Overuse of character deaths on TV?

[spanky87]

It seems that like 9 times out of 10 I read about some shocking spoiler it turns out to be that...a character died.

Is that all TV series writers today can really do to shock viewers? It seems like every week there's a character death on TV. Aren't people getting numb at this point? It just seems like a gimmick and cheap way to write an actor off most of the time. When certain shows do it too frequently it loses it's impact.

Not even in early 2000's was it this excessive. I remember watching Buffy the Vampire and whenever a character died on the series it was truly shocking, and it didn't happen all the time. Upon reflection it seemed like a well planned out decision that either brought the series to another level, gave proper closure to a character/story-arc, advanced storylines, or all of the above. And even when one main cast member left the show they weren't just killed off randomly.

Nowadays it seems to just happen because there needs to be a shock in a season finale or an actor decided to leave the show.

Well you get my drift. What do you think?

[remake]

Pretty Little Liars is known for using death as a "shock" but turns out to be the exact opposite. Season 5 just started and there's already been 7 deaths (including a character who faked their death) from the beginning of the show until now.

A lot of the shows I watched had someone die in their last/current seasons as well: True Blood (although it's like 100 people die every episode but recently it was someone major), Degrassi (a suicide last season, a character dying by texting and driving this season), Arrow, Teen Wolf (one of my favorite characters but I don't blame her for leaving because of her age), and The Tomorrow People.

[JeffTheMovieGuy]

I think that adds to the difference between basic cable tv shows and premium channel tv shows like the ones that are shown on HBO.

Premium channel shows are usually given the end date ahead of time and it gives the shows creators enough time to really outline the storylines, important character arcs and development. Yes some will end in death but its after the character's run though his or her 1 to 2 season long arc.

I wish there were more character deaths that actually served a purpose in character development instead of the actor getting a big break and leaving the show.

[Show spoiler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7vW1oEKP1k

[Show spoiler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzv_TxJLzRw

[BluProofie]

Major character deaths are usually only done well on HBO and Showtime shows or by Joss Whedon. It seems like since Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead made the "no one is safe" rule popular, crappy network shows now poorly try to use it.

[Todd Tomorrow]

While I appreciate that Game of Thrones is only true the books, I find that so many entertaining or interesting characters have been killed off by now that the series has become a little less compelling for me.

[Show spoiler]Joffrey may have been the most loathsome character of any TV series ever and the series is less fun without his petty sadism.

The one series that genuinely surprised and shocked me when a lead character was killed of was

[Show spoiler]Will in The Good Wife

, because that's a series who doesn't usually do that type of thing. Great season though, its best yet.

[theprestige85]

Originally Posted by spanky87

It seems that like 9 times out of 10 I read about some shocking spoiler it turns out to be that...a character died.

Is that all TV series writers today can really do to shock viewers? It seems like every week there's a character death on TV. Aren't people getting numb at this point? It just seems like a gimmick and cheap way to write an actor off most of the time. When certain shows do it too frequently it loses it's impact.

Not even in early 2000's was it this excessive. I remember watching Buffy the Vampire and whenever a character died on the series it was truly shocking, and it didn't happen all the time. Upon reflection it seemed like a well planned out decision that either brought the series to another level, gave proper closure to a character/story-arc, advanced storylines, or all of the above. And even when one main cast member left the show they weren't just killed off randomly.

Nowadays it seems to just happen because there needs to be a shock in a season finale or an actor decided to leave the show.

Well you get my drift. What do you think?

Excellent post, spanky. I had actually thought of making a similar thread last week.

It all comes down to laziness and a lack of confidence combined with creativity. I honestly believe it is as simple as that.

Game Of Thrones is the worst offender. I sort of HAVE to watch the show because my girlfriend is into Tolkien and all that bollocks, but never have I seen these major character death gimmicks used for dear life on a show. I've mentioned it on other threads (much to the dismay of many of it's fans) but such overused techniques exposes Got and other similiar shows as extremely superficial. With shows like got I hear/read about is how someone is glad somebody died or that they are sad one of their favourites got killed off in the most fetishly gruesome way possible.

Like you said, when Whedon and co used it for Buffy & Angel, it was to terrific effect. It wasn't all the time, it wasn't the only thing in their tool box and it would often make sense. The season 2 episode, Passion, for example, is a bit of a game changer in a season full of game changers.

[Show spoiler]Jenny Calender's death is not only the first time the show kills of a major character, but it also changes the outlook of all of our protagonists as well as the spectator's views on Angelus. If we thought Angelus was a nasty piece of work prior to Passion, we find out he is the definition of a monster afterwards. It very cleverly forces us to consider how far we would go to support a fan favourite. The worst thing about the death, however, is it's devasting effects of Giles. The scene where Angelus has left Jenny's lifeless body on Giles' bed all the while leaving romantic gestures like roses and candles throughout the house so that Giles would think he was in for a wonderful reunion with Jenny is far more disturbing and painful than all the deaths on got put together. And they barely used blood, too.

There are HUGE consequences and character shaping during and after that episode and the show never feels the same again (in a good way).

What happened in Game Of Thrones after, say, The Viper bloke got killed? There wasn't even any mention of it! We never see the despair that his wife (the bird from Luther) and it turns out that it does nothing for the story anyway. That scene was for that episode and that episode only. Something to give the audience something to talk about so that they will tune into the next season. It's rubbish, mate.

