3

(SPOILERS AHEAD)

I'm watching Stargate SG-1 again, and one issue that has always bothered me is the way that the Season 7 episode Heroes killed off Dr. Fraiser. After seeing so many other characters revived in various ways over the course of the series, why did the SGC not try to revive Dr. Fraiser too? There would have been many options available: the Nox healing ceremony, finding and using a sarcophagus, possible solutions from allies like the Asgard, something more complicated like time travel, etc. However, they just announce that she's dead at the end of the episode and seem to shrug it off as an inescapable situation without considering past team member resurrections. I have heard fans make the argument that Dr. Fraiser was just not important enough of a figure in the SGC to bother with an attempted resurrection, but I have difficulty believing that the Chief Medical Officer with 7 years of accumulated knowledge on alien life would not be considered essential enough to even consider the possibility of a revival mission.

Is anything relating to why a full-scale resurrection effort was not immediately launched by the SGC explained anywhere else in the shows, movies, or other related media?

And before anyone mentions it, yes, I have read about the network politics and comments by the writers that lead up to the decision to kill Dr. Fraiser permanently. (Don S. Davis is quoted as saying it was a decision made by "some stupid bean counter" in the network management.) I am NOT looking for a "behind-the-scenes" explanation and am specifially looking for in-universe explanations as to why there was seemingly no effort by the SGC to resurrect her.

Laurel
  • 22,998
  • 4
  • 81
  • 114
RoamingShroob
  • 1,185
  • 8
  • 19
  • 1
    They didn't have a sarcophagus on-hand and going to try to get one of the most closely guarded object in existence is a suicide mission – Valorum Mar 29 '23 at 06:47
  • 1
    All of the things you've mentioned are off-limits. The Nox are uncontactable, the Asgard can't raise the dead, time-travel is a definite no-no given the potential for damage caused – Valorum Mar 29 '23 at 06:49
  • @Valorum: I never thought of these, they are absolutely right. However, if I remember correctly, the team (SG-1) did not make any attempt to use any of those solutions - they just accepted the fact as a fact - Dr. Fraiser died. – virolino Mar 29 '23 at 09:50
  • 1
    @Valorum I think the Asgard can revive the dead. Remember the SG-1 ep where you get the alternate Carter and kwalsky enter the "prime" reality. The alternate Hammond gets zatted twice and is then revived by the Asgard – SpacePhoenix Mar 29 '23 at 11:38
  • @SpacePhoenix - There's a huge difference between reviving someone who should be dead of an injury and reviving someone who's been dead for a while. – Valorum Mar 29 '23 at 12:12
  • @Valorum: Lya appears twice after SG-1's initial contact with the Nox, and both times she travels via Stargate (on-screen and implied) which means the Nox never buried their gate. Even if gate travel to Gaia was impossible, it seems like the Asgard or Tok'ra would have sufficient galactic presence and technology to contact the Nox via other means on behalf of the Tau'ri. Also, while it is true that the Tau'ri do not appear to have a sarcophagus on-hand, there is seemingly no attempt to locate one which feels very out-of-character for the SG-1 team members and the SGC in general. – RoamingShroob Mar 29 '23 at 12:28
  • @RoamingShroob - Sarcophagi seem to be an example of 'cursed tech'. They work, but the potential for harm is also very high – Valorum Mar 29 '23 at 16:24
  • 1
    @Valorum: The sarcophagus is definitely considered "cursed tech" by the Tok'ra because of its seemingly enhanced negative effects on carriers of symbiotes, but the Tau'ri do not appear to be as strongly opposed to the tech and consider it a lower risk because it requires prolonged use before a Tau'ri begins to experience negative effects. – RoamingShroob Mar 29 '23 at 17:13
  • It's a bit of a falacy that an in-universe explanation exists for everything writers do. I'd be a bit surprised to find an official in-universe explanation for dismissing an employee. Now, if it's permissible on this stack, a question asking for the development or creation of an in-universe explanation with supporting references from canon... that could generate some really interesting responses. – JBH Mar 30 '23 at 02:53
  • Given the battle at the time, was Fraiser's body even repatriated back to Earth? – SpacePhoenix Apr 01 '23 at 06:28
  • @SpacePhoenix: It is not explicitly stated that her body was brought back to Earth, but given that Jackson and Wells were with Fraiser at the time of the attack and they both made it back (with Wells still wounded) then I would assume that Frasier was returned along with the other two. There is also nothing in the episode that says that she died immediately on the battlefield so that would potentially be another reason to bring her back through the gate right away for medical attention. – RoamingShroob Apr 01 '23 at 14:36

2 Answers2

6

I do not have proof for the statements below, but they are surely universe-related.

It is obvious that death is a fact of life, both on the Earth side of the SG command (e.g., Kowalsky), and everywhere else. Goa'uld die, Tokra die, colonists die, etc.

The Stargate universe is not a superhero universe, where a superman saves everybody by rotating Earth in the opposite direction in order to reverse time. It is a "realistic" movie, where "resurrections" are exceptions, not rules.

And ignoring the behind the scenes, the death of Dr. Fraiser is just a reminder of that - that SG-1 and the other teams and colleagues are not superheroes, just "normal" mortal people in exceptional situations.

The same idea is underlined here (although the meaning is a bit ambiguous - whether it refers to the characters, or to the actors):

Her death signified the writers' willingness to thrust even their legacy characters into danger. It reminded fans that no one in the SG-1 universe -- no matter how integral to the crew's inner workings -- was safe.

