Season 3 was by far much better than season 5.
(laughs) Well, now that the comments having nothing to do with the thread are finally over, I'll get back to my question:
I would like to ask @Civilized Humans......What were you looking for when you posted this thread?
Now that the thread has had a day to quiet down, I would like to ask @Civilized Humans......What were you looking for when you posted this thread?
I was sorry to miss this as I had intended to join in. I wanted to know though, what would we be talking about?
I'm positive, Kate, that if another poster came into the forum and urged others by insinuation to ignore your posts, you wouldn't appreciate that.
I know I have a different opinion, and most posters that know me know I have a different opinion. You certainly would, you've been here long enough. A different opinion is not outlawed here, and as I'm also sure you'll agree with, fun is different for everyone. No one person can dictate what is fun for everyone else, only themselves.
Might I suggest the more mature way to handle this is they way most other posters do when they have had enough. They bow out, and don't continue to interfere with posts that are related to the topic. .
I apologize for the baby pouty remark to you and Dragonfly and I hope in the future you will be more accepting of my opinion because as you know, I also have a right to be here just like you. My posts are not hurting anyone, No one has ever come back to state otherwise.
KateBliss wrote: I am pretty sure that if we all just stop replying to this thread @Lucille55 will stop trying to convince us that Nick is the worst and doesn't deserve to be called Dad. It is a losing battle. Let's go back to enjoying the show and not having to make excuses for it.
Dragonfly82 wrote: Agreed.
I'm going to pose a question here that I bet the two of you will not answer. But, I am curious and would like to know.
In what way are my posts hurting either of you?
All you have to do is stay out of the thread, just like KateBliss. By the way, the thread wasn't even started by you or Kate. Neither of you has the right to tell others what they may or may not respond to. This is just another baby pouty gang up tactic that you and Kate are so fond of using.
Something I have been wondering about with this whole Dad thing is why it is such a big deal to the Nick/Adalind fans. I would have to venture a guess that in their view, it's just not enough for Nick to have Kelly and Adalind, the staff and the world, he must have Diana too. Therefore he must be "Dad". But that seems to put Nick into the greedy pig category then. .
It's no secret what I think of Nick. I find him a weak, very pliable character with no charisma or the darkness I think a Grimm should have, not to mention his poor policing skills. It seems I should be the one making an argument for him then. But there are enough here to do that.
Most posters feel he is the consummate hero. I have been told he's the protagonist of the series. So then why would a hero, a protagonist, take on such a violent, and no doubt bloody vendetta?
I have been told that, by the end of the series, Nick would still be young enough to carry on his Portland PD duties. I think everyone can agree that most of the time we saw Nick performing those duties, with seldom a day off. So now we're going to add the death squad to his plate. I don't know where he finds the time. But in my estimation, I wonder what would have thrown him over the edge, because something like this would never have occurred in the series unless Nick was bitten or stung or impaled by some evil wesen and there was no cure other than for him. So then he could chuck all of his morals go into slaughtering wesen.
Furthermore, there seems to be no explanation of how or why Nick would seek out these wesen. In the series, most of the time, Nick was assigned to investigate wesen. In other words, he didn't go out on a vigilante crusade to hunt them until he found a bunch he could kill. In the series, it was generally they who attacked him, sometimes in his house. While I found it somewhat hokey at times, an LEO has to do what they need to do in order to protect themselves and their partner.
Furhermore, Nick was never portrayed as a leader. He was a subordinate, even up to the point of his big fight with Renard. We know this because Renard threatened him with his job if he ever acted up again. Nick didn't give Renard the bird and walk out. He stayed with his job, which tells me he liked what he had.
So what I see, in order to get Nick to even be, "Dad", there have to be a lot of changes in the main character. Everything that we were to believe, is completely thrown out the window. Even Aunt Marie's warning, which many are so fond of referring to when it comes to Juliette, is not even a remembrance.
Deleted incorrectly typed
@Civilized Humans Adalind and Sean might have been there but Nick and the other grimms saved Diana.
Sean never gave up on her and ended up giving his life for her. The same cannot be said of Nick. He was ready to give up out of desperation.
