+- 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: Difference between Nick's two relationships (/Thread-Difference-between-Nick-s-two-relationships)
RE: Difference between Nick's two relationships - wesen - 10-19-2017
(10-19-2017, 02:57 PM)irukandji Wrote: 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.
Yeah, and those are Nick's legacies to his children. None of those things have anything to do with Renard. Diana would be following in the footsteps of Nick if she had been the one to buy the trailer, therefore it makes more sense for her to be hunting bad wesen under the guidance of Nick, rather than Renard.
Quote: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.
Even if you don't consider them part of the story, fact is, there is no evidence to support that Nick and Renard ended up trusting one another, even 20 years down the line, regardless of that throw away line that everyone was one big happy family.
Quote: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.
Conjecture, without any basis on evidence, is just mere conjecture. I could just as easily say that Renard is dead after 20 years, making it more likely that Diana now refers to Nick as her dad. Either way, if you don't consider deleted scenes as as part of the story, it is ludicrous for you to suggest that Nick and Renard may have become friends just because they are now connected together via co-parenting Diana with Adalind.
Quote:What interview was it where G&K said Diana referred to Nick as 'Dad'?
It's the same interview that you mentioned about everyone being one big happy family. Notice that G & K did not deny that it was Nick and Adalind that Diana was referring to in the end:
But as we see in the flashforward, we see that Diana and Kelly are carrying on the Grimm work, and they mention that Adalind and Nick — as well as the triplets — are involved. What can you tell me about how everyone else ended up?
KOUF | They’re all just one big, happy family, fighting evil together.
Quote: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.
That'a not what you wrote originally. You claimed that it was pure conjecture that those grimm books belonged to Nick's. You're just once again trying to twist your words around. Yes, the books may no longer be his but it is not conjecture to state that those books belonged to him. There is no evidence to show that he gave his books away and therefore no longer own them. If you want to base it just on what we saw on the show, because as you stated deleted scenes don't even count to you, those books still belong to him.
Quote: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.
We know from the beginning that grimms kill wesen who commit crimes. That's the premise of the show. Whether you agree with it or not, the show presents Nick as being righteous in killing wesen who have committed heinous acts of crime. And if Kelly was embellishing his father's story, then everything we saw on screen was an embellishment. Maybe even the pilot was an embellishment, because, according to you, it is from the view point of Nick the grimm who hunts bad wesen. What G & K showed on screen doesn't count, because they conflict with your values and beliefs, so Nick is the villain instead of the good guy.
As for Kelly writing about how his mother and father got together, maybe he would write it exactly how we saw it on screen, because whatever Kelly wrote on the book was exactly what we saw on screen. G & K intended for us to see Kelly narrating the story, there is no reason to believe that he lied about any of the events.
Quote: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.
It's a stupid idea that Renard is a grimm because his characterisation all the way to the end shows him as someone who does not want to become a grimm, has actually made enemies out of grimms when he sided with BC, has no powers that would make him into a grimm or someone similar to a grimm, unless someone trained him. At least with Diana, we know that her brother and Nick are family that she lives with who are grimms, who would probably have showed her the grimm books and taught her how to defeat wesen like a grimm would. Nick did training in the use of weapons with Monroe, he also had the grimm books to help him know the ways of how a grimm worked. Nick didn't just make things up, those books were part of his training and learning the history of wesen and how his ancestors killed them. Renard would not have had access to those books so how could he become a grimm?
Quote:I never said Renard was a grimm, yoda, the Wizard of Oz, Santa Claus, or Clarabelle the cow.
You've made plenty of speculations without any hint of evidence, what's one more speculation for you?
Quote:Us grimm haters: I had to laugh when I wrote this. Okay, so Nick is a grimm.
Yeah, and according to you, someone who can't be trusted even though that was not what G & K intended.
Quote: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.
