Should there have been more character death?

[Square]

I'm more interested in plot, characterization, and good storytelling than I am in keeping every single character alive, whether it's logical to do so, simply for the sake of keeping them alive. If it serves the story, kill the buggers off.

What it comes down to is these are FICTIONAL people. It doesn't matter if they're dead or not. For the people who want nothing from Trek except escapism, I might suggest writing your own fanfiction and leaving the rest of the franchise alone. If there's one thing I can't stand about U.S. Americans it's the constant demand that every movie and television show have a "happy ending." It's turning our brains into mush. I occasionally like to watch/read something intellectually and emotionally challenging, and I'm not the least bit interested in being subjected to the personal fantasies of hyper-sensitive viewers on the basis they'd get entirely too upset if the writers took any risks.

So, yes. Kill Janeway. Kill Seven. Annihilate Kes. Turn Harry into goo. As long as there's meaning and context behind it (and we don't yet know the meaning or context behind Janeway's demise, and certain people never will because they're boycotting all future books). At the end of the day, THEY'RE NOT REAL PEOPLE.

 

[JustKate]

I voted "other," and that's because what I really want is a category that says "a little more, but only a little."

GodBen and others are absolutely right that sometimes the death of a major character can make for a great episode and it can make an entire show transcend itself and become great instead of merely fun or enjoyable. The example that's been used elsewhere is the death of Col. Blake in M*A*S*H. It is so sad, but it is also so great. Oh, I cry every time, but it's still so great. Without moments like that, M*A*S*H would have been nothing but a bunch of wacky doctors cracking jokes and trying to have sex with nurses.

The deaths and other traumas of non-major characters help this, too, of course - one of my favorite episodes, though it also always makes me cry, involves a doctor temporarily assigned to the 4077th who has a nervous breakdown. That one chokes me up almost as much as the Henry Blake episode. But M*A*S*H is set in a war zone. People die. TPTB have an obligation, or so it seems to me, to remind the audience every now and then about the realities of war, and that means that every now and then, characters that we really care about are going to die. Without that, the show becomes...diminished.

And the reason is that it's too easy to forget about death if it's that of somebody we only knew for a few minutes. Whereas if it's somebody we care about - somebody we, in a sense, love - that we'll remember. (It's kind of like real life that way.) But when TPTB do this, of course, they have a responsibility to do it well, and that means allowing us to see the other characters mourn and grow as a result of that death. No death of a beloved character should be meaningless.

None of the major characters die in the original book M*A*S*H, by the way, nor in the movie which preceded the TV show - in fact, there's little if any death at all. This is one of the rare cases in which a TV show became greater - much greater - than its source material, and part of the reason was that the TV show confronted death much better, much more realistically than either the book or the movie.

That said, I don't want too much death - I agree with Brit and Joy on that. I don't watch Trek to see nothing but the harsh "realities" (so to speak) of existence in the DQ, just as I don't watch M*A*S*H to find out more about the Korean War. So while I think VOY could have benefitted from the very occasional touch of harsh reality, including the death of someone I care about, I wouldn't want too much. Voyager is about overcoming impossible odds and that means that most of the crew, most of the folks we care about, need to make it home or at least find a way to live useful and happy lives.

I can appreciate some trajedy along the way, but I want a happy ending, dang it! And that means a happy ending for most of the characters, too.

 

[BillJ]

Not death necessarily, but defined character arcs. Like in real life... people come and go. One of the things that lost me on Next Gen was Will Riker. He was no longer interesting after The Best of Both Worlds. He made it to Captain, his character arc had went as far as it could go as long as Patrick Stewart was part of the show.

Same thing with Voyager. Sometimes it helps to change the dynamics when things get... stale. It was what they attempted with Seven with little success. What was attempted with Worf on Deep Space Nine with a little more success.

