+- 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: "Good Intentions" in Grimm (/Thread-Good-Intentions-in-Grimm)
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - irukandji - 12-16-2018
(12-16-2018, 02:20 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: Yes, that was me, and I do think that Kelly's feelings of guilt and regret (which she had already expressed to Nick during her appearance the previous season) played a large role in her choices here. Because you can replay her entire conversation with Nick and Juliette about the baby's "changing the course of history" potential, and it would have made just as much, if not more, sense for it to lead to Kelly explaining that that was why the baby had to die.
Knowing what we know now about how the series ended, it's hard to say whether taking Diana led to disaster in the long term. It definitely led to short term troubles, but if the discovery of the stick and the appearance of Z were really destined to happen, things could have gone a lot worse if Diana had been dead or off in Europe being raised by the royals or the resistance instead of being where she was when it happened.
Kelly was not given the authority to do what she did. She was merely a cog in the plan. I'm not stating I believe she should have killed Diana. What I am saying is that she had limits. She put everything on the path to disaster by taking control and hatching a ridiculous plan that had no chance of working. The small amount of good intentions really amounts to nothing compared to the massive pain and suffering her bad judgment caused.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - FaceInTheCrowd - 12-16-2018
If the characters in Grimm only did things they had the "authority" to do, the series would have ended sometime around the middle of the first season, if not sooner.
However, in this case Kelly did technically have that "authority," because her father had sent his daughter off in her care. If Adalind had taken the matter to court, it's a sure bet that a judge would have ordered Sean to produce Diana and his participation in the scheme to send Diana away would have all but guaranteed Adalind custody. But since Adalind never did that, legally both Diana's parents had equal "authority" to make decisions about their daughter's care.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - irukandji - 12-16-2018
(12-16-2018, 07:30 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: However, in this case Kelly did technically have that "authority," because her father had sent his daughter off in her care. If Adalind had taken the matter to court, it's a sure bet that a judge would have ordered Sean to produce Diana and his participation in the scheme to send Diana away would have all but guaranteed Adalind custody. But since Adalind never did that, legally both Diana's parents had equal "authority" to make decisions about their daughter's care.
Did Sean have authority? I understood at one point Adalind really didn't know if Sean or Eric was Diana's father.
As for Kelly "technically" having the authority to kidnap Diana, she had nothing of the kind. Adalind was the custodial parent and as such, had full control of Diana. Kelly kidnapped the baby.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - dicappatore - 12-16-2018
(12-16-2018, 07:30 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: If the characters in Grimm only did things they had the "authority" to do, the series would have ended sometime around the middle of the first season, if not sooner.
However, in this case Kelly did technically have that "authority," because her father had sent his daughter off in her care. If Adalind had taken the matter to court, it's a sure bet that a judge would have ordered Sean to produce Diana and his participation in the scheme to send Diana away would have all but guaranteed Adalind custody. But since Adalind never did that, legally both Diana's parents had equal "authority" to make decisions about their daughter's care.
Face, IMO, if any of them characters did things if only they had the "authority" to do so, S1, E1 The Pilot, probably would have failed miserably and not gotten picked up by the Network. Lucky for us "SOME" of these Forum contributors weren't on the creative team. Let me rephrase that, if they were on that team, they wouldn't be creative.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - FaceInTheCrowd - 12-16-2018
In Oregon, in the absence of a court ruling, both birth parents have equal custodial rights (this differs from many other US states, where in the absence of marriage only the birth mother has custodial rights). In the case of unmarried parents, parenthood must first be established through blood tests. In Diana's case she's an infant who was transported into the country clandestinely with no official record of birth that identifies her mother. The courts would have ordered her taken into custody by CPS until blood tests could be run to verify claims of parenthood by both Adalind and Sean.
But assuming that Adalind and Sean are both confirmed as Diana's parents, her father handed her over to a third party, joined with three other persons to retake her from that third party, then handed her over to yet another third party. The courts would be turning inside-out trying to figure out whether she was kidnapped by anyone at all since one of her parents was part of every handoff.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - irukandji - 12-17-2018
I really looked at it from more of a fantasy perspective (since everyone boo hoos the legal one whenever it arises). In the world of fantasy, Adalind was clearly accepted as the one who had sole power over Diana since she signed a contract to give the baby over to Stefania.
Even your own statement seems to question any authority that was granted, when you stated,
"If the characters in Grimm only did things they had the "authority" to do, the series would have ended sometime around the middle of the first season, if not sooner."
If Sean felt he was so qualified to make decisions for Diana, and Kelly felt she had the authority to take Diana, the two of them wouldn't have gone to such lengths to keep it from Adalind.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - brandon - 12-17-2018
Adalind was a good example of a mother?
Not at that moment and so the others saw it.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - FaceInTheCrowd - 12-17-2018
You don't really think that anyone outside of the royals would accept that "contract" as legally binding, do you? I see it as a dropped plot point that nobody from the Verrat never came back to Portland to kill Adalind for not living up to her end of it, but as far as anyone else in Portland was concerned, that thing wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.
