"The Offspring," will Data be the last of his kind in Trek Lit?
- Thread starter wizkid
- Start date
^No, I wasn't thinking anything remotely like that. That implies I was talking about Data gradually emerging from B-4 or something. I wouldn't want a B-4 story to have anything to do with Data. I'd rather explore B-4 as a unique individual. I'd rather see the other characters forced to come to terms with the fact that B-4 isn't Data and never will be, that there will be no convenient wish fulfillment and they will simply have to cope maturely with the reality of permanent loss.
Well, it is canon that Janeway did a selfish timeline alteration to get home a lot sooner. The Temporal Integrity Commission would surely do something about that. So Nemesis IS an alternate timeline tale.
So at least you could say that Picard received his orders from a different admiral, and they had perhaps a lot longer conversation, and, well, butterfly effect, chaos theory --> Data doesn't die.
Then I have no clue what you were suggesting.
Well, it remains to be seen if that book will be written. And there's a very interesting divergence here... The one Christopher mentions in which B-4 is a unique individual and tried to separate and understand the experiences Data had as part of himself. That would be a great read, although it may not have to focus on a starship and her crew. Who knows what B-4 did after the events in Nemesis? Maybe a singing career? Or perhaps he is brought on board a la Tom Paris observer style for a starfleet mission in which Data had previous experience and they need his insight to succeed. Like the Sheliak mission (The Ensigns of Command) for example. Data more or less dealt with that mission single handed.
But the logical assumption from the Countdown series suggests this course of action took place post-Nemesis:
-B-4 slowly began to display and act on Data's characteristics (as implied by the final scene in Nemesis)
-B-4 identifies himself as Data, his personality having fully asserted itself
-Picard acknowledges this and informs Starfleet of this turn of events... supports Data as he always does
-Starfleet (in a situation much like The Measure of a Man or Author, Author) decides that within this very unique case, Data lives again within B-4 and the many years of decorated service to starfleet should not be "wasted" and they decide to allow him to continue his commission.
-Picard is promoted and campaigns for Data to take command of the Enterprise.
-Data is promoted to captain and takes command.
I admit, I wouldn't mind reading something with Data as captain either, they both present very interesting situations. I would love to see Data with Christopher Hobson (Unification II) serving under him!
But the logical assumption from the Countdown series suggests this course of action took place post-Nemesis:
-B-4 slowly began to display and act on Data's characteristics (as implied by the final scene in Nemesis)
-B-4 identifies himself as Data, his personality having fully asserted itself
-Picard acknowledges this and informs Starfleet of this turn of events... supports Data as he always does
-Starfleet (in a situation much like The Measure of a Man or Author, Author) decides that within this very unique case, Data lives again within B-4 and the many years of decorated service to starfleet should not be "wasted" and they decide to allow him to continue his commission.
-Picard is promoted and campaigns for Data to take command of the Enterprise.
-Data is promoted to captain and takes command.
I admit, I wouldn't mind reading something with Data as captain either, they both present very interesting situations. I would love to see Data with Christopher Hobson (Unification II) serving under him!
Last edited:
Yes. I share that concern. It is also worth noting, I believe, that Data allowed his memories to be "downloaded" to B-4 in an act of selfless charity; he wished for his "brother" to enjoy the same opportunities he had enjoyed. He wanted B-4 to grow as an individual. I personally find it rather odd that so many Data fans seem to disregard this- one of the character's final wishes- in favour of Data "overiding" B-4. It seems to do far more to damage the Data character than his death (which was equally selfless). That's just me of course
He can't be any more curious and child-like like Data.
^Exactly. B-4 wasn't curious at all. This was the thematic point of the B-4 plotline (as a parallel to the Shinzon plotline) which is often overlooked in the fixation on B-4 as a vehicle for resurrecting Data. B-4 wasn't like Data because he lacked the motivation or the ability to try to better himself. While Data was constantly trying to improve, B-4 didn't have the same ability to grow beyond his limits.
And while Data had the perspective of a child with the intelligence of a supergenius, B-4 has the equivalent of a severe learning disability. There's a big difference between being "childlike" in behavior and actually having the IQ of a small child.
