/lit/ - Literature

>>19554559
>Using Ockham’s razor, the most logical explanation for this phenomenon is that the writers wrote themselves into a corner, they had a great premise but couldn’t execute it properly, time/budget constraints prevented them from making the ending they wanted or, more likely, the show was so successful that the producers pressured them into making more seasons to milk it a second a cash cow and they had to rewrite the ending to fit in the new events.
Occam's razor is an aphorism that often passes for insight but can just as easily turn people into credulous liberals. Showrunners are accountable only to future investors, who need to be reassured that the showrunners are a good investment. That requires signaling maturity, which in a capitalist society means that the truth is always whatever conclusion you reach after you get over your youthful radicalism. It's true for the Watchmen, the Hunger Games, Game of Thrones, and so on. Hunger Games could be a socialist revolution series... up until the sugar-coating ending in which the characters find peace away from politics. Having *no* politics is where liberal ideology leads, back to where it all started.

To quote John Stuart Mill:

>An opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard.