This thread is to discuss the issue of killing off main characters. Spoilers tags are not necessary when talking about deaths that have already occurred, as of the most recent episode aired in the UK on *BBC1.* You do need to use them when referring to confirmed spoilers for future episodes.

There's been speculation on the forum that Jo's death might be a bridge too far for the writers and the show, especially if another follows.

So: have we seen too many main characters killed? Is it time to slow the slaughter?

---

Here are some thoughts I've pulled from the Episode 3 discussion thread, which inspired this new thread.

Rudegirl1111 said:

"I can't believe they keep killing off characters. I mean they get the audience to really like a certain character then kill them off.

However, as long as the good storylines keep up i won't complain. (too much anyway)"

Roz Quinn replied:

"No, I disagree. I mean, I think that the fact that spooks aren't afraid to kill off the main character is what makes it stand out from most of BBC production.
I mean, in reality, the main guy wouldn't live through impossible odds; he wouldn't be near immortal. And just because we get to know the people in spooks, doesn't make them any less indestructable.
Lots of people get shot or blown up every episode and because we don't know them, we don't give them a passing thought.

Personally, if they stopped killing off the main characters, I would be sincerely disappointed. Everything on the BBC is going downhill except for Spooks. They're wavering with the whole Christine/Tom - Sarah/Lucas thing, but hopefully they'll pull through".

HellsBells weighed in with:

"I agree with you Rudegirl1111, I think they kill off too many main characters. I only just started to like Jo and thought it would be good to see her and Ruth together more."

An interesting dilemma -- do you continue doing what it was that initially garnered interest in the show (starting with Helen's ghastly introduction to a deep fat fryer in 1.2) or do you ease off and let your audience catch a few breaths?

IMO, if you want to keep the show true to its intent, you go with the first. Killing off main characters has become spooks identifying motif, it's tag line, if you will. Change that and you change the show. Once Matthew, Keeley and David left and spooks made the successful transition from a character-based series to an ensemble-based series, all characters became expendable, in the right circumstances.

And from a mundane perspective, when actors want to move on they do have to be written out somehow. Too many Malcolm's retiring off to the seaside would ring rather hollow, I think. BTW, in the dvd extras for series 3, David talks about the way his character was dispatched -- he loved it!

I think if you keep killing off people's favourite characters you run the risk of them not watching the show. I know I was tempted not to watch after Tom left. I feel the audience loses it's affinity to the show if the characters get killed off before we have had time to get to know them well.
I read somewhere that MI 5 has not actually lost any female officers at all and therefore Spooks loses some of its realism by continually killing of main characters.

(25-11-2009 04:14 PM)HellsBells Wrote:  I think if you keep killing off people's favourite characters you run the risk of them not watching the show. I know I was tempted not to watch after Tom left. I feel the audience loses it's affinity to the show if the characters get killed off before we have had time to get to know them well.
I read somewhere that MI 5 has not actually lost any female officers at all and therefore Spooks loses some of its realism by continually killing of main characters.

I think the show is more interested in hyper-realism than in creating a truly realistic environment (for instance, real MI5 officers don't carry guns). Situations are magnified and enlarged, time is not linear, coincidences happen more than the standard norm would seem to dictate, action is heightened, inaction is virtually unknown, and people are killed in heroic and horrific ways. All are very effective dramatic devices that define spooks. As I said earlier, without them I think you lose the through-line that makes spooks what it is.

Definitely it is drama and not a documentary, but then, I wouldn't be as interested in watching a documentary about MI5. I think that the deaths add tension to each episode, anyone can die (except, of course, those whose names are on the cast list for the next episode I really am awful at looking at those...) It definitely isn't how things really worked - for one how awful must the Autumn be for MI5? Constantly having terror attacks and, the favourite of most on here, dirty bombs. I agree lwhite53 that it definitely is a tv show, and so the deaths are what make it a more tension and thrilling show. So I would say, not too many deaths.

I do think, however, if they are going to kill all these people off, they should get someone to replace them. ATM they've lost two field agents (Jo and Ben,) and sort of are one techie down (if we include Colin,) so perhaps the question should be instead of "Too many deaths?" but changed to "Why is the MI5 recruitment for Section D so awful that only five people work in that section at the moment, even though seem to be the only people stopping all these catastrophes on British soil!"

Here's the dilemma for me - if you repeat a shocking thing too much, you eventually remove the shock value thereof. I think Spooks has now reached that stage for me, as I wasn't especially shocked by Jo's death. And I really liked Jo.

I've been thinking though that it's become de rigeur to kill people off, to the point where its effectiveness might be lessened as a dramatic ploy for the writers.

I also agree with almh that you need good characters to replace the ones you kill off, and that is what really might drag this season down as a whole, especially if another member of the team is killed this season. If the show goes to a ninth season, they'll be starting with very few people!

And I just saw Silktie beat me to the punch. But I like it when we agree

Absolutely, great minds and all that! OK, back on topic now - also agree with almh that we need more people on the team.

I've never bought into the idea that Section D is simply the people we see in the conference room. There have been occasions where others are visible in the background on certain operations. So it's not really as simple as saying Section D is saving Britain all by its lonesome.

But yes, the team is very thin on the ground, and I do think audiences can be alienated when too many people jump ship at once. For me, even with Ruth's return, I was unhappy to see Malcolm the mainstay go, followed by Jo so early in the season. I do think that another death before the end of a possible 9.2 will be a death knell (ironically enough) for the show.

Killing people is the identity card of Spooks, it's true that now the killings are less shocking because we are used to it.. But I think, they should continue to do so, if not it won't be Spooks. I want to make myself clear that I don't like those killings. It's like a dilemma for me
At least they try to kill people off in many different ways.

And I also agree with almh, we need more officers urgently! Now, when they are in the meeting room, there are two or three, I loved when there were 5 or 6 of them discussing, we don't get much of this discussion in the meeting room now They now prefer to talk in front of a computer or in pairs in the grid...