Why do all the characters die in British TV?

[Elf Witch]

I'm going to jump on the sentiment that it's better to ask why American TV and film is so reluctant to kill main characters, have unhappy endings, or carry negative or dark messages. It's art; it should reflect the totality of the human condition.

And, frankly, I hate when I feel like my material has been dumbed down or I'm being pandered to.

OTOH, there are some American shows with a high death rate. The Wire killed many of its more popular characters, and pretty much anything by Joss Whedon is going to have a high body count. Funny how the shows that kill characters tend to be the best ones...

That is very subjective there are a lot of excellent TV shows that didn't kill off characters or did not kill of whole swatches of them.

I don't get how grim and gritty equates to better television or by not killing of characters equates to pandering and dumbed down.

Sometimes what makes a show fun and well written is the by play and chemistry between the major characters. Killing off one of those main characters can mess with the whole chemistry of the show.

A good example of this is Beauty and the Beast, people were invested in the relationship between Vincent and Catherine. When Linda Hamilton left the show the producers killed the character off thinking that Vincent was enough to keep people watching. The ratings sank like a stone.

People bring up Joss Whedon look at Buffy the main characters were always Buffy, Willow, Xander and Giles. Other characters came and went but those four were the heart of the show. He wisely did not kill them off.


Sometimes killing a character can work I personally thought killing Ashley on Sanctuary opened up better story lines. Of course it did cause a lot of Ashley fans to stop watching the show.

 

[Elf Witch]

Funnily enough, I actually like the two new characters in BH UK better than the old ones. Mitchell was incredibly whiny and George was useless AND whiny and Nina was just plain annoying.

Lord Harry and Tom make a great team. In fact, all they need now is a cooler ghost and it'd be a truly awesome show.

To be honest I stopped watching after they moved. I gave up in the middle of that season because I just found myself not caring and actually found myself bored and restless when I sat down to watch it.

On Stargate SG 1 I actually liked Jonas Quinn better than Daniel Jackson and was sad to see him thrown to the curb after Michael Shanks got over his tantrum and decided to come back.

 

[Dioltach]

I'm going to jump on the sentiment that it's better to ask why American TV and film is so reluctant to kill main characters, have unhappy endings, or carry negative or dark messages. It's art; it should reflect the totality of the human condition.

It also keeps things exciting for the viewer: if you know the main characters are going to live and every episode is going to end well, some of the suspense goes out of the show.

Miami Vice (the series, not the movie) is a good example of this. It often had unhappy endings and carried dark messages. Rodriguez and Zito were killed. It made the show grittier, more realistic, because the viewers knew right from the beginning that the good guys wouldn't always win.

 

[Fast Learner]

I'll add that they do it on British TV because they can. In the US a series has to last at least 4 full 22-episode seasons -- enough to put into daily syndication -- in order to be a financial success. You can't risk killing characters.

In Britain a 6-episode series can be profitable. It's better if multiple series (seasons) are ordered, but because each series can be a standalone story arc, characters can die.

Me, I vastly prefer it. I like the series Castle, for example, but on yesterday's episode when the main characters were in danger of dying the tension wasn't very high because of course they weren't going to be killed. And that's a show that did take a fairly prominent side character, surprise you with hidden motives, and kill off the character.

I love what they've done with Being Human in the UK. (For that matter, I love the way the US Being Human has taken a very different story arc, though there's less tension since I sincerely doubt they'll kill off any of the main characters.)

 

[Aran Thule]

I really enjoyed the previous seasons of being human, but the latest one not so much.
Not sure if its due to killing off the characters or the change in style of the writing, i did not like the future clips.
I think part of it was because the last episode ended on such a high that it built up our expectations, which unfortunately were not realised.

As for happy endings, in the end the companies producing the films and programmes do it for the money and want to avoid alienating the audience if possible.
I remember seeing the original ending of Final destination, when the main character dies saving the girl, but the test screening got a negative response so they changed the ending and instead did the paris trip.

I must admit to being a little worried that they might change what happened in A Game of Thrones, but thankfully they are following the script so far.

BTW if you want to watch a film that bucks hollywood tradition watch Brazil by Terry Gilliam

 

[delericho]

So, all but one of the original cast is now left on Being Human UK and only two are left on Misfits. What the Hell is wrong with you people? Morrus? Anyone?

Well, TV is all about escapism, and life in the UK is hellish, so...

Honestly, though, I dispute that it's specifically a UK thing. Ever since "Babylon 5", US TV hasn't been shy about killing off named characters. Other than Jack and Kim, did any other characters from the first series of "24" make it to the end? And that was a good part of the appeal of that show - the knowledge that any character (except maybe Jack) was expendable.

Likewise, "Lost" killed more than a few characters, "Battlestar Galactica" wasn't shy about death, and "Game of Thrones" has had some shocking deaths.

Conversely, "Red Dwarf" has retained the same core cast since the start (with one addition and one replacement actor in the same role), while "Doctor Who" has actually been fairly shy about killing off 'named' characters.

Maybe they have learned that it upsets a good amount of their fanbase.

Which is a good thing. If the writers are doing their jobs, you're supposed to be invested in the characters. And then, the death of those characters should be shocking and upsetting.

But that doesn't mean they shouldn't do it. The single best moment in the whole of Star Trek is the death of Spock.

I watch TV to escape from my real world issues and be entertained. I am kind of simple in what I want. I want it to be first and foremost fun. I want the good guys to win and the bad guys to get what is coming to them. And I don't want the anxiety of worrying that my favorite character is going to die in every episode.

That's fair enough. Certainly, there should be different shows for different tastes - there's room for both "The A-Team" and "The Unit" on TV, or at least there should be.

