Question regarding Data

[ireactions]

We now know that the Trek writers/editors are willing in certain cases to push the retcon button on badly done deaths. It isn't unthinkable at this point. That makes it a bit frustrating for those of us who would like to see Data return. It is especially frustrating when you consider that Data is far more important, beloved and 'known' character than Trip ever will be. We're sort of left with this arbitrary 'well Trip can come back, but nobody else should now' idea.. As for how he could return, I'm sure you, KRAD, David Mack, etc. could come up with an awesome and credible way for it to be done. Seriously, this is the Trekverse. Anything can happen as long as it is written well people will accept it.

What exactly would be the *point* of resurrecting Data, however? What new Data stories are there to tell that couldn't simply be set before "Nemesis"?

Is there any reason for this desire to bring Data back beyond thumbing one's nose at "Nemesis"?

- Ibrahim Ng

 

[Christopher]

The thing is though, his death still stunk. I think most of us agree on that.

You know what? All death stinks. I've lost people, not in fiction but in reality. Death sucks and it's ugly and it's pointless and it's stupid and it's random. If a fictional death leaves you feeling frustrated and angry at the wrongness and unfairness of it, then if you ask me, that's simply being authentic. And in real life we don't get to reverse it. We have to live with it and move on, no matter how pointless it was.

I disagree with you about Trip, I still think his death and resurrection were badly handled. But the thing is, Trip DID come back to life.

His death was very badly handled, but it was also handled in such a way that left the door wide open for resurrection. That makes it one of the valid exceptions to the rule. As I said, it was like Sherlock Holmes's death. Conan Doyle meant that death to be permanent, since he was sick of the character, but he wrote the story so that Holmes's death was not witnessed, only inferred from his final letter and his disappearance, and no body was ever found. So despite himself, he wrote the story in a way that essentially left out the actual death, and that meant there was no real resurrection anyway, just a reinterpretation. And that's what happened with Trip. We technically never saw him die; we, Riker, and Troi just inferred it from secondhand information. So technically there was no death to reverse, just a secondhand account to reinterpret.

Trek fiction has opened the doors for re-writing badly done onscreen deaths. The genie is out of the bottle.

Not every situation is equivalent. Trip is an exception for the reasons explained above.

And genie schmeenie. Just because something was done in a specific case doesn't mean it should be made a habit of. Resurrection is already the most hackneyed plot device in all of SF/fantasy. It should be used judiciously when it's used at all. It absolutely should not be seen as the default option.

It is especially frustrating when you consider that Data is far more important, beloved and 'known' character than Trip ever will be. We're sort of left with this arbitrary 'well Trip can come back, but nobody else should now' idea.

It's rather insulting to call it "arbitrary" when we've just been giving you detailed explanations for why the decision was made. You're basically saying that either we're lying to justify a random decision or you're just not bothering to listen to what we're saying because you'd rather dismiss our decisions out of hand as being worthless. If that's the attitude you're going to take, there's no point in even trying to have this conversation.

 

[Trent Roman]

It's rather insulting to call it "arbitrary" when we've just been giving you detailed explanations for why the decision was made. You're basically saying that either we're lying to justify a random decision or you're just not bothering to listen to what we're saying because you'd rather dismiss our decisions out of hand as being worthless. If that's the attitude you're going to take, there's no point in even trying to have this conversation.

Ditch the outrage, yeah? First of all, who is "we"? You're the only one who has been arguing the other side of this so far. Second, if destro feels the decision is arbitrary, then it's probably because he finds your stated reasons unconvincing--as do I. It's a science-fiction universe; I can think of a half a dozen in-universe ways to bring Data back which would be more believable that Tucker's resurrection simply by being simple, instead of the convoluted house of cards that was The Good That Men Do. If the explanations given here satisfy you fully, then hurrah. But not everybody shares your perspective, and that's not a crime.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Christopher]

^^Look up "arbitrary" in the dictionary, Trent. It means "done without thought or reason." It should be clear from the extensive posts above (and maybe it was just me making the case here, but I know from past threads on this same subject that other authors are in agreement) that we have plenty of reasons, and that I've put a lot of thought into presenting those reasons in depth. It's one thing to disagree with those reasons, but it's something totally different to deny the very existence of those reasons or the thought that went into them. That's not refuting a position, it's simply dismissing it out of hand.

And yes, it is insulting to say that the decisions of the writers and editors are arbitrary, that they were made on a whim or impulse without any thought being applied. Saying you disagree with those reasons and presenting your own reasons to the contrary -- that's meaningful discussion. Saying that someone's choice was mindless or random just because it wasn't the choice you would've made -- that's ad hominem attack.

