughout the last two seasons, I saw Adalind being genuine with her feelings when she talked to Nick. She won Nick over by not being a manipulative Hexenbiest.

Quote:The only time I saw Adalind even try to be manipulative was with Renard in season 6 so she could buy time for the gang. And even then it was clear she wasn't her old self because she wasn't very good at it

Quote:As for Adalind being afraid in the warehouse, it was patently clear she was afraid or at least paranoid. You can say she had no reason to be afraid but she obviously didn't feel that way. Adalind was in a dreary warehouse she had never been in before and got frightened being in unfamiliar territory for the first time. Adalind, the character, would disagree with you about having nothing to be afraid of and Nick never questioned it himself. You said she was secure but she obviously didn't feel this way. From an objective standpoint, she was safe but that's not what matters here. That doesn't make her feelings any less real.

Quote:Also, I didn't say Adalind would never manipulate anyone again but she wasn't shown doing that to anyone other than Renard in the final two seasons and she wasn't nearly as good at it as she used to be. I will say that it's highly unlikely that she would manipulate Nick or his friends, whom became her friends, in any significant way based on the character she ended up as in the end. It seems more likely that Adalind can get what she wants from them just by being straight up with them from now on.

Quote:You keep coming up with reasons why they shouldn't trust or like Adalind. This is the same thing some people do with Juliette at times. It can't be stated enough that the show's internal logic doesn't work that way. That's why I said I wouldn't be nearly as nice to Adalind as Hank was and I don't think I could stomach being around her after what she did to him.

Quote:And yes, Adalind having children was a big game changer which is why it gets brought up so often.

Quote:Other things influenced how she changed and not just Nick. Nick's treatment of her wouldn't matter nearly as much to her if the Royals, Renard, and her mother didn't treat her like shit. Being around people like Nick and Rosalee meant a lot to her because of the treatment she got from the people she was usually around.

Quote:Just think back to when Adalind asked Nick to sleep with her because she was afraid to sleep alone. If she were truly manipulating him, G&K would've shown Adalind having some sort of sly or mischievous smile on her face once she turned her back to Nick. There was nothing of the sort in that instance or for the rest of the series where Adalind did anything like that to Nick for anything.

Quote:We've always known when Adalind was manipulating someone. Seasons 1 and 2 Adalind turned on the charm in every other scene she had but we knew she had an ulterior motive. She checked in on Hank while dressing sexy and telling him things she thought he would like to hear so he would be distracted and get ambushed. Adalind then acted like a sympathetic ear to Juliette to get information on the trailer and its location. It was always obvious.

(01-10-2019, 04:58 PM)Henry of green Wrote: Hank was avoiding her, show me a scene were Hank was openly avoiding her, Adalind was the one who texted Hank to let him know Renard was on his way to the precinct in 6x03, he and Wu also went to pick up Adalind from the mansion in 6x03 and he carries a sleeping Diana into the spice shop for Adalind at the end of 6x03, Hank and Adalind were shown to have their arms around each other singing happy birthday to Monroe with the group in 6x07. They certainly didn’t appear to be close I’ll give you that but I didn’t see Hank avoiding her.

Quote:The stipulations of Angel’s curse were that he must always be miserable. If Angel ever experienced a moment of "perfect happiness," he’d lose his soul.
Buffy season 2 reached this moment of perfect happiness by having Angel and Buffy sleep together.

Quote:From then on, Angel getting to know someone biblically went hand-in-hand with him losing his soul. Yet that wasn’t really the case.

Quote:At the tail end of Angel, Wesley Wyndam-Pryce finally explained to Angel (and the audience) that Angel didn’t loose his soul because he slept with someone. Instead, it was because Angel experienced a moment of true connection with Buffy.