PDA

View Full Version : So now we're back to random deaths of secondary/tertiary characters?



FallenAngelII
October 6th, 2010, 11:35 AM
Riley's death in this episode was without build-up or much drama. We haven't really gotten to know him yet. For example, he's barely had any backstory (in fact, most of his backstory was revealed through his KINO confession, which was only shown to us after his death).

He's been at best a secondary character, but I believe he's only been tertiary as his appearances had been infrequent and his impact on the overall plot minimal. It's Kate Heightmeyer all over again. A random death in a random episode with almost no build-up. At least with Kate's death, there was an ongoing crisis: Something was hurting people in their sleep and very soon, someone might die. There was a somewhat dramatic build-up to the big reveal.

This, this was just "Hey, this is a quasi-filler episode with some important plot elements and a lot of filler. They fly out in the shuttle, it crashes, Riley gets pinned and then dies."

Was anyone satisfied with this quick and seemingly randomly death of a tertiary character? I mean, because of the lack of build-up, backstory and much of anything, Riley's death didn't really impact me that much. I've barely gotten to know him, there was barely any build-up to his death (no battle scene, no "We're gonna go into this really dangerous place", no foreshadowing besides "Hey, turbulence!").

IMO, this death was unnecessary. What, the PTB just wanted to show us that sometimes death strikes in unexpected places?

Loheat
October 6th, 2010, 11:41 AM
Riley's death in this episode was without build-up or much drama. We haven't really gotten to know him yet. For example, he's barely had any backstory (in fact, most of his backstory was revealed through his KINO confession, which was only shown to us after his death).

He's been at best a secondary character, but I believe he's only been tertiary as his appearances had been infrequent and his impact on the overall plot minimal. It's Kate Heightmeyer all over again. A random death in a random episode with almost no build-up. At least with Kate's death, there was an ongoing crisis: Something was hurting people in their sleep and very soon, someone might die. There was a somewhat dramatic build-up to the big reveal.

This, this was just "Hey, this is a quasi-filler episode with some important plot elements and a lot of filler. They fly out in the shuttle, it crashes, Riley gets pinned and then dies."

Was anyone satisfied with this quick and seemingly randomly death of a tertiary character? I mean, because of the lack of build-up, backstory and much of anything, Riley's death didn't really impact me that much. I've barely gotten to know him, there was barely any build-up to his death (no battle scene, no "We're gonna go into this really dangerous place", no foreshadowing besides "Hey, turbulence!").

IMO, this death was unnecessary. What, the PTB just wanted to show us that sometimes death strikes in unexpected places?
I think thats it, to show how dangerous the situation they are in, and to show how far gone Rush is.
I don't think Riley was a tertiary character, he would have had more screen time but he had other obligations (theatre work I believe) so they wrote him out of some episodes in Season 1 when he got blown up. He was well liked by the Destiny crew and by the fans, which is why his death was treated seriously. Noone else who died got a montage at the end of the episode, a toast, or have Young and Scott react like they did

AquaGamer53
October 6th, 2010, 11:41 AM
Season One had Kinosodes that were posted online. We did get to know Riley a lot more through those, but I didn't think they were advertised all that much.

Lahela
October 6th, 2010, 11:42 AM
EDIT: I'd forgotten that it was a kinosode, not in the ep... but yeah...He told the story about not taking his nephew to school on his first day.

I felt like I knew him well enough to care about his death.

Shai Hulud
October 6th, 2010, 11:44 AM
Who else are they going to have to tell us that the chevrons have been encoded and locked? A travesty that they killed him off!

Spimman
October 6th, 2010, 11:44 AM
I watched the kinosodes, so I'm sure that played a part...but of the B characters on the show he was one of the ones I felt like I knew the best. I was sad to see him go, but they can't keep adding characters without taking a few away in the process. :(

Ashizuri
October 6th, 2010, 11:50 AM
I was satisfied with it. I was shocked and upset and really didn't want him to die. I liked him. A lot.

I don't need a big "Oh no, dangerous situation, someone might die" build up for a death to get to me, in fact, much like Fraiser's totally unexpected death in SG1, I personally think death has more of a dramatic impact when it's least expected. Going into season finale's and battles and whatnot, you expect it, you're prepared for it, but sudden and unexpected deaths like Riley's generally produce a much more viceral reaction.

That being said, I also think that death loses it's impact in a lot of TV shows because it's so overused. There is a show I stopped watching because it basically became one main character and her red shirts, so I hope SGU doesn't make a habit of killing of the likable supporting cast to create drama.

KEK
October 6th, 2010, 11:51 AM
Um, the death was more about Rush and Young than it was Riley, despite how heart-breaking the scene actually was. Rush being confronted with his mistake, brushes it aside, it was done for the greater good in his eyes. Young finally being confronted with a hard choice, and not copping out, even if he did cover his own tracks. The arcs of the episode were theirs, not Rileys. This is character drama FAII, it's why we're here.

kymeric
October 6th, 2010, 12:23 PM
Um, he talked about his farm life, and family that never left the state they were born in, and how he missed his sisters wedding cuz he didnt wanna take someone elses stone time. And he got hurt trying to stop the weapons from assploding the outer hull of the ship while in FTL.

So I think we know him pretty well, even without the supplemental Kino materials.

He was a self sacrifice-y person who was a good country boy and had a good sense of loyalty and duty.

Its not the shows fault you werent looking at details so this punch didnt hit you.

The Mighty 6 platoon
October 6th, 2010, 12:46 PM
{mod snip}

Riley’s death was to show the fact that there is danger and death at every turn and being a secondary character it’s rather easier to write him out than the main cast who have contracts, though I hold out hope that they will be “trimmed” as well.

Frankly it wasn’t even that gutsy of a move. Shows like The Wire, Deadwood and the Unit all have had more balls when it comes to killing off characters, all 3 have had major characters suddenly shot. No build up, no final words, bang, and they’re gone. And that’s the way it should be, if you want to play up the realism then people often do die suddenly, or without some last heroic act, or for some great cause.

I found Riley’ death deeply unpleasant, he was a nice guy, had been through a ton of scrapes and in the end died on a supply run, having to be suffocated to prevent his suffering. But that’s the point, SGU is meant to be more realistic, and treaty death as what it is, random and deeply unpleasant certainly highlights the realism for me.

xxxevilgrinxxx
October 6th, 2010, 01:00 PM
If the writers hadn't killed someone, there would be complaints about that too. We've gotten to know Riley and gotten attached to him as a character, so having him die is a big deal. Some people are bound to be sore either way - either because they killed off a known character or because they haven't killed off other characters. There's no way to win these kinds of things.

Demoniser
October 6th, 2010, 01:21 PM
Riley dying felt very much like Grodin on SGA tbh. No real build up, just a sudden realisation that nothing could be done to save them, which made it quite tragic tbh.

I was also thinking of how similar it was to episode 2x02 "Valley of Darkness" from Battlestar with the whole mercy killing angle. Secondary/Tertiary character is injured in a shuttle crash, bleeding out, no way of saving them. Superior officer kills them to end their suffering.

I can't help but think of the T.S Eliot quote to sum up the death of Riley tbh "This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." Which is absolutely true, not everyone will get an action packed heroes death, it just isn't realistic.

