Well, It Says Right Here...: All That's Wrong With Grimm

[ShadowFacts]

10 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

Look, I really like DG as an actor and I think, from what I've read between the lines in the very few interviews he's done since season 4, he is not happy with how the show has gone....I'm not going to blame acting here.  Other actors may have played the role differently or even better, but there is only so much an actor can do with a script.  It was the writers who built this ridiculous Nadalind plot, the whole Black Claw/Hadrian's Wall mess, and the fact Nick is basically ineffectual as a Grimm now.  

I liked the character of Nick well enough in the early seasons.  I agree it's the writing that is the most to blame.  He needed to take the bull by the horns as far as both Juliette and Adalind a long time ago, and since he didn't, he is just a sorry sucker.  I don't think they can write him as doing anything but fighting hard to keep his son with him, so I expect Adalind will be written out one way or another.  Maybe wishful thinking.   I don't know about his acting as a contributing factor because I have not seen him in anything else except a game show.  In that, he was very Nick-like, sort of low-key and earnest, so I don't know how much acting he's really doing.  Not a slam, as I said, I liked the character well enough and if it's close to his real self, I like him.  The show has gone off the rails and he's not able to do much about it, sadly. 

[OtterMommy]

6 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

I don't know about his acting as a contributing factor because I have not seen him in anything else except a game show.  In that, he was very Nick-like, sort of low-key and earnest, so I don't know how much acting he's really doing.  Not a slam, as I said, I liked the character well enough and if it's close to his real self, I like him.  The show has gone off the rails and he's not able to do much about it, sadly. 

The only other thing that I saw him in was his guest spot on Grey's Anatomy a few years ago, in which he turned in a darn good performance (I saw it when it aired live and then watched it again a year or so ago once I realized it was DG in that role).  I don't know if I would say that it was vastly different than Nick--he still seemed kind of "low-key and earnest," but the role was meaty.  He was a soldier in love with another soldier who was going under the knife in the MerDer's doomed clinical trial.  My husband, who came from a very conservative family, was a little weirded out by the m/m aspect of it.  I, on the other hand, was wigged out by the fact that he looked like he was about 12 years old, but had the same adult voice.

So, yeah..."Nick"--back in the day--may be quite similar to DG.  I get the feeling that the writers tended to try to cater to the actors when they wrote the characters, which is just not good practice for a show...but that doesn't mean that DG is a bad actor.

[OtterMommy]

From the media/ratings thread:

Quote

 

The writer's were clearly trying to be edgy in the middle of season four and really thought fans would just love their lead character being raped and his rapist having his baby, not!  They should have quickly realized that Adalind being pregnant was not a good idea and write her with a hysterical pregnancy where she ended up committed for several episodes to accommodate CC's pregnancy.

I, too, wish the actors well!

There are so many awesome Grimm fans that have come up with fabulous stories that should have kept this show on for at least another four years.  

 

The keys alone, as I pointed out somewhere up thread, could have kept the show going for 8-10 seasons.  All they had to do was not drop the plot line, even if they just kept it running as sort of C plot line, gave a us a new key every season or so, and then put it all together.  Instead, they completely ditched the plotline for, what?, 2 seasons, and then did a quick half-assed job to resolve it and cross it off their list.  There were a lot (and. by "a lot," I mean probably every fan who posted anywhere on social media) who complained about how the key plot line was just dropped--and I don't think they wanted it resolved and then forgotten.  They just wanted the writers to show some respect for the fans and not treat us like morons.

As for the cast, I realized that I've seen almost every cast member in something else*, and in every instance, they are infinitely better in that other thing--even if that other thing was a steaming pile of caca (like the Netflix series "Easy" or that hilariously bad Pompeii movie).  Folks, that is not an acting issue...that is a directing and writing issue.  There are just badly written scripts and story lines that no actor can save and there is just some bad direction that will undermine the work of any actor...and Grimm has both in spades.

*despite both Silas Weir Mitchell and Russell Hornsby both having pretty substantial credits to their name, I haven't seen them in anything else.  I don't know why that is...  

[HunterHunted]

I don't think I've seen a show with such world building done so incompetently. We've got Grimms, the Royals, wesens, the Resistence, the Wesen Council, Hadrian's Wall, the Knights Templar, the Verrat, Black Claw, and a handful of orthodox wesen groups dedicated to preserving traditional wesen culture, traditions, and bloodlines. This show has such a poor understanding of the world it's built and how these elements relate to each other. The show had such a poor understanding of its characters, these groups, and what motivated their actions. For 5 seasons, we've seen wesen who've had issues living in this shadow world. The show could have been building towards Black Claw by having grassroots movement of disaffected wesen. Especially as most of the Wesen Council decisions seemed to be supportive of the status quo and reaffirmed the Royals power. The infighting with the Royals and the Resistence should have been an opportunity for more radical individuals to step up in the Wesen Council. That's not even getting into the keys, the crusading knights, and the stick  (original piece of the cross or the Spear of Longinus).

This show started off as a police procedural with fantasy elements, but unfortunately gave itself the trappings of a political thriller. The show had all of these factions who were angling for power and autonomy, but didn't know what to do with them. I always felt like the show treated the mythology as just set dressing or a novelty. This show is heading into season 6. The show mythology and world building should feel as richly layered as Fringe, the X-Files, Person of Interest, Lost, Game of Thrones, Deep Space 9, or any other show where various political factions are aligning and betraying each other with equal frequency.

In season 1 and 2, I've always viewed the Royals interest in Nick as being fearful of having an independent Grimm with no connection to a Royal house. And then as Nick starts making inroads with the wesen community and Council, their fear that this is a tentative truce to oust the Royals. But whatever. This shit is almost over and I don't have a nuclear powered DeLorean to go back and fix it.

*You don't remember Silas from Prison Break and My Name is Earl and Russell from Playmakers and Lincoln Heights. I watch an unbelievable amount of tv so I remember everything.

Edited October 8, 2016 by HunterHunted

[OtterMommy]

1 hour ago, HunterHunted said:

I don't think I've seen a show with such world building done so incompetently. We've got Grimms, the Royals, wesens, the Resistence, the Wesen Council, Hadrian's Wall, the Knights Templar, the Verrat, Black Claw, and a handful of orthodox wesen groups dedicated to preserving traditional wesen culture, traditions, and bloodlines. This show has such a poor understanding of the world it's built and how these elements relate to each other. The show had such a poor understanding of its characters, these groups, and what motivated their actions. For 5 seasons, we've seen wesen who've had issues living in this shadow world. The show could have been building towards Black Claw by having grassroots movement of disaffected wesen. Especially as most of the Wesen Council decisions seemed to be supportive of the status quo and reaffirmed the Royals power. The infighting with the Royals and the Resistence should have been an opportunity for more radical individuals to step up in the Wesen Council. That's not even getting into the keys, the crusading knights, and the stick  (original piece of the cross or the Spear of Longinus).

 

I agree 100%.  I think this entire series would have been a completely different (and probably improved) animal if, before the pilot was even written, the creators sat down and wrote a list--maybe just 10 or so--of "rules" for this show.  Instead, it just seems like they throw whatever the hell pops into their head at it.  And they keep changing the game on things that already exist, such as:

If you are Wesen, there is nothing you can do about it...

...unless you're a hexenbiest .  Then you can be made and unmade....

...unless you are a hexenbiest named Juliette (or Eve) and then you can never be unmade, even though we've all already been told that you can be unmade...

...and, unless you are Adalind, you are always THE MOST POWERFUL hexenbiest in the world...

...unless another one comes along...

...and you are the mortal enemy of a Grimm...

...unless you got yourself knocked up by raping him and then you can be totally in lurrrrrve with said Grimm...

...and you can't be half wesen, half human...

...unless you are a zauberbiest, which is a male hexenbiest...

....but zauberbiests and hexenbiests are not the same thing, even though they are totaly the same thing (but with different plumbing...)

...and we can go on and on about just this one creature.

I don't know how the network/TV industry work, but it blows my mind that NBC would allow this show to be so sloppy.  Yes, I understand that it was a solid Friday performer, but I can't believe that no one saw that this show would implode. And, if they did, why didn't they clean the creative house before it happened?

[Darklazr]

Maybe the main problem with Grimm is/was NBC sending over notes to the writers on their preferred likes and dislikes?  I know Shonda Rhimes mentioned she stopped taking network notes around season 5 for Grey's Anatomy.  Eh.  We (fans) will never really know what prompted the show to create such a clusterfuck with Grim, when the show should be on solid footing for the next four years.

