Shounen anime in particular tend to get this criticism leveled at them and not without reason. The characters are constantly put in alledgedly fatal scenarios only for all of them to survive. The MCU has more than 10 movies now and no main characters have died yet. Hell, didn't htey retcon agent Colson, one of the only casualties with a name and face that wasn't a villain? At the same time it can be annoying to constantly have to assume the worst. As a fan of ASOIAF i constantly have to ask myself what painful and ironic deaths my favourite characters could possibly be facing in eevery new book. would you say that the risk of death is necessary in order to make an action/drama series good?
Poll: Does an action/drama series need to have the risk of character death in order to be good?
- Thread starter CyanCat47_v1legacy
- Start date
The only thing an action/drama series needs to be good--or any series, really--is good writing. If the story is good, if the characters are well-written, then death can never even be mentioned and the series will still be incredible.
The problem with death is that, as you pointed out with with Marvel, is that it is rarely the feared outcome we're supposed to believe it is. Death has been cheated so many time, either by magic, some new skill, a double-cross, or whatever, that it has really lost its sting for so many series.
At the same time, death is often so overused that the same thing happens. Death for you, death for him, death for her. Death for the poor two security guards who were just doing their jobs late at night. Death to the kids at the school because we need to make it clear how dangerous this new person is. Death to the character's best friend/love interest because we need to motivate them again or they were getting too boring.
Death in stories is nothing more than a tool. And the trick is using that tool correctly. Sadly, since so many people believe death is the ultimate threat/end, that is often what is immediately thrown on the table from the get-go. And once that happens, writers tend to run out of ideas, and so death sort of just becomes a state of being for a while until some way is found to override it, again and again.
The problem with death is that, as you pointed out with with Marvel, is that it is rarely the feared outcome we're supposed to believe it is. Death has been cheated so many time, either by magic, some new skill, a double-cross, or whatever, that it has really lost its sting for so many series.
At the same time, death is often so overused that the same thing happens. Death for you, death for him, death for her. Death for the poor two security guards who were just doing their jobs late at night. Death to the kids at the school because we need to make it clear how dangerous this new person is. Death to the character's best friend/love interest because we need to motivate them again or they were getting too boring.
Death in stories is nothing more than a tool. And the trick is using that tool correctly. Sadly, since so many people believe death is the ultimate threat/end, that is often what is immediately thrown on the table from the get-go. And once that happens, writers tend to run out of ideas, and so death sort of just becomes a state of being for a while until some way is found to override it, again and again.
No, it doesn't. The problem is when your constantly threatening death, but yet the axe never drops and no one ever dies.
This is why the MCU doesn't get knocked much for this, if we use it as an example. For the most part, individual character death isn't a huge concern, so we, the audience, are not surprised when they don't die. A lot of the time, even losing isn't in question - in The Avengers, for example, TOny Stark specifically points out that the Hulk will win. Full stop. Their not fighting to win, their fighting to win in a less shitty way then 'Hulk Kills Everyone, Earth Wins.'
On the other hand, we have 'popular' anime (You know the ones I'm talking about, no need to drag out your favorites to counter me, I know it's not all anime), where the characters spend 90% of their time in near death experiences, and you just get fatigued by it. Or you have something like Dawn of Justice, where even when someone does die, you know it means next to nothing.
TL;DR - If your going to keep throwing people into death traps, and drawing everyone's focus to it, then yes, someone has to die eventually. But not constantly drawing attention to that sort of thing, or just not putting your characters into that kind of situation, is also acceptable.
This is why the MCU doesn't get knocked much for this, if we use it as an example. For the most part, individual character death isn't a huge concern, so we, the audience, are not surprised when they don't die. A lot of the time, even losing isn't in question - in The Avengers, for example, TOny Stark specifically points out that the Hulk will win. Full stop. Their not fighting to win, their fighting to win in a less shitty way then 'Hulk Kills Everyone, Earth Wins.'