According to you, they are biased diaries. According to the show, they are sacred texts. It is irrefutable fact that those grimm books were valuable learning tools for budding grimms, because that was what G & K intended and what was shown on the fictional tv show Grimm.
Quote: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.
Doesn't matter. G & K clearly show that Nick was entrusted with the staff after Kelly says to him, 'Guard it well'. You may hate what you saw on screen, but no amount of twisting things around can deny the fact that Nick was made the guardian of that staff.
Quote: 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.
Oh really? I haven't backed up any of my claims with evidence either? What about me mentioning Nick's things and Adalind's things to show that the trailer belonged to Nick? what about Nick's grimm books that you said was pure conjecture and me presenting scenes from the show to support my claim that they were his all along? And so now you're claiming that just because it's 20 years later, everything we saw in previous seasons can be disregarded? We can somehow suddenly ignore everything that happened and make up own own unfounded conclusions because we don't see Nick and Adalind in the trailer with the two kids? At least, try to make logical sense, that's all I ask.
Quote: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.
Once again, the show is called Grimm, the star of the show is Nick, Nick and Adalind are together at the end without any hint of a conflict whatsoever so we can assume that they are still in a relationship, Nick's son Kelly is writing in the grimm books about his father, Diana opens the weapons cabinet full of Nick's weapons and is reminiscent of Nick opening the weapons cabinet in earlier seasons. We see her grab hold of the staff that Nick took with him back from the other world, we see them discussing hunting wesen, which is what grimms do. So how in the world is that ambiguous enough that one can assume that Renard has become a grimm and is who Diana refers to at the end? You are being stubborn and close minded, and unwilling to see sense and logic. I call it wilful ignorance tbh.
RE: Difference between Nick's two relationships - rpmaluki - 10-19-2017
People can believe what they want, that doesn't mean it is the intention of the writers. I'm guilty of this as much as anyone on this forum. How the writers wrote Nick and Juliette and how I perceived them are two different things. What I believe of them as a couple is not how they intended. The ending speaks towards Nick leaving a grimm legacy to the children, people disregarding a lot of the telltale signs of that last scene is their perception/interpretation of what the future is like, that doesn't mean it's what the writers intended.
RE: Difference between Nick's two relationships - irukandji - 10-20-2017
Let's see, the legacies to Nick's children: I never said any of those things in the trailer belonged to Renard. I don't know where you keep getting this from.
Nick and Renard not trusting one another: There is no evidence to support that Nick and Renard ended up distrusting one another. That is your conjecture, 20 years later.
Renard is dead 20 years later: Yes, you could say that. I don't think he is, however. I do however, believe Renard and Nick could have been very good friends.
Quote:Re: It's the same interview that you mentioned about everyone being one big happy family. Notice that G & K did not deny that it was Nick and Adalind that Diana was referring to in the end:
But as we see in the flashforward, we see that Diana and Kelly are carrying on the Grimm work, and they mention that Adalind and Nick — as well as the triplets — are involved. What can you tell me about how everyone else ended up?
KOUF | They’re all just one big, happy family, fighting evil together.
I remember this now and I recall the hoopla. Thanks for posting. Syscrash is right. There is nothing to support that Diana was referring to Nick as "Dad" at the end. Thank you for clarifying.
Grimm books, the trailer, and equipment: It *is* conjecture that the books belonged to Nick. I'm not saying they aren't his, I'm saying he could have easily given it all to the kiddies. There's *nothing* stating either way. So it is conjecture. On both of our parts. If you really want to get technical, wouldn't all of it still belong to Marie then? Even though she's a ghost, she's still around. After all you said Kelly could entrust Nick with the stick. Can't Marie still have her trailer and contents then?
Kelly and his embellishments: Grimms are killlers. Whether the killings are "righteous" or no, that depends on the circumstances. I do however, believe, Kelly embellished his father's exploits. And if he left out certain "exploits", such as how mums and daddums got together, then he isn't telling the entire truth, is he?
