Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-25112275-20141218163520/@comment-25869525-20150108013705

24.99.67.19 wrote: To FloaterJ: Over reacting much! I understood what you were saying. All I did was condense or give the gist of your statement. The details were already there in your post for everyone to see. I didn't think I needed to repeat it verbatim, or to quote you. Nor was I trying to shoot you down. What you said is true for some people. All I wanted to do was point out that even though Finn's death served a purpose within the story itself, this kind of thing can also have the opposite effect, i.e., make people NOT want to continue watching. Personally, it has made me tentative about coming back because I'm not sure I can handle the absence of Finn. I've read statements from other people, as well, that they won't watch any more.

If you think that I misrepresented what you said, I apologize. I never intentionally try to offend anyone. "Gist" is defined as "opposite"? You accuse me of saying I enjoy watching a bloodbath of death on shows. Now I am interested is seeing what I said that led you to that assessment. Please, do quote that part.

Yes, I understand that for many viewers, Finn being killed off may cause them to lose interest in continuing to watch the show. I liked Finn too, up to when they had him going psycho. Hell, up to that point, I thought the Clarke/Finn coupling was a certainty. As I've said before, I hated seeing his 'descent into madness' and the ultimate outcome.

If people decide to stop watching because of what was done with Finn, that is their choice. I thnk it'll be a shame, since viewers are what keep a show running. I hope at least some of them will reconsider once they have had some time to process their reactions to Finn getting killed.