FANDOM


  • I’m midway through season 2, I have to admit I grew unto Finn through the early seasons, and then I just got tired. This Finn Fatigue as I like to call it began once Raven appeared. Watching him bounce between Clarke and Raven like indecisive prick made me lose faith in this character and a little bit in the show. 

    Now the worst case of Finn Fatigue occurred after his little 'mishaps' at the village. In the early season we were okay with Murphey almost being hung to death for murder. Now that seemed morally okay, maybe because “Hey, Murphey was a bit of a dick" What really ticked me off was the fact that an important fact was being forgotten. 17 innocent people were killed, kids included. It wasn't a mistake or letting his bad side get the best of him, frankly in surprised they even let Finn walk after they found him killing innocents. The fact that everybody seems to want to protect Finn confused me, I know they are trying to do the morally safe route, but this isn't earth as we know it, it's basically survival of the fittest, the law of the jungle. Finn killed 17 people, therefor he must pay, 1 death for the 17, if anything the survivors are lucky the grounders didn't as for the debt to be paid equally with 17 lives. You'd think the survivors would be thinking the utilitarian way, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few utilitarianism" After all they ARE trying to survive, they haven’t got the ground to start acting like the International Court of Justice. I was surprised that Abigail would even think about being defiant knowing well that if this ONE life isn't sacrificed hundreds more will die, for what? Morality?! I would understand the defiance if the grounders' claims for Finn were illegitimate but frankly they aren't. It comes across as if the only characters who have the 'Sky Peoples' best interest in mind are Thelonious and Marcus, the rest hold on to misplaced sentiment for Finn. So much that Raven slips Clarke a knife to kill the commander if they refuse to free Finn. It raises the question, is Finn the center of the universe? At what cost will they try and free Finn? Say, Clarke kills the commander? What good comes out of it? The grounders kill Clarke Finn then all the Sky People and the credits roll. I was angered to know that the grounders had been robbed from their form of closure by Clarke, the cultural imperialism irritates me the most. All of a sudden the sky people are a righteous and just people,  did righteousness allow them to survive in space for so long? They come down from space, land in grounder territory and administer their laws as if superior to the grounders. What gives them the right? 



    Okay I'm ranting, but seriously I hate the fact they even thought about risking the lives of all the Sky People because Finn fucked up big time. 

      Loading editor
    • USS-Reliant wrote:

      I was surprised that Abigail would even think about being defiant knowing well that if this ONE life isn't sacrificed hundreds more will die, for what?

      This is what bothered me most. Abby didn't even blink about telling on her husband to Jaha to save lives, knowing it may cause Jake's death and he didn't kill anyone! Yet, after Finn killed 18 people, she's hesitant to send him to his death when it would stop a war?

        Loading editor
    • Exactly! I felt as if we had come across new versions of older characters.The ground couldn't have changed them this quickly. The fact that Belamy wasn't quick to get rid of Finn for the greater goodconfused me, I'd expect him to do such a thing.

        Loading editor
    • The only explanation I've come up with is the writers needed a reason to keep him alive for two episodes so they could kill him in the mid-season finale. Otherwise, as I've said before, it's a severe case of moral myopia.

        Loading editor
    • USS-Reliant wrote: . The fact that Belamy wasn't quick to get rid of Finn for the greater goodconfused me, I'd expect him to do such a thing.

      Then in 'Remember Me' he told Clarke that she did the right thing in killing Finn. This can go back to season 1 when he did not have the stones to kill Atom but Clarke did. It the back of his mind he probably knew that was the only possible outcome to prevent a war that they would certainly lose. But, the stones were not there. When Murphy called him out to be a coward deep down he know Murphy was right. He's brave don't get me wrong but not brave for what always need to be done.

        Loading editor
    • You can go to the Finn page and see all sorts of topics similar to this being discussed. I think the real problem was that the leaders of the Ark people are used to following the laws on the Ark and when they enter a world where there are no laws they have no idea what to do ( like children ). 

      But yes, the Arkers forcing their morality on the grounders is very frustrating to me as well.

