09-25-2016, 09:50 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-25-2016, 09:58 AM by Kathryn Wooten.)
(09-25-2016, 08:33 AM)Robyn Wrote:(09-20-2016, 07:36 PM)Hexenadler Wrote: On that much we can agree, although all the felonies you listed probably have more to do with indifference and hackwork on the part of the screenwriters than any conscious decision on their part to characterize almost everyone on the show as an amoral, unlikable creep.Exactly. And this fact should extend to all characters, and not just one who had little impact on the overall tone of the show. I doubt stringing together all of Meisner’s S5 scenes would fill a 42 minute episode. In the larger scheme, how much influence could this one character actually have on the other characters’ lives or the show as a whole?
The writers didn’t have Meisner force Juliette to become an emotionally detached super weapon because they wanted to identify him as a bad guy. G & K wanted to reinvent Juliette into a new character who began as an emotionally detached super weapon and this is how they chose to do it. Any negative reaction from viewers concerning their method was irrelevant to them. I don’t respect Nick as a police office, Grimm, or man. But, I acknowledge that my lack of respect for this character is due to G & K’s lack of respect for their characters. Nothing is more important than the story they want to tell, and the characters are simply props to be twisted and turned, and reinvented, to benefit their story.
(09-20-2016, 08:58 PM)izzy Wrote: [quote='Robyn' pid='35148' dateline='1474409670']Happy to oblige. Hard to get through a Grimm discussion without a little humor.
Hmmm… Was Wu in the house when Hank was counting the months to make sure Diana couldn’t be his? I don’t recall him panicked like Hank. Maybe Wu is the only cop on Team Grimm smart enough to carry two forms of protection.
There I go, choking on my nightly Mexican coke again (This time served with delicious crispy chicken wings courtesy of my super cool Ronco Showtime Rotisserie. Yummy...) You are killing me Robyn.
(09-20-2016, 08:58 PM)izzy Wrote: [quote='Hexenadler' pid='35161' dateline='1474425360']I didn’t make it past the first few episodes of S1. Once Nick almost instantaneously acclimated to being a Grimm, I knew this wasn’t a show that would devote time to evolving it’s characters. And nothing about succeeding episodes/seasons changed my mind.
"Grimm" has always been frustrating for me. I want to love the series. The concept is interesting, and some of the supporting cast are fun. But G & K seemed determined to sabotage everything from the fourth season onwards. Maybe it's for the best it's coming to an end.
Thumbs up. I agree. I loved and still love the concept of Grimm, the execution beyond season 1 is what frustrated me.
G & K appear to be incapable of delaying gratification for themselves, their characters, or viewers - the keys being a prime example. Once they decided to resolve the mystery surrounding the keys - snap, blink and you’ll miss it, the key mystery is resolved. Maybe that’s why they have so many spells requiring sex. Need a key? Have sex. Need to regain powers? Have sex. Need to remove powers? Have sex. Instant gratification for everyone, and consequences are only explored if they fit within the next story G & K want to tell.
(09-20-2016, 08:58 PM)izzy Wrote: [quote='syscrash' pid='35163' dateline='1474426003']For me, this is one of the few scenarios that stayed true to the character. Renard doesn’t have friends, he has associations that are friendly as long as they don’t cause unacceptable liabilities. He is compelled by an innate desire to survive at all cost, but not one to harm others for pleasure. He killed Meisner to end needless suffering. He didn’t kill Bonaparte because despite his unexpected predicament with Bonaparte/BC, a continued alliance was his only viable security and possible rise in power. Prior to his BC alliance, the Grimm was Renard’s security against the Royals or any other enemy faction, but once his BC alliance was exposed the Grimm became his most immediate adversary.
Meisner was Sean friend who did a lot to help him out. Even saving his daughter from the Royals. Why did he not just shot Conrad. That would have saved Meisner.
Once again, just lazy writing. I tis the same thing in so many action movies where the bad guy, in a flashback scene, threatens to come back and get the good guy...and then the movie begins. In real life, if the threat was credible any rational person would solve the problem before it became a tangible issue.
Not only a will to survive but he was scared of Bonapart..I think he never been afraid of anyone not even Nick but he was petrified of Conrad, he was walking around on egg shells( remember the scene when they both were discussing about Adalind not cooperating to make a happy family and Conrad ,asked Renard can he talk to her? and Renard replied ,sarcastically, can I stop you? or something to that effect, and Conrad stopped smiling and look dead serious and straight at Renard as if to say that was not funny....,Renard actually cowarded and quickly, said his good-nights and made a hasty retreat up stairs....As the title indicate die standing up..Miesner was already a dead man standing ..his brains was being stir fried out of Miesner's ears....on top of that Sean was in full view not like he was when he shish kabobed Conrad from behind...he knew if he pulled the gun towards Conrad he would be dead. yes Sean shot Miesner, but not out of malice or hate, he did it out of friendship...reminds me of the Walking Dead, one gets bit or infected his friends kills him so he will not turn into a walker, they do not do this with malice, but with a heavy heart....Miesner asked Sean to kill him and Sean did it out of respect and IMO a heavy heart for a man he knew to be his only friend.... (remember the sene) where Sean seemed to just want to get away from Conrad and asked to stay in Adalind's room and one thing led to another and Renard replied , that he had enough tragedy today.. he was talking about Miesner and Rachel