Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26415383-20170525022027/@comment-25176701-20170526015340

Its Levii wrote: 86.135.91.207 wrote: Am I the only one that is really p*ssed off that clarke survived? I was actually happy because I thought they would finally kill off a central character, but then once again she BS'd her way out of it. I mean she was literally dying of radiation burns but skip 6 years and OH LOOK nightblood actually works -_-. This goes to show that even the end of the world can be survived with the magical power of lot armour. I am sorry, but you want to see Clarke, the focal main of the series, being killed? Eh, what about that will never happen? The 100 wouldn't be the same without her, or Bellamy or Octavia. You don't kill your main stars. It's the same as Harry being killed in Harry Potter 5.

I think it takes a lot of guts for a show to kill off their central main, and I admire those that do.

I kind of wanted her to die, too, tbh. Not because I dislike her, but it would bring much more emotion and realistic meaning to the show. It's supposed to be an emotional show, and killing off well loved characters is a sure way to make you feel it. It would also show that nobody is invincible. In real life, it doesn't matter if ten million people love you, you can still die just as easily as everyone else. It's always unrealistic when main characters cheat death simply because their mains. Too predictable and boring.

However, I'm find with her living because of the cliffhangers they threw in there. Had they not been there, I would have been disappointed she survived.