Tumgik
#im simply stating my opinion and the observations ive made in the aftermath of that last episode
stevethehairington · 6 months
Text
i keep seeing people saying that they killed izzy for shock value a la game of thrones and i just— not every character death is there for shock value?? just because you don't expect it doesn't mean it's specific purpose is to garner shock value.
izzy very clearly represented piracy. he was steadfast and staunch in his ways and he held onto the traditions of piracy with a TIGHT fist throughout the first season and the start of the second. not to mention, s2 was ALWAYS leading to this theme of "the end of piracy". the clues were there the whole season!!! and by that logic, if izzy = piracy, then end of piracy = end of izzy.
im not happy about his death!! im disappointed hes gone!! i loved him, he was probably my favorite character this season!! BUT i do understand why djenks did it. and it was NOT a "for shock value" kind of thing.
some people are reeeeal quick to like get super defensive and jump onto this "omg it was for shock value! there was no other purpose! what bad writing! what a bad writer!" bandwagon when things they don't personally like or agree with happen on their favorite shows, but honestly not everything you don't like is "bad writing" or "just there for shock value" or "purposeless". maybe take a couple minutes to think critically about it and to like analyze the choice within the frame of the whole season and the whole show and its themes before making those kinds of (oftentimes baseless) accusations?
it's one thing to be upset with something that happened and to not like it, and it's another thing entirely to then blame it on bad writing or a clueless, vicious writer who doesn't care about their characters or their story or their audience.
17 notes · View notes