Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major characters?

[MacLeod]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

Perhaps one of the issues with TV is that some people might tune into a show because of a certain character they like, and if you kill them off you could potentially loose audiance, so perhaps that is why they play it safe. Of coure in some shows, anyone can die so why does it work for some shows and not for others?

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

What I was (poorly) referring to is the kind of brutal, frankly sickening deaths producers seem to assume that audiences squeal with glee over.

We know TPTB casually killed off six billion Vulcans for the fun shock value, being crush to death in a collapsing planet sounds "messy." To many people in Trek fandom Vulcan is a second home world.

And how many people died horribly in San Fransisco when a starship sickled down their buildings like so much harvested wheat? An impressive special effect, but it did little to advance the plot.

Khan's stated target was Starfleet, but it appeared that he actually plowed into the civilian portion of the city.

More fun that way huh.

As opposed to all the planets that snuffed it in TOS.

Seriously its a little funny how if random planet X with its billions of inhabitants buys the farm l, but a planet the fans actually give a crap about get obliterated they treat it like sacrilege.

Reminds me of what I said about Trip Tucker dying-everybody hated that, but wouldn't have cared if it were somebody like Mayweather.

 

[BigJake]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

I didn't mind Trip Tucker dying one bit.

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

"Opernation--Annihilhate" comes to mind. There's a reason it wasn't titled "Operation--Peace and Tranquility!"

They killed off Kirk's brother AND his sister-in-law . . . and a whole string of obscure alien planets.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Greg (may I call you Greg?), but in the original script, didn't Kirk end up destroying all life on the planet?

Perhaps one of the issues with TV is that some people might tune into a show because of a certain character they like, and if you kill them off you could potentially loose audiance, so perhaps that is why they play it safe. Of coure in some shows, anyone can die so why does it work for some shows and not for others?

That is a great question!

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

Perhaps one of the issues with TV is that some people might tune into a show because of a certain character they like, and if you kill them off you could potentially loose audiance, so perhaps that is why they play it safe. Of coure in some shows, anyone can die so why does it work for some shows and not for others?

I would say, on the whole, what you're describing is the way tv studios USED to look at the issue. Whereas now, most shows (not counting those that have almost no potential for danger in the first place) have swung completely in the opposite direction with the idea that killing people off is not only acceptable, but maybe even necessary sometimes.

As for why it might work more for some shows than others (and it certainly is not something that every show ever should be doing), that's simple: some shows are very much about death and danger. How could anyone take the Walking Dead seriously if none of the main characters ever died? Lamest apocalypse ever. Who would really be invested in Game of Thrones if the stakes only really amounted to 'You win or maybe you get randomly exiled to some little fortress somewhere so that you can return triumphantly a few episodes later'?

Ultimately, the possibility of death should be real in any story that involves high risk (including space travel, ie, star trek). But it should only ever become reality when it truly drives the story forward - not just because someone thinks killing characters is the only way to keep people invested in the narrative. For shows like GOT or WD, death IS a major part of what the story is about, and therefore it must be present almost all the time. For star trek, the story has other things that should be focused on, at least most of the time.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

"Opernation--Annihilhate" comes to mind. There's a reason it wasn't titled "Operation--Peace and Tranquility!"

They killed off Kirk's brother AND his sister-in-law . . . and a whole string of obscure alien planets.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Greg (may I call you Greg?), but in the original script, didn't Kirk end up destroying all life on the planet?

Feel free. We're all Trekkies here.

To answer your question, I don't know. I'm not familiar with the original script. I can't remember: how many survivors were there by the time the Enterprise showed up?

I vaguely recall some concern about blinding everybody on the planet, but they got around it.

 

[T'Girl]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

^ In the Blish adaptation, the Enterprise voyages to the parasite's home world and destroyed it, as I recall this would have killed all the parasites in the galaxy (they had a form of "collective") and it would have also freed those being controlled.

Whether this is from a early script, or something Blish basically just made up I can't say. Blish apparently work frequently from early scripts, even though with his later adaptations the show had been on the air for years.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

The better question for this thread might be: "Would another failed STAR TREK series kill the franchise?"

 

[BillJ]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

The better question for this thread might be: "Would another failed STAR TREK series kill the franchise?"

Nope.

TOS failed and we're still here. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier failed and we're still here. Enterprise failed and we're still here. Star Trek: Nemesis failed and we're still here.

 

[T'Girl]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

Enterprise failed and we're still here.

Four seasons and nearly a hundred episodes is a failure?

 

[BillJ]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

Enterprise failed and we're still here.

Four seasons and nearly a hundred episodes is a failure?

Less than two million viewers a week when it went off the air, a drastically slashed budget and the only reason it got the fourth-season was because they needed more episodes for syndication.

