(03-13-2018, 07:46 AM)dicappatore Wrote:(03-13-2018, 06:55 AM)Hell Rell Wrote: The Wesen Council may seem adequate on their own but this is just another contradiction I see in the series. How powerful were they actually since people here are judging Grimms by what we saw in the show? The council seemed like more of a show-not-tell thing on just how scary they actually were.
For instance, how many people were connected to the council? They were wiped out pretty easily. All it took was one meeting in a room to kill all of them. It wasn't like Hydra infiltrating Shield, which took them decades to do, and even then Shield was never gone. They just stayed under the radar until they were ready to strike back and regain the public's trust. The WC, like HW and BC but even more so, never lived up to the hype. I have an easier time believing Grimms were more of a deterrent for local wesen than the WC. It's not like the WC could be everywhere at once judging by their small circle.
I have to admit, that whole BC wiping out the Council was so lame. They were well aware of BC rising and took no precautions by letting someone in such a high level meeting with automatic weapons. Even if they were all wiped out, there were no seconds deputies, assistants or what ever they called their backups, to take their places?
I just have one questions to all these so-called critics, not you in particular, HR. I am directing it to the the others that point at the writers and the overall creative team. If they were so bad at their job, so bad at leaving holes in so many arcs. So may other factors left hanging. Why did you watch the show?
The annihilation of BC never made any sense. Like you said, BC wouldn't be able to wipe out the WC nearly that easily. An organization like that wouldn't have everyone in one place and they would definitely have backups and people ready to take the mantle. Being taken out the way they were gives off the impression they weren't nearly the threat they were portrayed to be.
Criticism is great because it shows people were paying attention. The criticism that can find flaws in the writing such as continuity and character consistency is always welcome.
It's the criticism that doesn't have anything from the show supporting it that is going to be called out and I think this forum does that for the most part. Criticizing characters for things they never did is completely different from acknowledging what happened and criticizing what we actually saw and questioning the writers decisions which I think is fair. Shows I've watched over the years such as House, Smallville, OUAT, and GoT should absolutely be put under fire for their nonsensical decisions but only if a person has great knowledge of the show and can point out the flaws rather than just making something up.
As for why people still watch it? Personally, I still a watch a show if I invested enough time in it when it was a consistently good show. It had to be good enough for me to get invested in the first place and it's tough to give up something I once liked. I've gotten better at that over the years because I gave up shows like Scandal but it used to be tougher because I had the naive belief that a show may get back on track. It was good once so it can be good again. I no longer believe that because I've never seen a show recover from the fall into mediocrity. Once a show goes bad, it stays that way.