And both of them were transferred from the same ship to the same station.
EW:No main characters are safe
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
I don't understand how people can read stuff like "No main character will be safe!!!" and believe it instead of realizing the statement is just there to create hype and excitement for the new show.
I'm with you. Apparently there is an expectation of a GoT style slaughter, rather than expanding the realism within the Star Trek universe. Or, hype for the sake of it.
Not necessarily. See my post on page 7.
It's just depressing that they think "no character is safe" is a good way to hype the show. How is that supposed to be exciting? Grimdark is so passe.
Yeah, I doubt anybody failed to figure out Jon's, Tyrion's and Daeny's plot armor early on.
Everybody else might die at some point.
This season? I suspect not. This is Smash The Lannisters year. Followed by Army Of Chilly Zombies to finish off the show.
She's a central draw of the series. Better than fifty percent chance she dies in the end, but not before the last few episodes.
Same with Jon, Tyrion and Daeny - any or all of them may die, but only at the series climax.
Not Maurice Hurley? The bloody nose speech is from "Q Who."
How were they supposed to kill her off? Any way the showrunners would have done it would have pissed off these fans, many of them (IMHO) Tumblr-gazing teenagers who were dreaming up the fan fiction that they would write about them and creaming themselves silly. It would be nice if this stupid shitty show were about colonizing, say, the moon or Mars, where they could turn the station into a ship that would go about the solar system colonizing the planets-then death on the show wouldn't be so nasty and might be something sad, because they were giving themselves up for doing something truly amazing. Instead, they're colonizing an Earth that's got clean air and nothing else positive except for mutated creatures, a bunch of savage humans, and the promise of finding some old U.S. government base that could help The 100 out with whatever it's got in there. Not much, if you ask me.
At least this show (DSC) has what I mentioned above in that the deaths of characters will be meaningful in that they died exploring the galaxy and defending the Federation, and the impact of those deaths will supposedly be felt in the rest of the series.
The Abrams movies already did drag the franchise into a modern world by doing just that, and also by having a main character not be in the next movie or anything else ancillary based on it (comic books and novels) by accident due to the death of one of its main actors.
Last edited:
The unfortunate death of Anton Yelchin doesn't have anything to do with modern television drama storytelling.
But due to it being not planned by the writers due to Actor Existence Failure, it might come out that way in the next movie.
What about being realistic?
Posting something superficial and nonsensical like that using confidently dismissive phrasing doesn't make the statement less foolish.
Who declared that writers having characters in a story play for high stakes is "passe?" Did I miss a crucial Vanity Fair piece, or something?
It's bizarre that the writers can set some fans' hearts all aflutter by including scenes like the Aftermath of Wolf 357*, where big ol' rocketships supposedly got blown up supposedly killing a couple of thousand faceless, nameless people...but threaten a hair on the head of some second banana that they've invested a little bit of their fantasy life in and they cry foul.
I mean, it's just so unfair to ask viewers to care about someone whose story might not be guaranteed to end well. Right?
* Do not correct me; I do not give fuck.
Thank you!
Even if that's the case in the next movie, having an old cliché TV trope, has nothing to do with modern TV drama storytelling.
Similar threads