[PepperMonkey]

Mr. Monkey and I recently went back and re-watched season 1 of Grimm and we had forgotten how much we looked forward to it every Friday. We didn't even mind Juliette; in fact, I loved that they showed her as a practicing veterinarian. Also loved the conflict between Grimm/Nick and Renard. Sasha definitely has the chops to play a great villain and I didn't really like when they so abruptly changed that to make him Nick's ally.

HATED Adalind then and still hate her now. Drugged date rape has apparently always been Adalind's "lingua franca." What bothers MOST about the Adalind thing (btw, she should have died tragically after Kelly took Diana, and never surfaced again in Portland or anywhere else) is that this whole debacle has made me almost dislike Claire Coffee and I'm sure she's a perfectly lovely person.

Silas Weir Mitchell played one of my favourite damaged characters on Prison Break. He wasn't on that many episodes and he barely spoke but he was awesome. I'll watch him and most of the others in whatever they do next.

[Darklazr]

Diana should have died after she was rescued from Viktor and BEFORE Kelly could leave town with the not needed baby on this show.  I like CC having watched her on General Hospital, but Adalind should have ended with the ability to never, ever have another kid on this show and being held captive by the Royal's for reneging on her contract with Stefania.

Grimm was awesome from s1 to early s4 and then came the baby crap with Diana, Nick being raped and Juliette not remaining dead!

[HunterHunted]

On Saturday, October 08, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Darklazr said:

Maybe the main problem with Grimm is/was NBC sending over notes to the writers on their preferred likes and dislikes?  I know Shonda Rhimes mentioned she stopped taking network notes around season 5 for Grey's Anatomy.  Eh.  We (fans) will never really know what prompted the show to create such a clusterfuck with Grim, when the show should be on solid footing for the next four years.

Shonda stopped taking network notes because her shows had/have good ratings. FX has similar deals with its show runners. Their perspective even from the pilot is that if you bring ratings or awards, you won't get a single note ftom FX.

Grimm, while a reliable Friday performer, has never had great ratings and therefore never had the leverage to tell NBC to leave them alone. That being said, I'm having a hard time believing that this show is a mess because of network interference. In my experience when the network interferes it's to feature certain actors or get two characters into a relationship and sometimes to kill certain plots.

All of the mythology and massive amount of botched world building probably came directly from the producers. If this show had been on 15 to 20 years ago, I think we'd all be a little bit more forgiving of the show and the fact they don't seem to have memorialized the show bible. But this is 2016, shows like Lost, Game of Thrones, the X-Files have demonstrated that audiences can handle complex plots, backstories, and mythologies. Even if this is the result of Network interference, there is good reason why it's been done as badly as it has been. This show is sloppy and poorly thoughtout.

[Darklazr]

3 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

Shonda stopped taking network notes because her shows had/have good ratings. FX has similar deals with its show runners. Their perspective even from the pilot is that if you bring ratings or awards, you won't get a single note ftom FX.

Grimm, while a reliable Friday performer, has never had great ratings and therefore never had the leverage to tell NBC to leave them alone. That being said, I'm having a hard time believing that this show is a mess because of network interference. In my experience when the network interferes it's to feature certain actors or get two characters into a relationship and sometimes to kill certain plots.

All of the mythology and massive amount of botched world building probably came directly from the producers. If this show had been on 15 to 20 years ago, I think we'd all be a little bit more forgiving of the show and the fact they don't seem to have memorialized the show bible. But this is 2016, shows like Lost, Game of Thrones, the X-Files have demonstrated that audiences can handle complex plots, backstories, and mythologies. Even if this is the result of Network interference, there is good reason why it's been done as badly as it has been. This show is sloppy and poorly thoughtout.

NBC was still sending over notes to the show runners and we have no idea how those changes could have impacted long term stories or the original scope of the show.

[HunterHunted]

16 minutes ago, Darklazr said:

NBC was still sending over notes to the show runners and we have no idea how those changes could have impacted long term stories or the original scope of the show.

That's true, but I'm still sort of surprised how many plot threads that they've left hanging. I don't particularly love the show, but one of things that motivated me to start watching the Vampire Diaries was that I read a review that commended the show for its ability to quickly wrap up plots that don't work and move forward. Grimm doesn't do that.

I don't really think the producers and show runners of Grimm understand the rules for the universe that they've created. They've had the world's biggest macguffin in the Grimm books. If they needed by network direction to resolve one of their still open mysteries, have someone find the answer in the freaking books: either Nicks, Josh's, or the books from Monroe's uncle.

It appears that NBC really likes CC and wanted to keep her in the cast. I like her too, but her garbage storylines for 4 seasons are result of the writers and producers not being particularly inventive in finding ways to keep her on the show.

I guess what I'm inelegantly trying to say is that the network could give a ton of notes, but the execution of that is all on the producers and show runners.

[Darklazr]

I admit the show runners are sloppy AF and NBC should have stopped them if it was their idea to have Adalind rape their leading man.  Sheesh.  If NBC wanted to keep CC on the show, the writer's sure messed up by giving Adalind two darned babies and having her raping men!

[OtterMommy]

7 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

Grimm, while a reliable Friday performer, has never had great ratings and therefore never had the leverage to tell NBC to leave them alone. That being said, I'm having a hard time believing that this show is a mess because of network interference. In my experience when the network interferes it's to feature certain actors or get two characters into a relationship and sometimes to kill certain plots.

As I said, I'm not sure how the network/show relationship works, but I can see how it might be the move behind the dreaded "Nadalind"...

...except that still doesn't make sense.  

I'm guessing here, but don't networks want to make money off their shows?  It is a business, after all.  And they make money off ad buys, and ad buys are tied to ratings, and the ratings were definitely NOT there for "Nadalind."  If you go up thread (or maybe in the ratings thread), you can read where I geek out over numbers and argue that more Adalind = lower ratings.  Feel free to disagree with me on that, but I think I CAN say that Adalind/Claire Coffee did not bring in viewers in any way.  And, if you follow the ratings and how they line up over season 5, it is pretty clear that one--and probably the biggest--culprit behind the dismal ratings was "Nadalind."

Also, the argument that Claire Coffee is so much more popular than Elizabeth Tulloch (which has been all over FB and Twitter) doesn't hold up.  I don't know how you could possibly measure "popularity"...other than social media followers.  Both actresses are active on social media, although I would say that Claire Coffee is more active.  Yet, Tulloch has a substantially larger following, at least on Twitter and Instagram (94.3K vs. 58.3K on Twitter and 111K vs 91K on Instagram).  So, if they wanted to showcase a more popular actress, I wonder how they are measuring it and how they can claim that CC is the one who merits that title.

And, finally, some microscopic and completely slanted anecdotal data.  Grimm is (er, was...) a popular show among my cohorts at my kids school (so, women in their late 30s-late 40s with kids at a small private school) and, without exception, all are very, very pro-Juliette and very, very anti-"Nadalind." There are a few who put me to shame on some of this stuff.  Oh...and none of them are on social media to the point that they interact with the show (although many do follow at least Tulloch in some way).

I can see the showrunners buying into what is being said on social media--because they've shown that they are short-sighted idiots.  However, I can't believe that the network hasn't been following the ratings....

Edited October 11, 2016 by OtterMommy

[Darklazr]

3 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

As I said, I'm not sure how the network/show relationship works, but I can see how it might be the move behind the dreaded "Nadalind"...

...except that still doesn't make sense.  

I'm guessing here, but don't networks want to make money off their shows?  It is a business, after all.  And they make money off ad buys, and ad buys are tied to ratings, and the ratings were definitely NOT there for "Nadalind."  If you go up thread (or maybe in the ratings thread), you can read where I geek out over numbers and argue that more Adalind = lower ratings.  Feel free to disagree with me on that, but I think I CAN say that Adalind/Claire Coffee did not bring in viewers in any way.  And, if you follow the ratings and how they line up over season 5, it is pretty clear that one--and probably the biggest--culprit behind the dismal ratings was "Nadalind."

Also, the argument that Claire Coffee is so much more popular than Elizabeth Tulloch (which has been all over FB and Twitter) doesn't hold up.  I don't know how you could possibly measure "popularity"...other than social media followers.  Both actresses are active on social media, although I would say that Claire Coffee is more active.  Yet, Tulloch has a substantially larger following, at least on Twitter and Instagram (94.3K vs. 58.3K on Twitter and 111K vs 91K on Instagram).  So, if they wanted to showcase a more popular actress, I wonder how they are measuring it and how they can claim that CC is the one who merits that title.

And, finally, some microscopic and completely slanted anecdotal data.  Grimm is (er, was...) a popular show among my cohorts at my kids school (so, women in their late 30s-late 40s with kids at a small private school) and, without exception, all are very, very pro-Juliette and very, very anti-"Nadalind." There are a few who put me to shame on some of this stuff.  Oh...and none of them are on social media to the point that they interact with the show (although many do follow at least Tulloch in some way).

