On Glenn's Fate In TWD S6E7

This commentary concerns the 7th episode of season 6 of the AMC zombie apocalypse series The Walking Dead. This episode, titled Heads Up, originally aired on 11/22/2015. Do not proceed if you do not wish to read any spoilers.

This episode resolved a cliffhanger concerning whether or not Glenn survived episode 3 (Thank You) which aired on 10/25/2015.

The season 6 episodes summaries from Wikipeida note the following.

THANK YOU (S6E3, 10/25/2015) Glenn and Nicholas end up being trapped atop a dumpster surrounded by an army of the undead. Seeing no way out, Nicholas thanks Glenn and shoots himself in the head; his falling body knocks Glenn off the safety of the dumpster into the ravenous horde. HEADS UP (S6E7, 11/22/2015) After being trapped by a horde of walkers, Glenn manages to survive by crawling under a dumpster while the Walkers are occupied with consuming Nicholas' corpse.

3 episodes aired in between "Thank You" and "Heads Up", leaving the question as to whether or not Glenn was dead unresolved. During this period of time I wrote a blog post in which I stated my belief that Glenn had definitely died. Because he was surrounded, and even if it was Nicholas' guts who were ripped out (see video below), Glenn's head and legs were still exposed, and SURELY multiple Walkers would chow down on those parts of his body shortly (after the episode fades to black).

As it turns out those who guessed that - although it appeared as though Glenn was getting his guts ripped out - those guts actually belonged to Nicholas were right. And Glenn did crawl under the dumpster. My issue with this sequence of events is that the camera never showed why no Walker ever bit Glenn's legs (or his head) as he lay under Nicholas or as he pulled himself under the dumpster.

The way the showrunners cheated their way out of the situation was simply to never show anything from an angle that showed Glenn's exposed legs. But they were exposed and that he did not get bit is quite unbelievable IMO. And, even though the Walkers saw him under the dumpster and he killed some of those who were grasping at him (how, I do not know, as Glenn's hand was out of the shot), the other undead got distracted and wandered away after Glenn hide out under the dumpster for a few hours. A empty can rolling by in the background was one such distraction that supposedly distracted (at least 2?) of the many many undead that comprised the "army".

Everyone (guests and audience) on the Walking Dead post show, Talking Dead (a talk show on which the preceding episode of TWD is discussed), only expressed relief that Glenn was alive. Nobody asked, "what about his legs"? And, "why didn't he get bit in the face"? Either everyone was so overjoyed that Glenn didn't die that not one person ever thought to ask that - or the Talking Dead people put a lid on any such discussion.

Which is to say that I do not buy it that Glenn could have possibly escaped the situation the writers put him in - and he should have died. Not that I want him dead (I do not), but I find what happened to be not believable. Not that people dying and coming back as zombies is believable. But if one suspends disbelief in order to accept the premise of the show, then the rest of it should be handled in a realistic manner. Which I don't think happened with this episode.

As for that post I wrote in which I said Glenn was definitely dead... I never got around to publishing it. On the day episode 6 aired I thought that I'd better finish writing my post. Because I figured that the fate of Glenn might be revealed. What ended up happening was that I finished it RIGHT before the episode began. And then, when they revealed what happened to Glenn immediately (he lived) - there was no longer any reason for me to publish my post in which I got it wrong (and gave my extended explanation as to why I was sure Glenn was dead).

Turns out he lived because the writers decided they could gin up some interest in the show by making it look like Glenn died. Which they did, resulting in a ratings increase for episode 3. Then they had to cheat and keep Glenn alive when there was CLEARLY no way he could have escaped getting bit. Because Glenn is a fan favorite.

But does this mean Glenn is safe? The character that kills Glenn in the comic book (on which the series is based) has been cast and is scheduled to appear shortly (that character being Negan). Will Negan kill Glenn? I have not read the comic. Because I have no interest in comic books. I've only read online (many of the Walking Dead wiki entries) and that's how I know that Glenn does eventually die (and how).

