# Why do all the characters die in British TV?



## Kzach (Feb 22, 2012)

If you don't like spoilers, probably best not to read any further.














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?


----------



## malcolm_n (Feb 22, 2012)

That makes sense.  You know, he kept telling me to find ways to kill players when I was updating War of the Burning Sky to 4th Edition D&D; and now I know why...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 22, 2012)

The same reason they all die in real life. The real question is why Hollywood is so terrified of believable consequences in fiction.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 22, 2012)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The same reason they all die in real life. The real question is why Hollywood is so terrified of believable consequences in fiction.




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

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. 

I loved Being Human but I have lost interest in it with all the killing. 

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. 

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


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 22, 2012)

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...


----------



## Tonguez (Feb 22, 2012)

British TV is an opiate designed to keep the population distracted with all the crunch

American TV is an opiate designed to keep the population distracted with all the fluff


----------



## Thunderfoot (Feb 22, 2012)

Well, you see, long ago in a far away land, called England, there was this writer, his name was Bill.  He had a way with writing tragic comedies, tragedies and historical tales that usually ended in death for quite a few of the main characters.  These people, known as the English, they tended to get a kick out of this.  As far as I can tell, they figured, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

(Trying to be humorous here, not condescending)

But, really if you look culturally, I think there is a lot of truth to this.  England as a whole has no problem embracing death as a central plot theme, and the idea that NO ONE is static in a series. (You ever watch Dr. Who? - that show is built on the platform of if the star wants out, we don't need him.) 

Meanwhile across the pond, we Americans are still arguing over why Aston Kutcher should have/should not have replaced Charlie Sheen and that it was all the studio's fault that they wouldn't bend over backward and kiss CS's backside.  Frankly, I'm all for the BBC, kill em' all, let the Nielson's sort em out.


----------



## Sutekh (Feb 22, 2012)

Unlike Elf Witch, I watch tv primarily to be engrossed by a plot/story/ collection of characters. If I have fun while doing so thats good to, but I need the dialogue to be on point and for characters not to deviate (the bane of multi writers on a tv show)

Picking a show like Dr Who, I firmly believe that if the concept ever arose in America it probably wouldnt have made it. Dr Who to me has always been about weaving the characters around a scifi story and watching them deal with what the story has to offer. 

I do totally agree with previous posters, American tv esp on the Commercial networks seems loathe to kill off characters wheras i find the Cable shows there dont mind doing it.  If the plot/story dictates a character should die, then thats what should happen


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 22, 2012)

Sutekh said:


> Unlike Elf Witch, I watch tv primarily to be engrossed by a plot/story/ collection of characters. If I have fun while doing so thats good to, but I need the dialogue to be on point and for characters not to deviate (the bane of multi writers on a tv show)
> 
> Picking a show like Dr Who, I firmly believe that if the concept ever arose in America it probably wouldnt have made it. Dr Who to me has always been about weaving the characters around a scifi story and watching them deal with what the story has to offer.
> 
> I do totally agree with previous posters, American tv esp on the Commercial networks seems loathe to kill off characters wheras i find the Cable shows there dont mind doing it.  If the plot/story dictates a character should die, then thats what should happen




just because I like a happy ending does not mean I don't like witty dialogue and characters that make sense. 

I am a huge Dr Who fan and if you look at the history of that show they have rarely killed off main characters.

I am also a huge fan of Joss Whedon shows again they could be dark and gritty but Buffy, Willow, Xander and Giles all lived. 

My issue is killing of character just to make a show gritty.  

I watched the UK version of Being Human for the characters now that they are all gone but one I don't feel any desire to keep watching.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 22, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I watched the UK version of Being Human for the characters now that they are all gone but one I don't feel any desire to keep watching.




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.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 22, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> 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 (Feb 22, 2012)

Kzach said:


> 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 (Feb 22, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> 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 (Feb 22, 2012)

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 (Feb 22, 2012)

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 (Feb 22, 2012)

Kzach said:


> 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.



Elf Witch said:


> 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 (Feb 22, 2012)

delericho said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Feb 22, 2012)

delericho said:


> 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!"



Elf Witch said:


> 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 (Feb 22, 2012)

Kzach said:


> 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 (Feb 22, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> 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.


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Feb 22, 2012)

I like british shows better usually. Problem comes when main baddie player want out of series and he/it/she is replaced by some lamer chacter/not so good actor/teeny type when it used to be "adult".

Tha's when it starts to suck. Always.

Replacing main heroes, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. If both happen, second season almost without fail sucks. SInce it is quite usual because of actor councrats and unceritany if show can continue.

It gets worse if series have to drop plots tied to these specific character. It almost always without fail follows up half season of pointless one-shots, and little-too-late found new storyline. Babylon 5, season 5 is good example of this.

If it's not problem of actors jumping off the show, when killing character doesn't work, when it's series with plot (or flimsy excuse of one) and they kill off character people enjoy watching (maybe not even a major one, not always one of the good guys either) and that one is killed off in really stupid and poitless way.

