Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major characters?

[Greg Cox]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

The next STAR TREK series has to keep pushing not television's boundaries, so much, as its own.

Of course! Star Trek should push the boundaries by copying Breaking Bad and House of Cards.

We are in the golden age of television, so if Star Trek is going to constantly play things safe and have character shields were certain characters can't die no matter what, it may Star Trek is stuck in the past and get left behind.

I think part of the reason Star Trek imploded in the early 2000s, is that the shows were playing it too safe, rather then taking real risks.

No one is saying Star Trek has to a copy of Breaking Bad or House of Cards, but maybe Star Trek should more like show from today, rather then trying to be an 80s or 60s TV show in this decade.

Absolutely. Voyager in particular felt kinda old-fashioned during its run, emulating the stately pace and decorum of TNG long after other genre shows, like Buffy and Xena and X-Files, had upped the ante. It still worked as comfort food, but it wasn't particularly cutting-edge.

By all means, any new Trek show should not leave sudden death off the table, along with any other jaw-dropping twists and drama and radical changes in the status quo.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

^Except for the fact that Buffy & The X-Files had the same 'characters shields' that people decried in the Star Trek shows for the characters on both shows-only Tara McLay died on Buffy, and so did Anya, and Buffy died (but came back) while Oz went away to wander the world like Larry Talbot .

As for the X-Files, who died? Not Mulder and Scully, but the poor Lone Gunmen did while preventing a 9/11-type incident (before 9/11 actually happened) as did a few others (Dagget and what's-her-name excepted) So Voyager, TNG, TOS, and DS9 shouldn't be singled out for this (and at least Enterprise killed off Tucker-BUT EVERYBODY HATED THAT, even though the same kind of death [pointless] happened to Tasha Yar!)

Maybe the next show will have somebody die, maybe the next movie will have somebody die-who would YOU choose to die?

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

When you think about it, essentially you want other people to become unemployed for your own entertainment. That's pretty cruel. ;-)

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

^Except for the fact that Buffy & The X-Files had the same 'characters shields' that people decried in the Star Trek shows for the characters on both shows-only Tara McLay died on Buffy, and so did Anya, and Buffy died (but came back) while Oz went away to wander the world like Larry Talbot .
)

Have we forgotten Buffy's mom and poor Jenny Calendar already?

Seriously, I was mostly talking about the pacing and direction, not to mention the more serialized storytelling. Voyager proceeded at its own deliberate pace, which sometimes felt rather slow and ponderous compared to, say, Farscape and other shows of the era. No decision could be made without at least one protracted meeting in a conference room--and probably a long, earnest discussion of the Prime Directive.

Or so it seemed sometimes.

Meanwhile, Buffy had probably killed off five vampires and fired off a bunch of quality snark before the opening credits rolled . . . .

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

I don't get the mindset that killing off characters is somehow "better" or "more entertaining" than not doing so. Spend some time in real life around the dead...it ain't fun.

Besides, it's like making great new friends in your neighborhood, then thinking "Boy, I can't wait until they move away!"

No offense is meant to anyone here, by the way... it's just an increasingly prevalent trend in entertainment media, and has been for some time now. I'm not saying death of a character can't be valuable or dramatic, but done for its' own sake is another matter entirely.

Kind of disheartening that life just isn't sacred anymore...

 

[HIjol]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

When you think about it, essentially you want other people to become unemployed for your own entertainment. That's pretty cruel. ;-)

"Gladiator Viewing"...the line between civilized and not is RAzor thin...

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

Kind of disheartening that life just isn't sacred anymore...

But fictional life has NEVER been sacred. It's not like this is a new trend in movies or novels or theater. Just ask Old Yeller or Little Nell. At most, it's a departure for American TV dramas as we've known them since the fifties. (Although I seem to recall the body count being pretty high on The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits.)

At the risk of getting pretentious, the Greeks didn't balk at killing off main characters, and neither did Shakespeare, Dickens, etc. And certainly it's nothing new to science fiction: Remember Dr. Morbius in Forbidden Planet? Taylor, Nova, Cornelius, and Zira in the Planet of the Apes movies? And pretty much every single movie version of The Fly or I am Legend?

Writers shouldn't be afraid to kill characters when necessary. We need to be ruthless that way.

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

Kind of disheartening that life just isn't sacred anymore...

But fictional life has NEVER been sacred. It's not like this is a new trend in movies or novels or theater. Just ask Old Yeller or Little Nell. At most, it's a departure for American TV dramas as we've known them since the fifties. (Although I seem to recall the body count being pretty high on The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits.)

