"That book never happened!"

[Christopher]

I wasn't arguing in favor of Trip's resurrection. I was simply pointing out the fact that his death was not explicitly shown onscreen, probably because the producers were hedging their bets. I was not asserting that fact in support of some argument, and I was offering no opinion about the rightness of the producers' decision; I was merely stating it as a point of information, with no agenda beyond establishing the facts of the matter.

That said, the very nature of Trip's "death" makes it an exception to the rule; we never actually saw it, just a simulation of it, and we didn't even see it in the simulation. And the way it happened was so completely illogical and out of character that it doesn't make sense that it happened the way it was shown. So revealing that his death was faked isn't simply an exercise in self-indulgence or refusal to accept loss; it's arguably a way of remedying a storytelling problem. And it's one that can be easily justified given the way it was portrayed. (Heck, the only easier "death" to undo was that of Sherlock Holmes in "The Final Problem," since there was never any firm evidence that Holmes had died at all, just a farewell letter and his subsequent disappearance.)

As they say on TV Tropes, no trope is intrinsically bad. Even a trope that's badly overused can still have merit on occasion, though there should be a good justification, something that makes it more than just a lazy cliche.

 

[DrBashir]

I agree that Trip's "death" didn't make a whole lot of sense except as shock <ha!> value. However, it adds to the whole idea that "nobody stays dead in science fiction". When you start seperating the "good" deaths from the "bad" ones then you're going to start having arguements over which ones should go in which list.

It's become too easy to cheat death in Trek. I'd like to see a "dead is dead" rule enforced except in the movies/TV shows. Not because they do a better job but that the tie-in authors would be less tempted to bring someone back.

(Of course, that didn't stop Shatner from bringing back Kirk. However, if anyone should be the person to being him back, it's Shatner.)

 

[Christopher]

Like I said, no trope is intrinsically bad; it's the overuse of a trope that's a bad thing. If resurrections were rare, then the occasional use of the trope in a context where it made sense and served a worthwhile story purpose (beyond merely hitting the reset button) could be effective without undermining the effectiveness of death as a story device in general.

And if the only evidence of a character's death is an indirect portrayal in a historical reconstruction two centuries later, then revealing that the historical record was simply inaccurate has got to be one of the most sensible ways possible of undoing a character's (alleged) death. It certainly makes more sense than, say, having the character psychically download his consciousness into someone else's head and then have his body regenerated by a godlike terraforming technology. Or, say, having it turn out that the person who died was actually an alien entity impersonating her and that the genuine article had been cocooned at the bottom of the East River the whole time.

 

[xortex]

Not for nothing, but how many shows has Braga killed now on the air. Well Manny's 24, of course retrubution, Threshold, Sawyer's thing and now Terra Nova. He just doesn't believe in these projects and is seemingly unconsciously trying to destroy them. i don't blame him. They're all horrendously concieved. Terra Nova is friggin' Land of the Lost. Where is Gerrold? He should be all over Speilberg. Eschevierra is no help unless you want a emo dinosaur. And wasn't Heroes - X-men? I don't see any difference.

Not to say Manny is doing any better. Of course. Where's Joe Menosky?

 

[DrBashir]

Like I said, no trope is intrinsically bad; it's the overuse of a trope that's a bad thing. If resurrections were rare, then the occasional use of the trope in a context where it made sense and served a worthwhile story purpose (beyond merely hitting the reset button) could be effective without undermining the effectiveness of death as a story device in general.

And if the only evidence of a character's death is an indirect portrayal in a historical reconstruction two centuries later, then revealing that the historical record was simply inaccurate has got to be one of the most sensible ways possible of undoing a character's (alleged) death. It certainly makes more sense than, say, having the character psychically download his consciousness into someone else's head and then have his body regenerated by a godlike terraforming technology. Or, say, having it turn out that the person who died was actually an alien entity impersonating her and that the genuine article had been cocooned at the bottom of the East River the whole time.

