Does death, lack thereof, and resurrection ruin television shows?
Oct 24, 2011
Cancelled Shows Castle How I Met Your Mother SpoilerTV Article True Blood Vampire Diaries
SPOILER ALERT! The full edition of this post, if you choose to read it all, includes spoilers from the following series: Castle, Chuck, Damages, Fringe, Ghost Whisperer, How I Met Your Mother, The Secret Circle, True Blood, and The Vampire Diaries. If you have yet to see the most recent episodes of any of these series and plan to: steer clear.
I've watched enough Chuck episodes to know that whenever Chuck, Sarah, and Casey are thisclose to getting a gun shot at them in close range: it won't happen. I've read enough forum posts to know that The Vampire Diaries showrunners would never in their right mind consider killing off Damon. I've witnessed Fringe kill off its leading lady to then promptly change timelines entirely.
And yet, TV shows continue to test my intelligence by not only creating scenarios based on a main character's supposed impending death but by centering entire episodes around it. Basically: a waste of my — and your — time.
But does death, the lack of characters dying, and resurrection of some characters via ghosts actually ruin TV shows, or at least the seriousness of death itself within that series? …
Read the rest of this post at NoWhiteNoise!
Yes. Too much is too much.
ReplyDeleteYes! Period.
ReplyDeleteI don't think knowing a character is going to live through these situations is a bad thing. I think what it comes down to is consequence. If a character makes it through a dangerous situation I'm not bothered by it but if they come out of being shot/stabbed/nearly losing someone they care about with no real consequence then I start to get annoyed.
ReplyDeleteLook at Supernatural(which the article conveniently gives a pass). This happens all the time but the characters don't come out of those situations unharmed(physically or emotionally) so fans tend to accept it.
Yes. A thousand times yes.
ReplyDeleteWow. Lots of "Yes" to this, but I had no problem with Buffy doing it or Vampire Diaries doing it now, for example.
ReplyDeleteDepends on how you do it, or how MUCH you do it.
MTE! It all comes down to HOW they do it and how MUCH they do it. If the show is well written, it doesn't matter. The outcome will always be satisfying.
ReplyDeleteyes sometimes
ReplyDeleteDeath needs to mean something or dramas dealing with dangerous situations simply are not grounded.
ReplyDeleteIf a character continually gets injured in situations where anyone else would die or dies and comes back repeatedly death is irreverent on the series. Therefore the drama of life or death danger really never means anything and is lessened greatly if not completely.
Nothing makes me respect or love a series more than killing off a main character because the story needed them to die - Not die and come back,
I think there comes a time when near-death and death becomes the easy out for stuck writers. If you can't think of a novel way to add tension and drama, I know, pretend to kill someone off. It's when death becomes ho-hum and ridiculous that I get annoyed with it. In all honesty, Supernatural is my favorite show but they have written death into teh ground. (Not Death mind you.) All the main characters have died between one and 100+ times, no exaggeration. Actors who are told their character is going to die are also told that they will most likely come back again. Just last episode, Jo returned as a ghost after a beautiful death scene in season 5. Because death occurs so often and people return in some form so frequently, death no longer makes any impact on the viewer even if it does on the character. It's so overdone that when an Egyptian god declared Dean would die, I could barely stop from yawning. "Yeah, what else is new?" I hope that Supernatural puts a moratorium on death this season because none of it means a thing anymore. I'd rather see novel twists tighten the tension because at this point it isn't a question of who's going to die but when and when they will be resurrected.
ReplyDeleteConsequence can be a good enough pay off for a storyline, but it does not counteract the loss of anxiety and drama from knowing a character will not die for good... at least not for me.
ReplyDeleteIf a series lead is in some life or death cliffhanger I rarely consider a possibility of them being dead in the end on most series. I can feel the anxiety with second tier support characters more so since they are expendable for the most part.