In any case, even though I disliked how the character Beth Greene was written out of the show (PPP #35) and found Glenn's survival (given the situation he was in) not quite believable, I will continue to watch. I still think TWD is a pretty goods show, despite having a few issues with some of the writing.

Video: Nicholas and Glenn die. (2:27)

PPP #37, TWD #6.

TWD Beth Greene Suicide By Cop WTF

This is a show where characters have to die to keep this world real. If people were just surviving nonstop, it wouldn't really be an apocalyptic situation ~ Robert Kirkman, creator of The Walking Dead.

The "mid-season finale" of AMC's The Walking Dead aired last Sunday night (11/30/2014) titled Coda. If you haven't watched it yet and are concerned about spoilers, read no further. Although the title of this post pretty much gives away what happened. The Beth Greene character did something really stupid and got herself killed. Now, Beth was suicidal following her realization that her mother and brother were not sick but dead (her father told her that zombism was an illness that might possibly be cured)... But the mom and brother were definitely dead when shot in the head by Rick Grimes.

After that happened Beth tried to commit suicide by slitting her wrists. Although all indications after that were that Beth had decided she wanted to live, which makes her suicide by cop all the more perplexing. Prior to the airing of the episode I had read on the IMDB message board that most people thought Beth would die - so I was not surprised when she did - but the manner of her death did elicit a huge "WTF" from me.

Prior to the mid-season finale, Beth had been "rescued" by a group of cops who had holed up in a hospital in Atlanta. After treating her wounds her captors told her she was now their slave. Or that she "owed" them and had to work off her debt. That is what the cop leader Dawn Lerner told her. Anyway, through a series of events that I won't go into with this commentary, Rick and friends found out where Beth was, took some cops hostage, and proposed a prisoner exchange.

The exchange was almost complete when Dawn said Noah (a defector from her group that had joined Rick's group) had to stay at the hospital - or there would be no deal. Noah said he would stay, but Beth decided to stab Dawn with a pair of scissors instead. Except, instead of stabbing Dawn in the neck or head and killing her, Beth stabbed her in the shoulder. So Dawn defended herself and blew Beth's head off. Although Dawn was wearing her cop bulletproof vest and was therefore not hurt at all (not sure about this and it never even occurred to me until I read a comment on a messageboard in which someone pointed this out).

Beth said "I get it now" just prior to the scissor stabbing of Dawn - but I don't get it. Beth was preparing to leave with her friends, but decided to provoke Dawn into killing her? In front of her friends? Which could have (but didn't) result in a shootout in which many more people were killed?

Frankly Beth's actions made absolutely no sense. And, for that reason, I believe this episode is one of the dumbest. Later, on the after show "Talking Dead", a poll question asked if the redneck character Daryl should have shot Dawn in the head for killing Beth (which he did). I answered "no", as I saw Dawn's actions as self-defense. But as it turned out 93 percent disagreed. Host Chris Hardwick said "7 percent of the people are dead inside".

"Dead inside"? I was prepared to be sad that Beth was killed (when I was suspecting it was going to be her before the episode aired). But when it actually happened I was not sad. Because she killed herself! Hardwick asked Emily Kinney (the actress who portrayed Beth) "when do you think Beth knew she was going to stab Dawn in the neck?" But Beth DIDN'T stab Dawn in the neck! If she had Dawn would have died and Beth wouldn't have been shot in the head. So it was a suicide.

Although Emily Kinney sees it differently.

Emily Kinney: Beth has been getting stronger this season. She has been gaining more confidence. It was one of those moments where they got what they needed but then she had this moment of overconfidence. ... that wasn't a good decision.

Not a good decision to stab Dawn in the neck and miss? I'd agree with that. But she really "missed"! If Beth HAD stabbed Dawn in the neck and killed her then Noah could leave. Turns out Dawn's group of cops wanted her out of her leadership position, and after Daryl shot Dawn everyone decided NOT to start shooting at each other. The "overconfidence" was (apparently) that she could raise her arm to the right level so that the scissors went into Dawn's neck and not shoulder.

