01-25-2018, 08:54 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-25-2018, 09:09 PM by dicappatore.)
(01-25-2018, 12:28 PM)syscrash Wrote: Here is a question to those that want to use Trubel shooting Juliette as an example of Grimms defeating Hexenbiest. Putting aside that the writers contrived the situation to get a certain out come, even if it meant abandoning logic.
You have to consider Trubel got Juliette attention then shot her, that has a logical problem. A few episode earlier we saw Hank point a gun at Juliette and she took it. So why not take the crossbow. Even if Juliette had not seen Trubel shot the cross bow. WE have an situation where Juliette did not see Adalind throw the vase, yet Juliette stopped it without even looking. So why wouldn't Juliette be able to stop the arrows. Logic says Trubel would not have been able to shot Juliette. To me that lack of logic is why the writers added exposition where Eve says Juliette knew Trubel was not trying to kill her. That then provides reasoning that Juliette let herself be shot.
I am going to say something here. In a lot of the post we theorize on the possibilities and reasons, or add theoretical logic to a situation. To me that is fun. It is when post draw an inference as argue it as fact that changes the spirit of the conversation. Even in the paragraph I posted I stated that the exposition was added to account for the inconsistency in logic. But even that I did not state it as fact. I see a logical connection but I do not know for a fact that is why they added it. I do know the exposition establishes Eve knowing Trubel was not trying to kill her with that shot. Which goes along with the rest of the conversation, where the writers where explaining Eve's lack of anger for past actions. Without the exposition the obvious question would be why would Eve not be mad at Trubel for trying to kill her.
The other thing I see some post fail to consider. Season one to Season six is not a contiguous story. That means what was true in one season my not be true in another. In fact consistency in the story does not always exist from one episode to another. To consider all six season to get an idea of the rules is one thing. But to consider all six seasons to define the rules is a false assumption. Also to use an action to prove an inference is also a false assumption. The most current one is Nick sold the house so he must have owned. That is a false assumption. Even the wiki which is not the final authority does not make that claim. Even their definition points out the ambiguity.
I have seen post that want to label these inconsistencies as plot holes. That would be true if Grimm was meant to be a contiguous story. Take GOT it began with a beginning middle and end. In that show inconsistencies are actual plot holes. Grimm is episodic, consistency is only expected to exist within the episode.
To me these post would be more productive if the stayed within the confines of theorizing how and why. If the ideas where based on logic using what the writers wrote. What ruins it is when posters interject there own moral, or social opinions to judge a character or action. It is the writers intent that counts. If the writers do not have the characters consider Adalind sleeping with Nick as Juliette rape. Then it is not rape. To have post after post trying to prove it is. completely ignores writers intent. If the writers have the characters no longer have a grudge against a character, then the character is redeemed. To argue why the character should be continued to be demonized again ignores the writers intent.
Try this for logic. Trubel was able to shoot Juliette because it was so obvious she was focusing on killing Nick and never saw them bolts coming.
FYI, projectiles coming our a a crossbow are called "Bolts". Arrows are shot by re-curve or combination bows. What we saw when Juliette was dying was actually her succumbing to the tranquilizing potion Nick put in those bolts in an earlier episode or scene. Would she have died from those wounds if HW dindn't snatch her up. At this point, does it matter?
Throwing a vase across a room is a lot difference from shooting a crossbow. It is called, VELOCITY. The speed of a crossbow bolt is not as fast as a bullet but a lot faster than someone throwing a vase, even if it was done by a Hexenbiest. I know with my combination bow, set at less than 60 pounds of pull on the limbs, gives me a velocity of my arrows at just over 300 feet per second.
A crossbow might be as high as 150 pounds of pull, add the size of the bolt being shorter and lighter, it increases velocity to a lot faster then throwing a vase. We call that ballistics. As far as the difference of hitting someone with a crossbow compared to shooting them with a gun in the distance of their living room is a difference of fractional seconds.
As for all your other theories? Can you explain to me, how is a 1 hour show, with commercials supposed to show us what 4, 5, 6, 7 or more characters do during a 24 hour period, let alone in a few weeks.
Let me ask you this, do we see all of them sleep, 6 or 7 hours a night? Does it mean they are all screwed up from lack of sleep, since we don't see them sleep for that time? How about these characters seen eating a meal but we never see them taking a dump of a piss, unless it pertains to more that validating they have the same biological discharge needs as the rest of us.
At some point, you have to make intelligent logical assumptions of the course of their day based on the character, scene and their previous behaviors. The only reason we see Adalind taking a cab, was to show two different women getting in it and getting out. How she got there was unimportant.
As for your "HAT" mystery? The hat came in the possession of the gang way before Eve used for the Rachel episode and Nick for doing the the Sean look. They got it when Elizabeth used it when Juliette morphed into Adalind to get Nick his Grimm back. Way back in, I think, Season 3? Now that Evette/Frankeneve is in, with the gang, she borrowed it from them to do the Rachel thing. We also see that hat in the trailer at the end of season 6, 20 years later. Amazing, another mystery solved!
(01-25-2018, 08:43 AM)eric Wrote: Dicap, please take some decaf, you will be on HBP meds soon.
I might use the phrase "Wake up and Smell the Coffee" a lot but i hardly drink it, maybe a few cups a week. I am more of a camomile man. Some might consider that a gay-ish thing but I don't give a hoot.
You know you are OLD, when you see the Slide Ruler you used in college selling in an ANTIQUE SHOP!!