Question regarding Data

[Trent Roman]

By the way, please pardon the double post but I want to be clear about this particular point -- I find Christopher's argument here to be completely reasonable, and is what I was looking for from the beginning. Bringing a character back from the dead is a lazy path to take when dealing with death in fiction, and, I suggest to Christopher that this is the real rationale for why Data should not be brought back.

I'm of a different opinion: dead characters are easy to write for, because they do nothing. It's living characters that are challenging. Leaving Data dead indefinately is boring; it's a net loss to the fictional universe, with no evident compensation in terms of storylines, etc.

In some ways, it doesn't help that Data's death has had so little effect. We've had a few scenes of Picard musing on loss or LaForge trying to get used to not having his friend around, but otherwise Data's death has been regrettably inconsequential. I think of Chewbecca, for instance. Chewie had a great death, very spectacular, but more to the point, his death affected those around him deeply and propelled many of the subsequent character arcs. Han Solo's boozy spiral into self-destruction, the near collapse of his marriage and his attempts to find himself again; or Anakin's sense of guilt and estrangement from his family, and what came from his need to prove himself as a result; and how all of it tied into the greater galactic events. Chewbacca's death had lasting results, and it took half the NJO to repair the damage, or rather find a way to live with it. Now, I certainly don't expect the sometimes stolid TNG cast to react in such a melodramatic fashion, but it would have been nice to have Data's absence felt more strongly. I suppose part of the problem is that, other than the Picard/Crusher-'ship-centric Death in Winter, we just straightaway went into the Borg arc, with only Q&A really providing the opportunity to pause and feel the (rather mild) grief.

All of the nonsense about it being implausible or hard to do narratively is just disingenuous. It's clearly quite easy to do, and that's what I was having difficulty with understanding, as it seemed to be dodging the issue.

It is, rather, justification; and it's bad justification for being so obviously paper-thin in a fictional universe full of possibilities like Star Trek is. Rather, Data is dead because so far nobody has developed a good enough motive and method for his return. Which is fine; I certainly prefer a good story to a rushed one, which I feel was the case with the mind-boggling contrivances used to bring Tucker 'back'.

*raises hand*

Me, that was me. Over here, me!

Really? Mind if I ask what was your reasoning?

Yikes, I'm more than a little confused as to why Christopher is getting so angry,

Sometimes intransigence is mistaken for a solid debate platform. It's a shame because there's no need, either for this 'line in the sand' attitude towards Data or taking umbrage when we're just trying to work through the reasoning.

Hm, but who's the judge of what's deemed "nonsensical" and "in demand of reinterpretation"?

(...)

I regret Data's death primarily because of the myriad stories that still could have been told, like his first real command etc. And I would have loved to read these stories. On the other hand, I find it quite interesting that the reset button on his emotion chip wasn't actually addressed in TrekLit. Which would be quite an interesting character story that could yet be told. Or was it perhaps in the ATT-series?!?

It was, indeed, in the first two books of the A Time To... series. But yes, I quite agree with both the point that what appears to need reinterpreting is a judgment value, not some ironclad law of physics (I never thought Janeway needed the reinterpretation of String Theory 3, for instance, and could have done with far less when it came to Tucker), and that Data had tons of potential as a character that could have been taken in any number of directions; just because Data's own goal was to move through the echelons doesn't mean that's what needed to happen, or would happen should there be a resurrection. Indeed, I would hope it woulnd't. Sisko, returnee, is a different person in a quite different position and following different arcs than he was on the series; likewise for Tucker, who has been 'brought back to life' (though I agree we never really saw him die in the first place), but can never go home again, so to speak. If and when Data returns to the literary universe, I would hope for a similar deep and affecting change in character and circumstances. Maybe Data's resurrection could give us the storyline impact that his death has thus far failed to deliver on.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Claudia]

Or what about Maddox, by the way?!? he should have made quite some progress on his research into positronics in the meantime...

Maddox was also seen in Articles of the Federation arguing against the dismantling of B-4 by the Daystrom Institute, because he had the potential for sentience. The EMH from Voyager was one of his witnesses.

Interesting - must be in the section I didn't get to yet. *g* But Destiny somehow sneaked its way into my reading pile...

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Really? Mind if I ask what was your reasoning?

Sure. I was never convinced that Kas' vision in "What You Leave Behind" was anything more than wish-fulfillment on her part. That's the basic reason. Here, these are vintage quotes from posts I made at Psi Phi in late 2002, about the time Unity's cover became public as to what Sisko's presence on the cover meant:

The problem I have with returning Sisko is that I think it short-circuits the emotional arc Jake and Kasidy are on, and the clearest contrast of their emotional state can be found in Joseph Sisko in Lesser Evil, while the feeling I have of Jake in Avatar and Kasidy in Mission: Gamma is that they think Ben has gone away over the hill somewhere and he'll return imminently. Joseph, on the other hand, believes his son is dead, and he has no reason to think otherwise. How does anyone really know that Sisko is "with the Prophets" in anything more than a metaphorical sense? Cannot we interpret Kasidy's vision in "What You Leave Behind" as mere wish-fulfillment? And why Kasidy? Why not Jake? Isn't Jake's disappearance into the wormhole in Avatar symptomatic of his inability to cope with his father's death? If Sisko returns in Unity, will that not in some fashion destroy any emotional growth Jake achieves in Rising Son (assuming he does )?

And from a follow-up...

And even supposing that Sisko's soul/spirit/katra/pagh/whathaveyou exists with the Prophets in anything more than a metaphorical sense, why assume that Sisko could manifest his presence as anything more than a disembodied spirit? Why assume that the Prophets can recreate a body that was destroyed in the Fire Caves?

By the way. Given that I thought Sisko was deader than Marley's Ghost, what did I think the cover meant? Well...

At the risk of sounding psychotic Sisko can be at the center of the story without ever appearing -- witness "Waiting for Godot."

Now, for something you said about Data's death...

In some ways, it doesn't help that Data's death has had so little effect. We've had a few scenes of Picard musing on loss or LaForge trying to get used to not having his friend around, but otherwise Data's death has been regrettably inconsequential.

Have you read Lost Souls yet? There are two moments where Data is cited, and Data's death aboard Shinzon's ship is an important point in a late scene.

 

[tranya]

By the way, please pardon the double post but I want to be clear about this particular point -- I find Christopher's argument here to be completely reasonable, and is what I was looking for from the beginning. Bringing a character back from the dead is a lazy path to take when dealing with death in fiction, and, I suggest to Christopher that this is the real rationale for why Data should not be brought back.

I'm of a different opinion: dead characters are easy to write for, because they do nothing. It's living characters that are challenging. Leaving Data dead indefinately is boring; it's a net loss to the fictional universe, with no evident compensation in terms of storylines, etc.

Yeah, I suppose I can buy this to some extent -- your description of the lack of impact his death has had in the TNG novels surprises me, as I was under the impression from this thread that Data's absence has been quite consequential (the main reason why he's stayed dead). I haven't read a single post-TNG novel, so I can't comment on whether or not this has been executed well, just acknowledging that you're certainly right that failing to capitalize on Data's death with other characters seems like an enormous missed opportunity.

All of the nonsense about it being implausible or hard to do narratively is just disingenuous. It's clearly quite easy to do, and that's what I was having difficulty with understanding, as it seemed to be dodging the issue.

It is, rather, justification; and it's bad justification for being so obviously paper-thin in a fictional universe full of possibilities like Star Trek is.

QFT.

Yikes, I'm more than a little confused as to why Christopher is getting so angry,

Sometimes intransigence is mistaken for a solid debate platform. It's a shame because there's no need, either for this 'line in the sand' attitude towards Data or taking umbrage when we're just trying to work through the reasoning.

Yep, as am I. Like I've said, I actually prefer Data stay dead... but, that's predicated on writers actually doing something with his death, something consequential for the other TNG characters, or something that helps further the Trek story in some fashion. I ain't drawing any lines in the sand, nor taking umbrage at anything, and hope we can all remain civil in this discussion.

