Grimm Forum

(01-23-2018, 07:45 AM)brandon Wrote: [ -> ]Wesen children were frightened by parents with the monster "GRIMM",so that they would not go out, to behave themselves, to do their homework.
Human children were told that God would punish them for bad action

You use what ever works. Once they find out you won't leave them behind or kill them or spank them in a store, you search anyone to keep them in line so you don't leave, kill or spank them. Santa keeping a list works with small kids, boggy man works with older ones--it worked for Juliette's grandmother for a while, then she learned the truth.

(01-23-2018, 04:01 AM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:You mean like the examples we got throughout 4 seasons that the house Nick and Juliette live in is owned by Nick, not Juliette? With flashbacks of both moving into an empty house instead Nick moving into her house. Then skipping ahead, how He is able to sell his property. If it was Juliette's or co-owned He could not sell it without her death certificate. Yet some will still claim it was her house?

Would that be one of your Indirect Narrative Exposition?

Yes they use Exposition to establish the rules. But you do know this show ran for six season. In that time many rules they established in the first season where changed in later seasons. it was first established that Nick became a Grimm because is aunt was dying. Later the rules for becoming a Grimm where changed.
As for the house there was never any mention as to who was on title. They only said it was Nick house or they said it was Julietes house or they said it was Nick and Juliettes house. Actual ownership of property is seldom address in any show.

Quote:How about the references of Juliette's promiscuous past, starting with her admission of how her grandmother was trying to scare her to keep her out of the back seats of cars when she was a teenager. Her own words in the supermarket scene early on in season one about her previous boyfriend? How about when we meet her college roommate, Alicia and we find out about her multiple interests/partners she had in college? How is that for a Indirect Narrative Exposition?

For one you are assuming she sleep with all these people. As in a lot of other shows there are a lot of dates but seldom if ever do they sleep with the people they go out with.

But in answer to your question the Exposition did portray Juliette as someone that did not sit home on weekends. It showed she had a very active social life. That does not make her promiscuous.

This show was done in 2016 during a time when women have sex for the shear pleasure of it. No longer do they feel constrained to have to be in love to have sex.

Best you look up the meaning of the word. I never claimed the word only applies to women. Just because women have caught up to men in having casual sex with multiple partners does not change the meaning of the word.


Merriam Webster:
Definition of promiscuous
1 : composed of all sorts of persons or things
2 : not restricted to one class, sort, or person : indiscriminate
education … cheapened through the promiscuous distribution of diplomas —Norman Cousins
3 : not restricted to one sexual partner
4 : casual, irregular
promiscuous eating habits

I don't see the word being restricted to only women. Do YOU??


As for the house ownership, you are arguing with yourself with your claim of Indirect Narrative Exposition. Or are you cherry picking again?
Please, make up your mind!

---

(01-23-2018, 08:13 AM)eric Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-23-2018, 07:45 AM)brandon Wrote: [ -> ]Wesen children were frightened by parents with the monster "GRIMM",so that they would not go out, to behave themselves, to do their homework.
Human children were told that God would punish them for bad action

You use what ever works. Once they find out you won't leave them behind or kill them or spank them in a store, you search anyone to keep them in line so you don't leave, kill or spank them. Santa keeping a list works with small kids, boggy man works with older ones--it worked for Juliette's grandmother for a while, then she learned the truth.

I had both my kids playing the RPG game, Everquest, when they were in grammar school with adult filters. I had some basic rules.

"A" 90-100, average, they could play the game when they had time
"B" 80-89, average, weekends only.
"C" 70-79, average, no longer allowed to play.
"D" 65-69, average, Characters would be stripped of their earned gear and weapons permanently.
Failure, 64 and lower, I would permanently delete their characters.

Results? Both kids, not only made the honor roll in elementary, middle and high school but they made "Distinguished Honor Roll" this meant that even with an 'A" average, no single subject mark would be below an 88. I think my son drifted in and out of regular honor roll and distinguished.

At graduation one was ranked at 23 out of aprox. 600 member of her graduating class. The other at 46 out of about 650 member of his graduating class. Both went on to college with large partial scholarship.

I never had to spank them. Their actions predicted the results. It was all under their control.

Did I mention, both kids had their individual PC's at the age of 2 and a half years old playing math and reading learning games and using Windows 3.1.

