(01-24-2018, 08:06 AM)Hell Rell Wrote: [ -> ] (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.
Nick said in season 5 episode 3 he bought the and Nick also sold the House theses facts are hard to ignore. Juliette never once in the entire show said she bought the house these are facts. Below script is from 5x03.
How long have you lived in this house? Shh.
About six and a half years.
I never thought I'd be here forever, but I didn't know anything about being a Grimm when I bought it Now that I think about it, you were my first.
First what? First woge I ever saw.
Remember that? You were coming out of a coffee shop.
Nick clearly says he bought it, Juliette in the entire show never claims she bought the house. are you guys claiming Nick was lying when he said clearly he bought the house.
Read more:
https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk...ode=s05e03
(01-24-2018, 08:36 AM)Henry of green Wrote: [ -> ] (01-24-2018, 08:06 AM)Hell Rell Wrote: [ -> ] (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.
Nick said in season 5 episode 3 he bought the and Nick also sold the House theses facts are hard to ignore. Juliette never once in the entire show said she bought the house these are facts. Below script is from 5x03.
How long have you lived in this house? Shh.
About six and a half years.
I never thought I'd be here forever, but I didn't know anything about being a Grimm when I bought it Now that I think about it, you were my first.
First what? First woge I ever saw.
Remember that? You were coming out of a coffee shop.
Nick clearly says he bought it, Juliette in the entire show never claims she bought the house. are you guys claiming Nick was lying when he said clearly he bought the house.
Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk...ode=s05e03
Not lying, tat's just how I understood her memory of the move in.
Quote:I never thought I'd be here forever, but I didn't know anything about being a Grimm when I bought it Now that I think about it, you were my first.
Here is how the wiki describes the house
Nick and Juliette's Home was the residence of Nick Burkhardt and Juliette Silverton, and briefly Nick, Adalind Schade, and their son Kelly. Ownership of the home was not initially clear, as Juliette offered to move out, ("The Good Shepherd") and Nick did move out. ("Season of the Hexenbiest") Also, Nick was shown moving in with Juliette. ("Volcanalis") Nick later referenced purchasing the house. ("Lost Boys")
And this is why the disagreement. Each character always refereed to the house as home. They both have made overtures to move out. Not something they would do if they owned the house. You then have Nick use the singular term I, but it is in context of talking to Adalind and after he thinks Juliette is dead. Yes he does sell the house. I see this discrepancy the same as it exist in most shows. Most shows do not address the legal definition of ownership because that for the most part would cause logistical complication. Instead they use the position of possession. Basically if you are in possession of something you can do what you want with it. We all know that is not how it works in the real world. But it simplifies things in a show. The car is a good example. Since Nick was in possession of the car he could do what he wanted with it. Using the legal definition, and Juliette not being there he could not do what he did.
Example say we live together and I let you drive my car everyday. You even have you own key. That does not mean you can let your friend drive it unless you ask me specifically. If you do your friend would not be covered by the insurance. But using that kind of logic create to many complications in trying to tell the story.
And yes I could give retroactive permission. But I would have to be around to attest to the fact that I gave permission. One warning If I you that but did not tell the insurance company that others would be driving the car. The insurance could cancel the policy. I have had that happen more the nonce. The situation was my kids letting there friend drive my car. It has to do with the insurance company needed to be able to assess liability. They need to know if people driving the car are good drivers, underage drivers, or a high risk driver.
Applying that real life logic to real property. If we assume Nick owned the house. He moves out and leaves Juliette in the house. There too you could have an insurance problem. The other problem that could exist is Your moving out could give Juliette standing where you would have to go through the process of evicting her. That is something that if a person knows the rules could take more then a year by the continuously fill court cases. Which his why in real life if Nick owned the house he would have never moved out. Again that is a level of complication no show tries to deal with. So they keep it simple and use the idea of possession being the standard as opposed to ownership.
(01-24-2018, 09:53 AM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:I never thought I'd be here forever, but I didn't know anything about being a Grimm when I bought it Now that I think about it, you were my first.
