05-06-2017, 08:22 AM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2017, 08:24 AM by irukandji.)
(05-06-2017, 07:57 AM)speakeasy Wrote: Kelly had to fall off the grid after the failed attempt to kill her. A group of particularly ferocious wesen were after her because they thought she had the Coins, if memory serves. Because her dear friend's body was so horribly burned in the accident when they tried to kill who they thought was Kelly, she used that fact to go on the run. She had lost her husband and her closest friend due to her being a Grimm, to continue her life as it was before would have amounted to a death sentence for her son - let's just be fair, even though it seems to be a stretch for some posters.
She did the absolute right thing in leaving Nick so he had the best chance at survival and anyone suggesting she was merely an 'egg donor' to Nick is astonishing to me. The few facts that we have are right there; it's a matter of a choice to interpret with a peculiar slant or whether to see what's obvious to the general viewer, in my view.
I assume you are calling my view a ""peculiar slant""? Maybe I'm misinterpreting here, so I'll ask. If so, why?
The best way to frustrate a cyberbully is to ignore him.
(05-06-2017, 07:57 AM)speakeasy Wrote: Kelly had to fall off the grid after the failed attempt to kill her. A group of particularly ferocious wesen were after her because they thought she had the Coins, if memory serves. Because her dear friend's body was so horribly burned in the accident when they tried to kill who they thought was Kelly, she used that fact to go on the run. She had lost her husband and her closest friend due to her being a Grimm, to continue her life as it was before would have amounted to a death sentence for her son - let's just be fair, even though it seems to be a stretch for some posters.
She did the absolute right thing in leaving Nick so he had the best chance at survival and anyone suggesting she was merely an 'egg donor' to Nick is astonishing to me. The few facts that we have are right there; it's a matter of a choice to interpret with a peculiar slant or whether to see what's obvious to the general viewer, in my view.
I assume you are calling my view a ""peculiar slant""? Maybe I'm misinterpreting here, so I'll ask. If so, why?
I think most of your views have a peculiar slant. Because they are far too harsh and judgmental. And are too often out of left field.
"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation." Bertrand Russell - printed on a beer mat in "Shaun of The Dead".
(05-06-2017, 07:57 AM)speakeasy Wrote: Kelly had to fall off the grid after the failed attempt to kill her. A group of particularly ferocious wesen were after her because they thought she had the Coins, if memory serves. Because her dear friend's body was so horribly burned in the accident when they tried to kill who they thought was Kelly, she used that fact to go on the run. She had lost her husband and her closest friend due to her being a Grimm, to continue her life as it was before would have amounted to a death sentence for her son - let's just be fair, even though it seems to be a stretch for some posters.
She did the absolute right thing in leaving Nick so he had the best chance at survival and anyone suggesting she was merely an 'egg donor' to Nick is astonishing to me. The few facts that we have are right there; it's a matter of a choice to interpret with a peculiar slant or whether to see what's obvious to the general viewer, in my view.
I assume you are calling my view a ""peculiar slant""? Maybe I'm misinterpreting here, so I'll ask. If so, why?
I think most of your views have a peculiar slant. Because they are far too harsh and judgmental. And are too often out of left field.
I wondered why you took aim at me. This kind of honesty gives an insight into your posts. I always admired you because you seemed to be objective and allowed for all kinds of opinions. Apparently that is not always the case.
The best way to frustrate a cyberbully is to ignore him.
(05-06-2017, 07:57 AM)speakeasy Wrote: Kelly had to fall off the grid after the failed attempt to kill her. A group of particularly ferocious wesen were after her because they thought she had the Coins, if memory serves. Because her dear friend's body was so horribly burned in the accident when they tried to kill who they thought was Kelly, she used that fact to go on the run. She had lost her husband and her closest friend due to her being a Grimm, to continue her life as it was before would have amounted to a death sentence for her son - let's just be fair, even though it seems to be a stretch for some posters.
She did the absolute right thing in leaving Nick so he had the best chance at survival and anyone suggesting she was merely an 'egg donor' to Nick is astonishing to me. The few facts that we have are right there; it's a matter of a choice to interpret with a peculiar slant or whether to see what's obvious to the general viewer, in my view.
