What if Ron Moore did Buck Rogers in the twenty-fifth century?
- Thread starter Mars
- Start date
Your right, Space Seed establishes the premise in the Star Trek Universe. My point is lets have Buck Rogers be on of those Supermen, except he is one of the good guys, he spent the 20th century fighting Kahn, and got in a ship after the Botany Bay left Earth to follow them. Unfortunately the Botany Bay went off course, but Buck's ship stayed on course and arrived at its destination "500 years later". When Buck wakes up he discovers that Khan has been long dead, so he tries to find something to do in the 25th century. I think making Ardala a princess would certainly work in the late Trek Universe. Also in Ron Moore tradition, why not make her simply a flawed character instead of an evil one, basically a spoiled princess that causes a lot of trouble and drives the plot in many cases, but is not necessarily up to no good all the time.All I know is that if a cryogenically-frozen dictator from the Eugenics Wars can be thawed out in the 23rd century, why not Buck Rogers in the 25th?
Ah, you mean Captain America!
Not sure grafting Buck into Star Trek is the best idea.Your right, Space Seed establishes the premise in the Star Trek Universe. My point is lets have Buck Rogers be on of those Supermen, except he is one of the good guys, he spent the 20th century fighting Kahn, and got in a ship after the Botany Bay left Earth to follow them. Unfortunately the Botany Bay went off course, but Buck's ship stayed on course and arrived at its destination "500 years later". When Buck wakes up he discovers that Khan has been long dead, so he tries to find something to do in the 25th century. I think making Ardala a princess would certainly work in the late Trek Universe. Also in Ron Moore tradition, why not make her simply a flawed character instead of an evil one, basically a spoiled princess that causes a lot of trouble and drives the plot in many cases, but is not necessarily up to no good all the time.All I know is that if a cryogenically-frozen dictator from the Eugenics Wars can be thawed out in the 23rd century, why not Buck Rogers in the 25th?
Captain who?
The use of stargates in the TV series is presented as utterly commonplace, so I just assumed humans built them somehow.
As for the reason that there is always a 'gate available for Buck (and everyone else) to use, they're probably just organized like interstate highways or subway tunnels - there's simply a lot of them, so there is likely to be one nearby wherever our heroes happen to be.
Howcome when Princess Ardala and her minions want to invade Earth, the Earth directorate can't just shut down the local stargate leading to Earth?
The World War II soldier who was frozen and thawed out a few years back, sounds like the plot of the Captain America movie I recently watched, after all, he can't join the Avengers unless he is brought into the present.
They don't believe in taking such Draconian measures.
You might want to look up "facetious" in the dictionary.
And how is that any different than cryonics? Specifically the cryonics where they freeze only the head. They're legally dead, just haven't decayed. Well, the ones with just a head don't have that much left to decay.
Reminds me of a TV movie I saw in the 80's, about a man who is frozen and later re-thawed. He is alive, but the reanimation has left him with no soul, and thus is completely ruthless and amoral...
Oh yeah... they made a movie about him. That one with Dick Purcell, right?
Well, in practice, I'd say no difference, because that kind of cryonics is basically snake oil, a way to get people to pay you a lot of money based on the promise that sometime in the far future, eventually, maybe, Science will invent a cure for death, somehow, we guess. It's more an article of faith than anything else. We have no way of knowing what might happen in the future.
In theory, however, I'd assume there's more careful preparation involved in cryonics, that maybe the freezing process is carefully controlled to minimize freezing damage to brain tissue or something; you don't just toss a head into a bucket of ice and hope for the best. Come on, it's just common sense that a mishap in the wilderness is not going to be guaranteed to have the same consistent results as a controlled, regulated medical procedure. The circumstances would have to be just right, and the odds would be against that.
It can be argued that every time someone beams down in a transporter, he is killed and then Resurrection when his molecules are reassembled. Being frozen requires the same thing, molecules being reassembled so they are living.
The transporter beam assumes there is no soul, as the technical descriptions don't include an soul storage device or a means to reattach the original soul to the newly reassembled body at the materialization point.
If your going to die anyway, you have nothing to lose. Freezing a person's body does preserve more information than simply burial or cremation does. Someone in the future might use the information of a frozen body to reassemble you, and not necessarily by thawing you out either. You get the information by slicing your frozen body into many different sections and then scanning each section to find cell placement and position, and try to reverse the process of ice crystalization to find the original non ruptured position of each cell, you enter it into a computer and you run a simulation of the human body with that information and supposedly it is you. I think thawing someone out might destroy more information than the freezing process did, so the option of scanning you might be preferable to thawing.
This point is discussed in the (very old) Star Trek novel Spock Must Die!
