Static VS Dynamic character roster.

[StargateMillennium]

This is a question of opinion and curiosity. You have the shows like stargate where the main characters repeatedly survive the entire time through plot convenience and luck. We still enjoy the show but you still sometimes shake your head at their miracles and no matter how bad things get, you know that they all live. Then you have the shows in which the characters are most definitely mortal and vulnerable and each conflict is a chance for that character to get killed and, as a result, the roster of main characters is constantly changing because someone is always dying.

So, which do you prefer? Do you like the same characters that you grow attached to that survive through miracles? Or, do you like a dynamic roster where your favorites might and do die and get replaced by a new character you may or may not like?

[cyced]

Static is probably my favorite as I enjoy character development more than story arc development which is seen in the more dynamic shows. I lost interest in Walking dead due to favorites dying

[Jack'sMajorGirl]

Static, definitely. I don't want to fall in love with and invest in characters, only to have them tossed aside and replaced (I'm looking at you SG1 S9!). Yes, it's generally implausible that the main characters will get lucky every time, but that's all part of the suspension of belief asked by many shows (except freaking Game of Thrones, where no one is safe!). If we invest in a character, we don't want them to die, just for the sake of making room for another character. Jonas was an okay exception though, in my book. I actually liked Jonas better than Daniel. There, I said it.

[Hathor_girl]

Static, definitely. I don't want to fall in love with and invest in characters, only to have them tossed aside and replaced (I'm looking at you SG1 S9!). Yes, it's generally implausible that the main characters will get lucky every time, but that's all part of the suspension of belief asked by many shows (except freaking Game of Thrones, where no one is safe!). If we invest in a character, we don't want them to die, just for the sake of making room for another character. Jonas was an okay exception though, in my book. I actually liked Jonas better than Daniel. There, I said it.

I absolutely prefer static. Which Stargate SG-1 unfortunately wasn't for me. They killed off every single one of my favourites. Every one!

[Seaboe Muffinchucker]

I watch these shows for escapist entertainment. Killing off characters for the "realism" of it does nothing except irk me.

Seaboe

[MonicaL]

I watch these shows for escapist entertainment. Killing off characters for the "realism" of it does nothing except irk me.

Seaboe

I'll second that!!

[Laxian of Earth]

Hey,

I'll take a static cast as well - as long as the cast is not surviving impossible odds every episode (it gets lame after a while)...but things like multi-part episodes and season finals (and starting episodes for new seasons) ok, I can accept that and I have no problem with characters surviving those

Note: I don't have a problem with a few characters dying (it does happen on occasion if actors want to leave a show or something) but it has to be done tastefully and fit the character (say a soldier character dying in bed is not something I like - heroic death on the battlefield is preferable...or a scientist dying to retrieve a bit of information/technology that's in his/her eyes invaluable...) and it should not happen that often either IMHO

greetings LAX

[P-90_177]

Dynamic... Kill them all...

[zbir]

Static for me.
But I think the problem with the mainstream s.f. shows of today lays in the shift to more action in detriment of other themes (time paradoxes, exploring, weird science, plot knots). Like the public can't enjoy a show if not packed with explosions and suspense (even if I feel that sometimes it's true, sometimes we look like a global society with attention deficit syndrome). Maybe it's the natural way of evolution - we have so much information at hands that we can't digest it properly anymore, so we adapt by not even trying/wanting to go deeper and happily living at the surface of things (and I find myself in this state of mind more frequently that I would like).
So, like the song goes, "the public gets what the public wants" AND "the public wants what the public gets". The writers will continue to bring the characters in unbelievable life-and-dead situations, and kill them to make it believable *roll-eyes*. Like, seriously? You can't make a s.f. show without the threat of total annihilation every other episode? I mean, you bother to assemble a cast of lovable characters, with great chemistry, and kill them for a hollow sense of realism (a dubious gain, if you ask me; for the casual viewer it will not make a difference if he/her dies or not, but it will matter a lot for the fans who are attached to those characters, and you will only manage to alienate them on the long term). Do you want realism? Stop putting them every other minute in extremely dangerous situations, from which they can't go out without losses! You can obtain dramatic effect from lots of sources: suspense/danger resolved with happy-end, psychological tension, moral dilemmas, (and my favorites Stargate episodes are NOT the ones with deaths in the main cast - but the stand-out episodes involving discoveries, time travel, alternate universes).
My 2 cents, anyway

[zbir]

Static for me.
But I think the problem with the mainstream s.f. shows of today lays in the shift to more action in detriment of other themes (time paradoxes, exploring, weird science, plot knots). Like the public can't enjoy a show if not packed with explosions and suspense (even if I feel that sometimes it's true, sometimes we look like a global society with attention deficit syndrome). Maybe it's the natural way of evolution - we have so much information at hands that we can't digest it properly anymore, so we adapt by not even trying/wanting to go deeper and happily living at the surface of things (and I find myself in this state of mind more frequently that I would like).
So, like the song goes, "the public gets what the public wants" AND "the public wants what the public gets". The writers will continue to bring the characters in unbelievable life-and-dead situations, and kill them to make it believable *roll-eyes*. Like, seriously? You can't make a s.f. show without the threat of total annihilation every other episode? I mean, you bother to assemble a cast of lovable characters, with great chemistry, and kill them for a hollow sense of realism (a dubious gain, if you ask me; for the casual viewer it will not make a difference if he/her dies or not, but it will matter a lot for the fans who are attached to those characters, and you will only manage to alienate them on the long term). Do you want realism? Stop putting them every other minute in extremely dangerous situations, from which they can't go out without losses! You can obtain dramatic effect from lots of sources: suspense/danger resolved with happy-end, psychological tension, moral dilemmas, (and my favorites Stargate episodes are NOT the ones with deaths in the main cast - but the stand-out episodes involving discoveries, time travel, alternate universes).
My 2 cents, anyway