I can see the showrunners buying into what is being said on social media--because they've shown that they are short-sighted idiots.  However, I can't believe that the network hasn't been following the ratings....

I watched General Hospital bleed ratings for years, because fans hated the mob taking over the show and you would think TIIC would get rid of the actors in those roles, but noooooooooooooo!  The folks running TV shows have their favorites and the character/actor stays longer than we fans would like.  However, what I hate someone else who watches GH clearly loves and the same thing is true about Grimm, Nick, Juliette, Adalind, etc...  

CC may not have that many fans following her on social media, but there are fans that still send snail mail and call the network.  

[OtterMommy]

15 minutes ago, Darklazr said:

CC may not have that many fans following her on social media, but there are fans that still send snail mail and call the network.  

I'm not saying CC doesn't have fans (heck, she has over 90K instagram followers...), I'm just saying that IF the network was wanting to give more air time to a "popular" actress, one way they could/would/should determine "popularity" would be through social media following and IF they did that, and they were in a position where they were going to favor either CC or ET, ET would be the more logical choice.

But, honestly, the ratings are where it is at....and the ratings and how they fell over season 5, are a pretty clear message that whoever made the call to put Nick and Adalind together made a very, very bad call.

[Darklazr]

2 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

I'm not saying CC doesn't have fans (heck, she has over 90K instagram followers...), I'm just saying that IF the network was wanting to give more air time to a "popular" actress, one way they could/would/should determine "popularity" would be through social media following and IF they did that, and they were in a position where they were going to favor either CC or ET, ET would be the more logical choice.

But, honestly, the ratings are where it is at....and the ratings and how they fell over season 5, are a pretty clear message that whoever made the call to put Nick and Adalind together made a very, very bad call.

CC clearly is popular or she would have been gone after season 1 and I don't think it has squat to do with hers or ET's social media presence.    The show changed Renard's story after season 1, because they really liked SR.  My point is, love or hate Adalind, CC (IMO) is the better actor in comparison to Juliette/ET and that could be one of the reasons that she is still on the show.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Darklazr

[OtterMommy]

3 minutes ago, Darklazr said:

CC clearly is popular or she would have been gone after season 1 and I don't think it has squat to do with hers or ET's social media presence.    The show changed Renard's story after season 1, because they really liked SR.  My point is, love or hate Adalind, CC (IMO) is the better actor in comparison to Juliette/ET.

I've gotten to the point where I don't feel I can judge ANY of the actors on this show by their performances in this show.  I've mentioned this above, but when I see a Grimm actor in a different role, their performance is always better in that other role--even if that role is bad.  After complaining about JT/Trubel from pretty much the moment she showed up on Grimm, I saw her in something else and was amazed at how much better she was (and that thing, episode 2 of "Easy," was truly terrible...and still JT impressed me).  Frankly, both Tulloch and Coffee have had far better roles than what they have on Grimm. I do think that more creative (albeit, disorganized and unfocused) attention was paid to Adalind than it ever was for Juliette--and that shows and it paints ET as an actress compared to CC in a light that she really doesn't deserve.  However, I really can't say that one is better than the other--although I will say that they are different types of actresses, which makes it even harder to compare the two.  It is almost like comparing, say, David Giuntoli and Silas Weir Mitchell.  They are just cut from different cloth.

But anyway...we can agree to disagree about whether one actress is "better" than the other.  My complaint about the show is that it is structured and written (and, frequently, directed) so badly that the actors--any of them--really can't do that much with it.  And that's a shame, because the show is selling all of them short.

As for the social media thing...I do wonder.  I could see how it is important in some way.  Shows want to bring in viewers and, if you follow an actor or actress, you are likely also watching whatever they are in.  So yes, I do suspect that social media following do (generally) play into things at least to some point.  There are, of course, actors (such as SWM) who don't really have a social media following and they still seems to get jobs....

[Dobian]

CC has been saddled with terrible storylines that either turned her into the cliché damsel in distress or kept her cooped up like a prisoner in Nick's apartment.  When she is in the thick of things mixing it up and being vampy and evil she's terrific.

This show is dangerously close to having the wheels fall off, though.  The whole overarching plot plays out like a bad soap opera, and godchild characters are the worst.  Any show of this sort should just have a rule at the start: No godchild characters.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Dobian

[OtterMommy]

1 hour ago, Dobian said:

This is show is dangerously close to having the wheels fall off, though.  The whole overarching plot plays out like a bad soap opera, and godchild characters are the worst.  Any show of this sort should just have a rule at the start: No godchild characters.

I disagree with this.

I think the wheels fell off about a year ago....  Decisions were made in season 4 (decisions, which we now know, were not part of the original plan for the season) that doomed the show and were of a nature that prohibited the show from having any sort of exit plan.  Once those decisions were put in place, the show was doomed.

I do agree with you about Claire Coffee.  She's best as Adalind when she's "vampy and evil."  Sadly, I don't think we'll see that Adalind ever again....

[Darklazr]

3 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

I disagree with this.

I think the wheels fell off about a year ago....  Decisions were made in season 4 (decisions, which we now know, were not part of the original plan for the season) that doomed the show and were of a nature that prohibited the show from having any sort of exit plan.  Once those decisions were put in place, the show was doomed.

I do agree with you about Claire Coffee.  She's best as Adalind when she's "vampy and evil."  Sadly, I don't think we'll see that Adalind ever again....

What decisions?  Are you talking about ET wanting a bad Juliette or writing in CC's pregnancy?

[OtterMommy]

3 minutes ago, Darklazr said:

What decisions?  Are you talking about ET wanting a bad Juliette or writing in CC's pregnancy?

There is nothing beyond fan speculation that ET wanted a "Bad Juliette."  I was talking about writing in Claire Coffee's pregnancy.  Once they put in the spawn of Nick and Adalind, there was no way they could back away from it.

I have a suspicion that turning Juliette into a hexenbiest had always been the plan, I'm just not sure that how it played out was the original idea one the show runners realized they could indulge their baby fetish.

Edited October 13, 2016 by OtterMommy

[Darklazr]

4 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

There is nothing beyond fan speculation that ET wanted a "Bad Juliette."  I was talking about writing in Claire Coffee's pregnancy.  Once they put in the spawn of Nick and Adalind, there was no way they could back away from it.

I have a suspicion that turning Juliette into a hexenbiest had always been the plan, I'm just not sure that how it played out was the original idea one the show runners realized they could indulge their baby fetish.

 

4 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

There is nothing beyond fan speculation that ET wanted a "Bad Juliette."  I was talking about writing in Claire Coffee's pregnancy.  Once they put in the spawn of Nick and Adalind, there was no way they could back away from it.

I have a suspicion that turning Juliette into a hexenbiest had always been the plan, I'm just not sure that how it played out was the original idea one the show runners realized they could indulge their baby fetish.

Sigh.  There is no way to turn back the clock and not write in CC's pregnancy and the show is ending next year.

[Dobian]

It's too bad Grimm is like some other shows that started off good before flying off the rails, like Lost and Sleepy Hollow.  Maybe they can redeem things in season 6 but with only 13 episodes to work with they don't have much time for added drama, they need to just resolve the mess they already have and close it out.

[Darklazr]

Lost was my show and then it just went off the rails with that stupid ending.

Sleepy Hollow was a great little show and then someone got a hardon for Crane's wife and that stupid son should have never existed.  What a waste of a show.  Abby and Crane had chemistry to spare and the wife should have died when she went evil.

I dropped OUAT after the first two episodes in the Fall of 2015, because of the rape baby and way too much Emma.

Grimm should have let Juliette stay dead and Adalind should have never had Nick's rape baby.

[HunterHunted]

I find it really funny that the show agonized over what to do with Juliette. If you look at other procedurals, for the most part they don't give 2 shits about what to do with the cop's significant other. If the significant other appears at all, it's usually because they are on the job or tend to work closely with the police (cop, EMT, attorney, doctor, or nurse) or its the rare episode where the significanr other happens to end up the middle of a crime (bank robbery). It's only on genre shows (sci fi, fantasy, or comic book) that the protagonist's untrained significant other is running around helping the protagonist solve crimes.

The only show that I could think of where this doesn't happen is Reaper. When Sam finally came clean to Andi about being the Devil's reaper, Andi helps out a couple of times, freaks out, and breaks up with Sam.

As much as I love Monroe and Rosalie, I find that show too often puts them in a ton of danger. Nick seems pretty quick to call them up and ask for their help against very dangerous Wesen that could easily kill Monroe or Rosalie.