If the plan was to get home in seven years then they probably needed to move Chakotay on, same with Tom Paris. Perhaps put Janeway through some life altering events. Move more of the spotlight to Tuvok for a time because Tim Russ was such a strong actor and could run with anything they gave him. Bring Torres to the fore as well.

But when you keep things static you essentially eliminate character growth.

 

[Lynx]

I'm more interested in plot, characterization, and good storytelling than I am in keeping every single character alive, whether it's logical to do so, simply for the sake of keeping them alive. If it serves the story, kill the buggers off.

What it comes down to is these are FICTIONAL people. It doesn't matter if they're dead or not. For the people who want nothing from Trek except escapism, I might suggest writing your own fanfiction and leaving the rest of the franchise alone. If there's one thing I can't stand about U.S. Americans it's the constant demand that every movie and television show have a "happy ending." It's turning our brains into mush. I occasionally like to watch/read something intellectually and emotionally challenging, and I'm not the least bit interested in being subjected to the personal fantasies of hyper-sensitive viewers on the basis they'd get entirely too upset if the writers took any risks.

So, yes. Kill Janeway. Kill Seven. Annihilate Kes. Turn Harry into goo. As long as there's meaning and context behind it (and we don't yet know the meaning or context behind Janeway's demise, and certain people never will because they're boycotting all future books). At the end of the day, THEY'RE NOT REAL PEOPLE.

No, they might not be real people but that doesn't mean that we aren't allowed to have feelings and compassion for them.

It's also about an interest as well.

You start to watch the series, you get some affection for the characters and then suddenly they are wiped out, not always in the best or most realistic manner.

After spending weeks or months (or maybe years) watching (or reading) about those characters, getting some sort of engagement or compassion for their lives and adventures and suddenly they are gone.

And suddenly the interest is gone too. You realize that this is not fun or entertaining anymore so you simply turn your back to the show you once liked, curse the "men in suits" who rules it and thinks "let them keep the crap".

But replacing it with another interest (which might be ruined by "men in suits" as well) isn't always the easiest.

There are actually a couple of series I've stopped watching the recent years because of changes in the cast which I haven't liked or accepted.

I see no reason to kill off or destroy the main characters of Voyager because they are good characters which should inspire the writers to come up with even more and better stories about them.

Of course Star Trek is a form of escapism from a not too friendly world outside but why shouldn't it be allowed to be that? Besides that, the premise for Star Trek is about a better future for mankind and I do think that such a message is what we need today if not the prophecies about gloom and doom should be fulfilled.

Sometimes I want happy endings in stories because I do think that we need that, something which gives us positive vibrations.

As for Voyager, there were actually a lot of casualties in that series.

As for Star Trek, one of the reasons why "Nemesis" flopped was because of the intents from the producers to come up with a "dark" story.

 

[Lynx]

Not death necessarily, but defined character arcs. Like in real life... people come and go. One of the things that lost me on Next Gen was Will Riker. He was no longer interesting after The Best of Both Worlds. He made it to Captain, he character arc had went as far as it could go as long as Patrick Stewart was part of the show.

Same thing with Voyager. Sometimes it helps to change the dynamics when things get... stale. It was what they attempted with Seven with little success. What was attempted with Worf on Deep Space Nine with a little more success.

If the plan was to get home in seven years then they probably needed to move Chakotay on, same with Tom Paris. Perhaps put Janeway through some life altering events. Move more of the spotlight to Tuvok for a time because Tim Russ was such a strong actor and could run with anything they gave him. Bring Torres to the fore as well.

But when you keep things static you essentially eliminate character growth.

It depends on what you call "character" growth" in this case. Sometimes it can be a development in the wrong direction.

As for the Voyager characters, they did develope but I must say that I didn't like theat "development". Most of them became downright boring in the later seasons compared to what they were in seasons 1-3.

I see no reasons to put Tuvok or Torres under the brightest spotlight. They were good characters but not as good as Janeway and Chakotay. What could have been done in this case? Neither Tuvok nor Torres had the strength or premise to become main characters.