@Romi Frost Also grammatically, if Diana was talking about Adalind and Sean and not Adalind and Nick, then where is Nick? Since he is the Grimm he'd be talked about and there is no mention that Nick is dead which I think would be mentioned.
I thought I would answer just this one question, before I go into my response to your last post.
Caveat: This IS my opinion.
Grammar has nothing to do with it, at least from my perspective. It's really more to do with communication and interpretation.
But that aside, there is so much wrong with Diana's statement in this epilogue, I hardly know where to begin, other than to make comments. I'll assume, for the sake of argument that Nick, Adalind, Diana, Kelly, and the triplets are going on this wesen killing spree.
First, it's one thing for Nick to do his Grimm thing while a cop. I guess I would call what he's doing in the epilogue freelancing? He must have some kind of small Grimm business, where everyone participates to kill wesen. I wonder how much he charges for his services.
Second, Diana is not a Grimm, Adalind is not a Grimm, and the triplets are not Grimms. Yet they are out on Grimm business. I wouldn't think that would be possible. Grimms have special abilities pursuant to the species. None of them, except for maybe Kelly, have those abilities. Honestly I don't know why it's such a big deal that Sean would be there. Everyone else appears to be showing up for the killing spree.
Third, and this goes with number 2. I wonder why Nick is comfortable with risking Adalind's life in this venture. I wonder why Kelly is comfortable with risking Adalind's life in this venture. I wonder why Monroe and Rosalee, who have risked all for Nick, would even want their children doing such a thing. Moreso, I can't even imagine why Nick would allow it, considering the relationship he has had with Monroe and Rosalee.
Fourth, it would seem this group of wesen is waiting around for the clown car to show up and kill them.
Fifth, Diana grabs the staff on her way out. I'm not sure why anyone has to go anywhere then. Nick could just wish upon the staff and blow these despicable wesen away.
Sixth, and this goes along with number 2 as well. If most anyone can be a Grimm, it would seem to be a more practical approach for Nick to take his consultant services to the Portland PD and teach the cops how to be alternative Grimms.
Now, all of this could make sense with Kelly at the helm. He's not a cop, so he has no gray moral area to worry about. Renard would have no problem with any of it. He's on the right side, so he's got carte blanche to kill wesen, AND he's part of the big happy family now. He also doesn't have an issue with his daughter bouncing them around either. Apparently Kelly has no issue with his mother tagging along and she's really no concern for any of the others. We have no idea what relationship Kelly and Diana have with the triplets. One thing seems to be certain. The relationship is not a close one, or she would be referring to them by name. Aside from that, they're adults and can do what they want.
And with that, I go on to this. You've had your say so on this opinion business, now I will have mine. That will be the last of this then.
"It is a little more likely (given the implied information), that Diana is referring to Nick in this case, specifically because she is talking about Grimm business. I say this because Nick is not otherwise mentioned. Had she said 'mom, dad, and Nick' it would definently be clear."
Now if you look at the way the above was phrased, there is nothing there that indicates this is an opinion with a caveat. In point of fact, I didn't really care that you said this and I was prepared to just let it go. What caught my attention was your later question, asking if you had stated I was wrong in my opinion and then denying that you hadn't. (BTW, you asked me the question, but then answered it yourself).
In any case you are incorrect. While you're being tactfully subtle here, you are in essence stating that in all probability, Diana was referring to Nick, not Sean, when she referred to "Dad" in her statement. You're not even making a comparison between the two. You're just saying flat out that it's Nick she's talking about and my opinion doesn't merit discussion because you're right and that's that. Well, if you're right, which your statement implies, that would seem to point me in the direction of being wrong. You can be as subtle as you like, but that's what your post comes down to. .
I don't care if you disagree with me. I'm not looking to change anyone's mind. I just enjoy talking about the characters. Despite what you may think, this win/lose business that you're fond of talking about does not appeal to me. Subtle stating that you're right and that's that is something else entirely. .
You asked me in one of my posts what my facts were. I responded, citing a particular question that I often get. I provided facts, and my conclusions. You come back with, "nothing you've said is evidence one way or another."
Well, duh. I already said in a previous post that there is some speculation on my part. I also went on to clarify that I was not basing my speculation on wishful thinking, but on facts presented before the epilogue occurred.
