2

(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.

Improve this question
11
  • 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 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
    Mar 29 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
    Mar 29 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
    – SpacePhoenix
    Mar 29 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.
    – RoamingShroob
    Mar 29 at 17:13

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

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.

Improve this answer
9
  • 1
    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 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 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 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 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 at 20:38

Your Answer

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

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