        Loading editor
    • To OP:

      Jason confirms Finn has PTSD: http://www.tvfortherestofus.com/index.php/news/1019-the-100-season-3-preview-interview-with-ep-jason-rothenberg-comic-con-2015-tv-guide-edition

      As for the Grounders, how were they innocent? They were warriors, just like the Delinquents had become. The Grounders are the murderers and the Sky People are the victims. Nobody on The 100 is fully innocent. The Grounders weren't either. They are savages and even they think so. This is supported by Clarke and Lexa's conversation in 2x08:

      Clarke: "Show them you're not a savage." (rest cut out for the sake of time)

      Lexa: "We are what we are."

        Loading editor
    • TheOmegaWerewolf
      TheOmegaWerewolf removed this reply because:
      It was said in a rude way
      14:09, July 24, 2015
      This reply has been removed
    • I guess that's one way to look at things, but frankly, what confuses ME is that people can be this blood thirsty.  It's one thing to believe Finn deserved execution. I don't agree, but I get it. "An eye for an eye" still rules in the minds of the self righteous as justice. But to be angered because the grounders didn't get a chance to burn Finn,cut off his hands, his tongue, gouge out his eyes, and slash up his body (if he was still alive). . .  is this kind of barbarism still a part of mankind's identity?

      You talk about Finn as if a villain is all he ever was.  You don't care about analyzing the character to determine why he would behave this way.  You just allow your outrage and anger to  take over so that you totally miss the point.  

      Did you know, according to psychological studies, that under certain circumstances, we are all capable of kiling?  And I don't think they just meant self defense.  Many soldiers, most of whom had no history of violence, have committed massacres of civilians in the context of war.  That doesn't mean it's okay to behave that way just because they were in a war zone. What it does mean is this.  War is not natural.  It is traumatizing, and it acts on our psyches.  Some of us are resilient; some of us are fragile.  But we are all flawed, and those flaws, when exacerbated by war, can take us down dark paths.

      So instead of summarily passing judgement, you should be asking yourself why a boy like Finn who didn't believe in war or violence, who respected human life and believed that the world could be a better place would do such a thing. What were the pressures put upon him?  What were his human flaws, and what part did they play?  Then all of us should look at ourselves and see some of those same imperfections.  It should humble us and teach us compassion.

      And before you go giving the grounders a pass, you should consider that they had plenty of innocent blood on their hands, too.  When the 100 landed, they presented no threat to the grounders. They too were innocent (of any crime against the grounders), unarmed civilians, just kids.  Yet, the grounders started slaughtering them under that self righteous vice of territoriality.  As human beings, we can bring out the best or the worst in each other. It's their violence and hatred that brought out the worst in Finn.

      The writers did a poor job of depicting a gradual unraveling of the character  They just sent him into a 180 much too fast.  Still, it's clear that Finn was not an evil villain who set out to slaughter innocent people. He was always just a human being, flawed like all of us, and too fragile to cope with the harsh environment he was thrust into.  That doesn't mean he gets off, but it sure as hell means he didn't deserve to be tortured to death by the hypocritical grounders. 

      Abraham Lincoln said that if you look for the worst in people expecting to find it, you surely will.  You define Finn by the so call cheating, and the massacre.  I prefer to look at the goodness in him.  I see how kind and thoughtful he was to Raven on the Ark.  I see how he stayed by her side during the surgery.  I see how he tried to stop a lynching and protect Charlotte.  I see how he tried to make peace.  I see his pain and suffering over what he had done.  And most of all, I see the tremendous courage and love he displayed by turning himself in.  I see how he loved.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, intellectually and practically speaking, as a leader, you sacrifice the one to save the majority.  But easier said than done. He wasn't some chest piece or abstract idea. Finn was a human being and one of their own.  Nor was he some stranger.  This was someone with a face that Abby knew, and he was the boy that her daughter loved.  And even if that weren't the case, Abbey knew exactly what the grounders would do to Finn.  How could you as a human being turn over an 18 year old boy to be brutally tortured to death?  Is it that easy? And don't forget, it was Abbey who sent him and the others out their armed with automatic rifles in the first place.  Finn and the others weren't soldiers, but she risked their lives to try and save her daughter.  Abby broke the rules and she bares some responsibility for what happened.  So she sacrifices Finn for her own mistake?

