01-28-2018, 11:12 AM
Quote:we can not criticize the character based on what we see. We have to separate what we see overall to what that character sees, which isn't the whole picture.It makes no sense to argue from the characters position because the character has no position. the characters are writer controlled. The only then you can argue is the point the writer is trying to make. Sense we do not know what is in the writers head. We can only contrive logical theories as to what the writers is trying to project. When you try arguing if something is right or wrong, good or bad. You are trying to argue from a characters perspective which does not exist.
Example the character shots somebody. to argue that they are a kill is senseless. Because the character did not kill anyone. What the question is, what was the purpose of this persons death and why did the writer have this character perform that act. This idea that a character was mad is another ridicules concept. The concept is to establish a sense of an adversary situation. The next question is why does the writer see a need to create this adversary situation. But we must remember these are questions we can not really answer because we are not in the writers head. We can only theorize the answer. because we are only developing a theory we need empirical data to construct the theory. empirical data does not include opinion and beliefs. To say a character is good or bad is a belief. The same when you add criticism of an action. That means you are missing the writers point. Remember the writers is not trying to prove a position they are trying to project and idea.
Here is a example of a false assumption " All they knew, every time they moved out, most likely someone was going to shoot at them.". Until you watch the scene you have no idea if the writers is going to have them shoot at them. You may speculate that is what will happen. But that speculation to be accurate would need to consider why the writer needs that result to occur. That also means no matter what the character does it is neither right or wrong. It only continues the drive the story in a certain direction.
Even in your post you are arguing like you are trying to defined an actual act. You state their is a difference between reality and fantasy. I argue in a show neither exist. I argue the only thing that exist is a speculation of the writers intent. When you deal with a show where the writers actually get into the psychology and thought pattens of the characters. You can then argue the writers rational for doing something.
Take GOT, the books not the show as much. George puts a lot into the thought processes the drive the actions. You not only know what he had a character do, but also why they did it. In some places he even expresses the feelings and effect and how to relates to other things.
Grimm writers do not provide us with any of that yet people try and draw an inference to try an determine these things. I am all for speculating what the Grimm writers meant. It is when posters want to argue a definitive position on something that is ambiguous.
Quote:Mr. intellectual, if we are not logical, to believe, to take away his Grimm, it shouldn't be to sleep with him? How does that reasoning support the whole show. If that isn't logical, by you? how is the rest of the show logical? Its is a fantasy show.her again you miss the point. My question was why would the writers use Adalind needing to sleep with Nick to take his powers. From a strictly abstract logical point of view it makes no sense. technically exactly how would it even work. but that is the same with how Nick took adalinds powers. From a logical point of view having her bite his lip makes no sense. But view it from the emotional impact it had on the viewers You can see how that might have been the writers reason. But again we do not know. that is why I posed it as a theory to see if anyone else had a better theory as to why the writers did it.
Quote:The whole frekin show is a fantasy. How are you able to apply logic to an illogical showThe reason you can apply logic is because the writers see it logically. That is why they storyboard each episode. That is why the have certain things happens because they hope it will get a certain response. When they created the wesen verse, they established certain rules. These rules may fluctuate but they do have substance or the writers would not be able to discuss the direction of the show. What I think you are talking about is trying to apply logic to things that are not logical. Take the woge for example. Since it defies even theoretical physics. It is impossible to explain. Sure you could use star trek logic to explain the woge by saying wesen have the ability to massively accelerated cell growth.To unwoge it is a process of the body burning off these cells. But like other shows where the writer actual think about the how . Grimm writers don't so they don't give us any clues or evidence to support the how. As I said using star trek logic because on star trek for things like the warp drive they add into the show the components and materials that would theoretically make one work. The same thing with the x-wing fighters. Would one actually fly no. But they add enough back story to support the theorize on what it would take to make one fly.
The way I see it. If you are trying to defend or speculate why something happened. or why a character did or did not do something. Then you miss the point. If you are trying to speculate what was the writers purpose then you are seeing things for what they are. That is a discussion that can be had. But to argue the merits of a character??????? They don't exist.
Embrace your inner Biest..... We all have one