LogFAQs > #886469439

tbh, most character deaths are going to be meaningless since there's little to no point in just killing characters off, except maybe when covering both sides of a war. And the fact that characters generally don't die doesn't make what they do less meaningful nor does having characters die really heighten the suspense since at least *some* characters need to stay alive and readers/viewers can usually figure out which ones they are.

And even most "meaningful deaths" are generally rendered meaningless by the writing afterward. Case-in-point is ALWAYS comics. Ultimate Spidey died solely so he could be replaced by a minority character, thus undoing any impact of his death because the brand continues under a new character. When a team characters dies, they're quickly replaced and soon forgotten. Nor does it benefit either the company or fans to kill off truly headline characters because both groups want to see the franchise continued.

InfestedAdam posted...

Granted I'd admit surviving a barrage of arrows in an open field without some sort of shield where anyone can get hit is one I find a bit questionable.

If they're wearing full-plate, they wouldn't need a shield. That'd more be an issue if they were wearing mail or the hilariously historically inaccurate leather armor everybody seems to favor in fiction nowadays whereas, in terms of actual defense, leather was most often just used for cosmetic value over some other form of armor like a gambeson.

Of course, the really annoying thing is the near-absence of helmets in historical fiction & fantasy, although there's a practical reason outside of the universe itself since it allows viewers to see the actor's face. The lack of shields where clearly one is needed -- which annoyed me when I caught some clips from Vikings -- is certainly another nuisance. Characters in mail, gambesons, leather, etc, shouldn't be going into battle without a shield (well, melee anyway).
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash