+- Grimm Forum (https://grimmforum.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Grimm Universe (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Grimm-Universe)
+--- Forum: Grimm Discussions (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Grimm-Discussions)
+--- Thread: Can and if a Grimm lose his power then what? (/Thread-Can-and-if-a-Grimm-lose-his-power-then-what)
Can and if a Grimm lose his power then what? - jsgrimm45 - 05-05-2017
We know Nick lost his Grimm powers and in getting them back made Eve. This question is should he have done this? He even told Adalind that he and Juliette had their chance and didn't take it. Now because a Grimm is to have above average powers we can't use Arrow as a guide only say the Flash or Superman.
What a odd question right? What out their powers the is no Superman or Flash they are just people of no interest to us. So Nick had to become a Grimm again for that reason without him there is no series.
This series is over so now the debate can happen. The what if's and such.
RE: Can and if a Grimm lose his power then what? - irukandji - 05-05-2017
(05-05-2017, 08:41 AM)jsgrimm45 Wrote: We know Nick lost his Grimm powers and in getting them back made Eve. This question is should he have done this? He even told Adalind that he and Juliette had their chance and didn't take it. Now because a Grimm is to have above average powers we can't use Arrow as a guide only say the Flash or Superman.
What a odd question right? What out their powers the is no Superman or Flash they are just people of no interest to us. So Nick had to become a Grimm again for that reason without him there is no series.
This series is over so now the debate can happen. The what if's and such.
I've never watched the Flash, but I can recall the second Superman movie where he deliberately gave up his powers so he could sleep with Lois.
Regarding your statement: "What out their powers the is no Superman or Flash they are just people of no interest to us."
In the second Superman movie, when Superman gave up his powers, he turned out to be a wimp, complete and total. I don't say this because he got the crap kicked out of him. I say this because he lost all of his dignity, his integrity, and all of the good qualities that make him human when he got the crap kicked out of him. He moped and was frustrated and acted like a big baby until he got his powers back. So I don't consider a superhero like Superman a person because he lost his powers. I think he is less than a person.
People don't have the luxury of superpowers when things happen. They might mope or be frustrated, but life goes on and if they don't pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and become part of the human race again, they are lost.
I actually found Lois Lane to be the more powerful of the two in Superman II. She was upset that Superman reverted back to his powers, but she was firm in telling him she would be okay.
As for Nick, what he did was wrong. He pretended to be interested in a normal life, but really had no desire to pursue a normal life. He was a hypocrite. Since he was never going to tell Juliette the truth, Hank should have broken the news to her.
RE: Can and if a Grimm lose his power then what? - Renardfan99 - 05-05-2017
Nick losing his powers was dumb (IMO) and would have been funny as heck if he not only kept his powers, but inherited some new ones thanks to Adalind!
RE: Can and if a Grimm lose his power then what? - Hell Rell - 05-05-2017
(05-05-2017, 03:37 PM)irukandji Wrote:(05-05-2017, 08:41 AM)jsgrimm45 Wrote: We know Nick lost his Grimm powers and in getting them back made Eve. This question is should he have done this? He even told Adalind that he and Juliette had their chance and didn't take it. Now because a Grimm is to have above average powers we can't use Arrow as a guide only say the Flash or Superman.
What a odd question right? What out their powers the is no Superman or Flash they are just people of no interest to us. So Nick had to become a Grimm again for that reason without him there is no series.
This series is over so now the debate can happen. The what if's and such.
I've never watched the Flash, but I can recall the second Superman movie where he deliberately gave up his powers so he could sleep with Lois.
Don't remind me! It's still the best Superman movie until this day but that was monumentally stupid.
(05-05-2017, 03:37 PM)irukandji Wrote: In the second Superman movie, when Superman gave up his powers, he turned out to be a wimp, complete and total. I don't say this because he got the crap kicked out of him. I say this because he lost all of his dignity, his integrity, and all of the good qualities that make him human when he got the crap kicked out of him. He moped and was frustrated and acted like a big baby until he got his powers back. So I don't consider a superhero like Superman a person because he lost his powers. I think he is less than a person.
People don't have the luxury of superpowers when things happen. They might mope or be frustrated, but life goes on and if they don't pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and become part of the human race again, they are lost.
He was very mopey and not very Superman-like. I think they were trying to say he was a hero because he went and got his powers back at the cost of a relationship with Lois.
Also, I'm not saying the guy from the diner at the end of the movie didn't deserve to get his ass kicked but it wasn't sending a great message when Clark challenged him to a rematch after he got his super strength and invulnerability back. That wasn't such an admirable move and was just petty on Clark's end. Then again, that's a human trait so it's understandable even if it's not admirable. It's basically what a normal person who just got superpowers would do to a bully.
RE: Can and if a Grimm lose his power then what? - rpmaluki - 05-05-2017
We've seen that they can lose their abilities, my question then is can the chose to lose them willingly, sort of like Adalind when she chose her baby over them? In the last episode Nick was willing to do anything for his family, I kind of think he could willingly give up his abilities. If that was the choice, his family over his Grimm sight, he'd choose his family imo, because he's seen what his life would be like without them and he couldn't live without them. Not being a Grimm has never really stopped him from doing his job and still trying to protect people from bad wesen, he'll just have to rely on his wesen friends' eyes to spot the wesen and the books to stop them if he arresting them is impossible.
