tpel

I, too, have never had a problem with ET's acting. Early on, I thought she was better than DG, though he grew into his role and she was given progressively more preposterous scenarios that I'm not sure any actor could salvage. The problem with Juliette's role was that it could not continue indefinitely as originally introduced, and the writers had no idea how to change it. What I mean is, the season 1 supportive-yet-clueless girlfriend role lasted longer than it should have. When Nick proposed to Juliette without telling her that he had a supernatural duty that could endanger her life, the only conclusion the audience could draw was that Nick is a bad person: he's too cowardly to have a hard conversation, or he doesn't really respect the autonomy of the person he supposedly loves. So, something had to change. But once Juliette knew about Nick's Grimdom, the writers had to either get rid of her, or find a new role for her. They chose to keep her, and occasionally we had glimmers of how she could have been a valuable, yet still secondary character. She geeked out over new knowledge; she created case files; she used modern search tools; she could identify animal bite patterns. She also developed warm and natural friendships with other female characters, notably Rosalie and Trubel. But these good points were overshadowed by silly drama. And instead of expanding on what worked--imagine the kick-ass mainstream science + naturopathy and folklore team Juliette and Rosalie could have made--the writers decided that giving her super powers was the only way to make her important. Honestly, I don't care what ET or CC or SR or any of the actors pushed for. That's an actor's job: to hustle, to see the story through their character's eyes, to keep the paychecks coming. Producers may take the cast members' ideas into consideration, but at the end of the day, it's their job to decide what is best for the show. If they cave in to actors, or vociferous fans for that matter, they are not doing their job. If Damien Puckler told them that Meisner should turn out to be Renard's long lost brother and take over the royal family, the show-runners should smile at him and say, "We really just want you to kick people in the head."

Oddly, the acting for Diana kind of works for me. She is chronologically 2 or 3 years old, but her brain and body have developed much faster than normal. So, she has the intellect and language development of a much older child, but the emotional maturity of a toddler/preschooler. I remember when one of my godchildren was young, her parents commenting that they were briefly worried that she might be a sociopath. She's now a wonderful, empathetic tween, and her parents were never seriously worried, but I knew what they meant: there is that phase where the whole world revolves around the child's wants, which can be overwhelmingly important to her, and the impact of her actions on others is just not on her radar. That's where Diana is. She's glommed onto her mother, and the idea of her mother and father being together, and she'll do whatever it takes to get what she wants. She's not evil, precisely, but she is amoral, with all the self-awareness and self-control of a three-year-old . . . who happens to be nearly omnipotent. So, yeah, not a good idea for Nick and Adalind to be making out when she's in the house! As for the writers' throw-it-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach, occasionally it works -- for example, the expansion of Meisner's role seemed unplanned, but welcome. The problem is, they don't check to see what is actually sticking before throwing more, and we end up knee deep in undercooked plotlines.

I don't think Renard views Nick as an enemy so much as a convenient scapegoat. Renard and Nick were alone with Bonaparte when Bonaparte was killed. Renard has to make a show of going after Nick in order to bolster his own image as a loyal Black Claw member. Actually, the whole "shoot to kill" thing might be a gift --intentional or otherwise -- from Renard to Nick. Renard knows that Nick, for whatever reason, is impervious to bullets. So, if a cop were to shoot him, he would likely be alright, and could perhaps use the occasion to fake his own death. I thought this episode was a hot mess, but one thing I liked was the opening exchange between Nick and Renard. They are both confused and talk to each other like normal people, without any silly posturing.

The age thing wouldn't have bothered me if there had been some sort of explanation (beyond "she had some work done"). This applies to so many of the spoilers here: All they needed to do was give us an explanation--and, since this is fantasy shows, those explanations could be completely BSC--and we'd accept it. But they don't even go that for--they just assume that the audience is stupid enough not to ask questions. See, I was kind of OK with this because (a) they acknowledged the weirdness of it with other characters' bemused glances and Renard's tongue-in-cheek tone when he said "she had some work done", and (b) we've seen that hexenbiests have a slug-based beauty regimen that perhaps reduces signs of aging. Of course, I may be being especially forgiving since I thought Elizabeth and Renard had quite nice mother/son chemistry.

