Poll Silliest death and immediate resurrection?

[Lord Garth]

...you only believe us when we use direct quotes?

But ok, here's the other point with direct quotes:

LAFORGE: Data, this has got to bother you a little.
DATA: On the contrary. I find it rather comforting.
LAFORGE: Comforting?
DATA: I have often wondered about my own mortality as I have seen others around me age. Until now it has been theoretically possible that I would live an unlimited period of time. And although some might find this attractive, to me it only reinforces the fact that I am artificial.
LAFORGE: I never knew how tough this must be for you.
DATA: Tough? As in difficult?
LAFORGE: Knowing that you would outlive all your friends.
DATA: I expected to make new friends.
LAFORGE: True.
DATA: And then to outlive them as well.
LAFORGE: Now that you know that you might not?
DATA: It provides a sense of completion to my future. In a way, I am not that different from anyone else. I can now look forward to death.
LAFORGE: I never thought of it that way.
DATA: One might also conclude that it brings me one step closer to being human. I am mortal.

Nope, nope. Close but no cigar.

First off, parts wear out and break down. He's not immortal no matter what he thinks. Anywhere information is stored will eventually break down too. If your consciousness exists, it's not being threatened, and it can be transferred elsewhere, choosing to end your existence is suicide if you're not in immediate danger.

I know I'm going to die. If I'm not in danger, there are ways to save me, and I say, "Nope! I want the plug pulled!" That's suicide. I'm against suicide. I'm against assisted suicide. I've covered events on families that have dealt with family members who have committed suicide. I knew people who committed suicide. THIS IS NOT AN INTERNET ARGUMENT. THIS IS REAL LIFE TO ME. Do you understand that?

Death is not usually a situation you have control over. Data had control over it and told Picard what to do to help him achieve it. THAT IS ASSISTED SUICIDE.

If someone is on life support and they are in a terminal state, a decision has to be made. Data's state as software was not terminal.

Furthermore, Data is old in Picard Season 3 and he'll get even older. Which means he'll eventually die. Not on the Scimitar and not in whatever he was in in PIC Season 1. So that also makes him a step closer to being Human because his existence will presumably end when he dies of Old Age.

EDITED TO ADD: I know you didn't mean to upset me but the topic of suicide is something I take very seriously. And I don't like that what happened with Data the end of PIC S1 was portrayed in a positive light.

I know it wasn't the intention of the PIC Season 1 writers to say, "Assisted Suicide is good!" which is why I haven't been more vocal about it than I have been and try to ignore it, but that's the way it comes across to me as a viewer, even if it was unintentional. So that's why I'm not against Data coming back in PIC Season 3. I don't think he was killed off well in either Nemesis or PIC Season 1.

Spock, OTOH, they killed him off well in TWOK. If someone had been against Spock being brought back to life in 1984, it's something I would've understood -- from a dramatic standpoint -- even if I wasn't against it. But, by the time I discovered Star Trek, Spock had already died and come back to life, so it was all after the fact anyway.

 

[NCC-73515]

Perhaps it could help if people wrote their real world triggers in the signature so people know what to avoid in a Trek discussion, or people with real world triggers could avoid topics that address those triggers. In universe, strictly in the Trek world, Data's S1 death wish was genuine and Picard fulfilled his request. I was positively surprised they even addressed it in S3 when Picard acknowledged that he hopes he didn't undo that other Data's wish.

 

[Citiprime]

I mean, it's established way back at the beginning of the movie that there is something Khan can do for the S31 officer's child. It unpacks from there. If it's a shortcut, it's one that is set up from the beginning.

Yes, it's alluded to early in the movie because it's the movie's MacGuffin. It's used whenever they need to move the plot along or dig themselves out of any plot problems, but then discarded and forgotten about in the end.

Regardless, I think this is more missing the point of claiming this resurrection is silly. It's not. It's thematic and moves with the larger themes of the work that Kirk cannot accept death in the line of duty, and has to go off half-cocked until faced with the no win scenario.

Who Kirk is at the beginning of Into Darkness is more or less who he is at the end. The idea that his death and resurrection causes some epiphany for Kirk just isn't supported by the movie. Into Darkness retraces almost note for note the character beats of Star Trek (2009), whether it be Kirk's daddy issues (this time dealing with Pike's death), the ambivalent relationship with Spock, facing off with an adversary who feels wronged by the Federation, or Kirk's self-doubts about his ability to be a Starfleet officer.

And most of all, if you took Kirk's death out of Into Darkness, it doesn't change ANYTHING about that movie, or affect the other characters in any appreciable way. That's its biggest sin. It feels so non-consequential, where Spock's death in II-III-IV has massive consequences not only for the character but everyone else too.

 

[fireproof78]

And most of all, if you took Kirk's death out of Into Darkness, it doesn't change ANYTHING about that movie, or affect the other characters in any appreciable way. That's its biggest sin. It feels so non-consequential, where Spock's death in II-III-IV has massive consequences not only for the character but everyone else too.

It was consequential to Kirk.

That is sufficient.

Comparing it to TWOK is a fool's errand. One sadly invitged by the film itself, but a fool's errand nonetheless. It either works in the film, or it doesn't. Not does it evoke the same emotions as another movie. For me, and me only, Kirk's arc is beautifully captured. Yes, he decides to be an Starfleet officer in 09, but he's not committed to it. It's a dare, another challenge, to make up for his absent father feelings. But, he constantly ignores the ultimate sacrifice his father makes until the end of the ID.

Kirk is different at the end, and he regards his crew differently, Carol differently, and Spock differently. It's supported by the film.

 

[tomalak301]

It's not on the poll, but Culber's death and resurrection bothered me, especially on the heels of the "Bury your gays" troupe that was rampant at the time. Thankfully Culber has become an amazing character on Discovery, but his death didn't need to happen.

 

[smalltabby]

My first thought upon seeing the title of this thread was Kelvinverse Kirk, so I voted him despite not having seen Picard. I don't doubt that I'll have thoughts about an immediate resurrection in that show as well once I get around to watching it.
The way Kirk is brought back to life doesn't really matter to me in the silliness factor, it's the way the death is delivered. I agree that there just simply isn't enough weight and depth in Kelvin Kirk and Spock's relationship for the death to feel meaningful. So it ends up just feeling like "oh okay, the movie wants me to point at the screen and say I know this from Wrath of Khan". The fact that he doesn't stay dead for long makes it feel sillier that the movie is trying to tug on the viewer's heart and nostalgia strings like that.

 

[1001001]

It's not on the poll, but Culber's death and resurrection bothered me, especially on the heels of the "Bury your gays" troupe that was rampant at the time. Thankfully Culber has become an amazing character on Discovery, but his death didn't need to happen.

At least they attempted to address the psychology of it.

 

[FredH]

It's not on the poll, but Culber's death and resurrection bothered me, especially on the heels of the "Bury your gays" troupe that was rampant at the time. Thankfully Culber has become an amazing character on Discovery, but his death didn't need to happen.

I admit that all these years later, I still don’t quite understand what happened there — how he ended up in the mycelial network to be brought back, etc.

 

[Takeru]

Definitely Picard because it was a meaningless scene, it wasn't a sacrifice to save someone, he was just old and sick and died, then they upload him into an android body which was the same just with no irumodic syndrome. He could have just not died.
Just have the Data conversation on La Sirena in a holodeck, no need to upload Picard onto a hard drive for that.

 

[tomalak301]

At least they attempted to address the psychology of it.

Yeah, which has made Culber my second favorite character behind Saru, but I still wonder why it was necessary at the time.

 

[Shawnster]

It's not on the poll, but Culber's death and resurrection bothered me, especially on the heels of the "Bury your gays" troupe that was rampant at the time. Thankfully Culber has become an amazing character on Discovery, but his death didn't need to happen.

Yes! Culber is one of my favorite DISCO characters, but it was ludicrous the way they killed him just to bring him back.

I admit that all these years later, I still don’t quite understand what happened there — how he ended up in the mycelial network to be brought back, etc.

My understanding is his consciousness, or part thereof, was in the mycelial network and that was what they brought back.

 

[F. King Daniel]

How is it "Stupid"? Blood therapies are a real thing. Khan's blood being "special" is a Star Trek thing. Building on real science is a very SF thing.

I don't understand how Khan's blood is "stupid" but nobody bats an eye when Number One has healing augment powers, complete with magical glowing in Strange New Worlds. She even uses it to save the whole ship! Yes it's daft, but it's the kind of daft that's well ingrained in the lore of the Trek universe.

Also, Adrik Soong pointed out that Augment abilities would have saved Archer's grandfather and prevented him from getting sick. It fits pretty well.

Who Kirk is at the beginning of Into Darkness is more or less who he is at the end. The idea that his death and resurrection causes some epiphany for Kirk just isn't supported by the movie. Into Darkness retraces almost note for note the character beats of Star Trek (2009), whether it be Kirk's daddy issues (this time dealing with Pike's death), the ambivalent relationship with Spock, facing off with an adversary who feels wronged by the Federation, or Kirk's self-doubts about his ability to be a Starfleet officer.

And most of all, if you took Kirk's death out of Into Darkness, it doesn't change ANYTHING about that movie, or affect the other characters in any appreciable way. That's its biggest sin. It feels so non-consequential, where Spock's death in II-III-IV has massive consequences not only for the character but everyone else too.