Oh I'm not arguing with you, that a "good" death should have an emotional and have so many be undone robs the "good" ones of their impact.

However, look at Janeway and

Spoiler: Recent character death

Scotty (in IFM)

. Both left with obvious "outs" should someone want to. Why should we imagine that we've seen the last of these characters, not counting the stories told in(their) past?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. - Montgomery Scott

 

[xortex]

What's the alternate Janeway up to?

 

[captcalhoun]

which one?

 

[Therin of Andor]

He just doesn't believe in these projects and is seemingly unconsciously trying to destroy them.

Baloney.

Terra Nova is friggin' Land of the Lost. Where is Gerrold? He should be all over Speilberg.

Wasn't LotL created from a book of concepts already put together by Sid & Marty Krofft and Allan Foshko? David Gerrold was more a writer for hire.

 

[Mr Silver]

However, look at Janeway and

Spoiler: Recent character death

Scotty (in IFM)

. Both left with obvious "outs" should someone want to. Why should we imagine that we've seen the last of these characters, not counting the stories told in(their) past?

FWIW, Janeway is completely and utterly dead in the novel continunity. In my opinion, the only concievable way of bringing her back that wouldn't enrage a minority of fans would be to have someone meddle with the timeline and/or pull her counterpart from an alternate universe.

As for your other point about an "out"...

Spoiler: Recently "deceased" character

It's heavily hinted that Scotty survived the incident in IFM. I would speculate that Scotty escaped using his "transwarp beaming" concept and will resurface prior to the Hobus Supernova incident. It's not really an out as such, given that the concept of transwarp beaming has not yet been mentioned in a prime trek novel. My guess is that Scotty developed it shortly before Spock went on the mission to stop the Hobus Supernova. Therefore, Scotty will have had to survived - unless of course his older "Simon Pegg" counterpart comes over from nu trek!

 

[Christopher]

Spoiler: Recently "deceased" character

I would speculate that Scotty escaped using his "transwarp beaming" concept and will resurface prior to the Hobus Supernova incident. It's not really an out as such, given that the concept of transwarp beaming has not yet been mentioned in a prime trek novel.

Not under that name, but

Spoiler: tech spoiler

it's essentially the same technology as the subspace transporter seen in TNG: "Bloodlines."

 

[JD]

However, look at Janeway and

Spoiler: Recent character death

Scotty (in IFM)

. Both left with obvious "outs" should someone want to. Why should we imagine that we've seen the last of these characters, not counting the stories told in(their) past?

FWIW, Janeway is completely and utterly dead in the novel continunity. In my opinion, the only concievable way of bringing her back that wouldn't enrage a minority of fans would be to have someone meddle with the timeline and/or pull her counterpart from an alternate universe.

As for your other point about an "out"...

Spoiler: Recently "deceased" character

It's heavily hinted that Scotty survived the incident in IFM. I would speculate that Scotty escaped using his "transwarp beaming" concept and will resurface prior to the Hobus Supernova incident. It's not really an out as such, given that the concept of transwarp beaming has not yet been mentioned in a prime trek novel. My guess is that Scotty developed it shortly before Spock went on the mission to stop the Hobus Supernova. Therefore, Scotty will have had to survived - unless of course his older "Simon Pegg" counterpart comes over from nu trek!

I think it's worth pointing out that the author has already said on here the he has an idea for a follow up that would feature the character returning. So apparently, he didn't even necessarily intend for it to be permanent death.

 

[beamMe]

LOL. Canonically, it was never said that she is not Spock's daughter, so technically...

On purpose. To encourage speculation.

No. For editorial reasons, to keep the plot of Star Trek II from being cluttered with needles backstories for secondary characters (probably also the main reason why Sulu's promotion was cut).

 

[DrBashir]

However, look at Janeway and

Spoiler: Recent character death

Scotty (in IFM)

. Both left with obvious "outs" should someone want to. Why should we imagine that we've seen the last of these characters, not counting the stories told in(their) past?

