Too Much Death in Star Trek?

[kirkfan]

I'm fine with the deaths in TOS. It's a little awkward when they're joking around a few minutes later, but I see that as the compressed, compartmentalized time of a '60s television narrative and not callousness of the characters.

That's nothing compared to Picard forcefully removing a phaser from the hand of a red shirt that Q had just frozen solid. Talk about carelessness!

 

[Trekkin]

"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."

I was going to say that. When entire teams of explorers on our own planet can be wiped out by the elements (for eg. Mawson) or accidents (Challenger, Columbia and Apollo 1), what makes people think it would be any different once we're actually in deep space?

Yes Kirk's crew is bigger than three people, but the threats they face (which they largely don't know about until they stumble onto them) are also that much greater.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Remember that, unlike real life, in fiction writers have a choice. Far too often writers with a lack of imagination use death as drama when it is really just an easy way out, or to piss on a franchise to "leave their mark" on it like a dog to satify their ego, or simply to lazily manipulate the reader or viewer. Sometimes it's because the actor has become too expensive or too annoying. The real Universe is much more objective about it and does not kill people because of those things even when we wish it would.

Sounds like you're talking about something very different than the OP.

Not at all. Fictional death is easy to write with just a stroke of the pen or a press of the keyboard. Who cares? It's not real. So pile on the numbers of deaths for greater drama, right?

Consider these quotes:

I've noticed that about your people, Doctor. You find it easier to understand the death of one than the death of a million. You speak about the objective hardness of the Vulcan heart, yet how little room there seems to be in yours.

So just rack up the body count for shock and awe to increase the drama because one just isn't enough.

The death of Tucker was another object of controversy. Salem described the development as "a major character is pointlessly killed off in service of a pointless plot device," a complaint echoed by IGN. Actor Connor Trinneer, who played Trip, said during a convention appearance that the character had "gotten out of much worse scrapes than that," and the death seemed forced. The writers, Trinneer contended, wanted to kill off a character to "get the fans talking," and so Trip was killed off simply to manipulate viewers.

Fictional death is easy to write, so writers all too often use it for impact and manipulation rather than doing something organic with the character that requires more effort - building drama without death. So the excesses of death in a fictional show may reflect the writer's lack of imagination and result in an increased body count and often the typical ratings ploy in promotional ads that offer up the sacrifice of "A major character will die!!!!!." Yes, I'm sorry, but this does suggest that even Star Trek writers get lazy sometimes.

Just so you know, I do not count Spock's death in "The Wrath of Khan" as one of these cheap deaths. It was organic, part of the story and character, and was meaningful. Contrast that to Kirk's second death in "Generations." That was about pissing on the franchise where the conversation starts with "Let's kill Kirk!" instead of at least allowing the character and plot to lead them there.

Before anyone brings it up, as I recall it, the story goes that they attracted Nimoy back to the role of Spock in "The Wrath of Khan" by telling him "We'll kill Spock" in addition to offering the role of Golda's husband in "A Woman Called Golda." But as the writing of "The Wrath of Khan" went on, they pushed Spock's death further towards the end because that's where the story lead them.

None of that changes my mind that you are on a different tack than the OP.

 

[tafkats]

"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."

This scene is a good counterexample, actually ... Picard does take the deaths of his crewmembers seriously, because he's human, and Q just doesn't get it.

Similarly, as ZapBrannigan mentioned, "Balance of Terror" is another example of it being handled well.

Yes, exploration is dangerous, and yes, crewmembers dying is realistic. But it can't be viewed cavalierly, lest our heroes start to seem something other than human.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

If TOS has a flaw (and it doesn't), it would be that there is too much death in it.

"The Cage" has off screen deaths in the three crewmen that Pike lost on the "real" Rigel VII, and the crew of the S.S. Columbia.

"WNMHGB" racks up a body count of twelve, counting the nine that Spock mentions, and they are never thought of again on screen. That brings up another issue: death in Star Trek is put behind us very quickly.

A few people even die in "A Piece of the Action," one of our two comedies.

Hundreds die in:
"The Doomsday Machine"
"The Immunity Syndrome"
"The Ultimate Computer"
"The Tholian Web"

Hundreds of Klingons die in "Day of the Dove."

In "The Omega Glory", Tracey admits to killing thousands of Khoms, while 429 of the Exeter crew dies from the disease.