As for Chakotay, hed did have that premise but was sadly over-looked by the producers and writers who turned a newcomer and a hologram into the main characters of the show for some strange reason.

 

[BillJ]

As for Star Trek, one of the reasons why "Nemesis" flopped was because of the intents from the producers to come up with a "dark" story.

The main reason Star Trek failed was because it was no longer exciting to watch. It became stale and resistant to change. What was once a leader in story-telling innovation became an also-ran. The rest of TV passed it by and audiences left for stories that they felt were more interesting.

 

[BillJ]

They were good characters but not as good as Janeway and Chakotay. What could have been done in this case?

I about fell out of my chair when I read this. Russ and Dawson were much better actors than Mulgrew and Beltran. Sorry but it is true.

Voyager would have been a much stronger series with Dawson, Russ and Picardo as your big three than it was with Mulgrew and company.

 

[Lynx]

As for Star Trek, one of the reasons why "Nemesis" flopped was because of the intents from the producers to come up with a "dark" story.

The main reason Star Trek failed was because it was no longer exciting to watch. It became stale and resistant to change. What was once a leader in story-telling innovation became an also-ran. The rest of TV past it by and audiences left for stories that they felt were more interesting.

I do think it had more to do with the overkill of Trek series for some years than about the stories themselves.

I also think that it would be a disaster for Star Trek if it should abandone its original premise and start adapting to become like BSG and other "dark" series. It would only result in Star Trek losing its "soul" and become a weak copy of those "dark" series.

I can compare with the music business here. It have happened many times that certain rock bands in order to attract more fans have abandoned their original style and "sold out" to current trends. In most cases the result has been a disaster since they have failed in attracting new fans but also lost the old hardcore fans they once had.

I think that the same thing will happen to Star Trek if it abandons its original premise.

 

[BillJ]

As for Star Trek, one of the reasons why "Nemesis" flopped was because of the intents from the producers to come up with a "dark" story.

The main reason Star Trek failed was because it was no longer exciting to watch. It became stale and resistant to change. What was once a leader in story-telling innovation became an also-ran. The rest of TV past it by and audiences left for stories that they felt were more interesting.

I do think ity had more to do with the overkill of Trek series for some years than about the stories themselves.

I also think that it would be a disaster for Star Trek if it should abandone its original premise and start adapting to become like BSG and other "dark" series. It would only result in Star Trek losing its "soul" and become a weak copy of those "dark" series.

I can compare with the music business here. It have happened many times that certain rock bands in order to attract more fans have abandoned their original style and "sold out" to current trends. In most cases the result has been a disaster since they have failed in attracting new fans but also lost the old hardcore fans they once had.

I think that the same thing will happen to Star Trek if it abandons its original premise.

You're equating it with either/or and it doesn't have to be that way. You can keep what makes Trek what it is while adapting wrinkles offered by more modern series. Kind of like american football. Run, run, run... then go over the top when your opponent isn't expecting it. It still comes back to one word... stale.

 

[Lynx]

^^
Hmm....wasn't that what they tried with "Nemesis"?

 

[TheGodBen]

After spending weeks or months (or maybe years) watching (or reading) about those characters, getting some sort of engagement or compassion for their lives and adventures and suddenly they are gone.

And suddenly the interest is gone too. You realize that this is not fun or entertaining anymore so you simply turn your back to the show you once liked, curse the "men in suits" who rules it and thinks "let them keep the crap".

Once again, I disagree. There are characters that I liked on TV shows I watch who died a variety of heroic deaths, villainous deaths or unexpected deaths. I didn't lose interest in these shows, I accepted it as a fact of life that these things happen sometimes and I continue to enjoy the shows. I loved Mr Eko in Lost, but he was unexpectedly killed by the smoke monster. I always liked Cally on BSG and wanted her to have a happy ending, but it wasn't to be and she was blown out an air-lock. I loved Christopher in The Sopranos, but only a few episodes from the end Tony suffocates him after a car accident.