I thought we were going to have a great back and forth over this, but I should have known you weren't going to bother.
Frankly, I don't know what it was you were "agreeing to disagree" with me on. I guess it was the topic, but you made so few posts about it, that your response really surprised me. You didn't address any of my counter arguments. However.....did you know that every single one of your posts contained at least a sentence (usually more) on speculation and opinion? It seems you find that infinitely more interesting that actual discussion of the characters. So the "agree to disagree" statement is a puzzlement to me.
I don't expect a response to this. In fact, I really don't even want one. All I can say is so be it.
@Romi Frost Have I stated your wrong in your opinion? No I haven't.
Well, I would say the below words that I have bolded show that you are stating (in a passive way) that I was wrong in my opinion and that you are (also in a passive way) stating your opinion is the correct opinion by adding the phrase, "It is more likely....."
@Lucille55 it is a little more likely (given the implied information) that Diana is referring to Nick in this case, specifically because she is talking about Grimm business. I say this because Nick is not otherwise mentioned. Had she said 'mom, dad, and Nick' it would definently be clear.
Fact is though, outside of what her statement implies and what we infer from this information, we'll never actually know if Diana was talking about Nick or Sean. It's more likely to be Nick (and then who knows if she is saying dad because she's talking to Kelly), but that
doesn't exclude the idea she is talking about her father.
And if I'm not to expect an answer, then why do you answer?
I didn't pose the question, nor did I concede the debate by stating I agreed to disagree.
Others are giving their inferred opinion, why is their opinion wrong and yours is right?
What is it you want? You asked for facts, and I gave them to you. Now all of the sudden I'm told none of that is evidence.
And if you had read my posts, you would have come to the conclusion that I was not angry with disagreements, only the mentality that it's okay to use wishful thinking as a valid argument (not an opinion) while making derogatory comments about a differing opinion. Why is it necessary to add derisive comments? All people have to do is say they disagree. But no, they can't do just that. They have to escalate it to another level by playing the kindergarten game of insult and then retreat to the usual, boring, herd mentality argument that if consensus all has the same opinion, then it must be fact. Conclusively.
By the way, if you want to agree to disagree, and stop the debate, just do so. Don't ask questions at the beginning of your post as though you're expecting some kind of response.
I don't have facts that occurred during the 20 years between the epilogue and the ending. No one does. I was talking about things that were facts before the epilogue and nothing in the epilogue changed them.
One question I get all of the time is something like this:
"Why would Renard be "Dad"? He was with Black Claw".
Fact: Renard was not with Black Claw when the epilogue occurred. Meisner, the ghost, told him he chose the wrong side, then haunted him until Meisner, the ghost, told him he was on the right side.
Conclusion: Renard is on the right side. I assume you would agree that whatever side Nick is on is the right side.
Fact: Diana states that "Mom and Dad" are waiting.
Conclusion: Diana only says that they are waiting, not that they are coming along.
Fact; Diana states the "triplets are coming too".
Conclusion: What are "Mom and Dad" waiting for? Most would naturally state for Diana and Kelly to return so they can all go together. Yet Diana never says that. She only confirms that the triplets are.
Fact: Adalind and Renard work closely together during season six where Diana is concerned.
Conclusion: They were cordial with one another and there was no animosity between them. It's conceivable that they could be together, not as lovers, but as friends. Why not? They were friends when the series ended. We will never know what they were waiting for but it would not be unheard of for them to be together waiting. And, the producers did state that all of them were now "one big happy family".
There is some speculation on my part. However, I am not basing my speculation on wishful thinking, but on facts presented before the epilogue.
What I don't get (and I am not specifically referencing anyone) are fans who adamantly insist that my speculations, which are based on facts presented int he series, are hogwash. In the same token, their own, which are based on nothing more than wishful thinking are totally conclusive.
I am going to add something that I hope isn't going to inflame this topic. From what we are told by the producers Nick and Adalind are together at the end of the series. Keep in mind that I continually have skepticism about the producers' statements because they have lied before. Beside that, it would have been so easy to confirm this by simply clarifying it in the script. So I am not so sure what's being communicated verbally to some rabid interviewers is actually what happened. These guys tend to twist things in order to have fun with their audience. And as a side note, with some of the questions these interviewers ask, I can see why..