To close out the show Hardwick said "I know this was a tough one", referring to Beth's demise... but that wasn't the reason it was "tough" for me. The reason it was "tough" was because of how dumb it was. That one moment when Beth decides that suicide by cop is how she will protest Dawn's decision to insist that Noah remain at the hospital. Or stab Dawn in the neck (and miss). Either way Beth's death was lame.

Other than that moment, I also disliked them making Rick a stone cold killer (running down a cop and then shooting him - just for trying to escape). Executing someone for trying to escape is just wrong. But he did just slaughter those cannibals in the church... so, they deserved what they got while the cop did not. But I can understand why it's easier for Rick to cross that line now. Even if the former situation was self defense and the later is murder.

So I could accept that... but Beth committing suicide in a manner that might have resulted in the deaths of many of her friends (who were there to rescue her)? And, even though nobody on "Talking Dead" viewed it that way, it WAS a suicide (by cop). If Beth had wanted to kill Dawn she would have. By stabbing her in the shoulder I don't know WHY she wouldn't expect Dawn to defend herself.

So, I CAN accept that characters die as Kirkman said... just not in so stupid a manner. Anyway, I will watch the show when it returns in February. But my disappointment with this episode will remain. There will be more character deaths, but hopefully no more dumb ones.

Video: Excerpt from The Walking Dead S5 mid-season finale. Beth Greene and Dawn Lerner die. Video posted to YouTube on 11/30/2014 (0:48).

PPP #35, TWD #5.

Surviving Fictional Limb Amputation

This is yet another post that concerns AMC's post-apocalyptic zombie series, "The Walking Dead". In this post I shall discuss the story line concerning the amputation of one of the character's legs after being bitten by a "walker", which was done in order to prevent his being infected, getting sick, dying, and coming back as one of the dead.

The following excerpt from the April 24th airing of MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show (in which she discusses the aftermath of the Boston bombing) points out a reason why this story line might not be that realistic...

Rachel Maddow: Doctors and nurses, on their days off, started flooding into work as soon as they heard the first reports. Many of them have been in operating rooms ever since. Operating, in some cases, on the same patients two or three times. Amputations, for one, are not one operation deals. They are complicated multi-part surgeries as the doctors have been willing to explain to us...

Amputation isn't a simple as presented in TWD. The character Hershel is bitten in the ankle by a Walker (zombie). What happens next, according to precedent established by the writers, is that the bitten person develops a fever and then (eventually) dies. Then they rise from the dead as an unthinking thing that is technically dead, but somewhat alive. And all they want to do is eat the living. Other food (such as canned hams) is rejected.

If you follow this series you know that everyone is already infected. The scientist at the CDC told Rick that. But being bitten infects the bitten individual more seriously and that causes death... I guess (I'm still not clear on that specific detail). I guess the virus is present in lesser quantities in living persons, and kept at bay by their living-ness. But being bitten delivers a massive quantity of the virus, and that leads to death.

Which is why Rick cut off Hershel's leg after he was bitten - to prevent the massive dose of the virus from spreading from the bite throughout Hershel's bloodstream and killing him. How Rick amputated the leg was with an ax, which I think would have killed Hershel (even if it did prevent the spread of the virus). Shock, blood loss, and infection would certainly finish him off, as amputation involves surgically removing the limb and then covering the stump with skin flaps or skin grafts. None of this was done in the removal of Hershel's leg, so his surviving was probably highly unlikely.

This was a deviation from the "graphic novel" (which I have not read). I did read about the graphic novel though, and it says another character (one that is not present in the series) was the one who had his leg amputated. This character survived the amputation, but his wound later became infected and he died from the infection (a normal infection. I'm not referring to the zombie virus). But Hershel (the guy who's leg was amputated on the series) lived and has now recovered completely.

According to Wikipedia, a surgical amputation is accomplished via the following method...