That does NOT mean that the not-so-life-or-death scenes are worthless or not enjoyable - they can still be great fights or struggles or surprises etc. However it is just not the same as on those rare series where I actually fear a lead could die at anytime.
Agreed. As much as I am tired of death on Supernatural as my post states, I will be shocked and excited if they really kill off Castiel. In my opinion, the angel storyline was done in season 5 but they stretched it out because Misha Collins has many fans. For me, this is detrimental to the overall story and therefore hurts the show as a whole. However, that being said, no way Supernatural's PTB allow such a popular character to die. For me that just means more years of trying to add angels in wily nily like season 6 so fans can keep their Castiel.
ReplyDeleteEven though I love the actress who plays Anna on The Vampire Diaries and have somewhat enjoyed having her back on the show, I really hate ghost storyline on the show. I think the show should've kept those characters dead instead of making them ghosts
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the main problems with fantasy shows, not even death is final. Any show with a supernatural premise inevitably falls into the resurrecting people dilemma.
ReplyDeleteI think the Buffyverse handled it well, of all the characters, that died, only Buffy returned (Well, and Spike). And all the other deaths were shocking and full of grieve and meant in the long run (Jenny, Joyce, Tara, Doyle, Cordelia and Fred) Even if it was a fantasy premise, death still had gravitas, and its repercusions were felt susequently.
I love SPN, but the have no idea how to handle death at this point. Everyone keeps dying and popping back it lost all shock, and the worse? everyone that dies is almost soon forgotten (until it pops again) Its like there's no sense of grief, how those deaths affect Sam and Dean, because, honestly, it doesnt reflect much at this point. They are so broken and jaded that they barely bat an eyelash at this point.
Jo appeared for a handful of episodes in season 2, not very popular I've heard, and then dissapeared for 3 years, not to even be mentioned again until she got back, then died beautifully. But then again, they only brought her for that, to show us that the apocalypse was serious business without killing mains. And then it meant something, and now reapearing to highlight Dean's survivor gulit is a fine move, but that doesn't change the fact that she wasn't mentioned at all in season 6.
And the worst about death in SPN is that the show finally is just about Sam 'n Dean, it doesn't have an ensemble, so killing any character doesn't hold much weight beyond the episode, because the characters that die are not the ones we see every week, so death in SPN, even beyond the in-story reason, is almost weightless.
And Cas, with the only character that was a main but at the same time, totally killable, they dropped the ball completelly. Before deranging him in a series of unfortunate events that barely managed to manatain the willing suspension of disbelief, was killed unceremoniusly after an action packed roller coaster, to be barely mentioned. That is, is he is dead or not, because we are not even sure about it.
I don't know how else to put it, it was HALF-ASSED, either you don't kill him, or you kill him in the most painful and heartwrenching way that you can find, with no way to bringing him back. Like they did with Fred on Angel. Even if the actress was still kept on the show, Fred was killed beyond death, her soul destroyed so she could NEVER return, which sent her lover to the edge of despair and insanity while her shell now contained a primordial god, so inhuman, but Wesley had to stay with her, because Illyria had Fred's face.
That death changed the paths of all characters, mostly Wesley, and set a much darker tone, that was a death that upped the stakes and changed the status quo. But Castiel's death was a waste. Not dramatic enough, with almost no repercusions that we have seen, and not even final. A complete waste but for the sake of getting rid of the character. I do agree that the angel business was getting stale, they could have made Cas' deathy much more memorable, they could have killed him last season in an epic battle or whatever else, but it should have carried more weight. Either way they didn't had the BALLS to kill Castiel for realsies, so we are just waiting him to pop up again (which it would be lame) or to have total confirmation that he is death (which would be lamer, because is death and repercusions of it so far, are utterly and completely weightless)
But alas, I rant. This is one of my biggest pet peeves about Supernatural and really try not to dwell on it too much. And BTW this is a response to this message and at the same the another one you have bellow XD, I just put it all together in one.
WHAT A RANT!
LOST: Nuff said.
