Won't that be "blue shirt" or "bronze fringe/trim" now?
Last edited:
EW:No main characters are safe
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
Killing main characters works if that feels like the natural end for that character's story, otherwise you get situations like Dr. Beckett on Stargate Atlantis. But just because an actor is leaving it doesn't mean their character has to die. There are plenty of ways to write characters out of a show that don't require death.
I support killing characters to keep tension alive and for drama. Another benefit I haven't heard anyone point out though is when you kill characters it opens the door up for new characters which can also be good for drama to keep bringing in new perspectives and new character dynamics.
I also hope they are open to the "Lost" idea of where characters can simply go away only to come back later as well. I here the show "Master of None" does this also. I haven't gotten around to seeing that show as of yet but that is what I have heard.
At the very least I hope they don't feel the need to make sure a series regular gets in at least one scene every episode because sometimes you might not need a character for a episode. "Better Call Saul" just had a season finale and MIke wasn't even in one scene.
Jason
I also hope they are open to the "Lost" idea of where characters can simply go away only to come back later as well. I here the show "Master of None" does this also. I haven't gotten around to seeing that show as of yet but that is what I have heard.
At the very least I hope they don't feel the need to make sure a series regular gets in at least one scene every episode because sometimes you might not need a character for a episode. "Better Call Saul" just had a season finale and MIke wasn't even in one scene.
Jason
Of course not. By series end, a decade from now, the ship will have received its allotment of new Starfleet uniforms, just like the ones on the Enterprise. It is, after all, the "Prime" universe, is it not?
It's amusing to me that the immediate concern is that it will be "gratuitous" in its use. I personally prefer consequences in my storytelling.
I really don't get the mentality that death among the main characters automatically means anything can happen. Even in shows today that do make a habit of killing their main cast, there are only certain episodes in which main characters get killed, like premieres, finales, or mid-season storylines, sometimes with a buffer of an episode or two around them. This pattern is almost never broken, and indeed is more or less a necessity because of how actor contracts work out. So considering I know what episodes main characters can or can't die in, the fact that main characters can die does not create drama, tension or a sense of the unexpected.
Besides, the series lead is still more or less a safe position, and on the occasion that a show does eliminate its lead, it gets highly publicized before hand. Just look at Doctor Who, it's been heavily reported since January that Peter Capaldi is leaving this December.
Besides, the series lead is still more or less a safe position, and on the occasion that a show does eliminate its lead, it gets highly publicized before hand. Just look at Doctor Who, it's been heavily reported since January that Peter Capaldi is leaving this December.
The problem I have with this philosophy is that, while much more realistic and "good" in terms of immediate drama and tension...what happens to me is that I become numb to it first, and then I begin to develop a disinterest for the show because I don't get invested in the characters any longer, because I just figure they're going to die.
This happened to me with both Thrones and TWD. I still watch them, but I don't enjoy them as much any more because I don't let myself care about the characters anymore.
This happened to me with both Thrones and TWD. I still watch them, but I don't enjoy them as much any more because I don't let myself care about the characters anymore.
With Walking Dead there's no such thing as a surprising character death. The only deaths that wold surprise me are Rick or Darryl, because it's more or less guaranteed they won't die.
Also, sometimes casting announcements make it clear characters will have to leave a show. For example, the announcement that Sonnequa Martin-Green would be on Discovery made it clear that she'd be leaving Walking Dead, and indeed when they set up the storyline that eventually led to her departure we all knew how it would end. Likewise, a few months ago when it was announced one of the Fear the Walking Dead cast would be heavily involved in the Avatar sequels, it seemed clear this FTWD character would be written off the show, which did indeed happen in the season premiere.
There really is no such thing as "anyone can die." All television is governed by tropes which almost never are gone against, and as long as you're familiar with the tropes, you can determine who will or won't die with a 97% accuracy rate, and usually that three percent for me comes from information being out there that I just wasn't aware of.
Fear the Walking Dead took Lexa away from The 100.
Losing favorite characters happens, and sometimes it works out OK for the show and some fans. In the case of The 100 though, it ruined the show for me. But speculation about how losing a character from a show you haven't seen yet is just a tad premature, I'll admit.
Tonight's episode: "Red Shirt Wedding".
Playing devil's advocate, wouldn't it have been better if, say, Rand had been killed off on TOS, then just written out of the show without explanation? Better to have a dramatic death scene than just fade away.
And it's not like killing off regulars is a new thing. People still remember MASH killing off Col. Blake back in 1975 . . .
And it's not like killing off regulars is a new thing. People still remember MASH killing off Col. Blake back in 1975 . . .
I presume Sarek,Amanda, and Mudd wilL live. Maybe this is just some rationalization for both Captains to die so the starring XO moves to the Big Chair?
That I'm still not 100% sold on.Of course not. By series end, a decade from now, the ship will have received its allotment of new Starfleet uniforms, just like the ones on the Enterprise. It is, after all, the "Prime" universe, is it not?
I don't want to watch Star Trek: Game of Thrones. Some of those killings are over the top, like the Red Wedding. Hell, if Star Trek does a Red Wedding type scene, I might be out.
On the other hand, if the death is meaningful and impactful, more power to them. Space shouldn't be safe. Like Q says, it's Wandorous...
On the other hand, if the death is meaningful and impactful, more power to them. Space shouldn't be safe. Like Q says, it's Wandorous...
I have to say, Berg and Harberts are not the best at giving quotes to the media. It's a little ridiculous how they're situating a willingess to kill main characters as something exciting and new. It may not be the way Trek has been done before, but TV as a whole has been overdosing on shocking main character deaths for some time. I feel like the most with-it shows now recognize that series-regular death has been overused as a way to communicate stakes to the audience, and are stepping back from that as a narrative device.
That being said, not being great at giving interviews doesn't necessarily have any correlation to their ability to turn out a great show, so I'm still hopeful any character deaths on Discovery will be executed so well that I will have no complaints.
For all the grief it gets, Enterprise had a good outlook on how to handle death, which was not to shockingly kill main cast but also to suspend the red-shirt deaths. Didn't they kill zero incidental crewmen until the 3rd season Xindi arc?
That being said, not being great at giving interviews doesn't necessarily have any correlation to their ability to turn out a great show, so I'm still hopeful any character deaths on Discovery will be executed so well that I will have no complaints.
For all the grief it gets, Enterprise had a good outlook on how to handle death, which was not to shockingly kill main cast but also to suspend the red-shirt deaths. Didn't they kill zero incidental crewmen until the 3rd season Xindi arc?
You know, it took three decades but I finally got numb to the fact that nothing was going to happen on Star Trek.
Good point. Suppose all we saw of Spock was a quick clip of him explaining that that he doesn't have emotions. Would we all instantly conclude that he was going to be some boring automaton with no depth or personality?
Actually, there weren't any good guy deaths on Enterprise at all prior to the Xindi attack. It was actually getting ridiculous, IMO. In Minefield the ship hits a mine which severely damages the ship and even takes out a chunk of its saucer exposing a large area to space, but no one died. Then later on in Future Tense they discover a Vulcan ship that had been ambushed by the Tholians. It's now adrift and has even had its warp nacelle ring blown off its axis, but no one died. If anything, it severely stretched credibility to see such massive destruction on a near weekly basis and no one was getting killed from it.
Similar threads
