Why do the writers kill off characters when actors want to leave?

[Nerys Myk]

I blame Henry Blake.

 

[Silvercrest]

And yet we didn't get the satisfaction of seeing Frank Burns killed off.

 

[Knight Templar]

And yet we didn't get the satisfaction of seeing Frank Burns killed off.

Larry Linvilles contract came to an end and MASH producers had expected him to sign a new one so they made no special plans for a "farewell episode". They just referred to his supposed antics in Tokyo onscreen.

Larry Linville later said that he thought when they gave Margaret Houlihan her own story (by her engagement and later marriage) that it left MASH with structural problems and he felt he had done all he could with his character in five seasons anyway.

 

[Silvercrest]

I'm just sayin'....

 

[plynch]

I like the sudden-ness/surpirise angle to both deaths. More should happen, frankly. Kirk, though, ... CAPTAIN KIRK forcryi'n'outloud, shoulda got a better one. You have to THINK about how his actions saved lives (time travel plotholes notwithstanding), but it doesn't feel or look grand in a visual, emotional medium. Boo, on that one.

 

[Christopher]

To me, the lack of "grand"ness in Kirk's death is exactly why it works. Why does he die? Because he climbs right back out onto the bridge that almost killed him moments before, since he still has a job to do. He's just barely clawed his way out of the jaws of death, and he leaps right back in without a second's hesitation. Since there are lives at stake, he just does what he needs to do -- no angst, no fanfare, just duty. It's completely matter-of-fact for him because that's who James Kirk is. It's so small and subtle a moment that it's easy to overlook, but it's a powerful and authentic statement of what made Kirk the man he was. And I think that's a fine tribute. Like Tasha's death, it feels more real and honest than some grand blaze of glory. Kirk never aspired to be a galactic hero; he was just a guy doing his duty.

 

[plynch]

We'll have to agree to disagree. For me, the lack is because of his iconic status real-world (and in my head and heart). I totally hear your logic, I just don't FEEL it. I heartily agree with it for Tasha and Jadzia (my favorite Trek female, even).

 

[O_Deus]

Killing off a character milks the maximum drama possible from the departure. Also there's often ill will and killing off a character is the way that the writers and producers get their own back.

 

[RandyS]

With Dax, it made perfect sense to kill off Jadzia since, by coincidence, they had already set up the ideal way to recast her, what with the Trill and the symbionts and all. They had been talking about this whole Trill thing for years. How could they resist an opportunity to actually explore the concept on screen? Story-wise, that was pure serendipity. Turning Jadzia into Ezri has a lot more dramatic potential than just sending Jadzia off on a ship somewhere.

Really? I thought bringing Ezri onboard was silly and a little too convenient--the new host just happens to be a dark-haired women like Jadzia, just happens to also wear a blue uniform, and just happens to stay aboard the station as a full-time member of the crew. It's like they replaced Jadzia with Jadzia 2.0--the next best thing (granted their personalities were different). If they wanted to have the new Dax visit the station once or twice to see old friends, fine. But adding her the cast with only a season to go seemed kind of dumb.

I felt the same way, particularly since they should have made the DS9 cast do three more seasons based on Ezri's addition alone.

That way we would have had four years of Ezri, instead of one.

Oh yeah, and DS9 would have gone ten years.

 

[Sci]

I never understood the objection to Captain Kirk's death. Sure, a "grandiose" death might have been fun, but -- the man turned down Paradise and then died saving billions of innocent people. What could possibly be more heroic?

 

[Silvercrest]

Billions of invisible people. There's no emotional investment, and no sense of scope regarding what was at stake. Maybe it would have felt more heroic if it was set somewhere other than a pile of rocks.

 

[Lt. LaForge]

It isn't just Star Trek. After two seasons of NCIS, Sasha Alexander wanted to leave the show and the producers agreed ONLY if she agreed to being killed off in her final episode (she appeared in two more after dying. Her funeral episode and a flashback episode when her characters sister appeared).

In general, producers (not writers as the death of a major character is a producers decision) prefer to kill off departing actors because:

1) More dramatic
2) Gives the show leverage over the other actors when it comes to contract renewals.

3) Producers tend to dislike the possibility of fans clamoring for a particular actor to return and killing them off makes that more difficult.

4) As mentioned above, peeved at actors for leaving. This is especially true of a successful tv series. Producers know that many actors will work for 20 years without an opportunity at being a regular in a successful series so they see it as "ingratitude".

Agree with all here, especially #1.

 

[Sci]

Billions of invisible people. There's no emotional investment, and no sense of scope regarding what was at stake.

But that makes it more heroic, not less. He died to save people he never met, not just people he liked.

 

[Silvercrest]

Well, yes, but I'm talking about people we never met. It can sound grand in theory, but ultimately it's how it affects the audience.

When I said "invisible", "emotional investment", and "sense of scope", I meant from the audience's perspective. Didn't make that clear, sorry.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Of course, depending on the setup of the show, it may not just be the leaving character- When Gareth Thomas left Blakes 7, it was Brian Croucher's character, Travis, who got killed off, cos he was considered to only be there to be a foil for Blake, and with no Gareth as Blake, they didn't need Travis either.

Ironically they didn't actually kill off Blake at this point... (doubly odd, considering this was the title character leaving the show...)

 

[MacLeod]

^True, but who was the star of the show, Gareth Thomas as Blake or Paul Darrow as Avon?

But if we want to disucss killing of Characters, Blake's 7 final episode killed off al but one of the stars in the final scene. After all before they kill off Avon we fade to black and only have audio of gun shot fire.

 

[Christopher]

^True, but who was the star of the show, Gareth Thomas as Blake or Paul Darrow as Avon?

Nominally, officially, it was Thomas. That was the intent, but Darrow ended up becoming more popular. So he wasn't originally the star, but he overshadowed the star and eventually became the star.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Only really after Gareth left - it's not like they dumped Gareth to promote a more popular person.

The other thing, of course, is that Avon was popular largely because of his contrast to (and interaction with) Blake, so without Blake he changes, and actually gets a lot less cool and interesting!

 

[You_Will_Fail]

With Jadzia, it almost seemed like the writers were pissed so killed Jadzia off out of spite to the actress.

 

[Christopher]

With Jadzia, it almost seemed like the writers were pissed so killed Jadzia off out of spite to the actress.

As I've said already in this thread, it is usually a mistake to assume that a writer's choice to kill off a character is due to personal dislike for the character. In fact, it's more likely to be the opposite. We writers want the readers/viewers to care about what happens, and that's more likely if we care too, if it hurts us to write a death scene as much as we want it to hurt the audience to watch it. So if anything, we're more likely to kill the characters we really care about and hate to lose, because then it has more emotional impact and meaning.

Really, I don't see any reason whatsoever to assume there was any malice behind the decision to kill Jadzia. As we've discussed upthread, the notion of changing hosts upon death is intrinsic to the very concept of the Trill. So as soon as the creators of DS9 introduced a Trill as a regular character, that potential was hovering there in the background, waiting to be explored. So when the actress playing the role decided to leave, that was the perfect opportunity to tell that story that had been waiting to be told for six years. Of course they chose to kill off the host and introduce a new one, because that was the logical direction to take the concept and the character of Dax. They would've done the exact same thing no matter who played the role. Seriously, how could they not? Heck, far from being angry at Farrell, they were probably grateful to her for giving them the opportunity to tell the story of Dax changing hosts.