"Rivers"

[Pharaoh Atem]

But the main cast will always have character shields unless it's a season finale, and even then they have a 90% chance of survival. .

my predication. 5 of the main 9 make it to the end of the series.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Detox, Gateroom Guard,

Y'all need to read "A Song of Ice and Fire".

[GateroomGuard]

my predication. 5 of the main 9 make it to the end of the series.

Mine. 7 of the 9 with another dying and coming back.

[brian_177]

Because it's not real life, it's television. Take Beckett for example. They killed him off purely for the shock value and people were quite upset about that.

People weren't upset that he was killed, they were upset that he it seemed like killing him was an afterthought idea they'd had at the last second. It was a filler episode. I think the reaction to Beckett dying would have been different had it been during a finale or premier, like our situation here.

Bottom line, Rivers being killed adds nothing to the story. It raises the stakes for the characters--they knew the guy, they liked him, they'll miss him now that he's gone.... but it doesn't raise the stakes for us. We didn't know him.

[GateroomGuard]

Bottom line, Rivers being killed adds nothing to the story. It raises the stakes for the characters--they knew the guy, they liked him, they'll miss him now that he's gone.... but it doesn't raise the stakes for us. We didn't know him.

But how would killing anyone we know add to the story? It would only subtract because we lose a character, we may get a replacement but thats still just leaving us where we were. -1+1=0. It gives us drama but there are plenty of ways to get drama without having to kill someone every season finale.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

GRG,

It adds to the story because there's real risk, real danger to all the characters, not just the people we don't know. Good writers should be able to handle that.

[brian_177]

But how would killing anyone we know add to the story? It would only subtract because we lose a character, we may get a replacement but thats still just leaving us where we were. -1+1=0. It gives us drama but there are plenty of ways to get drama without having to kill someone every season finale.

Well, it's not quite that simple. I talked about raising the stakes and adding to the story. Your reply is talking about literally adding or subtracting from the cast.

Again, they don't have to kill anyone. I'm not advocating for the killing off of characters we've come to like. All I'm saying is that IF they insist on killing someone, they need to find a way to make it count. That's why injuring people works so well.

Spoiler:

Like TJ for instance. We all know that she lives, she's in season 2. So there's no reason to be worried she's dead. But what is the extent of her injuries? Will the pregnancy suffer? How soon might she be back in action? Injuring her has added suspense and tension to the story.

Compare that to killing Rivers, which adds nothing at all, and I think my point is made. There's a reason to term 'red-shirt' has become so huge in the Sci-Fi world. It's because we've learned to recognize when people are being killed just so that the characters in the show can react to them being killed. But if a show does it's killing properly, we'll know how to feel right away because we'll really be feeling it--we won't need a bunch of reaction shots in the control interface room to tell us what our emotion should be.

[Tuvok]

and i will join you....

And I you...I will not let Greer be replaced by some Teal'c clone with dreadlocks. He has too much Gumpa for that. Or replaced by a younger sexier model.

Issues regarding treatment of Ford and a certain awesome Scottish Doc?

No.

Why do you ask ..