Grimm Forum

Full Version: Kelly trusting Juliette
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
(01-02-2019, 06:49 AM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]actually you made my point about wesen and there natural instinct. Something that humans do not have. The things that would give them a different view about death. Like Monroe said "Life is precious, and it should only be taken when your very survival is at stake.". like with the book. survival justification is different for Nick then it is for Monroe. Nick was fine with getting the book without killing them if he could. Monroe was dead set on killing them as revenge for his uncle.

Actually it doesn’t support your point one bit as Monroe said that’s just one part of being Wesen the other is about respecting life and only taking life when your very survival is at stake. It doesn’t support your made up from thin air theory that they have a different view on death. Also if Monroe and Rosalee cared less about death than Nick why did they spend six seasons helping Nick prevent the deaths of innocents and to punish those guilty of killing, your logic doesn’t match the show one bit.

The last I checked getting Kelly ambushed and her innocent Neighbours killed had nothing to do with Juliettes survival it was all about revenge.

Nick had Kenneth picked under false charges and killed Kenneth in a wherehouse as revenge for Kenneth killing Kelly how is that any different than Monroe avenging his uncle.

Monroe and Rosalee aren’t the only ones who told Nick to be more Grimm like, Hank has also told Nick to kill some Wesen he can’t arrest, for example Hank told Nick if he didn’t kill krampus he would kill him himself.

Also many humans do have a natural instinct for violence/ murder why do you think people are so fascinated with watching fake violence and a why real public executions were so popular in the past, humans are naturally drawn to violence as are thier close cousins champanzies this has been proven in many scientific studies over the years, it’s also why so many take part in violent sports and why some many brutal wars have been waged throughout history. Humans are the deadliest animal ever they have caused more destruction and extinction than any animals that ever lived please stop looking at us with rose coloured glasses.

The majority of Adalinds kindess and most selfless bevhavoiur was as a Hexenbiest and a lot of her most selfish vindictive and crulliest behavior took place while she was human so humans being somehow always more compassionate and caring doesn’t add up at all to how Adalind behaved.
(12-31-2018, 02:51 AM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]Henriette's warning was to remind Juliette to not leave evidence. Even in the rules their are situations where exposure is accepted, the preacher is an example. We had already seen Juliette and Adalind go after each other. Adalind left the house in fear. Later we see two examples that Juliette has learned even more control. If Juliette was able to intimidate Adalind at the house. Why would you think at the station Adalind would be able to fight back against Juliettes magic. Even during the fight ADalind throw the vase and Juliette stopped it without looking. That alone shows Juliette can counter act Adalind magic.

Your whole argument is based on the police seeing Adalind in pain and could or would connect it to Juliette. Remember Adalind woged to throw the vase, Juliette did not to stop it. Most time Juliette used magic she was not woged where Adalind was. So under what theory would they be able to connect Juliette to what was happening to Adalind. You only see it as people ln a police station with out any consideration that they are supernatural.

What theory would explain your all hell breaking out, or Adalind attacking back. We have never seen any of that. We have seen several cases of Juliette using magic to torment and no all hell breaking out. If all hell was going to break out don't you think the spice shop would have been a time when that would happen. Yet Juliette maintained control of everyone in the shop and without woging. Other then her moving her hand she gave no indication she was doing anything. Even the hand movements where minor, plus we have seen her move things by only looking at them.

You could argue that Adalind would not be able to torment someone in a crowed room, because we have never seen her covertly use magic like we have with Juliette and then Eve. It is funny that so many have this idea of choices where made to keep Juliette from dong something. Yet there are several examples of Juliette not being able to be stopped. In the spice shop they pulled their guns to stop her, and she took them. There is another thing people ignore. The warehouse was full of wesen, inside and out. In less then a minute they where all dead. True we do not know if Juliette had the training to do that, but it does show the power of her abilities. When considering how a confrontation would go consider, only Diana has been shown to have that kind of power. That is also why it is hard to see the rational of her trying to kill someone as opposed to trying to intimidate someone. Especially when you consider her affect after each event. With the statue that was not disappointment that she missed. It was more concerned she was seeking revenge. In the spice shop there was no indication that she missed, in fact she even said that was close. This third part intervention, is discounted by each time Juliette waited till the third party was positioned to intervene. Even on her first kill to save Monroe, she showed no apprehension that she did. There was a surprise that she could but no sign of regret. The same with Rosale no regret. Nick, Hank, and Woo the three humans are the only ones that showed signs of regret.

People blame Juliette for betraying Kelly. Why is it no one ever talks about Adalind not telling Nick about the danger Kelly was in. Adalind knew the plan was to use Juliette to get Kelly to Portland. She also know Kenneth turning on her was to get Juliette to work with him. Does anyone give any of the blame to Adalind for not giving Nick a heads up.

Oh my, oh my. 1st off, I like it how you just threw in a made up fact in the end of that whole rant about the all powerful Juliette. Adalind had no clue about Kenneth's plans to disclose to Nick. Again, making up facts to support BS opinions. I must have also missed the so called dialogue of Henrietta warning Juliette about leaving evidence. Can you please refer me to the scene that dialogue took place? (couBSgh) I must have missed it.

2nd, if your rant about these powerful Wesen Hexenbiest, which I would also include Zouberbiest, like Bonaparte. You do remember Bonaparte? You know, the guy that kicked the crap out of Juliette. You might call it luck. Where I come from it's called "Ass Whooping", the same Juliette that would be dead if it wasn't for the Grimm Nick and his hand-me-down stick from his predecessors.

3rd, If your favorite Wesen were all so powerful why weren't they in charge of the Wesen Council? The European Union, The world, for that matter. Why did BC, with a founding member Bonaparte need the help of the rest of the Wesen world and Grimms, to take control of the world? Which, by the way, they kept failing at it.

Also, how is that Hex/Grimm kill count coming along?





(12-31-2018, 11:50 AM)N_grimm Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-30-2018, 09:19 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-30-2018, 06:43 PM)N_grimm Wrote: [ -> ]With posts like that, no wonder there is outrage!

So.....tell me, what is the big deal about Kelly's trust?

The show is about Nick. Kelly is Nick's mother. The only family he has left (until baby Kelly is born). He thought he lost his parents when he was 12. He got his mother back, but thanks to his trusted “girlfriend”, her head ends up in a box. Juliette was the only person besides Nick who knew how to get in touch with Kelly. She had access to the mail. She abused the trust given to her by Nick. She tricked Kelly be saying Nick was in danger. You claim that Kelly is evil and deserve to die to clean away the blood on Juliette’s hands. How is that NOT outrageous?

Happy New Year Everyone!

N, if you need to explain this to anyone, why even bother? Obviously SOME have no clue on what they were watching.



(01-01-2019, 01:38 AM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]Trubel did not stop her she ambushed her. With Miesner she was still weakend from being ambushed. Bonapart got thrown around the room. He got in a luck shot with the glass. Plus as was stated she had no idea he was a zauberbiest able to through the glass. Bonapart was the only confrontation that she had any trouble. The others the attacker was ended with little or no effort.

You are forgetting the spice. when she throw Rosalee, Monroe and took Hanks gun she was not woged, she only waved her hand.

You forget the bar. The guy grabs her arm she throws him across the room without woging. She just put her hand up. Something she did not us in the fight. During the fight Adalind tried putting up both hands in full woge, yet Juliette was still able to grab her and throw her across the credenza. Are you trying to argue that because she would use hand motions the police would know it was her. Before you use her arrest. In a bar fight with damage both parties would be arrested. Unless one side takes responsibility. Unless you are drunk you would be let out on OR.

Adalind knew why the Royals where there. She also knew they knew about Kelly and needed her back in Portland. Remember Nick was concerned they where after him to find the child. The important piece of information was they knew Kelly had the child. Even when talking to Juliette he said he was concerned about them finding out about his mother. Long before Juliette sent the email, Adalind could have told Nick they knew about his mother. Knowing that , and knowing Juliette was mad, and being recruited by the Royals. Would have been enough for him to tell his mom they knew about her. Kelly feeling they did not know about her and the child. Would explain why she approached the house like backup instead of a target.

You forget one basic fact. Kelly is a Grimm. Kelly got caught slipping. Why would Juliette call out against the people who she was turning to because everyone else only wanted to change her back.


Kelly had Adalind child so I see why she helped the Royals. I don't see why she did not tell Nick what she had helped them with. Other then Kelly being Nick long lost mother, why would Juliette have any obligation to Kelly. Getting Adalind's child , I could see why Juliette would see that as a good way to get revenge. Don't forget it was Kelly that brought Adalind to their doorstep. Someone Juliette hated for putting her in a coma. Seeing the repercussions of helping Kelly, I could see Juliette wishing Kelly had never shown up.

Controlling yourself is doing things when you want them not because your mad. Like Henretta said practice your woga your are like a child with a gun. Which is exactly what she was doing when she shook the house because she was mad. Henrette was talking about the witch trials where they burned people based on evidence that they where witches. By extension that means don't leave evidence thus be accused of being a witch. Doing magic in the middle of a room is not leaving evidence if no one can figure out it was you.
As a viewer and we say it is obvious she is using magic. But remember the humans are like us. They only understand you can not violate the laws of physics, magic violates the laws so it can't exist. Like us, if someone makes a finger gun, goes bang and someone drops dead from being shot. No one would or could accuse them of being the killer. For your view to work the Grimm universe would need to be like others where blind ignorance is accepted. The kind of acceptance where superpowers are not considered but once shown to be the reason are accepted. Grimm is not that kind of universe. In fact the show is based on humans having no idea and not being able to handle the idea of wesen and magic, both things that violate the laws of physics.

Diana is an example of learning to live with magic, learning control. Kelly told her she would need to learn not to do that as she was floating her toy. Yet we see Diana has not stopped using magic she just controls when she uses it. Even Eve out in public she opened Sean's car door with magic. Sean's mother used magic on a hospital. I have not seen anyone suggest she would be exposed. So why is it Juliette using magic in a room means she would be exposed.

OK then, with all this in-depth analysis. In your summation of the show, what is your Hex/Grimm kill count? Any progress in that analysis?





(01-01-2019, 11:14 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-01-2019, 11:12 AM)brandon Wrote: [ -> ]It is not true,Kelly never worked for any royal family.

She didn't go to retrieve Adalind and Diana out of her own good will. Who do you think paid her to do it?