Finally to get back to the show's awful attempts at complex world building, we know the Wesen Council stepped in to steal the mummified wesen. I've always wondered if they got involved with any of those wesen doctors who were doing some pretty bad things, like the blutbad doctor who ran that support group teaching them to suppress their wesen nature. He had to have some documentation of what he was doing. Did the council come in and destroy his files? Or that doctor who was genetically modifying her son? Yes, Rosalie is Wesen Council liaison for that region, but I'd say maybe 10% of the crimes were humans doing something. Did Rosalie pass information to the council for all of these incidents?

[Darklazr]

20 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

I find it really funny that the show agonized over what to do with Juliette. If you look at other procedurals, for the most part they don't give 2 shits about what to do with the cop's significant other. If the significant other appears at all, it's usually because they are on the job or tend to work closely with the police (cop, EMT, attorney, doctor, or nurse) or its the rare episode where the significanr other happens to end up the middle of a crime (bank robbery). It's only on genre shows (sci fi, fantasy, or comic book) that the protagonist's untrained significant other is running around helping the protagonist solve crimes.

The only show that I could think of where this doesn't happen is Reaper. When Sam finally came clean to Andi about being the Devil's reaper, Andi helps out a couple of times, freaks out, and breaks up with Sam.

As much as I love Monroe and Rosalie, I find that show too often puts them in a ton of danger. Nick seems pretty quick to call them up and ask for their help against very dangerous Wesen that could easily kill Monroe or Rosalie.

Finally to get back to the show's awful attempts at complex world building, we know the Wesen Council stepped in to steal the mummified wesen. I've always wondered if they got involved with any of those wesen doctors who were doing some pretty bad things, like the blutbad doctor who ran that support group teaching them to suppress their wesen nature. He had to have some documentation of what he was doing. Did the council come in and destroy his files? Or that doctor who was genetically modifying her son? Yes, Rosalie is Wesen Council liaison for that region, but I'd say maybe 10% of the crimes were humans doing something. Did Rosalie pass information to the council for all of these incidents?

This!  I watch Blue Bloods and the show shows spouses and children for only a few minutes or on a rare occasion in a story.  I much prefered if Juliette was shown sparingly and died at the end of s1!

[OtterMommy]

18 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

I find it really funny that the show agonized over what to do with Juliette. If you look at other procedurals, for the most part they don't give 2 shits about what to do with the cop's significant other. If the significant other appears at all, it's usually because they are on the job or tend to work closely with the police (cop, EMT, attorney, doctor, or nurse) or its the rare episode where the significanr other happens to end up the middle of a crime (bank robbery). It's only on genre shows (sci fi, fantasy, or comic book) that the protagonist's untrained significant other is running around helping the protagonist solve crimes.

The only show that I could think of where this doesn't happen is Reaper. When Sam finally came clean to Andi about being the Devil's reaper, Andi helps out a couple of times, freaks out, and breaks up with Sam.

As much as I love Monroe and Rosalie, I find that show too often puts them in a ton of danger. Nick seems pretty quick to call them up and ask for their help against very dangerous Wesen that could easily kill Monroe or Rosalie.

Finally to get back to the show's awful attempts at complex world building, we know the Wesen Council stepped in to steal the mummified wesen. I've always wondered if they got involved with any of those wesen doctors who were doing some pretty bad things, like the blutbad doctor who ran that support group teaching them to suppress their wesen nature. He had to have some documentation of what he was doing. Did the council come in and destroy his files? Or that doctor who was genetically modifying her son? Yes, Rosalie is Wesen Council liaison for that region, but I'd say maybe 10% of the crimes were humans doing something. Did Rosalie pass information to the council for all of these incidents?

Re Juliette:  I agree with you, to a point.  I think that they could have done interesting things by showing how Nick would have to divide up his life between the Grimm (Monroe) side and Human (Juliette and Hank) side.  They did an okay job with it in the first season, and I do think they handled bringing Hank into the fold, but they botched it big time with Juliette.  That being said, I don't think Juliette knowing about Nick would prevent this dual-life examination.

I also think they really gave Juliette the short end of the stick on a couple of points.  She was a vet, meaning she could have been an asset to Nick (well, if we accept that Wesen are animal-like, which not all are because of crappy world-building).  There was an opening for her and....they brought in Rosalee.  Don't get me wrong, I liked Rosalee (right up until she started telling Nick that he had to be responsible for his rapist....still haven't forgiven the character or the show for that one...), but I do think that the writers gave her some story telling real estate that would have been better spent on Juliette.  I'm not saying Rosalee should not have been on the show--there was more than enough material with her role with the Council to make her an integral character, plus her relationship with Monroe was very well done--but they shouldn't have put her in to the exclusion of an already established character.

I also am, as we all know, beyond pissed off by the whole Nadalind thing--for the rape, for the nonsensical nature, but also for the fact that it was just Juliette redux.  Adalind, living in the bunker, was basically just Juliette back when they didn't know what to do with her.  Meanwhile, we have Eve, which also makes absolutely no sense and, worse, draws attention away from the main character so that he's really nothing more than wallpaper.  If they wanted HexenJuliette to be the "big bad," then they needed to lay the groundwork for it WAY (like, seasons) before it came to fruition.  If they wanted Eve to be a super warrior, they needed to a) not blatantly assassinate Juliette's character and b) get rid of Nadalind and pair Eve--not necessarily romantically--with Nick and c) get rid of Trubel because I still don't know what the fuck she's doing in this show (sorry, had to add that in).

I really despise character assassinations and I think once a show does that, or a miraculous redemption, which is pretty much the same thing but going the other way, the show runners and writers need to be fired.  They've shown that they are incapable of creating a network show.  I recently read an article about another show (a show I don't watch, so I can't comment on the details re that show) that assassinated a character and the journalist was furious.  Obviously, whoever wrote that never saw Grimm, which committed BOTH character assassination AND a miraculous redemption....something I can't think of happening in any other show.

As I've said before, I liked Juliette and I think they missed some great opportunities with her.  However, after doing what they did to her at the end of season 4, I do think they needed to keep her dead.  If they were so dead set on Eve, they had to be 100% clear that she was NOT Juliette.  Instead, we got this weird quasi-character that made no sense.

I do think (speculation, not spoiler) that we might be heading for a Nick/Juliette reunion.  I'm for that--because it means the end of Nadalind--but it still leaves a pit in my stomach because I think it would be very, very tricky to do this successfully and the current creative team can't write itself through a door with a big EXIT sign on it.  I wish NBC had the balls (or wisdom) to demand better for the fans for this last season, but I doubt that will happen.

End of Juliette rant....

Monroe and Rosalee...I was also frustrated that they basically just became tools for Nick.  I also felt that we lost Monroe somewhere along the line.  He either does what tells him...or he does what Rosalee tells him (which is what Nick tells him to do).  I think one of the reasons Monroe won our hearts in the first season is that he challenged Nick.  Now, he's just Nick's lackey.

Worldbuilding.  Sorry, I'm going to go sit in a corner and alternate between rocking back and forth and hysterically laughing when I think of the Grimm worldbuilding.....

Edited October 17, 2016 by OtterMommy

[Darklazr]

I wanted Juliette gone or dead long before Rosalie came to town and that has not changed one bit.  For me, it was the actual actors / characters that kept me tuning in and Juliette/ET did not cut it.   Rosalie just seemed to FIT more with the actual show versus Juliette and Adalind was clearly the bad girl that you hated or loved to hate.  Juliette was bland and irritating and don't get me started on her stupid turn as the "most powerful hexenbiest" with those silly ass wigs.  Sheesh.   I see the same type of issues on soap operas where an actor / character is so dull and bland, but the current IIC holds onto them until a regime change, which we know is out of the question on Grimm.  

[OtterMommy]

1 hour ago, Darklazr said:

I wanted Juliette gone or dead long before Rosalie came to town and that has not changed one bit.  For me, it was the actual actors / characters that kept me tuning in and Juliette/ET did not cut it.   Rosalie just seemed to FIT more with the actual show versus Juliette and Adalind was clearly the bad girl that you hated or loved to hate.  Juliette was bland and irritating and don't get me started on her stupid turn as the "most powerful hexenbiest" with those silly ass wigs.  Sheesh.   I see the same type of issues on soap operas where an actor / character is so dull and bland, but the current IIC holds onto them until a regime change, which we know is out of the question on Grimm.  

We'll have to agree to disagree about Juliette.  I've always felt that she was a poorly written and directed character.  And, at a few times, the acting wasn't as strong as it could be (and those times coincided with poorer-than-usual writing and directing).  However, there have also been (more) times when I was impressed by Tulloch's acting and, frankly, it happened enough that, like pretty much every problem with the show, I'm attributing the faults in the character of Juliette not to Tulloch, but to the writing and directing.