Sometimes it works when an actor wants of the show like when Anthony Edwards wanted out on ER. His death from a brain tumor was very moving.

On the other hand, Joyce Summers' death on "Buffy" was equally moving, but wasn't due to the actress wanting to leave AFAIK.

And, indeed, the deaths of Tasha Yar on "ST:TNG" and Jenny Callendar on "Buffy" made for really good drama, largely because they came out of nowhere. Suddenly, the gloves were off, and the tone for the rest of the series was set. Those were perhaps the single best moves those shows made.

(And that's not to mention the end of "Blackadder Goes Forth".)

Killing Carson Becket on Stargate Atlantis was pointless and pissed off a huge amount of the fans so they brought him back.

That was a particularly poorly-handled death, but bringing the character back was monumentally stupid and lame, IMO. Should have just apologised and moved on.

Basically, what I'm saying is that character death is just another tool in the writer's kit. Like all such tools, it can be handled poorly or well, and that will determine how the death is received. It's just that character death is a particularly powerful tool - it must be handled with care.

 

[Elf Witch]

Well, TV is all about escapism, and life in the UK is hellish, so...

Honestly, though, I dispute that it's specifically a UK thing. Ever since "Babylon 5", US TV hasn't been shy about killing off named characters. Other than Jack and Kim, did any other characters from the first series of "24" make it to the end? And that was a good part of the appeal of that show - the knowledge that any character (except maybe Jack) was expendable.

Likewise, "Lost" killed more than a few characters, "Battlestar Galactica" wasn't shy about death, and "Game of Thrones" has had some shocking deaths.

Conversely, "Red Dwarf" has retained the same core cast since the start (with one addition and one replacement actor in the same role), while "Doctor Who" has actually been fairly shy about killing off 'named' characters.



Which is a good thing. If the writers are doing their jobs, you're supposed to be invested in the characters. And then, the death of those characters should be shocking and upsetting.

But that doesn't mean they shouldn't do it. The single best moment in the whole of Star Trek is the death of Spock.



That's fair enough. Certainly, there should be different shows for different tastes - there's room for both "The A-Team" and "The Unit" on TV, or at least there should be.



On the other hand, Joyce Summers' death on "Buffy" was equally moving, but wasn't due to the actress wanting to leave AFAIK.

And, indeed, the deaths of Tasha Yar on "ST:TNG" and Jenny Callendar on "Buffy" made for really good drama, largely because they came out of nowhere. Suddenly, the gloves were off, and the tone for the rest of the series was set. Those were perhaps the single best moves those shows made.

(And that's not to mention the end of "Blackadder Goes Forth".)



That was a particularly poorly-handled death, but bringing the character back was monumentally stupid and lame, IMO. Should have just apologised and moved on.

Basically, what I'm saying is that character death is just another tool in the writer's kit. Like all such tools, it can be handled poorly or well, and that will determine how the death is received. It's just that character death is a particularly powerful tool - it must be handled with care.

Spock death was powerful but they didn't keep him dead. Kirk death was pointless and I hated it. Didn't care about Tasha Yar death but Jadzia hit me hard.

Joyce's death in Buffy was awesome writing for so many reasons. Not just because they killed a character but how Buffy who has seen so much death reacted to it.

In a show like 24 I can see killing off characters in a show like Burn Notice even though they are in a dangerous situation every week I can't see it. Part of what makes Burn Notice work is the characters interacting together. Also it is watching them take down the bad guy every week. I know they are in danger and I also know they won't be killed what I find interesting is how they get out of it.

In Castle this week I knew they were not going to die but I still wondered how were they going to get out of this one.

If you kill off Castle or Beckett there goes the show it would be nuts to do it. The same with a lot of shows on White Collar killing of Neil or Peter ends the show.

Carson death was a SNAFU nobody will take responsibility for it. The producers say it was the network the network says it was the producers. The upshot was the fans petition got hundreds of thousands of signatures. They overloaded the network and the productions email and phone lines and they raised enough money to put a very expense add in Variety.

When you have that kind of out pouring from your fanbase you would be foolish not to listen to them which is why they brought him back.

As for Game of Thrones this is based on a book and they wanted to stay as close as possible to it.

But Blood Ties which is also based on a book has saved characters that died in the books and killed characters that lived.

 

[Kzach]

The single best moment in the whole of Star Trek is the death of Spock.

See now, you were doing great up until this point because OBVIOUSLY the BEST moment in the WHOLE of Star Trek was when Worf was the Captain of the Defiant in battle against a Borg Cube and said, "Today IS a good day to die! RAMMING SPEED!"

Carson death was a SNAFU nobody will take responsibility for it.

On a show that got canned shortly after 'cause it was crap... sorry, you lost me with that one. I will agree that the new Daniel was 10,000 times better than that whiny, self-entitled, arrogant little prat he replaced (talking about both the character and the actor), though.

 

[delericho]

See now, you were doing great up until this point because OBVIOUSLY the BEST moment in the WHOLE of Star Trek was when Worf was the Captain of the Defiant in battle against a Borg Cube and said, "Today IS a good day to die! RAMMING SPEED!"

Heh.

A nitpick, though... "Perhaps today is a good day to die! Prepare for ramming speed."

 

[Fast Learner]

As for Game of Thrones this is based on a book and they wanted to stay as close as possible to it.

Which is a huge part of why the books are so popular: anyone -- ANYONE -- can die. When they're at risk they're genuinely at risk.

Could they kill off Castle or Beckett? No, but if each season was only 6 episodes long they sure could, and man would that make it exciting!

To each his or her own, obviously. Me, I love the possibility that my favorite characters can die.