Ouroboros
October 6th, 2010, 01:23 PM
I'm hoping they do a main character like this at some point. Sure people will probably hate and complain about it even after the series is over, but in real life almost nobody gets a big climactic build up to their death by unnatural causes, and the universe feels no obligation to make it feel "appropriate to that point in the story".

Young snuffing him out like that was way more than I thought I'd ever see on a Stargate show though. Got to give them points for that.

TheHomegaMan
October 6th, 2010, 01:28 PM
{mod snip}

Riley’s death was to show the fact that there is danger and death at every turn and being a secondary character it’s rather easier to write him out than the main cast who have contracts, though I hold out hope that they will be “trimmed” as well.

Frankly it wasn’t even that gutsy of a move. Shows like The Wire, Deadwood and the Unit all have had more balls when it comes to killing off characters, all 3 have had major characters suddenly shot. No build up, no final words, bang, and they’re gone. And that’s the way it should be, if you want to play up the realism then people often do die suddenly, or without some last heroic act, or for some great cause.

I found Riley’ death deeply unpleasant, he was a nice guy, had been through a ton of scrapes and in the end died on a supply run, having to be suffocated to prevent his suffering. But that’s the point, SGU is meant to be more realistic, and treaty death as what it is, random and deeply unpleasant certainly highlights the realism for me.

This.

I normally hate doing posts like that, but this sums it up just fine. And what are TPTB supposed to do, anyway? Pretty much wink and nod in all dangerous situations because somebody might say "Oh, you've already met your minor character death quota!"? Frak that.

The people upset or just plain whining about Riley's death have sent a pretty strong message to TPTB: Mission Accomplished.

jelgate
October 6th, 2010, 01:55 PM
I don't think it was random. Random is like in SG1 where Martouf dies and we move on barely acknowleding it. Thier was quite a bit emphasis and emotional impact on watching Riley die.

globex
October 6th, 2010, 02:01 PM
TJ should have died

Cape
October 6th, 2010, 02:01 PM
I didn't think they'd kill him. After seeing the crash on the trailer i kinda had an idea some one might go, then when i seen the random military officer i was thinking "there we go, see ya later red shirt guy" but no he lived and Riley died.
I was sad to see him go as i really liked him and thought he brought a good perspective and personality to the show, but im also happy to know that TPTB arent sleeping on the job and are throwing great scenes and drama into the show. I liked this episode more than the season premire

P-90_177
October 6th, 2010, 02:02 PM
I have to say I was shocked about Riley's death cos he was my favorite secondary character. In one season he had got up to the same level as Walter in my mind. But in the end I think how he died was perfectly fitting. He was a quiet and soft spoken character. Just a general all round nice guy, so to see him bravely facing his own death seemed to me very in character. And as for the mercy killing? I thought that was just brilliantly acted. You could see the pain in Youngs face as he killed one of his own men.

spinny magee
October 6th, 2010, 02:04 PM
Well frankly I never saw that coming.

Cape
October 6th, 2010, 02:08 PM
I have to say I was shocked about Riley's death cos he was my favorite secondary character. In one season he had got up to the same level as Walter in my mind. But in the end I think how he died was perfectly fitting. He was a quiet and soft spoken character. Just a general all round nice guy, so to see him bravely facing his own death seemed to me very in character. And as for the mercy killing? I thought that was just brilliantly acted. You could see the pain in Youngs face as he killed one of his own men.

couldnt agree more with everything you said

Kelara
October 6th, 2010, 02:14 PM
Sad to see one of the more relateable characters go, even if they're secondary or tertiary. He kind of felt like one of not that many sane, hard working, a little sarcastic guys on board. Oh, and he got a little comic potential now and then... can't have too much of that now, can we :(.

General Jumper One
October 6th, 2010, 03:39 PM
Riley had to go...

"RUSH: Or would you prefer it was Chloe, or Eli? Lieutenant Johansen, perhaps?"

knowles2
October 6th, 2010, 04:13 PM
Chloe is my favourite to be knock off by the end of the season.

FallenAngelII
October 6th, 2010, 05:12 PM
You're all entitled to your opinions. I just felt that this episode was very filler with very little plot, yet Riley dies. It's like they didn't have much of an idea of what to do for this episode besides show that Rush is being reckless, which lead to Riley's death. Yes, yes, but did we have to have the entire episode revolve around these two plot points?

They should've merged this into another episode. Because of the lack of plot, pacing suffered, which ultimately cheapened his death slightly. Riley died, yet all we got from him was him sitting down, him getting pinned, him talking a bit, him dying.

Yes, it gives the show a sense of danger, but it also makes it apparent that this episode was written specifically for that purpose and nothing else. And it's not like it's going to become routine unless they plan on having a revolving door to the cast, so it will stand out like a quasi-sore thumb.

Because in 5 years of Atlantis, we can count the deaths of major characters on one hand and two of those actually returned from the dead later. On SG-1, we had, uh, we had what? 4 major characters die throughout 10 seasons, one of which did so repeatedly and came back every single time?

This will not be the norm, this will be a semi-isolated incident. It's an unworthy send-off of a character who deserved more because his death was for the specific purpose of showing that death is sometimes random and sudden. And I also can't help but wonder if they killed of Riley so that Geen or what-her-name (the Lucian Alliance redhead) can take his place.

Ser Scot A Ellison
October 6th, 2010, 05:20 PM
FA,

Yes, they are in a dangerous environment and sometimes people will be killed as a result. Sometimes, people we like.

SciFiRick
October 6th, 2010, 05:44 PM
If the writers hadn't killed someone, there would be complaints about that too. We've gotten to know Riley and gotten attached to him as a character, so having him die is a big deal. Some people are bound to be sore either way - either because they killed off a known character or because they haven't killed off other characters. There's no way to win these kinds of things.

You are absolutely correct.

Generic Blue
October 6th, 2010, 05:48 PM
i believe the reason they killed him was to make you believe that an any random episode someone (even if it is a semi-important character) might die. So now you cant go into an episode with a mind set thinking everyone is going to be fine in the end. It will make the show better in the long run trust me. As for no build up, the entire episode i was like, oh no riley is going to lose his leg, this might be an interesting development for his character, then he died, my jaw dropped. It makes this episode 2x better, without it this episode would not be as good. It would simply be they crash then dig up a stargate then go home.

zainea13
October 6th, 2010, 06:27 PM
Someone mentioned young's face and the pain he felt. I don't know if you saw it, but the actor playing riley. His eyes as he slowly suffocated... man... i could barely even watch. Infact I think I stared at young's hands rather than make eye contact... :(

It surprised me for sure. It was a great episode all around.

The Mighty 6 platoon
October 6th, 2010, 06:31 PM
Someone mentioned young's face and the pain he felt. I don't know if you saw it, but the actor playing riley. His eyes as he slowly suffocated... man... i could barely even watch. Infact I think I stared at young's hands rather than make eye contact... :(

It surprised me for sure. It was a great episode all around.
It was indeed intense. And possibly the most disturbing death on stargate. What made it so was the acting, the look in the eyes as we watch him die. It’s quite impressive that they managed to achieve this as well, this very unnerving death scene without any blood or gore.