The first step is ligating the supplying artery and vein, to prevent hemorrhage (bleeding). The muscles are transected, and finally the bone is sawed through with an oscillating saw. Sharp and rough edges of the bone(s) are filed down, skin and muscle flaps are then transposed over the stump, occasionally with the insertion of elements to attach a prosthesis.

What occurred on TWD was a "traumatic amputation", which is the "the partial or total avulsion of a part of a body during a serious accident, like traffic, labor, or combat". Wikipedia says this kind of amputation "creates the immediate danger of death from blood loss".

Wikipedia also notes that, "due to technological advances in prosthetics, many amputees live active lives with little restriction", but our heroes (TWD characters) do not have access to these technologic advances. Hershel currently gets around by hopping and using crutches, and for that reason I thought he was going to die before the season ended. I thought a zombie would get him or one of the Governor's men would shoot him. But he is still alive at the end of season three, and will be present at the beginning of season four.

Or I expect him to be. I suppose that they could say he died in between, as I've heard there is going to be a time jump when the new season starts (same as when season three began - several months elapsed between the season two finale and the first episode of season three). Hershel will die eventually I'm sure; and not from old age. This isn't a show where nothing bad can happen to any of the primary characters.

I read on TWD blog that the series creator can even envision killing off the primary character (Rick Grimes). IMO he was lying in order to create some tension. It makes it more exciting for the audience if they aren't convinced that certain characters are safe (can't be killed)... but killing off Rick? I'd be very surprised if that happened.

PPP #23, TWD #4.

The Resurrection of Damnation

Another post that concerns AMC's post-apocalyptic zombie series, "The Walking Dead"; the final episode of season 3 specifically. This post will contain spoilers, so don't read any further if you don't want it spoiled (not that anyone will read this. This blog has no readers at all as far as I know).

OK, now that I've viewed the episode, I've got to say it did not go down as I thought it might. I wouldn't have had any preconceived notions going in - since I have never read the graphic novel the show is based on - except for the fact that I've read ABOUT it. There is a wiki on the internet that I spent some time reading a while ago, and yesterday before the episode aired I read a number of the character history pages on Wikipedia.

Andrea is still alive in the comic (or "graphic novel"). She one of the longest lived characters, in fact. But, as you know if you watched the episode, she died. All the other people I surmised might perish - they all do get killed when the Governor attacks the prison in the comic (except for Glenn). According to what I read, the prison residents get their asses handed to them when the Woodbury army busts in. Hershel dies, Lori dies (she did not die earlier in childbirth as on the TV show) and Judith dies. Others might have died too, but I'm not familiar with the comic at all, so don't know.

Looks like what happened on the TV show is the opposite of what happened in the comic. In the comic Rick's group ended up being driven out of the prison, but on the TV show they are still there at the end of the episode. Not only that, but they go to Woodbury and bring all the weak old people back to the prison. Which means there will be a lot of characters available to die next season. That is what happened when the prisoners were introduced - it wasn't long before they were all dead.

On another topic, a commercial for the upcoming movie "World War Z" starring Brad Pitt aired during the episode. I was looking forward to this movie, but now I'm not so sure. The trailer made it clear that this flick features FAST zombies, like in the 28 days (and weeks) movies. Which probably means these zombies aren't really zombies but people infected with a disease. I don't care for the living persons infected with a disease like rabies zombie (they called it "mad human disease" in Zombieland). These are not real zombies. Zombies are undead.

That doesn't mean I'm no longer looking forward to "World War Z" though. If "zombieism as a disease" is the route they go it could still be good, but I definitely am thinking "maybe not" now. I just looked it up, and regarding the novel the film is based on, Wikipedia says, "The zombies... are undead humans reanimated by an incurable virus. ... Although zombies do not tire and are as strong as the humans that they infect, they are slow-moving and incapable of planning or cooperation in their attacks".