I thought it was the Resistance that paid her. Yes Renard, a bastard Royal, was part of that same Resistance but I guess I must have missed the scene when Renard writes a check to Kelly. (couBSgh) WTF was I watchng?





(01-01-2019, 11:14 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-01-2019, 11:12 AM)brandon Wrote: [ -> ]It is not true,Kelly never worked for any royal family.

She didn't go to retrieve Adalind and Diana out of her own good will. Who do you think paid her to do it?

(01-01-2019, 04:06 PM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]The resistance hired Kelly to get Diana from the Royals. Adalind was not a consideration. It is stated Kelly did not even know who Adalind was.

You's two need to get your story straight. Someone needs to be cured of "Ye Old Foot in-the-Mouth" syndrome, if you want to succeed in defending your darling Juliette.
Quote:Adalind had no clue about Kenneth's plans to disclose to Nick.
You did see the scene in the hotel where Kenneth asked Adalind what she thinks Juliette would do if she knew Adalind was having Nick baby. It was when she left Kenneth and went to Nick in the police station. Also how can you say she did not know the plan. She went to kidnap Juliette. Kenneth and Victor had the same plan. There was a conversation before they came to Portland about the plan. If it is in te show it can't be made up. She may not have known the details of how Kenneth was going to execute the plan. But that does not mean she did not know they planed to get Diana from Kelly. Remember Nick did not know they knew Kelly had Diana. That is the important information I feel Adalind should have told Nick. Te key part of kidnapping Diana was to hide who had Diana.

Quote:You do remember Bonaparte? You know, the guy that kicked the crap out of Juliette.
yes bonapart stabbed Eve. But before that point she tossed him around the room several time. Compared to his only once sending her sliding across the room once.
Quote:3rd, If your favorite Wesen were all so powerful why weren't they in charge of the Wesen Council? The European Union, The world, for that matter. Why did BC, with a founding member Bonaparte need the help of the rest of the Wesen world and Grimms, to take control of the world? Which, by the way, they kept failing at it.
That is a question that would take your understand how groups come to power. How wars where fought. Remember democratic rule is a very new concept. For centuries power was only achieved through one group fighting the other group.
Quote: Henrietta warning Juliette about leaving evidence.
When Henrietta said they used to burn witches. That is a direct reference to the Salem witch trials. You do know how and why those trials existed. You do know curing someone could have gotten you accused of being a witch. You also know that did not stop people from curing ailments. To answer your question about evidence would require your having knowledge of how people during those times continued to practiced medicine and not get accused. You also have to remember back then practicing medicine was based on superstition and considered magical.
Quote:Also, how is that Hex/Grimm kill count coming along?
Just like KD ratiio in first person shooters does not make you the better player. Hex / Grimm kill count does not define which is stronger. Like in video games it is how you get the kills. When judging Hex vs Grimm kills, as viewers we don't have all the information. Also the writers sacrifices logic to bridge events or drive the story. For one do all hexenbiest have the ability to move things like Eve and Diana. Where the writers sacrifice logic is if hexenbiest can through people why throw punches. Take Juliette and Adalind they trow each other around the room trowing only a few punches. With Adalind and Nick it was hand to hand combat. Not a single use of magic.Even with Kelly and Catherine not once did Catherine use magic against her. There is a big breakdown in logic during the Eve and Bonapart fight. Why try and dodge the glass instead of stopping the glass. Also why where they swinging at each other, causing her to make those gymnastic moves. Here is another writer contradiction. They have Eve takeout and entire warehouse in less then a minute. But then have this massive fight in the police station. Why not have her do what she did at the factory. That is why when you use these illogical examples to try an make a point about hexenbiest being weaker. It makes your argument illogical. I choose to see a show from the view of if a character does something, that defines that ability. When later they don't use it when they could or should have. I see that as writers putting story over logic. I do not see it as a limit of the characters ability. Logic says if a character can move objects with great accuracy. If they can kill from a distance. Then how would you ever defeat them. Grimm characters are not defined as immortal. Tehy are not defined as all seeing, even though it is stated they can sense others. But being defeated because a character is distracted or blindsided does not make them a weaker character.
(01-01-2019, 01:58 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-01-2019, 01:03 PM)N_grimm Wrote: [ -> ]Sure. This is a description of the betrayal…. Why do you ask for evidence? I’m describing the storyline.
I'm asking for evidence because as far as I know there was nothing in any storyline anywhere that indicated Juliette tricked Kelly into a deathtrap and then did nothing to stop her beheading. This is your statement. Don't try to imply that it's evidence.
The simple statement is that Juliette sent an email to Kelly telling her Nick was in danger. Kelly responded by stating she was on her way. Did Juliette betray Kelly? Sure she did.

She also told Kelly on the phone that the front door was unlocked and the house safe, while the enemy was waiting for her. If that was not “tricking Kelly into a deathtrap”, you are basically assuming Juliette was a moron. She also listened to Kelly being killed without lifting a finger – despite her "super-hex" powers. Funny how you describe that as “nothing in any storyline anywhere”.

