Why are shows producers and Fans reluctant to let go of popular Characters

[Garovorkin]

In science fiction and fantasy shows ,death has gone fro from permanent state of affairs to pregnant pause.,Death no longer permanent has become a crutch and cliche in many science fiction and fantasy shows. Many shows like Buffy, Stargate sg1 and Star Trek, Charmed and others have literally taken the sting out of death. Death is the ultimate consequence to an action or actions taken by a character either in the persuit of either good or evil. One could argue that producers are afraid to kill off main charters for fear of backlash from the viewers or that any replacement character may not be acceptable. Many viewers would prefer to see the characters go on forever even unchanging, which could be bad for the series in the long run, for example here much of Star trek, Sometimes resurrecting a character can be a good thing In babylon 5 Lurian was able to bring back Sheridan, but at a cost , In this case death did have consequences.It was not a full restoration but only a partial one. On trek and Stargate they find either some piece of alien technology or all powerful being who brings back the character poof like new, no mess no fuss diminished is the dramatic impact of the characters demise, no growth reset to zerne more note about trek , in the movies yes they killed of and revived Spock but not without cost to Kirk. Trek did try a little on this one.

 

[vacantlook]

In terms of Lorien and Sheridan, I argue that Lorien didn't bring Sheridan back from the dead; he imbued Sheridan with energy that would enable the last second of Sheridan's life to be extended. That's just how I personally see it.

I think perhaps some of it comes down to the professional working relationship between producers and the actors of a television or film series. After working with the actors for so long, the producers come to enjoy them as people and thus don't want to end the character so that they can continue working with the actor. But they still know that actors often enjoy performing death scenes, and they can drum up the drama of a death scene too, so they still want to include scenes like that.

And if it seems bad in sci fi shows and films, it's worse in comics. Characters get killed and brought back countless times as old writing teams leave specific books and new writing teams come in. How many times is Jean Grey going to be killed, for example.

 

[GKarsEye]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[vacantlook]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Yup, there's plenty of that involved.

 

[Garovorkin]

Im probably going to get a lot of flack on this one fine, In the Case of Buffy, I think had she dies at the end of the series it would have had more impact. In 5th season when she battled Glory and and had to sacrifice herself to save Dawn and the rest of the world, that i think should have been the 7th storyline season instead. Lets take another show charmed how many times would a main charter die, poof some magic, character back like nothing happened lame . Yeah they did kill off Prue but it was not like they had a choice, since Shannon Dougherty and producers had falling out and she left anyway. This as an example of show whose characters got stale and cliched long before it's final season.

 

[Truth_Seeker]

When I found out that Michael O'Hare was replaced by Bruce Boxleitner in Season 2 of B5 I was very disappointed.I couldn't imagine watching this show with another CO.Maybe a lot of fans felt the same way because we develop affection to the characters and start to feel them close to us.That's why I couldn't like Lochley the same way I liked Ivanova.

Replacing some characters with new ones is a dangerous move for the producers.The fans may stop watching the show because of that.For example the new seasons of "ER" are much weaker than the old ones.We don't have Green,Ross and Benton anymore but they are the main reason why people started watching the series, not the sick people who come and go in every episode.Actors make a show what it really is.

 

[KoshFan]

Im probably going to get a lot of flack on this one fine, In the Case of Buffy, I think had she dies at the end of the series it would have had more impact. In 5th season when she battled Glory and and had to sacrifice herself to save Dawn and the rest of the world, that i think should have been the 7th storyline season instead.

Well, it might have ended up that way; for a while they didn't know if the show was going to get renewed. But it did; and without Buffy dying at the end of season five, season six would have been much less interesting.

 

[Garovorkin]

Yes it is risky killing off a beloved character, but after a while unchanging get old this may not necessarily be of benefit to the show . Stargate Sg1 Daniel Jackson, get mortally injured by radiation, ascends to a higher plain, well they did that because at the time Micheal Shanks wanted off of the show, then her had change of heart came back, they de ascended him which basically undermined his, character aside from a slight de ascension hangover and a few conveniently available bits of ancient knowledge,he was no worse for the wear. Wouldn't the show have been better served to left him in ascension. What was the point of his whole journey, if in the end they were going to simply undo it all.

 

[Alluveal]

Much of Sci-fi implements the "monomyth" to some extent in the story. Meaning, many main characters die some kind of death (be it physical or spiritual,) and are brought back from the abyss:

Sheridan (on Z'Ha'dum)
Starbuck (Mandela)
Picard (Almost succumbed to the Borg)
Muad'Dib from Dune
Luke Skywalker (more spiritual death/reawakening)

Etc.

It's part of the hero's quest and if the hero dies before the end, what's the point? Secondary characters? Absolutely. Many of them do perish. As for why we get upset, well, we come to adore them over time. We don't want to see them pass on and we (most important) don't want a death to be in vain as I feel some of Joss's characters fell into that role:

Spoiler for :

Wash from Firefly is an example

If there's a reason we kill a character, so be it. If it's useless and doesn't really serve the story, It feels like we (as fans) are being tossed around a bit too much. I want to have faith in where the storyteller is taking me. If they whack too many characters just for the hell of it, I'm going to lose faith in that storyteller.

For example, purely non-scifi, I kind of gave up on "24." They killed characters just to introduce new ones--characters that added a lot of dimension to the story.

Spoiler for :

Tony, his wife, the president, etc.

It just got old....

 

[Cell]

A big reason is backlash from the fans. I'm a big Star Wars EU reader and I remember the huge amount of backlash they took, and still do take actually, for killing off Chewbacca and Anakin Solo in the same storyline. I personally had no problem with them dying because their deaths served a purpose, but a lot of SW fans still can't get over them dying and bitch about it constantly.

 

[Garovorkin]

Ron Moore is not so reluctant about killing off characters, when and if it serves the story and we know that JMS did it as well. You can't make the audience understand that sometimes a charter dying is for the good of the show, life is change and I think many people want something in their lives not to change and thats beloved characters. In the case trek you get so many hardcore trek fans crying foul with the fact they are recasting the original trek characters, they fear changes new actors will bring to these iconic characters more then anything else. With many fans change seems to mean bad thing to them. By the way i am singling out trek fans on this one.