I mourned for the characters and then I went on watching. So long as the show continues to be well written and the story is engaging then it doesn't matter to me if a character dies. I had an emotional investment in each of those characters, but that only made their deaths more powerful to me as a viewer.

I don't watch TV to escape from life, I watch TV for good stories. Death makes for some of the best stories, so I say bring on the death.

 

[Lynx]

They were good characters but not as good as Janeway and Chakotay. What could have been done in this case?

I about fell out of my chair when I read this. Russ and Dawson were much better actors than Mulgrew and Beltran. Sorry but it is true.

Voyager would have been a much stronger series with Dawson, Russ and Picardo as your big three than it was with Mulgrew and company.

I can see your point when it comes to Russ but not about Dawson. Her acting was good but not as good as Mulgrew's. Russ was comparable to Mulgrew but I'm not sure if he was better.

But it's also about the characters. Janeway and Chakotay are simply stronger characters than Tuvok, Torres and The Doctor.

 

[mirandafave]

As one of the people who voted yes there should have been more character death I'd like to state that doesn't mean I want Trek or in this instance Voyager to be dark and egdy like nuBSG. If I want that I watch nuBSG. And I do.

I watched Voyager because I wanted to see this crew make it home. Along the way to see their struggles and adventures. I wanted to see the character interaction and character exploration.

Death of a character does not allow for that character to be developed or explored obviously. But there is an overall story and I think somewhere along the line a major character should have met a grizzly end. Anyone of them would willingly have sacrificed themselves for the others such were the characters. [In a way it was an injustice not to have someone do so! ]

But the way I see it, they were out on their own with no back up, no calvary, few second chances. To illustrate their mortal peril someone should have bitten the dust but it should also have served the story, the plot, the development of other characters. Maybe that way Harry could get his promotion for example, or Tom has to assess loosing a friend like Harry, or Janeway has to mourn Chakotay, or such like.

It would have made it more real for the characters - not me because next week I know they'll be dealing with brain sucking aliens.

Whether a character lives or dies though, a show depends on great writing and stories. Sometimes a death can serve that purpose just as a last minute save can equally serve it. Both in my belief can match the Trek philosophy. Because even in death we need to hope and seek out new life.

 

[Praetor]

I think that, if planned well, more deaths would have heightened the danger they were all in. It seemed unrealistic that so few crewmen were lost as the years went on. Even the deaths of certain members of the senior staff who the writers could no longer use could have heightened the situation, if it felt natural and flowed from the writing. The planning of course is the key part and given the lack of arcing and planning that seemed to take place, I don't think they would have managed it well, but this type of speculation assumes a better degree of creativity does it not?

That said, I wouldn't want to turn Voyager into BSG, either. I think the key to remember is that while, yes, this is a show of survival, it is also quintessential Trek in that it is a reflection of mankind's ability to grow and achieve. Trek people may be enlightened (some would say perfect) which in some ways makes it all the more inspiring and interesting to see these people both beset by tragedy and rise to greatness despite it.

 

[Guy Gardener]

In my mind Voyager was always BSG, but they just cleaned up, sobered up calmed the lanuage down when ever the film crews showed up.

What about Coda? Janeway died 30 times, it was awesome.

And in Meld when Tuvok strangled Neelix and his eyes popped out, magnificent.

And when they actually killed Kim and I thought that we were heading towards a brave new world, they replaced him and killed everyone else!

Voyager has plenty of lovely dark bits.

 

[joyofvgr]

Maybe the crew should have picked up more aliens along the way and lost a few here and there, sometimes through death, sometimes just because they chose to stay behind. Even some of the human crew could have decided they had enough and settled somewhere. It might have been interesting to keep the senior staff in place, but revolve the crew around them through different circumstances.