I assume you are calling my view a ""peculiar slant""? Maybe I'm misinterpreting here, so I'll ask. If so, why?
I think most of your views have a peculiar slant. Because they are far too harsh and judgmental. And are too often out of left field.
I wondered why you took aim at me. This kind of honesty gives an insight into your posts. I always admired you because you seemed to be objective and allowed for all kinds of opinions. Apparently that is not always the case.
One cannot be objective to your posts, imo. And yes, I am aiming some of my posts directly at your posts.
There were a total of three responses from you to my post, but I can only see two of them.
"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation." Bertrand Russell - printed on a beer mat in "Shaun of The Dead".
05-06-2017, 09:14 AM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2017, 09:16 AM by irukandji.)
(05-06-2017, 09:03 AM)speakeasy Wrote: One cannot be objective to your posts, imo. And yes, I am aiming some of my posts directly at your posts.
You certainly wouldn't want me to change my opinion simply to appease you. If it makes you feel good to attack, go right ahead. I understand now where you're coming from and will respond accordingly if need be.
The best way to frustrate a cyberbully is to ignore him.
(05-06-2017, 09:03 AM)speakeasy Wrote: One cannot be objective to your posts, imo. And yes, I am aiming some of my posts directly at your posts.
You certainly wouldn't want me to change my opinion simply to appease you. If it makes you feel good to attack, go right ahead. I understand now where you're coming from and will respond accordingly if need be.
There's not much about this Forum that has made me feel good for quite a while. I experience it as reducing its original content to a forum for viciously attacking most things about the creators, characters and moral message of the series. It certainly didn't start out that way. For as long as I continue to check back to see what's going on from here on out, I certainly will protest some of the posts; particularly yours.
"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation." Bertrand Russell - printed on a beer mat in "Shaun of The Dead".
05-06-2017, 11:28 AM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2017, 11:30 AM by Mrtrick.)
(05-06-2017, 07:32 AM)irukandji Wrote:
(05-06-2017, 06:49 AM)Mrtrick Wrote: Well, that's your prerogative, but that's not how Nick saw it. Kelly felt it was the only way to protect him.
There are some major plotholes with this scenario. First, both the egg donor and Marie are perpetrating a lie to a child. Second, exactly how is Kelly protecting Nick by handing him over to her sister, who's just as notorious of a grimm as she was? All that ended up doing was putting the two of them on the run. That, in and among itself, makes no sense because Kelly could have just as easily kept Nick with her.
Third, and this is most despicable. What did that lie do to a child? You can shrug it off as some fluff, but Nick was told his mother was dead. If he was devastated at the news to say the least, then I made my point.
There was a specific threat on Kelly's head. This all started because someone tried to murder her and her husband. In his case, they succeeded. She felt that in going back, the target ends up on his back as well. And if Marie doesn't take gaurdianship, Nick would have wound up in foster care. Trubel is a prime example of how badly that can go. It's likely that Marie kept her Grimm work to a minimum during those six or so years she was watching over him. Once he was out of the house, she returned to her wandering lifestyle. The reason she did this, as well as the reason she and Kelly made the decision to keep the truth hidden, was because of the possibility Nick might not be a Grimm. If he could have a normal life, removed from all of this darkness, they felt it would be a lesser burden to think of his mother as dead, then to weigh him down with something that would irrevocably alter his world.
(05-06-2017, 07:32 AM)irukandji Wrote:
(05-06-2017, 06:49 AM)Mrtrick Wrote: And she didn't just come back on a whim. Unless Nick needed her help, she probably would have never returned.
Oh, you're right. She didn't come back to throw herself on the mercy of her son or even ask how he's doing, she came back for the coins. Egg donor personified.
All of this coin drama fell in Nick's lap. It had become a threat to him. Kelly came back because this was a burden she didn't want for him. Had she not cared, then why not just let Nick watch over them. She knew that this problem would dog him, just as it affected their family in the past. So taking up that burden, was the best thing she could do for him.
