Thread:Ruebenn/@comment-1734566-20151130233217/@comment-1734566-20151201171351

OK...

1) I'm sorry, but last I checked, this show is not supposed to be "happy as possible." It's a zombie apocalypse, you know - it's supposed to be dark, brutal, and bleak as hell. So no, throwing in "happy" stuff like that just takes away more credibility. And can you please point out any development/story involving Glenn that NEEDS to continue, and thus warrants him surviving that insane ordeal? As I've said before, Glenn has had no personality/development/arc since Season 2 (him trying to get laid), and no role since Season 3 (when he and Maggie were kidnapped). Come to think of it, the last handful of Glenn-centric episodes (him and Tara meeting Abraham's group, him meeting Enid) all just regurgitate the SAME basic "motivation" over and over again, which is Glenn saying: "I have to get back...to my wife." So basically, Glenn has NO role on this show OTHER than being Maggie's husband. So why keep him around when the focus COULD be on Maggie, another character who seriously needs development?

2) Basically the same points as before; it's not supposed to be happy or give her relief. I mean, sure, the baby can be some solace, the same way Judith was for Rick and Carl. But I still think it makes for a WAY more dramatic outcome, and serves to make Maggie more interesting, if the baby is ALL she has left - no Glenn, no father, no husband.

3) But this Morgan conflict is SO washed-up compared to the PERFECT arc Carol had in Seasons 1 - 4. It feels like a cheap, story-related excuse to keep her around when, as you agree, she should've died by now. And my main beef with long-lasting characters (Glenn, Carol, Michonne) not having major stories to go through is that they keep introducing second-rate characters, some of them pretty interesting (Gabriel, Noah, etc.), just for them to die or otherwise get no focus, so that the long-lasting characters with no story are STILL around...just because they're "popular." It proves that the show's priorities are NOT in line, and are focused more on pandering to the casuals.

4) So...you didn't hate Shane because he was a jerk...but you hated him because of his attitude and jerky things he did. (Otis was the dude's name, BTW)

5) At least we agree here. There are PLENTY of redshirts and second-rates who really need to bite it (namely Tara - she has ZERO existence, as far as I'm concerned), and I wouldn't mind someone else forgettable like Rosita also dying (as perfect as she is <3). But on a side note, I really don't take Kirkman that seriously anymore, with all due respect. He loves to act all edgy, with things like "Oh, I would've killed Daryl a LONG time ago," and "No one is safe." Like, I'm sorry, but that's all BS. First off, when you want to kill a character off JUST because they're popular, regardless of whether or not they're actually a GOOD character (like Daryl), then you've missed the point. And second: He doesn't even follow his OWN mantra. If the "no one is safe" line was true, then Rick and Carl would've died YEARS ago. There would be NO main characters. So, yeah. Kirkman's just a greedy and edgy hypocrite, in my humble opinion.