07-30-2018, 10:49 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-30-2018, 11:12 AM by dicappatore.)
(07-29-2018, 04:37 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: If we believe what Adalind later told Rosalee about hexenbiest emotions and thought processes, then what Juliette did was probably inevitable.
Nick and Juliette's relationship was troubled from the moment G&K decided to have Nick try to conceal what was happening to him in S01. It created an undercurrent of doubt in Juliette's mind that undermined just about everything between them. Adding on the stress of being turned into a hexenbiest just blew away her capability for rational thinking.
(07-30-2018, 06:50 AM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: I disagree on that point. Critiquing the real world aspects of the series is perfectly valid in any discussion of it. We did it when the show was being made, so why not now? And sometimes there's just no alternative to "wtf were they thinking when they wrote that?"
(07-30-2018, 09:38 AM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: Could be my thoughts just get bumped out of stories too easily. My perspective may be a bit skewed, having spent more than a few long nights shivering in the rain for the sake of a scene that ended up lasting all of two minutes on the screen.
In a well-written story (not saying that Grimm was always well-written, but it was better than some I've worked on), no character ever does something just because he/she is "evil" (whatever that means to you). Characters' actions are determined by what they're thinking and feeling, even if what they're thinking and feeling is totally deluded or influenced by magic or mind control, and in their minds their actions are always justified.
If it's clear what thoughts or feelings might be behind a character's actions and you are just unwilling to accept that someone in that situation might think or feel that way, that's you as a viewer being unwilling to suspend disbelief. But if the character's motivations are impossible to discern, that's just bad writing (or acting or directing) and there's nothing more to be done than to acknowledge it and move on to the next topic.
Please read my previous post again. I never said that it is improper to critique the writers. I only objected to that practice is when an opposing opinion is discounted on actual content given by the writer and the opposing remarks are relegated to, well the writers wrote it that way.
Which goes back to my whole point. I agree, we all should use what the writers wrote and what the actors are feeling and their interpretations of the character. Case in point. When someone claims that Nick was the one to betray Juliette and I proved that it was Juliette doing the preliminary deceit of their relationship in Season 4. I am not referencing S1,2 or 3. but if you wish to include them, so be it.
The point I an trying to make is, using the writers to offset a counter opinion is basically admitting that opinion was baseless.
(07-30-2018, 09:05 AM)Hell Rell Wrote: I try to separate what I think happened in the series from what I would've liked to have happened. I find both to valuable discussions to this forum as long as the two don't intertwine and we don't get confused on which is which when a poster makes a reply. That's the real issue in our discussions because there have been plenty of times where posters have interjected their personal preferences into the discussion and let their opinions of the characters color how they see that character and what they actually said or did in the show. Sometimes the reality of what the character said or did differs greatly from what someone claims the character said or did.
That being said, I don't see any problem in questioning the writers as long you acknowledge what they actually wrote. Saying wtf were they thinking is perfectly valid and can lead to great discussions. Acknowledging what they wrote is very important because I don't see how you can criticize them without knowing what they wrote in the first place. That would only lead to "What exactly are you criticizing them for because that never happened?" responses.
There's one main distinction I make between good writing and bad writing. I can disagree with Hank or Rosalee and ask why Nick or Renard did this but as long as I'm referring to the character it's good writing because I'm still immersed in the story. On the other hand, me asking why the writers had Adalind or Wu do something is bad writing because I'm no longer immersed in the story because I'm thinking about what's going on behind the scenes. I'd much rather be concentrated on the puppet than the puppet master.
Same here HR. I immerse myself into the story. I don't want to look at the technical aspects creating a scene or the writers intent. That is why there is a set, actors and dialogue and don't forget, music. Those are the factors that the writers use as "writers intent".
Hate to repeat myself and I will try to reword my point I was trying to make. Ending a discussion of varying opinions by an opinionated contributor referring to the writers as making an error in replying to a contradicting fact is basically saying. Oops, never mind my opinion, move on. I never said that.
You know you are OLD, when you see the Slide Ruler you used in college selling in an ANTIQUE SHOP!!