Hee -- wouldn't that be great for employee morale? The hosts can't hurt paying customers, but people who work there are fair game! I can't think of any reason why hosts would be programmed to not be able to harm guests, yet that wouldn't cover employees, too. I mean, I would think the salient feature the hosts are responding to is the fact that one is human. Making them distinguish different groups of humans, with regard to killing, seems like asking for trouble. So, does that mean Stubbs is also a host? Three clues point in that direction: (1) he referred to his own "backstory"; (2) Elsie commented on whether he has security clearance for his knife -- since he's head of security, that doesn't make much sense if he is human, but could refer to the security protocols that control which hosts can use weapons; (3) the stray was able to hurt him. I don't find this evidence too compelling. Points (1) and (2) were part of the banter between Stubbs and Elsie, so I don't know how literal it was meant to be. And, as Stubbs noted, only a line of code keeps the hosts from killing them all. If the hosts are glitching, perhaps that line is glitching too. So (3) could be part of the malfunction/awakening. I kind of hope Elsie and Stubbs are humans, not hosts. Most of the other characters are either having existential crises or are involved in deep mysterious machinations. These two are as close as we get to relatively normal people doing their jobs.

I actually quite liked these two. They seemed to be dropping hints that maybe Stubbs is a host -- he mentions his "backstory" and she questions whether security has cleared him to carry that big knife. But I don't think that could be true. It would be unwise to trust a host with keeping things in order.

I disliked Trubel a lot at the beginning. It wasn't so much that I couldn't see the purpose of the character. Actually, I think the addition of someone for Nick to mentor could have worked; it would mark Nick's transition from wide-eyed newbie to a Grimm with a couple of years under his belt who might have some wisdom to share. The problems were: (1) at first, she was terribly written, as if the writers couldn't decide whether she was supposed to be 16 or early twenties; (2) she was the stereotypical badass chick, more of a male-fantasy caricature than a character; (3) said mentoring didn't really happen all that much. But she grew on me. I like her understated competence and her fierce devotion to those who show any kindness to her. While I don't think JT is the best actor on the show, she is definitely not the worst. So I would be intrigued to see her in a role that is very unlike Trubel.

Yeah, there is nothing wrong with having bad characters behave badly. Where it gets icky is when we're supposed to believe that reprehensible acts are some kind of bizarro "meet cute" leading to romance.

The problem with Nick vs. Renard is . . . I'm kind of rooting for Renard! And that's even after he shot my favorite character, Meisner. Really, I'm glad they only gave them a half season. Maybe that will enable the writers to focus enough to produce something coherent, or maybe they will just continue over the cliff. Either way, we'll get closure.

It's nice to see a bunch of guys being openly enthusiastic about stuff. No ironic regard. No "I'm too cool to get excited about elephants." No worrying about looking silly. That makes them fun travel companions for the viewer.

I found the boxing scene a bit hard to take -- one of those situations where you know the show wants you to suspend disbelief, but you don't want to, as doing so would make you not like the people on the screen. No matter how annoying Bill Shatner is acting, there is no way George Foreman would actually punch him hard, because doing so could literally cause Bill's death. Since watching former heavyweight champions pretend to slug octogenarians is not all that fun, I kind of wonder why the writers went with that pairing. George vs. Terry or George vs. Jeff might have been funny, or letting George and one of the Thai kick boxers demonstrate the differences between their approaches might have been interesting. Other than that, I thought the conclusion of the show was sweet. For the viewer, it might seem a bit maudlin to be reminiscing fondly about stuff we just saw a couple of episodes ago, but it makes sense from the perspective of these guys, who have been on an extended adventure. I would enjoy seeing more.