ReplyDeleteNooo. I adore the drama. I love it when characters get hurt, but often hate it if they die. I like the dyanmic you get in an episode when a main character is in peril. Even though they probably won't die, it still brings me a little closer to the edge of my seat.
ReplyDeleteHurt 'em, but don't kill 'em I say!
I don't think so. Any plot as dramatic as death or resurrection is like a double-edge sword IMO. It could move the show forward, or just ruin it, depends on how well it is developed.
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting question. Personally, I think the death, near death, and resurrection elements depend heavily on the integrity of the story telling. If they writers tell a story that maintains the integrity of the show's story then it's usually not a problem. It may not be to the taste or preference of all viewers but it would be a well written show. There have been times when characters have been killed and brought back but the resurrection feels like it was a matter of the writers being too chicken to really kill off the character. If the action feels like a cheat then I don't believe the audience is going to be happy.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, when characters survive because the writers had to tie the story into a big huge convoluted knot because they can't (or won't) actually kill off a character it, for me, violates the integrity of the story/show and I'm an unhappy audience member.I know a lot of people don't want any of their main characters to be killed off. They like the idea that they never have to fear for that character's life. But, for me, especially if it's a show where I'm expected to get caught up in the fact that a main character's life is in deadly jeopardy...having that show be brave enough to kill off a main character, will have me on the edge of my seat because I'll always know...this show killed off a main character...they might kill off another. I love that. But, I'm told I'm in a minority.As an aside...one of the reasons that I have mixed feelings about show runners being too involved in internet commentary. Sometimes the show runners sacrifice the shows integrity because they're trying to keep every single person in the audience happy. In variably this will have an impact on the integrity of the show's story. I think Lost ran into issues with this a couple of times.
Yes, I agree. Especially when it is done a lot...
ReplyDeletewell it depends. in a show like chuck, yes, cuz death is the ultimate 'play'. in a show like supernatural, no, cuz death is not an end game at all, but rather a left turn in development; it works because they have established how there are various states of being beyond it pretty well...
ReplyDeletemmmm but the thing is that killing off Castiel wouldn't mean he wasn't gonna appear again since death is part of existance in that show. that is the whole point. the series treats death as just another development. i think u mean 'totally anihilate' him. which would be a very big deal for the cosmology of the show as nothing really disappears, just changes state of being and location (Heaven, Hell, Purgatory etc). i mean we don't even know if Raphael is no more, or if simple there is a place where dead angels go....
ReplyDeleteI liked it in Buffy. She was brought back, and love how they handled it.
ReplyDeleteIt was okay at first in Supernatural (like when Sam died in season 2 and when Dean went to hell in season 3), but now it's been too much. It's not that powerful anymore. Just kinda.. boring..
In a sci-fi/fantasy/horror series? No. Because there, death's not the ultimate end. There's a plausible explanation for the dead character coming back: ghost, zombie, resurrection, cloning etc. In "normal" shows, like procedurals or soaps? Heck yeah.
ReplyDeleteOMG, GW!!! <33
ReplyDeleteAbout Chuck: I have nothing against the Bryce Larkin "ressurrection" because they apparently got him right after he was shot (and it was one shot), so it was still belieavable for a show based on the idea of an intersect. And Bryce's return was not only well done, but IMO necessary to establish several other aspects of the show. The problem was the Shaw ressurrection. Not because I think Brandon Routh is an awfully limited wooden-like actor, but because the man was shot several times (as you pointed out), fell into cold kinda dirty water (and the CIA didn't bother to fish the body of one of their agents abroad? international incident anyone?) and there was organ regeneration. I know it was a desperate attempt for another arc due to the back 9 episodes, but it was lame and IMO the reason why people think Chuck's dad is still alive. One ressurection is a one time thing, but two kinda gives the impression that it is something that happens now and then. That aside, I agree with you that Chuck usually has other qualities that make up for the lack of death.