 

[Trent Roman]

Sure. I was never convinced that Kas' vision in "What You Leave Behind" was anything more than wish-fulfillment on her part. That's the basic reason.

Hmm. I guess, for me, the way the visual cues aligned themselves with what we had already seen left me no doubt that it was a genuine Prophet vision. I must admit I never considered the materiality of his return - I suppose since the Prophets have demonstrated the ability to contact individuals wherever they so willed, they could also wisk them away corporeally, though we've never actually seen them do that unless you count residing the wormhole environment like that 'other' emissary did (or the Dominion fleet). Perhaps the Fire Caves, as the domain of the pagh-wraiths, are sufficiently similar in metaphysical nature that the Prophets are able to access them to physically remove/inject matter, the way they also did with the parasite queen when all the Orbs were opened and created a similar such nexus?

By the way. Given that I thought Sisko was deader than Marley's Ghost, what did I think the cover meant? Well...

At the risk of sounding psychotic Sisko can be at the center of the story without ever appearing -- witness "Waiting for Godot."

Looking at the cover for These Haunted Seas, it obviously wasn't a far-fetched notion.

Yeah, I suppose I can buy this to some extent -- your description of the lack of impact his death has had in the TNG novels surprises me, as I was under the impression from this thread that Data's absence has been quite consequential (the main reason why he's stayed dead). I haven't read a single post-TNG novel, so I can't comment on whether or not this has been executed well, just acknowledging that you're certainly right that failing to capitalize on Data's death with other characters seems like an enormous missed opportunity.

It hasn't felt that way to me, but of course my perceptions may differ from others (I'm sure KRAD would argue that his characterization of LaForge was very much mediated by Data's death, but LaForge's role has been so minor of late...). And I haven't read the Destiny trilogy, so perhaps Allyn is correct that the loss comes through more strongly there. But overall, the greatest practical consequence of Data's death has been character placement; Worf ending up on the Enterprise rather than the Titan, and characters introduced to take his place in the ship's structure (characters, since, as Christopher rightly points out in Greater Than the Sum, only Data could handle Data's workload)--though none of them can match Data in terms of sheer interest. This, compared to say Spock, who had a film devoted to the consequences of his demise, or Ziyal, who radically altered Dukat's character arc, or Jadzia, who had the follow-up arc with Worf, Bashir, O'Brien and even Quark fighting to get her into Sto-Vo-Kor (and of course the new Dax, but that's another question of character placement).

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Christopher]

Oh, some unseen force just happens to spirit Data away at the last second and then not tell anyone? That's lame. It's contrived. Sure, revealing that the simulation of Trip's death was faked is contrived too, but it's acceptable because the simulation itself was so nonsensical that it demanded reinterpretation.

Hm, but who's the judge of what's deemed "nonsensical" and "in demand of reinterpretation"?

That's the wrong question. Anyone can be the judge, in their own minds. The question is, what evidence is there to base that judgment on? I laid out the things that didn't make sense about it way back in post #13 of this thread -- in direct response to a post of yours, by the way, so this is threatening to become circular (the fate of most long-running BBS debates, it seems). And many, many people have pointed out those same problems with the episode many times before.

Not that it's plausible, but if one wanted to bring him, or at least part of him and have another android character with Data's prior experiences (kind of a Trill symbiont-like rebirth in fact) back, it would certainly be possible.

Okay, but why? We've already had an android character; what's interesting about doing another one? What can you do with that character that isn't just a rehash of what's already been told?

I think I've already said this, but it bears repeating. To writers and editors, the key question is not whether there's a way to bring back Data or create a new Data-like character or whatever. If you have a story goal in mind, it's always possible to contrive a mechanism for it, though some are less plausible than others. The key question is whether there's a good story in it, whether there's something new and imaginative and interesting that can come from doing it. If that question can't be answered, then all the other proposals about what to do and how to do it are irrelevant. It's not about the how, it's about the why.

On the other hand, I find it quite interesting that the reset button on his emotion chip wasn't actually addressed in TrekLit. Which would be quite an interesting character story that could yet be told. Or was it perhaps in the ATT-series?!?

