+- Grimm Forum (https://grimmforum.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Grimm Universe (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Grimm-Universe)
+--- Forum: Episode Discussions (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Episode-Discussions)
+---- Forum: Season 1 (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Season-1)
+---- Thread: Rewatch: 1x16 - The Thing with Feathers (/Thread-Rewatch-1x16-The-Thing-with-Feathers)
RE: Rewatch: 1x16 - The Thing with Feathers - FräuleinWunderlich - 07-28-2013
This is the only episode of Grimm that for me is totally boring.
Exept the part when Nick unpacking his whole languages repertoire and the moment when Wu eats the paperclip. But besides this 2 scence ,no funny moments, no surprises, no thrilling characters. Since the rewatch I aks my self increasingly why all the female characters in Grimm are either victims or touchy. More often they are victims, by the way.
I this episode it is the same fundamental type like in Mouse and Men. A girl whitch is in a mental dependence from her husband.
RE: Rewatch: 1x16 - The Thing with Feathers - Gretel Hanselsister - 07-28-2013
(07-28-2013, 10:53 AM)HellJacket Wrote: The real truth is the writers just didn't put as much thought/explanation into the episode as hardcore fans would like.Yup. This is what I find so annoying about this episode. You have to find explanations and you need a lot of fantasy to make this creature work.
(07-28-2013, 10:53 AM)HellJacket Wrote: All diseases are "normal." They are simply natural processes that occur given specific genetics, organisms, or circumstances in nature. You keep trying to argue that there is a "valuable purpose" behind specific evolutionary traits. Disease is just a semantic term for what people don't like. From evolution's perspective, being "tall" or "short" is no different from having type I diabetes. They are all just genetic traits. Same as the seltenvogel's unbezahlbar. To determine whether an unbezahlbar is a good thing (from a human perspective) or a bad thing would require a whole lot more knowledge of the seltenvogel's genetic history."Good" and "bad" are simple things in evolution, you don't need a human perspective (huge claim!)
"Good" is everything that helps your genes survive the next generations, "Bad" is the opposite. Diseases are bad, they make you weak, they don't make you attractive for possible mates, they let you die early. Weakening attributes can be useful in some cases (the male peacock has got a restraining long feather tail, but it helps him to impress the ladies) but that's the exception.
We've never seen a male seltenvogel, but it's still an useless tactic to show a sexy unbezahlbar when it's wanted by everyone else, too (Klausstreich, Sheriff, who ever).
I really don't like this episode, but at least I do have fun disscussing it here
.
RE: Rewatch: 1x16 - The Thing with Feathers - HellJacket - 07-28-2013
(07-28-2013, 02:56 PM)Gretel Hanselsister Wrote: "Good" and "bad" are simple things in evolution, you don't need a human perspective (huge claim!)
"Good" is everything that helps your genes survive the next generations, "Bad" is the opposite. *snip*
Here's the problem with your logic. You are arguing a false dichotomy. You are arguing genetic traits are either a) "good" where they help your genes survive or b) bad where they do the opposite (and by opposite, I believe you mean they "hurt" your genes chances of survival). False dichotomy is false. The vast majority of genes in an organism's DNA have no bearing on survival (they neither promote or hurt it for a species). For starters, unless the gene plays a role in a phenotype (i.e., a gene that manifests itself in an organism), then the gene has little bearing on natural selection. Still, your "good" and "bad" standards are very fact specific. What is a beneficial phenotype for one generation of a species, may be utterly pointless if that species migrates to a different habitat. However, "utterly pointless" does not equate to "bad" using your above definition. It may just be redundant and have no impact on the natural selection of a species whatsoever. The umbezahlbar may simply fall into this category.
I would like to point out you kind of shifted your argument from "being normal" to being "good or bad". I still don't understand the big deal that your are making about this. Natural processes (like diseases or evolution) happen. Of course, if you personally don't want them to happen, they're bad, but nature doesn't care what an individual thinks (though evolution works in the aggregate) nor does nature cast a moral judgment upon them. And for that reason, there's really no scientific litmus test about whether a seltenvogel should or should not have an umbezahlbar (i.e., whether it's good, bad, or neutral).
I mean really, there's still a debate over whether wessen are purely biological or not. There are clearly supernatural elements to many wessen (e.g., hexenbiest, grimm, etc.). Therefore, this discussion becomes very difficult using genetics for explaining the umbezahlbar, when two episodes later, they totally blow off any biological explanation when they eliminate Adalind's hexenbiest nature.
RE: Rewatch: 1x16 - The Thing with Feathers - Gretel Hanselsister - 07-29-2013
My point of view is still that every unbezahlbar (there may be exceptions) is like the one in Rosalee's book, to be taken out with a knife carefully ("plopp"). When someone makes a mistake while extracting it, the seltenvogel bleeds to death. If it stays inside, the seltenvogel will suffocate.
Your point of view is obviously that the unbezahlbar (when the seltenvogel is not force feeded) doesn't cause comparable problems.
Neither of us can prove it, so we argue from different directions. "Your" unbezahlbar is no problem in evolution, "mine" is a big one. Of course not every attribute has to be "good" or "bad", you're absolutely right.
RE: Rewatch: 1x16 - The Thing with Feathers - HellJacket - 07-29-2013
(07-29-2013, 12:04 AM)Gretel Hanselsister Wrote: Neither of us can prove it, so we argue from different directions. "Your" unbezahlbar is no problem in evolution, "mine" is a big one. Of course not every attribute has to be "good" or "bad", you're absolutely right.
I must say, this has been one of the most reasonable Internet discussions I've had in a long time. My final thoughts on this subject would be that I learned a long time ago that it's just not worth extrapolating facts in works of fiction (especially on a TV show). There are enough plot holes without imagining more.