As I said upthread, I've seen enough of most of the actors (including Tulloch) in roles outside of Grimm to convince me that I can't judge any cast member by their acting in this show.  I will say that I think there are two actors who are able to transcend the crap in the scripts better than the rest (SWM and Sasha Roiz), but--in the end--it's hard to make a diamond out of a turd.

[Darklazr]

2 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

We'll have to agree to disagree about Juliette.  I've always felt that she was a poorly written and directed character.  And, at a few times, the acting wasn't as strong as it could be (and those times coincided with poorer-than-usual writing and directing).  However, there have also been (more) times when I was impressed by Tulloch's acting and, frankly, it happened enough that, like pretty much every problem with the show, I'm attributing the faults in the character of Juliette not to Tulloch, but to the writing and directing.

As I said upthread, I've seen enough of most of the actors (including Tulloch) in roles outside of Grimm to convince me that I can't judge any cast member by their acting in this show.  I will say that I think there are two actors who are able to transcend the crap in the scripts better than the rest (SWM and Sasha Roiz), but--in the end--it's hard to make a diamond out of a turd.

Is Juliette a poorly written and directed character or is the actress just simply not capable on this show?  The only Grimm actor that I know is CC and that is from her two year stint on General Hospital from 2007 until 2009.  I had no issues with the characters / actors that played Monroe, Nick, Wu, Hank (the actor was gross on an episode of L&O:SVU), Renard, Eric, Rosalie, Bud and a lot of the wesen characters / actors, but Juliette / ET was (for me) a horrible and not needed character on this show.

I hope there is NEVER a romantic Nick / Juliette, because of all the crap that she did in s4 and it would be just as icky as Nick / Adalind and their rape baby!  It's a good thing there are only 13 episodes and then I can just think what a great show Grimm would have been if not for some asinine decisions made by IIC / NBC / whoeverfuckedup this show!

[OtterMommy]

47 minutes ago, Darklazr said:

Is Juliette a poorly written and directed character or is the actress just simply not capable on this show?  

Yes.  

Tulloch gets a lot of shade for this role, and I really don't feel she deserves it.  Check out some of her other work...I haven't seen a lot of it, but what I have seen shows that she is capable (except for "The Artist."  Not that she's bad in that, but basically she just has to stand there between Jean DuJardin and a scene stealing dog....and NO ONE is going to come off well in that situation.)  She also seems to be more than able to get other work--in fact, more so than any other actor on the show.  Although, to be fair, part of that may be because she was actively out looking for jobs during breaks in filming while many of other actors were not.

I mentioned this in the Other Roles thread, but I recently saw Jacqueline Toboni in Netflix's "Easy."  As I've said, I can't stand the character of Trubel and I've spent a lot of space complaining about Toboni's acting.  Then I watched that...and it is truly horrible...but Toboni was amazing.  I was shocked that someone could perform this one way in Grimm could perform so much better in something that was just as bad (if not worse).    We also complain that David Giuntoli was "green" in season one, but check out his spot in "Grey's Anatomy," which was filmed well before Grimm started.  He gives an impressively nuanced performance, something that surpasses most of what he's done on Grimm.  

If this were the case with one actor, whatever....but I've seen it with nearly all of the actors on this show.  When I realized that, I realized that the failure or success of any character of this show has little to nothing to do with acting.

Edited October 17, 2016 by OtterMommy

[HunterHunted]

OtterMommy I agree that they basically gave Rosalee what should have been Juliette's role in the gang. Rosalee comes from a family with a tradition of homeopathic and naturalist knowledge and treatment, but Juliette is a veterinarian, which is applied biology and chemistry. I found that the show rarely thought to involve Juliette whenever they had Rosalee mixing up a potion. I would have loved a story arc about Rosalee and Juliette collaborating on potions and treatments, but coming at the solution through their different perspectives. We could see them argue and disagree and then each of them could have been given an opportunity to really appreciate the skills of the other.

The other thing that really irritated me in hindsight was that show had no problem letting Trubel and Wu geek out for extended periods when they discover the hidden world of Grimms and Wesens. Considering all that Juliette went through and because she's scientifically inclined, Juliette should have been pouring over the both Nick's and Rosalee's books. Additionally if Juliette and Rosalee had developed a friendship, it would have made complete sense why Rosalee would ask Juliette to be her maid of honor as opposed to how it came across on the show-like a pity ask.

This is going to sound super weird, but with Rosalee having a connection to the Wesen Council, her spice shop, and her own former drug use, I've always felt like she should have more sketchy connections to things. It's not like she's a sketchy person, but everything she does is sketchy adjacent. I don't know if any of you watched Person of Interest. There is a crime boss on the show who the PoI gang would interact with.  They've saved him. He's saved them. Additionally he's pragmatic enough to know that absolute chaos in the streets doesn't make him any money. I'm not saying that this should be Rosalee's role, but she should be in close contact with the character that fits that role. 

For example the abused wesen who those gold throat tumors, it just seemed like Rosalee would have connections to a network for hiding wesen who are abused or being taken advantage of. It's those kind of things that Rosalee should know about and do something about. I also think it would provide depth to Monroe and Rosalee relationship. Monroe is outwardly tough, but a softy inside. Rosalee is outwardly soft and sweet, but when she needs to be steel she is.

[OtterMommy]

2 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

OtterMommy I agree that they basically gave Rosalee what should have been Juliette's role in the gang. Rosalee comes from a family with a tradition of homeopathic and naturalist knowledge and treatment, but Juliette is a veterinarian, which is applied biology and chemistry. I found that the show rarely thought to involve Juliette whenever they had Rosalee mixing up a potion. I would have loved a story arc about Rosalee and Juliette collaborating on potions and treatments, but coming at the solution through their different perspectives. We could see them argue and disagree and then each of them could have been given an opportunity to really appreciate the skills of the other.

 

Definitely.  I think if they had had Juliette and Rosalee work together more than, well, I can think of once (when they had to figure out how to administer the anti-zombie potion), it would have made for a more cohesive "group."  Juliette's scientific knowledge could only go so far, as would Rosalee's homeopathic knowledge.  Together, though, they would have been quite the weapon for Nick.  Plus, their friendship was actually done fairly well (although, yeah....pity ask...) and I would have liked to seen that fleshed out more.

As for Rosalee...you're right.  She isn't a very deep character--of course, I don't think any character on this show is that deep.  I do think that perhaps Bree Turner made the character seem more developed than she actually was, but...again...there was so much potential there and the writers did absolutely nothing with it.

[Darklazr]

7 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

Yes.  

Tulloch gets a lot of shade for this role, and I really don't feel she deserves it.  Check out some of her other work...I haven't seen a lot of it, but what I have seen shows that she is capable (except for "The Artist."  Not that she's bad in that, but basically she just has to stand there between Jean DuJardin and a scene stealing dog....and NO ONE is going to come off well in that situation.)  She also seems to be more than able to get other work--in fact, more so than any other actor on the show.  Although, to be fair, part of that may be because she was actively out looking for jobs during breaks in filming while many of other actors were not.

I mentioned this in the Other Roles thread, but I recently saw Jacqueline Toboni in Netflix's "Easy."  As I've said, I can't stand the character of Trubel and I've spent a lot of space complaining about Toboni's acting.  Then I watched that...and it is truly horrible...but Toboni was amazing.  I was shocked that someone could perform this one way in Grimm could perform so much better in something that was just as bad (if not worse).    We also complain that David Giuntoli was "green" in season one, but check out his spot in "Grey's Anatomy," which was filmed well before Grimm started.  He gives an impressively nuanced performance, something that surpasses most of what he's done on Grimm.  

If this were the case with one actor, whatever....but I've seen it with nearly all of the actors on this show.  When I realized that, I realized that the failure or success of any character of this show has little to nothing to do with acting.

There are plenty of actors that manage to take shit and turn it into gold, but I don't feel that ET has ever had that capability on this show.  Is ET capable on other shows / movies?  I have no idea and nothing has ever motivated me to go check out ET's other work.  The first time Juliette appeared on screen, all I saw were dead eyes in a dead face and a lifeless personality.   

Rosalie had a spark about her from the very second she was on screen and her pairing with Monroe is my favorite on this show.  

[OtterMommy]

1 hour ago, Darklazr said:

There are plenty of actors that manage to take shit and turn it into gold, but I don't feel that ET has ever had that capability on this show.  Is ET capable on other shows / movies?  I have no idea and nothing has ever motivated me to go check out ET's other work.  The first time Juliette appeared on screen, all I saw were dead eyes in a dead face and a lifeless personality.   