If it wasn't a 'Star Trek' series and on a mini-network, it would have been cancelled after season two. So yeah, from a numbers perspective, it was a failure. If CBS had it to do over, they likely wouldn't have made the fourth-season since there is no syndication market for it.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

Relevant to the discussion:

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/06/8-...og_blogpost&utm_campaign=tor.commediacoverage

Not sure I buy the inclusion of Fantastic Voyage, since that movie's whole plot is kicked off by an assassination attempt, there's another attempted assassination during the voyage, and the bad guy dies horribly, but it's an interesting look at sci-fi movies that worked without killing anyone.

 

[RandyS]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

The better question for this thread might be: "Would another failed STAR TREK series kill the franchise?"

Nope.

TOS failed and we're still here. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier failed and we're still here. Enterprise failed and we're still here. Star Trek: Nemesis failed and we're still here.

Well, all that really means is we have a high tolerance for shit.

Or we're gluttons for punishment.

Take your pick.

 

[RainKing]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

I think writers have more courage than television executives. In fact, I think my cat has more courage than your average tv executive. Most of the deaths in Walking Dead and Game of Thrones were penned long before they were seen on television. They also both have significantly larger-than-average ensemble casts.
As far as House of Cards goes, I think the main character proved early on that any person who opposes him with any kind of tenacity is pretty much marked for death. I can't think of a death on that show which surprised me.

In fact **spoiler alert**

I don't know what this says about me, but when Frank pushed whatsherface in front of the subway car, I actually cheered.

As far as there being no chance of any new Star Trek tv show for a long, long time... I know that very few people would have guessed Han Solo and Luke Skywalker would ever appear on the big screen again just a couple of years ago.

When Star Trek returns to television, it will likely happen just as quickly.

 

[mos6507]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

Yes, I think the certainty of some posters' predictions is ill-informed considering that we live in a media environment where it seems all that ever happens is the constant rebooting and extending of existing franchises. Trek is not done on TV yet. Nobody can say when or what form it will take, but it will be back.

My money says it will come back animated, since that hasn't been done to death for Trek.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

Yes, I think the certainty of some posters' predictions is ill-informed considering that we live in a media environment where it seems all that ever happens is the constant rebooting and extending of existing franchises. Trek is not done on TV yet. Nobody can say when or what form it will take, but it will be back.

My money says it will come back animated, since that hasn't been done to death for Trek.

I'm actually amazed that there's only been one Trek cartoon series to date. I mean, how many X-Men or Batman animated sries have there been?

 

[Harvey]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

Relevant to the discussion:

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/06/8-...og_blogpost&utm_campaign=tor.commediacoverage

Not sure I buy the inclusion of Fantastic Voyage, since that movie's whole plot is kicked off by an assassination attempt, there's another attempted assassination during the voyage, and the bad guy dies horribly, but it's an interesting look at sci-fi movies that worked without killing anyone.

Not sure I buy Back to the Future being on the list, either. The movie opens with Doc being murdered, and although Marty's letter reverses that, what are we supposed to believe happened to the Libyans in the end?

 

[Pupp]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

I'd say yes. They shouldn't be killing them too often, and their death should be a huge plot point in the overall series.

Sadly, more often than not, characters are killed in series because they're not popular, or the writers feel they don't fit in the direction they want to take the show, and that the fans won't really miss the character anyway. Although occasionally the writers decide to kill off a character because they feel they're trapped in a story line. Not a major story line, but a back story style.
CSI (original in Las Vegas), got rid of several character, not all by killing them, because they felt then needed a fresh face, and the back story on the character was getting stale.

I suppose if they want to kill off major characters, they have 2 choices: killing them very sparingly.. maybe 3 in a 7 season run.. or they can get rid of say, 1 major character each season. That would pave the way for fresh story lines each season.
I mean killing off a character or some other reason in a way that would prevent them from coming back to future episodes, other than at most flashbacks or guest appearances.

 

[BuckBokai]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

I feel like you cant set out in a show to say, I'm going to kill 2 major characters over the next whatever amount of seasons. However, in the writing of the show, if there's a story where killing a major character feels like the right way to go then you can start to consider it. Its important though to think about where you go from there. The death of a main character leaves a void, and that can make for interesting tv but where do you go from there. I think if a new trek series ever got made, they would need to raise the stakes in some way. Voyager killed some senior staff off right away but no one you get to know. How great would a series be where the premiere ended with the death of the captain in deep space. Obviously the plan all along then would be for the series to focus on the first officer moving to captain and I think that would draw some interest. I suppose odds of a new show are slim and if it happens who knows what form it would take, but I personally think following an untested captain (who maybe the crew doesn't have complete faith in at first) would make for a very cool premise.

 

[I am not Spock]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

Imagine if TOS killed off McCoy or Spock? We wouldn't have had the same dynamic that we got from the trio. The combination of logic, emotion, and heart. Part of what makes Star Trek appealing is the characters. It could screw up the dynamics if you start killing too many of them off.

Killing off Spock in TWOK did develop Kirk's character in TSFS, but it was all undone and reset at the end of the latter movie. And killing off Jadzia did develop all the other characters on DS9, especially Worf. If a death helps with the story, its okay, but i don't think they should be killing off characters willy nilly just for the sake of it