Renard the grimm: I still have to laugh at the indignation this statement presents. Even funnier is how you try to explain your way into proving he could never be a grimm. Sorry, if Diana could be one, that tells me Renard's influence is there somewhere. Would he become a grimm? I still haven't thought that through yet. I can only say it appears he wasn't against *her* becoming one. But that is purely speculation.
I've made plenty of speculations without any hint of evidence, what's one more speculation for me?: Um, nothing. But I'm no different than you or anyone else in that aspect. We all speculate.
The diaries aka sacred texts: Okay, where was that put forth in the series?
Nick entrusted with the staff: Nick took it from a dead wesen. I wouldn't call that entrusting, more taking possession in the owner's death. He *did* however, steal the shard. No entrustment from anyone there.
Speculation: All you've done is taken the previous 20 years of Grimm and stuffed that into your "here's my proof" statements. We don't know what's happened in 20 years. That is ambiguous.
I think we're done here, right?
RE: Difference between Nick's two relationships - brandon - 10-20-2017
The "GRIMM" are guardians of the supernatural world.
Why say killer if there are also "Wesen that kill humans,example:the "Wesen spider"
-now I do not remember how it is written- and the "Geier".
RE: Difference between Nick's two relationships - rpmaluki - 10-20-2017
Grimms are killers.
What this show did was subvert a group of people that would be termed serial killers under different circumstances, by putting them in a world that called for their existence. Grimms exist because there are wesen who terrorise not just other wesen but the humans who live in ignorance of this supernatural world. As @Brandon said, they are guardians that exist in both worlds to keep wesen from overrunning the humans who otherwise would be powerless against the worst of the worst of the wesen community.
RE: Difference between Nick's two relationships - jsgrimm45 - 10-20-2017
(10-20-2017, 04:25 AM)irukandji Wrote: Let's see, the legacies to Nick's children: I never said any of those things in the trailer belonged to Renard. I don't know where you keep getting this from.Now do fall over but most of this I would agree with, but and you knew there was a but didn't you.
Nick and Renard not trusting one another: There is no evidence to support that Nick and Renard ended up distrusting one another. That is your conjecture, 20 years later.
Renard is dead 20 years later: Yes, you could say that. I don't think he is, however. I do however, believe Renard and Nick could have been very good friends.
Quote:Re: It's the same interview that you mentioned about everyone being one big happy family. Notice that G & K did not deny that it was Nick and Adalind that Diana was referring to in the end:
But as we see in the flashforward, we see that Diana and Kelly are carrying on the Grimm work, and they mention that Adalind and Nick — as well as the triplets — are involved. What can you tell me about how everyone else ended up?
KOUF | They’re all just one big, happy family, fighting evil together.
I remember this now and I recall the hoopla. Thanks for posting. Syscrash is right. There is nothing to support that Diana was referring to Nick as "Dad" at the end. Thank you for clarifying.
Grimm books, the trailer, and equipment: It *is* conjecture that the books belonged to Nick. I'm not saying they aren't his, I'm saying he could have easily given it all to the kiddies. There's *nothing* stating either way. So it is conjecture. On both of our parts. If you really want to get technical, wouldn't all of it still belong to Marie then? Even though she's a ghost, she's still around. After all you said Kelly could entrust Nick with the stick. Can't Marie still have her trailer and contents then?
Kelly and his embellishments: Grimms are killlers. Whether the killings are "righteous" or no, that depends on the circumstances. I do however, believe, Kelly embellished his father's exploits. And if he left out certain "exploits", such as how mums and daddums got together, then he isn't telling the entire truth, is he?
Renard the grimm: I still have to laugh at the indignation this statement presents. Even funnier is how you try to explain your way into proving he could never be a grimm. Sorry, if Diana could be one, that tells me Renard's influence is there somewhere. Would he become a grimm? I still haven't thought that through yet. I can only say it appears he wasn't against *her* becoming one. But that is purely speculation.
