But all those things were a day or more after Data copied his memories into B4. At the time he made the download he would have had no anticipation of his own death aboard the Simitar.
Data's "death"
- Thread starter Shat Happens
- Start date
...not sure I understand the "ethically wrong" thinking, but I really want to...can either of you please expound?...
In that case, good news everyone! Nemesis tanked pretty badly and the odds of more TNG prime universe ever existing are slim to none!
Nah, just one more Abrams-verse movie to go (explosions-people aimlessly running around-girls in their underwear) and then we're back to the prime universe.
Solid.
...not sure I understand the "ethically wrong" thinking, but I really want to...can either of you please expound?...
I'll certainly try.
Hm, I will first admit that "ethically wrong" is perhaps the wrong words, in terms of Data himself. Data holds no responsibility for his (allegedly) having overtaken B4's matrix, as it is (presumably) simply a 'happy accident' that he re-emerged in B4's body as presented in nearly all of the post-Nemesis Star Trek literature (as well as Star Trek Online).
My point is that the writers of the literature essentially made a call that was "ethically wrong" when they decided that the only possible outcome was for Data to come back to life.
As T'Girl says, Data had no forward knowledge of his death (unlike Spock) when he implanted his engrams into B4's neural net. The idea he had was apparently simply to 'kick start' B4's development, but that he and B4 would then co-exist (with B4 hopefully learning and developing his own personality unique to Data's). That Data co-incidentally died later in the same movie in my eyes doesn't change that, and certainly Data would never have intended to create a situation where his own code completely overwrites B4 and creates a replica Data.
A subplot removed from Nemesis and left on the cutting room floor was Data's disappointment with B4's continuing inability to grow and develop. A number of scenes exploring this were filmed, but dropped. That's why he performs the engram swap: he intends to help B4 along a little bit, but emphatically not to stop him from being whatever it is he turns out to be. This is also why Data gets so ROYALLY PISSED when B4 seems to betray them later in the movie, because in the context of those missing scenes, Data thinks the 'little push' he gave B4 earlier has led to another Lore.
As written (and indeed as filmed) the Data/B4 subplot was much more complex than it was eventually presented as in the final cut. Ultimately that was down to the director of Nemesis, Stuart Baird, who decided that he didn't like those scenes and so he cut nearly all of them out of the picture.
In the end it basically just comes down to my own personal opinion on the matter. I don't think Data would have ever intended for his personality to overwrite B4, and I do tend to hold the post-Nemesis pool of writers accountable for doing something morally dubious (in order to bring back Data) without really exploring the consequences of that. The trouble is really that everybody just goes 'Yay, Data's back!' without ever looking at the wider issue of how he came back, or what it means.
It bothers me how most people's complaint about Data's death is that he, supposedly, has a convenient Data 2.0 body waiting to be reactivated.
First of all, the movie played off Data's death so depressing, and knowing it will truly be the last TNG movie, for all intents and purposes, Data is dead.
The whole plot point about B4 conveniently becoming Data is not valid, since B4 is primitive compared to Data technological wise.
It's like trying to run Windows 8 on a Pentium 2. Even if it works, it's going to be dreadful to use.
So no, B4 is not a convenient cop-out for Data to come back, unless StarFleet cybernetics comes up with some radical tech to upgrade B4.
For all intents and purposes, Data is dead. Fuck you Paramount!
Do I believe Data was alive? Within the context of the show? yes he was. Even if he technically wasn't, the loss is still the same to all those who cared about him.
In Data's own words:
"As I experience certain sensory input patterns my mental pathways become accustomed to them. The inputs eventually are anticipated and even missed when absent."
First of all, the movie played off Data's death so depressing, and knowing it will truly be the last TNG movie, for all intents and purposes, Data is dead.
The whole plot point about B4 conveniently becoming Data is not valid, since B4 is primitive compared to Data technological wise.
It's like trying to run Windows 8 on a Pentium 2. Even if it works, it's going to be dreadful to use.
So no, B4 is not a convenient cop-out for Data to come back, unless StarFleet cybernetics comes up with some radical tech to upgrade B4.
For all intents and purposes, Data is dead. Fuck you Paramount!
Do I believe Data was alive? Within the context of the show? yes he was. Even if he technically wasn't, the loss is still the same to all those who cared about him.
In Data's own words:
"As I experience certain sensory input patterns my mental pathways become accustomed to them. The inputs eventually are anticipated and even missed when absent."
It bothers me how most people's complaint about Data's death is that he, supposedly, has a convenient Data 2.0 body waiting to be reactivated.
First of all, the movie played off Data's death so depressing, and knowing it will truly be the last TNG movie, for all intents and purposes, Data is dead.
The whole plot point about B4 conveniently becoming Data is not valid, since B4 is primitive compared to Data technological wise.
It's like trying to run Windows 8 on a Pentium 2. Even if it works, it's going to be dreadful to use.
So no, B4 is not a convenient cop-out for Data to come back, unless StarFleet cybernetics comes up with some radical tech to upgrade B4.
For all intents and purposes, Data is dead. Fuck you Paramount!