I do not think the rules change for becoming a "GRIMM". Maybe not just for the death of a " GRIMM" appeared another " GRIMM". Be a " GRIMM" it's genetic too.
Question without answer: really Reed B.was ignorant about the "Wesen World"?

In season one when Monroe and Nick first meet.
Monroe: Wow, you are new at this. What, someone in your family just die?
Nick: My aunt's in a coma.
Monroe: Ahh, that explains it. What's her name?
Nick: Marie Kessler.

That was the last time they used that line of logic. By the end of season one, once he meet his mother the idea that you are born a Grimm. Females find out earlier then the males do. Explaining why Nick did not find out till he was grown. This story line also explains Trubel and Josh.

---

Quote:Best you look up the meaning of the word. I never claimed the word only applies to women. Just because women have caught up to men in having casual sex with multiple partners does not change the meaning of the word.


Merriam Webster:
Definition of promiscuous
1 : composed of all sorts of persons or things
2 : not restricted to one class, sort, or person : indiscriminate
education … cheapened through the promiscuous distribution of diplomas —Norman Cousins
3 : not restricted to one sexual partner
4 : casual, irregular
promiscuous eating habits

I don't see the word being restricted to only women. Do YOU??


As for the house ownership, you are arguing with yourself with your claim of Indirect Narrative Exposition. Or are you cherry picking again?
Please, make up your mind!

I never said it only applied to women. But you where applying it to Juliette based on your evaluation of her social life. But even by the definition you provided. You would have to have evidence that Juliette had sex on these dates. It was only stated that she dated a number of people. Not once did they say she had sex. Even her statement about her grandmothers warning about backs sets. Does not mean she had sex.

As for the ownership of the house. Just like most shows Grimm does not address the legal definition of property ownership. Just like most shows, how property is transferred violates what it would actually take to complete the transaction. A good example is how they will have a long lost relative show up on title. or The parent dies and the children get the house. As we all know there would need to be a probate hearing unless their is a will. Shows just do not go into that level of detail. So to use the act of selling the house as evidence that Nick is the only one on title. Is a false assumption. Trying to use that to draw an inference would then make Nick giving Adalind the car have a problem. If nothing else she would not be covered under the insurance. Even if Nick was to drive it he would only be covered unless Juliette gave him permission. So using the law to draw an inference Nick a cop would have allowed and uninsured driver on the road. That is one reason why shows do not deal with the legal ramifications of a lot of transactions that take place.

(01-23-2018, 05:28 PM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]In season one when Monroe and Nick first meet.
Monroe: Wow, you are new at this. What, someone in your family just die?
Nick: My aunt's in a coma.
Monroe: Ahh, that explains it. What's her name?
Nick: Marie Kessler.

That was the last time they used that line of logic. By the end of season one, once he meet his mother the idea that you are born a Grimm. Females find out earlier then the males do. Explaining why Nick did not find out till he was grown. This story line also explains Trubel and Josh.

---

Quote:Best you look up the meaning of the word. I never claimed the word only applies to women. Just because women have caught up to men in having casual sex with multiple partners does not change the meaning of the word.


Merriam Webster:
Definition of promiscuous
1 : composed of all sorts of persons or things
2 : not restricted to one class, sort, or person : indiscriminate
education … cheapened through the promiscuous distribution of diplomas —Norman Cousins
3 : not restricted to one sexual partner
4 : casual, irregular
promiscuous eating habits

I don't see the word being restricted to only women. Do YOU??


As for the house ownership, you are arguing with yourself with your claim of Indirect Narrative Exposition. Or are you cherry picking again?
Please, make up your mind!

I never said it only applied to women. But you where applying it to Juliette based on your evaluation of her social life. But even by the definition you provided. You would have to have evidence that Juliette had sex on these dates. It was only stated that she dated a number of people. Not once did they say she had sex. Even her statement about her grandmothers warning about backs sets. Does not mean she had sex.

As for the ownership of the house. Just like most shows Grimm does not address the legal definition of property ownership. Just like most shows, how property is transferred violates what it would actually take to complete the transaction. A good example is how they will have a long lost relative show up on title. or The parent dies and the children get the house. As we all know there would need to be a probate hearing unless their is a will. Shows just do not go into that level of detail. So to use the act of selling the house as evidence that Nick is the only one on title. Is a false assumption. Trying to use that to draw an inference would then make Nick giving Adalind the car have a problem. If nothing else she would not be covered under the insurance. Even if Nick was to drive it he would only be covered unless Juliette gave him permission. So using the law to draw an inference Nick a cop would have allowed and uninsured driver on the road. That is one reason why shows do not deal with the legal ramifications of a lot of transactions that take place.