The ambiguous "reality" bugged me a bit more this time than in the first episode. As Quilt Fairy notes, clearly the situations are staged. And, I think, the framing devices are mostly fictional. Last week, when Henry made it seem like the whole thing was his idea, and he called a few friends . . . nah. Pretty sure that's not how it happened. This week, they framed it as if Bill was making all the arrangements -- and paying the bill for expenses! Pretty sure that's not how reality or scripted TV works. The stars don't actually lose money. Sometimes this takes me out of the moment. But mostly, it seems like the interactions between the five travelers are real. They are obviously trying to emphasize certain narrative threads with the editing. This week: Bill thinks Terry is immature (and, yeah, he's kind of right, though maybe a bit priggish about it) but they grow to appreciate each other. Eh -- don't care much about the canned narratives. Still, the interactions themselves can be fun. So now we know that Bill Shatner: (1) can climb stairs better than guys 15 years younger than him, (2) can throw ninja throwing stars with startling accuracy, (3) can meditate even when surrounded by friends who are cutting up, and (4) isn't nearly as freaked out by snakes as his peers were. Yup, he's Captain Kirk!

Though a life-long Trekkie, I sometimes find Bill Shatner hard to take. Yet here I found him quite endearing. Sure, he was pedantic and pushy, but I liked his "embrace the adventure" attitude. Despite--or maybe because of--being 15 years older than his traveling companions, he came off as more free, less worried. Shatner and Winkler had a nice rapport, leaving Bradshaw and Foreman as the other natural pairing. These perspectives came into play when they discussed fear, with the athletes seeing it as a positive and the actors as a negative. Then, as the review linked in the media thread noted, Bill's admission that he feared death stopped them cold, but I think in a good way. Whatever our differences, that's something we all have in common; Bill might just be more forthright about it than most. Terry's bit about guessing which country Bill would die in struck me as kind of obnoxious. And seeing Bill charge up those stairs, well . . . he might not be the first to go!

I loved it when Travis is getting ready to run, and he asks Spencer if he believes he can do it, and Spencer says yes, but makes this great "eh maybe sorta" gesture with his hand. Not sure I can get into this show, but The Rock really nailed that moment!

I'm torn. I agree with you, ShadowFacts, that repeatedly reversing character deaths makes them kind of meaningless. But I'm with Darklazr in wanting my Meisner back. I mean, it's going to be a kind of crappy show anyway, right? So why not be a crappy show that occasionally gives us Meisner's signature beautifully badass fight scenes? As for what will happen, my guess is that the death is permanent. A flashback next season would make me happy, but I'm not holding my breath on it. I just hope the positive comments about Puckler result in him getting other acting jobs.

^^^ Oh, I'm not saying it COULDN'T be done. Obviously, the stick is an option. But I take calling something a "spoiler" to indicate that it is something beyond mere speculation, rather, that there is some evidence that the event WILL occur on the show. In this context, I think the "spoiler" that Meisner may be back smacks a bit of wishful thinking. I'm wishing for it too, of course, but I like to segregate my hopes from things I have good reason to anticipate :-) By the way, the idea of a Hadrian's Wall zombie army is all kinds of awesome!

I don't usually read spoilers, but I've been coming across a lot of suggestions that Meisner might not be dead in a permanent way. The speculation seems to all go back to this segment of an interview with the executive producers: The second to last sentence, of course, is key. But I included the rest of the segment for context. This seems to me to be very weak evidence that Meisner will return from the dead. It seems more like the producers are very fond of Puckler, and hope they might find a way to work him into the remaining episodes. But that could be in a flashback more easily than in a resurrection scenario.

Here is a link to the first chapter: https://www.fanfiction.net/s/11964548/1/The-Beginning-of-the-End-An-Alternative And, for those who like puppies better than fanfic, here is a link to a short film that Damien Puckler made, co-starring his dog: https://vimeo.com/13710655 The film, Roxy, is only 12 minutes long, but it is important to watch it to the very end.