 

[Ben]

While I certainly understand all the reasons against bringing Data back, I do feel like the post-Nemesis books are really missing something without him. And yeah, I know emotionally I SHOULD miss something because Data's awesome and his absence should be felt. But I still feel like the books would be better if Data was there. Maybe we need a new Data-like character.

Personally, I would like to see something done with B-4 in the Enterprise novels. I agree that he cannot just become Data. But it would be interesting to see him join the crew and go through struggles that Data did, but in a different way.

Eh, I'm rambling.

To give you an analogy, these books without Data is kind of like when DC Comics put out a comic book series about the police force in Gotham City. But Commissioner Gordon wasn't in it because he'd retired. The series lasted a few years and was then cancelled from low sales. It was a good comic, but it could've been a million times better with Gordon.

 

[Trent Roman]

From Dictionary.com: Arbitrary: 1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion.

^ That's the definition I'm thinking of; if you define arbitrarily differently, then that's where we're talking at cross-purposes. The editorial staff, as we've seen, have a broad range of freedom to make the decisions of whether to keep or kill a character; I know it has to be approved by licensing as well, but beyond that stipulate, it would seem there is a wide range of discretionary powers when it comes to such decisions. In your (collective) judgment, the respective situations of Tucker and Data are sufficiently differentiated as to not be comparable, and not merit similar approaches. As I've said, I don't agree with that premise; given the rules of the universe there is no particular reason to favour the plausibility of one over the other, no real restrictions at play. Now, I know why I would rather see Data than Tucker alive: I like the character of Data, and find Tucker an incredible bore. That's arbitrary, and I readily recognize that; although I'd be perfectly willing to debate the merits of the respective characters, it boils down to individual taste and judgment. So from the perspective of someone who doesn't agree with the premise that the two situations are radically different and must be responded to as such, the decision to "resurrect" Tucker and not resurrect Data, the choice also seems like it boils down to individual judgment. Again, if you feel that you are actually confined by logical premises not to act in a certain fashion, so be it. But not everybody will agree.

EDIT: Of course, there's no reason why it should be either/or, and I shouldn't frame it as though it was a choice between the two characters. It's a comparison, which only works if one believes the situations are comparable.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Steve Roby]

We never saw Trip getting killed, we saw a 24th century holodeck scenario playing out. No resurrection there. Regardless of Braga and Berman's intentions, they didn't show us Trip's death.

As for Data, I think killing him off in Nemesis was a combination of two problems: Spiner's input (who cares if Data's aging because Spiner's aging? The show already addressed that, and there were other ways around it), and the attempt at creating another Wrath of Khan, which required a character to be sacrificed. It was unnecessary and stupid.

Introducing B4 was even more unnecessary and stupid, because on the one hand it was the equivalent of Spock's casket torpedo landing on the Genesis Planet (there's hope!) but on the other it's made completely clear in the story itself that B4 cannot be the new Data. B4 was also part of one of the most silly and convoluted schemes to get the Enterprise that we've ever seen, and as far as I can tell B4 served only one purpose: to make Stewart and Spiner happy. Stewart gets a really dumb action sequence, and Spiner gets to be the Forrest Gump of androids in addition to his usual character.

So I agree with everyone who says Data's death was stupid and unnecessary. But it happened and the movie didn't leave any openings to undo it. Everything that made Data who he was got vaporized. There's no katra and no Genesis Planet, because the movie made it clear that B4 just isn't up to the job. Data is gone.

Consequently I also agree that if some story brings Data back in some farfetched way, it has to be justified by a lot more than "gee, I miss Data." The story has moved on. The old 1701-D gang isn't still having adventures together, they've split up and gone in different directions. There's no going back, and Data's death is just one part of the changed status quo.

 

[JoeZhang]

because the movie made it clear that B4 just isn't up to the job. Data is gone.

But it does not make it clear - that last scene with Picard and B4 is clearly meant to be "hey when we said this guy couldn't be data - well if this film makes enough cash!.."

 

[Mike Winters]

because the movie made it clear that B4 just isn't up to the job. Data is gone.

But it does not make it clear - that last scene with Picard and B4 is clearly meant to be "hey when we said this guy couldn't be data - well if this film makes enough cash!.."

I have never really viewed that scene in that regard. Yes, I have at times, also taken the view that maybe he could come back through B4. But I viewed that last scene, and Picard's smile as more of a realization that Data was not truly gone, as long as he was remembered. Data could live on through the downloaded memories in B4. This is the same as Renee & Robert living on in Picard's memory from the family album...

Mike

 

[Christopher]

because the movie made it clear that B4 just isn't up to the job. Data is gone.

But it does not make it clear - that last scene with Picard and B4 is clearly meant to be "hey when we said this guy couldn't be data - well if this film makes enough cash!.."

But that's what Steve's saying -- that the movie itself gives mixed messages. It's clear that the filmmakers' intent was to leave the door open a crack for bringing back Data, but everything else that the film established about B-4 -- his crudeness, his inability to grow -- made it clear that, in-universe, B-4 himself is incapable of becoming Data no matter what the filmmakers intended to suggest. The way they established the character undermined their own intentions for the character's potential. So there's just no way to make B-4 into Data without retconning everything the film went to so much trouble to establish about him.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Consequently I also agree that if some story brings Data back in some farfetched way

"Hey, we need Data to solve this problem; damn shame he's dead."
"Yeah... Here, hang on a minute, why don't we just pull off a slingshot around the sun, pop back to Stardate 56844, and grab him?"
"Good plan! Why didn't I think of that?"

 

[Steve Roby]

Consequently I also agree that if some story brings Data back in some farfetched way

"Hey, we need Data to solve this problem; damn shame he's dead."
"Yeah... Here, hang on a minute, why don't we just pull off a slingshot around the sun, pop back to Stardate 56844, and grab him?"
"Good plan! Why didn't I think of that?"

"And while we're at it, let's go back and prevent Picard's family from dying in the fire! And hey, let's go save Jack Crusher so Wesley can grow up with his dad! (Sorry, Jean-Luc, no Beverly for you.) And we could save Tasha from that oil slick guy!"
"Yeah, we could save a whole lot of people! And with time travel, we could do it and be back on patrol in this sector the second after we left!"
"But what about the Temporal Prime Directive?"
"Easy! We go back in time and prevent it from being passed!"
"Brilliant!"

 

[Lonemagpie]

Consequently I also agree that if some story brings Data back in some farfetched way

"Hey, we need Data to solve this problem; damn shame he's dead."
"Yeah... Here, hang on a minute, why don't we just pull off a slingshot around the sun, pop back to Stardate 56844, and grab him?"
"Good plan! Why didn't I think of that?"

"And while we're at it, let's go back and prevent Picard's family from dying in the fire! And hey, let's go save Jack Crusher so Wesley can grow up with his dad! (Sorry, Jean-Luc, no Beverly for you.) And we could save Tasha from that oil slick guy!"
"Yeah, we could save a whole lot of people! And with time travel, we could do it and be back on patrol in this sector the second after we left!"
"But what about the Temporal Prime Directive?"
"Easy! We go back in time and prevent it from being passed!"
"Brilliant!"

"Hey, we'd be royally screwed if , say, a rogue Romulan thought of trying this stuff."
"Nah, they'd never think of it..."

 

[JoeZhang]

Consequently I also agree that if some story brings Data back in some farfetched way

"Hey, we need Data to solve this problem; damn shame he's dead."
"Yeah... Here, hang on a minute, why don't we just pull off a slingshot around the sun, pop back to Stardate 56844, and grab him?"
"Good plan! Why didn't I think of that?"

"And while we're at it, let's go back and prevent Picard's family from dying in the fire! And hey, let's go save Jack Crusher so Wesley can grow up with his dad! (Sorry, Jean-Luc, no Beverly for you.) And we could save Tasha from that oil slick guy!"
"Yeah, we could save a whole lot of people! And with time travel, we could do it and be back on patrol in this sector the second after we left!"
"But what about the Temporal Prime Directive?"
"Easy! We go back in time and prevent it from being passed!"
"Brilliant!"

Did any of the books every discuss the aftermath of TVH? Surely the method of the fix must have been covered up or every tom, dick and harry would be trying to slingshot around the sun?

 

[JoeZhang]

The thing is though, his death still stunk. I think most of us agree on that.

You know what? All death stinks. I've lost people, not in fiction but in reality. Death sucks and it's ugly and it's pointless and it's stupid and it's random. If a fictional death leaves you feeling frustrated and angry at the wrongness and unfairness of it, then if you ask me, that's simply being authentic. And in real life we don't get to reverse it. We have to live with it and move on, no matter how pointless it was.

That doesn't work as an analogue - this is fiction - if something sucks, you get someone to write a better story!