Yes, it was, in A Time to Be Born/A Time to Die. Earlier, the development of the emotion chip was dealt with in "Friends With the Sparrows," Slings and Arrows: The Insolence of Office, and Immortal Coil.

It's rather the fact that the arguments - and the whole "resurrection" of Trip - appear to be a desperate attempt at breathing suspense and some kind of drama into a TV-programme that suffered from poor characterization, contradicting facts and just plainly boring storylines... and the fact that Trip was quite the only character of ENT that had a remotely consistent development and could be sympathized with. Without him ENT would sort of be missing its heart and soul. I guess, bringing him back to life (I know, I know he never died... whatever), albeit through debatable means, was the only way to go once the decision for an ENT-book series was made.

There's no desperation behind it on my part. It just seems preferable to reinterpret TATV in a way that explains away its gaping plot holes. No ulterior motive, just the reasons I've already offered.

If you've read "Immortal Coil", you'll know that Data had returned to the colony at some point after Juliana's revelation, because those three prototypes (I usually refer to them as B-1, B-2 and B-3), and the android bodies of Lore and Lal, were all stored in Data's lab on the Enterprise. But they were very early work, and I doubt much better than B-4.

I read "Immortal Coil" - but somehow it didn't leave much of an impression... but if in that book Data already retrieved the 3 prototypes Juliana mentioned, wouldn't that contradict NEM and the existance of B4? Was Immortal Coil released prior to NEM? I just looked up the release dates, and they both were released in 2002... but that doesn't say much.

Immortal Coil came out in January '02, NEM in December. And yes, there is an inconsistency, but no greater than the many other inconsistencies we tolerate within Trek continuity. B-4 could've been a prototype Julianna wasn't aware of.

And I don't agree with Therin's assumption that B-4 had to be the fourth humanoid prototype. For one thing, given Soong's "penchant for whimsical names," it was just as likely to have been a pun on "before" rather than a literal numerical designation. By analogy, I profoundly doubt that Doctor Who's robot dog K9 was preceded by a K1 through K8 (particularly since the original K9 was followed by identical robot dogs called K9 Mark II, K9 Mark III, and K9 Mark IV).

For another thing, even if it was a numerical designation, why assume Soong started with humanoid robots? If there were a B-1 through B-3, they could've just as easily been nonhumanoid robots, or even just disembodied positronic neural nets, computers rather than androids.

Either way, B-4 could easily have been the first humanoid prototype. The three Julianna knew of could've been B-5 through B-7, or they could've been named During, After, and Overtime. (I can certainly see Soong naming an android During as a pun on Alan Turing.)

But judging from "Inheritance" and including Lore (if he's included among the 3) and B4, that would still mean that one of the prototypes is missing. *g*

No, Lore came after the three "Inheritance" prototypes.

 

[Claudia]

Hm, but who's the judge of what's deemed "nonsensical" and "in demand of reinterpretation"?

That's the wrong question. Anyone can be the judge, in their own minds. The question is, what evidence is there to base that judgment on? I laid out the things that didn't make sense about it way back in post #13 of this thread -- in direct response to a post of yours, by the way, so this is threatening to become circular (the fate of most long-running BBS debates, it seems). And many, many people have pointed out those same problems with the episode many times before.

I haven't been trying to restart the discussion here. Your statement about the non-sensical etc. just sort of rubbed me wrong - and my comment/question was meant in a general way, not tied to TATV or NEM in particular.

Okay, but why? We've already had an android character; what's interesting about doing another one? What can you do with that character that isn't just a rehash of what's already been told?

Well, we had a Dax with Jadzia - and got treated to another one with Ezri... this would be a quite similar situation to the one I outlined earlier. And IMO Jadzia was way less interesting than Data ever was... actually IMO she was one of the blandest and most boring characters in ST ever. (She as a character, not the Trill as a species.)

The key question is whether there's a good story in it, whether there's something new and imaginative and interesting that can come from doing it. If that question can't be answered, then all the other proposals about what to do and how to do it are irrelevant. It's not about the how, it's about the why.

I absolutely agree with this - OTOH, we'll just have to disagree about whether or not there're still interesting stories about Data that haven't been told yet and that would warrant bringing him back.