But the zombies shown in the trailer were moving VERY quickly, so clearly they changed that. The Wikipedia page for the movie says, " ...the production suffered some setbacks. In June 2012, the film's release date was pushed back and the crew returned to Budapest for seven weeks of additional shooting. Damon Lindelof was hired to rewrite the third act, but did not have the time to finish the script and Drew Goddard was hired to rewrite it".

Rewrites and reshoots could indicate the movie sucks and they're trying desperately to salvage it. Let's hope that isn't the case. Finally, back to the season 3 finale of TWD - why is Carl totally disregarding what his mother told him right before she died? She told him he was not to let the world as it is now change him - and he totally has! I thought he was wracked with guilt over her death and would thus try hard and honor her final request. Now he's engaging in precautionary murder?

PPP #22, TWD #3.

Heads Filled With Goo

The season 3 finale of AMC's "The Walking Dead" airs tonight. Looking forward to watching it, as this is my favorite television show. There is one thing, however, that bother me a bit about it. Something that is quite contrary to reality. That is, how easy it is to kill Walkers by damaging their brains.

The human skull is actually a LOT tougher to penetrate than is depicted on the show. A gun, or a sharp object through one of the eyes or mouth would work, but a knife to the skull would not. A hatchet or sword swung with considerable force behind it would probably be enough to crack the skull, but a knife would not.

Knife thrusts to the skull have killed many a zombie on this program, and every time it happens I think, "no way". Worse yet was when Glenn killed a zombie by stomping on its head, smashing it and releasing the goo contained within. But at least his kill was realized via multiple stomps. In the most recent episode Michonne kills a zombie with one single stomp to the head; a single stomp that splits open it's noggin and completely flattens it.

In the previous episode a character called "The Governor" chops a zombie head in half with a shovel. Again, all I saw was goo instead of brain matter. It's as if these zombies have neither skulls nor brains. I suppose, however, if the zombie brain was as well protected as it would be if the show were a little more realistic... they'd be a hell of a lot harder to kill.

And there is also the fact that all our heroes seem to be a crack shot with a firearm. In the season 2 finale several of the characters were driving around (in moving vehicles) and shooting at moving zombies. A situation where I think missing the target entirely would happen more often than not. Yet it seemed every shot (or almost every shot) resulted in a kill.

Even so, this is still my favorite program. I wonder who is going to die tonight. I'm guessing that Hershel Greene, Beth Greene, Judith Grimes, Carol Peletier and (possibly) Glenn Rhee might bite it. In that order, meaning that Hershel is most likely to die, IMO. I'll be surprised if any other of the "good guys" don't survive.

On another topic, it seems a little odd that this show on a channel called "American Movie Classics" AMC used to show old movies exclusively; and without commercials. Now it's just another channel. But a lot of channels started out specializing in a particular genre, and most of them have now abandoned that idea.

That they are still AMC but don't show America movies that are classics (old movies) at all isn't something that concerns me much though. More upsetting to me is the fact that AMC nixed the release of a CD release of Bear McCreary's score. I don't know for sure if it was AMC executives, but I'm sure if it were something that they favored it would be happening.

Instead they're putting out a song CD with a measly 8 tracks. WTF is the deal with that? And it's "volume one", indicating their intent to put out further volumes. A score CD; that I'd be all over, but a song CD with only 8 songs isn't something I'm interested in. How disappointing. Hopefully a score CD will be forthcoming at some future date, but from what I've read it does not seem likely.

PPP #21, TWD #2.

The Zombie Infection

This post concerns the AMC Television series The Walking Dead and contains spoilers. This series is based on a comic book of the same name, but I don't read, nor do I have any interest in comic books. The series, however, is something I am very much into.

The purpose of this post is to discuss a question I have about the "disease" or "infection" which causes a deceased person to rise as a zombie (or "Walker", as they are called in the series. The term "zombie" is not used).

According to the Walking Dead Wiki, "Morgan... checks Rick for zombie bites or fever, either of which could indicate he is turning into a zombie himself".