Rosalie had a spark about her from the very second she was on screen and her pairing with Monroe is my favorite on this show.  

Part of the problem is that it is hard to separate ET's acting from Juliette's character.  What I'm saying is this: for 4 seasons, Juliette has alternated being stuck in the background (most of season 1 and season 3) or in terrible story lines (seasons 2 and 4...no comment on season 5 since I didn't actually watch much of it).  The amnesia story line was terrible--it was badly conceived, never developed because the odd ball obsession subplot.  Frankly, Juliette didn't come off well in that at all--but ET actually gave some fine performances in that.  Think of the scene where the big ass hole opens up in the floor--it was a beyond ridiculous scene and, because of that, the fact that ET was giving a good performance was completely missed.

The whole hexenJuliette thing could have been great, but wasn't--not due to ET's performance.  I was very impressed in how she played her role in the period of time between when she first woged and when she told Nick what was going on (minus the "biest fight"....that was, again, ridiculous.  But, to be fair, ET wasn't even really IN that scene....)  And, yeah, she was terrible and we all hated her when she burnt down the trailer.  But, guess what, if ET hadn't delivered in that scene, we may not have had the same reaction. I'm not saying she's 100% gold--but then I don't think any actor is.  I am saying that I think some of the reason some people think she's a bad actress is, ironically, because she's actually turning in a good performance on a script that's dooming her.  I'm sorry that you can't see past your first impression of her.  I'm not saying she's the shining star of the show and I'm not (despite what it sounds like) going all fangirl on her.  I just believe she has gotten negative treatment that she really, really doesn't deserve.

Someone a few months ago, and I'm sorry that I can't remember who, made the comment that season 5 was ironic because Nick was turned into this shadow of himself and no longer even relevant to his own show, but in the midst of that David Giuntoli was doing his best acting--it was just that you couldn't easily see it because he was stuck in a crap story line with a crap script.  From the, oh, 3 and half episodes or so of the season that I watched, I completely agree.  And I think it is the same sort of thing that ET had to deal with for the entire series....she (and he) were trapped with badly written dialogue and story lines where, when they actually DID put in a good performance, it made them look even worse.

Edited October 18, 2016 by OtterMommy
No one should ever use "ironically" twice in one sentence

[placate]

I think that DG and CC are great actors, I've only seen Bitsie in an episode on Portlandia and the mess that is Grimm.  I'm not sure if she is a bad actress but I know for sure that the directing and script are abysmal.

They could've made the Adalind 2nd pregnancy an amazing story.  Instead of claiming that hexenbiests are prone to being bitches and have no agency, they could've let Adalind stay her witchy self.  It would've been great to see Adalind manipulating Nick into protecting her from the royals because she was having his rape baby.  Instead, they just damseled her up until she got her powers back.  They also made Nick look like an idiot who falls in love with a woman who has wronged him so much.

I read vol 1 of the Grimm comics and I said I'd tell you all if they're better than the show.  I have to say that the comic authors are much more cohesive and don't have a million plots all over the place and 3/4th of them get abandoned.  Still have more to read more but I laughed when I checked when Grimm aired and it's not scheduled until January.

I have no ill wishes for the actors on the show, they do what they can.  The pandering and the idiotic writing has really pissed me off though.  Hopefully this is the last season and these actors can go onto shows that actually deserve them.

[Darklazr]

12 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

Part of the problem is that it is hard to separate ET's acting from Juliette's character.  What I'm saying is this: for 4 seasons, Juliette has alternated being stuck in the background (most of season 1 and season 3) or in terrible story lines (seasons 2 and 4...no comment on season 5 since I didn't actually watch much of it).  The amnesia story line was terrible--it was badly conceived, never developed because the odd ball obsession subplot.  Frankly, Juliette didn't come off well in that at all--but ET actually gave some fine performances in that.  Think of the scene where the big ass hole opens up in the floor--it was a beyond ridiculous scene and, because of that, the fact that ET was giving a good performance was completely missed.

The whole hexenJuliette thing could have been great, but wasn't--not due to ET's performance.  I was very impressed in how she played her role in the period of time between when she first woged and when she told Nick what was going on (minus the "biest fight"....that was, again, ridiculous.  But, to be fair, ET wasn't even really IN that scene....)  And, yeah, she was terrible and we all hated her when she burnt down the trailer.  But, guess what, if ET hadn't delivered in that scene, we may not have had the same reaction. I'm not saying she's 100% gold--but then I don't think any actor is.  I am saying that I think some of the reason some people think she's a bad actress is, ironically, because she's actually turning in a good performance on a script that's dooming her.  I'm sorry that you can't see past your first impression of her.  I'm not saying she's the shining star of the show and I'm not (despite what it sounds like) going all fangirl on her.  I just believe she has gotten negative treatment that she really, really doesn't deserve.

Someone a few months ago, and I'm sorry that I can't remember who, made the comment that season 5 was ironic because Nick was turned into this shadow of himself and no longer even relevant to his own show, but in the midst of that David Giuntoli was doing his best acting--it was just that you couldn't easily see it because he was stuck in a crap story line with a crap script.  From the, oh, 3 and half episodes or so of the season that I watched, I completely agree.  And I think it is the same sort of thing that ET had to deal with for the entire series....she (and he) were trapped with badly written dialogue and story lines where, when they actually DID put in a good performance, it made them look even worse.

The second Juliette was turned into "Eve" it told me that the show recognized ET's limits as an actor on Grimm.  However, they wanted to keep ET for whatever reason instead of simply killing off a dead eye and emotionless character from the start.  We will agree to disagree on Juliette/ET!

Adalind's second pregnancy was lazy AF and not needed on the show.  If the writers wanted to keep CC, why not write a hysterical pregnancy and NO baby or no pregnancy at all?  I can see Adalind manipulating and bedding Viktor, Kenneth and King Frederick to get what she wants, but to have her playing damsel in a frome with Nick and rape baby was just plain awful!

[OtterMommy]

6 hours ago, placate said:

They could've made the Adalind 2nd pregnancy an amazing story.  Instead of claiming that hexenbiests are prone to being bitches and have no agency, they could've let Adalind stay her witchy self.  It would've been great to see Adalind manipulating Nick into protecting her from the royals because she was having his rape baby.  Instead, they just damseled her up until she got her powers back.  They also made Nick look like an idiot who falls in love with a woman who has wronged him so much.

I read vol 1 of the Grimm comics and I said I'd tell you all if they're better than the show.  I have to say that the comic authors are much more cohesive and don't have a million plots all over the place and 3/4th of them get abandoned.  Still have more to read more but I laughed when I checked when Grimm aired and it's not scheduled until January.

I have no ill wishes for the actors on the show, they do what they can.  The pandering and the idiotic writing has really pissed me off though.  Hopefully this is the last season and these actors can go onto shows that actually deserve them.

No worries, this is the last season....  I'm just hoping that all the cast members can find better "homes" after this.

I agree with you about Adalind's 2nd pregnancy.  Well, honestly, I wish it hadn't happened.  BUT, if they were so bound and determined to indulge in their baby fetish, having an evil Adalind running a long con would have actually a) made sense b) been within character c) not been so revolting that it led to the cancellation of the show.  

I may have to check into the comics.  I'm not a huge comics fan (for no other reason that my brain doesn't "work" in a way that makes comics/graphic novels easy to process), but I would be interested to see some better storytelling in this world.  I did read 2 of the 3 novels--the first one, from everything I heard was horrible, the 2nd was okay (it was a typical Grimm story, but too gory for television) but the 3rd, "The Killing Time" was actually quite good.

[placate]

17 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

I may have to check into the comics.  I'm not a huge comics fan (for no other reason that my brain doesn't "work" in a way that makes comics/graphic novels easy to process), but I would be interested to see some better storytelling in this world.  I did read 2 of the 3 novels--the first one, from everything I heard was horrible, the 2nd was okay (it was a typical Grimm story, but too gory for television) but the 3rd, "The Killing Time" was actually quite good.

I know it's not a lot of people's favorite medium, but if you have Amazon Prime you can check out the first comic for free https://www.amazon.com/Grimm-0-David-Greenwalt-ebook/dp/B01D8YVJM2  I'll have to give the 2nd book a try.

[OtterMommy]

6 hours ago, placate said:

I know it's not a lot of people's favorite medium, but if you have Amazon Prime you can check out the first comic for free https://www.amazon.com/Grimm-0-David-Greenwalt-ebook/dp/B01D8YVJM2  I'll have to give the 2nd book a try.

Thanks so much!

[OtterMommy]

Taken from the Spoiler thread (quote @Darklazr)

Quote

I have no interest in Nick, Adalind and Kelly Jr. which should have never happened, IMO.   