Do I believe Data was alive? Within the context of the show? yes he was. Even if he technically wasn't, the loss is still the same to all those who cared about him.
In Data's own words:
"As I experience certain sensory input patterns my mental pathways become accustomed to them. The inputs eventually are anticipated and even missed when absent."
My problem with Data's death was never that B4 was a copout 'resurrection vehicle'. It was that B4's entire existence seemed to be a hamhanded attempt to force a sudden, entirely artificial 'passing of the torch' just in order to placate the fans who would be pissed about the decision to kill off Data. It never really occurred to me that B4 could literally become Data, but it did seem clear that he owed his entire existence to the idea that the only way the could get away with killing Data was if they also provided an instant 'replacement' for him. That, to me, was incredibly cheapening to Data's entire character arc (certainly also his death, but not just that).
...not sure I understand the "ethically wrong" thinking, but I really want to...can either of you please expound?...
By ethically wrong, I mean when they resurrected Spock they effectively murdered his clone. Just liked they murdered Trip's clone in ENT.
Same if they 'resurrected' Data in B4's brain and body.
I think with Spock they inferred his clone had no mind of its own even though it walked and punch and experienced pon farr. Since I'm so glad I got Spock back I'm not going to look at that logic too closely.
With Data and B4, the Federation barely accepted Data as a sentient entity, same with LAL so I don't think that there's going to be any legal problems if they pop Datas engrams into B4.
Anyway I don't know how the comics resurrected Data, perhaps they found another unused body using the same method as in NEM. So maybe B4 didn't have to die to get Data back. They can technobabble any solution they want.
I know people are saying the resurrection of Spock and the proposed resurrection of Data 'cheapens' the impact of their deaths. I find I don't care. I'm glad they're back. They're two of Star Trek best characters.
Get rid of Paris or Chapel or Riker. I'm not going to complain if youdon't resurrect them.
Hmm. I always looked at it as being a case that B4 would simply become a new character. He would eventually have Data's knowledge and abilities, but none of his experiences. Back in '02, I could even see B4 later on as a newly-minted ensign in Starfleet requested on the Enterprise by Picard, who would ultimately discover that B4 isn't quite the same as Data.
...not sure I understand the "ethically wrong" thinking, but I really want to...can either of you please expound?...
I'll certainly try.
Hm, I will first admit that "ethically wrong" is perhaps the wrong words, in terms of Data himself. Data holds no responsibility for his (allegedly) having overtaken B4's matrix, as it is (presumably) simply a 'happy accident' that he re-emerged in B4's body as presented in nearly all of the post-Nemesis Star Trek literature (as well as Star Trek Online).
My point is that the writers of the literature essentially made a call that was "ethically wrong" when they decided that the only possible outcome was for Data to come back to life.
As T'Girl says, Data had no forward knowledge of his death (unlike Spock) when he implanted his engrams into B4's neural net. The idea he had was apparently simply to 'kick start' B4's development, but that he and B4 would then co-exist (with B4 hopefully learning and developing his own personality unique to Data's). That Data co-incidentally died later in the same movie in my eyes doesn't change that, and certainly Data would never have intended to create a situation where his own code completely overwrites B4 and creates a replica Data.
A subplot removed from Nemesis and left on the cutting room floor was Data's disappointment with B4's continuing inability to grow and develop. A number of scenes exploring this were filmed, but dropped. That's why he performs the engram swap: he intends to help B4 along a little bit, but emphatically not to stop him from being whatever it is he turns out to be. This is also why Data gets so ROYALLY PISSED when B4 seems to betray them later in the movie, because in the context of those missing scenes, Data thinks the 'little push' he gave B4 earlier has led to another Lore.
As written (and indeed as filmed) the Data/B4 subplot was much more complex than it was eventually presented as in the final cut. Ultimately that was down to the director of Nemesis, Stuart Baird, who decided that he didn't like those scenes and so he cut nearly all of them out of the picture.
In the end it basically just comes down to my own personal opinion on the matter. I don't think Data would have ever intended for his personality to overwrite B4, and I do tend to hold the post-Nemesis pool of writers accountable for doing something morally dubious (in order to bring back Data) without really exploring the consequences of that. The trouble is really that everybody just goes 'Yay, Data's back!' without ever looking at the wider issue of how he came back, or what it means.
...not sure I understand the "ethically wrong" thinking, but I really want to...can either of you please expound?...
By ethically wrong, I mean when they resurrected Spock they effectively murdered his clone. Just liked they murdered Trip's clone in ENT.
Same if they 'resurrected' Data in B4's brain and body.
I think with Spock they inferred his clone had no mind of its own even though it walked and punch and experienced pon farr. Since I'm so glad I got Spock back I'm not going to look at that logic too closely.
With Data and B4, the Federation barely accepted Data as a sentient entity, same with LAL so I don't think that there's going to be any legal problems if they pop Datas engrams into B4.
Anyway I don't know how the comics resurrected Data, perhaps they found another unused body using the same method as in NEM. So maybe B4 didn't have to die to get Data back. They can technobabble any solution they want.
