0

In season 1 of The Walking Dead, Merle cuts his hand off because he cannot cut through the handcuff. Yet in season 3, Andrea cuts her handcuffs with a pair of plyers?

If they were going to let Andrea die, why didn't they just let her stay chained to the chair instead of creating such an inconsistency?

|improve this question
  • 3
    We don't really know much about the condition of the cuffs or the tools. It's not inconceivable that a cheap pair of cuffs could allow someone to bend a link with a set of pliers, and a good pair of cuffs could be impervious to a duller saw blade. – Johnny Bones May 19 '16 at 20:11
5

There is nothing inconsistent here. Two separate events with two separate intentions. For Merle, they wanted to show that he was desperate to escape, with no hope other than to cut his hand off, and maybe he will die because of it.

With Andrea, they wanted to show her situation was inescapable. They provided false hope that she would escape only to take that away at the last minute. Having her chained up instead of freeing herself to try to fight for her life would not fulfill that desire.

|improve this answer
  • Your answer reeks of Deus ex Machina. You can't explain the Universe by saying, "Because the writers!" – Theodore R. Smith May 21 '16 at 7:57
  • @theodore what makes you think the issue is in-universe inconsistent – cde May 21 '16 at 10:56
  • @TheodoreR.Smith The original question does not explicitly indicate whether or not the poster is asking for an in- or out-of- universe reason. But the question does say "why didn't they just let her stay chained" as if they are in fact asking about a writers' decision. – lampShadesDrifter May 29 '18 at 1:26

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .