? The subtext is the same. Caitlin's not the type to let Dr. Stein die at all, and moreover he's the only thing she has left of her dead husband so she's doubly motivated to save him. Of course she doesn't want to replace Ronnie in the Firestorm role, but she doesn't have a choice.
No, the subtext is the exact opposite of that. The way Danielle Panabaker played the scenes was the exact opposite of being reluctant to replace Ronnie. That's what I've been saying over and over again for five days now. The whole problem is that she
should be reluctant, but neither the script nor the performance suggests that she is. And there's not a word about Stein being the only thing left of Ronnie. That's a clever speculation on your part, but
it's not on the screen. That is my problem. I'm not talking about what you or I can read into it after the fact, I'm talking about what's there -- or rather, what isn't there -- in the dialogue and performance.
Is it out of character? Sure, maybe... but that doesn't automatically make it bad writing. People act out of character in real life too, especially when they're grieving.
What makes it problematical writing is that the story doesn't
establish that. It leaves it to us to extrapolate after the fact as a way of trying to reconcile the incongruity. That omission is the exact thing that bothers me
as a writer, because my writing experience tells me that if you have a character behave out of character,
you justify it. Or at least you have some other character notice it. You acknowledge it, rather than just putting it in there and leaving it to the audience to rationalize after the fact.
I love that picture!
