How do you like your Trek?

[DonIago]

My apologies if my choice of wording offends anyone. That is not my intention.

Bring Back Trip
Bring Back Kirk
Bring Back Janeway
Not. Dead.

If you've spent any serious time on this board, I suspect you've observed a reluctance on the part of some to let characters stay dead.

In some ways this seems indicative of a larger schism in the fandom, where some prefer their Heroes to live on indefinitely (or to have "worthy" deaths if all else fails), while others are more amenable to the reality that sometimes death hits hard and fast and without regard to your past accomplishments.

So...do you have a preference?

 

[TheKeeper]

Let's not forget Data.

Anyway, I'll say Don't Care. Kirk and Janeway died well into their own futures, so there's plenty of room for more stories to tell. While I'm not a fan of ENT, I understand the fans' resentment over Trip's death, a lame attempt to add relevance to an atrocity of a finale.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Well, Janeway still lives on in the 24 Century as an Admiral in the Prime Trek-verse. So she is not dead. It was some sort of alternate future time line version of Janeway that died in Endgame.

As for Kirk's death. I don't mind Kirk dying, it is just his death was really lame. In fact, his whole purpose for being in the movie was lame. To help Picard punch a villian. Really? Wow.

As for Spock's death: It was probably the best death scene ever done within the Star Trek Universe! By far the coolest! And yes, he does live on within the Trek-verse, but that is because he was resurrected by unnatural means, though. But Spock did in fact die and stayed dead for a good amount of time.

As for Trip: Well, in my opinion, we are watching an unofficial alternate time line series. So I imagine that the Trip from the Prime Universe didn't die in such an idiotic manner.

As for Data's death: It was just absolutely retarded. He never really died because we got this B-4 carbon copy to take his place.

As for Tasha's death: It was non emotional because the early seasons of TNG were just not up to quality or normal watchabllity yet.

As for Dax's death: I thought it was touching within the series. However, it could have been better. In fact, I would have preferred her to die in that episode where Worf goes back to save her on that one planet instead. It would have been more appropriate. But I still like how things played out, though.

As for Sisko's physical death: It was fitting within the series (despite my disappointment that such a great character died). On one hand I liked that they surprised me with his death in the fact that even characters you really like can die. However, on the other hand I would have enjoyed that his character lived on for us to see in a future TV series at some point, though.

So I vote for realistic yet dramatic for a character's death within a Star Trek series. An option that is not on the poll.

 

[RookieBatman]

I voted that heroes should die heroically, but I think there are ways to have realistic deaths that don't feel cheap. I think the worst thing to do, though, is to kill someone to just to "give the story meaning." (Which is exactly the reason given for killing Trip; I'm assuming Kirk was probably similar reasoning.) A death only gives the story meaning if the death itself has meaning, and that generally doesn't happen if it was just shoehorned in for no other purpose.

 

[DonIago]

For the purposes of perhaps making it more clear what I'm aiming at with this poll, I'll say that it was inspired by the recent "Bring Back Janeway" petition originated by persons unhappy with how her death was handled (or her death in general) in Before Dishonor. While the execution of the death itself may have been lacking, I don't think there was anything particularly "unrealistic" about it, and it at least resonates throughout the course of that book. While I'm sure others disagree, I wouldn't categorize it as "cheap".

Link - http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=124843

 

[Luther Sloan]

Janeway never really had a death scene within the Voyager series. An alternate future version died... yes. A duplicated version of herself died... yes. An alternate time line version of her died in Year of Hell... yes. But the prime character did not die like Spock did within the Trek-verse or anything. At least not anything on that level, anyways.

In other words: the prime universe version of Janeway never significantly died within the run of the series.

 

[Finn]

Well, Janeway still lives on in the 24 Century as an Admiral in the Prime Trek-verse. So she is not dead. It was some sort of alternate future time line version of Janeway that died in Endgame.

Janeway never really had a death scene within the Voyager series. An alternate future version died... yes. A duplicated version of herself died... yes. An alternate time line version of her died in Year of Hell... yes. But the prime character did not die like Spock did within the Trek-verse or anything. At least not anything on that level, anyways.

In other words: the prime universe version of Janeway never significantly died within the run of the series.

I think he meant Janeway's death in the novels.

 

[DonIago]

That would be why I explicitly mentioned Before Dishonor in my follow-up, yes. In any case, Janeway's death isn't the sole point of debate here.

 

[Luther Sloan]

The books are not canon. So they are not relevant to the Prime Trek Universe (which is the majority of the TV series and films). Thus, why I ignored the reference.

 

[Finn]

The books are not canon. So they are not relevant to the Prime Trek Universe.

Yes. But with no 24th century shows, the novels are all they can use to immerse themselves in the post nemesis era.

 

[Lord Garth]

A few years ago, I began to wonder how many people who think "Bring Back ____" have actually dealt with death? My mother and three of my grandparents are deceased. It's part of life. Yes, it's science-fiction but to say "it's science-fiction!" is a cop-out. What it really gets down to is that fans can't get over the characters and the writers usually -- but not always -- kill off these characters for shock value or something happened behind the scenes with the actors or actresses which wrote the characters into a corner.

For the "shock value", the writers weren't serious about killing the character off and hadn't exhausted all story possibilities with them yet. For behind-the-scenes politics, well, nothing you can do about that. Maybe this is also reflective of life because not everyone gets to have a beginning, middle, and end. Sometimes it just abruptly ends right in the middle in a senseless way when there was so much more to live for.