I've made plenty of speculations without any hint of evidence, what's one more speculation for me?: Um, nothing. But I'm no different than you or anyone else in that aspect. We all speculate.
The diaries aka sacred texts: Okay, where was that put forth in the series?
Nick entrusted with the staff: Nick took it from a dead wesen. I wouldn't call that entrusting, more taking possession in the owner's death. He *did* however, steal the shard. No entrustment from anyone there.
Speculation: All you've done is taken the previous 20 years of Grimm and stuffed that into your "here's my proof" statements. We don't know what's happened in 20 years. That is ambiguous.
I think we're done here, right?
Diana says Mom and Dad are already there we know that Kelly is Nick's son so when she used dad she wasn't talking about Sean, if she was IMO she would have said Mom and your dad are already there.I would agree that after 20 year Sean is part of the family, and can see Diana calling him dad also and maybe Kelly calling him uncle Sean. Just a note I have one daughter who always calls me Father and one that calls me Dad, I've never asked why that is just the way our relationship works. I still call them by the childhood nicknames unless we are in public.
On the embellished part of you post here I also disagree, we seen the fight now was Kelly writing what we saw, or did we see what he was writing? As we never read what he wrote, IMO what we saw is what is was writing about.
As to the trailer most on the forum disliked the trailer being destroyed so the put it back in as the new hideout for Grimm work. If you noted it they also had the hexenbiest books of Adalind Mother in the trailer. So that also lines up IMO with Adalind and Nick being the mom and dad Diana referred to.
For us that is a minor agree to disagree points.
RE: Difference between Nick's two relationships - silver - 10-20-2017
(10-20-2017, 08:42 AM)jsgrimm45 Wrote:(10-20-2017, 04:25 AM)irukandji Wrote: Let's see, the legacies to Nick's children: I never said any of those things in the trailer belonged to Renard. I don't know where you keep getting this from.Now do fall over but most of this I would agree with, but and you knew there was a but didn't you.
Nick and Renard not trusting one another: There is no evidence to support that Nick and Renard ended up distrusting one another. That is your conjecture, 20 years later.
Renard is dead 20 years later: Yes, you could say that. I don't think he is, however. I do however, believe Renard and Nick could have been very good friends.
Quote:Re: It's the same interview that you mentioned about everyone being one big happy family. Notice that G & K did not deny that it was Nick and Adalind that Diana was referring to in the end:
But as we see in the flashforward, we see that Diana and Kelly are carrying on the Grimm work, and they mention that Adalind and Nick — as well as the triplets — are involved. What can you tell me about how everyone else ended up?
KOUF | They’re all just one big, happy family, fighting evil together.
I remember this now and I recall the hoopla. Thanks for posting. Syscrash is right. There is nothing to support that Diana was referring to Nick as "Dad" at the end. Thank you for clarifying.
Grimm books, the trailer, and equipment: It *is* conjecture that the books belonged to Nick. I'm not saying they aren't his, I'm saying he could have easily given it all to the kiddies. There's *nothing* stating either way. So it is conjecture. On both of our parts. If you really want to get technical, wouldn't all of it still belong to Marie then? Even though she's a ghost, she's still around. After all you said Kelly could entrust Nick with the stick. Can't Marie still have her trailer and contents then?
Kelly and his embellishments: Grimms are killlers. Whether the killings are "righteous" or no, that depends on the circumstances. I do however, believe, Kelly embellished his father's exploits. And if he left out certain "exploits", such as how mums and daddums got together, then he isn't telling the entire truth, is he?
Renard the grimm: I still have to laugh at the indignation this statement presents. Even funnier is how you try to explain your way into proving he could never be a grimm. Sorry, if Diana could be one, that tells me Renard's influence is there somewhere. Would he become a grimm? I still haven't thought that through yet. I can only say it appears he wasn't against *her* becoming one. But that is purely speculation.