(01-01-2019, 01:58 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-01-2019, 10:39 AM)N_grimm Wrote: [ -> ]Of course, I am serious. You are the one taking about the betrayed of trust being no big deal. As I said: Juliette had access to the email only because her boyfriend trusted her. You can’t separate betraying Kelly and Nick because the first was only possible because of the second.
Well, let's go back to your statement because what you stated earlier has nothing to with what you posted above. This is what you stated:
**And why don't you give weight to the fact that Kelly is Nick's mother?**

Well, THIS is what I stated earlier:
(01-01-2019, 10:39 AM)N_grimm Wrote: [ -> ]And why don't you give weight to the fact that Kelly is Nick's mother? Juliette had access to the email account only because her boyfriend trusted her.

Note how you deleted the last part of the quote and claimed “what you stated earlier has nothing to with what you posted above”, when it is EXACTLY the same point, i.e. that Juliette could not betray Kelly without betraying Nick.

(01-01-2019, 01:58 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]Why would that deserve any weight? You're in essence stating that Nick was not his own person.

I’m not stating Nick was not his own person. I’m stating Kelly was Nick's mother. You believe it’s ok for a “girlfriend” to help kill her boyfriend’s mother?

(12-31-2018, 06:27 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]She worked for Renard, who according to the series, was a royal.

That’s not the same as working for the royals. From Grimm-wiki: “By blood, Renard is of the Seven Houses. However, he is not aligned with his family and markedly works against his cousin and formerly his brother”. As you should know, Kelly never worked for the royal family.

(01-01-2019, 01:58 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]It was Kelly who kidnapped the baby from Adalind. She talked Nick and the scoobies into it. If you want to add Renard to the mix, add him. I have no doubt, however, that anyone who disagreed with Kelly would have been killed for their opposition to her plan. You really don't think Kelly was going to let anyone prevent her from stealing Diana, do you?

Let’s talk about twisting statements. I was responding to your following statement:
(01-01-2019, 10:39 AM)N_grimm Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-01-2019, 10:53 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]Kelly worked for the royals as well and showed up at Nick's house to.....surprise.....take the baby!
[…….]
Secondly, Kelly never showed up in Nicks house to take a baby. Kelly brought the baby to Nick's house twice. First time with Adalind and the second time before she was killed. It was Renard who gave the baby to the royals (to trick them), before Nick and co hijacked the car on the way to the airport.

When I responded to this, i.e. "Kelly [....] showed up at Nick's house to.....surprise.....take the baby!", as you can see from the quote, you suddenly ignored your own statement, and out of the blue start’s taking about who kidnaped Diana. My answer was about where and how. You took my respond, quoted it out of context to make it look like I was the one saying something completely incorrect. Why?

(01-01-2019, 01:58 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-01-2019, 10:39 AM)N_grimm Wrote: [ -> ]Do you mean when Kelly helped Adalind and Diana escape from..... the royals? Based on what we know, Renard or the Resistance. Why would the royals pay Kelly to lose Diana?
I never stated they did.

Unlike you, I was not responding to an out of context statment, but this:

(01-01-2019, 11:14 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-01-2019, 11:12 AM)brandon Wrote: [ -> ]It is not true,Kelly never worked for any royal family.
She didn't go to retrieve Adalind and Diana out of her own good will. Who do you think paid her to do it?

Do you remember what you told me a few days ago?
(12-31-2018, 06:27 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]Don't you ever read what you type?

I guess I should be asking the same question.

(01-02-2019, 10:16 PM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]N, if you need to explain this to anyone, why even bother?
I know it’s pointless, I know...
(01-03-2019, 01:01 PM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Adalind had no clue about Kenneth's plans to disclose to Nick.
You did see the scene in the hotel where Kenneth asked Adalind what she thinks Juliette would do if she knew Adalind was having Nick baby. It was when she left Kenneth and went to Nick in the police station. Also how can you say she did not know the plan. She went to kidnap Juliette. Kenneth and Victor had the same plan. There was a conversation before they came to Portland about the plan. If it is in te show it can't be made up. She may not have known the details of how Kenneth was going to execute the plan. But that does not mean she did not know they planed to get Diana from Kelly. Remember Nick did not know they knew Kelly had Diana. That is the important information I feel Adalind should have told Nick. Te key part of kidnapping Diana was to hide who had Diana.


What plan are you talking about? Yea we all knew the Royals were in Portland to get Diana back. Everyone involved knew that including Nick, the gang and your darling Juliette knew when she repulsed Adalind's attack in her home. Son, even the flocking dog, I do not own, knew they were there to get Diana. I want to know from you, what part of the plan did Kenneth discussed with Adalind.

Was it the plan that even Kenneth didn't even know yet? When Adalind was staying in the hotel suite. Is that the plan you are talking about? The plan that was completely conceived by Juliette. Sure Kenneth gave her the idea to contact Kelly, but he had no clue and neither did Adalind know of Juliette ability to contact her.

So Mr. "writers intent", Please explain how Adalind would know what Juliette would do before she was bailed out of jail. Before Kenneth even met Juliette. Please explain, I am all ears. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but your BS of changing the facts might pass as factual to a handful of delusional viewers but it falls on deaf ears to most of us.


Quote:You do remember Bonaparte? You know, the guy that kicked the crap out of Juliette.

yes bonapart stabbed Eve. But before that point she tossed him around the room several time. Compared to his only once sending her sliding across the room once.

Keep on making excuses to your harts content. In the end she was fatally injured. She would have died if it wasn't for the HERO OF THE SHOW, Nick, Not Juliette. Spin it, flip it, turn it around, all you want. In the end, SHE GOT HER ASS KICKED.


Quote:3rd, If your favorite Wesen were all so powerful why weren't they in charge of the Wesen Council? The European Union, The world, for that matter. Why did BC, with a founding member Bonaparte need the help of the rest of the Wesen world and Grimms, to take control of the world? Which, by the way, they kept failing at it.

That is a question that would take your understand how groups come to power. How wars where fought. Remember democratic rule is a very new concept. For centuries power was only achieved through one group fighting the other group.

You are asking me if I understand how groups work? A better question is; Do you even understand what you are writing? You just admitted with your own words, these Hex's aren't powerful enough to win on their own, a day after you went on a rant on how powerful they are. Make up your mind son. Please, try to be consistent with your self instead of debating your self.


Quote: Henrietta warning Juliette about leaving evidence.

When Henrietta said they used to burn witches. That is a direct reference to the Salem witch trials. You do know how and why those trials existed. You do know curing someone could have gotten you accused of being a witch. You also know that did not stop people from curing ailments. To answer your question about evidence would require your having knowledge of how people during those times continued to practiced medicine and not get accused. You also have to remember back then practicing medicine was based on superstition and considered magical.

Here you go again debating yourself. Wasn't it you claiming how Juliette could cover her ass easily in the bar or the police station if she chose to do so? You are the one to bring up the Salem witch hunts. I am not an expert on that part of history, but as you just posted, they were burned with less evidence that Juliette would have left or left in the bar.

Lucky for her she did what she did in Portland USA in the 21st Century. I think, even a delusional mind as yours would be able to comprehend. If Juliette did what she did in that pub, back in those days, she would be dead.


Quote:Also, how is that Hex/Grimm kill count coming along?

Just like KD ratiio in first person shooters does not make you the better player. Hex / Grimm kill count does not define which is stronger. Like in video games it is how you get the kills. When judging Hex vs Grimm kills, as viewers we don't have all the information. Also the writers sacrifices logic to bridge events or drive the story. For one do all hexenbiest have the ability to move things like Eve and Diana. Where the writers sacrifice logic is if hexenbiest can through people why throw punches. Take Juliette and Adalind they trow each other around the room trowing only a few punches. With Adalind and Nick it was hand to hand combat. Not a single use of magic.Even with Kelly and Catherine not once did Catherine use magic against her. There is a big breakdown in logic during the Eve and Bonapart fight. Why try and dodge the glass instead of stopping the glass. Also why where they swinging at each other, causing her to make those gymnastic moves. Here is another writer contradiction. They have Eve takeout and entire warehouse in less then a minute. But then have this massive fight in the police station. Why not have her do what she did at the factory. That is why when you use these illogical examples to try an make a point about hexenbiest being weaker. It makes your argument illogical. I choose to see a show from the view of if a character does something, that defines that ability. When later they don't use it when they could or should have. I see that as writers putting story over logic. I do not see it as a limit of the characters ability. Logic says if a character can move objects with great accuracy. If they can kill from a distance. Then how would you ever defeat them. Grimm characters are not defined as immortal. Tehy are not defined as all seeing, even though it is stated they can sense others. But being defeated because a character is distracted or blindsided does not make them a weaker character.

OMG, talk about diarrhea of the mouth or in this case, your fingers. Again, spin it, flip it, turn it around to your hearts content. You talk about logic yet you deny "REALITY". So, let me be your logical reality check. More Hex got killed that Grimms. That is a FACT, NOT MY OPINION! If the writers used your logic the show wouldn't existed. You see, the show is a flocking fantasy. There is no flocking logic to be applied, IN A FLOCKING FANTASY. CAPISCE BACCALA?

If logic is so crucial to your argument, please explain why Superman, born on Krypton gets all kinds of powers on Earth. I don't care of all the explanations the Superman writers can come up with. Logic is not applicable because, like Grimm, it is a FLOCKING FANTASY!

THERE IS NO LOGIC IN FANTASIES. IF THERE WAS LOGIC, IT WOULD BE PHYSICS, NOT FANTASIES!







(01-03-2019, 03:21 PM)N_grimm Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2019, 10:16 PM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]N, if you need to explain this to anyone, why even bother?
I know it’s pointless, I know...

I came up with the concept a while back but I think it was Henry that posted the video. This is the one I found, not the same one he originally posted.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsd42PFyoo0
(01-03-2019, 05:29 PM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-03-2019, 01:01 PM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Adalind had no clue about Kenneth's plans to disclose to Nick.
You did see the scene in the hotel where Kenneth asked Adalind what she thinks Juliette would do if she knew Adalind was having Nick baby. It was when she left Kenneth and went to Nick in the police station. Also how can you say she did not know the plan. She went to kidnap Juliette. Kenneth and Victor had the same plan. There was a conversation before they came to Portland about the plan. If it is in te show it can't be made up. She may not have known the details of how Kenneth was going to execute the plan. But that does not mean she did not know they planed to get Diana from Kelly. Remember Nick did not know they knew Kelly had Diana. That is the important information I feel Adalind should have told Nick. Te key part of kidnapping Diana was to hide who had Diana.