      Personally, I think there were other negotiations they could have tried.  And I'd have talked to Lexa, not Indra who was ruled by hatred. If they attacked the Arkers, they may have succeeded in wiping them out, but not before hundreds of their warriors would have died. The mountain men would go on bleeding some of them and turning others into reapers.  They'd always live in fear. Was that worth the life on one broken boy?  What reparations could they have made to the village?  What punishment of Finn would assuage their outrage.  Point out that they had killed the innocent too.  They didn't try hard enough, but I guess the writers just wanted Finn to die.

        Loading editor
    • Very interesting reading all of this. I love getting people's various opinions on stuff like this ;)

        Loading editor
    • "It's one thing to believe Finn deserved execution...But to be angered because the grounders didn't get a chance to burn Finn,cut off his hands, his tongue, gouge out his eyes, and slash up his body... is this kind of barbarism still a part of mankind's identity?"

      Sadly, the answer to that is yes. I'll start with the user who commented on the Finn page (and I think you saw this comment). He clearly wanted to see Finn go through all that pain and was upset that he died quickly.

      I'll also point out that I know a couple people who would potentially do something like that if it were their loved ones who were massacred/killed by somebody. Believe me, being around them doesn't make me feel good and it's people like them (along with the people who aren't evil, just assholes) that are the reason I hate 99.99% of people.

      People are legit the most evil of living beings. But whatever, people will be people, right? Nothing anyone can do about that.

        Loading editor
    • The Arkers weren't exactly forcing their morality on the grounders.  Abbey, Bellamy and Clarke were simply protecting one of their own from the inhumane, cruel, and savage treatment the grounders wanted to inflict on Finn under the guise of justice.  But that wasn't justice. That was animalistic revenge, like Abbey said.  It looks like mankind had regressed.  Mercy, decency, compassion, all the higher qualities of an evolved society were forgotten. 

      Not only does mankind have a propensity for killing their own kind, I think we're the only species that takes pleasure in inflicting pain and suffering on each other.  We used to draw and quarter people, burn them at the stake, crucify them, rack them, and perform all sorts of horrors on the human body.  In some third world countries, similar violenced still goes on.  And here some of you are in 2015 and raised in a so called civilized society advocating grounder rights under the excuse of "survival".  You can't appreciate that Abbey had an impossible choice.  You wanted her to just let the grounders have their way with Finn and rip him apart. 

      Survival doesn't necessarily demand we give into our baser instincts. It matters what you become in the struggle for survival.  Like Dante and Abbey said, you have to make sure that mankind deserves to survive.  Clarke exercised compassion and mercy.  She didn't give in and let the grounders' baser instincts rule.  If that's forcing the Ark people's morality on the grounders, then good for her. 

        Loading editor
    • "Mercy, decency, compassion...."


      Mercy, like the Arkers had for Alex Murphy before they floated him for stealing medicine for his sick son. Or Clarke had when she forced Emerson to make the 8 hour hike back to Mount Weather in six.

      Decency, like when they decided to secretly send the 100 to earth without even allowing their loved ones to say goodbye or when they planned on secretly murdering 320 people. Or when Clarke didn't warn Octavia, her spy's freaking sister, of the missile strike on Tondc.

      Compassion like when they arrested Octavia for being born. Or when Clarke killed 350 Mountain Men with little hesitation because they wanted to live on the ground just like the Sky People did. (350 people's lives in exchange for 50).

      It's all fine and good to root for the Sky People but they are not paragons of virture and morality. They are just as gray as the Mountain Men and the Grounders. Besides, it always makes me uncomfortable when someone says one race is better than another.

        Loading editor
    • To @Skyzy:

      "Mercy, like the Arkers had for Alex Murphy before they floated him for stealing medicine for his sick son. Or Clarke had when she forced Emerson to make the 8 hour hike back to Mount Weather in six."

