+- 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 - 04-06-2019
(04-06-2019, 11:07 AM)N_grimm Wrote: That is an absurd argument. Kelly thought Nick, her son, was in mortal danger - because Juliette lied to her (a person she trusted with her life). Kelly didn't come to Nick's house to fight, but for Juliette to tell her what had happened to Nick - so she could help him. Do you seriously think Kelly should have said: ok let Nick die, I have to take care of Diana? Had she come to the house, and Juliette was still herself, Juliette (and the others who did not participate in the rescue operation) would have looked after Diana while Kelly helped save Nick. Kelly thought Juliette was a kind person who loved her son.
Kelly volunteered to protect Diana. Is that true or false?
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - N_grimm - 04-06-2019
(04-06-2019, 11:52 AM)irukandji Wrote:(04-06-2019, 11:07 AM)N_grimm Wrote: That is an absurd argument. Kelly thought Nick, her son, was in mortal danger - because Juliette lied to her (a person she trusted with her life). Kelly didn't come to Nick's house to fight, but for Juliette to tell her what had happened to Nick - so she could help him. Do you seriously think Kelly should have said: ok let Nick die, I have to take care of Diana? Had she come to the house, and Juliette was still herself, Juliette (and the others who did not participate in the rescue operation) would have looked after Diana while Kelly helped save Nick. Kelly thought Juliette was a kind person who loved her son.
Kelly volunteered to protect Diana. Is that true or false?
What is it about this you do not understand? As I have already explained, there was no reason for Kelly to believe that going back would put Diana in ANY danger. She even talked to Juliette on the phone BEFORE she entered the house, and Juliette told her it was SAFE.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - irukandji - 04-06-2019
(04-06-2019, 11:58 AM)N_grimm Wrote:(04-06-2019, 11:52 AM)irukandji Wrote:(04-06-2019, 11:07 AM)N_grimm Wrote: That is an absurd argument. Kelly thought Nick, her son, was in mortal danger - because Juliette lied to her (a person she trusted with her life). Kelly didn't come to Nick's house to fight, but for Juliette to tell her what had happened to Nick - so she could help him. Do you seriously think Kelly should have said: ok let Nick die, I have to take care of Diana? Had she come to the house, and Juliette was still herself, Juliette (and the others who did not participate in the rescue operation) would have looked after Diana while Kelly helped save Nick. Kelly thought Juliette was a kind person who loved her son.
Kelly volunteered to protect Diana. Is that true or false?
What is it about this you do not understand? As I have already explained, there was no reason for Kelly to believe that going back would put Diana in ANY danger. She even talked to Juliette on the phone BEFORE she entered the house, and Juliette told her it was SAFE.
If that was the case, why didn't she just hang around with Diana then instead of taking off? Why not tell the scoobies where she was going if all was well? Why all the hoopla about the baby having a destiny for good or evil? Seems like a lot of puffery for someone who'd come back at a moment's notice because of a vague email.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - N_grimm - 04-06-2019
(04-06-2019, 12:10 PM)irukandji Wrote: If that was the case, why didn't she just hang around with Diana then instead of taking off? Why not tell the scoobies where she was going if all was well? Why all the hoopla about the baby having a destiny for good or evil? Seems like a lot of puffery for someone who'd come back at a moment's notice because of a vague email.
Why do you think Kelly coming back one dark evening was equivalent to her hanging around with Diana? Kelly was constantly on the move. She could obviously have come back, helped Nick, and vanished before the royals even knew she was back in Portland. It was not a “vague emai”. The old Juliette would never have sent that massage if Nick was not in real danger.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - irukandji - 04-06-2019
(04-06-2019, 03:49 PM)N_grimm Wrote: Why do you think Kelly coming back one dark evening was equivalent to her hanging around with Diana?
I meant hanging around Nick's with Diana. If there was no danger, there'd be no reason for Kelly to take off. There'd be no reason to keep it all secret from the scoobies.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - N_grimm - 04-06-2019
(04-06-2019, 04:41 PM)irukandji Wrote: I meant hanging around Nick's with Diana. If there was no danger, there'd be no reason for Kelly to take off. There'd be no reason to keep it all secret from the scoobies.
Who said anything about no danger? She was hiding Diana from the royals, but that doesn’t mean she couldn’t suddenly show up and then disappear again. There were no indications that the royals were constantly spaying on Nick's house. She only came to the house because a person she trusted with her life (Juliette) told her Nick was in danger. She had to rely on the information she had. And she had no reason to doubt Juliette.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - irukandji - 04-06-2019
(04-06-2019, 05:35 PM)N_grimm Wrote: Who said anything about no danger? She was hiding Diana from the royals, but that doesn’t mean she couldn’t suddenly show up and then disappear again. There were no indications that the royals were constantly spaying on Nick's house. She only came to the house because a person she trusted with her life (Juliette) told her Nick was in danger. She had to rely on the information she had. And she had no reason to doubt Juliette.
