Grey's Anatomy

Season 8 Episode 24


Aired Thursday 8:00 PM May 17, 2012 on ABC

Episode Fan Reviews (42)

Write A Review
out of 10
256 votes
  • Why is it wrong?

    It's my first ever comment on after being a fan for more than 4 years. I just felt I had to speak my mind this time.

    I read so many reviews condemning the writers about Lexie's death. So many people use the argument "it's wrong for Lexie to die because her character had so much more to give still, whilst others had run their courses". Or "it wrong to kill a character just for shock value".

    How on earth does that make sense? This is a tv show about real-life situations and people. It's not Dr Who, it's not Game of Thrones, it's not the A-team. Maybe a lot of non-realistic situations have happened to Seattle Grace, but still, that's what it's about. Real life.

    And in real life, who lives and who dies is not decided upon who's got more to give and who is like the most.

    I find Lexie dying a very brave decision creative-wise. The shock value most people talk about is the drama value in my eyes. Grey's Anatomy is a drama. It has it's fun moments and it's love connections, but the core is a drama. In a drama you are supposed to see stuff that will be..well...dramatic. If Kepner was killed who would give a shit? Very few. If Teddy was killed still not many people would care, as she supposedly had nothing more to do.

    Hell, there've been people suggesting Meredith or Karev have done all they could as characters, their charactes matured and all that, so if any of these two was killed it would be justified. How on earth is a death justifiable? Lexie dying shows exactly what life is about. Chance. A plane crashes and she's the one to die. Well in most case all of them die, but there wouldn't be any show then, would there? So one has to die, and it's random. Or if there was a factor in choosing Lexie and it was the shock value, I am all up for it. Because if somebody dies that you know of tomorrow, you can't say "glad he died, he was 90 with kids, grand kids and so on, made a fortune and saved the world, so he gave all he could". Tomorrow a kid will die, a newlywed will die, a promising athlete will die. That's life.

    I understand how we can get over-attached to our favorite shows and characters, but it's creepy to start dictating what makes sense and whatnot in terms of who lives and who dies. The only thing that would be sort of nonsense decision would be to off Meredith as the show's called Grey's Anatomy. Like destroying Galactica and run more seasons when the show's called Battlestar Galactica, or having Hawai 5-0 move to Jamaica and retain the title. These things are obviously weird (and bad) creative choices. But killing a character because they could still "give" stories is not a valid point. If it's bad it's only bad for the show itself IF it's proven in the future that they could have really used that character.

    I think Shonda has proven that a show can go on without a character, two or three. Some people still like George. What??? Izzie?? Jesus!!! I cried my heart out when Denny died but man did Izzie become quite annoying after that. And George?? He was the most idiotic character of them all. I am sorry if some relate to him, but that kind of person is not a character to 'last'. Washington yes, he would have been an asset. But his leaving was a non-creative decision.

    Kepner is off but who cares about Kepner right? Still why kill her? Just to show that you can always end a season with a death? THAT is a cliche. If you kill somebody in an act of randomness though, that shows GUTS. And I don't know if more of them die (Mark or Arizona), but I can understand it and it would make sense for such a show. If I want to watch a show where what happens is what I want to happen, then I'll write my own and find somebody to produce it.

    There I said it.
No results found.
No results found.