      The Arkers floated Alex for committing a crime: stealing. ANY crime was punishable by death on the Ark. Alex knew this. Now, keep in mind that they changed their ways when they came to Earth. They weren't that harsh with people. And BTW, floating somebody is a much less painful and more merciful death than torturing them to death. Clarke did what she did to Emerson b/c she wasn't right in her head. She was acting more impulsive, since PTSD after killing Finn messed her up. On top of that, her friends were being tortured to death by his people. Clarke wasn't doing it to be an ass; she did it because she wanted him to hurry. Though, it was stupid, I can understand why she'd want to hurry.

      "350 people's lives in exchange for 50"

      350 people were sacrficed to save hundreds (Grounders + Sky People). In the long run, it would have saved thousands, considering the MM would have kept draining Grounders of their blood as long as they lived.

      I don't like how you judge people, btw. You don't do it right. For one, when it's one person, you're only looking at the severity of the BAD things they have done. You never look at the good. In order for you, or anyone else, to think they even have a right to judge somebody, they'd better do it off both the GOOD and BAD things the person has done. Secondly, when it comes to a group of people and how they live, you judge them based on how they lived in the PAST. The Sky People were harsh on the Ark, that's how they lived. They changed once they got to Earth b/c they were allowed that luxury. They did better for themselves. They became better people. That's how they live in the PRESENT. You shouldn't judge people on their past mistakes, you should judge them on how they do things in the present. Based on your logical way of judging people, I should still hate Bell for all of the things he did in the PAST instead of all the good things he did in the PRESENT.

      Also, keep in mind the Grounders never changed. The Sky People have a right to change the way they live. I wouldn't wanna be anywhere near those savages. I sure as hell wouldn't help them either if they were sick and twisted monsters like that. The world would be better off without people like them.

        Loading editor
    • We're talking specifically about torture here, not the Draconian rules set on the Ark.  Although people still do it, there is a universal standard of morality that frowns on torture. There are  some lines that you're not suppose to cross if you're living in a civilized society.  Do people always live up to this standard?  Hell no.  But you don't make it the norm either. 

      What was the point of making Finn suffer an excruciatingly painful death?  It wasn't going to bring those 18 people back.  It wasn't going to make the dead feel better.  The dead can't feel ANYTHING.  All it would do is provide sadistic pleasure to the living to satisfy their baser need for vengence.  Indra said that her viilagers deserved justice. What they wanted to do to Finn wasn't  justice.  Justice is administering the punishment that a person deserves.  Finn didn't deserve that.  Nobody does.  The grounders were going to take his life.  Was that not enough?  And how self righteous was that even?  They acted as if they, themselves, didn't have a hand in what happened to those people, as if they weren't as guilty of the same crime as Finn.

      Nobody said that the sky people were paragons of virtue.  They shock lashed Abbey.  But their form of execution was swift.  They did have a limit, so as to maintain at least some semblance of humanity. No one is innocent on this show.  But some are definitely worse than others.

        Loading editor
    • All I have to say is that anyone who actually thinks Finn deserved torture or thinks that torture is justice, needs to see a therapist. It shows how mentally unstable that person is, and people like that are a threat to everyone else.

        Loading editor
    • Clarke, Bellamy, and Raven tortured Lincoln. Finn tortured Delano. Kane and Major Byrne tortured Rivo. Kane wanted to torture Emerson.

        Loading editor
    • Skyzy wrote: Clarke, Bellamy, and Raven tortured Lincoln. Finn tortured Delano. Kane and Major Byrne tortured Rivo. Kane wanted to torture Emerson.

      1. Kane and Byrne did NOT torture Rivo. Kane told Byrne to stop when she held a gun to his head.

      2. This was all done to get information to SAVE lives. This wasn't done out of an act of revenge. Two very different reasons. Neither is justifiable but one at least has a purpose, the other does not.

      3. Finn was suffering from PTSD (confirmed by JR/link is in the Finn comment section). Everyone in S2 began to suffer from psychological problems due to the war with the Grounders and their people being trapped in Mount Weather, dying. JR even confirmed that by the end of S2, EVERYONE had some level of PTSD (link in the Finn comment section, too).

