Killing off long time characters

[Greg Cox]

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.

Hell, check out the original novel, THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, by Victor Hugo. Talk about tragic endings! Almost every movie version, from the silent era on, has softened the ending by letting Esmerelda live.

Not in the original novel -- where she is ultimately betrayed by her own mother!

(Forgive the 190-year-old spoiler. )

 

[Oddish]

Funny bit of Victor Hugo trivia... after publishing "Le Miserables", he sent his publisher a letter asking how it was selling. Complete text of the letter: "?"
Response from the publisher: "!"

And indeed, "Hunchback" was about the least likely novel to find up getting a Disney movie made about it. Its incongruity was matched only by how surprisingly good the movie was. Of course, just two years before, Disney had adapted "Hamlet" ("The Lion King"). And the Disney Renaissance was started by "The Little Mermaid", another story where the original ending was a major downer.

 

[Greg Cox]

My favorite version of HUNCHBACK is probably the 1930s movie with Charles Laughton and Maureen O'Hara, which, yes, does give the story a somewhat happier ending -- at least for Esmerelda and Gringoire.

 

[Phily B]

Killing Hugh was so mean spirited I thought and didn't really serve the plot, in fact, it made Picard look like a bit of a prick since he rolled up and started all this shit. Couldn't we have had a nice ending for him?

I couldn't give a shit about Icheb though, people crying like he was some iconic character.

 

[fireproof78]

I mean, it would be nice to have nice endings for all the characters, wouldn't it? Happily ever after, etc, etc.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Buildup and reason? You remember Tasha Yar's death, right?

There was a very good reason for Yar's death: Denise Crosby wanted to branch out to movies and not be tied down to TNG.

 

[JesterFace]

I wrote this message and then thought.... I won't post it.

Well, now that I wrote it might as well post it.

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.

Knowing how some character dies is not necessary to enjoy a TV series. Not every single part of a characters life needs to be on screen starting from birth.

I mean, it would be nice to have nice endings for all the characters, wouldn't it? Happily ever after, etc, etc.

Yes, it might be nice. Look at the world around us. People need to see more happier things, not worrying and dying on TV.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes, it might be nice. Look at the world around us. People need to see more happier things, not worrying and dying on TV.

I have happy things in life. I have sad things in life. I have happy things in TV and I have sad things in TV. I don't want pure escapism any more. I had that before. It was completely unsatisfying.

 

[Oddish]

Icheb's death was tragic, but I can live with it as an aspect of the darker, less utopian tone of the Picard series. But I am deeply concerned by what Seven did afterward...

You should only wield ONE phaser rifle at a time. Better accuracy, better control, and less chance of your target taking a weapon away and using it against you.

 

[Tuskin38]

Killing off characters from great episodes which happened decades ago is a no no.

They can do what they want, they own the franchise.

These characters shouldn't be immortal. That is lazy story telling.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yes, it might be nice. Look at the world around us. People need to see more happier things, not worrying and dying on TV.

Just a thought: Go back and look at TOS. Would "City on the Edge of Forever" have the same impact if it had a happy ending? Or "Balance of Terror" or "Charlie X" or "Conscience of the King" or "All Our Yesterdays" or any number of classic Trek stories with sad or tragic endings?

Indeed, the very first STAR TREK episode, "The Cage," ended with poor disfigured Vina left behind on Talos IV, with only an illusion of Pike to keep her company. And the very second Trek pilot ended with Kirk being forced to kill his best friend. And the single-greatest STAR TREK movie ever made, THE WRATH OF KHAN, is all about facing death and mortality.

STAR TREK has never promised happy endings all the time. And, honestly, it probably would not have endured as long as it has if didn't break our hearts once in a while.

 

[Tim Thomason]

Killing Hugh was so mean spirited I thought and didn't really serve the plot, in fact, it made Picard look like a bit of a prick since he rolled up and started all this shit. Couldn't we have had a nice ending for him?

I couldn't give a shit about Icheb though, people crying like he was some iconic character.

As I wrote in my spoiler review about a week before the episode aired (it was leaked online), Hugh dying in the arms of Elnor made no sense, since those two barely knew each other. Having him die with Picard somehow or maybe even Seven (inventing some type of backstory between the two) would be better. If Geordi had been involved in Season 1 somehow (you know, maybe helping Picard on his Data Quest), that would probably be best.

Characters shouldn't be immortal, but they should be fictional. Deaths should serve a purpose in that character's journey, ending it with some sort of conclusion. Having Hugh die in the arms of someone he doesn't know for a reason he doesn't quite understand is a little too realistic.

But, I wouldn't take it away. It's Star Trek: Picard, not Star Trek: Hugh. Narissa is an evil bastard, and treating Hugh like an expendable redshirt character accentuates that. It raises the stakes, as I've said, and makes you worry about Riker and Elnor and Rios in future episodes.

 

[fireproof78]

But, I wouldn't take it away. It's Star Trek: Picard, not Star Trek: Hugh. Narissa is an evil bastard, and treating Hugh like an expendable redshirt character accentuates that. It raises the stakes, as I've said, and makes you worry about Riker and Elnor and Rios in future episodes

Indeed.

 

[Oddish]

The tension is always better if no one is safe. Not Hugh. Not Icheb. Even Seven or Riker could get snuffed... you just never know.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

The tension is always better if no one is safe. Not Hugh. Not Icheb. Even Seven or Riker could get snuffed... you just never know.

Game of Thrones set this standard, and everyone follows it because of the audience response.

 

[fireproof78]

The tension is always better if no one is safe. Not Hugh. Not Icheb. Even Seven or Riker could get snuffed... you just never know.

It would be nice for things to actually have consequences, and things mattering.

 

[Greg Cox]

And, of course, it's goes without saying that some character deaths are going to work better than others. Sturgeon's Law applies to character deaths as much as it applies to love scenes, comedy bits, topical allegories, space battles, or just STAR TREK episodes in general.

Inevitably, some character deaths will be powerful and dramatic, some will be less so, and some are bound to be clumsy and ill-advised. That applies to any kinda of plot twist or narrative choice, not just character deaths.

Ultimately, though, it's simply one color in the crayon box, to be used or not used along with the others, depending on the circumstances. But there's no reason it should be discarded altogether, just as matter of principle.

 

[Oddish]

I've said a time or two that, considering how little they did with the characters, Voyager could have snuffed both Chakotay and Harry (in addition to saying goodbye to Kes, make Voyager a 7-character show like TNG). It would have ratcheted up the tension when any other character was in danger, because the viewers would never know who was toast next!

 

[fireproof78]

But there's no reason it should be discarded altogether, just as matter of principle.

Exactly.

 

[Anduinel]

Killing Hugh was so mean spirited I thought and didn't really serve the plot, in fact, it made Picard look like a bit of a prick since he rolled up and started all this shit.

Yeah, I don't go in for the idea that Hugh's death raised the stakes because no one in the show really acted like there was very much urgency in leaving Elnor and Hugh to their likely deaths at the hands of the Zhat Vash. We get another ex-Borg dead to prop up Seven, which would have been redundant done twice in two seasons, let alone twice in three episodes, and then there's supposed to be catharsis in Seven beating up Sadist Barbie when Seven and Hugh - not even Hugh's corpse - never shared a scene.

And don't get me wrong, I liked the show well enough to buy the DVDs and I like-to-adore most of the new crew, but Icheb's was the only death, old or new, that really landed for me. Picard S1 in general felt like the writers desperately trying to wring emotion they hadn't earned out of a plot that needed another couple of passes before shooting, and they just decided to go for death way too often and not always where it was all that effective. Sounds like S2 has had more care put into it, though.