First, the scene in the trailer is for the most part, very ambiguous. You say the trailer contained Nick's equipment and Adalind's things, and you base that on the series. Well, it's 20 years later. It can be argued that Nick has since retired and passed on his grimm accoutrements to the kiddies. That being the case, none of it would belong to Nick, but to the kiddies. As for the trailer, there's absolutely no proof whatsoever Nick bought it to house his stuff. If, as you theorize, Diana was employed, she could have bought it. No "loose ends" tied up there.
I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that Renard somehow acquired them. It didn't come from me.
Next, Nick and Renard don't trust one another: First, I'm not commenting on any of the deleted scenes. You know my position on them. If they weren't part of the original NBC broadcast, they're not part of the story.
I thought your statement, "But just because they are 'family', does not mean they suddenly trust each other" was very interesting. But, to begin with a couple of decades passing by doesn't constitute a "sudden" occurrence. It's actually quite the opposite. Renard and Nick may have become very good friends, now that, according to you, they share the same daughter.
What interview was it where G&K said Diana referred to Nick as 'Dad'?
The grimm books are Nick's: we already covered this. If Nick passed on the grimm heritage to the kids, then the books are no longer his.
Kelly embellishing his dad's story: I hate to tread on the sacred principle that in the few minutes we actually got to see an adult Kelly, he's already established as an honorable man who would never lie. Thus it's Kelly *and only* Kelly who can be entrusted to accurately document the profound and sometimes questionable tales of his father's exploits. Yet he is a killer. I must be missing something on how a man can be honorable and a killer at the same time. Oh wait, he's killing wesen who are bad, according to him. (It's okay then).
I don't know where it was that I said there was absolutely no truth to the stories. I would certainly be curious to see what Kelly wrote about how mum and daddums got together though. In any case, yes, I think he embellished his father's story.
Renard the grimm: You know, it amazes me at the posters who are just so appalled at the thought that Renard could be a grimm. Why? Is being a grimm some kind of sacred tradition? If it is, I would love to see the documentation on that. Nick's mom made it up as she went along. Nick made it up as he went along. Diana became one and for all of the hatred of hexenbiests, Nick apparently had nothing to say on that one. And SHE's making it up as she goes along.
So I don't get where all of the sudden it's a holy and sacred tradition merely because I mentioned I thought it would be cool idea that I would have to give some thought to.
I never said Renard was a grimm, yoda, the Wizard of Oz, Santa Claus, or Clarabelle the cow.
Us grimm haters: I had to laugh when I wrote this. Okay, so Nick is a grimm.
Well, tell me what a grimm is because Nick, mum Kelly, auntie Marie and third cousin warmed over Trubel are all grimms. Surprise, they all do different things in the name of grimmdom. So, what sacred texts have they studied? I'm not talking about the biased diaries either. What disciplined practices do they follow? What does each of these people share in common besides bottomless pit eyes, some extra strength now and then, and occasional stupidity? BTW, DNA doesn't count. Tell me. I would really love to know.
Kelly cannot entrust the stick to Nick. She's a ghost and it wasn't hers to entrust to him in the first place. Now he can pretend that's some big deal, but he's only fooling himself. Imagine trying to tell someone you got a relic from a ghost. Yeah, right.
The onus is me and anyone else here to back up my claims with evidence: Let's see, you said, "back up your speculations with evidence instead of stating what what I saw on screen was 'pure' conjecture".
Okay, I have to point out something here. Speculation doesn't require firm evidence to back it up. That's why it's speculation. Despite your indignant protests, you're not backing anything up with evidence either. I think you find it convenient to say certain things based on what you saw in the series, but the ending is 20 years later.
Last: the ideas stated for have no basis in evidence: Right, right, right! But again, despite your outrage over the word, "conjecture" your ideas really have no merit in proof either. Neither does anyone else's on the forum. Things may have stayed exactly the same after 20 years or they changed in some way. We don't know because G&K left it ambiguous for the most part.
I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that Renard somehow acquired them. It didn't come from me.
Next, Nick and Renard don't trust one another: First, I'm not commenting on any of the deleted scenes. You know my position on them. If they weren't part of the original NBC broadcast, they're not part of the story.
I thought your statement, "But just because they are 'family', does not mean they suddenly trust each other" was very interesting. But, to begin with a couple of decades passing by doesn't constitute a "sudden" occurrence. It's actually quite the opposite. Renard and Nick may have become very good friends, now that, according to you, they share the same daughter.
What interview was it where G&K said Diana referred to Nick as 'Dad'?
The grimm books are Nick's: we already covered this. If Nick passed on the grimm heritage to the kids, then the books are no longer his.
Kelly embellishing his dad's story: I hate to tread on the sacred principle that in the few minutes we actually got to see an adult Kelly, he's already established as an honorable man who would never lie. Thus it's Kelly *and only* Kelly who can be entrusted to accurately document the profound and sometimes questionable tales of his father's exploits. Yet he is a killer. I must be missing something on how a man can be honorable and a killer at the same time. Oh wait, he's killing wesen who are bad, according to him. (It's okay then).
I don't know where it was that I said there was absolutely no truth to the stories. I would certainly be curious to see what Kelly wrote about how mum and daddums got together though. In any case, yes, I think he embellished his father's story.
Renard the grimm: You know, it amazes me at the posters who are just so appalled at the thought that Renard could be a grimm. Why? Is being a grimm some kind of sacred tradition? If it is, I would love to see the documentation on that. Nick's mom made it up as she went along. Nick made it up as he went along. Diana became one and for all of the hatred of hexenbiests, Nick apparently had nothing to say on that one. And SHE's making it up as she goes along.
So I don't get where all of the sudden it's a holy and sacred tradition merely because I mentioned I thought it would be cool idea that I would have to give some thought to.
I never said Renard was a grimm, yoda, the Wizard of Oz, Santa Claus, or Clarabelle the cow.
Us grimm haters: I had to laugh when I wrote this. Okay, so Nick is a grimm.
Well, tell me what a grimm is because Nick, mum Kelly, auntie Marie and third cousin warmed over Trubel are all grimms. Surprise, they all do different things in the name of grimmdom. So, what sacred texts have they studied? I'm not talking about the biased diaries either. What disciplined practices do they follow? What does each of these people share in common besides bottomless pit eyes, some extra strength now and then, and occasional stupidity? BTW, DNA doesn't count. Tell me. I would really love to know.
Kelly cannot entrust the stick to Nick. She's a ghost and it wasn't hers to entrust to him in the first place. Now he can pretend that's some big deal, but he's only fooling himself. Imagine trying to tell someone you got a relic from a ghost. Yeah, right.
The onus is me and anyone else here to back up my claims with evidence: Let's see, you said, "back up your speculations with evidence instead of stating what what I saw on screen was 'pure' conjecture".
Okay, I have to point out something here. Speculation doesn't require firm evidence to back it up. That's why it's speculation. Despite your indignant protests, you're not backing anything up with evidence either. I think you find it convenient to say certain things based on what you saw in the series, but the ending is 20 years later.
Last: the ideas stated for have no basis in evidence: Right, right, right! But again, despite your outrage over the word, "conjecture" your ideas really have no merit in proof either. Neither does anyone else's on the forum. Things may have stayed exactly the same after 20 years or they changed in some way. We don't know because G&K left it ambiguous for the most part.
The best way to frustrate a cyberbully is to ignore him.