ReplyDeleteAbout HIMYM: I loved it. I think it was kind of a sucker punch that wasn't expected at all and gave some reality-touch to the series.
About Castle: even though I loved Montgomery as a character, I believe that his death was wonderfully done/written/acted/... It fit the storyline, it caused an "uneasy" feeling and made the danger palpable.I miss the character and dislike the new captain, but Montgomery's death was a very good thing for the show as a whole.
Thank you for your analysis. It was a very interesting read.
I admit that I was a bit pissed at certain sources hyping "major character deaths" all through May; only to have the vast majority be people we've only seen twice; or haven't seen in three years; or maybe even an alternate version....
ReplyDeleteWell, I think it would be interesting if some tv shows would actually kill off a main or lead character, but they never do (with the exception of the Game of Thrones). The problem is that the show banks on its lead, so how can they get rid of them permanently?
ReplyDeleteWriting deaths and then "resurrections" in whichever "creative" way, is ultimately, lazy writing. A cheap thrill. Basically, it's just drama for the sake of drama. And then at the end of the day, they either don't dare to write the character out after all, or they still love the character so they have to find some way to keep him/her on. It's lame.
ReplyDeleteThat was pretty interesting.
ReplyDeleteI think Bryce was always killed with the intention of bringing him "back from th dead".
ReplyDeleteI really don't have too much of an issue if it is planned ahead of time, executed well, and explained in a way that lets the viewer know it was in the works from the time of the death. Such as the front end of callbacks that do not stand out too much at the time but fall into place later.
Depends on the situation, but mostly yes. Heroes went downhill quickly when they introduced Clair's healing blood. The Vampire Diaries seems to be doing ok, since they're keeping dead characters dead, but showing them as ghosts. If they bring anyone back, then I''ll probably change my mind.
ReplyDeleteIt mostly depends but generally yes.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of main characters, I hate it when they make it seems that a lead will die, because generally we know they won't.
That's what was great about lost. They weren't afraid to just kill off a main character (granted, the big 4 never died (unless you count Locke, even thigh we still saw him)).
Supernatural were great at the start because I was completely shocked the first time sam and dean died, I never expected the leads to die. But today the ease of resurrection and ghosts has rendered all deaths pointless.
These ability for dead characters to cone back so easily in shows today ruins the value and emotion of their death. It not only removes suspense but it decreases the value of an interesting death plot twist. And sometimes the characters they bring back I never liked in the first place (Vickie from vampire diaries)
Tv was so much easier when they could shock you with a loved characters death and we had to learn how to deal without that character because they wouldn't be coming back
We don't really know if Raphael is dead, as every angel that has been "blown up" has come back (that we've seen). At least that's my theory.
ReplyDeleteBut apart from Sam, Dean and Castiel, who else have they brought back to life? I've only seen them bring them back in a temporary capacity like Jo was two weeks ago, or Ellen was last season.
Agreed on LOST.
ReplyDeleteSimilar reasoning to why I respect Game of Thrones so much... Kill the two main characters off in Season One and that's just the beginning. Like the tagline states. 'You Win or You Die'.... and there will not be a lot of winners in Game of Thrones! XD
Re: Buffy.... Plus one of her deaths was done as a series finale before it was picked up by another network. I think they handled death pretty well on Buffy over all.... Now, people growing all-powerful too fast was one of their weaknesses....
ReplyDeleteAngel had death issues much more than Buffy, but while they brought characters back more than I liekd they did make it deeply meaningful or just damned funny!
Speaking of Buffy, in my opinion the very best episode was "The Body." Not to be spoilery, let's say "the person who died" stayed dead, but they did a little trick where Buffy had a brief fantasy that this person actually survived through CPR, and in that moment, I thought "Oh no, not this 'death fake-out' again." But it was only a fantasy of wishful thinking. While the death saddened me, I was glad the writers didn't stoop so low.