I know people are saying the resurrection of Spock and the proposed resurrection of Data 'cheapens' the impact of their deaths. I find I don't care. I'm glad they're back. They're two of Star Trek best characters.
Get rid of Paris or Chapel or Riker. I'm not going to complain if youdon't resurrect them.
...thank you!!!!...this is what I needed to understand...
Every time Data plugged a fiber optic cable to his head to run a diagnostic, interface with the Borg or download a .dat file to B4 it was reinforced he was a machine.
He spent 7 seasons repeating like an automaton he wanted to develop emotions. Well, he didn't develop any: eventually a chip was installed and boing! emotions.
And, plausibly, he can be restored in B4's hardware. That plausibility is a point.
He spent 7 seasons repeating like an automaton he wanted to develop emotions. Well, he didn't develop any: eventually a chip was installed and boing! emotions.
And, plausibly, he can be restored in B4's hardware. That plausibility is a point.
Sometimes Data acted like a machine such as the episode where he had a girlfriend.
Otherwise Data learnt things, had friends, saved innocents, made a child. Just forget the emotion chip idiocy.
It bothers me how most people's complaint about Data's death is that he, supposedly, has a convenient Data 2.0 body waiting to be reactivated.
First of all, the movie played off Data's death so depressing, and knowing it will truly be the last TNG movie, for all intents and purposes, Data is dead.
The whole plot point about B4 conveniently becoming Data is not valid, since B4 is primitive compared to Data technological wise.
It's like trying to run Windows 8 on a Pentium 2. Even if it works, it's going to be dreadful to use.
So no, B4 is not a convenient cop-out for Data to come back, unless StarFleet cybernetics comes up with some radical tech to upgrade B4.
For all intents and purposes, Data is dead. Fuck you Paramount!
Do I believe Data was alive? Within the context of the show? yes he was. Even if he technically wasn't, the loss is still the same to all those who cared about him.
In Data's own words:
"As I experience certain sensory input patterns my mental pathways become accustomed to them. The inputs eventually are anticipated and even missed when absent."
My problem with Data's death was never that B4 was a copout 'resurrection vehicle'. It was that B4's entire existence seemed to be a hamhanded attempt to force a sudden, entirely artificial 'passing of the torch' just in order to placate the fans who would be pissed about the decision to kill off Data. It never really occurred to me that B4 could literally become Data, but it did seem clear that he owed his entire existence to the idea that the only way the could get away with killing Data was if they also provided an instant 'replacement' for him. That, to me, was incredibly cheapening to Data's entire character arc (certainly also his death, but not just that).
Yes I must agree, even though I personally hate the idea of Data re-emerging in B4's body and would have liked to have seen B4 develop as his own individual, I too always had the misgiving that he was basically just there as a carrot to the studio, in case Nemesis hadn't really ended TNG movies after all and they wanted to recall Spiner back for another sequel. It's a cynical viewpoint to take, but sadly I think its a very accurate one.
I suppose on the plus side though if that had happened that way, then Spiner would at least have had the added benefit of being able to play a different character again (his boredom with playing Data was by this point obvious for all to see).
It's a complicated question. Data was ruled a lifeform. Well, tomatoes were ruled vegetables by the U.S. Supreme Court for marketing reasons, but that doesn't change what they are. Ruling Data a lifeform provided him all the protections of a sentient being. That's fine. Even deserved. But as even he would admit, he was still an android.
If Data is a lifeform, so are Lor and B4. That would make trying to modify or improve them genetic engineering. Hell, even giving Data his emotion chip would be genetic engineering. The Federation frowns on that, yet they "played" with the software of these characters all the time. Data even tried to improve the "inferior" B4.
If Data is a lifeform, so are Lor and B4. That would make trying to modify or improve them genetic engineering. Hell, even giving Data his emotion chip would be genetic engineering. The Federation frowns on that, yet they "played" with the software of these characters all the time. Data even tried to improve the "inferior" B4.
That Data is a (sapiant) lifeform doesn't automatically mean B4 is one as well.
The EMH doctor is sapiant, but that doesn't mean all holograms are.
That Data is a (sapiant) lifeform doesn't automatically mean B4 is one as well.
The EMH doctor is sapiant, but that doesn't mean all holograms are.
But they are the same beings of just differing abilities. "Flaws" in one doesn't make him any less a being than one that is "better wired." That's the problem you get into. B4 is not a lifeform because he's not as "advanced" or as "smart" as Data? Sounds almost like Eugenics to me. If one is, all three are. Therefore, messing around with any of their elements, or creating a threshold by which one is a lifeform and the other isn't smacks of genetic engineering.
I got the feeling that B4 was not advanced enough to be sapient. That was the line that needed to be crossed in deturmaine if Data was a lifeform or just a walking computer. Was the computer of the Enterprise a lifeform? It is just about as advanced as B4. The rights given to Data and Lal were because there were sapient. A dog is also not sapient, though a lifeform, but the computer of the Enterprise is generally considered to be much smarter than a dog, yet it is not a lifeform.
Dont talk shit about dogs. My dog is smarter than Data. He learned several new tricks in 7 years. Data didn't learn shit.
