+- Grimm Forum (https://grimmforum.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Grimm Universe (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Grimm-Universe)
+--- Forum: Spoilers (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Spoilers)
+---- Forum: Season 6 Spoilers (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Season-6-Spoilers)
+---- Thread: TRUST and who has it @syscrash idea (/Thread-TRUST-and-who-has-it-syscrash-idea)
RE: TRUST and who has it @syscrash idea - Hell Rell - 12-14-2016
(12-14-2016, 01:36 AM)syscrash Wrote: If the show states something. Why do people feel the show needs to prove it. Would be different if the show used covert tactics or misleading deception. The show uses more of an undercover type of action. The show keeps secretes from the characters but not the viewers. It also does not require the viewer to interpret what is going on. The important things are provided within the narratives.
I know how the show got from point A to point B. Am I not allowed to criticize how they do it?
For example, Nick not asking Adalind for a paternity test was mentioned earlier. We all know that Kelly is Nick's son but why would he wholeheartedly believe Adalind when she told him? I can see him protecting her anyway since he still needed her to make the suppressant and he probably wouldn't let Juliette attack a pregnant woman. Remember that Nick was initially going to walk out of Renard's office without harming Adalind even before he saw her pregnant belly so I could buy him not allowing Juliette to harm her once he considers that the child inside her is innocent.
These characters still need to feel somewhat believable. Nick did not want to have a child with his nemesis whom he knows has slept with at least Hank and Renard. Am I supposed to not question why he wouldn't ask for a paternity test? I find that unbelievable even in this world. This being a fantasy world doesn't excuse it. The suppressant was tested on Adalind because they couldn't be sure that it wouldn't do irreparable damage to a Hexenbiest. Nick needed some proof for that yet he still didn't ask for a simple paternity test to prove that his son was really his by someone he didn't even trust and tricked him into having sex in the first place. And none of his friends suggested this either.
RE: TRUST and who has it @syscrash idea - irukandji - 12-14-2016
(12-14-2016, 07:09 AM)syscrash Wrote: Knowing and following your destiny has nothing to do with who you tell. It is yourdestiny not there's even if it does effect them. Telling them or not depend on your wanting or needing them involved. Telling also eliminates false assumptions.
So then why wouldn't Kelly tell her husband?
RE: TRUST and who has it @syscrash idea - jsgrimm45 - 12-14-2016
(12-14-2016, 07:09 AM)syscrash Wrote: Knowing and following your destiny has nothing to do with who you tell. It is yourdestiny not there's even if it does effect them. Telling them or not depend on your wanting or needing them involved. Telling also eliminates false assumptions.This kind of lost me sorry. Now we know Nick became a Grimm kind of late in life so Marie may have not told Nick he could become a Grimm, because what good would it be Nick? This has to do with Trust in a left field way, Marie didn't want Nick to worry (as not a Grimm) about things he would never know.
We can use Hank here in season 2 Hank learns about wesen but he has to have Nick tell him if they are wesen. What does Nick say likely you wouldn't have seen nothing if you didn't have a Grimm for a pardner, why because the wesen Hank saw were because Nick was along.
So if Nick had told Hank in season 1 would Hank had believed him even if by being pardners they do trust each other or would Nick telling Hank to early have destroyed that Trust?
Marie needed Nick to Trust her telling him something he might never see would it have broken that trust?
RE: TRUST and who has it @syscrash idea - izzy - 12-14-2016
(12-14-2016, 07:33 AM)Hell Rell Wrote: I know how the show got from point A to point B. Am I not allowed to criticize how they do it?
For example, Nick not asking Adalind for a paternity test was mentioned earlier. We all know that Kelly is Nick's son but why would he wholeheartedly believe Adalind when she told him? I can see him protecting her anyway since he still needed her to make the suppressant and he probably wouldn't let Juliette attack a pregnant woman. Remember that Nick was initially going to walk out of Renard's office without harming Adalind even before he saw her pregnant belly so I could buy him not allowing Juliette to harm her once he considers that the child inside her is innocent.
These characters still need to feel somewhat believable. Nick did not want to have a child with his nemesis whom he knows has slept with at least Hank and Renard. Am I supposed to not question why he wouldn't ask for a paternity test? I find that unbelievable even in this world. This being a fantasy world doesn't excuse it. The suppressant was tested on Adalind because they couldn't be sure that it wouldn't do irreparable damage to a Hexenbiest. Nick needed some proof for that yet he still didn't ask for a simple paternity test to prove that his son was really his by someone he didn't even trust and tricked him into having sex in the first place. And none of his friends suggested this either.
Exactly. The blind acceptance of the actions of a character to further the plot are the mark of children's Saturday morning cartoons and not adult dramas. In adult dramas the majority of the characters generally behave as people do in real life. We all a people who respond differently to the same stimuli, but based on our lifetime of experience we know that there really are a limited set of likely responses and are generally very concerned when someone we know does not act in accord with one of them. The trouble with Grimm is the writing repeatedly has the characters behaving in ways that no rational person would behave.
Just because Grimm is set in Oregon does not mean the entire audience is high when they watch the show.
RE: TRUST and who has it @syscrash idea - MarylikesGrimm - 12-14-2016
(12-14-2016, 08:43 AM)izzy Wrote: These characters still need to feel somewhat believable. Nick did not want to have a child with his nemesis whom he knows has slept with at least Hank and Renard. Am I supposed to not question why he wouldn't ask for a paternity test? I find that unbelievable even in this world. This being a fantasy world doesn't excuse it. The suppressant was tested on Adalind because they couldn't be sure that it wouldn't do irreparable damage to a Hexenbiest. Nick needed some proof for that yet he still didn't ask for a simple paternity test to prove that his son was really his by someone he didn't even trust and tricked him into having sex in the first place. And none of his friends suggested this either.
