Spoilers The Treatment of dead characters

[Agony_Boothb]

It also seemed rather random, unexpected and pointless.

Rekha Sharma has a habit of playing characters I want to see dead, so i was kinda happy. I think her death was a symbolic way for the writers to show that people who follow Lorca's worldview are wrong. I personally don't think Lorca viewed Landry as anything more than something to be used. Landry was infatuated with Lorca, he knew it and easily manipulated her as a result. Lorca's reaction to her death seemed to be more disappointment at wasted resources than genuine sadness.

 

[cultcross]

Prior trek series wouldn't have wasted time and killed off a commander like that. Maybe they're going to do the "killing people off" gimmick in this series too. Time will tell

Voyager's pilot kills off at least one commander, along with a solid proportion of the ship's senior crew. Conveniently those who could be immediately replaced by marquis.

 

[MikeS]

I am still holding out hope that the writers will go down the "Lost" route of storytelling. And that we'll see alot more of Shenzou, Captain Georgiou and Landry in the form of "Flashbacks".

 

[F. King Daniel]

I am still holding out hope that the writers will go down the "Lost" route of storytelling. And that we'll see alot more of Shenzou, Captain Georgiou and Landry in the form of "Flashbacks".

Flashbacks are great. Flashforwards are great. Flashsideways into an alternate universe are great.

But if it ends up that they're all dead and are meeting up again before going to heaven I will burn this franchise to the ground.

 

[unimatrix7]

Landry was a huge unlikable bitch though.

And couldn't even blow up the Klingons in a video game version of the war.

She got what she deserved, and I enjoyed it in a way I haven't enjoyed a televised comeuppance in, like, a long time.

 

[dinzy]

She was credited as a guest star in the opening credits. They were telling you straight up that she was going to be gone soon one way or another. It made it pretty obvious that when she put down the force field that it was her death scene.

I don't know why they couldn't have simply listed her name normally in the episodes she was in just to keep it a surprise.

 

[Michael]

Some viewers seem to be so stuck in the ol' concept of “main characters” and “ensemble casts”, where the only time a character dies was when the actor didn't renew their contract and had to be written out by the end of the season. There are no safe characters now (well, I guess, Michael Burnham is). The writers treat this like a novel, where characters have to go when their time's up, i.e. when it makes the most sense from a dramatic point of view.

Flashbacks are great. Flashforwards are great. Flashsideways into an alternate universe are great.

But if it ends up that they're all dead and are meeting up again before going to heaven I will burn this franchise to the ground.

I know you're jesting, but I just wanted to point out that the “flashsideways” in Lost actually were showing the place where they all meet up after they died.

 

[Rahul]

Landry was absolutely designed as what tvtropes calls the "sacrificial lamb":

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SacrificialLamb

A character, that should give you the impression she's a main character, only to die very early on, to give the viewer the feeling of "no one is safe". Of course, she was listed as a "guest star". But how many viewers actually know the names of the actors? In the pilot of Firefly, every main character got a big "introduction" scene, as did the one guy who turned out to be a traitor. That was intended as a surprise, slightly undercut that all the regulars got a shot during the credits, but he did not. Landry clearly got a very obvious "introduction to her character" scene the previous episode and was treated as a regular during the (second) pilot, only to be off-ed in a surprise twist. I'm fine with that. The only thing noticeably is, they already did that before, with Cpt. Georgiou (and the entire Shenzhou, really).

Some viewers seem to be so stuck in the ol' concept of “main characters” and “ensemble casts”, where the only time a character dies was when the actor didn't renew their contract and had to be written out by the end of the season. There are no safe characters now (well, I guess, Michael Burnham is). The writers treat this like a novel, where characters have to go when their time's up, i.e. when it makes the most sense from a dramatic point of view.