      4. Clarke, Bellamy, and Raven (in S1) were the only ones right in the head when they did what they did. Maybe not Raven, though, since Finn was her last family member and he was dying. She sort of lost it. Bellamy and Clarke were right in their heads, though. BUT they at least showed remorse and didn't do it for the pleasure of hurting somebody (like the Grounders wanted to do to Finn). They UNDERSTOOD that it was WRONG, Raven didn't. Clarke also saved Lincoln's life in S2, and Bell befriended Lincoln.

      5. Anyway, all of the examples you listed above DOES NOT even compare to what the Grounders wanted to do to Finn. Their reason was REVENGE. Not that I agree with anyone else, but at least they had a legit REASON to do what they did.


      BTW, when I made my comment I was referring to people in REAL LIFE, not on the show. I saw many people say Finn deserved the Grounders' death, so I was just saying those kinds of people need to seek help. Also, just because the people on the show tortured others DOES NOT mean they thought it was okay. Raven was basically the only one who didn't care (along with the Grounders).

        Loading editor
    • I want everyone who protects Finn to look at themselves in the mirror and ask "Did I honestly get behind someone who coldbloodedly murdered 18 children, women and elderly people? Or, as a matter of fact, those who were ready to save his life by risking the lives of everyone else?" I want you to stand there, ask those questions and then answer me this. Do you really like the person you have become?

        Loading editor
    • 77.86.63.194 wrote: I want everyone who protects Finn to look at themselves in the mirror and ask "Did I honestly get behind someone who coldbloodedly murdered 18 children, women and elderly people? Or, as a matter of fact, those who were ready to save his life by risking the lives of everyone else?" I want you to stand there, ask those questions and then answer me this. Do you really like the person you have become?

      He did not kill those people for fun. He did not kill those people out of anger. He killed them because he was suffering from PTSD and his brain wasn't able to function properly. Can you not forgive the mentally ill for a mistake they have made due to their mental illness? That's why I can forgive Finn and protect him. He developed a mental disorder due to the Grounders' sick violence.

        Loading editor
    • TheOmegaWerewolf wrote:

      Can you not forgive the mentally ill for a mistake they have made due to their mental illness?

      18 dead people is a little bit bigger than an "oops, my bad"  and it's somewhat hard for the victims to forgive him when they're all dead.

      (Besides, when did he ever apologize to anyone who deserved to hear it for what he did?)

        Loading editor
    • I want everyone who protects Finn to look at themselves in the mirror and ask "Did I honestly get behind someone who coldbloodedly murdered 18 children, women and elderly people?

      In cold blood implies intent. But like the previous poster said (and confirmed by writers) he had PTSD. You could see he was showing signs of anxiety rapid breaths, sweating, jittery/shaking and then open fire at "shadows" when he was surprised. Which is petty much exactly what we seen in Jasper scene at the bridge, only worse.

      I want you to stand there, ask those questions and then answer me this. Do you really like the person you have become?

      I like this exercise. Lets try it based on your initial premise for:

      • Jasper: After getting speared by grounders, Jasper distrust for the grounder led him to looses his nerves and he opens fire killing several grounders.
      • Finn suffers from case of PTSD, looses his nerves and gun down 18 villagers in TonDC.
      • Clarke cold-bloodedly decides the fate of 250 warriors, children, women and elderly in TonDC.
      (Besides, when did he ever apologize to anyone who deserved to hear it for what he did?)

      I believe he did so in the bunker scene with Clarke. And later so when he excepted his fate.

        Loading editor
    • please remember that they are not friends, allies or  even known to each other...... finn killed the enemy, thats why noone blamed him IN THE OPEN..... nobody liked what he did but in their eyes it wasnt his fault, he had PTSD na acted because someone triggered him......

      why wasnt he given up so easily is because they were enemies who killed many of ther skaikru and iut was more of a power play than anything, mixed with how people would look if their leadership would give up someone to the enemy..... anyone, even finn, who killed innocents because the grounders killed children, innocent children, whose parents would now watch someone else be handed over......