And to we honest watching some tv-shows have charm of watching train-wreck. You kinda expect them to waste one of those grade a a-holes. Historical series are often filled with really hatable characters. And since it's historical we pretty much know it will end up bad, but details are interesting. Seeing people plot and succeed and fail.
And unlike some real-tv crap there is thematic background, cool costumers and people who actually can act. And you actually can see mr-go-away bite the dust.


With cop-series, I don't really care for any characters. Maybe if there would be some dramatic deaths in main-cast it would help to keep it interesting. INstead american cop-shows are full of social yap-yap and some case/double case-of season. Law series usually do double cases don't know why. I'd love to know where that habit came from. Probably it's just that watching judging panel is so boring, to avoid yawn-fest they do two-three unusual judging scenes.

Also those crime fighter series have some kinda semi-plot that progresses laggingly usually with first and last episode of series.

American series like to hang to their set of main team, that is too shiny for real world. And lot of action is re-placed (probably for budget reason) with all kinda social bickering.

Walking Dead is good example of series that work like that, first there were lot of zombie fights. Now it's more like psycho-lady-who-doesn't-want-to.cooperate. Well for me it started to suck 4th episode of 1st season. 

I also liked the Event. Which many didn't like, and it was canceled after season 1.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Feb 22, 2012)

A big reason a lot of UK TV kills their cast is because the actors weren't contracted for more than a series or two and then decided to leave. There's less of that "standard 6 season contract" thing going on.

Sure, British TV can afford to kill off it's characters because of the differences in format, but more often than not it's because the actor wanted to be doing something else.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 22, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> 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.



It is not a universal truth; it's very genre dependent.

A medical show where people come in with life-threatening conditions every week and are always saved is dumbed down (to be fair, the doctor shows seem to be having more and more patients die over the years).

An action adventure show where people go through life-threatening circumstances every week and no one ever dies loses its stakes.

But there are cetainly some genres in which character death is not appropriate, or when the creators are specifically shooting for an unrealistic tone. But if the show revolves around danger and death, the main characters being immune to that often detracts from the story, whereas the converse has a powerful impact.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 22, 2012)

Kzach said:


> So, all but one of the original cast is now left on Being Human UK




One is now a dwarf in New Zealand, Russell Tovey wanted to leave, dunno about the third, but I'll guess she jumped rather than got pushed.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 22, 2012)

Morrus said:


> One is now a dwarf in New Zealand, Russell Tovey wanted to leave, dunno about the third, but I'll guess she jumped rather than got pushed.




Funnily enough, even the ghost isn't technically one of the original cast as she got replaced after the pilot, as did the vamp.

I do hope the series goes on with at least the current werewolf and vampire characters. I can forgive them for replacing the ghost again as she's terrible. The original ghost chick was much better but quite frankly they could do better with just about anyone else.

I'm kinda pissed about Misfits, though. The best character and actor of the first season left and now the best character and actor of the second and third seasons has gone leaving us with... meh.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Feb 22, 2012)

Interestingly enough - Glee looks like it could be in that same spot of character death after last weeks cliff-hanger.  And after reading this, I kind of hope she does die.  Not because of character hating or anything, but because there really isn't any realism in US TV anymore.

The closest we got was Charlie Sheen running off a cliff in his car.


----------



## El Mahdi (Feb 22, 2012)

It's less important in British TV that one dies, as it is that they die in a stiff upper lip manner...


----------



## Morrus (Feb 22, 2012)

Kzach said:


> Funnily enough, even the ghost isn't technically one of the original cast as she got replaced after the pilot, as did the vamp.
> 
> I do hope the series goes on with at least the current werewolf and vampire characters. I can forgive them for replacing the ghost again as she's terrible. The original ghost chick was much better but quite frankly they could do better with just about anyone else.
> 
> I'm kinda pissed about Misfits, though. The best character and actor of the first season left and now the best character and actor of the second and third seasons has gone leaving us with... meh.




I''ll still watch both, but I agree they're nowhere near as good as they were.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 22, 2012)

> 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!"




I was always fond of Bashir & O'Brien closing on Whorf with clubs as part of the wedding ceremony, chanting "Beat Whorf, beat Whorf..." with the glee that only someone who has been...well..._tortured_ can have.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 22, 2012)

> 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!"




I was always fond of Bashir & O'Brien closing on Whorf with clubs as part of the wedding ceremony, chanting "Beat Whorf, beat Whorf..." with the glee that only someone who has been...well..._tortured_ can have.

Besides, that line always bugged me...  What IS ramming speed in something that is FTL capable?  Fighting something FTL capable?


----------



## GSHamster (Feb 22, 2012)

I think it's just that British television is a lot less _stable_ than American television. Seasons are much shorter (6-episode run compared to 22), and renewals seem to be a lot more dicey. For example, an American series generally knows if it's going to be renewed or not before the current season ends.

So because employment in a Brit TV series is a lot less predictable, I think there's a lot more turnover in casts, as British actors are constantly looking for another job. That means that the writers are forced to kill off characters because the actors have left. That in turn makes them more willing to kill off characters.