At the risk of getting pretentious, the Greeks didn't balk at killing off main characters, and neither did Shakespeare, Dickens, etc. And certainly it's nothing new to science fiction: Remember Dr. Morbius in Forbidden Planet? Taylor, Nova, Cornelius, and Zira in the Planet of the Apes movies? And pretty much every single movie version of The Fly or I am Legend?

Writers shouldn't be afraid to kill characters when necessary. We need to be ruthless that way.

I didn't articulate my thoughts well, Greg. Allow me to clarify:

You're right, death has always been a story-telling tool. Heck, I was watching Leave It to Beaver not long ago, and Ward and June were deciding whether they wanted to go to the movies, or stay home. Ward said something like "Well, we can go to the movies and watch people kill each other, or stay home and watch people kill each other on television!"

What I was (poorly) referring to is the kind of brutal, frankly sickening deaths producers seem to assume that audiences squeal with glee over. Again, that's not new...but there was a time where you could choose your cinematic poison, but it seems to have spilled over into just about everything. The technology now seems to be the cookie jar that directors and producers can't seem to keep their fingers out of. I'm sure it's just my own sensibilities, and I'm not about to tell other people what to enjoy. I never did go for those slasher flicks, either. I just don't get it, that's all.

When I refuse to let my kids read a modern comic book, something has turned a very disturbing corner. They make stuff for kids, and it's too childish. At the other end they have the gray, brooding, death and mutilation fests. The choice is like having a stereo that has two volume levels: 1, and 10.

I still tie the modern origins of this trend to Garbage Pail Kids.

Resume you discussion, folks: I'll stay out of the way.

 

[BigJake]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

Writers shouldn't be afraid to kill characters when necessary. We need to be ruthless that way.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaWtWAvUb-4[/yt]

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

Resume you discussion, folks: I'll stay out of the way.

Well, except for one thing...

I'm not all sunshine and bunny rabbits (though I like those, too! )

I thought Predator had it just right: enough massacre and gore to make you squirm in your seat, just enough to add to the narrative and characterization. The Predator was a hunter, and humans were animals. Well done!

 

[T'Girl]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

What I was (poorly) referring to is the kind of brutal, frankly sickening deaths producers seem to assume that audiences squeal with glee over.

We know TPTB casually killed off six billion Vulcans for the fun shock value, being crush to death in a collapsing planet sounds "messy." To many people in Trek fandom Vulcan is a second home world.

And how many people died horribly in San Fransisco when a starship sickled down their buildings like so much harvested wheat? An impressive special effect, but it did little to advance the plot.

Khan's stated target was Starfleet, but it appeared that he actually plowed into the civilian portion of the city.

More fun that way huh.

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

What I was (poorly) referring to is the kind of brutal, frankly sickening deaths producers seem to assume that audiences squeal with glee over.

We know TPTB casually killed off six billion Vulcans for the fun shock value, being crush to death in a collapsing planet sounds "messy." To many people in Trek fandom Vulcan is a second home world.

And how many people died horribly in San Fransisco when a starship sickled down their buildings like so much harvested wheat? An impressive special effect, but it did little to advance the plot.

Khan's stated target was Starfleet, but it appeared that he actually plowed into the civilian portion of the city. More fun that way huh.

T'girl gets it!

*hug from afar*

 

[borgboy]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

I think that no one being safe would heighten the drama and make for a better story, but I would want any important deaths to be well thought out. Too much death makes the loss cheap, and once that character is gone, they should be gone, barring a really clever work around - and that would have to be damn clever not to be a cheap cop out.
I can't help but think how overused important character deaths have become in comics. It seems like every few months there's a big death, and they always come back within a few years, so that the deaths have become just a cheap ploy that it's difficult to make it mean anything, not when no one's expecting the death to stick.

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

I can't help but think how overused important character deaths have become in comics. It seems like every few months there's a big death, and they always come back within a few years, so that the deaths have become just a cheap ploy that it's difficult to make it mean anything, not when no one's expecting the death to stick.

borgboy gets it, too!!

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

What I was (poorly) referring to is the kind of brutal, frankly sickening deaths producers seem to assume that audiences squeal with glee over.

We know TPTB casually killed off six billion Vulcans for the fun shock value, being crush to death in a collapsing planet sounds "messy." To many people in Trek fandom Vulcan is a second home world.

And how many people died horribly in San Fransisco when a starship sickled down their buildings like so much harvested wheat? An impressive special effect, but it did little to advance the plot.

Khan's stated target was Starfleet, but it appeared that he actually plowed into the civilian portion of the city.

