01-12-2019, 06:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2019, 07:04 PM by Henry of green.)
(01-12-2019, 06:00 PM)syscrash Wrote:Quote:Once again this isn’t writers intent it’s you determined to looked at everything Adalind does in the most negative way possible,You only see what you want. I have pointed out a lot of things Adalind has done that was good. She set up Kenneth that was a good thing. It was also an example of using deception. She did the trust me know that was a good thing yet is still used deception. She help by distracting Sean again they used deception. The point I was making was the writers had all of her actions involve deception. That is not saying I only see the negative. For one she is a hexenibiest using deception and seduction is not a negative for them. It is their power and ability. It is what makes them a hexenbiest.
Quote:First of all her hiding her powers from Nick has absolutely nothing to do with minipulation and control much in the same way Juliette seeking out Sean’s advice and telling him about her hexenbiest abilities, hiding her hexenbiest side from Nick had nothing minipulation or control she was terrified Nick would hurt her or want her out just like Adalind was terrified of him finding out.The reasoning was different. Juliette was trying to understand her situation. She had no idea what to expect from Nick. With Adalind she was trying to hide what she expected from Nick. You can only manipulate if you know the result you are trying to change. Juliette did not know the result Adalind knew what the result could be.
Quote:Should she have told Nick about meeting Sean twice yes but she was even unsure if what Sean told her was true which is why she also asked Nick to look into Diana’s whereabouts and she eventually did confess her meeting with Sean and her fear he my use Diana against her. Yes she should have definitely told Nick about the second mettting with Sean and meeting Diana. However she had just meet her daughter that had being missing for over a year and she was with a Wesen terroist organization and pressurizing Adalind into leaving Nick. Adalind was scared the writers clearly showed that. Also she definitely loved Nick however her and Nick had serious trust issues and before you state that’s what makes them different from him and Juliette. I recall they also had serious trust issues and they weren’t former enemies and were togther 7 years, Juliette accused him of cheating no less than 4 times during the shows run Juliette lied about her hexenbeist not in a malicious way but neither did Adalind and Nick lied about his grimmnes supposedly to protect her though it was more about his fear of telling her.You are arguing why the character did or did not do something. this discussion is why did the writers write her actions in the why they did. I am not asking about the actions. I am not even commenting on her choices. MY question is everyone of Adalinds actions involves some form of deception. doing something is secret is deception. Asking Nick to look into Diana situation without giving him all the information you know is deception. Not telling Nick is a good strategy, it helps insure Nicks information is independent of what Sean was telling her. But it is still using deception. The writers have other characters do things without every action using deception. Take Nick the things he does the writers will have those around him us deception but not Nick. Even Nick becoming Sean. It was other who came up with it, performed the change. The writers then had Nick expose the trick. These are choices the writers made. It has nothing to do with why the character did it. It is the writers who had them do it that way.
The reset of your post is your justifying what a character did. To me Adalind gong to the mansion, after they are the people that threatened her makes as much sense as helping the people that lied and put her in the dungeon. But that is my opinion, but is not what I am talking about. What I am talking about is why did they write all of the things you mentioned in the way they did. Even you point out some of these things she should have done differently. The one thing they all have in common, She was not being forth coming with Nick. I am not looking for rationalization of the characters actions. I am commenting on the writers choice.
Remember writers have a reason for why they write things the way they do. The reason does not necessarily coincide with what you could rationalize from watching the character. I just watched the Sopranos over again after the writers broke their silence on the ending. They explained that Tony died, it is there in the finally if you look at what was going on. They pointed out a lot of little things they had characters do. The biggest was, each family member comes in, the bell rings Tony looks up. When the last member his daughter comes in the bell rings, Tony looks up fade to black. This is after several episode of some of the most violent gang fights. But if you only watch the characters You get the impression that the gangs have all made peace, Tony is so comfortable that he has the family to the dinner for a meal. The character give you no reason to explain Tony dying. This recap of the Sopranos is not to argue over the rationalization of the characters actions. It is a good example of writers choices have a reason.
What an absolute load of hogwash, the show and the writers clearly showed Adalind didn’t tell Nick about her powers beacause of fear it had nothing to do with minipulation they provided my scenes of her setting terrified on her own worrying about her.
Also I am not justifying anything you bang on and on about writers Choice and it was the writers choice and it was the choice not to have Adalind leave Nick until after her children were threatened ,Also Boneparte threatend her children and one of her children is Diana so your anolgy about the dungeon makes zero sense considering BC already have one of her children it makes total sesnse she would go there to protect Diana.