SciFiRick
October 6th, 2010, 06:46 PM
You're all entitled to your opinions. I just felt that this episode was very filler with very little plot, yet Riley dies. It's like they didn't have much of an idea of what to do for this episode besides show that Rush is being reckless, which lead to Riley's death. Yes, yes, but did we have to have the entire episode revolve around these two plot points?

They should've merged this into another episode. Because of the lack of plot, pacing suffered, which ultimately cheapened his death slightly. Riley died, yet all we got from him was him sitting down, him getting pinned, him talking a bit, him dying.

Yes, it gives the show a sense of danger, but it also makes it apparent that this episode was written specifically for that purpose and nothing else. And it's not like it's going to become routine unless they plan on having a revolving door to the cast, so it will stand out like a quasi-sore thumb.

Because in 5 years of Atlantis, we can count the deaths of major characters on one hand and two of those actually returned from the dead later. On SG-1, we had, uh, we had what? 4 major characters die throughout 10 seasons, one of which did so repeatedly and came back every single time?

This will not be the norm, this will be a semi-isolated incident. It's an unworthy send-off of a character who deserved more because his death was for the specific purpose of showing that death is sometimes random and sudden. And I also can't help but wonder if they killed of Riley so that Geen or what-her-name (the Lucian Alliance redhead) can take his place.

I have no doubt that your opinion is respected. It is just not the opinion of the majority on this particular episode. No question that if we want to see a season 3 that the majority of fans would need to like the shows or SG-U will go away. As far as Ginn replacing Riley she has only signed to do a 5 episode arc. Awakening, Trial & Error and The Great Good are left.

GateroomGuard
October 6th, 2010, 06:47 PM
Well we definitely know now that secondary characters have absolutely no character shields, but haven't we known that since SG-1? We've always known that the only people to die(and not come back, usually) in Stargate are the secondary cast, the main cast however still has theirs and will always have theirs.

All this talk about SGU being more realistic I just don't get. They killed off dozens of people in SG-1 and Atlantis. But never the main cast, and if they did they quickly brought them back. Riley's death is nothing new, it's the same old routine we've seen over and over. I dare a tv show to kill off half their main cast in 1 random episode. I mean if SGU was realistic we would see something like Young or Rush just having a heart attack and die, or Scott and Greer getting killed off world since they are the ones who goes off world all the time.

But that kind of realism isn't economic or feasible on a tv show. No matter what realism doesn't work on a tv show like Stargate. The main cast must always be death proof and the secondary cast must take every bullet. I understand that the only way tv shows can seem to produce drama is by killing people off. I'm okay with Riley getting killed, but it's nothing new and it's certainly not 'realism'

zainea13
October 6th, 2010, 09:43 PM
Well we definitely know now that secondary characters have absolutely no character shields, but haven't we known that since SG-1? We've always known that the only people to die(and not come back, usually) in Stargate are the secondary cast, the main cast however still has theirs and will always have theirs.

All this talk about SGU being more realistic I just don't get. They killed off dozens of people in SG-1 and Atlantis. But never the main cast, and if they did they quickly brought them back. Riley's death is nothing new, it's the same old routine we've seen over and over. I dare a tv show to kill off half their main cast in 1 random episode. I mean if SGU was realistic we would see something like Young or Rush just having a heart attack and die, or Scott and Greer getting killed off world since they are the ones who goes off world all the time.

But that kind of realism isn't economic or feasible on a tv show. No matter what realism doesn't work on a tv show like Stargate. The main cast must always be death proof and the secondary cast must take every bullet. I understand that the only way tv shows can seem to produce drama is by killing people off. I'm okay with Riley getting killed, but it's nothing new and it's certainly not 'realism'

The realism I think isn't WHO gets killed off, but the way they are killed off. The way Riley was killed off has impact, both on the viewer and on the characters. That makes good drama.

GateroomGuard
October 6th, 2010, 10:12 PM
The realism I think isn't WHO gets killed off, but the way they are killed off. The way Riley was killed off has impact, both on the viewer and on the characters. That makes good drama.

I have to disagree. How someone dies only matters depending on who dies. If some random redshirt we've never seen before had been in Riley's place it would not be that big a deal to us. But in real life that random redshirt would be just as much a friend as Riley was to Young, Scott, ect. But we the audience only care about people with screentime. If it was realistic we'd have seen everyone crying and having a service to Rivers and Gorman too, rather than forgetting about them and never once mentioning them again.

I'm not saying that killing off Riley wasn't good drama, I'm saying that it's not realistic that killing off Riley should have any more drama than the other people that have already died without even a single tear being shed.

morbosfist
October 6th, 2010, 10:48 PM
Red shirts exist because they allow the writers to kill someone without you caring. A red shirt is a guy you've never seen before (or who is basically a no-lines background character) who dies as a demonstration of danger.

Riley is something different. We've had time to get to know him, seen him participate in various plots, etc. Riley isn't a red shirt. The audience is meant to care about him. Just because you failed to appreciate that doesn't change what it is.

Detox
October 6th, 2010, 11:34 PM
I think this episode, and especially Riley's death really signifies that SGU really isn't Stargate anymore. It's Battlestar Galactica through and through.

I watch Stargate because I don't want to feel demoralized after an episode. I watch it because I want that sense of adventure, and more importantly, sense of hope. There's none of that in SGU. Despite the TPTB's promise that the show will still contain some of the series's core, I don't think it does. I think they really forgot what made this franchise click with people, and decided to go the complete opposite.

Riley's a likable character, and for those fans who were keen enough to find and check out the Kino videos, many wanted to root for him and feel for him. And how did those fans get rewarded? They get rewarded by having the character die a meaningless and pointless death.

Excuses aside, stuff like this is why the show is doing so poorly. It's not Stargate anymore. Despite their promises, this is honestly just Battlestar Galactica lite.

Lahela
October 6th, 2010, 11:41 PM
It seems TPTB can't please everyone. :eek:

garhkal
October 7th, 2010, 12:31 AM
I was satisfied with it. I was shocked and upset and really didn't want him to die. I liked him. A lot.

I don't need a big "Oh no, dangerous situation, someone might die" build up for a death to get to me, in fact, much like Fraiser's totally unexpected death in SG1, I personally think death has more of a dramatic impact when it's least expected. Going into season finale's and battles and whatnot, you expect it, you're prepared for it, but sudden and unexpected deaths like Riley's generally produce a much more viceral reaction.


I am with ya there. Some of the characters we have had die through the years had impacts cause of how sudden/unexpected they were. Rileys fits that bill. And yes though he had little screen time, he was never a baddie, stubborn or otherwise making enemies. Heck i dont' think anyone did NOT like him.


Riley dying felt very much like Grodin on SGA tbh. No real build up, just a sudden realisation that nothing could be done to save them, which made it quite tragic tbh.

Hmm I did not see a correlation.. but now i think about it, it is there. Or as mentioned above, how the kid (young scientist) who got fed on died in the Defiant one.

Ser Scot A Ellison
October 7th, 2010, 03:40 AM
Detox,


I think this episode, and especially Riley's death really signifies that SGU really isn't Stargate anymore. It's Battlestar Galactica through and through.

I watch Stargate because I don't want to feel demoralized after an episode. I watch it because I want that sense of adventure, and more importantly, sense of hope. There's none of that in SGU. Despite the TPTB's promise that the show will still contain some of the series's core, I don't think it does. I think they really forgot what made this franchise click with people, and decided to go the complete opposite.