My point about "authority" and "legality" was that since everybody on both sides of every conflict in the series pretty much thumbed their noses at both everything I was going to say on the subject was purely academic.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - N_grimm - 12-17-2018
(12-16-2018, 06:31 PM)irukandji Wrote: Kelly was not given the authority to do what she did. She was merely a cog in the plan. I'm not stating I believe she should have killed Diana. What I am saying is that she had limits. She put everything on the path to disaster by taking control and hatching a ridiculous plan that had no chance of working. The small amount of good intentions really amounts to nothing compared to the massive pain and suffering her bad judgment caused.
The motive for taking Diana was preventing the royals (or the resistance) from kidnaping and raising her in a way that threatened the world. If Kelly had not taken Diana with her, it would have been just a matter of time before the royals would have done it instead. It was obviously traumatic for Adalind, but the intention was keeping the world safe. As in most other cases in Grimm, the law and the justice system weren’t suitable to handle the situation. Most people didn’t even know about Wesen, so how could they understand that Kelly raising Diana was like preventing terrorists for getting access to a powerful weapon? Instead of saying Kelly was “not given authority”, you could say she had a duty as a Grimm to keep the world safe from Wesen. That was, after all, the concept of the show.
Did Kelly’s lack of presence in much of Nick's childhood play a role? Maybe, but it was of secondary importance, just like Adalinds feelings and safety.
Was it a "ridiculous plan that had no chance of working"? The royals were only able to find Diana when Juliette turned evil and betrayed Kelly and Nick.
The kidnaping was clearly a “game changer” in the storyline, but all the stuff that happened was a result of decisions taken in the wake of the kidnaping, and not the kidnaping itself. There would be no need to kidnap her if the royals didn’t want Diana in the first place. And how could Kelly possibly know that Adalind would use an old hexenbiest spell to take Nicks powers and then Juliette becoming an evil hexenbiest when taking part in reversing it? It would be much less pain and suffering if Juliette didn’t betray Nick and Kelly. Juliette herself knew about the kidnapping and helped keep the secret from Adalind. But if we are going to use the logic about the kidnapping putting things in motion, it also resulted in a lot of good: baby Kelly, Nick and Adalind, and it resulted in Diana being raised to help Nick & co fight evil.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - dicappatore - 12-17-2018
(12-17-2018, 04:27 PM)N_grimm Wrote:(12-16-2018, 06:31 PM)irukandji Wrote: Kelly was not given the authority to do what she did. She was merely a cog in the plan. I'm not stating I believe she should have killed Diana. What I am saying is that she had limits. She put everything on the path to disaster by taking control and hatching a ridiculous plan that had no chance of working. The small amount of good intentions really amounts to nothing compared to the massive pain and suffering her bad judgment caused.
The motive for taking Diana was preventing the royals (or the resistance) from kidnaping and raising her in a way that threatened the world. If Kelly had not taken Diana with her, it would have been just a matter of time before the royals would have done it instead. It was obviously traumatic for Adalind, but the intention was keeping the world safe. As in most other cases in Grimm, the law and the justice system weren’t suitable to handle the situation. Most people didn’t even know about Wesen, so how could they understand that Kelly raising Diana was like preventing terrorists for getting access to a powerful weapon? Instead of saying Kelly was “not given authority”, you could say she had a duty as a Grimm to keep the world safe from Wesen. That was, after all, the concept of the show.
Did Kelly’s lack of presence in much of Nick's childhood play a role? Maybe, but it was of secondary importance, just like Adalinds feelings and safety.
Was it a "ridiculous plan that had no chance of working"? The royals were only able to find Diana when Juliette turned evil and betrayed Kelly and Nick.
The kidnaping was clearly a “game changer” in the storyline, but all the stuff that happened was a result of decisions taken in the wake of the kidnaping, and not the kidnaping itself. There would be no need to kidnap her if the royals didn’t want Diana in the first place. And how could Kelly possibly know that Adalind would use an old hexenbiest spell to take Nicks powers and then Juliette becoming an evil hexenbiest when taking part in reversing it? It would be much less pain and suffering if Juliette didn’t betray Nick and Kelly. Juliette herself knew about the kidnapping and helped keep the secret from Adalind. But if we are going to use the logic about the kidnapping putting things in motion, it also resulted in a lot of good: baby Kelly, Nick and Adalind, and it resulted in Diana being raised to help Nick & co fight evil.
N, do you get the feeling of SOME-one trying to blame Kelly herself for her demise? Am I the only one sensing Some-one trying to blame Kelly for what Juliette did? Talk about stretching the consequences of Kelly's actions to save the world from evil causing her demise is something else. If that was the case. Given the little time she did spend with Diana, she was still able to put her on the right path. Her sacrifice would make her a hero, not a looser, as SOME-one is trying to claim.