What plan are you talking about? Yea we all knew the Royals were in Portland to get Diana back. Everyone involved knew that including Nick, the gang and your darling Juliette knew when she repulsed Adalind's attack in her home. Son, even the flocking dog, I do not own, knew they were there to get Diana. I want to know from you, what part of the plan did Kenneth discussed with Adalind.

Was it the plan that even Kenneth didn't even know yet? When Adalind was staying in the hotel suite. Is that the plan you are talking about? The plan that was completely conceived by Juliette. Sure Kenneth gave her the idea to contact Kelly, but he had no clue and neither did Adalind know of Juliette ability to contact her.

So Mr. "writers intent", Please explain how Adalind would know what Juliette would do before she was bailed out of jail. Before Kenneth even met Juliette. Please explain, I am all ears. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but your BS of changing the facts might pass as factual to a handful of delusional viewers but it falls on deaf ears to most of us.


Quote:You do remember Bonaparte? You know, the guy that kicked the crap out of Juliette.

yes bonapart stabbed Eve. But before that point she tossed him around the room several time. Compared to his only once sending her sliding across the room once.

Keep on making excuses to your harts content. In the end she was fatally injured. She would have died if it wasn't for the HERO OF THE SHOW, Nick, Not Juliette. Spin it, flip it, turn it around, all you want. In the end, SHE GOT HER ASS KICKED.


Quote:3rd, If your favorite Wesen were all so powerful why weren't they in charge of the Wesen Council? The European Union, The world, for that matter. Why did BC, with a founding member Bonaparte need the help of the rest of the Wesen world and Grimms, to take control of the world? Which, by the way, they kept failing at it.

That is a question that would take your understand how groups come to power. How wars where fought. Remember democratic rule is a very new concept. For centuries power was only achieved through one group fighting the other group.

You are asking me if I understand how groups work? A better question is; Do you even understand what you are writing? You just admitted with your own words, these Hex's aren't powerful enough to win on their own, a day after you went on a rant on how powerful they are. Make up your mind son. Please, try to be consistent with your self instead of debating your self.


Quote: Henrietta warning Juliette about leaving evidence.

When Henrietta said they used to burn witches. That is a direct reference to the Salem witch trials. You do know how and why those trials existed. You do know curing someone could have gotten you accused of being a witch. You also know that did not stop people from curing ailments. To answer your question about evidence would require your having knowledge of how people during those times continued to practiced medicine and not get accused. You also have to remember back then practicing medicine was based on superstition and considered magical.

Here you go again debating yourself. Wasn't it you claiming how Juliette could cover her ass easily in the bar or the police station if she chose to do so? You are the one to bring up the Salem witch hunts. I am not an expert on that part of history, but as you just posted, they were burned with less evidence that Juliette would have left or left in the bar.

Lucky for her she did what she did in Portland USA in the 21st Century. I think, even a delusional mind as yours would be able to comprehend. If Juliette did what she did in that pub, back in those days, she would be dead.


Quote:Also, how is that Hex/Grimm kill count coming along?

Just like KD ratiio in first person shooters does not make you the better player. Hex / Grimm kill count does not define which is stronger. Like in video games it is how you get the kills. When judging Hex vs Grimm kills, as viewers we don't have all the information. Also the writers sacrifices logic to bridge events or drive the story. For one do all hexenbiest have the ability to move things like Eve and Diana. Where the writers sacrifice logic is if hexenbiest can through people why throw punches. Take Juliette and Adalind they trow each other around the room trowing only a few punches. With Adalind and Nick it was hand to hand combat. Not a single use of magic.Even with Kelly and Catherine not once did Catherine use magic against her. There is a big breakdown in logic during the Eve and Bonapart fight. Why try and dodge the glass instead of stopping the glass. Also why where they swinging at each other, causing her to make those gymnastic moves. Here is another writer contradiction. They have Eve takeout and entire warehouse in less then a minute. But then have this massive fight in the police station. Why not have her do what she did at the factory. That is why when you use these illogical examples to try an make a point about hexenbiest being weaker. It makes your argument illogical. I choose to see a show from the view of if a character does something, that defines that ability. When later they don't use it when they could or should have. I see that as writers putting story over logic. I do not see it as a limit of the characters ability. Logic says if a character can move objects with great accuracy. If they can kill from a distance. Then how would you ever defeat them. Grimm characters are not defined as immortal. Tehy are not defined as all seeing, even though it is stated they can sense others. But being defeated because a character is distracted or blindsided does not make them a weaker character.

OMG, talk about diarrhea of the mouth or in this case, your fingers. Again, spin it, flip it, turn it around to your hearts content. You talk about logic yet you deny "REALITY". So, let me be your logical reality check. More Hex got killed that Grimms. That is a FACT, NOT MY OPINION! If the writers used your logic the show wouldn't existed. You see, the show is a flocking fantasy. There is no flocking logic to be applied, IN A FLOCKING FANTASY. CAPISCE BACCALA?

If logic is so crucial to your argument, please explain why Superman, born on Krypton gets all kinds of powers on Earth. I don't care of all the explanations the Superman writers can come up with. Logic is not applicable because, like Grimm, it is a FLOCKING FANTASY!

THERE IS NO LOGIC IN FANTASIES. IF THERE WAS LOGIC, IT WOULD BE PHYSICS, NOT FANTASIES!