Riley's a likable character, and for those fans who were keen enough to find and check out the Kino videos, many wanted to root for him and feel for him. And how did those fans get rewarded? They get rewarded by having the character die a meaningless and pointless death.

Excuses aside, stuff like this is why the show is doing so poorly. It's not Stargate anymore. Despite their promises, this is honestly just Battlestar Galactica lite.

???

So, it's not possible for Stargate to be Stargate if it tells stories where there are significant negative consequences for characters we like. It must be bubblegum storytelling with happy stars and magic aliens that pull likeable characters out of bad situations to be Stargate?

Kelara
October 7th, 2010, 05:16 AM
Detox,

???

So, it's not possible for Stargate to be Stargate if it tells stories where there are significant negative consequences for characters we like. It must be bubblegum storytelling with happy stars and magic aliens that pull likeable characters out of bad situations to be Stargate?

How you and so many others always equate "sense of adventure" and "sense of hope" with "bubblegum storytelling" and "stories where there are significant negative consequences for characters we like [are wrong]" will forever be beyond me. Please excuse the question, but what exactly is so ridiculous about liking a take charge attitude or some halfway positive attitude towards life and the future?

travis
October 7th, 2010, 05:37 AM
Detox,



???

So, it's not possible for Stargate to be Stargate if it tells stories where there are significant negative consequences for characters we like. It must be bubblegum storytelling with happy stars and magic aliens that pull likeable characters out of bad situations to be Stargate?

Like it or not this is what the general public likes.
Why do you think reality shows and shallow series (so to speak) do so well.
What fandom think is wow has no relationship to its success tho it does contribute.

Ser Scot A Ellison
October 7th, 2010, 05:46 AM
Kelara,


How you and so many others always equate "sense of adventure" and "sense of hope" with "bubblegum storytelling" and "stories where there are significant negative consequences for characters we like [are wrong]" will forever be beyond me. Please excuse the question, but what exactly is so ridiculous about liking a take charge attitude or some halfway positive attitude towards life and the future?

I think that's a lovely attitude for things like Children's fiction or shows geared towards children. Mature storytelling should deal stories that have real consequences for the characters offered to the reader or the viewer. What people would have to deal with in a meaningful way. If no one who we care about is ever at risk in the story there is no sense of danger because we know at the end of the hour everything will be hunky dory.

Think of shows like "The A-Team". How many tons of lead were fired off in that show without ever killing anyone? How real is that? How silly did those stories get? I loved that show when I was 10. Now that I'm almost 40 I'd like something with more complexity. Something that is more of a reflection of what real people would go through in an imaginary situation.

I'm just not into kids storytelling anymore. That said, even in Harry Potter people we cared about died.

To fully answer your question there is nothing wrong, in my opinion, with a "take charge attitude" or a "positive attitude toward life and the future" so long as people recognize that no matter how "take charge" you are or how "positive" your attitude is bad things will still happen and those bad things will have consequences. To attempt to portray no negative consequences to bad things happening is bubblegum storytelling in my humble opinion.

LawgSkrak
October 7th, 2010, 05:58 AM
I watched this episode right after reading an article about how Season 2 was going to be a bit more light-hearted and funny than the previous season.

Then Riley died a death that I found a bit disturbing, to say the least. "THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!!" I yelled in dismay. lol

Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the episode.

And I don't think we've seen the last of Riley. I'm sure he'll be back to haunt Rush's conscience, like we saw in this ep.

PS That Lucian Alliance girl is SMOKING HOT!!!!!! Thanks for the cleavage shots, TPTB. :)

Ser Scot A Ellison
October 7th, 2010, 06:01 AM
LawgSkrak,

No, it wasn't funny. I'd be more disturbed if you had found it to be funny. That said, just because serious things happen it doesn't mean there will not be humor elsewhere. I don't think SGU will ever be as light as some of the SG-1 and SGA episodes were but I do think they will incorporate more humor, just humor that is appropriate to the tone of this show.

Kelara
October 7th, 2010, 06:16 AM
Kelara,

To fully answer your question there is nothing wrong, in my opinion, with a "take charge attitude" or a "positive attitude toward life and the future" so long as people recognize that no matter how "take charge" you are or how "positive" your attitude is bad things will still happen and those bad things will have consequences. To attempt to portray no negative consequences to bad things happening is bubblegum storytelling in my humble opinion.

See, while you are totally off on a tangent (imho) with the first few paragraphs, I can wholeheartedly agree on the last one. It's only that the *point* was, that the "sense of adventure" or "sense of hope" as a general attitude are missing for some people like me (it's why I also react stronger to Riley's offing, this character at least never gave off that "oh, it's all terrible and totally hopeless no matter what" vibe). Not that bad things can't happen to people with a take charge or generally positive attitudes. Noone seriously debates that and I don't know why you would assume so.

So it'd be nice not to ridicule people's opinions based on something they don't even say, basically suggesting that they can only take fairy tale storytelling. [Although on the other hand... fairy tales are at least supposed to teach you a lesson for life. Ever wonder what the SGU lesson would be?]

Ser Scot A Ellison
October 7th, 2010, 06:36 AM
Kelara,

Okay, if you acknowledge there is nothing wrong or inconsistent, storywise, with Riley's death, what's wrong with using someone we care about to show real danger for the people on Destiny?

I must be misunderstanding your complaint? Are you complanin the story is too dark? If so how do you convey danger to people we care about without having some of them be killed from time to time?

xxxevilgrinxxx
October 7th, 2010, 07:24 AM
Red shirts exist because they allow the writers to kill someone without you caring. A red shirt is a guy you've never seen before (or who is basically a no-lines background character) who dies as a demonstration of danger.

Riley is something different. We've had time to get to know him, seen him participate in various plots, etc. Riley isn't a red shirt. The audience is meant to care about him. Just because you failed to appreciate that doesn't change what it is.

failing to appreciate seems to go with the territory :p
It was a great point and I would have liked to have greened you, but alas, it was not to be

as for the debate about the kind of storytelling, some people like their utopian stories where everything is positive

I am not one of those people by any means

give me a nice gritty dystopian story any day :)

Kelara
October 7th, 2010, 07:47 AM
:) Ser Scot Ellison

It's not inconsistent, or wrong story- wise. Accidents happen every day, even at home. And I don't know if so many people would agree that Riley is "a character we care about", as the general impression seems to be that he's a secondary/ tertiary "Redshirt", if I get the gist of some of the posts in this thread correctly. So on the one hand, it's kind of a cop out to, yes, kill off one of the main cast. To requote:


Riley had to go...

"RUSH: Or would you prefer it was Chloe, or Eli? Lieutenant Johansen, perhaps?"

While I'm pretty sure that was a rhetorical question ;), could you imagine the emotional impact on the other characters if it had indeed been Lt. Johansen? *That* would have had real repercussions (along with the impracticality of having no medic then at all), which would have had to be carried over more than one episode.
With Riley they can go through the motions with the mourning ceremony and have it wrapped up at the end of the episode. I'll be very surprised if they acknowledge the character death ever again (after maybe the next episode) and that is not what this "all new and improved" incarnation of Stargate promised. So in that way, I think it's more too little then too much.