This seems to confirm what I previously thought, which is that getting bit by a zombie leads to sickness and death, after which the individual rises as a walker. It is mentioned that Morgan's wife was infected, developed a fever, was confined to bed rest for a period of time, and eventually died, later rising from the dead.

However, the "if you're infected you get sick, die, and turn into a zombie" rule seems to have been discarded with the revelation at the end of season 2. Near the end of the just concluded season, the protagonist Rick Grimes reveals that Jenner (the scientist they encountered at the CDC) told him that everyone is already infected and will rise again when they die (this explains why Randall and Shane both become Walkers even though neither is bitten or scratched - the only way the audience was previously lead to believe someone could be infected).

My question is - is this revelation, which the writers no doubt consider themselves extremely clever for coming up with, at odds with the original "infected" explanation given at the beginning of the series by Morgan?

Correction: According to the wiki for the comic book series, "Julie reanimates without being bitten resulting in the revelation that all of the survivors were infected". Now, I have no idea who the heck "Julie" is (a character that is only in the comic, perhaps, or a character that hasn't been introduced in the TV series yet), but this finding confirms that the writers of the TV series didn't come up with the idea of everyone being infected.

The question now is - am I misremembering what Morgan said happened to his wife (that the infection killed her), or did the writers screw up?

PPP #17, TWD #1.

A Reaction to Dexter's Season 4 Finale

This post concerns my reaction to the season four finale of the television series "Dexter". For anyone unfamilar with the show, here is a short synopsis from Wikipedia: Dexter is an Emmy and Golden Globe Award-winning American television drama series that airs on the pay-TV channel, Showtime. In February 2008 reruns began to air on CBS. Set in Miami, the series centers on Dexter Morgan (Michael C. Hall), a serial killer with standards who works for the Miami Metro Police Department as a blood-spatter analyst (see the Wikipedia page for an extended synopsis).

By the way, I advise against reading any further if you have not seen season four (or the shocker ending) and plan on doing so. Because spoilers will be discussed. I'm calling this a "reaction" and not a "review" because I haven't seen a single episode of season 4 (which concluded on 12/13/2009). Because it hasn't come out on DVD yet. I saw season one without subscribing to Showtime because DirecTV re-aired it on another channel, with, presumably, the intent of getting people hooked and feeling compelled to subscribe to a pay channel in order to find out what happens in season 2.

I did become hooked, but, unfortunately for Showtime, I am a patient person. I waited until season 2 came out on DVD and purchased it. I also waited and purchased season 3 on DVD. As for season 4, I inadvertently discovered that one of the major characters had accepted a part on another television program. Why? Because they killed her off on "Dexter". So, after I found that out I wanted to know why. Turns out she was murdered by another serial killer. After she married Dexter and gave birth to his son. (The character I'm referring to is Rita Bennett, who is portrayed in seasons 1-4 by Julie Benz. Julie Benz's current TV gig is as a "recurring" character on "Desperate Housewives", a show I have never seen and have no interest in seeing).

Someone on another message board I frequent posted the following response to the "Dexter" season four finale...

It was absolutely brilliant... The absolute horror and feeling of loss are what this show is about. ...it felt entirely appropriate. Dexter's little world gets shattered bit by bit as the series progresses ... I think what happened at the end of this season was as it should be. (I've shortened what this other person originally wrote, whittling it down to what I thought was essential. In any case, I wasn't comfortable stealing, verbatim, what someone else wrote).

Well, without seeing yet (although I know basically what happened) my response is general disagreement with this person. I wrote a response and posted it.

My thoughts (based only on what I've read) regarding the season 4 finale...

I haven't seen it yet, but I don't like the idea of killing off a character just to show you have "balls" (as an earlier poster put it) [this was a comment by someone other than person whom I quoted above]. They did the same thing on another show I really liked... Highlander. I was OK with the killing off of major characters on that show until they went to far and killed off Richie. They had established a prescient of not being afraid to kill off characters, and so they thought they needed to do something bold... but they made a mistake killing this character (and it didn't help that the episode was seriously lame-o).