(01-03-2019, 03:21 PM)N_grimm Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2019, 10:16 PM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]N, if you need to explain this to anyone, why even bother?
I know it’s pointless, I know...

I came up with the concept a while back but I think it was Henry that posted the video. This is the one I found, not the same one he originally posted.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsd42PFyoo0

Dicapptore I fully agree, also not only did Adalind have no clue about Kenneth’s plans for Kelly she also even had strong doubts that Kenneth could get Juliette ever betray Nick telling Kenneth that Juliette may have beaten up a few people but she’s never going betray Nick.

Adalind- Okay, she may have beat up a couple people in a bar, I mean, God knows we've all done that, but there is no way she's going to betray Nick, if that's where you're going.

Also syscrash keeps falsely stating the Henrietta told Juliette not to leave evidence when in reality on the show she said no such things she actually said this, Henrietta-You must learn to control yourself! Now don't forget, they used to burn witches at the stake. She tells Juliette she needs to control herself as they used to burn witches that’s very different than saying she shouldn’t leave evidence.

Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk...ode=s04e12

Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk...ode=s04e19
(01-03-2019, 03:21 PM)N_grimm Wrote: [ -> ]I know it’s pointless, I know...

You know it never fails to amaze me, these continual complaints about the contradictory opinions, not adhering to canon (according to the poster's own version of canon that is), the constant questions and blabber asking if we're all watching the same show, the youtube videos (that no one ever watches btw), the huge explanations, and on and on and on. Some of you complain and complain and complain. It's really quite entertaining.

However, it's usually the same old song, the same youtube videos that no one watches, the same platitudes about canon, the same questions asking if we're all watching the same show, the same complaints, the same huge explanations, and on and on and on.

For those of you who hold yourself to some kind of imaginary high standard of series debate, why would you bother coming back to post? Isn't that, in itself, pointless?
(01-03-2019, 05:48 PM)Henry of green Wrote: [ -> ]Dicapptore I fully agree, also not only did Adalind have no clue about Kenneth’s plans for Kelly she also even had strong doubts that Kenneth could get Juliette ever betray Nick telling Kenneth that Juliette may have beaten up a few people but she’s never going betray Nick.

Adalind- Okay, she may have beat up a couple people in a bar, I mean, God knows we've all done that, but there is no way she's going to betray Nick, if that's where you're going.

Also syscrash keeps falsely stating the Henrietta told Juliette not to leave evidence when in reality on the show she said no such things she actually said this, Henrietta-You must learn to control yourself! Now don't forget, they used to burn witches at the stake. She tells Juliette she needs to control herself as they used to burn witches that’s very different than saying she shouldn’t leave evidence.

Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk...ode=s04e12

Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk...ode=s04e19

Henry, its the same old, same old here. Typical people unhappy with what they saw on the screen, so after the fact, they try to change the narrative to support their contradictory opinions.

What is weird is, what is the purpose to do so. Do they think most viewers are so easily led and to believe what they did not see? The bigger question is, why even bother. What is the purpose to make an evil character, such as Juliette, that was changed into an evil character by the creative team, not to be evil. What purpose does it serve.

I used to watch The Walking Dead show a lot but around Season 7, I started to get tired of how the Rick character began to be less aggressive against his new foe, "The Nagan's". So I started to watch it less and less.

IMO, I started to not like the way this character was being portrayed by the show's creative team. I don't need to justify why I no longer liked this character by making crap up about him. In my arguments with friends about why I support my opinion of this character, I will use what I saw how this character was behaving, why do I need to make up stuff I didn't like, when there is plenty of stuff I saw on the screen for me to dislike?

Going back to Grimm. I get it, not everyone has to like Nick and not everyone has to hate Juliette but to make up shitz about fantasy character in a fantasy show to back up a different opinion is nuts. if you believe in your opinion, why make up stuff and claim it to be an opinion to be respected?

You want respect? Use what we all saw and extrapolate an opinion on what we all saw, and not make shitz up such as Henrietta telling Juliette not to leave evidence or claiming Adalind had knowledge on what Ken was planning before Ken knew what was coming down or claiming Juliette had no participation in the death of her innocent neighbors and Kelly.

Let us also not forget the laughable claim that Kelly was working for the Royals when she rescued Adalind and baby Diana from the same Royals she was, supposedly working for.

See the text in the caption below;

(01-01-2019, 10:53 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]What exactly is the difference between Kelly and a Verrat? The verrat worked for the royals and were at Nick's house to take the baby.

Kelly worked for the royals as well and showed up at Nick's house to.....surprise.....take the baby!

I know there are posters here who give no credence to the verrat and look upon them as thugs for the royals. In what way was Kelly so different?

You act as though Kelly's trust is some great and treasured thing, but you have yet to state why. Before you accuse me of ambiguity, why don't you take a slice of your own advice?

Gees, talk about convoluted delusional claims and then post replies such as :

(01-03-2019, 07:27 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]You know it never fails to amaze me, these continual complaints about the contradictory opinions, not adhering to canon (according to the poster's own version of canon that is), the constant questions and blabber asking if we're all watching the same show, the youtube videos (that no one ever watches btw), the huge explanations, and on and on and on. Some of you complain and complain and complain. It's really quite entertaining.