Nevertheless, on the other hand I already mentioned Riley was one of very few characters that don't carry the "it's all hopeless" gloomy attitude with them all the time and as such was a rare occurrence in Universe anyway. By booting those kind of characters and leaving only the "doom and gloom" guys in, you just make watching less enjoyable and less likely for people like me.
*shrugs* It's not to say that it's wrong to be enjoying that, but for me, I claim to like a dose of realism in my scifi. And a world with absolutely *no one* with a positive or proactive outlook/attitude is neither realistic, nor something to strive for... to me personally. As would be one with *only* such people, but again, noone really argues for that, just a good mix off both extremes would be nice *sigh*.

ciannwn
October 7th, 2010, 09:54 AM
i believe the reason they killed him was to make you believe that an any random episode someone (even if it is a semi-important character) might die. So now you cant go into an episode with a mind set thinking everyone is going to be fine in the end.


Well we definitely know now that secondary characters have absolutely no character shields, but haven't we known that since SG-1? We've always known that the only people to die(and not come back, usually) in Stargate are the secondary cast, the main cast however still has theirs and will always have theirs.


Kelara,

Okay, if you acknowledge there is nothing wrong or inconsistent, storywise, with Riley's death, what's wrong with using someone we care about to show real danger for the people on Destiny?

Killing off a secondary character, no matter how much I like him, isn't going to convince me that the main characters are in danger. Posters in another topic have said that bringing him back would cheapen his death. It wouldn't for me because, as far as I'm concerned, his death has already been cheapened by a 'kill them so they aren't dead' story for the main characters. We get a lot of those in Stargate and here are just a few examples -

Main characters die in an altered timeline and are back again when the timeline is returned to normal. (Continuum)

Main characters die and are back again when the timeline is altered. (The Last Man)

Copies of the main characters die. (Ronon, Sheppart and McKay - This Mortal Coil)

An AU version of main characters die (Vegas and The Daedalus Variations)

SGU had main characters die several times in Time.

I'm really fed up that they picked on Riley to be the 'drama death' because he was my favourite character in the show and the only one who came across to me as a real person. I shall also be spitting mad if we get any more 'kill them so they aren't dead' stories for any of the main characters.

Shan Bruce Lee
October 7th, 2010, 04:44 PM
I've never watched the kinosodes and his death mattered to me. He wasn't part of the main cast and he didn't have a very fleshed out backstory, but he's been around enough, and been involved enough in what's going on that I'd gotten used to him being there.

Nathan Reynolds
October 8th, 2010, 04:13 AM
Why do people keep saying that SGU is like BSG i trully dont get it.
Destiny isnt running way from toasters with guns, the Destiny crew isnt praying at ever god they can find for salvation, no one from Destiny has come back from the dead with a magical way home.
SGU is notting like BSG.

To me SGU is shapping to be the best Stargate Series of all 3. Yes i know blasphemy, right?
SG1 was action/humor, SGA was scifi/humor, SGU is scifi/drama.

Everyone keeps complaining that SGU isnt Stargate but when they do some stargate-y everybody screams?????
Killing secondary characters to show danger and create drama is one of the single commons elements in all stargate shows.

Now back to Riley.
I liked his character and was sad to see him die but thats the point, isnt it? To makes us feel something when we watch the show. His death shows so much.
Young's burden of command, Rush's careless for anyone else but himself, the dangers of Destiny, not everything will turn out alright everytime.

Why didnt anyone complaing this much when Franklin died? And i believe he is dead and will not came back in any shape or from.

Moments like this make the characters more real. Take Ronon in 4 years we was shot, stabbed and chased more than any other caracter in SGA but not once was he at death's door.

So to the TPTB i say keep it up.

ciannwn
October 8th, 2010, 05:00 AM
Everyone keeps complaining that SGU isnt Stargate but when they do some stargate-y everybody screams?????
Killing secondary characters to show danger and create drama is one of the single commons elements in all stargate shows.

I do regard SGU as Stargate and we were promised that it would be very different to the other two shows. This is why I'm so annoyed about Riley - the writers went back to the old Stargate forumula of killing off a secondary character to show danger and create drama while providing a 'reset button' for main character deaths.

I know there are practicalities to consider - the writers couldn't kill off Rush because he's essential to the show. Wray is the IOA representative so she'll be needed for IOA plots. What about Greer? Would killing him off to provide drama and danger mean the show would have to take an entirely new direction? What about TJ because she could be replaced by a body swap doctor if someone needed medical attention.


Why didnt anyone complaing this much when Franklin died? And i believe he is dead and will not came back in any shape or from.

You believe he's dead but mysteriously vanishing from the chair room doesn't necessarily mean he's dead in the fictional Stargate universe. I'm going along with the other opinion that his fate remains unknown.


Moments like this make the characters more real. Take Ronon in 4 years we was shot, stabbed and chased more than any other caracter in SGA but not once was he at death's door.

Killing off Grodin, Heightmeyer and the original Beckett didn't make the show realistic where the main characters surviving the impossible was concerned, though. I never felt that Ronon was in any danger just because the original Beckett had been killed by an exploding tumour. He was a main character so he only died in 'kill them so they aren't dead' scenarios.


So to the TPTB i say keep it up.

And to TPTB I say kill off Greer, Scott, Chloe or TJ the next time you want to have a 'drama death'.

magictrick
October 9th, 2010, 09:45 PM
Glad to see that they aren't afraid to kill of characters on the show. Only problem with this death was that there was no attachment to the character. He wasn't developed enough to make us really care. I mean sure its supposed to be emotional when a character gets killed off, but it really diminishes the effect when its a supporting character.

I see what they were trying to do but it didn't work out. Either choose a supporting character and develop them for a few episodes or choose a main character to do this to.

ciannwn
October 10th, 2010, 02:44 AM
Glad to see that they aren't afraid to kill of characters on the show. Only problem with this death was that there was no attachment to the character. He wasn't developed enough to make us really care. I mean sure its supposed to be emotional when a character gets killed off, but it really diminishes the effect when its a supporting character.

I've been looking around the internet for opinions about 'Aftermath' and have been reading posts in various places besides GW - message boards, forums for TV shows in general and forums for fans of something else where SGU is included in the 'other' topics section etc. I know people can be posting in more than one place but I doubt if many of them said "Riley was wonderful" in one forum and "Have we seen that guy before, then?" somewhere else. Opinions can be divided into several categories.

1: He was one of the few reasons why some people were still watching SGU. They're very upset he was killed off.

2 Some people found him more interesting than the main characters. They're very upset he was killed off.

3: Some people found him very interesting and likeable and were hoping he'd get more to do on the show. They thought he made a refreshing contrast to the other military characters such as Young, Greer and Scott. They're very upset he was killed off.

4: Some people said he was one of their favourite characters. They're very upset he was killed off.

5: There were a lot of posts expressing ":( :( I'm really going to miss him."

Killing him off, therefore, did make an impact but, in a lot of cases, I don't think it was the kind of impact TPTB were hoping for.

I've already stated my views in this topic. I won't be watching this episode on Tuesday (I'm in the UK) - I'll be far too annoyed to appreciate anyone's acting even if they're giving an award winning performance. I'll probably watch it when Sky does a season repeat, though.

