Because if he did he's now Diana's stepfather. That would also mean Kelly is Diana's stepgrandmother. A stepgrandparent is a stepparent's parent or a parent's stepparent. I think Kelly would call Diana "my son's wife's daughter"
Because if he did he's now Diana's stepfather. That would also mean Kelly is Diana's stepgrandmother. A stepgrandparent is a stepparent's parent or a parent's stepparent. I think Kelly would call Diana "my son's wife's daughter"
I'm not sure why this thread is taking a turn toward Nick being the measuring stick for good and evil. He isn't a measuring stick for anything here.
I have been told that Adalind made a significant internal journey. She had another baby. She developed empathy, and gained feeling for Nick and for her children. She lost her treachery, her manipulative ways, her seductiveness. She gained maturity. She helped the scoobies. Even Monroe and Rosalee commented on how she changed. I don't know about anyone else, but these are not undesirable qualities. Most people would say that's a change. She went from evil to good. *If* the series backed her up, or if Claire was the quintessential actress who could portray that journey effectively on screen.
In order to go through such a profound change, and I do believe these are profound changes, not some yardstick, then Adalind would have to show she is of an entirely different mindset. She didn't.
If Adalind wanted to go back to her old ways, she could have done so in as little as an episode. In my opinion, the changes being debated were not of such quality to be believable.
There were some indications of change. She told Nick she loved him, that's true. But I don't see that as coming from within. She speaks the words but they don't seem to be heartfelt. Loving Nick does not make her shine. She says she's got regret going on, she even offers an apology to Eve. But again, without that internal struggle to win all of these qualities she's supposedly gained, it's just a bunch of words. It all falls flat on screen because there's nothing to indicate she's gone through some internal struggle to reach the changes she so badly wants.
As I said, it could be because Claire had a baby and wanted to devote more time to him than her craft, or it could just come down to the fact that she's just not a capable enough actress.
@Dragonfly82 I love Adalind with Nick, I'm just not overly thrilled with some stuff in S5 and S6. The only season I truly ever hated from this show was S2.
@Lucille55 I said "*IF* we use Nick as a measuring stick" not that we actually were because how do you measure goodness on a show where pretty much everyone has done at least one rotten/despicable thing except for baby Kelly?
Well, Nick has to defend himself and other people, while he does make effort to try and reason and not to attack.
Because some Wesen will continue to kill with extreme prejudice.
Honestly, I don't think anyone on Team Grimm wants to kill, it's just in special circumstances will force them.
Like how Tony hit Rosalee and wanted same with Adalind. Personally, she didn't want to break his fingers.
Rpmaluki wrote: @Lucille55 I said "*IF* we use Nick as a measuring stick" not that we actually were because how do you measure goodness on a show where pretty much everyone has done at least one rotten/despicable thing except for baby Kelly?
I based my response per the below paragraph:
And if we use Nick as the measuring stick (the show's standard), then all these characters who's lives revolved around him at one point or another (on his side) can be deemed as such at specific times. Just look at the following three, Juliette/Eve, Adalind and especially Renard (especially him, he yo-yoed the most between "good and bad").The only time they were not "good" was when they were directly against Nick and what he stood for. Good on this show is very relative. Adalind fits right in with Nick's group.
I interpreted this to mean that you are using Nick as an example yardstick for good versus evil, and based on that, Adalind fits right in with Nick's group because good on the show is very relative.
So, in essence you are saying that Nick is not the yardstick for good versus evil, correct?
I'm saying no one this show is a yardstick, including Nick who could be used as one seeing how he is the main protagonist. My actual point is that good is relative on this show because all the characters have done both good and bad. Therefore there's no true standard for any of them to live up to. However, the writers did use Nick as their standard. I used Juliette, Adalind and Renard as an example because these three at least worked against him at least once throughout the course of the show. They were villains for as long as they opposed Nick/set out to destroy him and those he cared for. They were not bad as long as they worked along side him.