Again, it's not that I especially *need* to have him back, I think ST will survive quite well without him (and has for 6 years now).

It just seems preferable to reinterpret TATV in a way that explains away its gaping plot holes. No ulterior motive, just the reasons I've already offered.

I absolutely respect your reasoning. I just don't share it. Because honestly, TATV wasn't the only episode in ST that had gaping plotholes that bothered people. And it seems a bit arbitrary (and yes I know that term has been used in this thread already) to do something about this particular plothole, but not about the many others... incl. the one huge plothole that NEM actually was.

And that leads us back to your statement about interesting stories. Frankly, I just don't see any potential for interesting stories if you sort of have to rebuild the (canon-)universe beforehand just so it fits the story you want to tell.

No, Lore came after the three "Inheritance" prototypes.

Okay, then we'd still have 2 prototypes out there, disregarding Immortal Coil. I'd love to know whether they'd be links between B4 and Lore or if they were contructed before B4... because it seems a huge step between child-like B4 and Lore after all.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I read "Immortal Coil" - but somehow it didn't leave much of an impression...

Sorry. One of my favourites!

but if in that book Data already retrieved the 3 prototypes Juliana mentioned, wouldn't that contradict NEM and the existance of B4? Was Immortal Coil released prior to NEM?

I know "Immortal Coil" came out first, in the February of 2002, and it took Lang a long time to write it, so he conceived of his plot long before the B-4 stuff, canonical as of December of that year.

The early scripts of "Nemesis" called new android "B-9" ("benign"), but when they changed it to "B-4" ("before"), it fitted very well.

But judging from "Inheritance" and including Lore (if he's included among the 3) and B4, that would still mean that one of the prototypes is missing.

No, Lore wasn't a prototype. He was Soong's first fully functional android. "Immortal Coil" specifically mentions three prototypes, plus Lore.

What is never really clear is if B-4 was before the other three prototypes, and was just unknown to Juliana, or if he came just before Lore, and Soong didn't introduce him to anyone before being disassembled.

 

[Claudia]

I read "Immortal Coil" - but somehow it didn't leave much of an impression...

Sorry. One of my favourites!

I read it back in 2002... but by then I was already quite tired of ST-books, maybe that's why I can't even remember major plotthreads... I blame my then very thriving Harry Potter-addiction...

The early scripts of "Nemesis" called new android "B-9" ("benign"), but when they changed it to "B-4" ("before"), it fitted very well.

I really liked that as well when I saw the movie in the OV (I couldn't imagine living somewhere where the OV's not available...) - it's just a pity that in translations this wordgame's lost.

It was sort of the same with TNG's "Hugh"/You.

 

[Marie1]

I realize this may be slightly OT, but I've always thought it was indeed Sisko reassuring Kas, because she didn't believe in the Prophets like the Bajorans did- no religiosity to them whatsoever. So I don't think she'd conjure up a dream about him randomly in that way. And she'd have no context to imagine it so much like the Temple... Thats just MHO.

So, to me, losing Sisko isn't the same as losing Data... not as "real" or permanent- especially since Sisko's isn't supposed to be.

 

[JD]

It just seems preferable to reinterpret TATV in a way that explains away its gaping plot holes. No ulterior motive, just the reasons I've already offered.

I absolutely respect your reasoning. I just don't share it. Because honestly, TATV wasn't the only episode in ST that had gaping plotholes that bothered people. And it seems a bit arbitrary (and yes I know that term has been used in this thread already) to do something about this particular plothole, but not about the many others... incl. the one huge plothole that NEM actually

But something was done about Nemesis, the A Time To.. series tried to explain away alot of the problems with Nemesis. Plus, there was some backstory stuff for Shinzon in A Death in Winter (I don't how much this actually has to do with the book's plot because I haven't read, and I only the found Shinzon stuff on his Memory Beta entry) and "Twilight's Wrath" from Tales of the Dominion War (this I have read).

 

[Christopher]

Well, we had a Dax with Jadzia - and got treated to another one with Ezri... this would be a quite similar situation to the one I outlined earlier.