I'll finish this post with my husband's opinion (he's not all that keen on SGU although he enjoyed BSG so he doesn't mind dark). It was a very cynical "Well, they don't want secondary characters outdoing the main characters." He probably won't be watching this episode on Tuesday either - he wanted to know what else happens and was somewhat underwhelmed when I gave him a rough idea.

SGeff
October 10th, 2010, 08:21 AM
I think the secondary character's death is different from the main character. It is not about a build-up or a fully background, it is about consequences. Like Riley's death, how it will affect Rush and Young? what will the rest crew do when they find out it was rush got Riley killed? So I guess it is a good one, if they will show us the consequences.

And if you really followed SGU last season, you will know there're at least two kino episode is all about Riley's background. And with Riley's death, I am excited that we will be able to watch other new minor character.

Really everyone likes him, and upset he is killed off? Are there any people like me who is just ok with it? Of course I will miss him, I even miss Senetor Amstrong. In fact, Riley is missed 7 epsiodes in s1. And what about Eli, Rush, Young, Greer, TJ, Park, Volker? Those are characters I really like. And I start to like Ginn and Simeon already. So really? Riley is the only reason people watched the show?

xxxevilgrinxxx
October 10th, 2010, 08:30 AM
Glad to see that they aren't afraid to kill of characters on the show. Only problem with this death was that there was no attachment to the character. He wasn't developed enough to make us really care. I mean sure its supposed to be emotional when a character gets killed off, but it really diminishes the effect when its a supporting character.

I see what they were trying to do but it didn't work out. Either choose a supporting character and develop them for a few episodes or choose a main character to do this to.
I believe that can only be stated as a purely personal opinion. I got attached to Riley and definitely knew enough of his life, background and family to make me care.

ciannwn
October 10th, 2010, 09:51 AM
Riley is missed 7 epsiodes in s1.

There were a lot of people hoping he'd survive his Season One injury. They were delighted when they saw that Haig Sutherland was going to be in the last two episodes according to IMDb.


And what about Eli, Rush, Young, Greer, TJ,

Not everyone's wild about them. My husband can't stand Greer and would have cheered if he'd been chosen for the 'drama death'. I've tried to get involved in the main characters but all they are for me are characters in a drama who are played by actors. Riley was the only one I could regard as being a 'real person'.

Liking a character is very subjective so one person's greatest thing since sliced bread can be another person's 'Meh' or "I wish they'd shove him/her through the airlock". 'Liking' doesn't have to mean liking a character as a person, of course. One of my own favourite Stargate characters is Kolya and one of my top favourite TV characters of all time is Cigarette Smoking Man (The X-Files).


Park, Volker? Those are characters I really like.

Maybe some people are going to be very wary of liking any secondary character now in case he or she is given the Riley treatment.


And I start to like Ginn and Simeon already.

I remember Ginn but I had to look Simeon up because he didn't register with me. Varro, however, made an impression on me. I'm not going to invest any attachment to him as a character, though, in case he isn't around for long.


So really? Riley is the only reason people watched the show?

He was one of the few reasons some people were still watching the show. Killing him off means there's one less reason for them to watch it now so whether they stay watching will depend on how SGU goes in the future.

Lahela
October 10th, 2010, 09:53 AM
Killing him off, therefore, did make an impact but, in a lot of cases, I don't think it was the kind of impact TPTB were hoping for.


What death could possibly have enough impact to illustrate the danger these people are in, other than a recognisable secondary character? Should it have been another redshirt? Nobody cares. Should it have been a main character? That's not going to happen. The death of anyone but a redshirt is never going to occur without some negative response, but that's the point! It has to have all kinds of responses to be anywhere near meaningful. I thought Riley was a wonderful character and am going to miss him terribly, but the impact of his death will be to make me more sensitive to the danger that everyone is in. And I think that's precisely what TPTB were aiming for.

The Mighty 6 platoon
October 10th, 2010, 10:05 AM
What death could possibly have enough impact to illustrate the danger these people are in, other than a recognisable secondary character? Should it have been another redshirt? Nobody cares. Should it have been a main character? That's not going to happen. The death of anyone but a redshirt is never going to occur without some negative response, but that's the point! It has to have all kinds of responses to be anywhere near meaningful. I thought Riley was a wonderful character and am going to miss him terribly, but the impact of his death will be to make me more sensitive to the danger that everyone is in. And I think that's precisely what TPTB were aiming for.

While I agree with you, I hope they do kill off some of the main cast and I shall be critical if they don't. There are plenty of shows that have had the guts to kill off main cast members suddenly and without warning.

However I'm more concerned that they write peoples deaths well. I mean they killed off 3 main characters in SGA, as well as recurring characters, so it's perfectly possible the main cast will take casualties in SGU. The problem with the deaths in SGA though was that they didn't properly show the impact of their deaths on the remaining cast, I mean they barely acknowledged Ford died. This has so far at least been avoided with Riley and during the episode they did show the effects on the various characters that his death or impending death was causing.

Janus
October 10th, 2010, 10:05 AM
I liked Riley and I feel killing him was rather pointless. It has been said before, but I'll just say it again...It feels like TPTB were trying to rub it in how dangerous the mission was. Like we don't know that already.

Edit: The only way IMO that something good could come out of this, is if it came back to haunt Rush somehow. I really don't like that man, I like to see him suffer. (He's to arrogant and he simply doesn't work for me as a semi-villain. He's a lot like Gaius Baltar, but he seems to miss that little magic sparks that makes him somebody you like to dislike.)

The Mighty 6 platoon
October 10th, 2010, 10:08 AM
I liked Riley and I feel killing him was rather pointless. It has been said before, but I'll just say it again...It feels like TPTB were trying to rub it in how dangerous the mission was. Like we don't know that already.

I can only speak for myself, but my suspension of disbelief is broken if we have a series of dangerous situations where no one escapes unharmed. People die, it's a fact of life and they don't often die in some heroic or poignant moment, but rather death can come at any random time. Showing that can be a source of great drama and also make the show seem far more realistic, something that I think SGU strives for.

ciannwn
October 10th, 2010, 10:10 AM
The death of anyone but a redshirt is never going to occur without some negative response, but that's the point! It has to have all kinds of responses to be anywhere near meaningful.

Does that include the response of the person who made this topic? Or my husband's cynical idea that Riley had to go because TPTB don't want secondary characters to be too popular?


I thought Riley was a wonderful character and am going to miss him terribly, but the impact of his death will be to make me more sensitive to the danger that everyone is in. And I think that's precisely what TPTB were aiming for.

It's unlikely that TPTB were aiming for my own response of "So they're back to killing off a popular secondary character while the main ones get a reset button in 'Time'." Maybe my age has something to do with it - I'm 61 so have seen a lot of TV shows and movies over the years. Killing off a secondary character to imply danger to the main characters no longer works on me - I won't believe that any of the main characters are in danger until one of them is killed off.

thekillman
October 10th, 2010, 10:17 AM
Only problem with this death was that there was no attachment to the character. He wasn't developed enough to make us really care

speak for yourself. i cried. i loved it. it had a big impact.


because you know, kill off someone and there's always gonna be a group that responds "he's the only reason i watch the show". kill off young and you upset Young Fans, kill off Rush and you upset Rush Fans, ad infinitum.

kill Chloe and it would have a very different effect. people would go complaint it wasn't painfull enough or that it took up too much time. i think most Chloe hates would prefer a quick bullet to her head and then never mentioning her again.

ciannwn
October 10th, 2010, 10:26 AM
kill Chloe and it would have a very different effect. people would go complaint it wasn't painfull enough or that it took up too much time. i think most Chloe hates would prefer a quick bullet to her head and then never mentioning her again.

