Order 66

Before anyone begins to geek out upon seeing the title of this blog post, I want to be clear; this will not be a thoroughly crafted muse related to the impact of Order 66 in the Star Wars universe. There are enough written treatises on the internet to fulfill the role and I will provide links below for those interested.  I intend to focus on a creative element I have referenced in a number of my posts but never specifically isolated the mechanic – killing a character.

My original title was going to be, To Kill or Not to Kill but considering I am not a Shakespeare enthusiast and generally terrible at metaphor, I felt making a Star Wars reference would be catchier although some may label it as clickbait. If you feel outraged or perform an eyeroll after reading my reasonings for choosing Order 66 as a title, you may want to consider going elsewhere.

The excerpt for this post could be construed absolutist in nature and I would tend to agree with such an assessment. Although I attempt to ensure my views are balanced, the idea all of them should be does not take in to account we are fallible humans. In fact, to an extent, I believe it to be a good thing in developing a critical eye in your chosen craft. Under the correct circumstances, looking harshly at what you do, hones your content creation to a fine edge and hopefully avoids a myopic approach to story progression.

I have made my disdain for the kill a character just to kill a character syndrome afflicting many genres in the visual content creation arena well-known in previous blog posts. In my Characters: They are not expendable post, I expressed high criticism towards The Walking Dead, Torchwood and Game of Thrones, while expounding how each challenged me creatively to avoid my own single-sighted approach in creating nuance in the Sy’Arrian Legacy series.

At some point characters reach the end of their lifecycle, an inevitable circumstance where the key is how it is executed, no pun intended. Whether it is other creators or me, the decision to kill off a character should invariably be approached by asking the question; is it within the character’s, character to perform a specific action, whatever it may be, resulting in their demise? Does it make sense? If you are doing it simply for the shock value, stop and rethink. Contrary to what some writers, producers, or directors spew via social media outlets regarding their decision to kill off characters, most consumers do not want to see their favorite characters eliminated by those exhibiting a god complex.

What is particularly puzzling to me is how numb and, dare I say, apathetic we have become towards holding content creators accountable for poor decision making in this area. For example, The Walking Dead was exceptionally genius in creating The Talking Dead, a live television broadcast after show designed to discuss episodes of the popular series; the aforementioned, The Walking Dead and Fear the Walking Dead. Guests, cast members, celebrity fans, and crew are invited to provide their perspectives on what recently took place during a particular episode. I have always loved watching behind-the-scenes specials and outtakes; they serve as sources of inspiration and keep you grounded on what it takes to bring favored creations to life. There is also another reason why The Talking Dead is an ingenious idea; outrage control and misdirection.

We currently reside in the trigger era, so I understand the need to distinguish between principled stances on social issues versus overreacting due to not understanding the finer points of said issues. In the case of The Talking Dead, people can assemble in a safe space to talk about their feelings by only referencing the shock value of a certain episode, obtain thoughts from creators and cast members, while not really addressing anything substantive. Often cast members get together, have tearful insights regarding their time on the show prior to being killed off, reflect on their character’s development and hug it out. As a result, the audience works through their own angst and everyone feels better.

After all, do you really think American Movie Classics (AMC), owned by AMC Networks, is going to allow pointed criticism to be directed towards some of their top entertainment programs? If you do, I suggest you step back and evaluate your bias. Simply because characters reside in a post-apocalyptic world does not mean killing them is the only way to move the story forward or keep people interested. Now, the argument can be made this very formula does work because people continue to watch both shows once all their screaming and yelling is done after the latest character genocide. If people are only given one option, why would they look elsewhere? Just a thought.

No matter your viewpoint, I am going to provide two examples to illustrate a good and bad way to kill off a character. Those of you who have not seen either Star Wars: The Force Awakens or The Walking Dead, you may want to skip over these examples.

In this example, I will be merely pasting my comments from a 2017 post related to The Walking Dead. In episode eight, the mid-season finale for season eight, we learn the main protagonist’s (Rick Grimes, played by Andrew Lincoln) son, Carl (played by Chandler Riggs) was bitten by a walker while attempting to aid an ailing survivor, effectively sealing his fate and inevitable death; we are not aware of said bite until several episodes later.  Carl approached Siddiq, an ailing survivor with a few meager supplies. After a short dialogue they find themselves surrounded by several walkers. Carl falls down and ends up grappling with two of them while Siddiq has his own to worry about. It is a close call, but Carl does subdue the two walkers and everything appears fine. This is not Carl’s first rodeo; he has been in similar altercations throughout his young life and getting out of this one unscathed should have been business as usual. Being taken out of the picture in such a fashion only illustrates a lazy brained writer’s approach to establishing creative nuance.

Let’s not forget, Carl has been a main character since the beginning. A young kid who matures during a time of utter chaos and unparalleled human savagery. In spite of having to cut out his unborn sister from his dying mother, then being forced to jam a knife into her brain stem to prevent her from becoming one of the walking dead all before the age of 15, Carl still believes people can be redeemed and learn to live together in peace again. This is merely a snapshot of Carl, the character, yet the best writers could come up with is having him fall down and get bit?

In episode seven of the Skywalker Saga, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Han Solo is killed by his son, Ben, a.k.a. Kylo Ren played by Adam Driver. When I first learned episode seven was coming to the big screen, I was moved beyond what words could describe. This story is what inspired me to write but I had changed. The wide-eyed 10-year old who could think of nothing but Star Wars as a kid was now a published author and much older adult. This is what aided me when I stepped in to the theater with my husband to watch the continuation of a story 30-years later. I approached it with a critical eye, while also monitoring my expectations as both a fan and content creator.

Although I love all the characters in Star Wars, good and evil, Han Solo was my favorite; however, as a storyteller, I saw the writing on the wall long before Kylo light sabered him through the torso. If you pay attention, one of the elements Star Wars utilizes effectively is foreshadow, even how a scene is setup prior to a conflict is orchestrated very well. Han’s discussion with Leia about their son prior to leaving on the mission to destroy the Starkiller base foreshadows what is to come. When both Han and Kylo faced one another, I was already mentally prepared. Let me be honest – I hated it but intellectually, I understood it.

Here is why I believe the death of Han Solo is a good example on how to kill off a character, especially an iconic one. Many criticisms pointed to all of Han’s adventures and being killed in a such a way seemed anti-climatic or cheated him of going out in a blaze of glory. I truly understand the sentiments and disagree at the same time. Why? In my opinion, people were still seeing Han Solo as he was from Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back over 30-years previously not the Han Solo who had aged, matured, and fathered a son with General Leia Organa, while still retaining many of his roguish ways.

Han’s attempt to turn his son away from the dark side of the force fit well with his evolution as a character between The Return of the Jedi and The Force Awakens. I suspect the time gap between the films has played a significant role in challenging the perspectives of those like me who grew-up during the times these movies first came out. This is why checking our bias at the front door is key when reacting to what challenges our perceptions.

There you have it. My diatribe is complete, and I will allow you to be the judge. Did I make some valid points, or do you think I am off my rocker? As always, feel free to post your questions, comments, or concerns. I will respond, if need be, when I able.

The linked information should not be considered exhaustive:

AMC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_(TV_channel)

Game of Thrones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones

Star Wars: The Force Awakens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens

The Talking Dead: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_Dead

Torchwood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torchwood

The Walking Dead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walking_Dead_(TV_series)

Wookieepedia (Order 66): https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Order_66