Here is how the wiki describes the house
Nick and Juliette's Home was the residence of Nick Burkhardt and Juliette Silverton, and briefly Nick, Adalind Schade, and their son Kelly. Ownership of the home was not initially clear, as Juliette offered to move out, ("The Good Shepherd") and Nick did move out. ("Season of the Hexenbiest") Also, Nick was shown moving in with Juliette. ("Volcanalis") Nick later referenced purchasing the house. ("Lost Boys")
And this is why the disagreement. Each character always refereed to the house as home. They both have made overtures to move out. Not something they would do if they owned the house. You then have Nick use the singular term I, but it is in context of talking to Adalind and after he thinks Juliette is dead. Yes he does sell the house. I see this discrepancy the same as it exist in most shows. Most shows do not address the legal definition of ownership because that for the most part would cause logistical complication. Instead they use the position of possession. Basically if you are in possession of something you can do what you want with it. We all know that is not how it works in the real world. But it simplifies things in a show. The car is a good example. Since Nick was in possession of the car he could do what he wanted with it. Using the legal definition, and Juliette not being there he could not do what he did.
Example say we live together and I let you drive my car everyday. You even have you own key. That does not mean you can let your friend drive it unless you ask me specifically. If you do your friend would not be covered by the insurance. But using that kind of logic create to many complications in trying to tell the story.
And yes I could give retroactive permission. But I would have to be around to attest to the fact that I gave permission. One warning If I you that but did not tell the insurance company that others would be driving the car. The insurance could cancel the policy. I have had that happen more the nonce. The situation was my kids letting there friend drive my car. It has to do with the insurance company needed to be able to assess liability. They need to know if people driving the car are good drivers, underage drivers, or a high risk driver.
Applying that real life logic to real property. If we assume Nick owned the house. He moves out and leaves Juliette in the house. There too you could have an insurance problem. The other problem that could exist is Your moving out could give Juliette standing where you would have to go through the process of evicting her. That is something that if a person knows the rules could take more then a year by the continuously fill court cases. Which his why in real life if Nick owned the house he would have never moved out. Again that is a level of complication no show tries to deal with. So they keep it simple and use the idea of possession being the standard as opposed to ownership.
SO ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION OF HOME MANS ANYONE LIVING IN A RENTAL HAS NO HOME SINCE YOUR DEFINITION OF A "HOME' MEANS "YOU' HAVE TO OWN IT. ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION OF HOME. THE HOUSE I LIVE IS IS A HOME FOR JUST ME AND MY WIFE SINCE WE OWN IT. MY KIDS ARE, I GUESS, HOMELESS.
ACCORDING TO YOU!
(01-23-2018, 05:14 PM)brandon Wrote: [ -> ]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"?
Judging from Nick, I would say these grimms are pretty close mouthed about their activities. Reed probably only knew what Kelly chose to share with him. It's still a question without an answer though.
Here's another question. How much did Nick's grandfather choose to share with his uncle? According to the history, Nick's uncle never deformed into a grimm.
Quote:SO ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION OF HOME MANS ANYONE LIVING IN A RENTAL HAS NO HOME SINCE YOUR DEFINITION OF A "HOME' MEANS "YOU' HAVE TO OWN IT. ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION OF HOME. THE HOUSE I LIVE IS IS A HOME FOR JUST ME AND MY WIFE SINCE WE OWN IT. MY KIDS ARE, I GUESS, HOMELESS. ACCORDING TO YOU!
Hate to bust your bubble but Grimm is a show. A show that real world rules and definitions do not always apply.
The poinbt I was making it was not important what the actual status of Nick, Juliette and the house. The relationship was what ever the writers needed it to be for that episode. I was pointing out that even the wiki acknowledged their being an ambiguity when it comes to the house.
Again sorry if someone already posted this, and I just repeating their post. I can think of only one person who may have been ashamed of being a Grimm Josh's Dad.