Also, one final unrelated comment on the episode that someone brought up over on IMDB a while back. Oregon has a law where if there is probably cause for an arrest relating to domestic violence, the police officer shall arrest the offending spouse. So someone got really annoyed because the seltenvogel's "boyfriend" wasn't arrested (even though the cop that visited the place was working with him). Personally, based on the facts that went down, I see no inconsistency with the plot line. However, that other poster felt it was certainly the case.
RE: Rewatch: 1x16 - The Thing with Feathers - Harphinia Lunatail - 08-28-2017
I actually thought this episode was quite good because it shows something that thousands of women all across the world have to deal with everyday: domestic violence, husbands and boyfriends who are aggressive towards their families. Also, unless I'm wrong, the reason Tim didn't notice Nick was a Grimm was because, when he woged, he was facing away from Nick towards the interior of the house.
RE: Rewatch: 1x16 - The Thing with Feathers - dicappatore - 08-28-2017
WTF, I haven’t read all the other post but I did read the current ones. so this is in reference to the current posts. IMO, you want to watch episodes of spousal abuse, there are plenty of other cop shows with plenty of episodes with the subject matter.
Am I the only one who dislikes this episode?
Am I the only one who sees two of the main characters get involved in someone else relationship and basically start to destroy theirs?
Am I the only one that remembers the whole romantic getaway failed?
Am I the only one that recalls this is the episode that Nick planned to propose?
Am I the only one who recalls, when Juliette is done poking her nose into other people’s business and they are back home, she rejects his proposal?
Am I the only one who thinks the rejection is “BIG”? This is such a pivotal episode for these two characters.
I have no problems about TV shows or movies exposing spousal abuse issues. I just think, this episode has more impact on the relationship of two of the main characters, Nick and Juliette. I am not saying they should have ignored what was happening next door and not get involved. And, yea it sucked that when they did get involved, call in the local LE that ends up related to the abuser and did nothing about it.
But what about the reason why He planned that weekend? Did she think they went there for a change of scenery? If she was clueless that he wanted to propose? Am I the only one who would think part of the plan, would have involved some romance and sex?
IMO, this is proof that Juliette is just using the guy. If she started to have doubts about him and his secrets, after the introduction of aunt Marie, a weekend like this would have been a great opportunity to bring it out. She starts the conversation about how trouble is always following them but drops it after she sees the local cop pull away, and takes it out on him as if it was his fault, and goes to bed. No romance this night!
She could have used more of her time to try to fix her issues she was perceiving of their relationship and less time worrying about Robin. I am not expecting them to ignore what was happening next door. It sure would be un-easing to me also.
If she really did love him. Following all this episode heroics and her lead, you would think she would have accepted his hand in marriage. This BS about keeping secrets is ridiculous. He is a detective. The secrets she is complaining about are, to me, are job related. As a cop and as anyone else working for a living, best to keep the “JOB” at work and not bring it home.
RE: Rewatch: 1x16 - The Thing with Feathers - rpmaluki - 08-28-2017
At this stage Nick wanted to get married. Juliette did not. How do these two people with different outlooks to their relationship actually work? The answer is they don't. They should have called it quits before the end of S1.
RE: Rewatch: 1x16 - The Thing with Feathers - jsgrimm45 - 08-28-2017
(08-28-2017, 04:14 AM)dicappatore Wrote: WTF, I haven’t read all the other post but I did read the current ones. so this is in reference to the current posts. IMO, you want to watch episodes of spousal abuse, there are plenty of other cop shows with plenty of episodes with the subject matter.All good points maybe I would have added that a Grimm's can't get away from being a Grimm Nick is what he is a Grimm, even if he wants time away.
Am I the only one who dislikes this episode?
Am I the only one who sees two of the main characters get involved in someone else relationship and basically start to destroy theirs?
Am I the only one that remembers the whole romantic getaway failed?
Am I the only one that recalls this is the episode that Nick planned to propose?
Am I the only one who recalls, when Juliette is done poking her nose into other people’s business and they are back home, she rejects his proposal?
Am I the only one who thinks the rejection is “BIG”? This is such a pivotal episode for these two characters.
I have no problems about TV shows or movies exposing spousal abuse issues. I just think, this episode has more impact on the relationship of two of the main characters, Nick and Juliette. I am not saying they should have ignored what was happening next door and not get involved. And, yea it sucked that when they did get involved, call in the local LE that ends up related to the abuser and did nothing about it.
But what about the reason why He planned that weekend? Did she think they went there for a change of scenery? If she was clueless that he wanted to propose? Am I the only one who would think part of the plan, would have involved some romance and sex?
IMO, this is proof that Juliette is just using the guy. If she started to have doubts about him and his secrets, after the introduction of aunt Marie, a weekend like this would have been a great opportunity to bring it out. She starts the conversation about how trouble is always following them but drops it after she sees the local cop pull away, and takes it out on him as if it was his fault, and goes to bed. No romance this night!
She could have used more of her time to try to fix her issues she was perceiving of their relationship and less time worrying about Robin. I am not expecting them to ignore what was happening next door. It sure would be un-easing to me also.
If she really did love him. Following all this episode heroics and her lead, you would think she would have accepted his hand in marriage. This BS about keeping secrets is ridiculous. He is a detective. The secrets she is complaining about are, to me, are job related. As a cop and as anyone else working for a living, best to keep the “JOB” at work and not bring it home.
RE: Rewatch: 1x16 - The Thing with Feathers - brandon - 08-28-2017
It could be that if she paid more attention to the neighbors outside to avoid propasing Nick. Why she realized and knew what her answer would be.
If sus never interested in marrying Nick, lost it.