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.

  • 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
    Commented Mar 29, 2023 at 6:47
  • 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
    Commented Mar 29, 2023 at 6:49
  • @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
    Commented Mar 29, 2023 at 9:50
  • 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 Commented Mar 29, 2023 at 11:38
  • 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. Commented Mar 29, 2023 at 17:13

2 Answers 2


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.

  • 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. Commented Mar 29, 2023 at 14:00
  • 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
    Commented Mar 29, 2023 at 14:10
  • 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. Commented Mar 29, 2023 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) Commented Mar 29, 2023 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 ... Commented Mar 30, 2023 at 5:38

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.

I can also address the suggestion of using time travel. Until the episode in question, it was not really possible to time travel by choice. Whenever it happened before, it was only by chance. It happens when the path of the Stargate goes through a solar flare and that is almost impossible to predict. The first time it happened, they were only able to come back because they had historical data on when the next solar flare would occur. Another time when they were able to time travel was when they had access to Aschen super computers, but the Aschen are not a very friendly race.

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

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.