(05-06-2017, 07:32 AM)irukandji Wrote:
(05-06-2017, 06:49 AM)Mrtrick Wrote: You've said in other posts, that Baby Kelly And Diana should be removed from the orbit of all things Grimm.
Children don't belong in Grimm. I'm not the only one who's wondered exactly what Diana's purpose is other than someone Kelly could kidnap and therefore get herself killed in the process. Diana was supposed to be the super power baby, the one who would change things. Yet.........she changed nothing. She disappeared and caused no drop in the ratings, then reappeared older without any explanation. Was it really necessary to have her do drawings and give hints to Renard that there was a tunnel? Or could Renard's Russian friend figure it out and in an episode, simply have Nick show Renard the tunnel?
As for Kelly, what exactly was his purpose? Did it really further the story to demote Adalind from interesting and complex villain to mouse in the corner tending for young? All Kelly did in the last episodes was grow from young being tended by Adalind to baby prop in a carseat. He never cries, never needs changing, doesn't need to be cuddled or play, and never needs to eat. Yep, real interesting character there.
You're complaining about the very existence of Kelly and Diana, which is completely beside the point. The fact is, they do. You don't need to like them, but you can't just ignore their presence. Whatever Diana could've done or should've done, she's still just Diana. She doesn't have to be anything else. And if you don't think she's changed things, you're crazy. Juliette wouldn't have become a Hexenbeist without Diana's existence. Adalind wouldn't have begun her redemptive arc without that girl. Zerstorer would have never been defeated if she hadn't opened the portal. She doesn't have to be actively making choices that alter things. Diana does that simply by being. The same is true of Kelly. By merely being born, he has redefined Adalind and Nick's lives. And by virtue of this, everyone else's. And it's a baby we're talking about. What amazing thing was he supposed to be doing? All of these baby related activities you bring up, mostly took place off screen, because who wants to watch the diaper changing episode. Or the Kelly gets burped episode. And many of those things did happen. Adalind and Nick called Rosalee because they were worried Kelly was colicky. Kelly's had stinky diapers, puked on his mom, been played with by his Dad, and many of the other limited activities these tiny people are capable of. But baby's are as baby's do, so expecting more out of him seems a bit unrealistic. One thing is for sure. He certainly didn't turn Adalind into a mouse. Just because she devotes herself to motherhood, doesn't make her less than. I think that because she's not the dark character of earlier seasons, some people view that as weakness. To me it's strength, because she's seeking change.
(05-06-2017, 07:32 AM)irukandji Wrote:
(05-06-2017, 06:49 AM)Mrtrick Wrote: Is that any different from the decision Nick's Mom made? Neither Kelly or Nick could stop being a Grimm, which means that threat is always there. They've both picked mirror opposite methods of dealing with that. So if you think neither is correct, what's the better option?
They didn't need Kelly and had a conundrum when the actress herself decided to abruptly leave the series. The series could have gotten along fine without Nick's mother popping onto the scene. I personally would have preferred knowing more about Marie. She knew more about Nick than Kelly ever did. That knowledge would have made for some good story arcs.
Again, you're deflecting the question by making it about something else. You're asking why something is, and not considering the reality of their situation. It's like if someone asked me what I wanted for dinner and my response was, "Why do I need food?"
It took a lot for Adalind to choose a different life for herself, that's not weakness. Adalind was a fun villain to some, personally, I hated her. She wasn't strong willed in anyway. She was selfish, crafty and cunning but nothing more. Diana is the best thing to ever happen to her because she showed her that she could be more than her mother's mini me or Sean's sex bot.
05-06-2017, 12:07 PM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2017, 12:12 PM by irukandji.)
(05-06-2017, 11:28 AM)Mrtrick Wrote: There was a specific threat on Kelly's head. This all started because someone tried to murder her and her husband. In his case, they succeeded. She felt that in going back, the target ends up on his back as well. And if Marie doesn't take gaurdianship, Nick would have wound up in foster care.
