Tara's Death - Was it really necessary?

[ambersknight]

Yes, I will admit to being a Tara fan (my username should rather give that away) but I am okay with any character dying if it is logical and serves the needs of the story and is the best way to achieve the goal. And that is my problem here, was it the best way?

I have several big problems with the Magic Addiction storyline. I will briefly outline my problems below and am willing to expand on them for anyone who asks.

1) It's addiction Jim, but not as we know it. Let's be brutally honest here, up until "Wrecked2 Willow's story wasn't even playing out as an addiction story but more as someone who's moral compass was being set off kilter by being drunk on power. She wasn't addicted to a substance, she was merely becoming corrupted by her own power, and deciding that because she could do a thing, she should be able to without anyone questioning her motives. had they continued with that storyline it would ahve made for an interesting arc. But out of nowhere comes "Wrecked" and a shift from drunk on power to a magic as drugs metaphor which was so sloppily handled it not only made no sense in the context of the show (as magic had never been shown to be an addictive substance before, not to mention the rather disturbing point it might be making about lesbian relationships) but it dealt with Willow's addiction and recovery as being virtually pain free, which is not the experience of many addicts trying to get clean. In short, it insulted them.

2. Warren Commisions a Magic Bullet. How in the world did that bullet get in that bedroom? it simply makes no sense. Worse was the writers trying to explain that tara's death was a result of "trying to show the terrible reality of gun crime". A noble sentiment, but in making the death so absurdly fantastical due to the stupidity of the bullet they undermine their own argument.

3. Guns and Canons. So Tara can't be ressurected due to it being a death by mortal means, why? I ask as "The Zeppo" clearly showed that resurrecting someone who has just been shot is entirely feasible, with little if any change to their character. So what the writers really mean is they can't be bothered sticking to canon.

I will leave the obvious swipe of the "Dead/Evil Lesbian" cliche as it has been done and argued to death. I will state my own opinion on it which is that apart from intent, the storyline plays out the cliche completely to the point where the Tara dies/Willow goes nuts storyline is in my opinion the definitive version of the cliche in action. All the more sour for having the freudian cliche of a gay woman being brought back to "normality" through the love of a man.

As I say, those are the headlines, and I am quite willing to go into much more depth with my considerations but for me, tara's death simply doesn't make any sense dramatically.

[VampSlayer]

You made a lot of good points up there. I forgot about the Zeppo.

[deathisyourgift]

3. Guns and Canons. So Tara can't be ressurected due to it being a death by mortal means, why? I ask as "The Zeppo" clearly showed that resurrecting someone who has just been shot is entirely feasible, with little if any change to their character. So what the writers really mean is they can't be bothered sticking to canon.

I think it was stated by "Osiris" when Willow tweaks out and asks to bring Tara back, that Willow has already brought someone back--Buffy--and that might be why she isn't allowed to bring Tara back as well. More than the fact that it was a natural death, but that Willow was upsetting the gods with her power, or something like that.

I was upset when Tara was killed, but now I see how it has shaped the characters whose lives she touched. Not to make her a martyr, but her death was a serious wake-up call to all the scoobies, in various ways. Tara was the one whom Buffy confided in regarding her affair with Spike, Xander and Anya were tight with Willow and Tara, and of course Willow and Tara had what I consider to be the closest to being soul mates of all the relationships in the show (Buffy and Angel are too, I guess..pshh haha). Joss loves to do huge things to create dissonance in the plot, and just as he knew that killing Jenny would stir things up in S2, he knew that killing Tara would be at the very least equal as a plot turn.

I do wish Tara was still around, because she brought a unique dynamic into the scoobies mix, and no character will be able to do that in such a genuine and raw way.

[ambersknight]

Yes, osiris does give some vague mention of upsetting the odds but the majority of his blather is about the fact that Buffy was resurrected because hers was a mystical death and Tara couldn't cos hers wasn't. Given the events in the Zeppo, and that jack O' Toole was hardly a magical use in Willow's league, or even the same sport nearly, it seems hollow as a point to prevent her from resurrecting Tara.