Well, for one thing, the prospect of recasting/rebooting Dax arises naturally from the very concept of the Trill. As soon as DS9 came along and we knew there was a Trill character, one of the first things I thought was, "Well, if the actress ever decides to leave the show, the role will be easy to recast."

For another, we didn't just get more of the same. The new Dax was a counselor instead of a science officer, she was considerably younger and more insecure, she hadn't been prepared for joining and thus had all sorts of complications to deal with that Jadzia never did, etc. Plus, introducing Ezri wasn't just a reset button, because it created emotional complications for the people who had known and loved Jadzia and now had to adjust to a very different Dax who related to them in different ways. They didn't just negate the killing of Jadzia by replacing her with an identical character, but used it as an opportunity for new, fresh characterization and story material. That's the point I was making above: the key is whether there's a good story in it.

I absolutely respect your reasoning. I just don't share it. Because honestly, TATV wasn't the only episode in ST that had gaping plotholes that bothered people. And it seems a bit arbitrary (and yes I know that term has been used in this thread already) to do something about this particular plothole, but not about the many others... incl. the one huge plothole that NEM actually was.

Huh? Quite a few ST novels have involved addressing plot holes in Trek episodes and movies. To Reign in Hell patches up some humongous plot holes in The Wrath of Khan. The Data novels and stories I mentioned in my previous post deal with the plot holes created by the inconsistent use of the emotion chip. Greater Than the Sum dealt with multiple plot holes arising from inconsistencies in prior Borg stories. The Buried Age dealt with multiple plot holes from TNG characters' backstories. Forged in Fire addressed all sorts of plot holes involving the Klingon forehead issue and the life histories of Kor, Kang, and Koloth. And plot holes in NEM have been addressed in multiple works including the A Time To... series, the Vulcan's Soul trilogy, the Shinzon story in Tales of the Dominion War, etc.

And that leads us back to your statement about interesting stories. Frankly, I just don't see any potential for interesting stories if you sort of have to rebuild the (canon-)universe beforehand just so it fits the story you want to tell.

So you don't find any of the works mentioned in the previous paragraph to be interesting?

 

[LightningStorm]

Okay, but why? We've already had an android character; what's interesting about doing another one? What can you do with that character that isn't just a rehash of what's already been told?

I'm not following the reasoning on this one.

You could change out the word "android" with any of the following and ask the same question: "Klingon," "Vulcan," "Andorian," or even "Human." But in those cases there'd be an answer: Because they are different each time, unique individuals. If a different android were to come about why is there this assumption that it'd be exactly the same story lines that Data had?

I'd imagine had anyone else said this to you, you'd have been quite offended by the implication that writers aren't creative enough to do something different just because the character happens to also be an Android like Data was.

 

[William Leisner]

Okay, but why? We've already had an android character; what's interesting about doing another one? What can you do with that character that isn't just a rehash of what's already been told?

I'm not following the reasoning on this one.

You could change out the word "android" with any of the following and ask the same question: "Klingon," "Vulcan," "Andorian," or even "Human." But in those cases there'd be an answer: Because they are different each time, unique individuals. If a different android were to come about why is there this assumption that it'd be exactly the same story lines that Data had?

I'd imagine had anyone else said this to you, you'd have been quite offended by the implication that writers aren't creative enough to do something different just because the character happens to also be an Android like Data was.

Are you fucking kidding me?

First off, "Klingon," "Vulcan," "Andorian," and "Human" describe members of huge societies made up of billions of individuals, whereas "android" describes an object.

Second off... yes, if you were to pick two different humans out at the bus stop, they would different, unique individuals. But when you are talking about creating fictional characters, of course they don't automatically come out as different. The question needed to be asked, what makes Jean-Luc Picard different from Jim Kirk? What makes Sisko different from Picard? And it's those answers (Picard is older and wiser; Sisko is a family man suffering a personal loss) that make the character who he or she is. Christopher's question is not only valid, it's 100% essential.

 

[The Grim Ghost]

Lor, B-4 and Data were all completely different and they were built by the same person. Self aware androids aren't objects, not at this point in the Trek universe.