Kirk changes greatly through Into Darkness. He starts off trading on luck, being a smug ass with no grasp of consequences and ends it sacrificing his life to save his crewmates.

As for the Data thing, he'd been living in a limited simulation for 20 years and for whatever reason putting his consciousness into a new body was not an option (or even addressed due to shoddy writing). It could almost be called a prison, which might change one's outlook on the situation. Although I mean no offence to anyone who's suffered personal tragedy.

Also as an AI, apparently they just used a copy from Nemesis in season 3 and everyone just accepted that, which again is the result of shoddy writing but makes one wonder why they don't just use transporters to resurrect everyone - which is essentially the same process.

 

[Oddish]

It's not on the poll, but Culber's death and resurrection bothered me, especially on the heels of the "Bury your gays" troupe that was rampant at the time. Thankfully Culber has become an amazing character on Discovery, but his death didn't need to happen.

I would be interested to know if the writers planned from the start to bring Culber back, or if outrage from the Trek community after his death motivated them to do so.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I would be interested to know if the writers planned from the start to bring Culber back, or if outrage from the Trek community after his death motivated them to do so.

I've heard it say it was planned.

 

[tomalak301]

I've heard it say it was planned.

I remember at the time they were trying to get ahead of the backlash and in those cases I'm not sure if I believe them or not. If it really was planned, I again ask, why? If it wasn't planned, why do it in the first place, but the story they created in the aftermath of it was been really great, especially talking about mental illness and Culber becoming the ships counsellor.

 

[kkt]

Spock in TWOK and ST3. TWOK make such a big deal about acceptance of old age and death. Then Spock's body is hardly even cold and they're already spouting Treknobabble to bring him back and about all those lessons about acceptance of age and death, Nevermind!

 

[Citiprime]

Kirk is different at the end, and he regards his crew differently, Carol differently, and Spock differently. It's supported by the film.

Kirk changes greatly through Into Darkness. He starts off trading on luck, being a smug ass with no grasp of consequences and ends it sacrificing his life to save his crewmates.

At the beginning of the movie, Kirk is willing to jeopardize his career and violate the Prime Directive to save the people on Nibiru AND Spock. The idea that the Kirk at the beginning of the film isn’t capable of self-sacrifice or facing the consequences of loss just isn’t true. If anything, at the moment of Kirk’s death, it’s Spock that’s made to understand “why” Kirk wouldn’t let him die.

And I don’t think you can make the argument that it’s a “smug” or half-cocked decision, since the Kirk at the end of the movie would do exactly the same thing as he does at the beginning. Unless you want to make me believe that he wouldn’t still order the Enterprise in to help those people, that he wouldn’t save Spock from the volcano?

Spock in TWOK and ST3. TWOK make such a big deal about acceptance of old age and death. Then Spock's body is hardly even cold and they're already spouting Treknobabble to bring him back and about all those lessons about acceptance of age and death, Nevermind!

If you look at II-III-IV, they’re basically a trilogy that debates the idea of "the needs of the many...," and I personally love Search For Spock.

Wrath of Khan is Spock's sacrifice based in utilitarian Vulcan logic that his death is worth saving the "many."

Search For Spock is Kirk and the crew inverting everything with human nobility. They are willing to sacrifice everything they have to save Spock because in human math the “needs of the one” is more important.

And there’s CONSEQUENCES for bringing Spock back. But those consequences are rooted in also saying something about the characters (e.g., Bones looking at Spock’s body in III, and confessing that he misses him and how much he really cares about him).

Sarek : Kirk, I thank you. What you have done is...​

Kirk : What I have done, I had to do.​

Sarek : But at what cost? Your ship. Your son.​

Kirk : If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul.
​

The Voyage Home has Spock learning that there’s a “human thing to do” which can be a balance, when he advocated saving Chekhov.

 

[fireproof78]

At the beginning of the movie, Kirk is willing to jeopardize his career and violate the Prime Directive to save the people on Nibiru AND Spock. The idea that the Kirk at the beginning of the film isn’t capable of self-sacrifice or facing the consequences of loss just isn’t true. If

Except he doesn't. He refuses to accept Spock dying just as he refuses to accept the Nibiru natives dying. He breaks the rules to avoid facing the consequences of death.

Until he can't. Then he pursues on a path of vengeance and that doesn't stop that feeling. Only once he has no choice but to sacrifice himself or another does that truth sink in.

One his dad had to realize.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Silliest for me is when NOMAD kills Scotty, then just brings him back. Why bother? Kill a red shirt and let them stay dead.

I like the episode, but that but is very silly. Sillier than either of the ones in the poll.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Silliest for me is when NOMAD kills Scotty, then just brings him back. Why bother? Kill a red shirt and let them stay dead.

I like the episode, but that but is very silly. Sillier than either of the ones in the poll.

I assume it was to show how powerful Nomad was.