In American shows, in contrast, it's a lot easier to keep the actors under contract for multiple seasons. And the actors are happy to have steady predictable work, so they're less likely to leave. It's also a lot more work to replace them. So killing regular characters off becomes a rare tool, deployed for major effect.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 22, 2012)

First shocking main character death in a UK series was in Doomwatch back in the 70's - it was genuinely shocking when Robert Powell's character dies defusing a bomb. That was pretty new.

Nowadays the poster child for death of main characters was the Spooks series (called MI5 or something similar in the US?). After a female agent was killed in a deep fat fryer in an early episode there were a wide range of deaths across each series - often pointless, hopeless ones. It is rumoured that applications to work for MI5 dropped significantly as a result of the show!


----------



## Fast Learner (Feb 22, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I''ll still watch both, but I agree they're nowhere near as good as they were.



I was really losing interest in the last series of the UK Being Human. The first couple of episodes of this series left me a bit flat but this most recent episode has made it much more interesting, so I'm optimistic.


----------



## Richards (Feb 23, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> 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.



What do you mean?  Joss killed Buffy off in season one, when she drowned in a pool of water over by the Master's underground lair.  That was the event that generated Kendra the Vampire Slayer, and then later Faith.  (Xander revived her with mouth-to-mouth, but she _was _technically dead.)

Joss also killed off Buffy at the end of season five, when she sacrificed herself in Dawn's place to stop Glory.  (Season six brought her back again, when the Scooby Gang got her yanked out of Heaven and resurrected.)

Then there was the alternate reality Buffy who was also killed off... or were you talking about PERMANENT deaths?  

Johnathan


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 23, 2012)

Kzach said:


> 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!"
> 
> 
> 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.




That is subjective your opinion that it was crap. The show was not canceled due to low ratings. Skiffy got into a disagreement with the home studio that makes it on how much they were willing to pay for it. 

They wanted to pay less for it because of how much they were willing to pay for the new Stargate which in my subjective opinion was crap.

They believed that all fans wanted grim and gritty like BSG they were wrong. 

They have seemed to have lost faith in the entire franchise of BSG now. They have been delaying Blood and Chrome forever.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 23, 2012)

Fast Learner said:


> 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.




And it also the reason why a lot of fans don't like them that and the way they are written. At any SF con I have been to there has always been a lot of discussion on the series and a lot of SF fans don't like them because of the violence and graphic sex in them.

That makes no sense at all if each season was only 6 episodes long if they killed them there would be no seasons left to make regardless of how many episodes. If you kill those two you don't have a show left.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 23, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> It is not a universal truth; it's very genre dependent.
> 
> A medical show where people come in with life-threatening conditions every week and are always saved is dumbed down (to be fair, the doctor shows seem to be having more and more patients die over the years).
> 
> ...




I watch a lot of medical shows and I don't know of any where the seriously injured always live. Not since the days of Medical Center and Marcus Welby.

Even on House they have been known to kill of patients and characters. Most of the time they don't because the focus of the medical part is diagnosing the illness.

As for adventure series again it really depends on the tone of the show. Take 24 they killed people right an left. But since each episode is set in one day they don't really do a lot of character development or give a lot of character background. What makes 24 exciting is the adrenaline pumping action.

But say a show like Burn Notice the action part of the show is only part of the appeal. There is also the relationships between Fi and Michael, Michael and his mother, Sam and Fi. There has the background development of all the characters. Start killing of those characters and the show changes. 

If you look through the history of TV you will find that more often then not changing a show often leads to lower ratings. 

On most crime solving shows they solve the crime that is very unrealistic yet I doubt they would be popular if more than half of their cases go unsolved. 

I find it amusing when people complain over the heroes getting out of dangerous situations but they willing accept other non realistic stuff. Like the two part episode on Castle yeah sure the CIA are going to bring a writer and a local cop into an investigation like that. Or the fact that NYPD homicide detectives have the luxury of working on one case at a time.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 23, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> And it also the reason why a lot of fans don't like them that and the way they are written. At any SF con I have been to there has always been a lot of discussion on the series and a lot of SF fans don't like them because of the violence and graphic sex in them.
> 
> That makes no sense at all if each season was only 6 episodes long if they killed them there would be no seasons left to make regardless of how many episodes. If you kill those two you don't have a show left.




They do fairly well over here. Bear in mind you're not the target market. They're designed for British viewers.

The BBC sold the format to a US network so that you guys can have a version targeted at you. I hear that's doing OK, too.

Different products, different markets.


----------



## Storn (Feb 23, 2012)

Kzach said:


> If you don't like spoilers, probably best not to read any further.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





And good lord, MI-5/Spooks?  The death toll is like 70% of the cast.  They just keep chipping away every season, replace 'em, kill 'em off.  That show is a bloody turnstile.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 23, 2012)

Richards said:


> What do you mean?  Joss killed Buffy off in season one, when she drowned in a pool of water over by the Master's underground lair.  That was the event that generated Kendra the Vampire Slayer, and then later Faith.  (Xander revived her with mouth-to-mouth, but she _was _technically dead.)
> 
> Joss also killed off Buffy at the end of season five, when she sacrificed herself in Dawn's place to stop Glory.  (Season six brought her back again, when the Scooby Gang got her yanked out of Heaven and resurrected.)
> 
> ...




