+- 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: Nick's obsession-demoting Juliette to normal human (/Thread-Nick-s-obsession-demoting-Juliette-to-normal-human)
RE: Nick's obsession-demoting Juliette to normal human - irukandji - 07-13-2018
(07-12-2018, 04:11 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: She'd already done that by setting Nick's mom up for Kenneth. And then Freddie dumped Kenneth. Switching over to Freddie was what was already supposedly happening until she bailed on her trip to Europe and went back to the house. If you don't think her reasons made sense that's fine, but it had already happened.
What you're saying isn't a revelation here. I know exactly what was put forth for viewers to swallow. The writers undermined Juliette's honesty and integrity by turning her into the evil hexenbiest for what really amounts to no reason. And IMO, while Nick never had a lot of honesty and integrity to begin with, his relationship with Juliette was not one where those ideals were ever called into question. They loved each other, were good friends, and supported one another for the first four years of the relationship. Yet all of the sudden, the writers throw all of that out the window for a storyline that doesn't make a lot of sense with regard to the characters themselves.
I agree with Hexenadler. That storyline doomed the series.
RE: Nick's obsession-demoting Juliette to normal human - dicappatore - 07-13-2018
Like I said it before and I am sticking to my theory. The character Juliette was on a down spiral. They decided to make changes. They made her more exciting by going evil and then killing her off. Since in the real world, the actress was now GF/Fiance of the main actor, they tried to bring her back with a different twist, which I agree, it killed the show. If they had kept her dead or changed her in a "not over the top evil", it might have saved the show.
RE: Nick's obsession-demoting Juliette to normal human - brandon - 07-14-2018
I really liked that Juliette had died- not physically and this brainwashing-
and her new personality was Eva
RE: Nick's obsession-demoting Juliette to normal human - dicappatore - 07-18-2018
(07-13-2018, 04:36 AM)irukandji Wrote:(07-12-2018, 04:11 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: She'd already done that by setting Nick's mom up for Kenneth. And then Freddie dumped Kenneth. Switching over to Freddie was what was already supposedly happening until she bailed on her trip to Europe and went back to the house. If you don't think her reasons made sense that's fine, but it had already happened.
What you're saying isn't a revelation here. I know exactly what was put forth for viewers to swallow. The writers undermined Juliette's honesty and integrity by turning her into the evil hexenbiest for what really amounts to no reason. And IMO, while Nick never had a lot of honesty and integrity to begin with, his relationship with Juliette was not one where those ideals were ever called into question. They loved each other, were good friends, and supported one another for the first four years of the relationship. Yet all of the sudden, the writers throw all of that out the window for a storyline that doesn't make a lot of sense with regard to the characters themselves.
I agree with Hexenadler. That storyline doomed the series.
I don't know what show you were watching but for some of us, Nick and Juliette's relationship was spread over the course of over 7 or 8 years not 4. When we met them in S1, E1, they were living with each other for over 3 years. When he was selling his house, Adalind asked him how many years was he living in it, he replied 6 & 1/2 years. Add the time they were dating, since they didn't move in with each other the day they started dating. Do the math. At least, 7 or 8 years might be just an educated guess. Your claim of 4 is, as usual, just wrong.
As for the abandonment and infidelity, I saw Juliette leave the house permanently, then shag Sean and Kenneth. As for your expected comeback with your BS that they were on a break? Then explain how Juliette was bitching about Nick taking Adalind's side in the Police Precinct if they were on a break? Why was she expecting Nick to take her side if they were no longer, as you have claimed on various occasions, in a relationship that she betrayed?
If she wasn't responsible for her betrayal to him for how she was partially responsible for Kelly beheading, why did she come back to the house to apologize to Nick about the outcome, after she finds out Kenneth wasn't able to kill him?
Again, the question must be asked. What were you watching?
RE: Nick's obsession-demoting Juliette to normal human - irukandji - 07-18-2018
(07-18-2018, 12:38 AM)dicappatore Wrote: Again, the question must be asked. What were you watching?
No the question must not be asked. I don't know why you think otherwise.
I'm responding to this stupidity once and once only. You've been told time and time and time again to STOP the badgering back and forth. Yet you continue to harass people with dumb questions and insults. For some reason you think everyone is just keen on reading whatever tantrums you decide to pull. Face it. You're wrong. No one wants to read yet another boring diatribe starring dicappatore who applauds himself as getting it and insults everyone else who doesn't agree. Got it? NO ONE.