If I had to boil all my anger over this show down to one thing, it would be the bolded words above.

The thing is, this show had fantastic potential.  It had a youngish, strong cast,  creative premise, a fabulous setting, some strong writers (in the first 2 seasons), and it threw it ALL down the drain...for what?

I think I knew this show was doomed when 2 things happened:

1 - One of the show runners said that they had "run out" of fairy tales.  Bull 'effing shit.  There are hundreds of Grimm fairy tales--just Grimm ones!--and you can do the same fairy tale more than once, as long as you take a different spin on it.  Beyond that, there are hundreds of other fairy tales and a countless number of folk tales and urban legends AND if they really felt that they had run out there (after, what 27 seasons...) they could head into literature.  This show worked best when it was a procedural that took a fairy tale and turned it on its side.  It should STILL be doing that...

2 - When Trubel showed up.  This is nothing against Jacqueline Toboni, or even the character of Trubel... The fact is that the show already had a big enough (possibly too big) cast with Nick, Monroe, Hank, Juliette, Rosalee, Renard, Adalind, and sometimes Bud.  And there was never a clear reason or purpose for Trubel's character beyond, what some have suggested, that the network wanted a younger character (DG, ET, and CC were all pre-mid 30's at that point, so I'm not sure why THEY weren't considered the younger character).  We already had a situation where many of the characters didn't have a clear purpose--namely, Juliette, Adalind, Renard, and --yes!--Nick.  Plus, Monroe was already sort of falling away from his purpose.  The fact that they would just ignore that, frankly, pretty major issues to focus on a character who is just sort of...there...showed that they had no real skill in crafting characters or story arcs.  Honestly, NBC should have pulled the show runners LONG before it came to that point.

Then, of course, there was all that other stuff that should NEVER have happened.  Babies...both of 'em.  Look, I love kids, but they are very tricky in TV shows.  I've seen it done well, but that is the exception and only happens in shows with far more talent in the writing room than this one.  Diana was bad enough, and then they had to knock up Adalind AGAIN (and the excuse that Claire Coffee was pregnant is invalid.  Rosalee didn't have a baby when Bree Turner was pregnant and Adalind was so rarely even in the show at that point that it her pregnancy shouldn't have even been an issue).  They had the rape--which itself should have led to some heads rolling on the creative team (well, not the rape but the move to romanticize it.  NBC already has some issues with the way they treat sexism and gender issues on their network but THIS was too much).  Juliette as a hexenbiest actually had potential, but no one knew what they were doing and, again, it doesn't look like there were any real consequences to it other than being able to write off another actress who couldn't or didn't want to be on the show (MEM....I also heard on reddit, so take this with a grain of salt, that she was not easy to work with).  Again, that was a character that actually didn't need to be killed off AS SHE WAS ALMOST NEVER ON THE SHOW.  We had 5 season of Renard alternating between being a villain and being Nick's fairy godfather, which makes him being a villain again rather ridiculous. 

 

Ugh...I'm ranting...again.  It just drives me up the wall when I see such crap work being foisted upon audiences who really do deserve better.

[Darklazr]

2 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

Taken from the Spoiler thread (quote @Darklazr)

If I had to boil all my anger over this show down to one thing, it would be the bolded words above.

The thing is, this show had fantastic potential.  It had a youngish, strong cast,  creative premise, a fabulous setting, some strong writers (in the first 2 seasons), and it threw it ALL down the drain...for what?

I think I knew this show was doomed when 2 things happened:

1 - One of the show runners said that they had "run out" of fairy tales.  Bull 'effing shit.  There are hundreds of Grimm fairy tales--just Grimm ones!--and you can do the same fairy tale more than once, as long as you take a different spin on it.  Beyond that, there are hundreds of other fairy tales and a countless number of folk tales and urban legends AND if they really felt that they had run out there (after, what 27 seasons...) they could head into literature.  This show worked best when it was a procedural that took a fairy tale and turned it on its side.  It should STILL be doing that...

2 - When Trubel showed up.  This is nothing against Jacqueline Toboni, or even the character of Trubel... The fact is that the show already had a big enough (possibly too big) cast with Nick, Monroe, Hank, Juliette, Rosalee, Renard, Adalind, and sometimes Bud.  And there was never a clear reason or purpose for Trubel's character beyond, what some have suggested, that the network wanted a younger character (DG, ET, and CC were all pre-mid 30's at that point, so I'm not sure why THEY weren't considered the younger character).  We already had a situation where many of the characters didn't have a clear purpose--namely, Juliette, Adalind, Renard, and --yes!--Nick.  Plus, Monroe was already sort of falling away from his purpose.  The fact that they would just ignore that, frankly, pretty major issues to focus on a character who is just sort of...there...showed that they had no real skill in crafting characters or story arcs.  Honestly, NBC should have pulled the show runners LONG before it came to that point.

Then, of course, there was all that other stuff that should NEVER have happened.  Babies...both of 'em.  Look, I love kids, but they are very tricky in TV shows.  I've seen it done well, but that is the exception and only happens in shows with far more talent in the writing room than this one.  Diana was bad enough, and then they had to knock up Adalind AGAIN (and the excuse that Claire Coffee was pregnant is invalid.  Rosalee didn't have a baby when Bree Turner was pregnant and Adalind was so rarely even in the show at that point that it her pregnancy shouldn't have even been an issue).  They had the rape--which itself should have led to some heads rolling on the creative team (well, not the rape but the move to romanticize it.  NBC already has some issues with the way they treat sexism and gender issues on their network but THIS was too much).  Juliette as a hexenbiest actually had potential, but no one knew what they were doing and, again, it doesn't look like there were any real consequences to it other than being able to write off another actress who couldn't or didn't want to be on the show (MEM....I also heard on reddit, so take this with a grain of salt, that she was not easy to work with).  Again, that was a character that actually didn't need to be killed off AS SHE WAS ALMOST NEVER ON THE SHOW.  We had 5 season of Renard alternating between being a villain and being Nick's fairy godfather, which makes him being a villain again rather ridiculous. 

 

Ugh...I'm ranting...again.  It just drives me up the wall when I see such crap work being foisted upon audiences who really do deserve better.

Rant, on!  

1) I, too, agree Grimm worked best as a fairytale procedural and if the writers needed help, why not bring in a consultant who could help with those issues?  No, babies, ever!  I love children, but this show did not need magical BS Diana and adding Kelly Jr. to the mix was just wrong on so many levels.    

2) Truble was a nod to what was written on Buffy when her annoying ass unknown little sister showed up and that just ruined the show, IMO.    The show could have given us occasional scenes of the teenage blutbad that was living in the woods or episodes with the young set, BUT we did not need Trubel being written as a badass Grimm that was more skilled than the titled character. 

All of the stuff with Juliette in s4 was just bad and the show runners should have cut her loose and don't even get me started on killing off Momma Kelly.

Nick and Renard had their big brouhaha in season 2 and moved on.  The Captain as the so called big bad villain NOW makes no fucking sense, but I guess the showrunners did not learn squat when they turned Juliette into a hexenbiest.  Gah!  This show had so much potential.  Sigh.  The show runners could have course corrected Grimm by leaving Juliette dead, Kelly Jr. did not exist and we see Momma Grimm alive and well raising Diana.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Darklazr

[OtterMommy]

1 minute ago, Darklazr said:

Rant, on!  

1) I, too, agree Grimm worked best as a fairytale procedural and if the writers needed help, why not bring in a consultant who could help with those issues?  No, babies, ever!  I love children, but this show did not need magical BS Diana and adding Kelly Jr. to the mix was just wrong on so many levels.    

I think that there should be a TV rule that shows need to apply to a some sort of advisory board made up of people who know how story crafting works before characters can have babies. Yeah, sometimes it is great....usually it isn't.  The fact that this show did it TWICE is just unbelievable...

Quote

Nick and Renard had their big brouhaha in season 2 and moved on.  The Captain as the so called big bad villain NOW makes no fucking, but I guess the showrunners did not learn squat when they turned Juliette into a hexenbiest.  Gah!  This show had so much potential.  Sigh.  

I'm one of those people who thinks Renard should ALWAYS have been a villain.  Yeah, he could have ingratiated himself to Nick and had Nick *think* Renard was on his side (while the audience knew differently), but this changing sides doesn't work.  That goes for Adalind as well.  Honestly, Adalind should have been gone somewhere around the end of season 1.  She was introduced as a tool to be used by Renard and, once that was done, she needed to be off the show.  They never figured out what the hell to do with her besides put her uterus into overdrive.  I would have rather she ultimately end up a victim for Renard and then had the show concentrate on making him one of those villains that you KNOW is evil, but still can't help but root for.