Permanent deaths. If you kill a character and bring them back it does not count and often feels like a cheat.

Joss never killed permanently is core cast in Buffy. 

Star Trek Voyager killed the entire crew once but there was duplicated ship that had lost Harry Kim and the newborn baby. The one Janeway sent her Harry Kim and the baby who had lived over to the duplicate ship then destroyed hers to take out the Viidians.

On Next Gen they destroyed the Enterprise and her crew over and over when they were caught in a time loop and in Generations.

IN Science Fiction death is often just a non permanent story element.


----------



## Fast Learner (Feb 23, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> And it also the reason why a lot of fans don't like them that and the way they are written. At any SF con I have been to there has always been a lot of discussion on the series and a lot of SF fans don't like them because of the violence and graphic sex in them.




Yeah, shame about them being disliked by so many yet being nominated and winning so many awards, outselling other fantasy, and having an HBO series based on them. How could that happen with something so many people dislike?


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 23, 2012)

Morrus said:


> They do fairly well over here. Bear in mind you're not the target market. They're designed for British viewers.
> 
> The BBC sold the format to a US network so that you guys can have a version targeted at you. I hear that's doing OK, too.
> 
> Different products, different markets.




I enjoy a lot of British shows and I am use to the high death rates and cast changes look at season 1 of Primeval and then the last season. I accept it as part of the way they do British TV. I don't want to see that model in my American TV though.

The people saying that the fact that British TV is more deadly has to do with how they do series and how they actors are not locked into long term contracts is absolutely correct. 

In the US actors are often locked into long term contracts. All the actors of DS9 had been signed for six years. 

I loved Being Human from the pilot up until last season. I may watch the new episodes eventually but I am not in any hurry. 

Here is why it is straining my disbelieve, in the original premise you have a werewolf and a vampire two species who really don't get along. Werewolves are considered no more than animals. They want to try being human and embrace that not their monster side.

Now those characters are dead partly because they could not control their monster side.  And now conveniently we have two new monsters one werewolf and one vampire who want to live together.

I sometimes think it is better to let a show go when most of the cast want out.  

I could be wrong in this case and the show will do well. Maybe starting fresh will revitalize the show. 

I just know that for the moment it will not be something I will seek out.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 23, 2012)

Fast Learner said:


> Yeah, shame about them being disliked by so many yet being nominated and winning so many awards, outselling other fantasy, and having an HBO series based on them. How could that happen with something so many people dislike?




You do realize that there are hundreds of  thousands of SF readers in the world right?

You do realize that the World Con where they give out the Hugo awards have close to 10,000 people attend every year right?

You do realize that even award winning books are not loved by all these fans right?

Do a search here or on CM for threads about the books and you will find that there are people not liking the books. 

Go back and read my post I didn't not say the books were unpopular I said that to the fans who don't like them the violence and the graphic sex is often the reason stated why they don't like them.

LOTRs has sold a lot of books and the movies were successful very successful but not all fantasy fans like the books.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 23, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I enjoy a lot of British shows and I am use to the high death rates and cast changes look at season 1 of Primeval and then the last season. I accept it as part of the way they do British TV. I don't want to see that model in my American TV though.
> 
> The people saying that the fact that British TV is more deadly has to do with how they do series and how they actors are not locked into long term contracts is absolutely correct.
> 
> ...




I agree. I think they should have let it go.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 23, 2012)

Fast Learner said:


> Yeah, shame about them being disliked by so many yet being nominated and winning so many awards, outselling other fantasy, and having an HBO series based on them. How could that happen with something so many people dislike?



You're turning her argument into your own strawman. Saying that her observations at a con are that most people she talks to dislike those elements of the show is entirely legitimate and more than likely entirely true.

That doesn't mean those elements are bad or disliked by the majority of viewers, simply by the majority of people she spoke to; whether they are representative of the viewing majority or not is a separate argument. I do suspect, however, given the popularity of the show and its critical success, that they are not.



Elf Witch said:


> Even on House they have been known to kill of patients and characters. Most of the time they don't because the focus of the medical part is diagnosing the illness.



I always thought House was a comedy; I certainly laugh my arse off every time I watch it


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 23, 2012)

Mitchell's death would have been a nice coda.

But what then of the furry baby and the ghost who won't go away?  I'm interested in the answers.  However, I agree it probably would have been better scriptwriting to not have the storyline continuing with _another_ pair of star-crossed buddies from the two warring factions of fable.

It might have been nifty to see a slumming fey instead of another bloodsucker...

But let's be honest: vampires = $$$


----------



## Fast Learner (Feb 23, 2012)

Kzach said:


> You're turning her argument into your own strawman. Saying that her observations at a con are that most people she talks to dislike those elements of the show is entirely legitimate and more than likely entirely true.
> 
> That doesn't mean those elements are bad or disliked by the majority of viewers, simply by the majority of people she spoke to; whether they are representative of the viewing majority or not is a separate argument. I do suspect, however, given the popularity of the show and its critical success, that they are not.