 

[LightningStorm]

First off, "Klingon," "Vulcan," "Andorian," and "Human" describe members of huge societies made up of billions of individuals, whereas "android" describes an object.

Not in Trek it doesn't. As evidenced by Data's gaining all the rights of a sentient being. Just because there aren't "billions" of him doesn't negate that.

Second off... yes, if you were to pick two different humans out at the bus stop, they would different, unique individuals. But when you are talking about creating fictional characters, of course they don't automatically come out as different. The question needed to be asked, what makes Jean-Luc Picard different from Jim Kirk? What makes Sisko different from Picard? And it's those answers (Picard is older and wiser; Sisko is a family man suffering a personal loss) that make the character who he or she is. Christopher's question is not only valid, it's 100% essential.

The question should be asked on a creative level of any character created, yes.

However, the question as stated reads as more of an argument against doing an android character just because we have already had one. Now, it's perfectly possible I misinterpreted Christopher's reason for posing the question as it was. If so, that's fine, however as it appears the logic fails as an argument against having an android simply because we've already had one, as if all androids would be written in the same manner. As destro says we already have three such instances where the same model are quite different and unique.

 

[Claudia]

For another, we didn't just get more of the same. The new Dax was a counselor instead of a science officer, she was considerably younger and more insecure, she hadn't been prepared for joining and thus had all sorts of complications to deal with that Jadzia never did, etc. Plus, introducing Ezri wasn't just a reset button, because it created emotional complications for the people who had known and loved Jadzia and now had to adjust to a very different Dax who related to them in different ways. They didn't just negate the killing of Jadzia by replacing her with an identical character, but used it as an opportunity for new, fresh characterization and story material. That's the point I was making above: the key is whether there's a good story in it.

The same would be true for the idea I proposed. Either I'm not expressing myself properly or you chose to misinterpret my words. I'm not saying that a new android is a mere copy of Data - as we've established, that's not possible, since Data's "essence", his personality if you will, was lost. But what about an android that's alive in his/her own respect, has his/her own abilities, but also the experience and knowledge of Data (through the download) to come back to. You'd have the same scenario you've just described with Dax.

You'd have a new character, you'd have to show how the rest of the cast reacts to this new character who has all the memories and knowledge of Data etc.

I absolutely respect your reasoning. I just don't share it. Because honestly, TATV wasn't the only episode in ST that had gaping plotholes that bothered people. And it seems a bit arbitrary (and yes I know that term has been used in this thread already) to do something about this particular plothole, but not about the many others... incl. the one huge plothole that NEM actually was.

Huh? Quite a few ST novels have involved addressing plot holes in Trek episodes and movies.

Sorry, but addressing plotholes means in my book explaining the background of gaps - but not actually rewriting the story to close the gaps like it happened with TATV.

And that leads us back to your statement about interesting stories. Frankly, I just don't see any potential for interesting stories if you sort of have to rebuild the (canon-)universe beforehand just so it fits the story you want to tell.

So you don't find any of the works mentioned in the previous paragraph to be interesting?

As I said, I find it interesting to read explanations of events/characters that seemingly make little sense. I don't think it's interesting if established events are reinterpreted in a way that has little to do with what we've seen in canon just so it's possible to tell a gripping story.

I just don't see any reason other than marketing reasons, why the ENT-relaunch was developed in this way. IMO there'd have been plenty of other ways to continue ENT without reshaping the story...

But that leads us back to the circular argument...

 

[Christopher]

Okay, but why? We've already had an android character; what's interesting about doing another one? What can you do with that character that isn't just a rehash of what's already been told?

I'm not following the reasoning on this one.

You could change out the word "android" with any of the following and ask the same question: "Klingon," "Vulcan," "Andorian," or even "Human." But in those cases there'd be an answer: Because they are different each time, unique individuals. If a different android were to come about why is there this assumption that it'd be exactly the same story lines that Data had?

