Endgame's End

[Charles Trip Tucker III]

One thread for "Endgame" is plenty.

Spoiler: Star Trek: Nemesis

I didn't think Data's death was cheapened by B4 at all. B4 is Data's brother, he will never be Data 2.0. Saying B4 cheapens Data's death is like saying your twin brother cheapened your death by being given all your journals.

I do see your point about Seven's death being cheapened if future Seven showed up a few minutes later. Maybe it would be best that if she died... to leave her dead. It's not like they were planning on making a movie.

 

[Computer]

No i meant a Star Trek one liner thread in general. like how would you rewrite the line: (Example)

Captain Janeway: "Thanks for your help admiral Janeway"

I actually really liked EndGame but that line made me gag.

I see your point about Data I suppose there are several factors in Nemesis that cheapened his death for me personally. (lol we will save that for the Movies forum)

I figured on the same reasoning though, no movie or future means anyone can die.

7 is the only other one that would have an emotional story as it relates to the borg plot.
Chakotay delivering the pathagen just doesnt have the same pazazz as 7.

 

[Charles Trip Tucker III]

Agreed, with the finale dealing with the Borg, Seven would be the logical choice to kill off. I remember the final episodes TV commercials where one of the tag lines was that, "Some legends die young," or something like that. They basically said someone was going to die in the finale. I wonder why they backed out of killing Seven? If she were to die, how exactly where they going to go about it?

I've always enjoyed reading trivia/interviews that reveal what the writer almost did with the episode.

 

[exodus]

I think Tom Paris should have died.

He's the one character almost everybody liked and he always wanted to play the part of the hero.

 

[Computer]

exodus said:
I think Tom Paris should have died.

He's the one character almost everybody liked and he always wanted to play the part of the hero.

True but Tom doesnt have the same personal stake in the Borg as 7 or Janeway would.

 

[exodus]

Computer said:

exodus said:
I think Tom Paris should have died.

He's the one character almost everybody liked and he always wanted to play the part of the hero.

True but Tom doesnt have the same personal stake in the Borg as 7 or Janeway would.

True, but being it's the last ep., my line of thinking would focus more on the Voyager crew than the Borg.

Let me explain my end scenario.

I was thinking along the lines of fate. meaning that even if Admiral Janeway came back to save the lives of Seven and also that of future Chakotay, someone no matter what would have to die to keep balance. No matter how many times she went back in time, fate would determine someone would have to die for Voyager to get home. Tom being the hero, would sacrifice himself with the Flyer to hold off the Borg Sphere so Voyager could get home.

 

[KitchenWitch]

^

Killing off Seven in the finale is saying that there is no redemption for her life short of death. No second chances, no becoming human again. That in spite of all the hard work that Janeway put into her, she failed.

What a negative view! And absolutely the opposite of what Trek has always been about.

 

[exodus]

KitchenWitch said:
^

Killing off Seven in the finale is saying that there is no redemption for her life short of death. No second chances, no becoming human again. That in spite of all the hard work that Janeway put into her, she failed.

What a negative view! And absolutely the opposite of what Trek has always been about.

I agree partly, I don't see it as Janeway failed but more as she and Seven put in all this hard work to give her back her humanity for nothing, especially even by the end of Voyager those lessons weren't completely finished.

Plus, killing Seven and Data in "Nemesis" is redundant.

 

[Charles Trip Tucker III]

Exodus, I don't like the concept fate, so that would have been really lame.

KitchenWitch, I'd rather look at it as Seven's redemption being the reason for her self sacrifice.

 

[exodus]

Charles Trip Tucker III said:
Exodus, I don't like the concept fate, so that would have been really lame.

KitchenWitch, I'd rather look at it as Seven's redemption being the reason for her self sacrifice.

Well, who asked you!

I'm just kidding.

why do you find the concept of fate lame? I just would like your opinion of why.

 

[KitchenWitch]

exodus said:
I don't see it as Janeway failed but more as she and Seven put in all this hard work to give her back her humanity for nothing, especially even by the end of Voyager those lessons weren't completely finished.

I meant that Seven failed to become perfectly human, in spite of all of Janeway's efforts. That Seven failed Janeway, not the other way around.

and the thing is, she would never be *perfectly* human, because neither are we. Are any of your (general you here) lessons finished? That's the *entire* point of Seven's arc--she is not that different from the rest of us, because we all continue to learn and grow into our humanity over the course of a lifetime.

But, in a franchise devoted to IDIC, there are an awful lot of women (mostly) who would love to have seen Seven blow up in itty bits. Because, according to them, she wore a catsuit, she "stole" Chakotay, she doesn't *deserve* anything else.

