Board Thread:General Grimm Discussion/@comment-25875828-20141217190511/@comment-26235944-20150607040632

(P) Macabros77 wrote:

@ Lurkenfrau: It might be that I have another definition of "horrible". First they send her on a revenge trial which was none. Then they are selling us a Juliette who never existed.

You do realize that Juliette is just a fictional character, don't you? Juliette was created by the writers, from the beginning. They created her when she was 'good'...and then they decided to create her 'bad'. She is their creation. They can do whatever they want with her. She doesn't exist in real life, at all. (P) Macabros77 also wrote:

You say the writer made us hate her.

No. If people believe "Propaganda" it's their own fault. So don't blame the writers but yourself. Her behaviour in the bar and burning the trailer, that was nothing else than the reaction of an upset woman.

The writers made you love Juliette. They made you love her so much that you are willing to rationalize away her bad behavior. So you yourself, Macabros, believed their 'propaganda' that Juliette a person who was worthy of your loyalty...otherwise you would not be defending her.

When they portrayed Juliette as a good person...I liked her. But when they portrayed her as a bad person...I did not like her. I am not going to throw away my own sense of right & wrong, to rationalize that the bad things she did "were not really bad".

(P) Macabros77 also wrote: Lurkenfrau wrote: They made her do horrible things. They made her irredeemable. For me, there is no coming back from it.

The whole storyline of Juliette make no sense, if it doesn't exist a connnection to somebody else. Horrible things, soso. As I said that she could have killed Monroe or even Adalind if she wanted, you said that's not a good argument.

I agree that the whole storyline of Juliette doesn't make sense. I have said this before, and pointed out the inconsistencies upthread. But if you are going to insist again, that if someone survives an attempt by Juliette to kill them...that this means she didn't want to kill them... Then I will point out, again, that by your own argument this must mean that Juliette wanted Kelly dead...because Kelly is dead.

(P) Macabros77 also wrote: She has similar powers to someone I have sympathy. And finishing a job or pull a trigger is not so difficult and nobody could have saved the victims if she wanted. And Trubel could shoot her down ? o.K. Why not. I can also believe that frogs are singing opera.

It's fiction, Macabros. How bad did they have to make Juliette for you to stop making excuses for her? Did they have to kill off everyone in the show?...Would that do it for you? For most viewers, the writers didn't have to go that far. At this point, I wonder if Juliette had killed off the entire city of Portland...would Macabros then say "It's okay because Juliette was 'an upset woman.'"

(P) Macabros77 also wrote: ( here an example of real revenge, without pity and every man who stands in his way will die). Her revenge was passion without conviction and goal and for sure not cold- blood.

So what you call "horrible" is for me the try to fulfil something that started and never have been finished. It is laughably. For these "horrible things" you wouldn't even get the "red raspberry", maybe the "Blue Bean".

And killing the King, O.K. might be a right move, but how ? If it would have been the "Simpsons" or "Al Bundy", I would say that was cool. But for a show like "Grimm" it was only painful and primitiv.

Thank you for this example of 'real revenge'. Let's see...Eric Lensherr was imprisoned for years, tortured, forced to undergo unspeakable procedures, after having to watch his own Mother killed. How does this in any way compare to what Juliette went through? It doesn't.

And Meisner's revenge against the King was understandable because the Royals tortured and killed his girlfriend.