ReplyDeleteAs for TVD, the next episode might be about those ghosts having a free pass to enter the present day world, it will not take over the rest of the season! I guess this will be the climax of the Jeremy-seeing-ghosts story line and move on from there. Where other shows take forever to get to this point, TVD manages to end this story line in 7 episodes.
ReplyDeleteKilling off Jenna seemed like a waste last season, since aunt Jenna being a vampire or at least in the know could've been a lot of fun, but while watching this 3rd season, I get it now. It takes Elena and Jeremy to a whole new level, where they have no one to fall back on except each other (of course there's Alaric, but he's not part of their biological family). They have to make their own decisions and mistakes and not having a parental unit looking out for them, makes it more fun to watch.
We've known from the beginning that TVD creators are not in favor of stretching storylines, and keeping regular characters alive (=P) just because it wouldn't make sense. Vicki was not my favorite character and I think watching her being a vampire for 3 whole seasons would've been exhausting...=P
Just to think that what happened in the previous two season all happened in a one year time span for the characters makes me realize that the story doesn't go as fast as everyone thinks! =P
I think it depends on how it's executed .. but mostly it's not done well ..
ReplyDeleteWarehouse 13 comes to my mind when I think of a well-executed plots for all Qs mentioned above ..
I agree. I don't watch a character just to see of a character lives or dies, but more over for the journey the character goes through. I want to care about who this person/these people is/are and debate with myself, and with you guys, the consequences of characters getting into certain circumstances and setting up others. (cause and effect, and ethics)
ReplyDeleteFor me, good television is about being able to relate to what's in front of me. To challenge my perspective of perspective. This is why I love Bad Robot so much, because all of their works come down to identity and humanism. Death and immortality are great ways to do that, because the definitions of those things are different from person to person, belief to belief, and even a debate of process in science. FRINGE for instance is constantly working on 'what is reality' and ultimately, what is it to know oneself in a world, or worlds that can forever change? Death can be a tool to write about transformation and allow the character to be able to change, cause others to change, or be able to allow the character to pursue new paths to allow new plot to unfold.
Not always. Depends on the work, but if the mythos are about "can't" and either 'god or whomever wouldn't allow this', or extistentialism means we shouldn't care (Dexter), then you are building a story that is going to tell you otherwise....so you need death and resurrection, things that humanity has for ever struggled with, to prove that loss does emotionally effect us, or a person can take control of their situation.
ReplyDeleteDeath is sometimes thought of as "a period of transition" for some other 'life'....with out being able to use this, since death is also perceived by some to be final, one can not relate to it, because we are all going to die. It's something every viewer has in common. Now most us don't want to die, so sometimes we hope there is more to ourselves, that we realize in our lives that we aren't alone. That's why some of us watch tv (specifically I speak of dramas here). Not just for the hot guy/gal, or the explosions, the sex scenes, the CGI, ect, but because we relate or are compelled to relate to lives of others. We're all people just trying to find a way to live with ourselves and each other.
You are aware that ghosts are dead right? And that the ghost storyline appears to be ending next week.
ReplyDeleteHaha so true! Glad that where I grew up I didn't have to attend so many fundraisers, dances, founding parties etc. Don't think we'll see all of that during this season, but it is something I (if I ever had the chance) to ask/suggest to Kevin Williamson, if it would be possible to lessen the amounts of parties and stuff... normal teenagers have sleepovers, go bowling, have the occasional school dance, but not loads of formal things to attend... or am I wrong here? =P
ReplyDeleteNo. It's the way they execute the deaths/resurrections that can ruin a TV show. It's all about the writing.
ReplyDeleteThink about Lost: some of the deaths were shocking, exciting and interesting... It was a show that was never afraid to kill its main characters, and that was probably part of the charm too, but at one point it just became routine and some of the deaths later in the series were just so stupid and anti-climatic that it really felt like they were just trying to achieve some cheap thrills.Even "resurrections" need to make sense. For example, I really don't think there's any reason to criticize the resurrections in Fringe. It's a show about parallel universes, time travel and even "soul magnets" so you can of have to expect that the characters themselves would do something to save their loved ones. If they didn't, it would just be stupid (think about Heroes, when they introduced free resurrection for everyone and then even the characters who knew about it never used it again: that was stupid.) It's realistic writing in an unrealistic setting.