Renard spent the better half of the the first four seasons on Nick's good side and it wasn't genuine since he kept damning evidence against Nick no doubt to use against Nick when he wanted, he was so also quick to switch sides to serve his own selfish needs. Juliette wouldn't come to grips with what she did and took the easy way out by embracing a new persona. At least Adalind admits her guilt and apologies to those she did hurt and chooses to walk a different path than the one where she hurt people who hadn't wronged her for selfish reasons.
My actual point is that good is relative on this show because all the characters have done both good and bad. Therefore there's no true standard for any of them to live up to.
And yet, Monroe and Nick discuss good and bad at some length in the pilot:
Monroe: Oh, yeah. I heard of her. Look, I don't want any more trouble, okay? I'm not that kind of Blutbad. I don't kill anymore. I haven't in years.
Nick: Wait. What did you say you were?
Monroe: Blutbad. Vulgarized by your ancestors as the big bad wolf. What, did you just get the books tonight?
Nick: You know about the books?
Monroe: Of course I know about the books. We all know about the books. You people started profiling us over 200 years ago. But, as you can see, I'm not that big, and I am done with the bad thing.
Nick: Well, how do you...
Monroe: How do I stay good? Through a strict regimen of diet, drugs and pilates. I'm a reformed Blutbad. A Wieder Blutbad. It's a different church altogether.
Nick: Wait, you guys go to church?
Monroe: Sure. Don't you?
If good is relative, there would be no reason for Nick to question what standards Monroe uses in order to stay good. Likewise, if Monroe considered good and bad relative, he wouldn't be relating his standards to Nick.
It appears the writers are setting standards for good and evil that viewers can relate to.
Sure the writers set up a standard. I said as much. Nick already had a preconceived notion of what good was, this conversation only served to show him that not all monsters were monsters, that's why he built long lasting relationships with some wesen. Since we're seeing this show mainly from his POV, what others considered good either followed suit or wasn't considered relevant to the (Nick the) Grimm's story. Renard even called out Nick once or twice (as did Adalind, to an extent when she came to him at the precinct) but the show always brushed it aside because Renard was a two-faced character that was known to talk out of both sides of his mouth.
As an observer looking in, it was all relative (my position, not the show's). It makes it difficult to hold something against someone when even that set standard was shifty from the start.
Actually, we are not seeing the show from Nick's point of view at all. There are things we see that he could not possibly know, like, Kelly's betrayal for one. All we can do is watch him guess. If we saw it from his point of view, or anyone's for that matter, as viewers, we would be forced to crawl around in said character's head. There would be no debates because we already know what the character is thinking and his/her motive for doing whatever it was he/she did. Grimm would be relayed in a character narrative, much the way some books are.
In the world of Grimm, the only point of view that is being seen is the audience's. That leaves it up to interpretation.
The writers set up standards, that is true. However, those standards are actually those of most audience members. Monroe states he goes to church and that he's reformed. He hasn't killed in years. He's set standards for himself that don't aid to his former ways. I will say that most viewers can relate to one or more of the things he talks about.
What the writers didn't do is list an A to Z compilation of standards. By stating things the audience can relate to, they leave it up to the audience to decide standards on the rest. It's really the reason why there are so many different perspectives on Grimm. It's also the reason why we can't just chuck it all up to the characters being good sometimes and bad others so it's all relative. If it was indeed relative as stated, no one could call Renard a villain. No one could act horrified at Juliette betraying Kelly. All we could do is look back at something good that they did, shrug our shoulders and say it's a wash. In a relative world, the characters are just doing what they do, good and evil cancel one another out.
In any case, the debate was about Adalind's changes, using the generally accepted ideals of what constitutes a person changing from bad to better. I say Claire just didn't adequately convey that to me.
Lol. I stopped following this discussion when i got tired of getting notifications and I'm really glad i did it. THERE ARE 128 COMMENTS!!!!
Apparently, Nick did not marry Adalind.
What do you think?