Also, I think it would have been interesting for Janeway to have been incapacitated at some point for a few episodes in a row and give Chakotay a chance to do things. Maybe he would have made decisions that would have appauled Janeway. That also could have been interesting.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the show, but I actually saw some episodes in the later seasons during its first run. I never knew the ship was lost. It simply looked like another version of TNG to me and that the ship was simply exploring a deeper section of space. I thought perhaps it was simply launched from Deep Space Nine and that was the only difference.

 

[Praetor]

Maybe the crew should have picked up more aliens along the way and lost a few here and there, sometimes through death, sometimes just because they chose to stay behind. Even some of the human crew could have decided they had enough and settled somewhere. It might have been interesting to keep the senior staff in place, but revolve the crew around them through different circumstances.

Yes, exactly! If they had Neelix and Kes tagging along, wouldn't it stand to reason they could pick up some other interesting alien secondaries to replace lost crewmen? That would have been even more interesting!

Also, I think it would have been interesting for Janeway to have been incapacitated at some point for a few episodes in a row and give Chakotay a chance to do things. Maybe he would have made decisions that would have appauled Janeway. That also could have been interesting.

They sort of tried this a little in 'Scorpion Part 2' and 'Unimatrix Zero Part 2' but didn't live it up to the full potential you describe, alas.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the show, but I actually saw some episodes in the later seasons during its first run. I never knew the ship was lost. It simply looked like another version of TNG to me and that the ship was simply exploring a deeper section of space. I thought perhaps it was simply launched from Deep Space Nine and that was the only difference.

Yikes. I had watched it from the beginning, but now that you mention it, I wonder how many casual viewers had no idea? In some ways, I wish the show's format had been altered slightly so that they actually had been an extremely long-range deep space probe that had gone wrong (have to figure out how to include the Maquis involvement then, but I can think of a few ideas...) and then got lost.

If I may digress slightly (although this is related to the OP), I think there are two ways to have approached the show: either the ship is extremely well equipped (and possibly designed) for an independent long-term voyage such as they are embarked on, or it is not at all suited to it. Starfleet vessels tend to be pretty well equipped to operate on their own by definition, but you can still limit them by size, range, etc, which the creators did (in theory at least) with Voyager. However, we still had this highly advanced, super-fast starship (cutely named, I might add ) that happens to be lost, and the size limitations seemed almost tacked on as an afterthought limitation.

What I'm saying is that the creators compromised on this, tried to have it both ways, and it didn't work. They clearly wanted to have a starship at least, or perhaps more, advanced than the Enterprise-D (albeit smaller) and bizarrely adept for their 'situation' yet expect us to believe they might not make it home? Problems like crew death (and shuttle and photorp attrition) seemed to hardly be a problem for them. This would have been fine with me, had, for example, they expressly not needed 3/4 of their crew to run the ship, or had they had a larger crew to start with, or whatever. However, the way the did it ended up seeming half-assed to me for the reasons I've outlined.

Divergence over.

 

[kimc]

Regarding Voyager being more like BSG I like both shows for different reasons. I wouldn't want Voyager to lose its optimism to go the BSG route and at the same time I wouldn't want BSG to become more like Voyager - I find their exploration of the darker side of humanity quite intriguing.

Both shows offer different takes which make them both worth watching, imo.

 

[crohnie]

I voted other because I think Character death is good if its done right
So I was mad when they brought Joe Carey back in season 7 just to randomly kill him off.

I think there could have been more death, especially with characters like Carey, Sam Wildman, and Vorik who would pop up at least once a season.
I think Janeway and the others should have dealt with it more.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Joe Carey wasn't randomly killed.

It was political.

They wanted to prove that voyager had continuity and history, so they brushed away their cobwebs, to find their old address book from season one, oiled the hinges before the bugger would ever think about opening and rung Josh to tell him that he deserved a decent send off. They lied! They redshirted the poor dumb bastard as casually as some random extra who painted Bermans beach house for the opportunity to part of the legend that is Star Trek.

Josh said maybe the best line ever on Babylon 5 "O, but Captain Sheridan, sorry. We thought you were dead."