Moraine and the Ferryman *spoiler*
Why have her kill him in this? Even when he jumped in, she could have saved him. Pointless emo drama.
shareShe didn't kill him, she just didn't save him. It was a Captain's call and she made the right decision. The guy was insisting on being a big problem and it was better to let him die.
She continued making the ship sink, and she could have stopped that. That's like speeding into a tree with a passenger and not taking your foot off the accelerator, and blaming the tree when you kill them. And either way, why do that? She paid the guy in the books. There was no reason to make her a killer.
shareYour analogy is utterly stupid: the ferryman CHOSE to sink with the ferry. He wasn't a passenger with zero control over his actions.
She is NOT a killer, she didn't want to kill the ferryman, he chose suicide.
I'm sorry that simple analogies are over your head, but rest assured it fits. He was aware that she was controlling the whirlpool. Just like you'd expect the driver to stop before you hit the tree, undoubtedly he expected her to stop sinking his livelihood before she killed him. If you'd read the books, you'd know this character would never do this.
shareBut the television show is not the same as the books.
Yes, the books are wildly successful and generally loved, and the show is getting middling reviews at best. Hence the point of my post, to discuss why making pointless changes like this doesn't make sense, and what would the motivation be to do so.
shareI'm commenting on the show, not on the books.
And still, it was his choice.
And again, stupid analogy: the passenger is trying to steer the car in a direction that would kill everyone on board, by choice.
I agree, very poor analogy. They won't admit or acknowledge it though.
share