Shock value implies shock happened.
Killing off long time characters
- Thread starter GulBahana
- Start date
Unless it's around a certain time of year, then it's "All I Want For Christmas is Q". Yes, that's a thing. It's on YouTube.
I don't think Q's going to turn Picard back into a human, but if he does, the episode should be titled "Thank Q (Falettinme Be Mice Elf Agin)".
That or she'll whip out her sonic screwdriver and prove that the El-Aurians are Time Lords
The perfect honey trap, lure him in then eliminate him with extreme prejudice
Buildup and reason? You remember Tasha Yar's death, right?
Indeed, yes. And that was emblematic of the viewpoint that death could happen to anyone. It was done rather quickly in the episode. At this point, I honestly think the objections to death have nothing to do with past Trek and everything to do with personal discomfort with Picard, even if past Trek did similar things.
Killing off characters from great episodes which happened decades ago is a no no.
Why, are they immortal?
Or, are they sacred? I say, unleash reign of terror on those bastards, French Revolution style.
Nobody is sacred.
Not necessarily. It's all about execution and whether it works, dramatically. IMO.
Done right, it could be powerful, shocking, and/or deeply moving.
Again, "Journey to Babel" is a classic episode. Doesn't mean that TNG should not have killed Sarek off. Or that first Kelvin movie should not have killed off Amanda.
See also Kirk, Spock, etc.
You're not doing any character or episode or series a favor by treating it like some sort of sacred cow or holy relic. Better to play with the toys than let them gather dust on a shelf, even if it means dinging them up a bit.
Last edited:
No, not immortal. It just feels like a slap in the face.
"Hey, remember your favourite episode of your favourite series? Well, now we're going to mess with it 20 years later so it will never be or feel the same."
It is highly restrictive and basically treats them as sacred icons. No thank you. A character's death has no impact on my viewing of a great story. A great story is just that-great, all by itself.
People die. Star Trek Picard is a great way of showcasing this. If anything, more legacy characters should be revealed to have died in the years between 2379 and 2399, since they're all supposed to be going on grand adventures every week with a high level of danger.
Having untouchable legacy characters adds an unnecessary plot armour to all but those deemed unimportant. Icheb's death in 2386 doesn't ruin his character development in 2377. Hugh's death in 2399 is a necessary plot point and elevation of the stakes, despite the promise of his continued existence at the end of I, Borg in 2368.
By Star Trek Discovery Season 3, they're all dead. Just like most (if not all) TOS characters are dead by the Berman era. Their deaths, either on grand adventures or peacefully in retirement, are mostly unchronicled, but it does not affect the stories we all know and love from ages past.
Having untouchable legacy characters adds an unnecessary plot armour to all but those deemed unimportant. Icheb's death in 2386 doesn't ruin his character development in 2377. Hugh's death in 2399 is a necessary plot point and elevation of the stakes, despite the promise of his continued existence at the end of I, Borg in 2368.
By Star Trek Discovery Season 3, they're all dead. Just like most (if not all) TOS characters are dead by the Berman era. Their deaths, either on grand adventures or peacefully in retirement, are mostly unchronicled, but it does not affect the stories we all know and love from ages past.
I believe that user has their name at the end of all posts as their signature, not attributing that quote to Kor.
I disagree. Death is the final part of the character's journey. If you leave it out you on purpose in order to safeguard the earlier pleasant memories of their life I believe you end up with an incomplete character.
*rimshot*
That's just the nature of ongoing series. Unless you stick to anthology shows like THE TWILIGHT ZONE or THE OUTER LIMITS, new stuff is going to keep happening to old characters. And sometimes characters break up, go away, turn evil, or die . . . which is the way series fiction has always worked
For example:
THE SIGN OF THE FOUR by Arthur Conan Doyle, 1890: Dr. Watson meets Mary Morstan in the second Sherlock Holmes novel and they get married in the end. She eventually passes away later on in the series. Did this ruin THE SIGN OF THE FOUR forever? Was this "a slap in the face" to everyone who loved that novel? Did this wreck the original Sherlock Holmes books?
Of course not. People are still reading and enjoying THE SIGN OF THE FOUR more than a century after Conan Doyle killed off Mary Morstan. So why should STAR TREK characters be handled any differently?
Last edited:
Indeed yes.
Imagine my surprise when reading the original books of Phantom of the Opera, or Robin Hood, or Man in the Iron Mask and how those ended. Not for the fans of Disney films, that's for sure.
Heck, I love ROBIN & MARIAN, which is bittersweet tale about Robin Hood's last days. But that's never marred my enjoyment of the classic Errol Flynn movie, THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, which remains as exhilarating as ever. It's not as though I've ever thought:
"Oh, yeah, you're happy ever after now, Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland, but just wait until you turn into Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn!"
Again, not making fun of anyone here, just pointing out that tragic endings don't have to spoil earlier chapters in a saga. Ideally, you can enjoy both tales on their own terms, depending on how well they're told.
Last edited:
If "Phantom" ends with Raoul, AKA "Mr. Handsome Rich Athletic Dude Who Already Has Everything and Gets the Girl Too" dying a spectacular messy death at the Phantom's hands (or under his chandelier), I'll like it just fine.
