Members MichaelGL Posted July 22, 2009 Members Share Posted July 22, 2009 Death happens in real life, unexpectedly, but on soaps sometimes it can hurt the show. Which ones have hurt a show in the long run? Has there ever been a death of a legendary character, one who's rooted in the fabric of the show, where it hasn't hurt the show as much as other's would have thought? Would the now reversed death of Phillip Chancellor III be an example of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ATWT72 Posted July 22, 2009 Members Share Posted July 22, 2009 The first one that comes to mind is the death of Maureen Bauer on Guiding Light. While it gave us some great drama, I think it hurt the show in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CSF Posted July 22, 2009 Members Share Posted July 22, 2009 I agree that Maureen Bauer's death really hurt Guiding Light, but it wasn't the death of that show. In all honesty, at that point in time, Guiding Light still had over 50 years of history to draw from and appoint a new matriarch. There was Nadine Cooper (who of course they destroyed), there was Vanessa Chamberlin, Holly Thorpe, they could have certainly brought back Nola Rearden sooner and did more with that. They could have turned Beth Raines into the new matriarch, Beth Chamberlin is certainly a very competent actress. An impact is often felt when the death of a legacy character takes place, but the show must still go on and with a strong writer, a new successor will rise up and take the place of it's predecessor. In regard to Phillip Chancellor III, his death had a real impact on the show which drove story for years. Katherine once said to Jill, "You will never escape me." Katherine was responsible for the death of Phillip II, the love of Jill's life. Jill blamed Katherine for the death of her son, Phillip. There was an irony in that story which held true to that sick bond between Kay and Jill. Something that would keep their rivalry going for decades to come. That when Phillip IV was old enough to learn the history between those two women, he would see how his father really died and understand the cause of his death and the deep rooted hatred between his grandmother and Kay. Maybe it would have been better for Phillip to fall into a coma and when he woke, he left Genoa City. But that wasn't the path Bell chose and maybe Bell thought it was a mistake to kill off Phillip III, but it did not hurt Y&R. I personally believe that the death of Phillip III should have never been reversed. Furthermore, Bell wrote strong women, and Nina, Kay and Jill were and still are strong women. His death allowed us to see them develop into a more stronger role, the widowed mother and wife (Nina), the damaged mother who lost both her husband and son (Jill), the woman who took away his father and carried such deep regrets (Kay). As for General Hospital, Georgie's death was unnecessary, as was AJ Quartermaine's, Emily Quartermaine's, Stefan Cassadine, Kristina Cassadine, Justus Ward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EastMA2 Posted July 23, 2009 Members Share Posted July 23, 2009 A big pet peeve of mine is killing off legendary characters, only to have them return as ghosts soon after killing them off. Alan Quartermaine, John Abbott & James Stenbeck are three of the more recent examples. Also, if you're going to kill off legendary characters, please don't insult our intelligence and bring them back 20 years later - i.e. Jesse on AMC and Phillip on Y&R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JackPeyton Posted July 23, 2009 Members Share Posted July 23, 2009 killing them doesnt bother me. like losing Georgie on GH for example was a big loss, but it could have been okay if the death was done right (not like it was..) the fallout was played for every beat (the start of it was then they dropped the ball with everyone but Maxie, and even now they have moved her past it) and they have other like characters around (they didnt. and losing Emily a month before didnt help) Its all in how its done. I dont think anyone on any soap is untouchable actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ian Posted July 23, 2009 Members Share Posted July 23, 2009 I don't think anyone should be "safe" but it has to be done well or else the show will suffer. If shows were written properly it shouldnt matter but when they put their eggs in the same basket with characters then take a chance and kill that character off, the show suffers for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RomeAt50 Posted July 23, 2009 Members Share Posted July 23, 2009 I think killing off Stuart Chandler will hurt AMC in the long run. AMC has a short supply of characters like him. I think TPTB have killed too many characters in recent years and a lot of those deaths have been very short sighted and the fall out has been poorly done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ian Posted July 23, 2009 Members Share Posted July 23, 2009 ^^ I bet you anything they did that so they don't have to pay DC twice. Apparently, since he is credited twice, he must be paid twice as per SGA rules. I read that once. I bet other people's nose were out of joint they didnt get twins. Watch Pratt bring on a second Luner... twice the actress that doesn't disagree with him That'll show all the others right? LET THIS BE AN EXAMPLE TO THE REST OF YA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DavidsMuse Posted July 23, 2009 Members Share Posted July 23, 2009 DC said he was paid only $24 per episode for playing Stuart, so money wasn't the reason for killing him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cyberologist Posted July 24, 2009 Members Share Posted July 24, 2009 Thank you it really pisses me off when they KO them but I have to look at a friggin' ghost what is the point dramatically its asinine I agree that people die in real life but this is a drama, fiction many deaths of core characters alienate viewers and are senseless plot points that lead nowhere GH has not and probably will never fully recovered from the quick deaths of Emily/Alan/ Georgie all in the same year. When a core character dies it should mean something there should be serious drama around them prior to their demise. Not just some sweeps stunt, which most of them are. I'll never get over them koing Georgie then handing her storyline with Spinelli to Maxi. It was more than obvious what was going on here. Prior to that Georgie was literally pouring the their fav whom was being highly marketed coffee at Kellys. I knew then she was on her way out. Emily is a very much needed character IMO and there is a big hole in the show with her gone that Rebecca can never fill for me. These dramas are about old (history) as well as new characters being introduced for me. There is so much that they give the bum's rush to and waste my time with their newbies while I'm still waiting for old story to play out. Can it hurt the show? Absolutely IMO most of the deaths do why kill off popular characters? It doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.