Grimm Forum

Fantasies and theories about what happens off screen are fun, but if they aren't crafted to fit what's shown or said on the screen or even worse, directly contradict it, then it's just lazy story telling.

(04-05-2018, 10:23 AM)eric Wrote: [ -> ]I certainly do. To each their own. However(there always is a however) I think all posters should agree to the same statement and not object if others disagree with their view of this fantasy realm.

I have no issue with objections. From what I've read here, there is absolutely no one who has trouble objecting to anything written on this forum if they choose to do so.

If a poster wants to compare Grimm to the Wizard of Oz and has absolutely nothing to substantiate their arguments, I will object to their opinion. But who am I (or anyone else on for that matter) to tell them they cannot bring up certain elements because they're debating about a fantasy and not fact?

What I find objectionable are the insults and outright bullying. And eric, even you have to admit that when someone has a different opinion, all it has takes is for one to start in and others, even those who consider themselves the most objective here, will follow like lemmings. All of the sudden the rationale that many here believe they have disappears and we have a thread that has degenerated into something that belongs in a gutter. And then no one cares if there's a debate about fantasy or not.

syscrash clearly stated any connection between Zerstörer, the stick, and Adalind/Diana/Eve was intriguing speculation that, while unsubstantiated by facts, could have explained much of seasons five and six. So I’m not understanding the heavy-handed challenges to an idea that was clearly identified as conjecture, other than, that’s been the typical response on the forum for quite some time now. To me, syscrash’s theory is much more fleshed out and directly connected to the events of S5 & S6 than G & K’s method of inserting just enough tidbits to move their action scenes along without any regard to story development and characterization. While I don’t care for characters’ actions being driven by fate over freewill, I prefer syscrash’s conjecture to G & K’s seeming method of throwing ideas in the air and using whatever lands face up.


Because based on established facts -

Kelly, Renard, and Nick and his people were too dumb to even fathom leaving Adalind in the wind risked their baby snatching protect the world scheme.

Juliette became a raging Hexenbiest who feared Nick would kill her after the reversal spell just because.

The only person deemed capable of protecting and teaching the super powerful baby entered through the front door of a dark house with the child in tow.

The Royals inexplicably abandoned their centuries old quest for the keys/coveted treasure and their quest for the super powerful child with Royal blood after one of the seven kings died.

Zerstörer crossed through the mirror because Nick suddenly didn’t need all the keys to retrieve a stick that came with a half-ass warning.

Zerstörer was defeated while he inexplicably stopped utilizing his staff when battling the two ghost Grimm.

(04-08-2018, 07:38 AM)Robyn Wrote: [ -> ]I prefer syscrash’s conjecture to G & K’s seeming method of throwing ideas in the air and using whatever lands face up.

Didn't you real meant to say;
"You prefer syscrash’s conjecture to G & K’s seeming method of throwing some crap on the wall and see what crap sticks"?

(04-08-2018, 08:15 AM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-08-2018, 07:38 AM)Robyn Wrote: [ -> ]I prefer syscrash’s conjecture to G & K’s seeming method of throwing ideas in the air and using whatever lands face up.

Didn't you real meant to say;
"You prefer syscrash’s conjecture to G & K’s seeming method of throwing some crap on the wall and see what crap sticks"?

The end result is more or less the same, I was attempting to be polite concerning my objections/ disappointments. *grin*

(04-08-2018, 08:29 AM)Robyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-08-2018, 08:15 AM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-08-2018, 07:38 AM)Robyn Wrote: [ -> ]I prefer syscrash’s conjecture to G & K’s seeming method of throwing ideas in the air and using whatever lands face up.

Didn't you real meant to say;
"You prefer syscrash’s conjecture to G & K’s seeming method of throwing some crap on the wall and see what crap sticks"?

The end result is more or less the same, I was attempting to be polite concerning my objections/ disappointments. *grin*

Robyn, I have no issues in discussing any opinions or interpretations of what was presented on the screen. My issues with some is this. If their arguments are so on point, why is there the need to make shitz up? Thats my critique.

How is this for "writers intent"? The moderator of this forum has put aside a category called "Fan Creations" This is where we all can divulge all our expectations and fantasies on how we could have changed or added to the narrative of the show. I actually just complemented Scully1987 on his versions of a couple of scenes that I would have written with similarities.

Again, hate to be repetitious. If your opposing arguments, not yours in particular Robyn, why create scenes, dialogue scenarios that did not take place and then question when factual references are presented? Then whine about it when exposed to those false creations.

You want to create, adapt, improvise? Fan Creations is there for your creative mind to explode. Do not insult what others do with diligent research to prove their point with crap or one line responses. I have to single out syscrash. He does not reply with one liners. He is very creative on piling it up.

