Board Thread:Movie discussion/@comment-8501560-20150608201524/@comment-4502435-20150815075728

82.44.63.85 wrote: What the hell is wrong with you people?! Sitting there fretting about "what did Zara do to DESERVE this fate". You absolute idiots. You really think there is some kind of formula in film-making that determines what sort of death a character "deserves"? Every single person who dribbles out that stupid question "Why did she DESERVE it" should have their own heads stuck in a raptor or something as a punishment.

Actually yes, I would argue there IS a formula in film-making that determines what sort of death a character deserves.

A long drawn out, and torturous death sequence like Zara's would normally be reserved for either the jerkass you've been waiting to see die all movie long, specifically for his jerkass tendencies (we're talking the Joffery's of movies), a major villain, possibly a background redshirt with little to no details given, or, on the "hero" end of things, a death showing either a character's resolve, what it takes to break them, or possibly even the sadistic nature of the villain.

Problem is none of the above apply to Zara. She was a background character, sure, but we actually got to know her at least a little. Her death could easily have been passed off to any one of the hundreds of park-goers around her, and she wasn't malicious or nasty enough to make us feel a sense of catharsis at the brutality of her demise.

And I think that's the key. As viewers, we should feel 'something' when a character dies. As though there is some reason for them to die in a particular way. With Zara, we're left feeling confused, and a little unsettled about why this character, who was important enough to have a name, and some personality, with a relatively minor "sin", was so brutally killed, when there were a dozen other ways her death could have been done, or for the film makers to pull off the Mosasaur kill.