PS: Up until now, I was sure that the above was the reason for "eliminating" Dr. Fraiser. Now I will go to study the behind the scenes stories of her elimination.

Personal opinion / taste: If everyone in SG would have been magically resurrected somehow, the series would have given me the feeling of the Muppet Show, instead of what it actually was.

knightwatch
  • 2,237
  • 1
  • 9
  • 36
virolino
  • 747
  • 4
  • 14
  • 2
    While I appreciate the effort put into this response, this is commentary on the writers' intent and not an in-universe explanation. In-universe, the characters aren't going to just accept a death like this because they for some reason need to show that no one is safe. In fact, as discussed repeatedly in Abyss, the mantra of the SGC is "we don't leave our people behind" which makes this passive acceptance of "no one is safe" in Heroes even harder to believe which is why I'm wondering if this change in attitude is specifically discussed anywhere in-universe. – RoamingShroob Mar 29 '23 at 14:00
  • @RoamingShroob: the "we don't leave our people behind" is always applicable, except when it is not. They left people behind at least once - he sacrificed himself to save the others. So if one law has exceptions in-universe, then other laws can have exceptions too. Additionally, there were sarcophaguses in the SG command in several occasions, and they did not keep any, for the purpose of resurrecting. Time between death and resurrection is of no relevant issue, considering that Apophis was dead for some time already, before he was resurrected for. – virolino Mar 29 '23 at 14:08
  • 2
    @RoamingShroob: also, there are countless Earthlings (and many friendly non-Earthlings) that die in-universe, and they are not resurrected. Dr. Fraiser is one of them. Maybe there was a clause in her contract to not be resurrected in case of death - which we cannot decide, since we do not have the said contract. – virolino Mar 29 '23 at 14:10
  • @RoamingShroob: my answer is my own thinking. I was never interested to research why characters left the series. I provided that quote just as a "point" that my thinking was not really off. – virolino Mar 29 '23 at 14:13
  • 1
    "where a superman saves everybody by rotating Earth in the opposite direction in order to reverse time" - tangential here, but if you are referring to the end of the first Superman movie, that is not what happens. As far as I remember, Superman does not rotate Earth in the opposite direction; he merely accelerates himself beyond lightspeed (and, in order to stay within Earth's vicinity, chooses a circular flightpath around Earth) in order to travel back in time. – O. R. Mapper Mar 29 '23 at 20:38
  • 1
    @O.R.Mapper to be fair to 99% of the population and the kids in the audience like me. It's a bit much to expect people to realize the camera is following Superman's reference frame as he breaks the special relativity equation. The language of cinema doesn't have much precedent for that. (Now I'm picturing Neil degrasse Tyson smugly lecturing people on why saying the sun rises and sets is wrong) – lucasbachmann Mar 29 '23 at 22:08
  • 1
    @lucasbachmann: I have watched the Superman movie about 4 times at various stages of my life, the first probably being in my middle teens (which was well past my first exposure to more science-y scifi and time travel stories), and I know I always interpreted the scene like this and never had the idea that the Earth is made to spin backward in order to make thing move backward (because obviously, this makes no sense; time doesn't run backward just because I move backward - and I think more than 1% of the audience is aware of this). When I read your question, I was quite surprised and ... – O. R. Mapper Mar 30 '23 at 05:38
  • 1
    ... actually googled to check whether I had been misinterpreting that scene all those years. But I suppose this is one of the scenes that, if you once pick it up with a certain interpretation, you have a hard time rewatching the scene without coming to the same interpretation again and again, no matter how nonsensical it is ;) – O. R. Mapper Mar 30 '23 at 05:39
  • Superman time travel – ThePopMachine Mar 30 '23 at 21:48
3

Here are two quotes from the infamous episode where Daniel Jackson died (specifically the one where he ascended):

DANIEL: The nausea will be followed be tremors, convulsions and something called ataxia. Surface tissue, brain tissue and internal organs will inflame and degrade, I believe that's called necrosis. Now based on the dose of radiation I got, all that will happen in the next ten to fifteen hours, and if I don't drown in my own fluids first, I will bleed to death, and there is no medical treatment to prevent that.

O'NEILL: Maybe not that we know of.

DANIEL: Jack, we don't go running to our offworld allies every time an individual's life is at stake. And don't go telling me that this is any different, because my life is no more valuable than anybody else's.

and, about finding a sarcophagus:

O'NEILL: General, we do have intelligence on a sarcophagus.

HAMMOND: SG3's mission report two months ago.

O'NEILL: Yes, sir.

HAMMOND: We both know the negative effects of that technology, Colonel.

O'NEILL: But Daniel's been in one of those things a dozen times. Once more isn't going to hurt.

HAMMOND: However, SG-3's report clearly indicated that the sarcophagus is heavily guarded and likely retrieving it would result in significant casualties, which is why I did not order a recovery mission at the time.

So from these quotes we can conclude two in-universe reasons for why they didn't try to revive Janet through other means:

  1. The moral argument that Janet's life isn't greater than the life of any other human on Earth. As Daniel said, they don't go to their offworld allies any time an individual's life is at stake. And even if they did, their allies would probably refuse because they don't meddle in the affairs of lesser life forms.
  2. Finding a sarcophagus is dangerous and could result in casualties. They would essentially be trading one life for another. That is not ethical for the same reason as #1.

Source: https://stargate.fandom.com/wiki/Meridian/Transcript

Cave Johnson
  • 340
  • 3
  • 14