And a lot of people would be upset if they killed Chloe off because she's got fans too although I'm not one of them.

Lahela
October 10th, 2010, 12:09 PM
Does that include the response of the person who made this topic? Or my husband's cynical idea that Riley had to go because TPTB don't want secondary characters to be too popular?

Of course it does - but that doesn't negate the opinions like mine.


It's unlikely that TPTB were aiming for my own response of "So they're back to killing off a popular secondary character while the main ones get a reset button in 'Time'." Maybe my age has something to do with it - I'm 61 so have seen a lot of TV shows and movies over the years. Killing off a secondary character to imply danger to the main characters no longer works on me - I won't believe that any of the main characters are in danger until one of them is killed off.


Well, you're not quite old enough to be my mother, so I'd say my TV history isn't too far short of yours ;) I just accept that in the overwhelming majority of TV shows, the main characters have plot shields. Firstly, the actors who play them are worth too much to the studio to let them go. Secondly, the fickleness of the overwhelming majority of TV audiences won't allow them to take the risk. Can you imagine what would have happened if they had killed Sheppard? Or Jack? They tried to kill Daniel but chickened out and ascended him instead, and look at the backlash that brought. Main characters very rarely die for in-show reasons. That's why secondary characters are there - to show the stuff that the main characters can't actually experience.

ciannwn
October 10th, 2010, 12:25 PM
Of course it does - but that doesn't negate the opinions like mine.

I didn't mean to imply that it did negate opinions like yours.


Main characters very rarely die for in-show reasons. That's why secondary characters are there - to show the stuff that the main characters can't actually experience.

It depends on the show as The Mighty 6 platoon points out.


While I agree with you, I hope they do kill off some of the main cast and I shall be critical if they don't. There are plenty of shows that have had the guts to kill off main cast members suddenly and without warning.

Anyway, back to my own opinion. I thought that 'Time' was a very good story which was cleverly written. Riley being killed off makes me think "Oh, no not again", though, because the 'kill them so they aren't dead' scenarios have turned up so often in SG-1 and SGA. I wouldn't have thought "Oh, no not again" if one of the SGU main characters had been killed off for 'drama death' - it would have made me feel that just because a main character got a reset button in one story doesn't necessarily mean they'll get one every time.

Lahela
October 10th, 2010, 10:38 PM
Anyway, back to my own opinion. I thought that 'Time' was a very good story which was cleverly written. Riley being killed off makes me think "Oh, no not again", though, because the 'kill them so they aren't dead' scenarios have turned up so often in SG-1 and SGA. I wouldn't have thought "Oh, no not again" if one of the SGU main characters had been killed off for 'drama death' - it would have made me feel that just because a main character got a reset button in one story doesn't necessarily mean they'll get one every time.

I totally agree on the reset button, and I think it's a corner the writers have back themselves into over the years. I guess I just look at SGU with the attitude that they're going to treat death differently this time around... or maybe that's just blind optimism ;)

garhkal
October 11th, 2010, 01:11 AM
Does that include the response of the person who made this topic? Or my husband's cynical idea that Riley had to go because TPTB don't want secondary characters to be too popular?
.

Cynical.. maybe. BUT it might be on the ball...

ciannwn
October 11th, 2010, 03:52 AM
I totally agree on the reset button, and I think it's a corner the writers have back themselves into over the years. I guess I just look at SGU with the attitude that they're going to treat death differently this time around... or maybe that's just blind optimism ;)

I carried on looking round the internet and came across this article.

http://billiedoux.blogspot.com/2010/10/stargate-universe-aftermath.html

Sad as I am to see Riley go, it was high time the writers killed off a semi-regular the audience had become invested in. The death of T.J.’s baby certainly conveyed the seriousness of the threat presented by the Destiny crew’s circumstances, but I think the stakes needed to be raised further and Riley’s death accomplished that. I don’t expect the writers will start offing regular cast members any time soon, but the jeopardy suddenly seems much more real for the secondary characters at least.

A life threatening situation for the crew in general will mean viewers biting their nails over the fate of the secondary characters - will they all survive? A life threatening situation for a main character, however, will provide entertainment in trying to guess how they'll get out of it.

A comment on this page relates to one of the hottest topics generated by the episode.

http://cliqueclack.com/tv/2010/10/05/stargate-universe-rush-is-the-bofh-of-destiny/

While I understand the mercy killing in principal, I had a couple of questions. After the gate was fixed, why, with all the manpower from Destiny available, couldn’t they figure a way to get Riley out of there. And, was there was no morphine at hand to give him to over-dose on (People were nursed at various times before on Destiny, including last week)?

Many people on the internet have been asking why TJ and co didn't make much attempt to save Riley. There have been heated arguments which included studying screencaps to figure out exactly which bit of him was trapped. Some are still convinced it was below the knee and they could have tried amputating his leg. They provided links to articles about how a few humans have escaped being trapped in the wilds etc. by sawing bits off themselves with penknives and they didn't die of infection.

Why didn't everyone accept what they were supposed to believe concerning why Riley couldn't be saved? Perhaps this comment at the bottom of the same page has something to do with it.

In SGU, Riley is the equivalent of a red shirt. If it were Eli or Greer or Scott stuck in the shuttle and dying, you can bet on them finding a way to cheat death, thanks to some kind of deus ex machina technology

Maybe somewhere at the back of their minds is the thought that the only reason why Riley couldn't be saved is because he was a secondary character.

I'll finish off with a comment from this page -

http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?p=5228525

And I have to applaud the SGU writers killing someone we actually know off. Next time, make it a main character who is not Rush, since all the B cast members are far more interesting than 80% of the A cast.

This person isn't the only one thinking along these lines - see point 2 in an earlier post of mine.

http://forum.gateworld.net/threads/77212-So-now-we-re-back-to-random-deaths-of-secondary-tertiary-characters?p=11970298&viewfull=1#post11970298

One has to wonder why many people found him more interesting than most or all of the main characters. Could it be because he was the 'ordinary guy' that many 'ordinary viewers' could relate to? What would be the average person's concerns if they were stuck on the Destiny? Would it be discovering the secrets of the Ancients or not being there for weddings and walking the dog etc.?

Did the 'drama death' discussion really go something like the following?

A: Who's going to snuff it, then?

B: What about Riley? He's likely to be the only character some of the viewers can relate to.

A:. Great idea. They'll be really hooked on the show after he's shuffled off his mortal coil, joined the choir invisible and become an ex Riley.

garhkal
October 12th, 2010, 03:51 AM
Slightly OT. I wonder if he was named Riley after "radar" o'riley from MASH..

ciannwn
October 12th, 2010, 04:00 AM
Riley's popularity isn't unique. The TV Tropes website has him listed here -

Stargate Universe (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StargateUniverse)

Ensemble Darkhorse (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EnsembleDarkhorse): Greer in the main cast, Riley in the supporting players

Generally, it's used to describe a side character making up part of the Ensemble, either a non-lead secondary character or a mere Flat Character, who can sometimes become unexpectedly popular with the fandom (sometimes, even more than the lead characters) depending on who and where the fandom is.