You're misinterpreting my rhetorical question. It wasn't meant to say "There can't be anything interesting about another android." It was meant to say that if another android character were to be done, there would have to be a good reason why, something that made it fresh and original and not just a clone of Data. I was approaching the question the way an editor hearing a pitch would approach it. "Okay, you want to do an android character? Justify it to me. Tell me the rest, tell me what your fresh approach to an android character would be." (Not literally, of course, since that would violate the forum's rules against posting story ideas.)

My point is, even if you did create another android character, it would not be the same as bringing Data back, and shouldn't be. There would have to be some new, fresh way of approaching an android character for it to be worth doing.

Which is certainly possible, but I, for one, would prefer not to do it in TNG specifically. If it were, such a character would be getting constantly compared to Data, and that would get in the way of the character's own development and audience acceptance. If there were to be a new android character, it would be best to include such a character in a different series -- and in a different kind of role, not a science-guy type of role like Data's.

The same would be true for the idea I proposed. Either I'm not expressing myself properly or you chose to misinterpret my words. I'm not saying that a new android is a mere copy of Data - as we've established, that's not possible, since Data's "essence", his personality if you will, was lost. But what about an android that's alive in his/her own respect, has his/her own abilities, but also the experience and knowledge of Data (through the download) to come back to. You'd have the same scenario you've just described with Dax.

You know, I keep coming across this kind of argument in this thread: that since X has been done with a previous character, that's an argument in favor of doing X here as well. To me, as a pro writer, exactly the opposite is true. As writers, we strive not to repeat what's been done before, to find something new and distinctive. The fact that the scenario you describe has been done with Dax is a compelling argument against doing it with Data.

As I said, I find it interesting to read explanations of events/characters that seemingly make little sense. I don't think it's interesting if established events are reinterpreted in a way that has little to do with what we've seen in canon just so it's possible to tell a gripping story.

I don't think that's a fair assessment of The Good That Men Do. It was entirely consistent with what we saw in canon; it merely interpreted one highly problematical episode in a way that made it a better, more logical fit with the rest of canon.

I just don't see any reason other than marketing reasons, why the ENT-relaunch was developed in this way. IMO there'd have been plenty of other ways to continue ENT without reshaping the story...

I think there's a very good storytelling reason. If TATV had been taken literally, it would mean that the characters' lives remained completely static for a period of six years, encompassing the entire Earth-Romulan War. Any attempt to fill in that gap and cover the war years would've been hamstrung by the need to keep the characters totally rigid and unchanging. Moving the events of TATV back before the war not only resolves certain oddities in the script (oddities that arose from the fact that it was originally meant to take place in 2155 but got hastily and imperfectly pushed forward in the timeline), but it opens the door to allowing real character growth and change during the war years. Which not only provides richer story fodder, but it simply more plausible. Who goes through a war and isn't changed?

 

[William Leisner]

First off, "Klingon," "Vulcan," "Andorian," and "Human" describe members of huge societies made up of billions of individuals, whereas "android" describes an object.

Not in Trek it doesn't. As evidenced by Data's gaining all the rights of a sentient being. Just because there aren't "billions" of him doesn't negate that.

How is this at all relevant? "The Measure of a Man" did not create different androids. Picard theorized a future when Soong-type androids were mass-produced and treated as property -- which would almost guarantee that there would not be any differences between one android and another.

Second off... yes, if you were to pick two different humans out at the bus stop, they would different, unique individuals. But when you are talking about creating fictional characters, of course they don't automatically come out as different. The question needed to be asked, what makes Jean-Luc Picard different from Jim Kirk? What makes Sisko different from Picard? And it's those answers (Picard is older and wiser; Sisko is a family man suffering a personal loss) that make the character who he or she is. Christopher's question is not only valid, it's 100% essential.

The question should be asked on a creative level of any character created, yes.

However, the question as stated reads as more of an argument against doing an android character just because we have already had one.

So wouldn't it serve your argument better to answer that question, which you admit should be asked, rather than trying to declare the question insulting and dismissing it?

 

[JoeZhang]

I think the reason this comes up is because of the failure of the replacement characters to take off - they have either been douchebags (the chief of security who thankfully got killed/Vulcan councillor) or bland (the new second officer) or just downright punchable (that vulcan science officer).