On the other hand, we have 'popular' anime (You know the ones I'm talking about, no need to drag out your favorites to counter me, I know it's not all anime), where the characters spend 90% of their time in near death experiences, and you just get fatigued by it. Or you have something like Dawn of Justice, where even when someone does die, you know it means next to nothing.
TL;DR - If your going to keep throwing people into death traps, and drawing everyone's focus to it, then yes, someone has to die eventually. But not constantly drawing attention to that sort of thing, or just not putting your characters into that kind of situation, is also acceptable.
Definitely not necessary, though sometimes I feel like the lack of risk does detract from the work. You kind of hit the nail on the head with MCU. I think the big issue is that the audience knows that the main characters won't die, but they try to generate tension with the threat of them dying anyways. Situations like the end of The Avengers with Tony.
Though I don't think that you need to go full ASOIAF to combat that. The problem I have with ASOIAF is that so often they seem to kill people just to say "Hey, people die you know?", and the story feels worse off for the choice. Depending on the kind of story you want to tell, you're going to fall somewhere in the spectrum, but I think there's a happy medium somewhere inbetween.
Though I don't think that you need to go full ASOIAF to combat that. The problem I have with ASOIAF is that so often they seem to kill people just to say "Hey, people die you know?", and the story feels worse off for the choice. Depending on the kind of story you want to tell, you're going to fall somewhere in the spectrum, but I think there's a happy medium somewhere inbetween.
Does it have to? No. But it helps. One of the reasons I LOVE Quentin Tarentino is because few if anyone in his movies have plot armor.
I suppose if the fun is less "if" they will live, but rather "how" then it can work. I feel like that's how it was for say, James Bond, or Adam West Batman, but those are far less serious.
Certainly Game of Thrones is probably far more popular because of the lack of plot armor.
I suppose if the fun is less "if" they will live, but rather "how" then it can work. I feel like that's how it was for say, James Bond, or Adam West Batman, but those are far less serious.
Certainly Game of Thrones is probably far more popular because of the lack of plot armor.
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,160
- 125
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
I'm going to say no, there's plenty of lighter-hearted and/or family action series that don't have any characters dying and are still good. Depends on the tone the creator is aiming for, there isn't any single right answer. That said, I personally prefer some real threat hanging over the characters, or at-least the possibility they may fail at their goal. Some franchises like Doctor Who and Marvel have lost my interest in recent years and I feel that's party due to a lack of feeling of risk that's built up after watching victory after victory.
I look at shows like the Star Trek franchise, where it was a very rare occurrence to have a main character die, only three that I can think of and two just came out of nowhere so they wasn't even dramatic, and yet is a great dramatic show. It's often more about HOW they will win, rather than if, because let's face it even in shows that do kill the odd character the good guys win 95% of the time. So if a show/movie cannot get drama out of something other than killing, then they're not going to be very successful.
As for the Marvel complaint, what can they do, any way they go about it people will complain, so they leave their options open for the future, and again if comic books were only able to get drama out of killing heroes, the readers would be bored 99% of the time. It could be worse. They could kill off a main hero as the "emotional gravitas" to end a movie, when we're all well aware that character is starring in a movie a year away.
As for the Marvel complaint, what can they do, any way they go about it people will complain, so they leave their options open for the future, and again if comic books were only able to get drama out of killing heroes, the readers would be bored 99% of the time. It could be worse. They could kill off a main hero as the "emotional gravitas" to end a movie, when we're all well aware that character is starring in a movie a year away.
It's not necessary, but I'd say it does really help things.
This is a big part of the reason why "Game of Thrones" is so talked about: it flipped the rules on their head by killing off characters whom the audience simply assumed are just supposed to live.
But as someone pointed out, where it gets old is when the character(s) are seemingly in never-ending "OMG I might die!" scenarios, and then never actually die. It takes away any emotional investment because after a while you sort of realize that nothing is actually going to happen to them, so it just feels corny when they try and make them seem like they're in any sort of danger.
This is a big part of the reason why "Game of Thrones" is so talked about: it flipped the rules on their head by killing off characters whom the audience simply assumed are just supposed to live.