As for Tara's death being needed to kick start the season off. There I disagree with you. I get where you are coming from, but I simply don't see it that way. For me there was simply more to be gained by not killing her off. And Jenny's death was relevant, and had real dramatic flair and depth, Tara's had none of those things. It felt less like a dramatic plot twist than it did a desperate attempt to revive a frankly weightless storyline that had gone nowhere and had been a pretty big waste of effort that could ahve been used elsewhere.

Let me be absolute in this, I would have accepted Tara's death (as much as I love the character) if it had been dramatically viable. my argument is it wasn't. Unlike Jenny or Joyce, ther was no depth, only style trying to hide the lack of substance. And as for makin ghte Scoobies face up to things, they showed more empathy when Cassie died that Tara.

I know that a lot of people think Tara's death worked perfectly, but I just don't see it. I recently bought season 6, as a matter of completeness, and I saw all the problems in stark reality, even years after my first viewing.

[Mathieu]

May 24, 2009 14:19:49 GMT -5 @ambersknight said:

Yes, osiris does give some vague mention of upsetting the odds but the majority of his blather is about the fact that Buffy was resurrected because hers was a mystical death and Tara couldn't cos hers wasn't. Given the events in the Zeppo, and that jack O' Toole was hardly a magical use in Willow's league, or even the same sport nearly, it seems hollow as a point to prevent her from resurrecting Tara.

As for Tara's death being needed to kick start the season off. There I disagree with you. I get where you are coming from, but I simply don't see it that way. For me there was simply more to be gained by not killing her off. And Jenny's death was relevant, and had real dramatic flair and depth, Tara's had none of those things. It felt less like a dramatic plot twist than it did a desperate attempt to revive a frankly weightless storyline that had gone nowhere and had been a pretty big waste of effort that could ahve been used elsewhere.

Let me be absolute in this, I would have accepted Tara's death (as much as I love the character) if it had been dramatically viable. my argument is it wasn't. Unlike Jenny or Joyce, ther was no depth, only style trying to hide the lack of substance. And as for makin ghte Scoobies face up to things, they showed more empathy when Cassie died that Tara.

I know that a lot of people think Tara's death worked perfectly, but I just don't see it. I recently bought season 6, as a matter of completeness, and I saw all the problems in stark reality, even years after my first viewing.

However, I think it was genius to kill Tara right when you thought Willow and her would live happily ever after. It was an amazing twist and that's what you expect from a show like Buffy.

[ambersknight]

Genius? Sloppy and lazy I call it. It had no value, either in dramatic terms or in any real social sense as it destroyed a lot of good work. And as he had done it already on more than one occassion it smacked more than a little of desperation.

[Smashed]

Genius? HA!
It was predictable and sloppy, as Ambersknight said.
It's a cop out that the writers use to break up a couple that is getting a shot. They've repeated it many times throughout the series. Look at Jenny & Giles, Anya & Xander, Renee & Xander, Joyce and the guy that sent her flowers. Honestly, the death of Tara was pretty much the jumping of the shark moment for me. What did we get after Tara died? The CHEESIEST "villain", ~DARK WILLOW, a bunch of annoying 15 year olds, and the second cheesiest villain, ~THe Ultimate EVIL THE first~.

[Emmie]

May 24, 2009 16:27:00 GMT -5 Smashed said:

Genius? HA!
It was predictable and sloppy, as Ambersknight said.
It's a cop out that the writers use to break up a couple that is getting a shot. They've repeated it many times throughout the series. Look at Jenny & Giles, Anya & Xander, Renee & Xander, Joyce and the guy that sent her flowers. Honestly, the death of Tara was pretty much the jumping of the shark moment for me. What did we get after Tara died? The CHEESIEST "villain", ~DARK WILLOW, a bunch of annoying 15 year olds, and the second cheesiest villain, ~THe Ultimate EVIL THE first~.

I don't see it as a cop-out to a couple that is finally getting a shot. The only reason they got Willow and Tara back together again was so that killing Tara would make it all the more painful for Willow. In this regard, Tara was secondary to the writer's choice to propel Willow forward in her downward spiral. A lot of people like Dark Willow. I'm not a huge fan, but I understand the logic here.