Why else would it be the same people who always argue that Seven appealed only to the LCD, that the catsuit singlehandedly set women's rights back centuries, that Jeri is a lousy role model even though she's a successful working actress, mother and business owner who seems capable of juggling her many responsibilities without complaint, and that C/7 was an insult to their loyalties as fans and to "real women" (whatever that means)--why is it the same people who applauded "Die Seven Die" (a particular low point in Star Trek fanfic well-loved by J/Cers with a grudge) who are promoting that the *only* reasonable end for Seven is in death?

Just askin'...

 

[Charles Trip Tucker III]

I believe in free will, chaos, and God's great plan for the universe. In the context of Voyager, one could say God wouldn't let Janeway go back in time and screw with the past. Alternatively, one could say God only allowed that future to exist so that Admiral Janeway could go back in time and alter the past so the new timeline would have been the timeline that was intended to be. Another way to look at it is that if Seven sacrificed her self to save Voyager, it is not necessarilly necessary for someone to sacrifice themself to save the ship. It's entirely possible that Seven was the only necessary sacrifice and that if they found another way... then she wouldn't have to die.

To say someone would have had to die just doesn't add up to me. Why? Why would someone have had to die? Because of fate? That's not an explanation.

 

[exodus]

Charles Trip Tucker III said:
I believe in free will, chaos, and God's great plan for the universe. In the context of Voyager, one could say God wouldn't let Janeway go back in time and screw with the past. Alternatively, one could say God only allowed that future to exist so that Admiral Janeway could go back in time and alter the past so the new timeline would have been the timeline that was intended to be. Another way to look at it is that if Seven sacrificed her self to save Voyager, it is not necessarilly necessary for someone to sacrifice themself to save the ship. It's entirely possible that Seven was the only necessary sacrifice and that if they found another way... then she wouldn't have to die.

To say someone would have had to die just doesn't add up to me. Why? Why would someone have had to die? Because of fate? That's not an explanation.

It's hard to explain in just words but I'll try.

I believe the universe, nature or what have you works on a rhythm of balance. Call it Karma, call it the Chaos Theory, the Butterfly Effect or whatever have you. So if certain things go against the natural order, the universe or nature itself has to make up for that divergence. So I see that by Adm. Janeway changing what would have been the natural order of events and bring Voyager home early, something else was affected by that. So I find it a great scenario that no matter what Adm. Janeway does, she can never win. Everything had to happen for a reason.

Just like "Year of Hell" had to happen. By the end, Janeway didn't stop it but rather only delayed it.

 

[Charles Trip Tucker III]

exodus said:
It's hard to explain in just words but I'll try.

I believe the universe, nature or what have you works on a rhythm of balance. Call it Karma, call it the Chaos Theory, the Butterfly Effect or whatever have you. So if certain things go against the natural order, the universe or nature itself has to make up for that divergence. So I see that by Adm. Janeway changing what would have been the natural order of events and bring Voyager home early, something else was affected by that. So I find it a great scenario that no matter what Adm. Janeway does, she can never win. Everything had to happen for a reason.

I believe in chaos theory and the butterfly effect. I do not believe in fate, karma, nor nature/the universe being alive. When Janeway changed the past, it would be impossible to know the ultimate outcome. Some things still come to pass like Voyager's return to Earth and Janeway's promotion to Admiral. However, Seven won't die on that away mission and Tuvok won't go nuts. It's possible that in this new timeline, The Doctor never gets the freedom he had in the other future. Miral might never join Starfleet. Chakotay and Seven could break up. Harry might be on a starship that is lost with all hands long before he would have made Captain. There's just no way to know. That's the nature of chaos theory.

Just like "Year of Hell" had to happen. By the end, Janeway didn't stop it but rather only delayed it.

It wasn't delayed, Janeway erased the year of he**.

 

[exodus]

^^But we saw Annorax at the end working on his temporal theory, which implied it could still happen but at a later time.

 

[KitchenWitch]

^ Time isn't linear.

That was Annorax back 200 years ago when he first started out. The implication was that the events leading to deploying the Krenim weapon never occurred.

 

[exodus]

KitchenWitch said:
^ Time isn't linear.

That was Annorax back 200 years ago when he first started out. The implication was that the events leading to deploying the Krenim weapon never occurred.

According to DS9, it is.

 

[Computer]

KitchenWitch said:
^

Killing off Seven in the finale is saying that there is no redemption for her life short of death. No second chances, no becoming human again. That in spite of all the hard work that Janeway put into her, she failed.

What a negative view! And absolutely the opposite of what Trek has always been about.

How is it negative? Trip Tucker III and I discussed the scenario on page 2.

I even wrote my vision of the death scene.

Theres nothing more in tune to humanity than 7 CHOOSING to sacrafice herself to save her crew.

 

[KitchenWitch]

^ As I said in the post...

It says that the only way she can achieve humanity is by sacrificing herself.

Sorry, don't buy it. No one needed to die in the finale.

 

[Computer]

^^ Thats what it means to you maybe which is a very negative view and the exact opposite of what Trek has always been about.