In a show like Fringe, I'm actually more interested in seeing how the characters deal with death, as temporary as it might be, rather than seeing them die. It's one of the most important themes in the series: how people deal with death and the consequences their actions have. I'm more interested in seeing how Walter reacts to the fear of losing Peter (how he reacted to actually losing Peter is the structure the show is built on after all), how Olivia reacts to Charlie's death, the lenghts Peter would go to to prevent a future in which Olivia dies. That is a smart use of "tv immortality" in my opinion.
In Heroes, when they created that whole cloned-twin-sisters storyline just to bring back Ali Larter, THAT was a stupid use of tv immortality.
Even some Joss Whedon shows have resurrections, and he's the master of main character deaths... And hey, his shows are still great and the minor character deaths and the temporary deaths are still extremely effective.
As for other shows, it also depends on the genre. The article mentions Chuck, but Chuck is part comedy. I don't want to tune in to Chuck to see the characters die.
So yeah, when a show is just killing off characters and resurrecting them just for the sake of doing it (Lost season 6 I'm looking at you), it's a huge waste of time. But if those resurrections make sense, are well written, and serve to move the plot forward or to give us character development, I have nothing against them.
Yeah, I agree. From what I heard, Bryce was supposed to be Sarah's love interest for season 3, not robot-superman (had it been that way, I believe the storyline would have worked wonderfully). And he was only shot once - and not thrown lifeless in the (always lovely) Seine.
ReplyDeleteI've grown to hate or stop watching shows because there was too much death, or because a favorite character died and the show became too sad, but I've never been turned off because a character came back. If the way the character is returned is credible, then bringing back characters is fine. But I hate it when shows resort to killing characters just because they can't come up with a more creative way of keeping viewers' attention.
ReplyDeleteFringe did kill a regular character: Charlie Fracis. I thinks it's the most audacious show among all these.
ReplyDeleteIt depends on the tone of the show. If it's a comedy-action series like Chuck, killing off characters is not cool. I love it to pieces, but I was disappointed when they *spoiler* killed his dad off. Also I think that permanently killing off Bryce was disappointing. I did, however, think it was fun in the first/second season of Chuck when Bryce wasn't really dead. And I think that in Chuck resurrections are not annoying, they just add to the fun of the show.
ReplyDeleteNow shows like The Vampire Diaries. They wind up killing off characters just because they can't think of any other plot twist or such, and this is part of why people wind up classifying them as being over-dramatic. And honestly I can't blame them. Randomly killing off an important character with no real basis for it degrades it, and it loses integrity.
Castle was somewhere in between being random and being a serious, well thought out death (Capt. Montgomery). I felt that his association with Beckett's mom's murder was a little...well, weird. Almost as if they needed a character to kill off (that wouldn't infuriate fans and thus discontinue their watching) and they needed a reason to kill them off. They have carried it out pretty well though (although I am not a fan of Gates. But that is a different discussion.).
Fringe is a completely different story. The whole premise is based on parallel universes, and so Olivia's "death" in the future and then having Peter switch the future around is not a "cop-out". It's sci-fi and allowed to change. Also, if they are going to kill someone, they should kill Walternate. Buuuuuut again, that's a different discussion :)
It's a 10 year old episode. I'm not above spoiling that on a spoiler website.
ReplyDeleteThey brought Buffy's mother back four times after The Body. Twice as an apparition and twice in flashbacks.
Not one of those appearances "took away" from The Body.
Why invest in a show that brings back the dead?
ReplyDeleteWell if the tv show is in the science fiction genre, expecting people not to return from the death is like hoping a hospital show won't show any blood. Seriously, in the realm of syfy anything is possible, so why being surprised about f.e. ghosts?
