Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why kill off Alan?

Collapse

Ad Below Title

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why kill off Alan?

    I don't know if it was Ron Raines idea or Ellen Wheelers, but I don't think he should've been killed off. He was an important character to be treated with disrespect in my opinion. I would've wrote him finding true love, I would've probably brought Annie back for him sane of course.

  • #2
    I agree.
    I didn't want to see him die, but at that point, the show was going off air.
    I always keep in mind that in the world of soaps, death is never final.
    If there had been a way to resurrect the show, they would have found a way to resurrect Alan.

    In my world, neither Alan, Gus or Maureen would have been killed off.
    I actually have a longer list, but this post was about Alan. LOL

    Comment


    • #3
      Alan's death, IMO, was necessary to set up Alex leaving with Fletcher and setting up Phillip and Beth as the couple of the manor sort of speak. I really think they had written Alan into a corner and this was the only possible end for him, playing hero to Phillip and finally being looked upon as a good guy by the people of Springfield. Hence, Billy's speech at the wedding.

      Comment


      • #4
        He was a legacy character. Alan could have been redeemed in other ways. The only thing I will say about the scene was that it was a good scene with Phillip being there in front of Alan as he layed dead on the bench .

        Comment


        • #5
          That was another of Ellen Wheeler's much maligned ideas. Alan SHOULD NOT have been redeemed. He was a villain. He could be good, and he could have been a good grey villain, but they shouldn't have made him a saint in the end. That single moment took the character of Alan Spaulding and all the years of loving/loving to hate/hating him and flushed it, along with much of Springfield, in my opinion.

          Again, the show should have ended years before and ended this embarrassment.

          Comment


          • #6
            I am split in my opinion on this - if the show were not being cancelled - then no, Alan should not have died...he should have gone on and on for years to come....but whereas they did cancel the show...his 'ultimate sacrifice' to Phillip, to save HIS life....was, to me, justified (in terms of character) - Alan did a LOT of awful things to people over the years....including Phillip - it was time to give him some redemption at least with his son.

            That all said, I think the show needed someone else to be the villain in the last several years....they certainly had gotten away from 'business' storylines for the most part, but...there certainly could have been a villain in the form of Edmund Winslow...or Kyle Sampson could have returned.....or Carmen Santos could have awakened from her coma....there's any number of past villains they could have re-introduced.....

            Comment


            • #7
              Because the show was ending, I was okay with Alan dying. Alan had hurt so many people and done so many things and I think him dying was the way everybody around him had made peace with him, and he made peace with everything.

              Jonathan and Sarah were able to come home and Lizzie could reunite with her daughter. Phillip was able to live and be with his family. I think Alan was tired of being the villain and he wanted to give this back to his family. He was okay.

              Comment


              • #8
                I was less 'offended' by Alan's dying at the end than by Philip outright murdering Grady Foley - and I was no fan of Grady at all...couldn't stand him - but they made Philip a murderer....that was many, many different levels of wrong....

                Comment


                • marciat
                  marciat commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Well, what did Grady think would happen when he basically threatened Lizzies life in front of her fathers face? Plus, Phillip was bi-polar too hence being in an institution. Grady was not smart there. He was basically playing with fire.

                • GuidingLite
                  GuidingLite commented
                  Editing a comment
                  I agree 100% that Grady's threat was indeed wrong, but.......Lizzie was not standing there nor was she being held hostage anywhere nor was there a gun to Philip's head....it was just 'talk'....so in the eyes of the law...Philip murdered Grady...I'm not saying Philip wasn't 'justified' in protecting his daughter - I'm saying that act and the way he went about it made him a murderer...

              • #9
                Yes, it was a glaring plot hole that was left unresolved -- like Reva riding off into the sunset with Josh while viewers knew that Jeffrey may very well still be alive -- but I actually didn't have a problem with Phillip killing Grady (and really we don't actually know that Grady died, all we know is that Phillip shoved him off a cliff) especially given his threat towards his daughter.

                Regarding Alan, I agree with Kayg that maybe he was tired. I think back to his last conversation with Buzz, and we all know that Phillip was the true love of Alan's life. So it made total sense that he would make this sacrifice for his favorite son.

                Comment


                • #10
                  Also did they fully explan Phillips behaviors in 2004 when he was "killed" off? Didn't Rick diagnose him with bipolar disorder or was it something?

                  Comment


                  • Smithey
                    Smithey commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Phillip was simply labeled "crazy" or "mental." Nothing about bipolar.

                Google Matched Content

                Collapse

                Bottom of Page

                Collapse
                Working...
                X