But as someone pointed out, where it gets old is when the character(s) are seemingly in never-ending "OMG I might die!" scenarios, and then never actually die. It takes away any emotional investment because after a while you sort of realize that nothing is actually going to happen to them, so it just feels corny when they try and make them seem like they're in any sort of danger.
No. I had to vote no, the evidence is just there. There are good series out there that went their whole run and never killed a main character.
It wasn't a series I watched, but as far as I could tell Dragonball never killed anyone. They just got a halo and got to go on just like before. And usually "came back" anyway. And plenty of people love Dragonball. And there are other series (or movies or books or whatever) that didn't kill anyone and were fine. Good even. That being said and as others have pointed out...
It helps.
It wasn't a series I watched, but as far as I could tell Dragonball never killed anyone. They just got a halo and got to go on just like before. And usually "came back" anyway. And plenty of people love Dragonball. And there are other series (or movies or books or whatever) that didn't kill anyone and were fine. Good even. That being said and as others have pointed out...
It helps.
Just as a disclaimer I didn't mean to say that the MCU is bad because of a lack of character death. It is merely the latest and most popular example of such a series
I'd say that it needs to have dramatic tension. Character death is but one way of creating dramatic tension.
It's actually why Captain America: Civil War is one of my favourite MCU movies. Its dramatic tension is not reliant on character death for once and it really payed off. But indeed, in previous MCU installments there didn't seem to be any replacement for character death as its dramatic tension. And because there didn't seem to be any risk of characters dying while still sometimes pretending there was it all felt a little pointless.
It's actually why Captain America: Civil War is one of my favourite MCU movies. Its dramatic tension is not reliant on character death for once and it really payed off. But indeed, in previous MCU installments there didn't seem to be any replacement for character death as its dramatic tension. And because there didn't seem to be any risk of characters dying while still sometimes pretending there was it all felt a little pointless.
Well, the "allegedly fatal scenarios" part isn't vital for an action/drama series in the first place, so even if a show that has them but can't make you take the risk of character death seriously is always bad (which is debatable) the answer is still no.
No, but it certainly helps. If there's T-rated action or above, there's probably risk of death or something worse than death. After the characters run those risks for long enough without a single fatality, people find it predictable and stale.
Just watched the Season 3 finale of AoS recently, and putting aside the unnecessary 'future vision' haunting the second half of the season, I found it benefited from being in that uniquely comfortable position where there were a large cast of characters who had all become well-rounded, and no single character was important enough that you would say 'there's no way this person will die', because we'd already seen it was willing to kill off characters, but for a purpose.
There was always the one-time use of the method used to resurrect Coulson, but he put a clear end to that in Season 2 for anyone except an Avenger, citing the side effects (as opposed to Gotham's new freezing miracle resurrection formula capable of bringing almost anyone back with a new or old persona, cheapening death). Pairing this with a devastatingly effective villain had me riveted and praying that my favourite character wouldn't be the sacrifice.
It sounds crass (again, purpose), but I think that one non-villain character death may be required to prove to audiences that a show is 'serious' about its drama. I remember one review of the final book in the New Jedi Order series where they stated that the situation and stakes coupled with the first character death in the very first book over 5 years ago (perhaps hammered home by others, but the first cut is the deepest by far) had made him believe that even Han, Luke, or Leia might potentially die in the finale. As usual everyone came insanely close multiple times, but previous incidents made the threat feel quite real.
Just watched the Season 3 finale of AoS recently, and putting aside the unnecessary 'future vision' haunting the second half of the season, I found it benefited from being in that uniquely comfortable position where there were a large cast of characters who had all become well-rounded, and no single character was important enough that you would say 'there's no way this person will die', because we'd already seen it was willing to kill off characters, but for a purpose.
There was always the one-time use of the method used to resurrect Coulson, but he put a clear end to that in Season 2 for anyone except an Avenger, citing the side effects (as opposed to Gotham's new freezing miracle resurrection formula capable of bringing almost anyone back with a new or old persona, cheapening death). Pairing this with a devastatingly effective villain had me riveted and praying that my favourite character wouldn't be the sacrifice.