With "Dexter" I thought what was going to happen was that he was going to become more and more normal (see things from an average person's point of view) as time progressed. When the show first started he wasn't even capable of participating in a romantic relationship - and now he is (or was, up until the end of the last season) a married father.

Also, I thought they were setting up a lot of threads (in regards to his relationship with Rita) that were going to be examined later on - like the fact that she had been married before Paul. And Dexter being in a relationship gave the series an excuse for gratuitous sex and nudity (which, of course a cable pay channel wants - to attract viewers). Now, how can he become involved with anyone else? He only kills other killers - wouldn't he think twice before putting another innocent woman in harm's way (as people around him seem to always be getting bumped off)?

Another reason Rita's murder bothers me... He spent the entire second season being led astray, but ended up back with her at the end. Now they've killed her off. Reminded me of Aliens, where Ripley spent the entire second half of the movie saving Newt, and then they killed her off at the beginning of the third movie. I hate it when they do that.

Also, what happens to Rita's kids? Is Dexter now going to be a single dad of three? Or will he only be a single dad of one? Will Rita's mom want custody of Cody and Astor [Rita's two children from her previous marriage to Paul]? In any case, I'd think that Dexter may want to find another home for them, seeing as it is dangerous to be around him. Who will they kill off next? His sister? I doubt it, but then again I thought Rita was safe.

Seems to me the only reason they killed her was for the shock value. They thought they were being clever in mimicking Dexter's experience of seeing his mother killed in front of him. Whatever his INFANT son saw, I doubt he will remember it. He was just to young for something he most likely won't remember to haunt him for the rest of his life (and turn him into a killer like his dad).

I know that people here generally don't approve of others judging things they have not seen or heard, but I don't have a problem doing so. This move gets a thumbs down from me. They could have come up with something better than this cheap and intellectually lazy "shocker" ending. Maybe I'll change my mind after actually seeing it, but for now this is my opinion.

6/6/2015 Update: I wrote the reaction above before watching the actual episode. In retrospect it was not that bad. I did not then (and still do not) think Rita should have been killed off, but the show went on and I still liked it... up until the last episode. "Dexter" ended on 9/22/2013 after 8 seasons and 96 episodes with Remember the Monsters?. In regards to the last season, some people did not like it, but I thought it was OK. In fact I was onboard until the last few minutes of the final episode... which is when it totally derailed.

Many reviewers have said the finale was one of the worst, and I must agree. Although, perhaps not for the reasons some give. While many people seem to think Dexter should have gotten his comeuppance, I don't know why a happy ending would have been that terrible. He already decided he no longer needed to kill, so why couldn't he have gone off with Hannah and lived happily ever after? Apparently that ending was NEVER considered. The showrunner wanted to kill Dexter but the Showtime bigwigs said no.

Instead they had Dexter come to the incorrect conclusion that he had to leave his loved ones for their own safety. Even though what put them in danger was him killing other killers, and he had just decided he no longer needed to kill. So, obviously this would not be a problem in the future. Although he should have finished off Saxon instead of deciding to turn him over to the police. Which was his real problem... that he let some people live too long. Like Trinity. He let him live thinking he could learn something from him, and Trinity ended up killing Rita.

Because Dexter learned the absolutely WRONG lesson when the writer made it appear that he had made a breakthrough, my rating for "Remember the Monsters?" is LAME-O. Killing off his sister was not right either. Not after the entire season up to that point was her suffering and finally accepting what happened at the end of the previous season. Then when she does, she's killed off! A much worse decision than killing Rita, IMO. As a faithful viewer for 8 seasons I feel betrayed. Still. Screw whoever was responsible for this horrible ending that ruined an otherwise awesome series. Seriously, you suck.

Video: ADDED 6/6/2015. Dexter season 4 finale Video posted to YouTube on 8/8/2013 (2:18).

PPP #6