Now was he ashamed or just did have the will to kill wesen? Not everyone can be a police officer, not everyone can deal with death.
If you are a Grimm it is just something you are and can not change. Trubel didn't know she was a Grimm but even than she only reacted to attacks I don't see her as ashamed of being a Grimm because she didn't even know she was.
Now I think for the most part Grimm's did go around say look at me I'm a Grimm, but that isn't because they are ashamed just protecting themselves.
I don't think he was ashamed or else he could have torched his own books, weapons, keys etc but didn't. He chose to live a different life and passed everything down to Nick, a known active Grimm because his son wasn't one.
(01-30-2018, 10:58 PM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:SO ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION OF HOME MANS ANYONE LIVING IN A RENTAL HAS NO HOME SINCE YOUR DEFINITION OF A "HOME' MEANS "YOU' HAVE TO OWN IT. ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION OF HOME. THE HOUSE I LIVE IS IS A HOME FOR JUST ME AND MY WIFE SINCE WE OWN IT. MY KIDS ARE, I GUESS, HOMELESS. ACCORDING TO YOU!
Hate to bust your bubble but Grimm is a show. A show that real world rules and definitions do not always apply.
The poinbt I was making it was not important what the actual status of Nick, Juliette and the house. The relationship was what ever the writers needed it to be for that episode. I was pointing out that even the wiki acknowledged their being an ambiguity when it comes to the house.
When Nick moved out, he moved out for the same reason a married couple with marital disagreements separate for a period of time, not permanently. When Nick moved out, he moved out because she refused him to sleep in the same bed and he found the couch uncomfortable. Did they split up? NO, they did not. All his personal stuff and most of his clothes were still in that house. She did not remember him, but she still had all the evidence he used to live with her.
As for Wiki showing Nick moving in with Juliette, well they got it wrong. Go back and look at those flashbacks. They were both moving into an empty house. If you take a closer look, they were unpacking all their belongings and the house did not have the lived in look. When you see Nick moving in the boxes, its what real men do. They carry the heavy stuff.
When Nick chose to move out, its what men do when there is a dispute with a woman. In both of those situations, I would have done the same. Carry the heavy boxes and moved out if I was having a dispute. You and the contributors of Wiki seem to confuse your bias with the acts of a gentleman.
(02-04-2018, 07:59 AM)jsgrimm45 Wrote: [ -> ]Again sorry if someone already posted this, and I just repeating their post. I can think of only one person who may have been ashamed of being a Grimm Josh's Dad.
Now was he ashamed or just did have the will to kill wesen? Not everyone can be a police officer, not everyone can deal with death.
If you are a Grimm it is just something you are and can not change. Trubel didn't know she was a Grimm but even than she only reacted to attacks I don't see her as ashamed of being a Grimm because she didn't even know she was.
Now I think for the most part Grimm's did go around say look at me I'm a Grimm, but that isn't because they are ashamed just protecting themselves.
When Grimms and Wesen meet and a Wesen does a personal voge, they cannot hide it from a Grimm. In that same instance, a Grimm cannot hide their ability to see the Wesen. I forgot which episode this was explained how a Wesen can see it in the eyes of a Grimm when they do a personal voge. This is when Grimms are exposed/revealed to Wesen, not by choice but by BIOLOGY!
(02-04-2018, 07:59 AM)jsgrimm45 Wrote: [ -> ]Again sorry if someone already posted this, and I just repeating their post. I can think of only one person who may have been ashamed of being a Grimm Josh's Dad.
Now was he ashamed or just did have the will to kill wesen? Not everyone can be a police officer, not everyone can deal with death.
If you are a Grimm it is just something you are and can not change. Trubel didn't know she was a Grimm but even than she only reacted to attacks I don't see her as ashamed of being a Grimm because she didn't even know she was.
Now I think for the most part Grimm's did go around say look at me I'm a Grimm, but that isn't because they are ashamed just protecting themselves.
Hi JS,
Welcome back to Grimm Forum!
N G