It's the season four finale of your favorite prime time television show, tensions are high, and so are the commercial break frequencies. Everything seems to be falling into place; that pair of characters you knew were perfect for each other are finally together, the jerk at work was fired, and long lost siblings reunited. What more could you want? But suddenly, a car collides into one of the series regulars vehicles, causing a plume of smoke to engulf the white Toyota Prius in red flames.

"ARE YOU KIDDING?!" You shout at the television, which goes from tragedy to darkness. The credits start rolling, and you start seething with anger. "THEY WERE GONNA GET MARRIED! THEY WERE GONNA HAVE KIDS!" You bellow to the empty living room. You find yourself suddenly mourning the death of a fictional character whom you shared a close bond.

I often feel a deep connection to imaginary individuals, for example, Hermione Granger and I have a very strong connection. So I can sympathize with those who suddenly feel the intense rage when a television character is killed. Ironically enough, there is often a logical reason why characters are killed in prime time television, unless you are talking about Game of Thrones, there's no logic there. Most times when actors choose to not renew their contract with that specific show, the writers are faced with the challenge of writing them out. Downton Abbey's leading man: Matthew Crawley's death still makes me emotional: Actor Dan Stevens chose to pursue other acting opportunities, so creator Julian Fellowes had to create an exit for his character, which was unfortunately: a very morbid departure.

Which got me thinking, should television actors be in debt to the show for its overall plot quality? In other words, should the show own the actors for the sake of the story? Being an actor and writer myself, I became quite conflicted. Killing Matthew Crawley in Downton Abbey was heartbreaking, and I thought quite unfortunate to the overall story, but it could have been prevented if the studio had its talent under a tighter contact.

The idea of restraining actors from outside work is not a new idea. Movie studios used to "own" talent under a "minimum picture deal" or required them to make a certain number of movies. Judy Garland was owned by MGM in her early career to produce a set number of movies, and was not allowed to work for any other entertainment companies under that agreement.

If ABC or other networks would start applying that kind of contract to their talent, I am positive the overall storylines would improve and the quality of prime time television would skyrocket.

What are your thoughts on talent contracts for TV series?

Comment below and share with friends.