Tuvok and Neelix would probably disagree.
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
Tuvok and Neelix would probably disagree.
Huh? Tuvix was a synthesis that they separated back out into Tuvok and Neelix, which horrible a storyline as it was is not resurrection.
This is like trying to tell me that "Thomas Riker disagrees." Duplicating or mucking around with existing living organisms is not resurrection. That's just a silly thing to say.
Tuvok and Neelix went from existing to not existing back to existing how is that not dying and coming back from death.
Hell Spock in Start Trek 3 was existing more than them by occasionally possessing McCoy and he was still considered dead.
Tuvix was his own person, with his own personality.
Picard went from being assimilated to not-assimilated and back again. How is that not dying and coming back from death? The answer is that synthesis isn't death, no more for him that it was for Tuvok and Neelix. (This incidentally is precisely why the writers have Janeway re-separate them at the end; because they're still alive and she's rescuing them, just as she would with any other transporter accident.)
Also, can we not do a thing where we parade through every fracking example of a transporter accident or malfunction in the canon and try to pretend it's the equivalent of resurrection? You have to know a point is weak when you're reduced to digging up Tuvix.
A
Amaris
Guest
No, it's not "pure X-Men", just as traveling at faster than light speeds through space isn't "pure Forbidden Planet". You know, if only McCoy knew that the serum he created to reverse the deadly disease in "Miri" was actually just a rip-off of X-Men.
You know, I'm not going to belabour how the false comparison with "Miri" is just as problematic as your false comparison of Thomas Riker to resurrection... apart from noting the incredibly obvious fact that Bones' serum in Miri was a cure for a specific disease, not a general cure for death*; it being quite obviously the idea of blood-that-cures-everything that is X-Men, not the idea of serums. Oh look, I'm belabouring it after all. But I'm done now.
You're a good egg regardless.
[* But here's an idea: instead of arguing about whether there should have been magic blood, since we already know where we stand on that, we could argue about where they could or should take the concept. There was a TNG episode, for instance, that revolved around how an attempt to make the perfect immune system -- one that went out and attacked diseases instead of just waiting for them, like some pussified liberal immune system -- unwittingly produced a new and worse disorder. Maybe that's a potential tack.
]
Last edited:
That is a good thing... Of all the ways to magically save Kirk, that was a really annoyingly dumb one.
So let's move on and put that in the "That's why your people were conquered Spock" category.
The magic blood didn't really bother me. No more than being able to reverse aging with the transporter. Seems like there'd be a heck of a market out there for some Ferengi, providing storage space for transporter traces for people when they are twenty-years old, when they start to age, they just go through the transporter. Seems like Starfleet would do the same thing for when their people were critically injured or contracted incurable diseases. The transporter should have ended medicine as we know it.
Thankfully, no writer has been dumb enough to include that sort of silliness in the films. So much of the Trek tech has the potential to be used very poorly, as we can see in STID, with the cross galaxy transporters and the magic blood. Hopefully we will move past that in the next film.
Thing is, using the transporter to reverse aging is every bit as much part of the Star Trek universe as magic blood.
I'm confused, people keep saying The Magic Blood brought someone back to life.
But, what I remember is Noel Clarke's little girl, and Kirk, were both terminally ill, but, neither one actually died, they were just cured of their terminal illness. Did I miss something?
But, what I remember is Noel Clarke's little girl, and Kirk, were both terminally ill, but, neither one actually died, they were just cured of their terminal illness. Did I miss something?
BillJ said:
Although that's actually a complete mischaracterization of "Unnatural Selection" much like J.'s attempt to compare Bones' serum in "Miri" to a cure for death. Almost like some of us can be prone to rummaging through a grab-bag of questionable comparisons when trying to defend certain bad ideas as having Precedents In the Sacred Texts.
It was actually, when you think about it, kinda parallel to Billy Crystal's "he's only mostly dead" bit from The Princess Bride. Maybe if he'd been all dead they'd have just had to go through his pockets and look for loose change.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