I've made plenty of speculations without any hint of evidence, what's one more speculation for me?: Um, nothing. But I'm no different than you or anyone else in that aspect. We all speculate.
The diaries aka sacred texts: Okay, where was that put forth in the series?
Nick entrusted with the staff: Nick took it from a dead wesen. I wouldn't call that entrusting, more taking possession in the owner's death. He *did* however, steal the shard. No entrustment from anyone there.
Speculation: All you've done is taken the previous 20 years of Grimm and stuffed that into your "here's my proof" statements. We don't know what's happened in 20 years. That is ambiguous.
I think we're done here, right?
I would agree that after 20 year Sean is part of the family, and can see Diana calling him dad also and maybe Kelly calling him uncle Sean. Just a note I have one daughter who always calls me Father and one that calls me Dad, I've never asked why that is just the way our relationship works. I still call them by the childhood nicknames unless we are in public.
On the embellished part of you post here I also disagree, we seen the fight now was Kelly writing what we saw, or did we see what he was writing? As we never read what he wrote, IMO what we saw is what is was writing about.
As to the trailer most on the forum disliked the trailer being destroyed so the put it back in as the new hideout for Grimm work. If you noted it they also had the hexenbiest books of Adalind Mother in the trailer. So that also lines up IMO with Adalind and Nick being the mom and dad Diana referred to.
For us that is a minor agree to disagree points.
Just brief input - I agree 100% with your assessment of what I watched. Just as Nick would speak or read out loud as he was putting entries into a Grimm book, so did Kelly. And he signed it which is shown...easy to figure that's what was happening there. That was my firm take on it.
Yep, noticed the hex books, etc. from original trailer.
RE: Difference between Nick's two relationships - irukandji - 10-20-2017
(10-20-2017, 08:42 AM)jsgrimm45 Wrote: Now do fall over but most of this I would agree with, but and you knew there was a but didn't you.
Well, actually she referred to Sean as her 'daddy' quite a bit as a child. It would naturally make sense that she would refer to him as 'Dad' as she got older.
If Nick was the one coming, I believe Diana would have said, "Mom and Nick are coming too".
(10-20-2017, 08:42 AM)jsgrimm45 Wrote: On the embellished part of you post here I also disagree, we seen the fight now was Kelly writing what we saw, or did we see what he was writing? As we never read what he wrote, IMO what we saw is what is was writing about.
But, as you just pointed out js, it could go both ways.
(10-20-2017, 08:42 AM)jsgrimm45 Wrote: As to the trailer most on the forum disliked the trailer being destroyed so the put it back in as the new hideout for Grimm work. If you noted it they also had the hexenbiest books of Adalind Mother in the trailer. So that also lines up IMO with Adalind and Nick being the mom and dad Diana referred to.
On the other hand........(as you knew I would write, js), here is something to think about.
We know Kelly is enamored with his father. It's obvious from his entries in the big G book. They are more of a personal nature. I think the book is a tribute to his father.
You're stating Diana elevated Nick from the status of Mom's partner to "Dad". That's a pretty big leap for Nick. It means the two of them have bonded, father to child. Yet, there's no tribute to Nick by Diana. In fact, she is impatient with Kelly for taking the time to finish his tribute. A child who's leaped to the realm of considering what was once a virtual stranger to her but now has become "Dad" wouldn't act like that. She'd let Kelly finish without pestering him because she would love her "Dad" as much as Kelly does. Perhaps more because he is not her biological father. Yet Diana gives no such indication that Nick is in any way special to her.
As of yet, I still don't see any plausible explanations as to why Renard wouldn't be going along on these excursions, and so Diana is merely talking about her mom (Adalind) and her dad (Renard).
RE: Difference between Nick's two relationships - silver - 10-20-2017
(10-20-2017, 09:27 PM)irukandji Wrote:(10-20-2017, 08:42 AM)jsgrimm45 Wrote: Now do fall over but most of this I would agree with, but and you knew there was a but didn't you.