Not that I didn't mind seeing Spock back. I enjoyed TSFS but, artistically, it was a denouncement of TWOK.

Personally, I think the best resurrection was of Ellen Ripley. It was a clone and not exactly the same character, so it's not as if a reset-button was hit.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

I have no interest in any sort of tie in fiction, so as far as I'm concerned Janeway's future after Nemesis is entirely unknown.

Trip's death was horrendously written, but I really didn't care much about the character or the show. It's canon.

Kirk's death - maybe not the greatest, but Kirk Prime had reached the end of the road.

 

[RookieBatman]

A few years ago, I began to wonder how many people who think "Bring Back ____" have actually dealt with death? My mother and three of my grandparents are deceased. It's part of life. Yes, it's science-fiction but to say "it's science-fiction!" is a cop-out.

True, it most often happens in science fiction (and maybe soap operas), but I was just reminded of how probably the earliest popular example of this "Bring Back ____" syndrome was the fans begging Conan Doyle to bring back Sherlock Holmes after he killed him off in The Final Problem. Like it or not (I choose "not"), it's been happening for quite a long time.

 

[Lord Garth]

^ To quote Lily, "Actually, I never read it."

I'm only broadly familiar with Sherlock Holmes. I read one of his stories in high school (it was assigned) but I don't remember it. Everything else I know about him, I'm ashamed to admit, comes from TNG or pop culture.

Do you think that Sherlock Holmes was only brought back so they could sell more books?

 

[DonIago]

That last line reminds me of when I got into a debate with a friend about Dickens. He was talking about how he loved Dickens' writing and I made the snarky point that given how Dickens was paid by the word he probably stretched everything out and consequently nobody actually talked the way he portrays in his books.

I don't actually have any research to back that up either way, but it amused me.

 

[Arpy]

When I was a kid, I'd of said heroic deaths. Death should be heroic...if you don't take it seriously.

You can't rage against the coming of the night if the coming looks cool. And I don't want to be a death-fetishizing Klingon. The best part of the the fetish is the reveling at how cool you go out, but if you actually go out, you won't do any reveling! As that shrew Ayn Rand said, to you, you don't experience what it is to be dead (in an afterlife or moment of understanding) the whole universe just ends. You go back into that emptiness from before you were born that you have no notion of.

Show death as the absurdity it is in this tragic universe and let us rail against it.

One day humans may become immortal. If we don't all die, it's probably just a matter of time, given our unceasing thirst for knowledge and technological development. It may take longer...maybe nuclear war will delay it for a thousand years or fifty. But if we do have the time to make it happen, we will. We'll store our minds in cyberspace, or clone our bodies, or find ways of regenerate our cells, or what have you. I think it sucks that I won't be around to see it. And if I'm gonna have to die because was born at the wrong time...and if we do all die, some other sentient beings'll come along and make it happen, if they haven't already somewhere out there in the infinite universe. But if I'm going to have to die, I want it shown for how fucked up it was.

I'd take a bullet for the president or be the last man on the bridge so the crew could get away or what have you. And so would countless people and I want that shown too. But damn it most people die just "average" deaths and that's how I want most deaths shown. They all suck, even the "great" ones. The really shitty deaths, the ones that are ugly (actually ugly, not cool ugly) and stupid and funny in their ridiculousness should also be shown, but in proper proportion - I sometimes think if you let an "artiste" show death, 9 out of ten of them would fit into this last category. ...Everyone would be dying of stray bullets to the head, the protagonists taking drags on their cigarettes and pissing about how shitty life is. Fuck you, asshole, get a clue.

...Forgive my ranting - I didn't set out to. I think the most important thing I want out of deaths of characters is that they're done well. Whether the deaths are heroic, mundane, or revolting, they should be done well, artistically. But I suppose they always try to do things well (episode, movie, book, etc) and some just turn out poorly.

Kirk's death was especially poor because he was so iconic a larger-than-life character that got a lackluster death. Not to be confused with a realistic one because how many people die plummeting on a bridge, a century after their natural time, having just saved 240,000,000 people?
​

 

[DonIago]

Wow. I'm not sure I entirely agree, but well-said.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

As for Dax's death: I thought it was touching within the series. However, it could have been better. In fact, I would have preferred her to die in that episode where Worf goes back to save her on that one planet instead. It would have been more appropriate. But I still like how things played out, though..

I think they really missed the boat on that one.. that would have been very dramatic if she died on that planet, especially if Worf threw away the mission and came back too late.

Star Trek is so utterly unrealistic I find it kind of funny when people clamor for realistic mortality, the main players dying in mundane accidents like can happen to us all. I have had many people die in my life and I am not looking for realistic mundane non heroic deaths in Star Trek. I want meaningful deaths if they must occur. I accepted every single Trek death, even Kirk's who was my first Trek hero, but I balked at Janeway's in that piece of crap book. It's the first time I've ever been one of the OP's Not.Dead people. Kind of surprised myself, lol.

 

[DonIago]

Well, I don't think anyone thinks that -every- primary character Trek death should be meaningless, just that it should be allowed to happen from time to time.

I think I might say that Kirk's was actually a more weakly-executed death than Janeway's...though thank God they didn't go with the original execution...no pun intended.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Well, I don't think anyone thinks that -every- primary character Trek death should be meaningless, just that it should be allowed to happen from time to time.

I don't think it makes for good story telling. These are heroic tells with heroes and villains. Maybe someone can do a good story about a prime character having a meaningless death but Trek has yet to do so IMHO. Meaningless is what happens to Red Shirts, not Our Heroes.