        Loading editor
    • what really pisses me off is that clarke killed finn for nothing since lexa just betrayed her anyway! and i think clarke kissing lexa was a really huge p*ss on finn's grave consider she just mercy killed him!!!!!!!

        Loading editor
    • if you want to understand clexa and why it happened so "fast" , then continue reading:

      1) finn killed innocents and was at his breaking point, some might argue that he was at his breaking point, to the suicide line.... he knew what his death meant it meant peace and no matter what ,he knew killing was wrong, he knew that not knowing they didnt have clarke was no excuse for killing them, so he decided to accept his punishment. this even prooves how he was no savage, but reasonable man, who understood you cannot get away with something just because you could....

      2) clarke killed him because she knew there was no other way..... killing lexa meant 1000+ warriors, willing to die, and were trained to kill from their childhoods, all that released upon camp jaha..... sure guns would kill a lot of them, but soon they would get to the distance of meele combet and you know how that would end..... so clarke did the best she could, finn, even if he was skaikru, was a killer and had to be punished for his crimes, because no matter how you put it, he DID kill a lot of innocent people..... so the grounders wanted him dead, atleast she could do was make sure he didnt suffer.....

      3) their first kiss.... ok, first, LEXA KISSED CLARKE. and she said she wasnt ready. at that point, clarke already saw that the grounders werent just savages, but a civilization and lexa was smart, inteligent and cared for her people. who does that remind you of? clarke. lexa and clarke saw "trough" each other because they were so familiar. they both lost someone they love3d in a war with someone they now had peace, they both wanted to be free, but had to protect and lead their people, and both sacrificed everything for their people..... lexa saw strenghtr and power in clarke, but it was clarke compasion that lexa fell in love with.... clarke was a leader like her, and lexa never smiled and did what she had to, what she needed to, for her people, clarke understood that, thats why she didnt blake her for finn, because she knew his death wasnt lexas fault..... imagine clarke when lexa tells her she didnt let her burn in tonDC... she knew that lexa saw her in some regard other that a strategic ally, but not how much more..... until the kiss.

      do you think clarke had a speech prepared for when she was 18, some plan to get herself back on the ark? no, she knew they would float her. she was preparing to die for over 1 year.... and then those people send her on earth, like a lab rat, and still, she protects them..... she still tries to save them..... she doesnt let jasper die, she meets with anya, she makes contact with thew arc, she doesnt enjoy MW, she sees the danger and risks everything to get out, to save her friends.... then she mets with the heda, lexa, whose 300 warriors she killed because it was her who always protected her people, not bellamys "idiotic" plan to fight off an army with limited suplies with KIDS......  killing finn was the best she could do. and how many people thanked her for that? her mother? bellamy? jasper? NOONE. after risking her life more than a few times to save everyone, she always does what she has to and always gets treated like dirt in return.... they were her people, but after everything she did for them, they still only saw trhe bad in what she did..... tonDC is wha tprotected bellamy, and stuff like that.... she felt that. she felt like noone liked her, loved her, cared about her..... her own mother was willling to let her die for the greater good. but then came lexa, who kissed her. an enemy, who would be killed by her generals if they knew she kisswed her. clarke found someone who cared baout her, lexa evenb saved her life..... finn broke her heart and had a girlfriend, but she sr+till cared for him. but lexa didnt want anything from her, she saw her, got to know her and...... well, she started to care for her. clarke found someone wha was willing to do that for her, someone who would protect her, and that was a role she was never in before, a role she was safe in, a rolew she liked to be in..... lexas presence made her feel something more again. she lkiked her back. but it was too soon. they were in a middle of a war. and at MW she saw what lexa had to do. she blamed her but she also understood her. lexa did what she had to for her people, just as clarke has more than once.....  and that is why she reacted like she did, saying she wasnt ready. it was because of finn, but lexa was not out of the picture because she was a grounder..... and as we later saw, clarke loved her back.

      also, i think it was a day or 2 between finns death and their first kiss, and clarke said she wasnt ready, so i dont hink it was disrespectfull towards finn.....