The other day you made a comment how people never respond to me. Yet, I bring up marriage in another thread and surprise! People are responding. Including yourself. I think it's you who people are not responding to. Why? Because you don't want to debate. You want to badger and bully and pick.
In case you haven't noticed, lately there are only a few people at a time on the forum. If you want to man up, give up this dumbness of yours and start being courteous, I'm all for debating with you.
If you don't, sit out there and make dumb comments all by your lonesome. In case you haven't noticed, no one's joining in anymore. We'd all rather just debate.
Capisce?
RE: Nick's obsession-demoting Juliette to normal human - New Guy - 07-18-2018
(07-18-2018, 04:25 AM)irukandji Wrote:Iruk,(07-18-2018, 12:38 AM)dicappatore Wrote: Again, the question must be asked. What were you watching?
No the question must not be asked. I don't know why you think otherwise.
I'm responding to this stupidity once and once only. You've been told time and time and time again to STOP the badgering back and forth. Yet you continue to harass people with dumb questions and insults. For some reason you think everyone is just keen on reading whatever tantrums you decide to pull. Face it. You're wrong. No one wants to read yet another boring diatribe starring dicappatore who applauds himself as getting it and insults everyone else who doesn't agree. Got it? NO ONE.
The other day you made a comment how people never respond to me. Yet, I bring up marriage in another thread and surprise! People are responding. Including yourself. I think it's you who people are not responding to. Why? Because you don't want to debate. You want to badger and bully and pick.
In case you haven't noticed, lately there are only a few people at a time on the forum. If you want to man up, give up this dumbness of yours and start being courteous, I'm all for debating with you.
If you don't, sit out there and make dumb comments all by your lonesome. In case you haven't noticed, no one's joining in anymore. We'd all rather just debate.
Capisce?
The "Grimm Forum" provides a place where viewers can discuss the show and debate issues and opinions. You seem to expect courtesy from others, but at times do not extend it to others. As an example, you and I argued the content of Juliette's betrayal email on the thread:
https://grimmforum.com/forum/Thread-Did-Juliette-understand-that-Kelly-might-be-killed-or-did-Kenneth-fool-her?pid=25068&highlight=verbatim#pid25068
Take a look at my posts #93 and #108. You took the position that "Juliette never told Kelly the 'house was safe'." When I copied and posted the vebatim wording you rejected it. I provided a link to a screencap:
http://screencapped.net/tv/grimm/displayimage.php?album=179&pid=194190#top_display_media
but you never accepted the factual content of the email and never recanted your error. That was not only discourteous, but proved your disdain for factual evidence.
More recently you have taken to avoiding questions presented to you about "Grimm" and posted a reply consisting of malicious criticism. For example review your rude replies to the four questions I posed on this thread in post #175.
The only point you are able to make is your hatred of Nick. I found a quote for you:
![[Image: jealousy-sayings.jpg]](https://sayingimages.com/wp-content/uploads/jealousy-sayings.jpg)
Shalom,
N G
RE: Nick's obsession-demoting Juliette to normal human - irukandji - 07-18-2018
(07-18-2018, 11:49 AM)New Guy Wrote: You seem to expect courtesy from others, but at times do not extend it to others.
Are you sure you really want to go there, New Guy? Let me remind you of the apology I sent to you which you ignored.
Can you really say with any conviction that you know anything about courtesy when you failed to even acknowledge my apology? I think not.
Speaking of hatred of Nick, might I remind you of your post from the Nick and Adalind video, post #80:
Quote:New Guy wrote:
Full Definition of doofus:
slang
: a stupid, incompetent, or foolish person
. . .
Definition of dufus
variant of doofus
IMO, Nick has on too many occasions been incompetent and foolish.
The writers have made Nick make some stupid decisions. Is there another word you prefer to describe him when he makes another costly error?
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/stupid
N G
You were the one who called the character of Nick incompetent and foolish. You certainly weren't describing Nick's admirable qualities. It sounds like you've got some real hatred going on there.
RE: Nick's obsession-demoting Juliette to normal human - dicappatore - 07-18-2018
(07-18-2018, 04:25 AM)irukandji Wrote:(07-18-2018, 12:38 AM)dicappatore Wrote: Again, the question must be asked. What were you watching?
No the question must not be asked. I don't know why you think otherwise.