Nick could easily have done the paternity test himself when he went to see the baby at the nursery. If the results were positive he never would have mentioned it to Adalind. Why does he need to ask?
RE: TRUST and who has it @syscrash idea - Hell Rell - 12-14-2016
(12-14-2016, 08:50 AM)MarylikesGrimm Wrote:(12-14-2016, 08:43 AM)izzy Wrote: These characters still need to feel somewhat believable. Nick did not want to have a child with his nemesis whom he knows has slept with at least Hank and Renard. Am I supposed to not question why he wouldn't ask for a paternity test? I find that unbelievable even in this world. This being a fantasy world doesn't excuse it. The suppressant was tested on Adalind because they couldn't be sure that it wouldn't do irreparable damage to a Hexenbiest. Nick needed some proof for that yet he still didn't ask for a simple paternity test to prove that his son was really his by someone he didn't even trust and tricked him into having sex in the first place. And none of his friends suggested this either.
Nick could easily have done the paternity test himself when he went to see the baby at the nursery. If the results were positive he never would have mentioned it to Adalind. Why does he need to ask?
That's a good point! He could've done that as well. It would've been a very short scene so it could've easily been included. I just assumed Nick would've asked Adalind for the sake of drama and that he wouldn't have done it behind her back but this works perfectly fine.
RE: TRUST and who has it @syscrash idea - rpmaluki - 12-14-2016
I think the show placed more importance on Adalind's trustworthiness or lack thereof when it came to Juliette a lot more than with Nick. The group was far more worried about this being another one of her tricks since that's all she seemed to do when it came to who she screwed up the most. Between the two potential dads, if she had claimed Renard was the father, he would have demanded proof because "been there, done that" and already got the t-shirt. Nick is the weird one here because she did trick him, that's how she supposedly got pregnant, why didn't he raise this issue we'll never know. But I think it was the writers being lazy, not wanting to segway into a paternity arc when they wanted focus elsewhere, primarily, Juliette going evil because of a series of events brought on by Adalind. Nick not asking for a paternity test is more the fault of the writers for being narrow minded in their narrative than Nick being stupid. We know for a fact that he didn't trust Adalind, he even pulled a gun on Juliette because he was so paranoid but suddenly he takes this woman at her word that he's the father, not plausible in real life and not with Nick either based on what we had seen of his relationship with Adalind (sex with fake Juliette aside).
RE: TRUST and who has it @syscrash idea - Hell Rell - 12-14-2016
[/quote]
Exactly. The blind acceptance of the actions of a character to further the plot are the mark of children's Saturday morning cartoons and not adult dramas. In adult dramas the majority of the characters generally behave as people do in real life. We all a people who respond differently to the same stimuli, but based on our lifetime of experience we know that there really are a limited set of likely responses and are generally very concerned when someone we know does not act in accord with one of them. The trouble with Grimm is the writing repeatedly has the characters behaving in ways that no rational person would behave.
Just because Grimm is set in Oregon does not mean the entire audience is high when they watch the show.
[/quote]
I've always held this position. It's why I have been disappointed with decisions made on the show for this year and why I've been adamant about why shows like Game of Thrones have been garbage for the last two years although I prefer Grimm to GOT these days. Characters making decisions that make no sense just to move the plot along and get a rise out of the audience. Calling them adult dramas is nonsense. They are only considered that for the graphic content and not the writing.
I'm not a hater. I joined this forum because I'm a big fan of the show and I used to be a huge fan of GOT. I just wish that the writers didn't get lax with the details as the shows has have gone on. Sometimes, it really feels like TPTB have partially checked out and are looking forward to their next project while the shows declines in quality.
RE: TRUST and who has it @syscrash idea - irukandji - 12-14-2016
Izzy, I think you brought up in one of the threads the possibility that Nick might have to kill his own son. Since this is the trust thread, I wanted to ask a question that goes along with this thought. Does anyone find it odd that Nick so easily trusted Adalind in the police station? I know the argument has been that Nick was protecting the her unborn baby, but since Adalind's first baby was enchanted and powerful, what made Nick believe this baby was not?
RE: TRUST and who has it @syscrash idea - rpmaluki - 12-14-2016
Adalind did bring up the possibility of Kelly exhibiting powers whether Grimm/zauberbiest/both and based on them her implication was that Kelly could be somewhat worse or something. Nick's response was that maybe he wouldn’t be like either of them. Nick wants to believe his son is normal, pushing any possible outcome to the contrary to the back of his mind. I don't think he's ever considered children until Adalind showed up pregnant. If he did, he thought they'd be regular at the most or Grimm at the least. He was willfully ignoring that Kelly could be a zauberbiest but I don't know if he still feels the same since finding out that Adalind got her powers back. If he takes her back, he may be willing to accept Kelly being a different species to him.
But if Kelly grows to be double the trouble that is Diana, could Nick execute his own son? I don't know, he couldn't even kill Juliette when she was at her worst and was ready, willing to kill him without a second thought and that was because he loved her, or he loved the woman she used to be. We know that he loves Kelly, probably more than he's ever loved anyone or will ever love anyone else so that makes me think he'd avoid killing his own son even if the situation may warrant it. Trubel would probably have to do it, again for him.