(08-26-2017, 08:47 AM)bart Wrote:(08-26-2017, 07:51 AM)Robyn Wrote:(08-26-2017, 07:03 AM)bart Wrote:Prefer or like one character over another or judge the quality of the acting/writing, yes. Judge a fictional character over his/her predetermined role, no.(08-26-2017, 06:58 AM)Robyn Wrote: Adalind was unfairly judged in that she was negatively received for doing what she was supposed to do as a fictional bad-guy character.So we not supposed judge her because she is bad guy?
Adalind was created to be an antagonist character. Refusing to help her mother and Renard harm innocent people so they could get the key would have made her a good guy character mixed up with the bad guy characters. But Adalind wasn't initially created to be a good-guy character, her characterization progressed in that direction during the course of the show.
Renard played Nick like a fiddle for five seasons, and for four of those seasons he was multilayered and fascinating to watch. I don’t care that the bad guy took advantage of the good guy. I only care that the bad guy was entertaining and made me want to see more of him.
That Nick, the Grimm and detective was played for five seasons is a refection on that character not the antagonist. That Renard had to devolve into a more Adalind-like bad-guy character in S5 so Nick could take him down is a refection of the writing and character development. It’s not the bad-guy character’s fault that the good-guy/hero character was so easily bamboozled for five seasons. The writers could have made the good-guy/hero character more astute and capable of figuring out the bad-guy character’s true agenda before being bitten on the ass.
I thought Kelly Burkhardt was a heartless bitch, but also found the character fascinating and a true reflection Grimm history. Her death befitted her lifestyle and choices, but I didn’t revel in her demise because of any personal opinion of her.
So we supposed to like Adalind and Renard because they make good bad guys? I disagree.
I don't think anyone is supposed to like the bad guys, per se, but a fascinating character is a fascinating character no matter where their interests align.
For example, The Dark Knight's Joker is one of the best characters I've ever seen on screen. There are plenty of people who think he stole the show and loved his character. I would go as far to say that he is one of the most popular characters ever created.
I remember watching Xena and there was a character who showed up every once in a while who was a complete psycho by the name of Callisto. She was brilliant and often provided some of the best moments in the entire show. It was great whenever she showed up to make Xena and whoever was around her life a living hell. The character and the actress were great to watch.
Back in the days of Game of Thrones being a good show, Joffrey was possibly best antagonist on TV. I looked forward to every scene he was in. It's too bad they tried to too outdo him with Ramsay because he was such a ridiculous character that I had no interest in. Ramsay was a failure because they didn't realize what made Joffrey so great.
The characters I named are more extreme than Renard and Adalind but they're still appreciated by the audience. They're captivating in a way that most good guys aren't.
I don't think Robyn was trying to say that should be liked by virtue of being bad guys. I think she was just saying that they were fascinating and held her attention in a way that Nick and the gang failed to do. She found them more nuanced and complex. Good bad guys can provide a lot to a show. Besides, I'll take a good bad guy over a bad good guy any day.