Jump to content

ALL: Which back-from-the-dead characters should have stayed dead?


Lye-C

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 27
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

In general, I am not a fan of back-from-the-dead stories. They weaken the impact of the original deaths, and ultimately (if a show uses this hackneyed plot device over and over) just become predictable, unrealistic and ridiculous. DAYS is the prime offender in this regard.

When hack writers go on a killing rampage and slaughter multiple beloved characters, however, the egregious and sophomoric writing mistakes must be rectified. If not, the stability of the show itself would be crippled further. Atrocious writing is bad enough, but losing the characters whom the audience is invested in the most would be fatal. History shows us that viewers do not take kindly to the combination of bad writing AND the loss of many fan favorites.

All this to say: sometimes reviving "dead" characters is the lesser of two evils on soaps, and should be done even if it's a stretch.  It would be significantly worse and audience-alienating to let writing blunders stand. This is particularly true when the original death/murder plots were done purely for shock value, and were badly executed to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is what I have been complaining about for years. These shows need to be very very thoughtful about who they kill off. Killing off a character, especially a relatively young character, or a matriarch/patriarch because the actor is leaving or even in some cases, simply wants some time off, is so foolhardy.
There are other ways to create dramatic impact, or temporarily take a character off the canvas without killing them. And more times than not, it is a momentary story plot that yields a bit of buzz then proceeds to create more problems down the line. Honestly, if the writers wrote for everyone in earnest, instead of concentrating on a few, they wouldn’t be reduced to so many drastic storyline maneuvers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Depends on your definition- either a character believed to be dead that we never saw onscreen or a character that 'died' onscreen .

Secret Storm had an ex husband return from the dead in the 50's but we had never seen that character.

Love of Life killed off 'Paul Raven' in the 50's and the character came back in the early 70's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I liked how it also kept Allison as an important character despite being off screen with a fate unknown - we saw the characters move on, but every now and then the consequences of her departure would flare up. Was Allison a victim Rachel's uncle? Did she really go off to New York? And so on.

Ultimately, people go missing and unfortunately aren't found in some way or another. There's a reason why Charley Project has 15k+ cases. And sometimes, people do bizarrely turn up out of nowhere.

Unfortunately, I think the whole "let's kill the character off" (beyond short-term thinking with ratings stunts) is a way to not deal with a characters absence and have the characters move on with their lives.

Edited by te.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm actually okay with killing off characters under certain circumstances.  I mean, people do die; it's an unfortunate fact of life.  But what I can't tolerate (aside from bringing people back from the dead after we've seen them die on-screen) is how their deaths are usually forgotten in almost record time.  I say, if you're gonna kill off a major character, make it count.  Allow it to impact the other characters' lives in such ways that they are never truly the same afterward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I believe it's fair to provide a free pass to characters who were written off due to unfortunate circumstances behind the scenes. Sometimes, characters are killed off unnecessarily because writers feel slighted that their inspiration is leaving for better opportunities, or producers are frustrated during contract talks, or network executives have their own priorities. When an actor is open to coming back under different circumstances, I think it's reasonable to bring their character back to life and continue the story.

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I remember another Phyllis residence -- I don't think that was a set shown abovethread, but I'm not sure.  Trying to remember some things off the top of my head but I might be wrong about part of it: I'm referring to the condo where Phick first had sex after the Michael/Lauren wedding.  I think they specifically referred to it as a condo?  After Stafford's Phyllis went into a coma, Jack sold it and I think he gave money to HunterKing's Summer when she married Austin? Or he gave Summer the condo?    There was a convoluted side plot about someone needing money and something from this was drawn in a shady way.  Something about it being sold?  And then when GinaT's Phyllis awoke from her coma, she had no condo to come back to.
    • Which union rules? SMH. Jill’s back, uncredited. 
    • Yeah I don’t get why she wouldn’t be credited if she’s back. That seems odd. I hope it’s true though, because the show needs a change. Badddddd.
    • The casino scenes came out of nowhere in comparison to the rest of the week, but at least there was some movement in the storyline. Joey has really made a fool of Vanessa. Chelsea is really embarrassing herself with this doctor. The desperation is so obvious and she clearly gets that from Dani. Hayley was giving Donna Logan vibes because that is how Donna acted when Eric had a heart attack. Stealing potential evidence is not going to reflect well on Kat and might throw the case against Leslie. Tomas had no business in Eva's hotel room even if he did shut down her advances. But I think they still might end up together at some point because the book that Eva gave him is the same one Kat called basic which seemed like foreshadowing.
    • So Sharon decides not to go to France and stay behind to support Mariah, but now with Phyllis gloating about getting an invite I’m sure she’ll change her mind.    Mariah’s secret is that she screwed that old man? I’m so confused about what’s going on here, and Mariah coming out and telling Tessa that she can’t know her secret is supposed to do what exactly? Is that supposed to put Tessa’s mind at ease? Lol…. I’m getting Cameron Kirsten vibes though. Did he do something to her without her consent and things went too far? These writers really can’t come up with something original if their life depended on it 
    • Eve and Thomas have so much in common--they both like reading (print and audio books) and wow they both like reading *fiction*!  (Also I would never pick up a book called Mercy and Goodness yawn

      Please register in order to view this content

      )
    • Please register in order to view this content

    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Please register in order to view this content

       Both were decent sets that did not long long, at all.
    • Giving credit where it's due, @mikelyons originally posted the JFP scoop, but didn't clarify if Ed Scott was out or not.      
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy