Should there have been more character death?

[joyofvgr]

Do you think there should have been more character death in Voyager? I've wondered whether it would have been better if they planned certain character death as part of the series. It seemed to be set up that way initially, with the death of half the crew in Caretaker, then later with Seska becoming a traitor and Lon Suder a seriel killer.

It certainly would have made the show more suspenseful and highlighted the dangers of the Delta Quadrant. However, after seeing that sort of thing done in BSG, I feel that it might be too dark for a Trek series. What do you think?

 

[Lynx]

No!

Definitely not!

It was bad enough with main characters kicked out for no acceptable reason and the character destruction that we already got.

 

[exodus]

What did I tell you, Joy.

Yes, I agree. It would have made Voyager more real. How is the Delta Quaderant hostile if nobody dies? I think a rotating cast works for the type of theme Voyager had. I think very few would miss dead end characters like Neelix, Kim or Chakotay in favor of newer characters taking their place.

 

[Lynx]

^^
If Voyager had been such a destructive doom crap show, I wouldn't have watched a single second of it.

Star Trek is supposed to be a series of hope for mankind and hope for a better future, not a refelection of the dark ages of the 21th century.

Those who want a "dark show" can watch the news and enjoy how our pathetic political "leaders" and economists are doing their best to destroy what's left of this world or watch a nearby funeral.

As for Chakotay, Neelix and Kim, they were good characters. Voyager had the best characters of all Star Trek series. Why should any of them be killed off and be replaced by second-hand nobodies? Strange suggestions indeed.

As for BSG, it sucks! Too much of 20th-21th century losers among the characters.

 

[Lynx]

Do you think there should have been more character death in Voyager? I've wondered whether it would have been better if they planned certain character death as part of the series. It seemed to be set up that way initially, with the death of half the crew in Caretaker, then later with Seska becoming a traitor and Lon Suder a seriel killer.

It certainly would have made the show more suspenseful and highlighted the dangers of the Delta Quadrant. However, after seeing that sort of thing done in BSG, I feel that it might be too dark for a Trek series. What do you think?

So you are happy now when Janeway has been killed off in the books?

That was "suspenseful and highlighted", wasn't it?

 

[joyofvgr]

Do you think there should have been more character death in Voyager? I've wondered whether it would have been better if they planned certain character death as part of the series. It seemed to be set up that way initially, with the death of half the crew in Caretaker, then later with Seska becoming a traitor and Lon Suder a seriel killer.

It certainly would have made the show more suspenseful and highlighted the dangers of the Delta Quadrant. However, after seeing that sort of thing done in BSG, I feel that it might be too dark for a Trek series. What do you think?

So you are happy now when Janeway has been killed off in the books?

That was "suspenseful and highlighted", wasn't it?

Actually, that's what gave me the idea for this thread. If you continue reading that paragraph, you'll see that I stated after seeing BSG I thought it might be too dark for a Trek series. I think you know where I generally stand on character death.

I was wondering what others on here thought, Janeway issue aside. What I find interesting is that the only two people that responded to this thread are you and Exodus and I could have predicted both of your responses.

I didn't post this topic on ST.com yet because I'm pretty sure I can predict what the others there will say. But we'll see. I might just do it anyway.

 

[joyofvgr]

^^
If Voyager had been such a destructive doom crap show, I wouldn't have watched a single second of it.

Star Trek is supposed to be a series of hope for mankind and hope for a better future, not a refelection of the dark ages of the 21th century.

Those who want a "dark show" can watch the news and enjoy how our pathetic political "leaders" and economists are doing their best to destroy what's left of this world or watch a nearby funeral.

As for Chakotay, Neelix and Kim, they were good characters. Voyager had the best characters of all Star Trek series. Why should any of them be killed off and be replaced by second-hand nobodies? Strange suggestions indeed.

As for BSG, it sucks! Too much of 20th-21th century losers among the characters.

I figured the first suggestions for which characters to kill off would be Chakotay and Kim, so that didn't surprise me. But seriously, the series did start off with half of the crew dying. We had gotten to know Cavit and some of the others and boom they're gone. Then we thought we knew Seska and she turns out to be a Cardassian spy. You are a big fan of Seasons 1 - 3, character death was very much a part of those seasons.

 

[Lynx]

Do you think there should have been more character death in Voyager? I've wondered whether it would have been better if they planned certain character death as part of the series. It seemed to be set up that way initially, with the death of half the crew in Caretaker, then later with Seska becoming a traitor and Lon Suder a seriel killer.

It certainly would have made the show more suspenseful and highlighted the dangers of the Delta Quadrant. However, after seeing that sort of thing done in BSG, I feel that it might be too dark for a Trek series. What do you think?

So you are happy now when Janeway has been killed off in the books?

That was "suspenseful and highlighted", wasn't it?

Actually, that's what gave me the idea for this thread. If you continue reading that paragraph, you'll see that I stated after seeing BSG I thought it might be too dark for a Trek series. I think you know where I generally stand on character death.

I was wondering what others on here thought, Janeway issue aside. What I find interesting is that the only two people that responded to this thread are you and Exodus and I could have predicted both of your responses.

I didn't post this topic on ST.com yet because I'm pretty sure I can predict what the others there will say. But we'll see. I might just do it anyway.

Yes, I guess that it was easy to predict.

As for the "fans" at ST.com, I guess that they would find some delight in seeing certain characters killed off while they would scream in anger if their special favorites would suffer the same fate.

I figured the first suggestions for which characters to kill off would be Chakotay and Kim, so that didn't surprise me. But seriously, the series did start off with half of the crew dying. We had gotten to know Cavit and some of the others and boom they're gone. Then we thought we knew Seska and she turns out to be a Cardassian spy. You are a big fan of Seasons 1 - 3, character death was very much a part of those seasons.

I don't think it was half of the crew dying. What I've figured out, it was only 5-10 casualties.

And it wasn't any of the main characters who were killed off.

As for Chakotay and Kim, they weren't bad characters, only badly used by the writers. I mean, look at Kim. In some of the books he's actually doing something useful

 

[joyofvgr]

I don't think it was half of the crew dying. What I've figured out, it was only 5-10 casualties.
And it wasn't any of the main characters who were killed off.

Well we know that now, but during Caretaker we didn't. It appeared that many of the "main characters" were killed. The first officer, the pilot and the doctor certainly appeared as if they were going to be part of the cast at first.

As for Chakotay and Kim, they weren't bad characters, only badly used by the writers. I mean, look at Kim. In some of the books he's actually doing something useful

Actually, I loved Chakotay's character and wish they had done more with him. I also didn't really mind Harry either.

Also, the point of this thread isn't to say which characters you didn't like and thought should be killed off, but whether the series should have been written in such a way that main characters were supposed to die as part of the overall plot of the show. For example, what if Cavit didn't die in Caretaker? What if he survived and Chakotay was brought on board in a different capacity and then Cavit was killed in a different episode?

 

[TheGodBen]

Star Trek is supposed to be a series of hope for mankind and hope for a better future, not a refelection of the dark ages of the 21th century.

While I would consider this a somewhat valid viewpoint for TOS, TNG and even DS9, when we are talking about Voyager that argument holds no merit with me. Voyager was not about the Federation or politics, it was about a lone ship in hostile space. They have to face aggressive races such as the Kazon, the Hirogen and the Borg in order to get home. This isn't about being enlightened human beings or blah-di-blah-blah, this was a show about survival and taking risks in order to get home to their loved ones again. Without sacrifice and true risk then the journey is worthless.

Yes, I think there should have been more character death, and I think that is true of DS9 as well. If Terry Farrell hadn't decided to leave the show then the only "good guy" to die during the whole war would have been Ziyal. Death is a part of life. It is the ultimate truth. There is drama there, there is richness to be explored, it isn't something we should shun or be scared of. We should embrace death and the great story-telling opportunities it brings us.

As for BSG, it sucks!

In your opinion.

 

[mirandafave]

Star Trek is supposed to be a series of hope for mankind and hope for a better future, not a refelection of the dark ages of the 21th century.

While I would consider this a somewhat valid viewpoint for TOS, TNG and even DS9, when we are talking about Voyager that argument holds no merit with me. Voyager was not about the Federation or politics, it was about a lone ship in hostile space. They have to face aggressive races such as the Kazon, the Hirogen and the Borg in order to get home.

Yes, I think there should have been more character death, and I think that is true of DS9 as well. If Terry Farrell hadn't decided to leave the show then the only "good guy" to die during the whole war would have been Ziyal. Death is a part of life.

Agree that there should have been more character death. Not necessarily the main cast though in my humble belief something like that should have happpened in the finale. I'd always imagined Janeway making th eultimate sacrifice for her ship to get them home somehow. Or in a twist the lowly enign Kim gets to be the hero. I detract.

Voyager actually had great skill as creating some very memorable supporting cast. But they only ever got a one off [asides a few repeat appearances] showing. These characters getting killed would have added a real element of danger. A feeling that the crew really might not make it back.

The death of Joe Carey illustrates how a background character who got a little development, dying had an impact. It's just a shame it was at the end of the journey and was more of a cop out.

As for Farrel in DS9 she should have died actually fighting in the Dominion Wars. At the hands of a Path Wraith Dukat was lame and didn't show war to be a costly and horrible thing. It's another example of coppoing out of tackling death by the Trek producers. it's either a nobody or a hopeless bloodless death.

