07-23-2016, 07:01 AM
(07-23-2016, 05:31 AM)jsgrimm45 Wrote: How much does guilt play into Nick and the Scooby's reactions to Juliette? They all had a very good connection to Juliette, and most had some part in making her a hexenbiest so is there a guilt factor to think about?Rosalee is the only character I recall even questioning the fallout of their actions. She said they stole Adalind’s baby and Juliette is suffering the consequences, and she told Adalind she regretted her part in taking her baby but she offset that with telling Adalind it was necessary to protect her baby.
I don’t see where any of the characters have learned from their actions/mistakes. In S4, rather than assure Juliette she would always be their friend and an integral part of their lives, they set about looking for ways to ‘fix her’. In S5, instead of genuinely welcoming Adalind into their lives, Nick and the others lie, deceive and conspire against her. And then they’re shocked when Adalind takes matters into her own hands to protect her children. Guilt? I doubt it. They would first have to admit that everything they do isn’t right simply because they’re the ones doing it.
Quote:I like this post covers a lot of interesting points but I don't agree mostly the latter part about pretending to be the resistance to take Diana, I was with Kelly that no party with an agenda should have Diana.My point wasn’t about who should or shouldn’t have Diana, it was that Team Grimm made Viktor believe the Resistance came to Portland and took Diana from him. Team Grimm, and specifically Kelly & Renard, would know that Viktor would retaliate against the Resistance and they didn’t bother to warn them because it would compromise Kelly going underground with Diana. They’re right about that, but I was noting the disregard for the lives of others (those outside their core group) their decision expressed.
Than there is Juliette helping Kenneth she was the one who said the resistance nor the royals should have Diana, so now she thinks the royals should?
I like posts that make one think about another angle to a question and believe this post does that with good points. Thanks
As for no party with an agenda should have Diana - what establishes that Kelly didn’t have an agenda? While Meisner/the Resistance were helping Adalind/Diana escape the Royals, nothing indicated they didn’t intend to keep mother and child together. Kelly only wanted the child with powers.
What was Juliette’s motivation when she said the Resistance nor the Royals should have Diana? At that time: Juliette was Nick’s partner, Kelly was Nick’s mother, and Juliette & Nick hated Adalind. So was Juliette motivated by her conscious or the players involved? If Diana had been their child, would Juliette have believed Kelly should take her to keep her away from the Resistance and the Royals, or was it because Diana was Adalind’s child and they weren’t willing risk their lives for Adalind’s child? I don’t think Juliette’s way of thinking changed, but rather, her alliance changed.
And I think Juliette switching her alliance has a lot of viewers upset. The basic rule of Grimm seems to be that the crime or sin isn’t important as long as it’s not perpetrated against Nick or someone he cares about.
"If my devils are to leave me, I am afraid my angels will take flight as well." Rainer Maria Rilke