 

[Claudia]

"Hey, we need Data to solve this problem; damn shame he's dead."
"Yeah... Here, hang on a minute, why don't we just pull off a slingshot around the sun, pop back to Stardate 56844, and grab him?"
"Good plan! Why didn't I think of that?"

"And while we're at it, let's go back and prevent Picard's family from dying in the fire! And hey, let's go save Jack Crusher so Wesley can grow up with his dad! (Sorry, Jean-Luc, no Beverly for you.) And we could save Tasha from that oil slick guy!"
"Yeah, we could save a whole lot of people! And with time travel, we could do it and be back on patrol in this sector the second after we left!"
"But what about the Temporal Prime Directive?"
"Easy! We go back in time and prevent it from being passed!"
"Brilliant!"

But why not add a little soap-operish love triangle and have Jack Crusher and Picard fight over Beverly? And if they go far enough back, we could even add a much overused line:

Picard to Wesley: "I AM your father."

 

[Trent Roman]

But that's what Steve's saying -- that the movie itself gives mixed messages. It's clear that the filmmakers' intent was to leave the door open a crack for bringing back Data, but everything else that the film established about B-4 -- his crudeness, his inability to grow -- made it clear that, in-universe, B-4 himself is incapable of becoming Data no matter what the filmmakers intended to suggest. The way they established the character undermined their own intentions for the character's potential. So there's just no way to make B-4 into Data without retconning everything the film went to so much trouble to establish about him.

Call me a cynic, but I honestly don't think--had there been another film--that the writers/producers/whoever is in charge of this stuff would have been particularly bothered by their own precedent. B4's neural net is primitive? Artificial cognitive leap thanks to some technobabblon solution, courtesy of LaForge et al. And for the memory =/ personality thing already established with Data, I doubt they would have even bothered addressing the issue, any more than they bothered addressing the emotion chip or Worf being back with the crew or Wesley returned from his Traveling days. Such logical flaws bother us, and the writers are in a position to essentially force the film to follow-through on its premises, but if there had been another TNG film and Spiner wanted in, I don't doubt would have glossed over the issue as they remained blissfully ignorant of other logical flaws in the film.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Astraea]

"Hey, we need Data to solve this problem; damn shame he's dead."
"Yeah... Here, hang on a minute, why don't we just pull off a slingshot around the sun, pop back to Stardate 56844, and grab him?"
"Good plan! Why didn't I think of that?"

"And while we're at it, let's go back and prevent Picard's family from dying in the fire! And hey, let's go save Jack Crusher so Wesley can grow up with his dad! (Sorry, Jean-Luc, no Beverly for you.) And we could save Tasha from that oil slick guy!"
"Yeah, we could save a whole lot of people! And with time travel, we could do it and be back on patrol in this sector the second after we left!"
"But what about the Temporal Prime Directive?"
"Easy! We go back in time and prevent it from being passed!"
"Brilliant!"

Did any of the books every discuss the aftermath of TVH? Surely the method of the fix must have been covered up or every tom, dick and harry would be trying to slingshot around the sun?

The method apparently wasn't covered up, because Capt. Calhoun and Company use it in the NF comic "Double Time." Some of the issues involving use of the slingshot are addressed within - one of which is the problem of trying to return precisely after leaving. Hopefully, that's not too spoilery.

 

[The Grim Ghost]

Christopher, just wanted to say that I wasn't trying to come off as a dick or be insulting. Just stating the way I feel about the situation. I am not ignoring your arguments, I thought I was just responding to them.. Obviously we disagree, no harm no foul.

 

[tranya]

Well, it certainly doesn't seem an arbitrary decision, but it doesn't seem a terribly convincing rationale. Clearly, a door was left open for this very thing in the final scene of the film and to deny that it's even plausible to bring Data back seems seriously odd. Were you watching the same ripoff of TWOK I was?

IMHO, the key thing that would preclude the writers from resurrected Data is that it seems like they're having fun with the post-Nemesis universe without Data, and the key thing with Trip's resurrection is that the authors seem like they're having fun with a post-Enterprise universe with Trip. But, to claim that there's something in the source material that makes it more justifiable? Oh, please -- I agree that Trip's death was ridiculously awful, but I also quite liked Sisko's end in "What You Leave Behind..." but the novels have brought him back too, I gather.

I know I wouldn't buy a new Enterprise book if Trip wasn't in it, and I wouldn't buy a new TNG novel without Data. So, I guess I'll be buying Enterprise relaunch titles then, eh?