I love the show, but I think they over-used death as a dramatic tool. I wonder if a lot of these episodes could have had the same emotional impact with nobody getting killed at all. And then they could have paid more attention to the realistic aftermath of death when a story required it, because being less commonplace on the show, it would be a bigger deal.

Death was handled seriously--as an expected, but regrettable part of the job. Kirk's "Risk--is our business" openly acknowledged the hazards--sometimes fatal, but it was not a throwaway comment. Consider Kirk's stress in "Obsession" or "By Any other Name"--not just personal loss, but considerable feeling for lost lives.

 

[Metryq]

Not necessarily too much, but sometimes it was treated far too casually. I'm thinking, for example, about the "everyone stands around the bridge laughing heartily" ending to "The Galileo Seven," right after two crewmen were killed.

Ugh! The "Scooby-Doo/Josie and the Pussycats" ending with a joke, or someone looking silly. That would make me cringe even if there hadn't been any deaths.

And let's not forget to add "The Conscience of the King" to the list.

MCCOY: That won't bring back the dead, Jim.
KIRK: No, but they may rest easier.

Did Kirk send Riley down to engineering to protect him, or to use him as bait?

 

[Push The Button]

"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."
Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Did Kirk send Riley down to engineering to protect him, or to use him as bait?

That can't be it. When you have bait wriggling on a hook, you also need a line to reel in your fish. And Riley was on his own.

 

[JWPlatt]

...When entire teams of explorers on our own planet can be wiped out by the elements (for eg. Mawson) or accidents (Challenger, Columbia and Apollo 1), what makes people think it would be any different once we're actually in deep space?

Three hundred years of progress and big honking ships with phasers, photon torpedoes, tractor beams, warp drive, deflectors, and a Federation of worlds with a Star Fleet ready to defend it. That's what. Equating today's tools with that is a bit weak.

None of that changes my mind that you are on a different tack than the OP.

It was an opinion - not persuasion - expressed to all here and not really to you, this being a forum and not a PM. It's fine to be unconvinced. It happens to me all the time.

 

[Albertese]

Treating deaths too quickly is common in fiction of many stripes. And often times, the story doesn't need to dwell on it. After all, who of you, when you first saw Star Wars, ever wondered why Luke hardly mourned at all for the deaths of Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru, his surrogate parents since he was an infant? He just looks down to the side for a beat and then back up. Next thing, "I'm going to Alderaan. There's nothing left for me here." And that's it. He's more broken up by Ben's death when they escape the Death Star, a guy he's known for an hour and a half.

The point is, that's not what the story was about. Same with Trek. If the death is important for the plot, then it's usually handled well, IMHO. But if it's just a peripheral thing, then it can be glossed a bit. It's story-telling shorthand.

--Alex

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

...When entire teams of explorers on our own planet can be wiped out by the elements (for eg. Mawson) or accidents (Challenger, Columbia and Apollo 1), what makes people think it would be any different once we're actually in deep space?

Three hundred years of progress and big honking ships with phasers, photon torpedoes, tractor beams, warp drive, deflectors, and a Federation of worlds with a Star Fleet ready to defend it. That's what. Equating today's tools with that is a bit weak.

It is not weak. Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you are looking at the technological trappings of the 23rd century like...well, like someone marveling over a show about the future, rather than consider the hypothetical dangers of deep space. What does 300 years of progress mean in a universe of enemy empires (just as well "stocked"), plagues, mind-controlling parasites, planet killers, god-like beings, and other threats?

Remember, Federation technology is not as advanced in the TOS period as it would be compared to present day. Kirk would never need to say "risk is our business" if Star Fleet members were rarely threatened during their travels.

 

[tafkats]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you are looking at the technological trappings of the 23rd century like...well, like someone marveling over a show about the future, rather than consider the hypothetical dangers of deep space. What does 300 years of progress mean in a universe of enemy empires (just as well "stocked"), plagues, mind-controlling parasites, planet killers, god-like beings, and other threats?

True -- in 1815, for instance, traveling across the American continent was hugely dangerous, offering all kinds of ways to die. Today, your chances of dying on that same trip are minimal. But even as those things became safer, we started doing new and more challenging things.

 

[Trekkin]

And in spite of those 'safer' advances, you still get hundreds of people dying every day on 'simple' car trips. As we advance, we keep finding shiny new ways to die.

I can remember Balance of Terror, Court Martial and Doomsday Machine showing the leads being affected by the deaths of red shirts. We see their friends and families, how they react etc. Of course, the guy in Court Martial turns out not to be dead...