Like someone else already wrote: it begins to get irritating if everybody comes back (as a ghost).
But I would like to add, it can work for a show to bring back someone in another form/shape and still be permanent on the show. It can also work to have flashbacks or ghost, as long as they don't drag it out to much.
The writer asks himself why he would invest in a show that brings his people back? I ask him, why not?
How is knowing that a character lives on as ghost or spirit matter to the emotions you've put into his or hers death? It usually has a good function like bringing a character to another level.
I also would like to ask him why the writer watch tv at all knowing what everyone with a brain knows about genres.
Everybody has different standards and ideas, for me that are realism and tensity for the story.
But everybody should know what to expect when watching a certain genre. Not doing so will result in disappointment (see the writer).
What a great episode! I was thinking that even as I was watching it. Sarah was amazing.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who has lost someone close can relate to Buffy's reactions. I lost a friend in a car accident. The day I heard she had died, I called the hospital and asked to talk to her, hoping it was all a big mistake.
very interesting articlee!! i agree with you for the most part! i think in some scenarios death works but others it doesnt
ReplyDeletealso you didn't mention jeremy from Vampire Diaries which i think goes along with what you were saying
There are so many comments, but this one addressed me personally so I would like to respond.
ReplyDeleteI would be very surprised if ghosts were around in a science fiction show, actually. Now, a supernatural show, I wouldn't be. And I'm not surprised in the least that these supernatural shows have brought ghosts into their series.
You ask me why I wouldn't invest in a show resurrecting people, I've answered with an excessive 1,800 word post if you clicked through. I don't think bringing people back usually has a good function, I think its only function is for thrills. People have cited Supernatural and Buffy as good examples of bringing people back, but I wouldn't know seeing as I never watch(ed) those shows. Thankfully, I *do* have a brain and know about genres and I watch TV because it's entertaining.
My problem isn't realism nor tensity. I think I outlined why I was distraught with ghosts in both TVD and TB. It's not that they existed on their own, it's that they were technically able to come back entirely. And there is absolutely no point to death when that happens. *That's* why emotions matter with respect to his or her death because they were all for not. And from then on, there's no point to death and therefore not emotions to have.
But I'm able to put that aside and just continue to be entertained. I'm not going to stop watching The Vampire Diaries. I don't think they could do anything to ever make me stop. But unless they outline the "rules" of this ghost thing, I won't ever feel like death is an actual issue to be afraid of in the show.
To be fair the guy does mention in the comments that he doesn't watch SPN which is why he didn't mention it.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree that the way SPN does handle the issues brought up on this article is very nicelly weaved into the DNA of the show and the way the story and character growth develops.
However as a longterm fan, even though I do accept it and I still think when they do it, it is handled well and makes sence, and I even though still hold out hope that some characters will get full ressurections that will stick (like the boys and Bobby and Cas ones have) I also believe that even the SPN powers that be have overused the trope so much that it's lost its impact.
I got tired of True Blood a long time ago. I'm sure there's a reason yet to be revealed in the plot for both Anna and Mason to be borderline corporeal on The Vampire Diaries. On that show, there is a dead yet all-powerful witch pushing ghosts over to fulfill her agenda, so the twist wasn't intolerable. These shows are bound to have deaths, almost-deaths, and resurrections because of the genre. If you watch something about vampires, characters will be attacked and killed, and yes, resurrected, because of the presence of characters who are witches. The person who wrote this article might just be experiencing a change in TV preference. I know plenty of people who don't like fantasy shows for similar reasons.
ReplyDeleteResurrections just mean sloppy writing. If you're going to kill the character, make sure you're done with them, writers! These just get so cliche.
ReplyDeleteYes. It is annoying. Why have so much build up about a characters death and then just resurrect them?
ReplyDeleteJust about your last point, the downside that the two seasons happened in one year is we now have sooooooo many idiot dances, parties etc that will be popping up again this season...
ReplyDelete