It sounds crass (again, purpose), but I think that one non-villain character death may be required to prove to audiences that a show is 'serious' about its drama. I remember one review of the final book in the New Jedi Order series where they stated that the situation and stakes coupled with the first character death in the very first book over 5 years ago (perhaps hammered home by others, but the first cut is the deepest by far) had made him believe that even Han, Luke, or Leia might potentially die in the finale. As usual everyone came insanely close multiple times, but previous incidents made the threat feel quite real.
Well, something has to be at stake, something to be lost or gained, something to overcome, without this sort of investment I am only left to wonder "Why would I care?".
Endangering the protagonist's life is a very quick and easy way to do that, given that I am invested in their safety, if there are far more important things going on than this character's well-being I would be kind of okay with them getting the hatchet.
...Unless I really do like them.
Endangering the protagonist's life is a very quick and easy way to do that, given that I am invested in their safety, if there are far more important things going on than this character's well-being I would be kind of okay with them getting the hatchet.
...Unless I really do like them.
No it doesn't have to have risk of character death to be good. It does need to have genuine stakes of some kind though. The easiest form of risk to put a character in, is risk of death, so it's a very common one. But you can have other forms of risk in place that can generate drama.
Of course, if it's a show about combat/violence, not having risk of death sort of pulls me out of the narrative.
That's why I like the first season of Attack on Titan, fuckers be dying left and right. It genuinely felt like they were engaged in a war with a powerful foe, that was systematically cutting them down.
Of course, if it's a show about combat/violence, not having risk of death sort of pulls me out of the narrative.
That's why I like the first season of Attack on Titan, fuckers be dying left and right. It genuinely felt like they were engaged in a war with a powerful foe, that was systematically cutting them down.
NEED? No. Fiction is not something that needs to follow strict guidelines, and to be frank so many deaths nowadays just feel forced to appease a nonsense notion that the story "needs" deaths. Put in deaths where it fits the story. Nowhere else.
I mean hell, just look at pretty much every underdog sports movie out there. The stakes are almost never "life and death". But victory/failure is a big issue for a lot of those stories. If they fail, they don't get the sponsorship they need to pay for the farm this year, and the family will now be homeless. Or the school will lose it's funding for their extracurricular programs, thus shutting down on the life enriching courses due to budget constraints. Etc etc.
It's totally doable to have tension and drama without the possibility of death. You just have to make the audience be invested in the things that are at stake.
It's totally doable to have tension and drama without the possibility of death. You just have to make the audience be invested in the things that are at stake.
One punch man says no.
Just don't pretend like your going to kill characters off, and then never kill characters off. Don't kill characters off, treat it like a big deal, then bring the character back to life. Don't kill characters off multiple times, then repeatedly bring them back. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Don't search for the emotional high of a death scene, and then deliver a random happy ending. It's cheap. Kill them off or don't.
One punch man did it right. Saitama was never going to die. It was never even implied that he could die. And I was fine with that, because the show wasn't really about him being in danger. Just don't insult my intelligence.
Just don't pretend like your going to kill characters off, and then never kill characters off. Don't kill characters off, treat it like a big deal, then bring the character back to life. Don't kill characters off multiple times, then repeatedly bring them back. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Don't search for the emotional high of a death scene, and then deliver a random happy ending. It's cheap. Kill them off or don't.
One punch man did it right. Saitama was never going to die. It was never even implied that he could die. And I was fine with that, because the show wasn't really about him being in danger. Just don't insult my intelligence.
Risk of "lose" is what's needed, it's just that "is Hero Protagonist going to die!?!" is the cheap and lazy way to try and draw on it.
And if that's functionally impossible to occur, like in Warehouse 13, where all dramatic plot points lead into "so-and-so is dead/going to die", but the actors have no-kill clauses in their contracts, it's just not going to work.
And if that's functionally impossible to occur, like in Warehouse 13, where all dramatic plot points lead into "so-and-so is dead/going to die", but the actors have no-kill clauses in their contracts, it's just not going to work.