Be more justifiably angry that Willow going dark was more important from a storyteller's standpoint than Tara growing and becoming more independent. Willow's story took priority over Tara's. I see Tara's death falling in the same category as Jenny's - a plot development used to propel the story forward for the main characters (something Tara was denied as being acknowledged as and would she have ever become as central to the 'verse as Willow? Doubtful). I think it did this job well and it fit with the story being told.

[ambersknight]

And I guess that is where I disagree. For me it was an almighty cop-out and merely another version of "happiness bad, let's have a death". In that regard, it was consistent but it was hardly good drama.

And the idea of it being Willow's storyline creates problems in itself. if Tara's only function is to serve as catalyst to Willo,w then what is the point of fleshing ehr out, if all she is is a means to an end? Moreover, questions must be asked of a writing team that whored themselves to the gay press and then stabbed them in the back.

[urnofosiris]

This is quite stupid I must admit.

I think that Tara's death was very necessary to the show.
ESPECIALLY that she was killed off just after her and Willow looked like they were back on their feet. It just made the whole season complete, as season 6 had been the whole emotional season. Tara had to die - and when I say had, I mean it in the the nicest possible way of course, because I did love Tara - for the show to move on from where it was. We couldn't just have everyone living happily ever after! That's not what viewers want.
They want the drama, so that's what they gave us.

I found the idea really good. To kill off Tara and make Willow the evil big bad of the season. I liked it. It made the show that little bit more interesting that one of the Scoobies was the big bad.
But, that's just my opinion..

[Mathieu]

May 24, 2009 22:22:00 GMT -5 urnofosiris said:

This is quite stupid I must admit.

I think that Tara's death was very necessary to the show.
ESPECIALLY that she was killed off just after her and Willow looked like they were back on their feet. It just made the whole season complete, as season 6 had been the whole emotional season. Tara had to die - and when I say had, I mean it in the the nicest possible way of course, because I did love Tara - for the show to move on from where it was. We couldn't just have everyone living happily ever after! That's not what viewers want.
They want the drama, so that's what they gave us.

I found the idea really good. To kill off Tara and make Willow the evil big bad of the season. I liked it. It made the show that little bit more interesting that one of the Scoobies was the big bad.
But, that's just my opinion..

And I share your opinion all the way.

[urnofosiris]

May 24, 2009 23:31:47 GMT -5 Mathieu said:

May 24, 2009 22:22:00 GMT -5 urnofosiris said:

This is quite stupid I must admit.

I think that Tara's death was very necessary to the show.
ESPECIALLY that she was killed off just after her and Willow looked like they were back on their feet. It just made the whole season complete, as season 6 had been the whole emotional season. Tara had to die - and when I say had, I mean it in the the nicest possible way of course, because I did love Tara - for the show to move on from where it was. We couldn't just have everyone living happily ever after! That's not what viewers want.
They want the drama, so that's what they gave us.

I found the idea really good. To kill off Tara and make Willow the evil big bad of the season. I liked it. It made the show that little bit more interesting that one of the Scoobies was the big bad.
But, that's just my opinion..

And I share your opinion all the way.

Why thank you.

[buffyrocksmylife]

Well, they wanted something to set off Willow, you know, to make a huge twist, something that wasn't predicted. (I DEF didn't think that would happen, lol)

[urnofosiris]

Exactly. It was something that no one was expecting, making it that much more interesting.

[ambersknight]

But given that the storyline was merely a hotch potch of previous story threads it was hardly new or fresh, just tired and lazy. Moreover it had no dramatic weight as it hadn't been earned as the storyline it accompanied had lost all momentum before it had even got going. Had they stayed with the "drunk on power" storyline rather than switching it to a very cackhanded "magic as drugs metaphor" then the season might have been more interesting. And as several characters had died simply to move a plot along, doesn't it strike anyone else as just plain lazy to do it again, especially as the strands had been done before on the show and done better.

Truth is the various strands were more potent first time around, and what we got was a diluted, haphazard, impotent re-hash.

[Mayor Of F♥ckville]

Yes. It was necessary.