Here's the point: some people like some things, some people like other things. Saying "I and people I've talked to don't like this thing" isn't a case for not having that thing, yet that's her argument.

Elf Witch, you don't like it. Check. Can you acknowledge that there are in fact people who _do_ like it? And that there might even be enough of those people to make it a worthy pursuit, like they regularly do on British TV? Or is it simply not something that's reasonably likable and is therefore automatically bad?


----------



## Kzach (Feb 23, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I agree. I think they should have let it go.




I both agree and disagree.

I think they should've restarted the series with the current vampire and werewolf characters and actors. I really believe they're both great characters and great actors and if the show is a success from now on, it'll be because of these two and the chemistry they have onscreen.

Honestly, I wasn't that fond of the main characters. As I said before, they were way too whiny. It was all angst and crying and reminded me of a teenage melodrama more than a gritty supernatural TV series exploring the primal nature of human beings.

The new characters, however, are much, MUCH less angsty and melodramatic. In fact, all the melodrama seems entirely centred on the remaining 'original' cast member and she has enough of it to almost be too much to bear already.

The only character I'm really upset about them killing off is Herrick. He was pure awesome.

I'd recommend giving the show a 'fresh' view. Try not to look at it through the lens of the previous seasons and view it as a new show with a similar thread. The new werewolf and vampire characters/actors are worth it, IMO.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 23, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Mitchell's death would have been a nice coda.
> 
> But what then of the furry baby and the ghost who won't go away?  I'm interested in the answers.  However, I agree it probably would have been better scriptwriting to not have the storyline continuing with _another_ pair of star-crossed buddies from the two warring factions of fable.
> 
> ...




You got your currency sign wrong.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 23, 2012)

Kzach said:


> I both agree and disagree.
> 
> I think they should've restarted the series with the current vampire and werewolf characters and actors. I really believe they're both great characters and great actors and if the show is a success from now on, it'll be because of these two and the chemistry they have onscreen.
> 
> ...




Can't stand the werewolf. Admittedly, accent bigotry. I don't like his sister in Misfits, either.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 23, 2012)

Fast Learner said:


> Here's the point: some people like some things, some people like other things. Saying "I and people I've talked to don't like this thing" isn't a case for not having that thing, yet that's her argument.
> 
> Elf Witch, you don't like it. Check. Can you acknowledge that there are in fact people who _do_ like it? And that there might even be enough of those people to make it a worthy pursuit, like they regularly do on British TV? Or is it simply not something that's reasonably likable and is therefore automatically bad?




That was not my argument at all. I was responding to someone quote that the reasons the books are so popular is the high death count. 

And I said that the high death count and graphic sex is the main reason most of the people I have talked to at cons and on the internet have said that they don't like them.

There was never any debate on my part about the popularity of the books or that a lot of people like them. Or even if they should exist.

I sat in a panel at Necronomcon a few years ago on the books. It was an open debate on why do so many people like them and why do so many not like them. The majority of people who don't like them hate all the violence and the graphic sex. The rest of the reasons went along the lines of badly written, I feel like I am reading someone game world, I dislike the way every chapter is about a different character. 

I have read all the books I own the role playing game and board game I am hoping to get the series on blu ray when it comes out so I don't think you can say I don't like the series. 

I am also a huge British TV fan for other then DR Who though I love that too.  I used to own a pal VCR and TV so I could trade tapes of American shows for British shows back in the old days.

I do not know where you are getting the whole I don't like something then it shouldn't exist except from your own head.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 23, 2012)

Morrus said:


> You got your currency sign wrong.




€€€?
£££?
¥¥¥?

It's all money.








($ rule!)


----------



## Kzach (Feb 23, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Can't stand the werewolf. Admittedly, accent bigotry. I don't like his sister in Misfits, either.




Huh, didn't know they were bro and sis but now that you mention it, gods, they look like twins. Maybe their mother and father were also brother and sister? They've also got that same dopey look on their faces when interacting with other characters. With her, though, it's 'cause her character is dopey (maybe she is too?), but with him it's part of what makes his character interesting because you know he's actually quite perceptive and calculating.

Anyway, I think he's quite good and that the interplay between him and the vampire is great. A real loathe/respect relationship that I can see delivering some good drama and laughs as the series progresses. Better than that "if only you were a woman!" relationship Mitchell and George had.


----------



## Fast Learner (Feb 23, 2012)

I was picking up on a perceived tone, you're right you didn't say nobody likes them. I'll try this a different way. 

You said:


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



It seems to me that you're saying that the reason they stayed with character deaths is because that's what's in the books, as though they didn't have a choice. I'm suggesting that the fact that characters die is one of the appeals of the series, along with the sex and the violence. 

In other words, they don't have character death, sex, and violence in the TV show due to a need to stay true to the books; they are making a show from the books at least in part _because_ of those things. There are a thousand other series they could have made a show from that don't have those things.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 23, 2012)

Fast Learner said:


> I was picking up on a perceived tone, you're right you didn't say nobody likes them. I'll try this a different way.
> 
> You said:
> 
> ...