But, as with so many things in this show, they screwed themselves over by waffling on the character (which they did AGAIN with Adalind).  *Now* they decide that he needs to be the character he should have been the entire time and the audience should just forget about 85% of the show's run?  

[Darklazr]

2 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

I think that there should be a TV rule that shows need to apply to a some sort of advisory board made up of people who know how story crafting works before characters can have babies. Yeah, sometimes it is great....usually it isn't.  The fact that this show did it TWICE is just unbelievable...

I'm one of those people who thinks Renard should ALWAYS have been a villain.  Yeah, he could have ingratiated himself to Nick and had Nick *think* Renard was on his side (while the audience knew differently), but this changing sides doesn't work.  That goes for Adalind as well.  Honestly, Adalind should have been gone somewhere around the end of season 1.  She was introduced as a tool to be used by Renard and, once that was done, she needed to be off the show.  They never figured out what the hell to do with her besides put her uterus into overdrive.  I would have rather she ultimately end up a victim for Renard and then had the show concentrate on making him one of those villains that you KNOW is evil, but still can't help but root for.

But, as with so many things in this show, they screwed themselves over by waffling on the character (which they did AGAIN with Adalind).  *Now* they decide that he needs to be the character he should have been the entire time and the audience should just forget about 85% of the show's run?  

Renard as the villain ended for me back in season 2 when we found out his real motivation for obtaining Nick's key.  Once the two manchildren had their little fight in the woods and kissed, I was okay with the their relationship and don't see any need for them to be at odds.  Nick called on Renard way too much for help in and out of the office, so I don't see this sudden villain act needed or believable.  

Adalind and Juliette could have both bitten the dust in s1 and I would have been perfectly happy!

[OtterMommy]

57 minutes ago, Darklazr said:

Renard as the villain ended for me back in season 2 when we found out his real motivation for obtaining Nick's key.  Once the two manchildren had their little fight in the woods and kissed, I was okay with the their relationship and don't see any need for them to be at odds.  Nick called on Renard way too much for help in and out of the office, so I don't see this sudden villain act needed or believable.  

What I'm saying is the manchild spat (love that, btw) should not have happened--at least not like that.  They could have had some sort of altercation where Nick came out of it thinking that Renard was not as bad as he seemed, but the audience would know the truth.  Nick DID trust Renard more than he should have for quite some time--but again, the show just expected the audience to forget about what had already been done.

Look, this show is based on Fairy Tales--or at least that is what was presented to the audience (and therein is a big problem...the show had a "contract" with the audience and it chose to break it.  And the audience decided to go elsewhere....).  Fairy Tales need a villain of some sort.  This show just couldn't figure out who that villain should be.  Frankly, Renard was the most interesting choice for so many reasons.  I don't have a problem with him being a villain--I think that's the best for him.  I have a problem with him being a villain *now,* after all that has transpired in this show.  Frankly, it makes more sense for Adalind to be the big bad at this point--

Spoiler

it looks like Nick is going back to Juliette/Eve (which, frankly, I'm okay with...its problematic, but it's far from the most problematic thing in this show) and she can play the spurned lover.

 That makes a hell of a lot more sense than Renard and his schizophrenic plotlines.

Edited December 15, 2016 by OtterMommy
Just realized I was a little spoiler-ish

[Free]

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 2:17 PM, Darklazr said:

Renard as the villain ended for me back in season 2 when we found out his real motivation for obtaining Nick's key.  Once the two manchildren had their little fight in the woods and kissed, I was okay with the their relationship and don't see any need for them to be at odds.  Nick called on Renard way too much for help in and out of the office, so I don't see this sudden villain act needed or believable.  

Adalind and Juliette could have both bitten the dust in s1 and I would have been perfectly happy!

Definitely, if both characters were gone, especially since both of them have caused nothing but problems for other characters.

[OtterMommy]

Quoting @Darklazr

Quote

Exactly.  IF Diana was that powerful and self aware, don't you think she would have made sure to stay in Portland with her parents?!  Diana had no issues with Viktor and we're supposed to believe that she just left town with Kelly?

This is (yet one more) example of how the creative team is unable to see past the tips of their noses. Here is where I think they went wrong:

1 - I don't think, when they decided to do the whole Diana thing, they thought past Diana being born.  Honestly, I felt Kelly showing up seemed sort of thrown together.

2 - When Kelly did show up, they had Diana seem to bond with her almost immediately (and being a generally fussy child with Adalind and everyone else except, ironically, Juliette). I can buy this--there was something about Kelly that Diana latched onto.  Fine.  But then why would this super duper witch baby basically let her beloved guardian be murdered.  We found out very quickly after that happened that Diana could foresee deaths (the king's in the helicopter) so it is a reasonable assumption that she would have had a feeling that something bad was going to happen to Kelly and, if she was as close to her as the show had led us to believe, she would have done something to stop it.

3 - How the hell did Diana age about 4 years in about a month? (there was a scene a few episodes earlier when Kelly sent a picture of Diana to Nick and, in that picture, she was about 8 months old.  A month or so later--yeah, Grimm time isn't real time, but it seemed like about a month in Grimm time as well--she's 4 years old. ) I'm far more weirded out by that then the fact that she aged about 6 more years before she reappeared in season 5. 

4 - If Diana so wanted to be with her biological parents, why wasn't she? Seriously.

Nothing about this plot line makes sense (which can be said about so many other plot lines in this show) and the fact that K/G/C put so little thought into it is an insult to the audience.

[Darklazr]

2 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

Quoting @Darklazr

This is (yet one more) example of how the creative team is unable to see past the tips of their noses. Here is where I think they went wrong:

1 - I don't think, when they decided to do the whole Diana thing, they thought past Diana being born.  Honestly, I felt Kelly showing up seemed sort of thrown together.

2 - When Kelly did show up, they had Diana seem to bond with her almost immediately (and being a generally fussy child with Adalind and everyone else except, ironically, Juliette). I can buy this--there was something about Kelly that Diana latched onto.  Fine.  But then why would this super duper witch baby basically let her beloved guardian be murdered.  We found out very quickly after that happened that Diana could foresee deaths (the king's in the helicopter) so it is a reasonable assumption that she would have had a feeling that something bad was going to happen to Kelly and, if she was as close to her as the show had led us to believe, she would have done something to stop it.

3 - How the hell did Diana age about 4 years in about a month? (there was a scene a few episodes earlier when Kelly sent a picture of Diana to Nick and, in that picture, she was about 8 months old.  A month or so later--yeah, Grimm time isn't real time, but it seemed like about a month in Grimm time as well--she's 4 years old. ) I'm far more weirded out by that then the fact that she aged about 6 more years before she reappeared in season 5. 

4 - If Diana so wanted to be with her biological parents, why wasn't she? Seriously.

Nothing about this plot line makes sense (which can be said about so many other plot lines in this show) and the fact that K/G/C put so little thought into it is an insult to the audience.

1) Diana bonding with Kelly makes sense, because we know that Adalind planned to sell the baby or abort if she did not get her powers back.  Diana may have sensed an unconditional love with Kelly and decided it was in her best interests to leave WILLINGLY and not stick around Portland to be raised by Adalind and Renard.

2) Diana seemed fine around Juliette and Renard when we saw the scenes at the PH.  

3) Super duper powerful babies ALWAYS age within a short span of time!

4) LMAO.  I don't think Diana wanted to be caught up in whatever hexenbiest / zauberbiest drama that would occur living with Renard and Adalind!  So, Diana wisely allowed herself to leave town with Kelly for parts unknown!

[ShadowFacts]

It really bothered me as well, that Diana was passive around Kelly's set-up and murder.  Made zero sense.  That was her mother for all intents and purposes, she had "powers" immediately from birth, Kelly must have taught her things and they bonded, and she just sits there and does nothing.  But of course I also didn't buy that Kelly walked into that trap, that was not like her, either.

[Darklazr]

2 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

It really bothered me as well, that Diana was passive around Kelly's set-up and murder.  Made zero sense.  That was her mother for all intents and purposes, she had "powers" immediately from birth, Kelly must have taught her things and they bonded, and she just sits there and does nothing.  But of course I also didn't buy that Kelly walked into that trap, that was not like her, either.

Ooooh.  You just opened up a big can of worms!  Nick had already warned his mother that the Viktor and Adalind were back in town looking for Diana, so why in the blue blazes would she just show up with the child?  Juliette sends and email and says Nick is in danger and Momma Grimm does NOT call her son?  Momma Grimm was not dumb.  Diana senses the King's death and not the woman that she WILLINGLY!... left town with and does squat to save her life?  Yeah.  Yeah.  Mary M. was not coming back to the show and the only recourse was an ill conceived half-ass plot with swiss cheese holes?