I don't believe for one minute the claim that there's an issue with making things up. That is simply a cloaking device for the real agenda here. There are people on this forum who are targets and no matter what they post, they will always be targets. Those who refer to it as "critique" can do so all they want, but in reality, it still comes down to bullying, pure and simple.

Anyone who's been here for years knows that no thread sticks to the topic from beginning to end, much less canon or facts, *ever*. Posts have included thoughts or speculation and posters have always had the freedom to do so. Now, for some inexplicable reason, some posters are being ordered about, and told that those who have different thoughts must put their imaginations in the Fan Creations section.

What these few people of tunnel vision continually fail to realize is that some of the best discussions come from not the "facts" of the series, but from the imaginations of the posters that come here. I always liked this forum because we had the freedom to explore the series outside the realm of facts.

Syscrash stated his idea was assumption and speculation, not fact, and he still got trashed for it. This is exactly what I mean. Because syscrash posted it, he is a target.

There is an difference between implicit and explicate. the argument seems to be if the conversation deviates from what is implicitly shown then comments are to be considered fan fiction. There are a lot of us that realize. The ambiguity injected by the writers is not by accident but a form of creative expression. It is the same thing that what you envision when you read a book seldom lives up to what is shown when they make a book into a movie. I never expected for those who only see the show on a simplistic level, to every understand where I was going with how I see clues of another level of the story the writers was trying to tell.

Instead of focusing on the underlying concept I was pointing out. So many of the comments focus on disproving the clues. Remember this is none of these writers first rodeo. If you ever watched the post reviews the writers did on previous shows. They explain the deeper view, intent, and visions they had when writing those shows. Take Buffy, if you watched the cast interview they did years after the show. David explain the inspiration, what he was trying to show. He even explained the intent behind Buffy and Angle and why he changed to Buffy and spike.

None of which was explicitly shown or explained in the show. None of which was explained while the show was in production. I imagine the same will happen with Grimm. Like Buffy 10 years from now D & G will pull back the curtain and divulge all the little secrets as to what was on their minds. Right now there is an image of the show and characters that they want to promote. It is what they feel will make it sell.

So are the clues I pointed out true, are they as G&K meant them to be seen. It will be years before we actually know. The one thing we do know based on their other work, their intent is more then what we see. Based on Buffy I realize they write two shows. One is what you see. They one comments argue that the dialog supports. The other it a lot deeper and only some get. this is the show many comments try and disprove. It is an individual that must decide which viewer are you.


FYI to see what some of the intent on Buffy was. Watch the Buffy reunion interview that is on you tube. They all dish on motivations, intent, and things they did just for shock value.

(04-10-2018, 12:24 AM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]There is an difference between implicit and explicate. the argument seems to be if the conversation deviates from what is implicitly shown then comments are to be considered fan fiction. There are a lot of us that realize. The ambiguity injected by the writers is not by accident but a form of creative expression. It is the same thing that what you envision when you read a book seldom lives up to what is shown when they make a book into a movie. I never expected for those who only see the show on a simplistic level, to every understand where I was going with how I see clues of another level of the story the writers was trying to tell.

Instead of focusing on the underlying concept I was pointing out. So many of the comments focus on disproving the clues. Remember this is none of these writers first rodeo. If you ever watched the post reviews the writers did on previous shows. They explain the deeper view, intent, and visions they had when writing those shows. Take Buffy, if you watched the cast interview they did years after the show. David explain the inspiration, what he was trying to show. He even explained the intent behind Buffy and Angle and why he changed to Buffy and spike.

None of which was explicitly shown or explained in the show. None of which was explained while the show was in production. I imagine the same will happen with Grimm. Like Buffy 10 years from now D & G will pull back the curtain and divulge all the little secrets as to what was on their minds. Right now there is an image of the show and characters that they want to promote. It is what they feel will make it sell.

So are the clues I pointed out true, are they as G&K meant them to be seen. It will be years before we actually know. The one thing we do know based on their other work, their intent is more then what we see. Based on Buffy I realize they write two shows. One is what you see. They one comments argue that the dialog supports. The other it a lot deeper and only some get. this is the show many comments try and disprove. It is an individual that must decide which viewer are you.


FYI to see what some of the intent on Buffy was. Watch the Buffy reunion interview that is on you tube. They all dish on motivations, intent, and things they did just for shock value.

All I can say is, you make a better argument against yourself than I do. How is my analysis on "writers intent" on what you just posted?

Quote:How is this for "writers intent"? The moderator of this forum has put aside a category called "Fan Creations" This is where we all can divulge all our expectations and fantasies on how we could have changed or added to the narrative of the show.

Fan Fiction is changing the perspective. Writers intent is understanding the current perspective. What I see as you missing the point. You argue based on what you see. You argue from the perspective of an explicit understanding. What I was pointing out based on the writers prior work. There is an implicate perspective. I was opening the discussion to see if we could find that perspective.