Voyager out on a limb should have endured a little more death but characters that had been fleshed out some. No need for it be every other week. But occassionally in a series. I mean how many did they actually lose to the Borg? No one we knew certainly. No wonder the Borg seemed so nutured in Voyager.

 

[Guy Gardener]

When y'all say "character death", I hear "character assassination" and Voyager was chock full of character assassination. It's just the charming impreciseness of the language is all. I'm laughing my ass off, but I couldn't possibly comment.

 

[exodus]

^^
If Voyager had been such a destructive doom crap show, I wouldn't have watched a single second of it.

Star Trek is supposed to be a series of hope for mankind and hope for a better future, not a refelection of the dark ages of the 21th century.

You stopped watching Voyager after Kes left anyway, so what's the difference?


So is the Bible but people in it still died.

As far as the news, watching it will give me far more insight into the world I live in than a fictional show like Star Trek ever will. Trek is still to afraid to seriously talk about AIDS or use a gay character. Trek is behind the times in the eyes of the rest of the world.

 

[Tachyon]

No.

 

[Akiraprise]

Yeah, there probably should have been more death. Not just for the sake of killing people off, but to help show that our crew was in a dire situation. They were, for all intents and purposes, trapped behind enemy lines. The DQ was not a really friendly area of space. Voyager was attacked on a regular basis from people demanding technology from them, and even their vital internal organs. While TOS and TNG may have been shows meant to show the relatively friendly, adventurous, side of Star Trek VOY was in an entirely different situation. VOY was about a group of people violently torn away from their homes, against their will, and stranded in a hostile area of space. Our crew's mission was to get home. Voyager had no way to replenish supplies, there were no helpful starbases floating around able to repair the ship, and they were alone with no fleet support. The show should have been a tad darker in tone then it ended up being.

 

[Lynx]

This debate gave me a flasback of a rock concert I once visited. Or to be correct, it was more of a rock festival and none of the bands were particularily well-known.

Anyway, the atmosphere in the audience wasnt particularily good. People did seem more interested in getting drunk than enjoy the music and didn't care about the music itself.

So the members in one particular band got tired of the non-response from the audience. The lead singer shouted: "What the **** is wrong with you people! Aren't you here to have a good time? It would have been better if most of you had stayed at home!"

The band played one more song and left the stage without finishing the set. But they did win at least one fan that evening!

I get the same impression when I read the comments in this thread (and in some other threads as well).

I thought that people were posting here because they liked Star Trek, the characters, the premise for the show and at least some of the different series.

Instead there are many who are complaining that Trek isn't "dark" enough and want the main characters killed off.

Why do you watch Trek in the first place? Why don't watch BSG instead and get bored for an hour or so if you want death and character destruction?

exodus wrote:

You stopped watching Voyager after Kes left anyway, so what's the difference?

So is the Bible but people in it still died.

As far as the news, watching it will give me far more insight into the world I live in than a fictional show like Star Trek ever will. Trek is still to afraid to seriously talk about AIDS or use a gay character. Trek is behind the times in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Yes, I did stop watching Voyager when Kes was kicked out as a protest against a decision I couldn't agree with.

You did forget to mention that I actually did give the series a second chance by starting watching it again until I was slammed in the face by the deliberate insult called "Fury". That was the end of it for me.

However, despite the fact that I did definiely stop watching Voyager after "Fury" still gives me the right to have an opinion about it. I don't have to have my decision to quit the show slammed in my face every time I write something.

Besides that, this issue about character destruction and unnecessary annihilation of the characters are about the other Trek shows as well. I never stopped watching TOS and TNG.

As for the Bible, that's another show.

As for the news, I do watch them myself, therefore my comment in another post about our so-called "leaders" and their successful attempts to destroy the world we live in. As for politics, I'm politically interested but I don't think I can change that much in a world where media are controlled by the same corrupted politicians and economists who have caused all the problems we have.

As for Star Trek, I see it as a pastime and I like the optimistic view of the future it has.

As for AIDS, it will most likely be cured in the 24th century. As for gays and relationships, Trek is about exploring space, not romances and love relationships.

As for Trek itself, some people state that Star Trek is dying. I don't think so but if it is, then it will be killed by the current "doomsday trend" and its supporters. Besides that, if a gay character is brought in, it have to add something for the show, not be there just for the sake of being there or as some political statement.

Personally I don't give a d**n. I stick to the original premise, I have the tapes and the DVD.s and some good books as well and I can write my own stories if necessary. I don't like the current development of "official Star Trek" and I don't want any part of it.

Besides that, I'm getting tired of the fanbase as well. For some reasons, I don't feel at home among the so-called Star Trek fans anymore.