The specific threat on Kelly's head was of her own doing. She caused the problems, no one else did. That tells me that instead of tending to her husband and son, she saw the grimm life as more important. She owed it to her son to be a mother to him, not to dump him off on her own sister because it's inconvenient for her. That's not fair to him. You keep talking about this big threat to her and potential threat to him. The threat doesn't diminish because she dumped him on her sister. It just becomes a different type of threat. Both of them were on the run for it. I can't see why Kelly didn't face responsibilities, take her son, and raise him.
(05-06-2017, 11:28 AM)Mrtrick Wrote: Trubel is a prime example of how badly that can go.
Trubel isn't a prime example of anything because we know nothing about her.
(05-06-2017, 11:28 AM)Mrtrick Wrote: It's likely that Marie kept her Grimm work to a minimum during those six or so years she was watching over him. Once he was out of the house, she returned to her wandering lifestyle. The reason she did this, as well as the reason she and Kelly made the decision to keep the truth hidden, was because of the possibility Nick might not be a Grimm. If he could have a normal life, removed from all of this darkness, they felt it would be a lesser burden to think of his mother as dead, then to weigh him down with something that would irrevocably alter his world.
The fear that Nick might not be a grimm is not a good reason to hide the truth from him. In my opinion, this is just another example of how these two women botched things up, big time.
What I wonder is why, when things calmed down, why Kelly didn't have the courage to take Nick and raise him.
(05-06-2017, 06:49 AM)Mrtrick Wrote: All of this coin drama fell in Nick's lap. It had become a threat to him. Kelly came back because this was a burden she didn't want for him. Had she not cared, then why not just let Nick watch over them. She knew that this problem would dog him, just as it affected their family in the past. So taking up that burden, was the best thing she could do for him.
This burden she didn't want a 30 year old man to face, but when he was a child and faced many burdens, the egg donor was no where to be found. That's a real strange contradiction in a so called mother.
(05-06-2017, 06:49 AM)Mrtrick Wrote: You're complaining about the very existence of Kelly and Diana, which is completely beside the point. The fact is, they do. You don't need to like them, but you can't just ignore their presence. Whatever Diana could've done or should've done, she's still just Diana. She doesn't have to be anything else. And if you don't think she's changed things, you're crazy.
If you believe I'm crazy, what does that say about you responding to my posts?
(05-06-2017, 06:49 AM)Mrtrick Wrote: Juliette wouldn't have become a Hexenbeist without Diana's existence.
That's not a positive thing on which to blame Diana
(05-06-2017, 06:49 AM)Mrtrick Wrote: Adalind wouldn't have begun her redemptive arc without that girl.
I disagree. Adalind started on a redemptive course long before she ever got Diana back.
(05-06-2017, 06:49 AM)Mrtrick Wrote: Zerstorer would have never been defeated if she hadn't opened the portal.
Zerstorer never would have gotten through if she hadn't opened the portal in the first place.
(05-06-2017, 06:49 AM)Mrtrick Wrote: She doesn't have to be actively making choices that alter things. Diana does that simply by being. The same is true of Kelly.
You've just reduced both of them to props by this statement. What's the point of having these special children if they do...........nothing?
(05-06-2017, 06:49 AM)Mrtrick Wrote: Kelly merely being born, he has redefined Adalind and Nick's lives. And by virtue of this, everyone else's.
Let me ask this. You say Kelly was needed to redefine Nick and Adalind's lives. Are they, in your opinion, cardboard characters who are incapable of developing on their own?
(05-06-2017, 06:49 AM)Mrtrick Wrote: Again, you're deflecting the question by making it about something else. You're asking why something is, and not considering the reality of their situation. It's like if someone asked me what I wanted for dinner and my response was, "Why do I need food?"
The thread is asking what are our thoughts about Kelly Burkhard, right? Using the reality of the situation, I thought she and Marie were dead wrong in what they did to Nick. There is no way to determine the irrevocable harm they did to that boy by telling him his mother was dead. There's no way to know how much he suffered because of it. I have no understanding of why these two adults would be so cruel to a child.
The best way to frustrate a cyberbully is to ignore him.