See that is what I felt the other poster was saying that the reason so many people like it is because of the death rate and that was why it was so successful on HBO. That violence and graphic sex is the main appeal.  


There is this big assumption that people who like the books like it because no character is safe. I can't speak for anyone else but that is my least favorite aspect of the books and sometimes I feel GRRM just does it to be shocking and some of it is gratuitous. I like the world he built. I like some of the characters. I like his mythology. 

And no I was not saying that the only reason they stayed with it was because it was in the book. I pointed out that True Blood does things that are not in the books though I think i made have said Blood Ties another TV show based on books.

The point I was trying to make was that just because HBO chose to follow the books and use the graphic violence and sex not all shows need to be as gritty and realistic to be good, award winning or successful.

My real life is hard. I have both major health and financial issues. In my life I have dealt with some pretty dark things. I have seen violence up close and personal. I have knelt in blood desperately doing CPR for a friend who was shot in the head.

I watched the man who kidnapped and terrorized my son get a slap on the wrist because his parents had money. 

I just went through two years of hell worrying that my son was going to lose his battle with cancer.

So I really don't want violence and grim and gritty in my entertainment. Which is why I prefer as I said knowing that for the most part the characters are going to be okay and that bad guys will get what is coming to them. I don't always want realism I want to escape from reality.

I watched 24, BSG, Spooks and I have read GRRM stuff and some other gritty novels. But I have to be in the mood for them.

 Right now things are stressful in my life so I find myself reading more light books like cozy mysteries. I know there are murders but they are not gruesome nor the entire point of the novel and the murderer always gets caught. Or romance novels, light Fantasy and Trek and Stargate novels.

I am mainly watching things like the Big Bang Theory, White Collar, Castle , Merlin and in movies I have been watching a lot of the old Cary Grant comedies, Doris Day and Rock Hudson movies and a ton of B horror and SF movies from the 50s. 

And to be crystal clear on this point I am not implying that only people who have never had violence in their lives or don't have stress want gritty realistic shows.

Everybody handles stress and bad things differently.


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Feb 23, 2012)

I have somewhat dark past. I was always most sane person of my company. And I have seen many bad things, and luckily I wasn't there anymore when most bad things happened. I understand people well, but I have low empathy. Luckily maybe. Even for myself, which is good thing. I have permanent health issues, not because of my life choices, bad genes probably, my mother died very young too.

I like fantasy, because real life sucks. Well, it's kinda funny too. And boring, mostly. And major problem for me is that my disease causes me to be very tired most of the time, and that I don't do so much things I used to, but I have constant action craving nature. Roleplaying games and writing stories have always helped me to focus my energies in positive ways. Also , since I quit so early being a kid, I am thrilled about kiddie things, like theme parks, balloons and candys. Also, nowdays I prefer something new and refreshing what comes to entertaiment.

I used to watch lot of moves and tv shows back to 80-90, also read lot of books and comics. I didn't sleep that much then and I had to fill those long nights with something. 
I really liked those things then. And IMO they were bit better. Outer Limits tv-series had lot of same actors, but stories were very interesting and though provoking. Everything coming from tv nowdays seem to be sort of story-lite. Better cgi, yeh, but it seems like boring waste of time.  I rather go out and start some conversations with random people. 

I like HBO series. They go sometimes bit too far with teases of graphic sex and violence, but for me it's important those elements exist. They make people more believable and thus I care for even characters I dislike more. 
Charactes from most shows are too pure and kinda immature/old people personalities. I don't put that quite right, but sense of "bit off" is strong. Plus I find people's behavior in shows like star trek new iterations boring and irritating.

Of modern television I follow Doctor Who and it's spinoffs, yes even the kiddieshow, some of enemies are interesting.

I liked the Event, but I am not too sad it ended.
I like Game of Thrones. I don't like book, so storywise it's kinda "plah" but I enjoy characters and visulalization.
I like Real Time with Bill Maher, I think it's intriguing and kinda funny
I watch various BBC documents, the Universe too, though it was not that great
Thanks to my sis I started to watch the Revenge, I like it
I liked Spartacus, first season
True Blood, though some of episodes are kinda "doh"
I liked Luther, and songs at end of episode were really cool

I watch music shows, even Idol stuff.

Of bit futher in the bast I liked Lost Room, and was quite happy it stayed miniseries, I am positive they would have ruined the good thing.

I rather liked Lost when it began but it lost it's charm before 1st season when I realized it was one of those plot-shows where writers don't have a clue about truth either. You don't write good mysteries that way.

I am not really fan of gritty Historical shows. They have too much predictabilty. Historical stories were popular a while back, now it's time for more comics and fairy tales again. Which means I'm going to be going to movies lot as my sister's company. Only fairy tale story that really impressed me was miniseries called 10th Kingdom. 

Sex and violance alone doesn't alone make good show for me. I want some original story. But I prefer ones with sex and violance, because, well, it's very human. I like reading really weird comics (well more usual too), but I don't like too much werid in movies/tv-series. HBO:s Carnival (mmh was that the name) was bit too weird for me. Shows lIke that or shows bit pointless dream like scenarios. Mysteries should have answers or titulate people's imagination to guess what truth could be like. If it just confuses, it's no good. 