I agree on all those comments about Superman in the second movie. What they did with him was awful. Not only did they strip him of his powers, they stripped him of his integrity, which for me is as integral to his heroism, not just his ability to punch through walls or leap buildings in a single bounce. They should have kept his character in tact and show that he was still super even though he was powerless. The scene at the end with the bully should have played out differently as well. Superman should have stopped short of humiliating the man, not that he didn't have it coming but it's just one more this that movie did to besmirch the character. That wasn't their intention and I am sure at the time, all those human Clark scenes were received as intended, the audience had to reject a human Clark first before he could finally catch up and do the same, by the time he got his abilities back, they were practically baying for him to show that bully up. He was "punching down" on the man, a term in the comics his adoptive father used whenever he was teaching Clark not to use his abilities selfishly over "weaker" people because his emotions got the best of him, basically being a bully himself. I'm sure people still saw him as a hero at the time. Today, those doesn't seem heroic by any stretch of the imagination. The movie only cared about "Super"man and not Clark the man without super abilities. I still love the movie and Christopher Reeve is still the best Superman around regardless of of these low points in his character.
As for him giving up his powers to shag Lois, the man did reverse time so she could live. Love makes even heroes do stupid things. Nick was the same in the last episode wanting to give Zerstörer the stick so he could have Adalind back but lucky for everyone in the world that didn't happen. Nick could have gotten his family back only to have Zerstörer enslave everyone afterwards and possibly cause plenty more deaths if he was going to turn this world into a version of what Nick and Eve saw on the other side. So Nick wouldn't have gained anything giving in to Zerstörer, it's only by standing up to him and being the hero he was called to be that he got his family back and not condemn the world because of his selfishness.
RE: Can and if a Grimm lose his power then what? - MarylikesGrimm - 05-06-2017
(05-05-2017, 05:30 PM)Renardfan99 Wrote: Nick losing his powers was dumb (IMO) and would have been funny as heck if he not only kept his powers, but inherited some new ones thanks to Adalind!Nick inherited his own baby grimm which was the opposite of what Adalind would have wanted at the time. Adalind only did it to get her daughter back so to me it was ironic that she got Nick's baby instead.
RE: Can and if a Grimm lose his power then what? - jsgrimm45 - 05-06-2017
(05-05-2017, 07:12 PM)rpmaluki Wrote: We've seen that they can lose their abilities, my question then is can the chose to lose them willingly, sort of like Adalind when she chose her baby over them? In the last episode Nick was willing to do anything for his family, I kind of think he could willingly give up his abilities. If that was the choice, his family over his Grimm sight, he'd choose his family imo, because he's seen what his life would be like without them and he couldn't live without them. Not being a Grimm has never really stopped him from doing his job and still trying to protect people from bad wesen, he'll just have to rely on his wesen friends' eyes to spot the wesen and the books to stop them if he arresting them is impossible.Don't mean for this to be a Superman thread but in II didn't Zod and the two other show up and he needed those powers again, not for Lois but for the world? Only on that line of thought did the world or Portland at least need a Grimm?
I agree on all those comments about Superman in the second movie. What they did with him was awful. Not only did they strip him of his powers, they stripped him of his integrity, which for me is as integral to his heroism, not just his ability to punch through walls or leap buildings in a single bounce. They should have kept his character in tact and show that he was still super even though he was powerless. The scene at the end with the bully should have played out differently as well. Superman should have stopped short of humiliating the man, not that he didn't have it coming but it's just one more this that movie did to besmirch the character. That wasn't their intention and I am sure at the time, all those human Clark scenes were received as intended, the audience had to reject a human Clark first before he could finally catch up and do the same, by the time he got his abilities back, they were practically baying for him to show that bully up. He was "punching down" on the man, a term in the comics his adoptive father used whenever he was teaching Clark not to use his abilities selfishly over "weaker" people because his emotions got the best of him, basically being a bully himself. I'm sure people still saw him as a hero at the time. Today, those doesn't seem heroic by any stretch of the imagination. The movie only cared about "Super"man and not Clark the man without super abilities. I still love the movie and Christopher Reeve is still the best Superman around regardless of of these low points in his character.
As for him giving up his powers to shag Lois, the man did reverse time so she could live. Love makes even heroes do stupid things. Nick was the same in the last episode wanting to give Zerstörer the stick so he could have Adalind back but lucky for everyone in the world that didn't happen. Nick could have gotten his family back only to have Zerstörer enslave everyone afterwards and possibly cause plenty more deaths if he was going to turn this world into a version of what Nick and Eve saw on the other side. So Nick wouldn't have gained anything giving in to Zerstörer, it's only by standing up to him and being the hero he was called to be that he got his family back and not condemn the world because of his selfishness.
RE: Can and if a Grimm lose his power then what? - Adriano Neres Rodrigues - 05-06-2017
I will use superman example to make a philosophy question. Don't you think that part of Clark persona was his super powers? Maybe what the movie showed us is that from the moment he lost his superpowers he actually lost himself. He became someone else.
If that is the case, how would this be applied to Nick? I mean Nick is GRIMM and from the moment he lost his powers that would never be a normal life from him because there would be no him. Nick would be from this moment another person.
I know that philosophycaly speaking we change all the time. But in those examples that is more than the normal day to day change. Don't you think.?
Just a comment about this: in English you have th verb to be and that is it.
In Portuguese we have to different verbs to the to be verb. One is for changeable situations like:
I am in São Paulo now, but tomorrow I can be in Rio de Janeiro.
We have another verb that is for unchangeable situations like:
I am Brazilian because I was born in Brazil. It is what I am and there is nothing I can do to change that.
The point about the Nick GRIMM power is that in Portuguese we use the unchangeable version of the verb. Nick is a Grimm because he is born a GRIMM and there is nothing he can do change it. Even if he losse his powers, he will still be a GRIMM because of his knowledge and his reactions and so on.
So, thinking in the Portuguese language (as a way to speak) is that I am asking: when nick lost his powers wasn't it actually as losing part of himself?
RE: Can and if a Grimm lose his power then what? - rpmaluki - 05-06-2017
(05-06-2017, 06:51 AM)jsgrimm45 Wrote:Apologies, I actually was talking about two different issues. He did want to be with Lois hence the giving up the powers but the world needed Superman so he got them back, the matter with the bully is a separate issue. I personally don't have a problem with a powerless hero, I just didn't like what they did to him with regards to the bully. He was too weak as human Clark and a bully himself once he got his powers back. Zod and the others were his traditional foes and did what was expected/acceptable of him.(05-05-2017, 07:12 PM)rpmaluki Wrote: We've seen that they can lose their abilities, my question then is can the chose to lose them willingly, sort of like Adalind when she chose her baby over them? In the last episode Nick was willing to do anything for his family, I kind of think he could willingly give up his abilities. If that was the choice, his family over his Grimm sight, he'd choose his family imo, because he's seen what his life would be like without them and he couldn't live without them. Not being a Grimm has never really stopped him from doing his job and still trying to protect people from bad wesen, he'll just have to rely on his wesen friends' eyes to spot the wesen and the books to stop them if he arresting them is impossible.Don't mean for this to be a Superman thread but in II didn't Zod and the two other show up and he needed those powers again, not for Lois but for the world? Only on that line of thought did the world or Portland at least need a Grimm?
I agree on all those comments about Superman in the second movie. What they did with him was awful. Not only did they strip him of his powers, they stripped him of his integrity, which for me is as integral to his heroism, not just his ability to punch through walls or leap buildings in a single bounce. They should have kept his character in tact and show that he was still super even though he was powerless. The scene at the end with the bully should have played out differently as well. Superman should have stopped short of humiliating the man, not that he didn't have it coming but it's just one more this that movie did to besmirch the character. That wasn't their intention and I am sure at the time, all those human Clark scenes were received as intended, the audience had to reject a human Clark first before he could finally catch up and do the same, by the time he got his abilities back, they were practically baying for him to show that bully up. He was "punching down" on the man, a term in the comics his adoptive father used whenever he was teaching Clark not to use his abilities selfishly over "weaker" people because his emotions got the best of him, basically being a bully himself. I'm sure people still saw him as a hero at the time. Today, those doesn't seem heroic by any stretch of the imagination. The movie only cared about "Super"man and not Clark the man without super abilities. I still love the movie and Christopher Reeve is still the best Superman around regardless of of these low points in his character.
As for him giving up his powers to shag Lois, the man did reverse time so she could live. Love makes even heroes do stupid things. Nick was the same in the last episode wanting to give Zerstörer the stick so he could have Adalind back but lucky for everyone in the world that didn't happen. Nick could have gotten his family back only to have Zerstörer enslave everyone afterwards and possibly cause plenty more deaths if he was going to turn this world into a version of what Nick and Eve saw on the other side. So Nick wouldn't have gained anything giving in to Zerstörer, it's only by standing up to him and being the hero he was called to be that he got his family back and not condemn the world because of his selfishness.
RE: Can and if a Grimm lose his power then what? - Robyn - 05-06-2017
I have much the same reaction to any movie/tv show that hails a character with enhanced powers as the hero. To me, the sidekicks without special powers who risk life and limb in the fight for good are the real heroes. In Grimm, Hank taking on Wesen with only his human strength and fighting skills achieved through hard work and dedication is much more heroic than Nick who was simply given special strength and skills through DNA heritage.
Superman is a good example. Is it really heroic to run into a burning building if the fire can’t harm him? The real heroes are the firefighters who know each entry into a burning building could be their last and go anyway. Whether Superman, the Avengers, or a Grimm they’re only heroic if going up against a force of equal or stronger ability and might not survive.
But it’s understandable that the ‘hero complex’ naturally occurs. Nick quickly identified as a Grimm rather than a just a man. And without his Grimm powers, he likely didn’t know who/what he was anymore. Being a Grimm made him what he had become and he didn’t know how or want to go back to being a regular guy with a regular life.