Board Thread:Speculation House/@comment-35941743-20190304195312/@comment-26339197-20190327012212

The Devil&#039;s Advocate WP wrote: Getting rid of Adam without ever really exploring character, particularly right at the moment his character was shown to be far more complex, was bad enough. Having Cinder offed without ever really getting into her motivations and complexities would trap this series into a pretty bland black-and-white pattern. That is essentially what they did with Roman, too. We get a hint at his motivations to moment he dies, getting no explanation. He was used merely as a device to advance the plot (he could've been used as a learning device for Ruby but the writers used it to solidify her already distorted world views, for some reason), and I think Adam was merely used as a device to advance and ground Yang and Blake's co-development (which is why he was a somewhat shallow character). I definitely think both could have been done better but they seem to frequently use characters as plot devices without developing their characters. They're practically half-way there with Cinder, absolutely using her as a plot device but they're trying to dip their fingers in her character, though doing it with a hidden agenda which makes her seem just as shallow as ever. Repeatedly having her reference to the same line that never had any meaning doesn't make her a deep character, no new meaning or development occurs when she references believing in destiny with no explanation.