You mean “Risk. Is our. Business.”
EW:No main characters are safe
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
Well Dax didn't die heroically. She just happened to be in the way while Dukat was going about his evil plan. The problem there being that Dax and Dukat barely interacted over the course of the show, and there was no payoff where Worf kills Dukat, so it just felt like a bizarre way to kill off a character.
Surely you mean "Risk. Is. Our. Business."You mean “Risk. Is our. Business.”
That's precisely why I like that way Jadzia died. Her death was meaningless. You're not suppose to like it.
Trek, meanwhile, has spent a generation telling puzzle stories that no one but trufans give a shit about.Fans complained forever, it seemed, about the so-called "reset button." Well, hey, you got your wish. Congratulations!
You write a lot of stuff that I absolutely just disagree with. However, this post I can agree with.
It's one more reason I'm really looking forward to Discovery. Shows like GoT and The Expanse have changed television. (I'm sure there are others in this vein but I don't watch much TV so I'm just mentioning the couple I know of.) The old 80s/90s bland Trek is not coming back.
I'm looking forward to Discovery's bold new style.
Last edited:
Wow, quite a turnaround. When I first saw you on this board, shoot, nearly 2 decades ago, you were the uber TNG apologist. It could do no wrong. (Yes, I finally connected your new username to you.)
Last edited:
I just hope they don't pull a Voyager and the 'main characters' being killed off are only there for one episode. I want to actually feel the emotion of a major character dying.
I want Tumblr to flood with tears when characters die, is what I'm saying, because the tears of Tumblr give me life.
I want Tumblr to flood with tears when characters die, is what I'm saying, because the tears of Tumblr give me life.
My thoughts exactly. I can understand why they might go for the whole Game of Thrones vibe. It' very much the 'in' show and people are bound to want to copy it. With 'Thrones' though they keep you interested by serving up a non stop diet of death, violence, sex and evil. I can't see them being able to pull that trick with Trek, however.
And if characters are going to be getting bumped off left, right and centre, one of Star Trek's traditional strengths - that of the idea of the crew as a family - is going to end up meaning nothing. You can't believe characters will have much affection for each other - and in turn the audience in those characters as a group - if nobody is safe for me than 10 or 12 episodes.
Don't get me wrong, Discovery may be a great show. But will it still be Star Trek?
If it's a great show it doesn't matter whether it fulfills some idiosyncratic fan image of "true Star Trek."
Every drama worth watching does it this way. Trek's avoidance of it has no value other, perhaps, than kid-friendliness. Or some adult's idea of kid-friendliness.
Every drama worth watching does it this way. Trek's avoidance of it has no value other, perhaps, than kid-friendliness. Or some adult's idea of kid-friendliness.
You might call it idiosyncratic, but I truly believe that was one of the things that helped the first two shows to be as popular as they were. Nothing else in sci-fi before or since has tried to meld the genre with some proper underlying emotional warmth. If that is now to go out the window, so be it. But don't dismiss its value. It's what made Star Trek a mainstream proposition watched by millions of people who would never normally go anywhere near anything set in space or the future. Those series were certainly about a lot more than just appealing to kids.
Well I'm all for killing off characters if it is done to characters that I care about. Fusing the Trek family warmth (which BETTER be there!) with some thoughtful, artful deaths could be extremely effective. Make the Internet cry! Not for cheap shots but because space is dangerous and sometimes people will die, otherwise there are no stakes.
Sure. One or two deaths expertly done could add real potency, gravitas and elevate the depth of the story telling no end. I don't want 'The Walking Dead' on a spaceship though.
There's a difference between appealing to kids and kid friendly.
Star Trek was created as an adult show, any kid appeal it had was "accidental".
One problem I've heard with Trek ITD, is that when they killed Kirk and then revived him an hour or two later, it was no surprise. Obviously, no one really expected Kirk to stay dead since this only the second film in the series and he's the main character. So where was the suspense?
But then Spock's reaction--Spock is enraged, gets emotional, screams Khan's name, and wants to go after Khan. The thing is, the reaction should be understandable. But the fan's reaction was that why was Spock so emotional when the crew had been together for barely a year.
His reaction was normal--but because of the limited timespan of the series and how fast they put crew together and promoted them-- it gave the false perception that they've hardly been together long and known each other.
Some fans seem to have thought Spock's reaction was out of sorts.
Some of yall act like there is this universal law about character deaths that apply to all shows, there isn't. It's an individual thing, which is how it should be. Deaths of characters I really liked on Game of Thrones seemed natural in the course of things, especially with that show, so killing off Robb Stark and his Mom in one scene didn't faze me, even though I was rooting for Robb Stark as one of my favorite characters. It seemed natural in the scheme of things, and I'm a fan of Game of Thrones until the end. Well, unless they kill off Daenerys and her dragons. LOL
Killing off Lexa in The 100 would have been OK, since the actress had a commitment to Fear The Walking Dead, but the way it was done was simply so incredibly and insanely stupid it ruined the show for me.
Subjective and interpretive on my part? Of course it is, but so is all my TV watching, as is probably everyone else's. Killing off main characters and risking negative audience reactions is something all producers think about, which is probably why it doesn't happen that often. Doesn't mean when it does happen that it won't move the story forward though.
I'm sure the producers of The 100 aren't going to miss me.
Killing off Lexa in The 100 would have been OK, since the actress had a commitment to Fear The Walking Dead, but the way it was done was simply so incredibly and insanely stupid it ruined the show for me.
Subjective and interpretive on my part? Of course it is, but so is all my TV watching, as is probably everyone else's. Killing off main characters and risking negative audience reactions is something all producers think about, which is probably why it doesn't happen that often. Doesn't mean when it does happen that it won't move the story forward though.
I'm sure the producers of The 100 aren't going to miss me.
I mentioned above not minding most of the Stark deaths, but I will say that killing Rickon really annoyed me. There was basically no point to it other than a bit of audience-directed sadism and edginess, along with an inability to figure out how to keep him in the plot.
Also, this has brought to mind the other problem that can happen, where deaths are so regular that they stop being interesting and become super predictable. MI-5 is probably the worst offender I can think of. You could basically tell that someone was going to die if there was a prominent "guest character" and you'd know who was going to die based on gender and ethnicity. No one ever just retired or got promoted to another office or something.
Also, this has brought to mind the other problem that can happen, where deaths are so regular that they stop being interesting and become super predictable. MI-5 is probably the worst offender I can think of. You could basically tell that someone was going to die if there was a prominent "guest character" and you'd know who was going to die based on gender and ethnicity. No one ever just retired or got promoted to another office or something.
A constant desire to be "Star Trek" just caused the show to choke itself into irrelevance and eventual cancellation. You want the Star Trek franchise to survive? Then the priority is to make a good show, not to make it Star Trek.
Besides, most fans don't even understand what Star Trek is. They think a bunch of rules and credos Roddenberry laid down in the late 80s when he was developing TNG count as "Gene's Vision" and this is a sacred guide to which all other Trek productions must be measured. Never mind the fact that much of TOS flies in the face of this narrow definition of "Gene's Vision."
Which is why I love this Spock's reaction. It builds on that thread established in 09 and carries forward.
In DSC, I have a feeling that building the characters will be important, and that way, their deaths will carry more meaning because we will note how it impacts the characters we know. I mean, "Balance of Terror" impacts me at the end because of Tomilinson's death because it impacts Kirk and his now widow.
I'm hoping it is good science fiction, not good Star Trek. I'm sick to death of the previous shows trying so hard to BE Star Trek they totally forgot how to be good science fiction. This is a show about starships that fly about the galaxy, be that.
Similar threads