Riley has two more entries on this website although there might be others I didn't find.

Killed Off For Real (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KilledOffForReal)

You have to click the open/close all folders to see the entry for him.

He's also mentioned in this topic - click the open/close all folders for the entry.

Big Breasts Big Deal (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigBreastsBigDeal)

R.I.P. Riley - you'll always be remembered for your tropes. :p

PS: I didn't look far enough down the Stargate Universe page. Riley also qualifies for -

Heroic Sacrifice (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroicSacrifice)

Mercy Kill (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MercyKill)

Power Perversion Potential (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerPerversionPotential)

Tear Jerker

He got a lot of tropes for a character who was only in a few TV/kino episodes.

VJC
October 13th, 2010, 01:59 PM
I think this episode, and especially Riley's death really signifies that SGU really isn't Stargate anymore. It's Battlestar Galactica through and through.

No. See my previous post on the issue:
http://forum.gateworld.net/threads/72030-Kinda-like-BSG?p=11068855#post11068855



Now back to Riley.
I liked his character and was sad to see him die but thats the point, isnt it? To makes us feel something when we watch the show. His death shows so much.
Young's burden of command, Rush's careless for anyone else but himself, the dangers of Destiny, not everything will turn out alright everytime.

Why didnt anyone complaing this much when Franklin died? And i believe he is dead and will not came back in any shape or from.

Moments like this make the characters more real. Take Ronon in 4 years we was shot, stabbed and chased more than any other caracter in SGA but not once was he at death's door.

So to the TPTB i say keep it up.
Bingo! We have a winner - you, sir, win the thread.
Seriously, these are simple points, I have no idea why some people find them so hard to grasp.



Glad to see that they aren't afraid to kill of characters on the show. Only problem with this death was that there was no attachment to the character. He wasn't developed enough to make us really care. I mean sure its supposed to be emotional when a character gets killed off, but it really diminishes the effect when its a supporting character.

I see what they were trying to do but it didn't work out. Either choose a supporting character and develop them for a few episodes or choose a main character to do this to.
Riley's character was actually quite well developed through the kinosodes, whilst I appreciate that not everyone will have bothered to watch them, they certainly left me with quite an attachment to him, and his death certainly didn't feel like that of some random supporting character.

ciannwn
October 13th, 2010, 02:52 PM
Bingo! We have a winner - you, sir, win the thread.
Seriously, these are simple points, I have no idea why some people find them so hard to grasp.

Going back to points raised in the post you were replying to.


I liked his character and was sad to see him die but thats the point, isnt it? To makes us feel something when we watch the show.

People are going to react in different ways. Here are two reviews for a Riley fix-it fanfic story. I'm going to quote the first one.

http://www.fanfiction.net/r/6380298/

Ah I wish...Riley was my favourite character and although the whole episode and death scene was wonderfully done I feel I'm probably not going to be watching Universe quite as avidly as I did..

I can't see the ratings taking a major nosedive just because Riley was killed off but SGU might lose a few Riley fans in the future if the show doesn't provide them with a 'compensation interest' for the loss of their favourite character.


His death shows so much. Young's burden of command, Rush's careless for anyone else but himself,

This is fine for people who care about Young and his burden or Rush's carelessness/ motives etc. A number of people, however, have said that they find the secondary characters more interesting than most, if not all the main characters. It's just the way it goes because viewers are individuals. One person's favourite main character can make another person wish that he/she would have a fatal accident with an airlock.


the dangers of Destiny

A number of people have said it only proves that Destiny is dangerous for secondary characters. Killing off secondary characters to suggest danger is a convention that's been around for a very long time - perhaps it's starting to wear a bit thin with a proportion of viewers because they've seen other shows which do kill off main characters. It's likely to wear even thinner for them when main character deaths are given a reset button.

PS: To VJC - Another person you replied to said they didn't feel much when Riley died because they had no attachment to the character. Which just goes to show that one person's favourite can be another person's 'who was he anyway?'

Control_Chair
October 13th, 2010, 04:08 PM
Riley was my favourite character and I am sad to see him go. As long as there is some major fallout from his death when the rest o the crew finds out what Rush has been up to on the Bridge then I think killing him off will be worth it, however if like Fraser and Beckets deaths it is swept under the carpet after a few episodes and barely mentioned then it will have been a waste of a great secondary character.

ciannwn
October 14th, 2010, 02:05 AM
Riley was my favourite character and I am sad to see him go. As long as there is some major fallout from his death when the rest o the crew finds out what Rush has been up to on the Bridge then I think killing him off will be worth it, however if like Fraser and Beckets deaths it is swept under the carpet after a few episodes and barely mentioned then it will have been a waste of a great secondary character.

Have to admit that my first thought on hearing about it was "They/ve done a Beckett on him". I'm now wondering if he'll ever be mentioned again. As SGU is supposed to be realistic, his death should make Eli feel a bit miserable because he was one of Eli's friends.

Control_Chair
October 14th, 2010, 02:46 AM
Have to admit that my first thought on hearing about it was "They/ve done a Beckett on him". I'm now wondering if he'll ever be mentioned again. As SGU is supposed to be realistic, his death should make Eli feel a bit miserable because he was one of Eli's friends.

I want a bit more, we know that it all hits the fan in the Greater Good when it comes out that Rush has been on the bridge and caused Destiny to stop at that planet, at which point I am hoping for a repeat of Justice with young losing it all over again (nothing less than him attempting to airlock Rush will do).

ciannwn
October 14th, 2010, 02:54 AM
I want a bit more, we know that it all hits the fan in the Greater Good when it comes out that Rush has been on the bridge and caused Destiny to stop at that planet, at which point I am hoping for a repeat of Justice with young losing it all over again (nothing less than him attempting to airlock Rush will do).

I know what you mean. I hope Eli's feels murderous towards Rush too.

garhkal
October 14th, 2010, 05:34 AM
Though it would be fun if they did airlock rush, only to find out that since he wsa the only one to know the code, they are frakked... as system after system ceases to work..

ciannwn
October 14th, 2010, 06:39 AM
Though it would be fun if they did airlock rush, only to find out that since he wsa the only one to know the code, they are frakked... as system after system ceases to work..

I think Rush is THE essential character at the moment so he can't be airlocked. :p

garhkal
October 15th, 2010, 03:35 AM
Wonder how long that will last..

ciannwn
October 15th, 2010, 05:43 AM
Wonder how long that will last..

Maybe airlocking Rush will be part of the very last story in the series. :D

garhkal
October 16th, 2010, 02:40 AM
For a lot of us, that would be the end of the show.

ciannwn
October 16th, 2010, 03:20 AM
For a lot of us, that would be the end of the show.

I didn't phrase it correctly. I meant the last story of the last season. This would be the end of the show for everyone no matter what they thought of Rush.

garhkal
October 16th, 2010, 09:26 PM
A.. for a finale