 

[Brit]

I said no for one big reason, and I think that Lynx senses it but may not have exactly put words to it.

Voyager had arguably the best cast and it wasn't because of acting ability it was because of character chemistry. You could believe Harry and Tom were best friends, you could believe that deep down in a Vulcan kind of way Tuvok actually did care what Neelix thought of him.

Setting aside any romantic chemistry, you could believe that Captain Janeway and Commander Chakotay were very good friends and that friendship was built on trust. The characters meshed.

All together they were the whole of "Voyager". The stories were not about a space ship lost in the Delta Quadrant so much as it was about characters building relationships of friendship out of strangers they had been cast away with. That's why major character death doesn't work for a lot of Voyager's fans.

You build the tension by putting those relationships in danger, but if you actually kill any of them the stories get changed. Once the story gets changed it's not about adventure and danger, it's about grief and the loss of family. Once that character is gone there is a big gap that can't be filled by anyone else.

I didn't watch Voyager because it was "real", I watched Voyager because it wasn't.

Brit

 

[joyofvgr]

This is an excellent post Brit. I agree. I don't think people have to die to make the show good and enjoyable. It is after all a show. It's ok to have happy endings and unrealistic turns in the plot that save the day.

I'm a huge BSG fan. BSG has everything I thought Voyager would have when I saw Caretaker. However, I think BSG is too dark for a Trek series. Voyager's characters are lighthearted and funny. There's plenty of optimism in spite of their dire situation. That's what made Voyager fun for me.

That's what made Joe Carey's death so stupid in my eyes. Voyager was never a series that portrayed character death and the last minute they decided to try to make a statement. It came out of no where and really didn't belong in that series.

I do think that life is hard enough and I enjoy the escape of TV. I usually watch sitcoms, but it's nice to also have Trek. It was always a great mix of Sci fi and adventure with a little lighthearted comedy thrown in. That was always my take on it anyway. And as much as I love BSG, I really don't find myself laughing and smiling too much.

 

[exodus]

Yes, I did stop watching Voyager when Kes was kicked out as a protest against a decision I couldn't agree with.

You did forget to mention that I actually did give the series a second chance by starting watching it again until I was slammed in the face by the deliberate insult called "Fury". That was the end of it for me.

However, despite the fact that I did definiely stop watching Voyager after "Fury" still gives me the right to have an opinion about it. I don't have to have my decision to quit the show slammed in my face every time I write something.

If we have to tolerate you rants of "brutal firing" & "character distruction" add nausium everytime you make a post, then I think you can tolerate the fact of being told you didn't watch the show but for one character. So your opinion does count as less than others because you wouldn't have watched the show anyway in protest. "Voyager fans" still watched the shows entire run and supported it dispite whatever objections or missteps along the way because show itself meant more than just one character.

Besides, if you think Trek is about exploring space over that of interpersonal relationships & exposing political and ethical injustices, then you don't have the slightest clue what Trek really is about.

 

[TheGodBen]

I thought that people were posting here because they liked Star Trek, the characters, the premise for the show and at least some of the different series.

Instead there are many who are complaining that Trek isn't "dark" enough and want the main characters killed off.

Why do you watch Trek in the first place? Why don't watch BSG instead and get bored for an hour or so if you want death and character destruction?

I love BSG. I also love Futurama. I can like two completely disparate shows at the same time. I must be craaaaaaazy!

Voyager was a drama series with a very interesting premise and it did some things very well, but I happen to have an opinion that it should have done certain things differently. I think the same thing about DS9, BSG, Futurama, Lost, Scrubs, The West Wing... pretty much every show I have ever watched I have found things I would have liked changed. There is no such thing as a perfect TV show.

I love Star Trek, I love the characters and I love the premise of each of the series. And I love it enough that I am able to criticise it when I think it is wrong.

I'm a huge BSG fan. BSG has everything I thought Voyager would have when I saw Caretaker. However, I think BSG is too dark for a Trek series. Voyager's characters are lighthearted and funny. There's plenty of optimism in spite of their dire situation. That's what made Voyager fun for me.

Death does not necessitate darkness. When Tasha was killed on TNG, it wasn't a dark episode and it ended on the optimistic note that Data is becoming more human because of the loss of a friend. Death can be optimistic. Spock's death is in nearly everyone's top ten Trek moments, he sacrificed himself heroically in a very emotional way. But the movie still ended on an optimistic note. Lets have more of that.

I don't want Trek to be as dark as BSG, I have BSG for that. However, I still think that character death is an important facet of life and drama and it shouldn't just be ignored. I cherish the characters on BSG and Lost because they could be gone by the end of the episode, but if the heroes of the show are immortal then I have no emotional connection to them.