I don't like writers who keep killing characters just to shock. Killing should be either plot-reasonable or look like sorry accident (random casuality). There was one fantasy writer who liked to murder all his characters. Some really liked the books. I didn't. There was that, and then people drinking orange juice and other too modern sounding things. 
These are off-putters, unless it's purposefully camp like Xena the warrior princess and their likes.

All in all, considering how my tastes for fiction have changed during the years, I don't wonder why tv offering have also changed. And movies. And keep on changing.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 23, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> The people saying that the fact that British TV is more deadly has to do with how they do series and how they actors are not locked into long term contracts is absolutely correct.




I think you ought to consider that it might be more to do with the way that the writers and producers want to run their stories.

Otherwise this would be true of every series, and it manifestly isn't!

Thus it is a story issue rather than a contract issue.

Cheers


----------



## jonesy (Feb 23, 2012)

They already killed at least one person on Game of Thrones who still lives in the books, and seemingly saved one who dies (because he can no longer fill the role he has later in the books).


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 24, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> I think you ought to consider that it might be more to do with the way that the writers and producers want to run their stories.
> 
> Otherwise this would be true of every series, and it manifestly isn't!
> 
> ...




Sometimes I am sure it is story ,but not others. Take Primeval they killed Nick Cutter's character because the actor wanted off the show, They wrote out Jenny for the same reason and the one female whose name I can't remember who they killed off screen wanted out because they changed location were they filmed and she didn't want to be away from her daughter. Also the actor who played Steven told the producers he would not resign for series 3 hence his great sacrifice at the end of season 2. 

So that is four major cast members who were either killed or written off because the actors wanted out and their contracts were up.

I just read an interview with the creator of Being Human and the reason they killed the three main characters was because the actors wanted off the show to do other things. They would have loved to keep going with them if they had been available. 

So it is a bit of both. But I do remembering reading about the issue they have with British series not knowing when they were going to get renewed and that sometimes when they did some of the actors were not available.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 24, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> So it is a bit of both. But I do remembering reading about the issue they have with British series not knowing when they were going to get renewed and that sometimes when they did some of the actors were not available.




Sure, it's a different environment compared to US television. In the US, we're much more concerned with filling out a semi-stable programming schedule, though we do make allowances for mid-season replacements for shows that get canceled before a full season is done. Mini-series focused around telling a particular story come up, but they're comparatively rare on the big networks.

In the UK, you get some shows that fill programming slots like East Enders or Coronation Street. Those are more open-ended shows with no particular end in mind like most American series. And then you get a significant number of short run series focused on a particular story or that run for as many episodes as the writers intent to write before they move on to other projects. And I think that culture of the short-run series informs other parts of the programming environment so that you have actors like Christopher Eccleston who was a brilliant Doctor Who but declined to do any more than one series of an otherwise open-ended show. They have plenty of other options that won't tie them down, there's less pressure to continue on in the same successful show and role, in part, because there is a culture of the short-run "tell the story and be done" show.

I also wouldn't be surprised if having a history significant state-funded television has helped develop this culture by establishing alternate ways for shows to be profitable (or at least not unprofitable and worth doing) other than just finding sponsors willing to hitch their product's wagon to particular shows and advertising time slots.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 25, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Sure, it's a different environment compared to US television. In the US, we're much more concerned with filling out a semi-stable programming schedule, though we do make allowances for mid-season replacements for shows that get canceled before a full season is done. Mini-series focused around telling a particular story come up, but they're comparatively rare on the big networks.
> 
> In the UK, you get some shows that fill programming slots like East Enders or Coronation Street. Those are more open-ended shows with no particular end in mind like most American series. And then you get a significant number of short run series focused on a particular story or that run for as many episodes as the writers intent to write before they move on to other projects. And I think that culture of the short-run series informs other parts of the programming environment so that you have actors like Christopher Eccleston who was a brilliant Doctor Who but declined to do any more than one series of an otherwise open-ended show. They have plenty of other options that won't tie them down, there's less pressure to continue on in the same successful show and role, in part, because there is a culture of the short-run "tell the story and be done" show.
> 
> I also wouldn't be surprised if having a history significant state-funded television has helped develop this culture by establishing alternate ways for shows to be profitable (or at least not unprofitable and worth doing) other than just finding sponsors willing to hitch their product's wagon to particular shows and advertising time slots.




There model is very different than ours and has lead to a different way of doing things.

I know a lot of people here don't like the idea of a less than 19-22 episode season. But I have found that the ones that have only 13 episodes are usually more tightly written with less filler type stories. 

Warehouse 13 just got an order for more episodes up to I believe 18 from their usual 13. Part of me is woot more Warehouse 13 but part of me is wondering just how well it will be story wise. 

I really don't mind filler episodes but from reading threads on it  lot of fans seem to dislike those filler episodes because they feel they don't move the plot along.