I guess she was interested in the upholstery of the back seats of cars. I guess when Alice made the statement and face about her college roommate, Juliette, was about holding hands. I guess when she refers to her previous boyfriend as "I wasn't dating him for his looks" meant he was loaded with cash.

Will? Probate? where is he certificate of death of Juliette? The car he gave to Adalind to use? You don't need to own the car you drive. I can lend or give any of our four cars, all registered to me, to anyone I please to choose, as long as the registration is kept up to date and the insurance is aid and in some states, you need an inspection. Are you comparing the ownership of a car to an ownership of real estate property? Are you 12 years old?

(01-23-2018, 04:20 AM)Henry of green Wrote: [ -> ]The actual ownership of the house is Nicks it was proven by him selling the house if the house was in anyway Juliette’s he would not have been able to sell it you can make up something about him using his police connections to sell it if you wish but that wasn’t hinted at on the show, Nick sold the house therefore it was his that’s fact.

(laughs). Yes, he sold the house, pocketed everything in it, and bought the warehouse in like what? 30 minutes? No connections there. Not at all.

Quote:I guess she was interested in the upholstery of the back seats of cars. I guess when Alice made the statement and face about her college roommate, Juliette, was about holding hands. I guess when she refers to her previous boyfriend as "I wasn't dating him for his looks" meant he was loaded with cash.

You can date and make out with people and not have sex. I am not sure if you have tried it. But sex in the back seat is not very comfortable.
You are right you can allow others to drive your car and if they are licensed they would be covered by the insurance. But Nick can not loan Juliette car. If if Juliette gave Nick permission, that does not allow him to give others permission.

Quote:Are you comparing the ownership of a car to an ownership of real estate property? Are you 12 years old?

Since show do not deal with the logistic of ownership. Yes selling a car is as simple as selling a house on a show. In real life no they are not even close. But Grimm is not real life. This means that Nick selling the house does not prove he owned the house. As I stated the writers stated it was Nick and Juliette's house. that in no way was meant to designate ownership.

The house was Nicks he sold it, there is a big difference between someone owning a vehicle and owning property. The house is built on land therefore impossible to sell without the owners permission in any world. Where on the show was it stated real world property rules don’t apply. Plus Nick didn’t sell Juliettes car he just give it to Adalind it wasn’t an official transaction.

The show stated in season one that it was Juliettes house. Later it was shown Nick and Juliette moving in together. When Juliette lost her memory Nick moved out and Juliette said she was going home. The bottom line the show never established legal ownership. The writers only established that Nick and Juliette lived together in the house.
You know as much about who owned the house as you know who paid the mortgage or even if there was a mortgage. That is information that was not important to the show so the writers did not address it. So to follow your logic that Nick was the owner. That would mean he was the only one on the mortgage. That means you think the single income of a Portland detective would qualify to buy that house. It is more likely that Juliette having to have a DVM would qualify more then Nick would. You see the problem with using logic. That is why the writers do not try and us logic. They just state Nick sold the house without consideration of the logistics that would make that possible.

(01-24-2018, 06:57 AM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]The show stated in season one that it was Juliettes house. Later it was shown Nick and Juliette moving in together. When Juliette lost her memory Nick moved out and Juliette said she was going home. The bottom line the show never established legal ownership. The writers only established that Nick and Juliette lived together in the house.
You know as much about who owned the house as you know who paid the mortgage or even if there was a mortgage. That is information that was not important to the show so the writers did not address it. So to follow your logic that Nick was the owner. That would mean he was the only one on the mortgage. That means you think the single income of a Portland detective would qualify to buy that house. It is more likely that Juliette having to have a DVM would qualify more then Nick would. You see the problem with using logic. That is why the writers do not try and us logic. They just state Nick sold the house without consideration of the logistics that would make that possible.

That's how I see this issue on the show as well. The ownership of the house wasn't really established. It really is mostly conjecture here because I do remember it being called Juliette's house earlier and Nick's house later on. If you would've asked me whose house it was at the end of season 2, I would've said it belonged to Juliette.

I'm actually with you on not applying logic in this case because it certainly wasn't on the show. It was definitely done for convenience because it falls apart under any examination.