I'm responding to this stupidity once and once only. You've been told time and time and time again to STOP the badgering back and forth. Yet you continue to harass people with dumb questions and insults. For some reason you think everyone is just keen on reading whatever tantrums you decide to pull. Face it. You're wrong. No one wants to read yet another boring diatribe starring dicappatore who applauds himself as getting it and insults everyone else who doesn't agree. Got it? NO ONE.
The other day you made a comment how people never respond to me. Yet, I bring up marriage in another thread and surprise! People are responding. Including yourself. I think it's you who people are not responding to. Why? Because you don't want to debate. You want to badger and bully and pick.
In case you haven't noticed, lately there are only a few people at a time on the forum. If you want to man up, give up this dumbness of yours and start being courteous, I'm all for debating with you.
If you don't, sit out there and make dumb comments all by your lonesome. In case you haven't noticed, no one's joining in anymore. We'd all rather just debate.
Capisce?
You just don't get it. We all have various opinions of our favorite characters and our least favorites. We all have the right to express our opinions of those same characters. The differences between you and one or two others compared to the rest is that when we state an opinion of that character, we don't make up scenes or dialogue. When confronted with facts to disprove the basis of your supporting facts, you and one or two others, deflect the argument.
Take my thread on Monroe’s last name controversy. Ye I am sticking to my guns on that opinion. The differences between me and you, I did not make up the scene of the plate in question and I never denied the scene with the sonogram label. My discussion centered on what we saw and how we saw it.
All your "Oh, woe m, "I am being bullied" is due to when confronted of you spewing BS, you aren't able to accept you stuck your foot in the mouth and move on and accept the fact you got it wrong. I know you think you are the center of the universe but you aren't the only one I have pointed out with this symptom. Take the (cough) master-debator (say that fast) whom prefers to hide behind the term "writers intent". At least he tries to BS his way out of the "foot-in-the-mouth' syndrome with a bit of more creativity.
Take the controversy of Juliette’s responsibility getting Kelly decapitated. That whole argument was deflected into if it could be proven in a court of law. Who gave a hoot on what could be proven in court. That was a discussion on what constituted the immorality of her actions. Yet you and one or two more naysayers completely refused to recall her apology scene to Nick of her of her guilt before she tried to kill him I the end of S4.
Most of us saw her as being guilty. The actor admitted in an interview of her guilty participation. The character apologized because she knew she was guilty, yet I bet you still believe she wasn't responsible.
Insults exist many various ways that are offensive. You have the right, as we all do, to express our opinions. You DO NOT have the right to decide what are the only types of insults that exist, You are not the authority on what constitutes as insulting!
When expressing an opposing argument with made up facts is also an insult, whether you wish to accept that as insulting or not. Complaining of insults just going in one direction is just more proof of your inability to see the reality of your disdain.
You just can not accept the fact that some of us aren't as stupid as you think we are. So go to your corner and stop your feet all you want when confronted with facts you either overlooked or deny. Time to grow up, take your foot out of your mouth, swallow your unsubstantiated pride, take a deeper breath, accept you got it wrong and move on.
RE: Nick's obsession-demoting Juliette to normal human - syscrash - 07-19-2018
dicappatore What I find fault with is because someone points out the holes in what you see as obvious. That view lacks credibility. You see all the scenes from a obvious point of view. Even when the underling science would make what you see wrong. Take the platter. Blutbaden is a species. You can find species refereed to as families. You can not find a single example of a species as a surname. And that is the joke. To make a plate with the label Blutbaden, knowing that people with basic knowledge of Zoology will get the irony.
I never said the platter was not referring to a family of Blutbaden. I argue the family of blutbaden they are talking about is a species and not a surname.
RE: Nick's obsession-demoting Juliette to normal human - irukandji - 07-19-2018
(07-19-2018, 01:42 AM)syscrash Wrote: dicappatore What I find fault with is because someone points out the holes in what you see as obvious. That view lacks credibility. You see all the scenes from a obvious point of view.
Exactly. Remember the Juliette is a prostitute thread? Remember the outbursts to anyone who disagreed that she wasn't a prostitute? Remember the so called piecing together of her past in order to "prove" she was a prostitute? Posters were calling that dumb theory down and he continued to rant anyway because no one believed him. It was his way or no way. I read the platter thread and I agree with you. Blutbaden is a species not Monroe's name. How dumb.