        Loading editor
    • Or a tldr kind of answer, killing finn

      1. Formalized the alliance with grounders, preventing a massacre by the thousands of Grounders that were camping outside of camp Jaha.
      2. Saved Finn the agony that was in store for him in the grounder ritual.
      3. Showed Clarke inner strength and open the door for Clexa trough shared experiences..

      But we digress from the thread topic.

        Loading editor
    • well, killing finn, one could argue if that was the only way to open the way to clexa, which became a canon later on....

      but it definetly showed just how powerful clarke is and that she understands ther meaning of sacrifice, something that the grounders thought skaikru wasnt capable of...... which kinda made them think they underestimated skaikru...... also, one could argue about the debth of shared excperience over the loss of loved one, but i would be on your side in that conversation....

        Loading editor
    • Wow, Finn's a more popular guy than I would have thought... 958372848264772 years after his death and he's still being discussed...

        Loading editor
    • This is a wiki, we document event unpopular people from way before 958372848264772 years ago. Such discussion help us flesh related articles, so lets try to limit comments to the topic at hand, because by the looks of it the related articles could use some help, I think.

        Loading editor
    • ^I think Omega was referencing that this was a dead thread since last October that got resurrected, not that these discussions aren't necessary.

        Loading editor
    • Skyzy wrote:
      USS-Reliant wrote:

      I was surprised that Abigail would even think about being defiant knowing well that if this ONE life isn't sacrificed hundreds more will die, for what?

      This is what bothered me most. Abby didn't even blink about telling on her husband to Jaha to save lives, knowing it may cause Jake's death and he didn't kill anyone! Yet, after Finn killed 18 people, she's hesitant to send him to his death when it would stop a war?

      She learned from her mistake I suppose.

        Loading editor
    • ^Abby didn't want Jaha to kill Jake, though. She was hoping Jaha could talk him out of exposing the truth to everyone... I doubt she would have sought Jaha's help if she had known that her husband would be executed.

        Loading editor
    • TheOmegaWerewolf wrote: ^Abby didn't want Jaha to kill Jake, though. She was hoping Jaha could talk him out of exposing the truth to everyone... I doubt she would have sought Jaha's help if she had known that her husband would be executed.

      I don't think she wanted Jake to die either, but I think that she understood that actions and words have weight behind them. She didn't simply want to do something again without thinking it through.

      Plus, I think she feels guilt over that fact that she was apart of the plan to them the 100 down to the ground in the first place. I think part of her felt responsible that such a young guy went and did something so awful.

        Loading editor
    • Finn might as well be an entirely new character as of Season 2. I don't think the writers handled the transition at all well.

      Then again, I am disappointed by the general trigger-happiness of the whole group of sky people. Jasper should have faced some heat from shooting first at the bridge, and he did not. That was a serious plot flaw that hurt the suspension of disbelief since.

        Loading editor
    • LuisDantas wrote:
      Finn might as well be an entirely new character as of Season 2. I don't think the writers handled the transition at all well.

      Then again, I am disappointed by the general trigger-happiness of the whole group of sky people. Jasper should have faced some heat from shooting first at the bridge, and he did not. That was a serious plot flaw that hurt the suspension of disbelief since.

      Jasper did face a little "heat" from Octavia and Finn, but I think the overall theme for that shooting was it was necessary because Jasper thought they were in danger.

      I do agree though that this show is trigger-happy, but that it isn't just the sky people who are that way. I mean, the whole Grounder mentality is to fight before talking. Lexa was the one who tried to change that. I think this show had a serious issue with lack of conversation. 


      Everything has to be war which irritates me.

        Loading editor
    • I don't think the Grounders are show to be that violent, personally. As of S2E09 they have earned the right to raze the Sky people, IMO.

        Loading editor
    • "Blood must have blood" isn't violent to you?

        Loading editor
    • Given the circunstances, I think it is unrealistically lenient. Don't you?

        Loading editor
    • I mean, Season 2 Finn was a complete imbecile on a destructive path. And Indra's people paid the bloody price for it.

        Loading editor
    • In what way is revenge lenient?

        Loading editor
    • Also, season 2 Finn wasn't stupid. He became damaged through war. That's what PTSD does to some people and unfortunatly, Indra's people did pay the price.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.