For all its problems, there were a few things I liked. Some, other posters have mentioned: the scene when Wu smirks at the wesen cops pointing their guns at each other, the general action-packed pacing, Nick kicking ass. Two other things I want to add: (1) The look on Rosalee's face when Monroe is beating up her obnoxious ex. They've shown before that Monroe getting violent on her behalf kind of turns Rosalee on, and she had a nice subtle smile on her face here. (2) Not being with Nick makes Adalind so much better. It's like she's gone from bland-and-boring back to her feisty personality. Loved it when she called Renard a moron. Renard was great in that scene too -- just the right combination of arrogance and sheepishness when she yelled at him for believing she would want to sleep with her.

Darklazr, I love this idea; it feels very in-character for everyone involved. Since the show won't give me this, I want to write it myself as a story. Do you mind if I run with your idea? I do wonder if getting rid of Meisner was a way to make fans forget how much hotter the chemistry was between him and Adalind than it is between Nick and Adalind. But I also think TobinAlbers might be right that Adalind will make a heroic "mommy sacrifice", so the point might be moot anyway.

I love the idea of a virtual memorial to Our Favorite Ninja, though I lack the technological skills to contribute video. Calling him "well liked" is interesting. I think, among fans, some of us love him, some like him as eye-candy, and some don't care much about him. But, among the other characters on the show, he is surprisingly well liked, given that, on paper, he is a mercenary who communicates mostly by punching people. Nick respects him, even if they didn't always see eye-to-eye. Trubel saw him as a mentor, maybe a friend. Adalind, who is not known for relating to people without an agenda, seemed to have straight-forward affection for him. Diana liked him. Even Renard really hated killing him. Eve seemed upset at losing him, even though he beat her (her hexenbiest?) into submission just a season ago. He is not the most beloved character on the show -- that would probably go to Monroe or Rosalee -- but he may be the one who is well liked by the most diverse set of other characters, including characters who aren't good guys, and who don't like many people.

Hee -- there could totally be harm in trying! You could come back a zombie, or worse. In fact, if I were Meisner, I might have a "DNR by mystical means" document in my personnel file: CPR is fine. Magic stick whose powers nobody understands, and which comes with dire cryptic warnings? Not thanks. But seriously, Meisner has seen firsthand -- since he did it to her -- the cost to Eve of coming back "from the dead". I'm not sure he would want to go on living as an emotionless automaton like Eve, but he might be willing to do it if he was sure it would be helpful to the cause of defeating Black Claw. The magic stick comes with no such reassurances. Yeah, that was awesome. Wu rocks! Meisner was the first person to treat Adalind with kindness. Perhaps that showed her it was possible, making way for her relationship with Nick. Shoot -- does that mean my favorite, dearly departed character is to blame for Nadalind? ;-)

I had a bad feeling that this might happen :-( We finally have confirmation -- enough to convince me, at least -- that Meisner was neither wesen nor Grimm. He was human. Proof that you don't have to be "special" to kick ass. I felt bad for Trubel. For a moment she looked like a little girl, sitting next to his body, crying. They had a rocky start, but I think she had grown attached to him. I'm bummed that we won't get to see Meisner reunited with Diana. I was hoping for a scene where she's wreaking havoc and everyone else is at a loss as to what to do, and he just tells her to knock it off, and she does.

Renard technically killed Meisner, but I saw it as him shooting Meisner to stop Bonaparte from dragging out the suffering any more. I think once you are bleeding from your eyeballs, and there is no medical care or magic healing stick in sight, you are kind of a goner. Of course Renard was complicit in setting up the situation, but Bonaparte was the murderer. So it was fitting that, while Renard "pulled the trigger" on Bonaparte, Diana was really the one responsible. She wasn't doing it to avenge the guy who delivered her and protected her, but it worked out that way.

Well, Bonaparte and the other Black Claw guys wanted to include Grimms within their ranks, so the fact that neither of them brought this up at least heavily implied that Meisner was not a Grimm either. I mean, it wasn't a serious negotiation -- Renard had to know that Meisner, of all people, would not come over to the Black Claw side. But I think Renard was trying to figure out a way to avoid killing his old comrade. Badass human it is. And yeah, I was surprised at how much my interest in this show disappeared with his death. I guess I'll have to stick around for the Blutbad/Fuschbau "pups" though . . .