Well if there was a danger to a baby, (who by the way had no one to protect her *other* than Kelly) AND there was a danger to Nick who had *the scoobies* to help him, wouldn't it only be logical that Kelly stay with Diana?
You keep taking Kelly off the hook by stating she trusted Juliette. Well, what about the trust placed in Kelly by the scoobies, by Sean, and by Diana herself?
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - syscrash - 04-07-2019
It is ridiculous to argue the Kelly issue. We all know it was more about character transition and internal issues that it was written that way. The biggest problem is from what we have seen Kelly would have never enter the house the way she did. I would not matter who contacted her. Nick could have been standing at the front door and she would not have walked right in. She would have examined the place first.
Remember how Kelly entered the house the first time. They showed she scoped out the house first before entering. Even while Nick was fighting till the right time. People act like Kelly is not a trained operative. AS an operative she trusted no one not even Nick. Like I side Nick could have been on the porch saying come on in. She would not do it without checking things out. The reason she has no idea if what she is seeing is not being coerced. As in my example she would not know if someone was holding a gun to Nick head.
Add to this there where the same number of men as on Victors team at the plane. She made quick work of them . Yet none of Kenneth mean where killed or even hurt. It had to be hand to hand because you heard no shot.
The bottom line is For some reason they wrote Kelly's exit to in no way to be indicative of the character. This make the other character interaction not informational.
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - N_grimm - 04-07-2019
(04-06-2019, 08:42 PM)irukandji Wrote: Well if there was a danger to a baby, (who by the way had no one to protect her *other* than Kelly) AND there was a danger to Nick who had *the scoobies* to help him, wouldn't it only be logical that Kelly stay with Diana?
You keep taking Kelly off the hook by stating she trusted Juliette. Well, what about the trust placed in Kelly by the scoobies, by Sean, and by Diana herself?
Off the hook? Don’t you understand how crazy this sounds? You are blaming the murder victim for her own execution…. SHE was betrayed. The old Juliette would not have sent that e-mail if the scoobies had the situation under control. The trust placed by Sean? Give me a break!
(04-07-2019, 02:36 AM)syscrash Wrote: It is ridiculous to argue the Kelly issue. We all know it was more about character transition and internal issues that it was written that way. The biggest problem is from what we have seen Kelly would have never enter the house the way she did. I would not matter who contacted her. Nick could have been standing at the front door and she would not have walked right in. She would have examined the place first.
Remember how Kelly entered the house the first time. They showed she scoped out the house first before entering. Even while Nick was fighting till the right time. People act like Kelly is not a trained operative. AS an operative she trusted no one not even Nick. Like I side Nick could have been on the porch saying come on in. She would not do it without checking things out. The reason she has no idea if what she is seeing is not being coerced. As in my example she would not know if someone was holding a gun to Nick head.
Add to this there where the same number of men as on Victors team at the plane. She made quick work of them . Yet none of Kenneth mean where killed or even hurt. It had to be hand to hand because you heard no shot.
The bottom line is For some reason they wrote Kelly's exit to in no way to be indicative of the character. This make the other character interaction not informational.
What do you mean by "It is ridiculous to argue the Kelly issue"? - is it ridiculous to blame Kelly? If that is your point, I agree. How do you know that non of Kenneth’s men “where killed or even hurt”? As for Kelly not trusting anyone - this is from the script:
Nick: She was set up, Hank. My mother was smart, there's no way she would've showed up if she didn't think she was safe, especially with the child.
Hank: Why would she come here at all? You didn't contact her.
Nick: Well, somebody did. And the only way could've been from my computer.
Hank: So who had access?
Nick: Only me and Juliette.
Hank: Kelly would have trusted her.
Nick: With her life.
Hank: I think maybe she did, Nick.
Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=grimm&episode=s04e22
RE: "Good Intentions" in Grimm - irukandji - 04-07-2019
(04-07-2019, 03:58 AM)N_grimm Wrote: Off the hook? Don’t you understand how crazy this sounds? You are blaming the murder victim for her own execution…. SHE was betrayed. The old Juliette would not have sent that e-mail if the scoobies had the situation under control. The trust placed by Sean? Give me a break!
Kelly was betrayed. But you're so focused on blaming Juliette for the whole thing that you are completely missing my point.
You're implying that Kelly's mission of protecting Diana had absolutely no importance because of an email that she decided to respond to.
You forget that Kelly herself took on that responsibility and the ONLY one relying on her protection is Diana.
Kelly broke the trust that everyone placed in her. You can quote script where Nick confronted Eve about setting up his mother all you like. In reality, all Eve had to do to stop Nick from his ranting was question why Kelly didn't follow her own orders and keep Diana safe ABOVE ALL ELSE AT ALL TIMES.