I think the idea of B-4 as a learning-disabled android is potentially very interesting. ST is supposed to be all about inclusion, but rarely has it included people with learning disabilities among its characters. Bashir was born learning-disabled, but he was genetically engineered to "fix" it. The Pakleds come close, but they were depicted in a rather condescending manner. I get the impression that this is one prejudice the Federation hasn't licked. There's potential there.
And while Data had the perspective of a child with the intelligence of a supergenius, B-4 has the equivalent of a severe learning disability. There's a big difference between being "childlike" in behavior and actually having the IQ of a small child.
I think the idea of B-4 as a learning-disabled android is potentially very interesting. ST is supposed to be all about inclusion, but rarely has it included people with learning disabilities among its characters. Bashir was born learning-disabled, but he was genetically engineered to "fix" it. The Pakleds come close, but they were depicted in a rather condescending manner. I get the impression that this is one prejudice the Federation hasn't licked. There's potential there.
^@JarodRussell. Good point. But it's still possible for B-4 to behave differently than Data would have in the same situations, although I think it will require some creative flexing to bring that to the fore. B-4 might not have the same hobbies such as delving into Sherlock Holmes holonovels or have an affinity for cats, to name a few simple examples. There could be other more complex differences. I have confidence the Treklit authors can expand upon and come up with satisfying and believable personalities for B-4, if indeed it is decided that this is the path to be taken for B-4's evolution.
Yes, I don't believe Spiner is entitled. If Paramount gives him the green light, than that is not entitlement. It is Paramount agreeing with his idea. Totally different.
For the record Therin of Andor, I believe Christopher was the first to use the word entitle which I did allude to and used later in the post.
I am saying exactly that. The actor should not have the right unless the owner says they can. I think we have officially blown this out of proportion. We can agree to disagree.
I think all wizkid was saying was that Brent Spiner can choose his career path all he wants, but he shouldn't be able to dictate what happens to Data just because he's the person that played him. It's not like Mr. Spiner owned Data. But since Paramount hired Brent to co-write the story and then they approved the story, then everyone who counts when it comes to deciding the fates of trek charatcers had a voice.
Not sure if I agree with wizkid, but I am one of the people who misses Data in the books. If the whole Data re-writing over B4 actually happens, i'd be happy to see Data back in the fold
Maybe we can start over. You understood perfectly. I didn't mean for this to turn into a big brawl. Is Data going to be the last of his kind in TNG Trek Lit? Really. Honest. That is all I want to know now.
And that is wrong and insulting. You persist in talking about actors as if they were powerless servants. That's total BS, and it's an ignorant insult to an entire profession. Actors are equal participants in the creation of a character. Brent Spiner was a collaborator in the creation of Data. He played a pivotal role in shaping and defining the character over the course of a decade and a half. It's absurd to talk about him as if he was just some kind of indentured servant, a passive drone who "should" be deprived of "rights." Who the hell are you to insist that other human beings don't deserve rights?! How dare you?!
In your opinion, it seems clear to you that I am all about talking about Spiner as if he were some powerless servant. Does his opinion count. Yes. Is he entitled? No.
About all the me talking about him like he is a piece of crap, you need to get a grasp on reality. I never once insisted that other human beings don't deserve rights.
How dare you stick words in my mouth. You really need to tone the drama down.
"The actor should not have the right." Your own words, verbatim. You're the one who chose to express your opinion with language about "rights." Not me. It's that language that's offensive. Whether you meant it that way or not, it comes off as a slight.
This is a response to Wizkid. Chris beat me to the post.
I'm with Chris here. As a (former, and possibly future) actor, I find you attitude a little baffling. Are you saying that actors should be forced to continue the play a role just because the producers,writers or studio still want them to? Because that is bullshit, actors probably deserve to have the most right to say what will happen to characters that they play. Hell, there have been times even in Trek, where scenes had to be changed simply because an actor did not want to do or say something. One Trek example of this I've heard about would be some of the lines about the Klingons in The Undiscovered Country. At least one or two of them were originally supposed to be said by Uhura, but when Nichelle Nichols refused to say them, they were given to the other characters. Do you think she should have been forced to say stuff that she objected to? What about situations where stunt or body doubles are used. If a person isn't comfortable with a dangerous scene or a nude scene do you think they should be forced to do it?What exactly do you think actors should be able to do when it comes to the parts they play? Despite what alot of people think acting is a hell of a lot more complicated than just reading lines or doing what a director tells you, you really need to be able to get inside the head of the characters you play.
Plus, most actors, directors and writers will tell you that it is the actor who plays the one of (if not the) most important part of the process of creating a character. In fact there have been many times where a role was supposed to be one time guest character, but went on to become one of the most important parts of the show, due almost entirely to the actor. The best examples of this being Spike from Buffy, and especially Urkel in Family Matters.
I'm with Chris here. As a (former, and possibly future) actor, I find you attitude a little baffling. Are you saying that actors should be forced to continue the play a role just because the producers,writers or studio still want them to? Because that is bullshit, actors probably deserve to have the most right to say what will happen to characters that they play. Hell, there have been times even in Trek, where scenes had to be changed simply because an actor did not want to do or say something. One Trek example of this I've heard about would be some of the lines about the Klingons in The Undiscovered Country. At least one or two of them were originally supposed to be said by Uhura, but when Nichelle Nichols refused to say them, they were given to the other characters. Do you think she should have been forced to say stuff that she objected to? What about situations where stunt or body doubles are used. If a person isn't comfortable with a dangerous scene or a nude scene do you think they should be forced to do it?What exactly do you think actors should be able to do when it comes to the parts they play? Despite what alot of people think acting is a hell of a lot more complicated than just reading lines or doing what a director tells you, you really need to be able to get inside the head of the characters you play.
Plus, most actors, directors and writers will tell you that it is the actor who plays the one of (if not the) most important part of the process of creating a character. In fact there have been many times where a role was supposed to be one time guest character, but went on to become one of the most important parts of the show, due almost entirely to the actor. The best examples of this being Spike from Buffy, and especially Urkel in Family Matters.
In this context it sounds like you are saying I am stripping him of his human rights. If I misunderstood that, sorry. I was not saying he isn't entitled to fair pay, breaks, recognition, and the such. The word rights is so generic and yet so specific I find it a bit unfair you keep zoning in on specific words to hang me on.
But lets look at this for what it is. It is a job. Spiner gets paid.
At my company, everyone gets paid. If one day they decide to change their job description and my company says no, then they can stay or leave. It really is that simple. If they leave a new person will be brought in and trained to take that position. I look at this from a business point-of-view, the only point-of-view I know personally. I don't know all the legal aspects of who really owns a character.
As to respond to JD about actors making changes during the process, I think that is a given here. Me and my co-workers constantly adjust what we do during the work day to produce the finest products made. I believe the disagreement Christopher and I have is my above point about changing your job description (in this case permanently ending it). Either the owner agrees or not. In this case they agreed. But my take is that Spiner is not entitled to that decision. Paramount or the owner is. We are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
In the end, I am just a guy who is like a lot of people in this country struggling to make ends meet, going through the daily grind, and reading and buying Titan and TNG books to give me a few hours of entertainment. I am done with the back and forth stuff because we have beat this horse to death.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Would I like to see B4 become Data? No. Would I like to see a back up of Data found in the time of Mark Twain where they could in essence have a new Data head after Maddox constructs a new body? Why not. Stranger things have happened.
And this is the fundamental mistake you refuse to recognize you're making. You're defining him as passive, following someone else's orders. You're refusing to recognize that he is an equal participant in the creation of the character. You've been given countless examples where actors' choices have shaped their characters' fates, you've been informed of multiple precedents where characters have died because their actors chose to leave, you've had the role of the actor in the creative process explained to you by an actual actor, and you still cling to your totally false and disproven premise that because "it's a job," the actor therefore does not deserve to have a say in the character's fate. You're just plain wrong about that. It isn't a matter of ideology or morals, it's a simple matter of FACT. You are wrong to say that actors can't or shouldn't have a say in the fate of their characters, because when characters get killed off, it's USUALLY because the actor decided to leave. So your premise is wrong on a strictly factual level, all else aside. And no matter how much evidence and argument you're given to demonstrate how grossly ignorant and counterfactual your assumptions are, you continue to assert them unthinkingly.
Similar threads
- Poll