I agree with you 110%

[Samus Aran]

Deaths can be good if they're done right and not for the sake of doing it, but then you have shows like The Walking Dead where they kill off the interesting characters and you're left with the bland ones.

You also have stupid viewers who cry on the internet how they're never going to watch their favorite show again because so-and-so got killed off. No matter what the show, no matter what the situation, they don't want anyone to ever die. Or if a character is a woman or a minority, there's supposed to be some unwritten rule where they aren't supposed to ever die.

There was actually one idiot on another site who wished Person of Interest would be more like Without a Trace where nothing bad happens to any of the main characters and the series ends with everyone alive and happy.

FOUND IT. This was in response to the big death on Person of Interest, and this is how one poster who was upset had hoped the show would one day end (not with a bang, but with a whimper):

[BluProofie]

Originally Posted by theprestige85

Excellent post, spanky. I had actually thought of making a similar thread last week.

It all comes down to laziness and a lack of confidence combined with creativity. I honestly believe it is as simple as that.

Game Of Thrones is the worst offender. I sort of HAVE to watch the show because my girlfriend is into Tolkien and all that bollocks, but never have I seen these major character death gimmicks used for dear life on a show. I've mentioned it on other threads (much to the dismay of many of it's fans) but such overused techniques exposes Got and other similiar shows as extremely superficial.

The show simply follows the books, so it sounds like your problem is with George R. R. Martin.

[Agent Bond]

It was annoying on True Blood, but Games Of Thrones went overboard with it.

[BluProofie]

Originally Posted by Agent Bond

It was annoying on True Blood, but Games Of Thrones went overboard with it.

Again, the showrunners of GoT are just adapting the books. If they changed character deaths, book fans would just complain(and they still do).

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by BluProofie

Again, the showrunners of GoT are just adapting the books. If they changed character deaths, book fans would just complain(and they still do).

The characters they've killed off weren't even essential to the main story(Ned, Catelyn, Robb, The Hound, Tywin, Shae, Ygritte were all expendable).

Yes, everybody knows that, but as it's a TV show it can still be talked about a such.

What makes GoT work so well is its many interweaving stories and it's characters and how they plot against each other. It's not like I just sit there, impatiently waiting how "the main story" pans out.

From what I gather the next two books to feature in the series are far less popular among fans and I can see why. Many of the more entertaining characters are not around anymore.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by BluProofie

Again, the showrunners of GoT are just adapting the books. If they changed character deaths, book fans would just complain(and they still do).

The characters they've killed off weren't even essential to the main story

[Show spoiler](Ned, Catelyn, Robb, The Hound, Tywin, Shae, Ygritte were all expendable).

Weren't essential?!?!?!? Their deaths have SHAPED the narrative the show.

[BluProofie]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Weren't essential?!?!?!? Their deaths have SHAPED the narrative the show.

What I meant was that keeping them around longer would be pointless. Their deaths were extremely important.

Judging by everyone's reactions, they think the show should just keep characters around even when their stories are essentially over and their death would serve a major purpose to the story.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by BluProofie

What I meant was that keeping them around longer would be pointless. Their deaths were extremely important.

...in making the series less interesting.

[BluProofie]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

...in making the series less interesting.

IMO, the most interesting characters are the ones still left. I liked the characters who died, but I don't find any of them as interesting as people like Melisandre, Tyrion, Arya or Varys.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Agent Bond

It was annoying on True Blood, but Games Of Thrones went overboard with it.

Oh, the irony! One of my biggest issues with True Blood is that a popular character who is killed at the end of season one(as well as book one) is revived to start season two, because of his popularity. The show went way off track in later seasons trying to keep the character relevant, now it bears no resemblance to it's source material.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

From what I gather the next two books to feature in the series are far less popular among fans and I can see why. Many of the more entertaining characters are not around anymore.

That's not why they are less popular. They're less popular because he split the narratives across two books. Some of the most popular surviving characters don't appear in book four, and those who do, don't show up until the last third of book five. Also, after the third book in a supposed trilogy(that's how it started), people were expecting it to end.

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

...in making the series less interesting.

Name any death that you think makes the series less interesting, and I will tell you why you are wrong.

[Agent Bond]

Again, the showrunners of GoT are just adapting the books. If they changed character deaths, book fans would just complain(and they still do).

Its still ridiculous.

[BluProofie]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

Name any death that you think makes the series less interesting, and I will tell you why you are wrong.

None of the deaths have made the show less interesting.

And since Benioff and Weiss are going to adapt the 4th and 5th books chronologically in one season, we have nothing to worry about. As long as they cut all the filler from those books it could be one of the best seasons yet.

[sycro]

Originally Posted by theprestige85

What happened in Game Of Thrones after, say, The Viper bloke got killed? There wasn't even any mention of it! We never see the despair that his wife (the bird from Luther) and it turns out that it does nothing for the story anyway. That scene was for that episode and that episode only. Something to give the audience something to talk about so that they will tune into the next season. It's rubbish, mate.

Read the damn books before you complain about the payoff. They had 2 episodes after that, but trust me, it wasn't for nothing. I'm sorry that you can't follow more than 2 story arcs at once, but GoT has way too many to focus on

[Show spoiler]Oberyn's

death in the last 2 episodes.