Killing off long time characters

[Orphalesion]

Fair enough. I personally find more comfort in the familiar, so shows I have watched multiple times over engage that comfort for me, vs. a new show where I might find something new, but not necessarily comforting.

But, I'm also the extremely odd person who doesn't really want comfort food TV as the main reason I watch shows. I watch very few things so if I am going to watch it I would rather there be something new to explore rather than safe and familiar.

Maybe I misunderstood what you mean by comfort TV. I consider Lower Decks comfort TV because it's light hearted, optimistic and well...it has a lot of warm feelings in the way the characters relate to each other and how they grow and such, like Bob's Burgers. But I watch it because I find it entertaining and find the characters interesting.

 

[fireproof78]

Maybe I misunderstood what you mean by comfort TV. I consider Lower Decks comfort TV because it's light hearted, optimistic and well...it has a lot of warm feelings in the way the characters relate to each other and how they grow and such, like Bob's Burgers. But I watch it because I find it entertaining and find the characters interesting.

Comfort TV to me is "I feel good afterwards," like eating a familiar food. It's not challenging, or thought provoking-just happy vibes. I'm doing a terrible job of explaining it, but there is little in modern TV I would call comfort food.

ETA: Had to clarify "good" in another post. It's clearly the wrong word that I am trying to use to describe this feeling. Basically surface level satisfaction. I don't want surface level.

 

[dupersuper]

It may not be a bad thing, but it doesn't necessarily make for compelling television either.

I'm compelled by different forces, apparently.

Comfort TV to me is "I feel good afterwards,"

Yeah, who'd want that...

It's not challenging, or thought provoking

I often feel good after being challenged or provoked into thought...

 

[fireproof78]

Yeah, who'd want that...

It's not all I want. It's like a diet of fudge sundaes.

ETA: I realize that the term "good" is too nebulous to be useful here. I can feel "good" after a bike ride too. More what comfort food TV feels like is surface level reassurance, like "And they lived happily ever after" style storytelling. Nothing bad happened afterwards, and no one was affected. Sensible chuckle and move on. It's very shallow, unchallenging, and not the only flavor of Star Trek I want. I want a mix of episodes like Balance of Terror and This Side of Paradise, not just happy, go lucky, don't think the wrong thing, type stories. Death in storytelling is an opportunity, not something to be avoided.

 

[JesterFace]

Comfort TV to me is "I feel good afterwards," like eating a familiar food. It's not challenging, or thought provoking-just happy vibes. I'm doing a terrible job of explaining it, but there is little in modern TV I would call comfort food.

Did I understand correctly, when you want warm and cozy you go for the good old stuff that you know is exactly that.
Then when you want something dramatic you go for something new and raw. However that new and raw becomes old eventually.... and then it's old and raw.... right now I lost my train of thought, what? Lets just say I prefer happy endings. =)

 

[fireproof78]

Did I understand correctly, when you want warm and cozy you go for the good old stuff that you know is exactly that.
Then when you want something dramatic you go for something new and raw. However that new and raw becomes old eventually.... and then it's old and raw.... right now I lost my train of thought, what? Lets just say I prefer happy endings. =)

And that's fine if you prefer happy endings. However, Star Trek has always been a mixed bag, of up and down. The first episode of Trek I ever watched was "Balance of Terror" followed by "Where No Man Has Gone Before." Is that a happy ending in either case? It's fine to want them, but I don't expect Star Trek to give them every single time, or even 50% of the time.

I don't know. I don't watch a whole of shows so I don't really want comfort from my TV...

 

[Brainsucker]

Honestly, I'm the opposite. Tasha was one of the few highlights of early TNG and her death pretty much left me uninterested in TNG going forward. The rest of the crew was nearly insufferable and not worth spending more time with.

And, yeah, I have no issue with Gene's vision on character death. Space is supposedly dangerous and yet people don't die.

Are you serious that you can stand "Chatty" death scene like in TNG season 1? I can't. I prefer a better death scene like in DS9 season 6. No chatty scene after death. Simply and give us a show of horrible death of the main character.

It is all about "tell or show" concept of writing. Tasha Yar death scene is more of telling. Too chatty. While Dax death scene in DS9 season 6 was a "Show" type of writing.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I think Jadzia dying was absolutely one of the best ideas that DS9 had.

Except, of course, we know it wasn't an idea at all.

They expected the entire cast to make it through the horrific galactic war intact.

 

[fireproof78]

Are you serious that you can stand "Chatty" death scene like in TNG season 1?

Yes.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Indeed. See Tasha Yar.

She got better (see Yesterday's Enterprise....).

 

[Nerys Myk]

She got better (see Yesterday's Enterprise....).

But not for long.

 

[fireproof78]

She got better (see Yesterday's Enterprise....).

We all have our days.

 

[Tuskin38]

I hate it when I'm brought back to life because of a paradox.

 

[Vger23]

 

[WarpTenLizard]

My best guess is that Hugh probably does something in the novelverse (like becoming Federation-Borg ambassador or the chief science officer of the Enterprise or something like that) and a portion of the fanbase is cranky that the new shows dare to contradict that.

Not me. I have never read any books featuring Hugh, and I hate the novelverse post-"Voyager." I'm in targ-heaven that new-Trek is finally killing that awful continuity from the books.

I didn't care about Hugh at all before "Star Trek: Picard." But I came to like him on this show, and when he died, it really felt like they only killed him because he was a name known to fans before the show, and they wanted to get a rise out of us. I wouldn't mind at all if they retconned that death and brought Hugh back.

Icheb's death was too hard to take, as far as I'm concerned. This boy's life had already been tragic all along. Killing him makes his time on Voyager so very hard to rewatch.

I do agree with you there. His entire life, starting with his conception and ending with his murder, was defined by other people using his body for sinister purposes. It's really stomach-churning to think about. I was also miffed that Icheb went into command, because I'd previously thought it would make sense for him to go into medicine, as a way to combat his past use as a living weapon.

I guess I could take Icheb's death more easily than Hugh's, despite knowing Icheb much better, is because at least Icheb's death was a crucial plot point for Seven. With Hugh, it just felt random, and like (sorry) overkill. They'd already offed Bruce Maddox and Icheb, for arguably flimsy storytelling reasons, and then they decided they had to randomly fry Hugh, just because he was there.

 

[Tuskin38]

that awful continuity from the books.

There were dozens of wonderful stories in the novel continuity.
But this isn't the place to argue about it.

 

[JRS]

I believe that Picard was the most long time character they killed in Star Trek: Picard.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Eh, Hugh died for a very dramatic and story-driven reason to show that he was willing to fight the baddies. He got a dramatic bunch of scenes and became a beloved character in a short while.

Icheb, I suspect, died because of what his original actor did.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Icheb, I suspect, died because of what his original actor did.

Icheb died to motivate Seven.

Icheb wasn't played by the original actor, because of the original actor's comments regarding Kevin Spacey and Anthony Rapp.

 

[Quinton]

I'm fine with the deaths. Two of them served a clear purpose, and while I don't feel that way about Hugh's death, it didn't really draw my ire. He had found a purpose in the intervening years since last we saw him. A purpose that afforded him a good deal of personal satisfaction and remediation. There is no reason to believe his decades offscreen were wasted.

 

[flandry84]

Borg in a fridge?