[Iceeh★]

May 25, 2009 4:04:03 GMT -5 Mayor Of F♥ckville said:

Yes. It was necessary.

I DISAGREE! Tara's death just sent the show on a downward spiral.

[ambersknight]

I ahve always believed that the characterisation of tara was done to heighten the emotional kick in the teeth, which for my money shows the disingenuous nature of the writers. And I agree entirely with your remakrks about Joss and not knowing the cliche.

[ambersknight]

In order to justify a death dramatically, one must answer the following questions:

10 Do any of the following apply to the situation regarding the character?

a) Has the character exhausted all dramatic possibilities? is there nothing new that can be done or said with the character?

b) Does the actor playing the character wish to leave and has no desire to return?

c) Is the character disliked by the majority of the fans to the extent that keeping them is becoming detrimental to the show?

d) Do you have a storyline that can only be resolved with a death?

If the answer to that question produces a YES, then move onto question 2. if not, then the character is not for killing off.

2) Does the dramatic potential of killing off the character significantly outweigh the dramatic value of keeping the character alive? Is there more gold to be mined by the character remaining alive than if they are dead?

For me, these ar ehte questions any writer should ask when deciding to do something as final as killing off a character. How does this apply to Tara.

Well, question 1, the first 3 examples are a no and to be fair, they were never used by the writers. they cited the fourth one as their YES. I disagree with that, as I think the story could ahve been resolved without requiring the death if the sloppiness of the writing in the early part of the season had been addressed. But as it wasn't, they do ahve a half point with stating reason (d) as their justification to answer question 1 with a YES.

Question 2 however, is the other bone of contention. For me and many others, the answer to question 2 is a resounding NO. there was so much more gold to mine from the character of Tara that for me it outweighed what was presented in Season 6. So for me its NO on both questions, and as such it was an unjustifiable decision by the writers dramatically.

[Mathieu]

May 25, 2009 8:30:40 GMT -5 @ambersknight said:

In order to justify a death dramatically, one must answer the following questions:

10 Do any of the following apply to the situation regarding the character?

a) Has the character exhausted all dramatic possibilities? is there nothing new that can be done or said with the character?

b) Does the actor playing the character wish to leave and has no desire to return?

c) Is the character disliked by the majority of the fans to the extent that keeping them is becoming detrimental to the show?

d) Do you have a storyline that can only be resolved with a death?

If the answer to that question produces a YES, then move onto question 2. if not, then the character is not for killing off.

2) Does the dramatic potential of killing off the character significantly outweigh the dramatic value of keeping the character alive? Is there more gold to be mined by the character remaining alive than if they are dead?

For me, these ar ehte questions any writer should ask when deciding to do something as final as killing off a character. How does this apply to Tara.

Well, question 1, the first 3 examples are a no and to be fair, they were never used by the writers. they cited the fourth one as their YES. I disagree with that, as I think the story could ahve been resolved without requiring the death if the sloppiness of the writing in the early part of the season had been addressed. But as it wasn't, they do ahve a half point with stating reason (d) as their justification to answer question 1 with a YES.

Question 2 however, is the other bone of contention. For me and many others, the answer to question 2 is a resounding NO. there was so much more gold to mine from the character of Tara that for me it outweighed what was presented in Season 6. So for me its NO on both questions, and as such it was an unjustifiable decision by the writers dramatically.

I'm sorry but I feel like we will never come to an agreement.

You are upset because Tara was obvioulsy your favorite character and you took it very personally. You consider that any character that has still more to offer should be kept around but this is bad writing. If they only killed characters when they get so useless and so unpopular that all is left to do is kill them off... this is terrible. What was great about Tara's death is that they had the nerves to off a character who was loved (not to say worshipped sometimes) and who was still growing. It is upsetting indeed, but life is not always fair and this is why we love the show, in spited of all the fantasy some stuff happens that is close to what we as human beings can experience in our own lives. To deal with the loss of the person you love is the worst thing one might have to go through but it happens a lot. Maybe it was not dealt with perfectly on the show, but the story was definitely worth telling again (after Jenny, Angel, etc...), because this time it was different, there was anger involved.