Well, actually she referred to Sean as her 'daddy' quite a bit as a child. It would naturally make sense that she would refer to him as 'Dad' as she got older.
If Nick was the one coming, I believe Diana would have said, "Mom and Nick are coming too".
(10-20-2017, 08:42 AM)jsgrimm45 Wrote: On the embellished part of you post here I also disagree, we seen the fight now was Kelly writing what we saw, or did we see what he was writing? As we never read what he wrote, IMO what we saw is what is was writing about.
But, as you just pointed out js, it could go both ways.
(10-20-2017, 08:42 AM)jsgrimm45 Wrote: As to the trailer most on the forum disliked the trailer being destroyed so the put it back in as the new hideout for Grimm work. If you noted it they also had the hexenbiest books of Adalind Mother in the trailer. So that also lines up IMO with Adalind and Nick being the mom and dad Diana referred to.
On the other hand........(as you knew I would write, js), here is something to think about.
We know Kelly is enamored with his father. It's obvious from his entries in the big G book. They are more of a personal nature. I think the book is a tribute to his father.
You're stating Diana elevated Nick from the status of Mom's partner to "Dad". That's a pretty big leap for Nick. It means the two of them have bonded, father to child. Yet, there's no tribute to Nick by Diana. In fact, she is impatient with Kelly for taking the time to finish his tribute. A child who's leaped to the realm of considering what was once a virtual stranger to her but now has become "Dad" wouldn't act like that. She'd let Kelly finish without pestering him because she would love her "Dad" as much as Kelly does. Perhaps more because he is not her biological father. Yet Diana gives no such indication that Nick is in any way special to her.
As of yet, I still don't see any plausible explanations as to why Renard wouldn't be going along on these excursions, and so Diana is merely talking about her mom (Adalind) and her dad (Renard).
First answer to cover them all...and that's why we need Grimm the series to continue - to answer all these nagging questions!
I think Renard going on these excursions would be quite unexpected (if series continues) because it was NEVER his schtick, heh.
We weren't ever there, to see over their growing-up years, just how Diana and Nick's relationship more than likely got much closer - close enough for sure, for her to refer to him as 'dad'. Diana's grown up with two nuclear families with the dads being the only difference, and from the beginning, she had a good attitude towards momma Adalind loving Nick, even though she knew her real papa was Renard - she said that one time she visited real dad, she asked about Nick and att the end of that conversation, she said (paraphrasing), 'I guess we all love each other, then.' Btw, she's just adorable as a grown young woman.
The one big positive I'm learning more and more about, as these discussions continue is that you can't really predict the characters' attitudes because they never did anything very boilerplate. It all seems created on this stew of humanity and the story lines thrive on the unexpected.
And the book appears to be the original Grimm (G) book that Monroe's Uncle Felix brought in the chest. So, it's a mix of personal, but stories being related by Kelly in a factual manner as well.
RE: Difference between Nick's two relationships - dicappatore - 10-20-2017
(10-20-2017, 08:42 AM)jsgrimm45 Wrote:(10-20-2017, 04:25 AM)irukandji Wrote: Let's see, the legacies to Nick's children: I never said any of those things in the trailer belonged to Renard. I don't know where you keep getting this from.Now do fall over but most of this I would agree with, but and you knew there was a but didn't you.
Nick and Renard not trusting one another: There is no evidence to support that Nick and Renard ended up distrusting one another. That is your conjecture, 20 years later.
Renard is dead 20 years later: Yes, you could say that. I don't think he is, however. I do however, believe Renard and Nick could have been very good friends.
Quote:Re: It's the same interview that you mentioned about everyone being one big happy family. Notice that G & K did not deny that it was Nick and Adalind that Diana was referring to in the end:
But as we see in the flashforward, we see that Diana and Kelly are carrying on the Grimm work, and they mention that Adalind and Nick — as well as the triplets — are involved. What can you tell me about how everyone else ended up?
