Board Thread:General Grimm Discussion/@comment-25875828-20141217190511/@comment-26198454-20150606153452

@ 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 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.

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.

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.

( 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.