You're absolutely wrong if you think Landry was killed to because "her time was up", or even that it made "the most sense" dramatically killing her in this situation. She really, only, purposefully was killed to give viewers the feeling of "There are no safe characters now" (as you said it). But the specifics of her death didn't weren't important for the writers or made much sense. They could also have easily killed her during the final battle. But they wanted to give audiences a big "Oomph" during the middle of the episode, to focus on that, and not have it drowned out by the spectacle. So, stupid misjudgement about monsters it was.

 

[Michael]

But they wanted to give audiences a big "Oomph" during the middle of the episode, to focus on that, and not have it drowned out during the battle.

= the most sense from a dramatic point of view.

 

[Rahul]

= the most sense from a dramatic point of view.

I interpreted "where characters have to go when their time's up, i.e. when it makes the most sense from a dramatic point of view" as in "made the most sense for the character to die". Aka, to treat it as a character arc. A logical point in the progression of the story. Which in this case, it clearly wasn't.

In this case, the writers clearly didn't care for her character, or her arc, but only wanted to give audiences a special feeling, that "no one's safe". But yes, you're right, that's 100% a "dramatic" decision.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I personally don't think Lorca viewed Landry as anything more than something to be used.

That's how Lorca views everyone...

 

[Agony_Boothb]

That's how Lorca views everyone...

I'm aware of that. What's your point?

 

[Timo]

Besides changing writing styles as regards character death, DSC is also distinct in being a "serialized killer". Essentially, the Security Chief was killed in the first episode, which just happens to be thirteen sub-episodes long...

TOS liked to waste high-ranking hero characters with major speaking parts, too. They just happened to be guest stars due to the non-serialized nature of the show, and this (among with 1960s sensibilities) affected how they were wasted. In-universe, they were always major players - somebody like Ben Finney would have been a "regular" long before the pilot episode already!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mudd]

GoT makes a pretty big deal about character deaths. A lot them are what drives many of the plots and actions of the characters.

Another respect in which Trek cannot compare to GoT or Westworld.

 

[Vger23]

translator applied to OP:

"Hey everyone! I don't like DSC...and I found ANOTHER reason to rationalize my feelings!"

 

[marsh8472]

I know there's going to be an alternate universe episode coming up. Maybe they could bring the dead characters back to the show that way?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Sure! And we can see Landry die while doing something even MORE stupid!

 

[Longinus]

^ Sure! And we can see Landry die while doing something even MORE stupid!

Is that even possible?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

ELLEN LANDRY'S TOP TEN STRESS BUSTERS

10. Taking bear cubs from their mothers
9. Walking into Philadelphia Eagles home games wearing a Cowboys jersey and holding a "PHUCK PHILLY" banner
8. Telling members of SAMCRO that she thinks Harleys really suck
7. "I'd really like to cook this baked potato. Here, I'll wrap it in aluminum foil and put it in the microwave."
6. Taking a shower with a Capellan power-cat
5. Two words: Shuttlecraft Jousting
4. Picking fights with own reflection in mirror
3. Vacation on Galorndon Core!
2. "Hey Ripper! Phhbbbbbbbbbt! "
1. Stealing @T'Bonz's ale

 

[Blamo]

translator applied to OP:

"Hey everyone! I don't like DSC...and I found ANOTHER reason to rationalize my feelings!"

To be fair, some do have sensible arguments, even if I don't agree with some of them.

But yes, a lot of them seem to be searching for things to complain about. Most of which aren't anything new to Trek.

Klingons looking different? Yes, because the ones in TNG look Gorn cheesy nowadays. Also it took 20 years before they explained the Klingon makeup change in TMP (which they really shouldn't have bothered).

How come everyone isn't using the spore drive 100 years later? I don't know, maybe because something happens later in the season. How come everyone isn't hitting planets with the Genesis device?

It's not Star Trek because flawed-characters/people-have-emotions/everyone-isn't-hyper-competent/canon-inconsistencies/Roddenbury's-soft-focus-vision-^TM/war/make-up/lack-of-60's-lava-lamps/no-ripped-costumes/no-mini's/etc etc etc.

Hell, I wouldn't be shocked if some of these "issues" are resolved before the season is out. In fact I'd bet on it.