More fun that way huh.

As opposed to all the planets that snuffed it in TOS.

Seriously its a little funny how if random planet X with its billions of inhabitants buys the farm l, but a planet the fans actually give a crap about get obliterated they treat it like sacrilege.

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

Seriously its a little funny how if random planet X with its billions of inhabitants buys the farm l, but a planet the fans actually give a crap about get obliterated they treat it like sacrilege.

Good point.

I think Spock sort of said it best: "I've noticed that about your people, Doctor. You find it easier to understand the death of one than the death of a million. You speak about the objective hardness of the Vulcan heart, yet how little room there seems to be in yours."

 

[Brainsucker]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

What Walking Dead do isn't killing their major characters like flies. But to give the feel of desperate life of their major character in the forsaken world. They give us a feeling that every characters can dead anytime (even when they were always survive), and when they survived, it gave us a relieved / happiness; because our hero / heroine will return in the next episode.

So basically, Walking Dead is raping their characters and push them all into the wall. Sometime, I feel sorry for them (the characters) and hope that they will find a safer place for their live.

Star Trek was different. They didn't give us the desperate feeling like what we feel from Walking Dead. And they didn't give us a massive characters conflict like in "Lost". They even lack of character development. The season 1 Kirk is the same as the last TOS Star Trek Kirk. The season 1 Picard is the same as the last TNG movie Picard. They are not change. That's why, sometime I want to see Picard as Admiral rather than the "forever' Captain.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

What I was (poorly) referring to is the kind of brutal, frankly sickening deaths producers seem to assume that audiences squeal with glee over.

We know TPTB casually killed off six billion Vulcans for the fun shock value, being crush to death in a collapsing planet sounds "messy." To many people in Trek fandom Vulcan is a second home world.

And how many people died horribly in San Fransisco when a starship sickled down their buildings like so much harvested wheat? An impressive special effect, but it did little to advance the plot.

Khan's stated target was Starfleet, but it appeared that he actually plowed into the civilian portion of the city.

More fun that way huh.

As opposed to all the planets that snuffed it in TOS.

Seriously its a little funny how if random planet X with its billions of inhabitants buys the farm l, but a planet the fans actually give a crap about get obliterated they treat it like sacrilege.

"Opernation--Annihilhate" comes to mind. There's a reason it wasn't titled "Operation--Peace and Tranquility!"

They killed off Kirk's brother AND his sister-in-law . . . and a whole string of obscure alien planets.

And I'm not sure blowing up Vulcan marks some pernicious new trend. Branching out a bit, Star Wars blew up Alderaan blew up way back in 1977. And a Doomsday Bomb destroyed the Planet of the Apes a few years earlier. And then there's Krypton and When Worlds Collide and probably a few more doomed planets in "Flash Gordon" or E. E.E Smith or whatever.

Science fiction tends to be hard on unsuspecting planets. You've got Death Stars and Doomsday Machines and runaway asteroids and plagues of neural parasites . . .

 

[Mudd]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

My Screen writing lecture told a good rule, if you can still think of story ideas for a character, don't kill him/her off. Otherwise you’re wasting potential and playing audiences for chums, something that can backfire on you very easily.

Your "lecture" was a fool.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Should a New Star Trek show be willing to kill off major character

Kind of disheartening that life just isn't sacred anymore...

But fictional life has NEVER been sacred. It's not like this is a new trend in movies or novels or theater. Just ask Old Yeller or Little Nell. At most, it's a departure for American TV dramas as we've known them since the fifties. (Although I seem to recall the body count being pretty high on The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits.)

At the risk of getting pretentious, the Greeks didn't balk at killing off main characters, and neither did Shakespeare, Dickens, etc. And certainly it's nothing new to science fiction: Remember Dr. Morbius in Forbidden Planet? Taylor, Nova, Cornelius, and Zira in the Planet of the Apes movies? And pretty much every single movie version of The Fly or I am Legend?

Writers shouldn't be afraid to kill characters when necessary. We need to be ruthless that way.

I didn't articulate my thoughts well, Greg. Allow me to clarify:

You're right, death has always been a story-telling tool. Heck, I was watching Leave It to Beaver not long ago, and Ward and June were deciding whether they wanted to go to the movies, or stay home. Ward said something like "Well, we can go to the movies and watch people kill each other, or stay home and watch people kill each other on television!"

Hah! The more things change . . . .

By coincidence, I've been watching lots of vintage shows on MeTV lately: Thriller, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Perry Mason, etc. Ward and June certainly did have plenty of homicide to choose from back in the day!