KOUF | They’re all just one big, happy family, fighting evil together.
I remember this now and I recall the hoopla. Thanks for posting. Syscrash is right. There is nothing to support that Diana was referring to Nick as "Dad" at the end. Thank you for clarifying.
Grimm books, the trailer, and equipment: It *is* conjecture that the books belonged to Nick. I'm not saying they aren't his, I'm saying he could have easily given it all to the kiddies. There's *nothing* stating either way. So it is conjecture. On both of our parts. If you really want to get technical, wouldn't all of it still belong to Marie then? Even though she's a ghost, she's still around. After all you said Kelly could entrust Nick with the stick. Can't Marie still have her trailer and contents then?
Kelly and his embellishments: Grimms are killlers. Whether the killings are "righteous" or no, that depends on the circumstances. I do however, believe, Kelly embellished his father's exploits. And if he left out certain "exploits", such as how mums and daddums got together, then he isn't telling the entire truth, is he?
Renard the grimm: I still have to laugh at the indignation this statement presents. Even funnier is how you try to explain your way into proving he could never be a grimm. Sorry, if Diana could be one, that tells me Renard's influence is there somewhere. Would he become a grimm? I still haven't thought that through yet. I can only say it appears he wasn't against *her* becoming one. But that is purely speculation.
I've made plenty of speculations without any hint of evidence, what's one more speculation for me?: Um, nothing. But I'm no different than you or anyone else in that aspect. We all speculate.
The diaries aka sacred texts: Okay, where was that put forth in the series?
Nick entrusted with the staff: Nick took it from a dead wesen. I wouldn't call that entrusting, more taking possession in the owner's death. He *did* however, steal the shard. No entrustment from anyone there.
Speculation: All you've done is taken the previous 20 years of Grimm and stuffed that into your "here's my proof" statements. We don't know what's happened in 20 years. That is ambiguous.
I think we're done here, right?
I would agree that after 20 year Sean is part of the family, and can see Diana calling him dad also and maybe Kelly calling him uncle Sean. Just a note I have one daughter who always calls me Father and one that calls me Dad, I've never asked why that is just the way our relationship works. I still call them by the childhood nicknames unless we are in public.
On the embellished part of you post here I also disagree, we seen the fight now was Kelly writing what we saw, or did we see what he was writing? As we never read what he wrote, IMO what we saw is what is was writing about.
As to the trailer most on the forum disliked the trailer being destroyed so the put it back in as the new hideout for Grimm work. If you noted it they also had the hexenbiest books of Adalind Mother in the trailer. So that also lines up IMO with Adalind and Nick being the mom and dad Diana referred to.
For us that is a minor agree to disagree points.
js, just wish to add a few more points. I am sure, Diana probably loved her dad, Sean, like any other little girl would love her father. Lest not forget, she was also intuitive enough, to realize, even at an early age, that her father was an “a-hole”. She easily accepted Adalind’s scolding her, for trying to get Sean and Adalind together. She accepted it without any reservation. What reasons would she have to change that?
I am sure, as she grows up for an additional 20 years, she will come to realize how much of a real a-hole her biological father still is. Just like the majority of the viewing public, tagged him with the same attributes. Not because it’s an opinion expressed by me but because his character was written, as such, for him to be an “A-Hole, just like it was written, he was born a bastard. Nick was the Grimm and Adalind was a Hexenbiest.
So, if a few wish, to speculate, conjure, indulge in all the peyote you can smoke, to come up for a reason, that Diana, was referring to her Sean dad, as the new Grimm. You cannot change how the character was written, which includes the 20 years that passed, expressed in that final scene.
IMO, if there would be a spin-off from that 20-year continuity, it’s logical it would follow a similar story line. I am not claiming to predict the future. I can predict, a production team of a spin-off show, would use “what worked” in the preceding show and tweak it as it progressed.