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Feb 25, 2012)

Uh, filler-episodes. I have always disliked those. Unless they were musical episodes. Then again those actually moved plot, they just were unusual. Xena for example got that and many other "weird" different style episodes during the run. And fillers, it also had those awful fillers.

Worst thing about filler-episode is, that it's commonly very easy to spot as one. Star Gate fillers were often adventures on Earth. Especially those that seemed to lack main characters for most episode. "Happened elsewhere" style to do fillers. This would not have been even bad idea, but stories in them were lazy and uninteresting compared to main storyline.

I woudn't mind filler episodes, but they tend to be boring. It's not only that they don't move plot, they are quite noticable low-budget as well.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 25, 2012)

Funny you mention SG-1 'cause one of the very best ever SG-1 episodes was a 'filler' episode. The time-loop one where Jack was playing golf through the portals was just brilliant


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Feb 26, 2012)

Mmh dunno I don't recall those. Some fillers are clever, yep, but most are really boring. That's where name comes. I don't recall those mentioned episodes, so I might find them good/waste of time. Well need to re-watch series sometime. It was not so great IMO, so might take some time. Sometimes I rather liked it, other times plots were so stupid.
And honestly I didn't like using all names from mythologies of earth. Like Xena series, they went too far and wide with it. Xena later series had other issues than killing gods of every mythology basicly.


----------



## jonesy (Feb 26, 2012)

Window of Opportunity, eh?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MavKdxdI5ZM[/ame]


----------



## Richards (Feb 26, 2012)

One of the earliest TV shows I watched where they made a frequent habit of killing off main characters was a British science fiction series, "Blake's 7."  Man, NOBODY was safe in that show!

Johnathan


----------



## Morrus (Feb 26, 2012)

Richards said:


> One of the earliest TV shows I watched where they made a frequent habit of killing off main characters was a British science fiction series, "Blake's 7."  Man, NOBODY was safe in that show!
> 
> Johnathan




I'm one of the few people who don't revere that show. I thought it was awful at the time, and I think that now. My view seems to be unpopular, though.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 26, 2012)

I'm middle of the road on that one.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Feb 26, 2012)

Tonguez said:


> British TV is an opiate designed to keep the population distracted with all the crunch
> 
> American TV is an opiate designed to keep the population distracted with all the fluff



Kzach lives in Australia. What is Australian TV designed to do? 




			
				jonesy said:
			
		

> They already killed at least one person on Game of Thrones who still lives in the books, and seemingly saved one who dies (because he can no longer fill the role he has later in the books).



[MENTION=10324]jonesy[/MENTION] Really? Who? 

Please spoiler your answer to avoid upsetting the [-]whiners[/-] people who haven't seen it yet.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 26, 2012)

> What is Australian TV designed to do?




Turn everything on its head, of course!


----------



## Kzach (Feb 27, 2012)

TarionzCousin said:


> Kzach lives in Australia. What is Australian TV designed to do?




Bore people to death.

EDIT: I should probably qualify that a bit more. Until recently, we have had five free-to-air TV stations that only really broadcast in the big cities and everywhere else just syndicated programming from them, most of which was already syndicated from the US & UK.

Our government mandated a certain minimum of Australian produced content, I think something like 10% or thereabouts, and so the channels just filled it with whatever crap they could put together for the lowest cost. Generally speaking, Aussie shows have been pretty awful. There were some small successes over the years, some fan favourites, but very, very, very few ever reached anything near the production and writing quality of US/UK shows.

That has somewhat changed in the last few years as our industry has seen a lot more foreign investment and new studios and production facilities have opened (especially in Queensland). We tend to produce our own versions of syndicated US shows like Biggest Loser, Australian Idol, etc. and they're generally very polished and up to the standards of overseas shows. But more importantly, we've seen a large expansion of locally produced content through the digital band changeover as many 'new' channels (I think there's about 25 or something now) have opened up. Lots more viewers and more opportunities have created a much higher level of production quality.

Keep in mind that Australia is, relatively speaking, only a bit smaller in area than the continental US, is 90% desert, is in the middle of nowhere, and only has a population of 20something million compared to the 250something million of the US. So we do alright with all that taken into account.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Feb 27, 2012)

Why do so many people pooh-pooh Australian table wines?


----------



## jonesy (Feb 27, 2012)

TarionzCousin said:


> jonesy said:
> 
> 
> > They already killed at least one person on Game of Thrones who still lives in the books, and seemingly saved one who dies (because he can no longer fill the role he has later in the books).
> ...



[sblock]
Mago, who was killed by Drogo on the show, is still alive and GRRM has already said he's going to appear in Winds of Winter.

Marillion was (possibly) saved on the show, since he lost his tongue and can no longer do his number later in the Eyrie where he ends up dying.[/sblock]


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 27, 2012)

TarionzCousin said:


> Why do so many people pooh-pooh Australian table wines?




I don't know why, but you shouldn't ignore the pooh-pooh.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp_jylUVGyM&feature=youtube_gdata_player]Blackadder Goes Forth - Never ignore a pooh pooh. - YouTube[/ame]


----------

