Originally Posted by Sanitarium78
I liked this weeks episode but it also showcased a major flaw that the show has which has bothered me since season 2. Once a supporting character has their big breakout moment and shows signs of development, they kill them off or in Carol's case write them out of the show.
Shane, Dale, Meryl, Andrea and T-Dog were all killed off once their characters started becoming interesting. Not so much with T-Dog, but before he died last season they made it look like he was going to have a bigger role. I don't understand why they do this? It's still a good show but it would be more entertaining if they kept a few of these characters around after they finally started to standout on their own.
Shane's death was like Sophia's: the plot which it served was greater than the character itself. I have no problem with this, even though I would rather Shane still be on the show (he was the most interesting character next to Dale, and as the above poster mentioned, one of the most developed). If a death is necessary to strengthen the plot, fine.
The writers can't be blamed for Dale's being killed off because Jeffrey DeMunn walked away from the show after Frank Darabont was fired.
Merle, couldn't agree more.
Andrea, couldn't agree more.
T-dog, couldn't agree more. He was acting less clumsy, too, when they first rampaged through the prison, and was really contributing to the group's survival. He was part of that "formation."
I'll see what I think about the Carol situation after I catch up with the series. It does seem like there's a pattern here.