When they killed Culber off I figured they were going to go down the route of Stamets makes his brilliant calculation or reaches the emotional climax of his story because of the death, the last nail in the buried coffin... so I'm glad that they didn't do that. But that makes his death even more pointless, because the shock value wasn't that Culber was being murdered, it was the shock of Ash killing someone as Voq. It literally could have been anyone.
Death in Star Trek is RARELY permanent. Spock HAD the absolute BEST death scene of any character in ST:TWoK and lees then 15 minutes into STIII:TSFS we (the audience) know he's back and will (most likely) be restored either at the end or near the end (depending of course IF the story needs Spock to do something amazing (which it didn't) to 'save the day'. Depending on what they do/how they handle it; it could be a good/interesting part of this Season's story; or it could be HORRIBLE (The Marvel 'fix' to absolve 'the real Jean Grey' of destroying an entire Star System as Dark Phoenix [Yeah, I'm old] <--- I'm looking at you); but that said, I'll wait to see HOW they do it before crying 'cop out' or worse.
I'm certainly not going to complain that they realized that introducing a gay couple and then immediately murdering one of them was a bad idea. It's not the nineties, you can have queers on your show without showering them with death and tragedy.
Yes. For a lot (most?) fans, is the single most dramatic moment in the entire franchise. That in and of itself is the point. And regardless of whether death is permanent or not doesn't change cultcross's point. Cluber's death was neither a huge moment of pathos for the audience nor did it really add anything to the narrative. I suppose it could be argued that it was a "push" for Tyler, but I think his relationship with Micheal had a bigger effect on him, anyway. It (ultimately) didn't really affect Stamets either, sadly. It was a pretty blatant burry the gays moment; the writers got called out for it, and now they're 'fixing' it.
Same here. Spock's death was as much a "cop out" as any other in Trek in the resolution. I'll wait and see, as per usual.
If we interpret it as a 'mea culpa' then I'm on board, yes. But I'm suspicious that the plan all along was a "shocking" death followed quickly by resurrection, and that was part of why there were so few visible consequences.
Well this is what's confusing to me about where cultcross is coming from. In their original post, it was Culber comes back to life in season 2, therefore there was no point to death. Then it shifted to: the death didn't seem to affect the characters in season 1. Those are separate ideas. If we agree that a character's death can have a point even if they later come back to life, then why are we judging how it's handled before we've seen season 2? There is obviously some disagreement on whether or not it was handled "enough" in season 1, which is pretty subjective, but regardless of your opinion on that, I don't see how it precludes having the Culber-death story resolved satisfyingly by the time S2 plays out, whether that involves him coming back to life or not.
Seems pretty simple to me. Dealing with Hugh's death could [should] have been a major weave in season 2.
I assume you mean season 1. But then, why was it the suggestion that he will be brought back to life in season 2 the trigger for "no point to the death, then"? It seems there's an assumption that he'll be quickly brought back to life at the start of the season, as if nothing happened. Why?