Putting that aside, there is another issue that has continually bothered me since this argument has arisen and that involves that patriarch and resident Grimm, Nick.
I don't think it's all that easy to argue that Diana was referring to Nick as "Dad". All of the posts I have read have had to add tons of speculation and wishful thinking in order to make it so.
But what about the other side of the issue? I have never read any comments about Nick's view. Posters just think he's tickled pink with the idea of being called "Dad" by a child who is, in fact, not his daughter. Not only that, but by her real father also has no issues with it, even though he and Nick are not exactly buddy buddy.
I know from personal family experience that just because a kid refers to the patriarch as "Dad", that was not the case. My family member was appalled, and promptly told the mother of said child to explain the way it is to her. In short, he was not her father. She already had a father. He provided guidance by telling the child to call him by his first name and he would do likewise.
Now before anyone goes into diatribes about how this injures the child in question, it never did. Children appreciate a direct explanation and this child got it right away. It didn't stop her from loving the family member nor he from loving her. Instead it fostered a respect between them. He even put her through college. So just because a child gets it into her head that the patriarch should be "Dad", that does not mean the patriarch wants to be known as "Dad".
Diana's childhood began in a very strange way to begin with. It was obvious when she was returned that there was no one else other than Adalind and Sean who were always going to be "Mom and Dad" to her.
I've gotten a lot of flack on this argument, simply because posters are applying their own spin on Nick and Adalind, and for some reason think that Diana is just as enamored with Nick as Adalind is. The truth of the matter is, once Adalind quit hem-hawing around with Diana and told her the truth, in other words what Nick meant to her (Adalind), Diana was on board. She "got" Nick back for Adalind. But there was never any hint from Nick himself that he felt Diana was lacking for a father, so he was from then on going to just step in and change things.
Grimm doesn't always follow police procedure, we know that. For one thing, Renard would not be overseeing and discussing cases with Nick and Hank routinely like he does in the series. He would be way too busy to spend time like that with his flatfoots. They, instead, would be reporting to a lieutenant and discussing the cases with him, and would certainly never be involved with the DA. From a reality perspective, Hank would never be the one to decide if a charge should be filed or not. It would be out of their hands at that point. Could you imagine if that were true, though? What ramifications might result? Any way, it's television and entertainment and they bend the rules constantly to make it so.
You are right, the bigger question is whether or not Hank arrested Casey. I would think not.
In my opinion, the series tends to promote an attitude of "justice according to the law cannot be effectively administered because these are wesen."
That in mind, the producers mentally ask the audience, "how could Hank ever possibly arrest her?" In reality, that would not be left up to the cop taking Casey into custody. But the producers bend the audience to their way of thinking by presenting the facts for viewing. This particular case not only involves Andre's devious activities, but his woge. There's evidence tampering and police mishap as well. Add to that having civilians participating in police business without proper legal justification and no doubt many more infractions. The answer, according to the series is, "he can't and neither can Nick. Renard will cover it all up in a report and Wu will file it away".
I always thought it weird that the series was called a police procedural because it is not. Horror and fantasy would be the way I would categorize it. The audience is often expected to check their brains at the door and enjoy.
The question in the thread asks why Hank didn't arrest Casey. I assume Matipereira has and noted that Casey was not arrested. In any case, Casey stabbed Andre while the police were there. It would be up to Hank to take Casey into custody. He wouldn't have to contact the DA because it's not his job to do so. Instead, he would release her to the jailers and let the justice system take over from there. It would be up to a judge and jury to decide Casey's fate.
Casey stabbed Andre as he was trying to get away, not as he was attacking her. I'm not certain self-defense can be used in this case. But that would be up to a jury to decide. She might be able to plead temporary insanity.
In any case, even though Hank is acquainted with the wesen world, he could never testify to that fact. The most he could do would be to make sure the crime scene isn't contaminated and collect all of the evidence to aid in Casey's defense.
I still think this is an excellent question because Hank a duty to take Casey into custody and to handle this as he would any other homicide. He cannot let his association with Nick get in the way.
But here's the thing with that. It wasn't Nick who made the decision. It was Hank.