However, it's usually the same old song, the same youtube videos that no one watches, the same platitudes about canon, the same questions asking if we're all watching the same show, the same complaints, the same huge explanations, and on and on and on.

For those of you who hold yourself to some kind of imaginary high standard of series debate, why would you bother coming back to post? Isn't that, in itself, pointless?

DOES THIS POSTER HAVE NO SHAME? ROFLMFAO !
Quote:What plan are you talking about? Yea we all knew the Royals were in Portland to get Diana back. Everyone involved knew that including Nick, the gang and your darling Juliette knew when she repulsed Adalind's attack in her home. Son, even the flocking dog, I do not own, knew they were there to get Diana. I want to know from you, what part of the plan did Kenneth discussed with Adalind.

Was it the plan that even Kenneth didn't even know yet? When Adalind was staying in the hotel suite. Is that the plan you are talking about? The plan that was completely conceived by Juliette. Sure Kenneth gave her the idea to contact Kelly, but he had no clue and neither did Adalind know of Juliette ability to contact her.
The royals wanting Diana was not the pertinent piece of information. It was that the Royals now knew that Kelly was the key to getting Diana. The key part of them hiding Diana was the deception of who had Diana. Remember even when they found out that Adalind went back to the Royals. Nick was confident that Kelly was ok because Adalind thought Diana was with the resistance.

Quote: You just admitted with your own words, these Hex's aren't powerful enough to win on their own, a day after you went on a rant on how powerful they are.
No where have i ever said hex's could not win on their own. I pointed out logical inconsistencies, but I have always said having magic makes them able to defeat anyone. You sight bonapoart defeating Eve as example of hex weakness. It was not until bonapart used magic was he able to inflict any damage.

Quote:Here you go again debating yourself. Wasn't it you claiming how Juliette could cover her ass easily in the bar or the police station if she chose to do so? You are the one to bring up the Salem witch hunts. I am not an expert on that part of history, but as you just posted, they were burned with less evidence that Juliette would have left or left in the bar.
What was used to accuse people of witchcraft then is understood as science now. So yes they was accused on a lot less then what it would take now. Just like Sean who told her to be careful because people can not accept what we are. Is exactly like what henrette said. Both where reminding her of the risk of exposure. That does not mean not to do magic. It means make sure it can't be proven. Example you run a red light. Lots of people saw it. They could yell all they want. But unless someone had physical proof, you would not be found guilty. This is a good example of how we no longer convict on accusation like they did in the witch trials.

Quote:Dicapptore I fully agree, also not only did Adalind have no clue about Kenneth’s plans for Kelly she also even had strong doubts that Kenneth could get Juliette ever betray Nick telling Kenneth that Juliette may have beaten up a few people but she’s never going betray Nick.
That was until Kenneth asked her what would Juliette think if she knew Adalind was having Nick baby. It was at that point Adalind left and went to Nick for protection.

You are right she never said evidence. she said be careful they used to burn withes. Can was agree that is a statement warning to not get caught. It is not a statement of don't do it. If we agree it means don't get caught. To get caught it would take evidence. We do not convict on superstition, or accusations. It would take being able to prove something. Proof is evidence. That is not that deep a concept. That the show had Sean tell her the same thing only helps support lthe idea of learning how and when to use her powers. Henrette and Sean both told her she had to learn to control herself. Using her abilities in public is not losing control if no one can prove it was her doing what they saw.
Quote:What is weird is, what is the purpose to do so. Do they think most viewers are so easily led and to believe what they did not see? The bigger question is, why even bother. What is the purpose to make an evil character, such as Juliette, that was changed into an evil character by the creative team, not to be evil. What purpose does it serve.
My purpose is to try and understand how so many people place ideology above logic. Example the argument about evidence. several post state Henrette never said anything about evidence. Yet they admit she said be careful they used to burn witches. It just amazes me that people can not see the connection. Another is Nick with a gun is more powerful then a hexenbiest with magic. both topics are argued using ideology of how people see things. Yet when I make a logical observation. I get that was not in the show, or it is fantasy so there is no logic.

As in the above post it stated that Juliette is evil. Yet the show made a point to give all the main characters a plausible denial rationalization for their actions. Take the biggest current opinion that Juliette caused and killed Kelly. Yet in the show it was never implied in the planing what was going to happen. Yet people argue she should have known, what did she think they where going to do. The show made a point to have Juliette upstairs where there was no ambiguity that she did not take part in the kill. Yet people argue Juliette heard Juliette but failed to help. The point is the writers have chooses. Every move a character makes is for a reason. People argue as if Juliette just happened to be upstairs, as opposed to the writers wanted her upstairs. Even when the writers have Juleitte say I did not know. They argue she should have or that she was lying.

What I have noticed is there is correlation to how people see and argue about the show mirrors the same logic used when arguing things that happen in real life. I have noticed people view things exactly like they view commercials. If it sounds right and fits what they believe then it must be true. Even if it will not stand up to scrutiny of critical thinking. I am expecting numerous post disputing this, yet known will make a substantive argument. My question is why do commercials, propaganda, rhetoric work. Why do people believe in people that tell them what they want to hear even if it is not true. It is like the argument of Bc vs HW. which is good and which is bad. I tried to explain the concept of one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. yet few where able to get it. All i got back was numerous ideological explanations to support their view.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14