FWIW, Janeway is completely and utterly dead in the novel continunity. In my opinion, the only concievable way of bringing her back that wouldn't enrage a minority of fans would be to have someone meddle with the timeline and/or pull her counterpart from an alternate universe.

She was last seen in the company of a Q. How much bigger an out do you want? Might as well be carrying a "Get Out of Death Free" card.

 

[DonIago]

LOL. Canonically, it was never said that she is not Spock's daughter, so technically...

On purpose. To encourage speculation.

No. For editorial reasons, to keep the plot of Star Trek II from being cluttered with needles backstories for secondary characters (probably also the main reason why Sulu's promotion was cut).

I was under the (possibly erroneous) impression that Sulu's promotion was cut largely because Shatner took issue with it.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I was under the (possibly erroneous) impression that Sulu's promotion was cut largely because Shatner took issue with it.

The scene was only added as a last-hour tempter to George Takei, who was refusing to sign up for ST II unless he got more to do than the previous film.

Takei's take on the dropping of the scene was that Shatner deliberately spoiled his lines to make the scene unusable.

Shatner's take is that it was dropped as unnecessary to the main plot.

It was one of many scene extensions that went unused: Saavik's mixed heritage (seen in the ShoWest presentation trailer), Khan's child peering through a porthole, Terrell rolling down a hill, Khan's child crawling past the Genesis Device.

 

[DimesDan]

I was under the (possibly erroneous) impression that Sulu's promotion was cut largely because Shatner took issue with it.

The scene was only added as a last-hour tempter to George Takei, who was refusing to sign up for ST II unless he got more to do than the previous film.

Takei's take on the dropping of the scene was that Shatner deliberately spoiled his lines to make the scene unusable.

Shatner's take is that it was dropped as unnecessary to the main plot.

It was one of many scene extensions that went unused: Saavik's mixed heritage (seen in the ShoWest presentation trailer), Khan's child peering through a porthole, Terrell rolling down a hill, Khan's child crawling past the Genesis Device.

Sources?

 

[Harvey]

Most of those scenes can be viewed at the Film and Television Archive at UCLA. They have an incomplete workprint of the movie that has been transferred to DVD. That version doesn't include Terrell rolling down the hill, though, which I assume was cut early on due to union objections (a black stuntman wasn't hired, so a white stuntman in black face was used instead -- just a dumb move).

The ShoWest trailer, which includes some of the scenes mentioned, is available online, although I don't have a link on hand.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Sources?

The scene was only added as a last-hour tempter to George Takei, who was refusing to sign up for ST II unless he got more to do than the previous film.

Asherman's "The Making of Star Trek II", IIRC. Confirmed in personal conversation with Takei.

Takei's take on the dropping of the scene was that Shatner deliberately spoiled his lines to make the scene unusable.

Personal conversation with Takei, long before he immortalized the anecdote in public interviews and then his own autobiography, "To the Stars".

Shatner's take is that it was dropped as unnecessary to the main plot.

Several Shatner-written books.

It was one of many scene extensions that went unused: Saavik's mixed heritage (seen in the ShoWest presentation trailer)

ShoWest presentation trailer.

Khan's child peering through a porthole, Terrell rolling down a hill

Personal interview with Paul Winfield, published in "Data" newsletter (named many years before the android), ASTREX Star Trek Fan Club of NSW.

Khan's child crawling past the Genesis Device.

Several posts on Trek BBS, reprinting an 80s magazine captioned b/w photo.

Surely none of this is news to you?

 

[Turtletrekker]

The Saavik/Romulan scene can be seen here, along with a brief snippet of Kirk introducing David and Saavik,

 

[Mr Silver]

^ And many of the previously discussed scenes can be seen on the TWOK: Director's Edition.

It still amazes me that most of the versions cut out the full Ceti Eel scene.