 

[kirkfan]

There's also reversible death, like when you think that a character is dead but really he is not. Like Kirk in Amok Time for example.

 

[Metryq]

There's also reversible death, like when you think that a character is dead but really he is not. Like Kirk in Amok Time for example.

Or Kirk in "The Enterprise Incident."
Or Kirk in "The Tholian Web."
Or Kirk's body in "Return to Tomorrow."

"You're dead, Jim!"

 

[JWPlatt]

...When entire teams of explorers on our own planet can be wiped out by the elements (for eg. Mawson) or accidents (Challenger, Columbia and Apollo 1), what makes people think it would be any different once we're actually in deep space?

Three hundred years of progress and big honking ships with phasers, photon torpedoes, tractor beams, warp drive, deflectors, and a Federation of worlds with a Star Fleet ready to defend it. That's what. Equating today's tools with that is a bit weak.

It is not weak. Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you are looking at the technological trappings of the 23rd century like...well, like someone marveling over a show about the future, rather than consider the hypothetical dangers of deep space. What does 300 years of progress mean in a universe of enemy empires (just as well "stocked"), plagues, mind-controlling parasites, planet killers, god-like beings, and other threats?

I'm applying the technology available to Star Trek to our likely reality as a space-faring race. I am ruling out the possibility that the Universe works like weekly episodes of fiction. The biggest concerns for us with space travel are distance, time, radiation, micrometeors, atrophy due to lack of gravity, medical issues, the psychology of small quarters among few companions, and harsh destinations. Star Trek has warp drive, shielding, defectors, artificial gravity, recreation, and a large crew containing doctors and counselors (TNG). The Universe is almost certainly teeming with life, but if there were evil empires or aggressive aliens in the neighborhood, we would likely have heard about it or been conquered by now. And those evil empires could be a millions or billions of years in the past or future and we are alone to rule our space.

The stipulation is that we achieve the technology of Star Trek. But the Drake equation - N = R* x f(p) x n(e) x f(l) x f(i) x f(c) x L) - and the Fermi Paradox (the contrast between probability and contact) make it highly unlikely that we will meet the same dangers, assuming the operational problems of space travel are solved.

 

[BillJ]

...make it highly unlikely that we will meet the same dangers, assuming the operational problems of space travel are solved.

But no one wants to see that and a TV series featuring it would likely be cancelled. Viewers want the larger-than-life antagonists, the danger and death.

 

[Metryq]

But the Drake equation - N = R* x f(p) x n(e) x f(l) x f(i) x f(c) x L) - and the Fermi Paradox (the contrast between probability and contact) make it highly unlikely that we will meet the same dangers, assuming the operational problems of space travel are solved.

The Drake equation and the Fermi paradox are speculation, not fact. Speculation can be helpful to science by pointing the way towards testable ideas, but speculations prove nothing. At the moment, we know of only one planet with life on it, which is statistically insignificant. The Fermi paradox makes a number of assumptions, too. Do SETI calculations include plasma cut-off frequencies? Other abodes of life may be cut off by barriers greater than that around Earth. Also, assuming other life forms would build starships and colonize is projecting human behavior onto (imaginary) extraterrestrial creatures.

TOS posited a number of non-spacefaring intelligences that were equal to or superior to Federation technology.

James P. Hogan's "Giants" series posits ETs very similar to humans in many ways, yet radically different psychologically due to their evolutionary past.

FORBIDDEN PLANET posited alien "ruins" that were a serious threat to humanity—and not a single BEM around to wield the technology in an unneighborly manner.

 

[Metryq]

...make it highly unlikely that we will meet the same dangers, assuming the operational problems of space travel are solved.

But no one wants to see that and a TV series featuring it would likely be cancelled.

Wrong on the first argument—many fans loved FIREFLY intensely. (Despite no aliens.) However, you are right about the second argument, as FIREFLY was cancelled barely halfway through the first season. But not for a lack of alien black hats.

 

[BillJ]

...make it highly unlikely that we will meet the same dangers, assuming the operational problems of space travel are solved.

But no one wants to see that and a TV series featuring it would likely be cancelled.

Wrong on the first argument—many fans loved FIREFLY intensely. (Despite no aliens.) However, you are right about the second argument, as FIREFLY was cancelled barely halfway through the first season. But not for a lack of alien black hats.

The black hats don't have to be aliens. But the audience identifies with black hats, so they have to be there in some form.