Overuse of character deaths on TV?

[thewerepuppygrr]

Originally Posted by theprestige85

That's interesting, I think it's definitely the other way around for me. I've gotten used to seeing characters dying as some knee jerk reaction to get more ratings that it always surprises me when I haven't seen a death at the end of every season. It's one of the strengths of Mad Men. A show i'm not exactly in love with but do appreciate. Given it's setting and tone, you are very unlikely to see any deaths of characters. And the very few deaths that you do see or hear about are effective because it's a show that doesn't rely on it. It's just good old fashioned storytelling and character development that the show prides itself on, not characters dying at the end of the season.

The Wire was also a show that used character deaths sparingly, but then, that show was about SO much more than that.

Mate, look at my avatar! Of course I don't like fantasy. I LOVE fantasy. I've no problem with that genre at all. 'Fantasy is true', as Ursala K. Le Guin says. 'Not factual but true'. My problem with thrones has absolutely nothing to do with fantasy as so much as to do with a weakness storytelling

You alluded to Shakespeare telling off characters in his plays in defence of GoT. Difference is Shakespeare actually seemed to have sympathy and care for his own characters.

None of the shows you mention are remotely similar to Game Of Thrones. If someone died every week in Mad Men, then it wouldn't make any sense - they don't exactly live in a dangerous environment. As I believe someone else here tried to point out to you, Thrones is set in a harsh, feudal environment where, in many circumstances, escaping death and tragedy is more difficult than being a victim of it. The entire story is a war - guess what? People die in wars. A lot.

To complain of a weakness in storytelling or to accuse Martin of having no sympathy for his characters is a narrow-minded opinion. Every death matters.

[Show spoiler]Obyryn's death has major repercussions later on. Robb and Catelyn's deaths are already affecting the lives of many characters, not least Arya and the Bolton family. The Hound may or may not be dead, but if he is, then it was to provide a further influence on Arya.

None of it is for naught. The significance of events may not be apparent to you right off the bat, but the ripples WILL resonate.

While I am happy to accept that there will be major character deaths in a show such as Thrones, in other shows it simply doesn't work. I agree major character deaths in Buffy (like JC and JS) were shocking and well done, but one that did my head in was Heroes. They kept introducing interesting people and then bumping them off before you even got a chance to see their full potential, and instead chose to kept the focus on tiresome people like the Petrellis. I think that was one of the major reasons Heroes went downhill so fast. Agents of SHIELD is in danger of succumbing to the same trend as well.

[theprestige85]

Originally Posted by thewerepuppygrr

While I am happy to accept that there will be major character deaths in a show such as Thrones, in other shows it simply doesn't work. I agree major character deaths in Buffy (like JC and JS) were shocking and well done, but one that did my head in was Heroes. They kept introducing interesting people and then bumping them off before you even got a chance to see their full potential, and instead chose to kept the focus on tiresome people like the Petrellis. I think that was one of the major reasons Heroes went downhill so fast. Agents of SHIELD is in danger of succumbing to the same trend as well.

Yeah well Heroes had a lot more problems than cast overkill.

None of the shows you mention are remotely similar to Game Of Thrones. If someone died every week in Mad Men, then it wouldn't make any sense - they don't exactly live in a dangerous environment. As I believe someone else here tried to point out to you, Thrones is set in a harsh, feudal environment where, in many circumstances, escaping death and tragedy is more difficult than being a victim of it. The entire story is a war - guess what? People die in wars. A lot.

I get that it's an unforgiven environment, I really do. That STILL doesn't justify the killing off these major characters like they've been doing. The world in The Wire is as much of a war zone as the one depicted in Game Of Thrones, if not more since the characters in the projects aren't expected to live beyond 18. You didn't see David Simon and Ed Burns killing of 4 major characters within a season now, do you?

You're still focusing too narrowly, and I think that's the issue here. Unlike many (if not most) series, in which the each episode is largely a self-contained story, Game of Thrones needs to be looked at as a long (very long) serialization of one mega-story. The events don't happen in a vacuum. Something that happens now may not have any immediate repercussions, but may have considerable impact a ways down the road.

Perhaps you and others are right. I may be looking at the show as a whole. A bigger picture or something. I guess that's one of the advantages of reading the book - you guys get have an understanding of what to expect. I'm happy to admit that I may be a bit narrow minded there.

As for the ease of Jamie freeing Tyrion, it was obvious that he was trying to play things by the book. He didn't want to commit treason (which is what he did) if he didn't have to. He succeeded in getting Tywin to agree to judge in Tyrion's favor, but then Tyrion's pride and obstinancy got the better of him, and that deal was screwed. Jamie freed Tyrion because it was the only card left to play. And that eventually led to Tyrion killing his father, which will have more repercussions.

The way you've just described the events makes more sense than what was presented to us. Though, treason or not, I imagine Jamie knows he pretty much has immunity with his father since he's the golden boy of the family. But yes, I can now see that maybe he freed Tyrion as a last resort.

Oh, absolutely. For me, The Wire is the best TV show I've ever seen in roughly 55 years of watching TV. But that doesn't mean that every show needs to be and do the same things.

Yeah man, I agree. I've always said that the two most important television shows ever made were Buffy The Vampire Slayer and The Wire. Two distinctive shows. Does every show need to do the same things as each other? Of course not. But I also don't expect shows to use the same tired shock tactics week in week out to 'develop' it's story.

The biggest reason that readers/viewers don't like seeing characters they like getting killed off, is because in real life, you don't get to choose who lives and who dies (unless you're a ruthless dictator). The appeal of fiction is that the author does get to decide who lives and who dies, so a happily ever after ending is possible. The good people get to live, the bad people die. But an author who is honest with himself and his work knows that the story has its own ideas.

Agreed. Look, I have no problem with bad endings, non decent characters and the subversive. I just don't like the overuse of that one magic card. That's one of (many) problems I have with the show.

Meh, you've presented a strong argument I guess I should really wait until the entire series is finished to make a definitive statement of it. So far I don't like it and it rubs me up the wrong way, but if there is some great big master plan, an avalanche, then perhaps i'll change my mind.

That would have been a waste of screen time considering all the events from the books that had to happen in the finale. And we see her and Dorne next season anyway.

The repercussions of a death is never a 'waste of screen time', regardless of how much stuff they have to put in. Now the geezer above me had indicated that there will be a genuine fallout from those events, so i'll take back some of what I have said - for now.

[BluProofie]

Originally Posted by theprestige85

The repercussions of a death is never a 'waste of screen time', regardless of how much stuff they have to put in. Now the geezer above me had indicated that there will be a genuine fallout from those events, so i'll take back some of what I have said - for now.

Yes, it is. Oberyn is a minor character in the books and they can't waste screen time on stuff like that when the show has to wrap up the really long third book in 10 hour long episodes.

I think you should probably just stop watching the show. You clearly don't like it and that isn't going to change, especially considering you have expressed distaste for the fantasy elements and those are only going to increase as the show goes on(and there are 3 seasons left).

The "fallout" will have more to do with

[Show spoiler]who will get Oberyn's inheritance, Tyrion's escape and Tywin's death

than it does with people reacting to Oberyn's death.

[Show spoiler]Season 5, following the fourth book closely, will be very Cersei heavy and focus on how she struggles without Tywin and Tyrion to help do everything for her. It is her downfall.

[theprestige85]

Originally Posted by BluProofie

Yes, it is. Oberyn is a minor character in the books and they can't waste screen time on stuff like that when the show has to wrap up the really long third book in 10 hour long episodes.

I think you should probably just stop watching the show. You clearly don't like it and that isn't going to change, especially considering you have expressed distaste for the fantasy elements and those are only going to increase as the show goes on(and there are 3 seasons left).
.[/SPOILER]

You keep referring to the books. This is an adaptation, hun. They don't have to do EVERYTHING by the, ahem, book, do they? Oberyn certainly didn't feel like a minor character in the 6 or so episodes he appeared in.

I did mention in my last post on this page that I will give the (another) chance to redeem itself. Yourself, jay and others keep saying that this has to be viewed as one great big single narrative. Well, I give you guys the benefit of the doubt. I'll reluctantly watch the next season and the one after that.

I've also explained that I take no issue with the fantasy elements of the show. Where did I say that I did?

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by theprestige85

I've also explained that I take no issue with the fantasy elements of the show. Where did I say that I did?

I don't want to re-open this can of worms, but no doubt others reacted the same way I initially did to your comment, "because my girlfriend is into Tolkien and all that bollocks". Someone who doesn't know you and your tastes would be inclined to believe that you think fantasy is rubbish.

I'm happy to accept you at your word that that's not true, but you really shouldn't be that surprised that people might've reacted to that phrasing the way they did.

[theprestige85]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I don't want to re-open this can of worms, but no doubt others reacted the same way I initially did to your comment, "because my girlfriend is into Tolkien and all that bollocks". Someone who doesn't know you and your tastes would be inclined to believe that you think fantasy is rubbish.

I'm happy to accept you at your word that that's not true, but you really shouldn't be that surprised that people might've reacted to that phrasing the way they did.

Fair do's, I can see how somebody could have come to that conclusion with that comment. I stand corrected.