Home The Bridge

"The trouble with Tuvix" or "We've created monster!"

I have not been able to fuse Tuvix for some time. I lstarted leveling both Chef Neelix and Sec Tuvok.. I never got the fuse button. I got frustrated and immortalized Neelix and left Tuvok at 3*/level99. I finally got another Neelix and hope to do it right this time. Any advise? 3r0440bpytxc.jpg
«1

Comments

  • Wrong Neelix, you need the 3 star version of Neelix as well but only 1/3 stars.
  • Wrong neelix unfortunately. You need Ambassador Neelix
  • XoiikuXoiiku ✭✭✭✭
    For those interested there is a good resource on the wiki: https://stt.wiki/wiki/Tuvix#Obtaining_Tuvix
    We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy.
    Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
  • For those interested there is a good resource on the wiki: https://stt.wiki/wiki/Tuvix#Obtaining_Tuvix

    True, but most ppl are just too lazy to check, search and read. :D
    •SSR Delta Flyers•
  • Not everyone knows about the wiki when they first start off
  • DScottHewittDScottHewitt ✭✭✭✭✭
    Not everyone knows about the wiki when they first start off

    Which is why it is great that someone links it when something is discussed that it can answer.

    "The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
  • (HGH)Apollo(HGH)Apollo ✭✭✭✭✭
    I liked Tuvix. He was the bets of neelix and tuvok. I was so mad at Janeway when she killed him. Just use teleporter to make a copy of tuvix and use that to bring back neelix and tuvok.
    Let’s fly!
  • Mizike wrote: »
    Doh!. Thanks guys.. the monster was me the whole time.

    10 points for making me laugh!
  • Dr. AnomalyDr. Anomaly ✭✭✭
    edited December 2017
    Reminds me of Grover's "There's a Monster at the End of this Book"

    ;)
  • I liked Tuvix. He was the bets of neelix and tuvok. I was so mad at Janeway when she killed him. Just use teleporter to make a copy of tuvix and use that to bring back neelix and tuvok.
    Tuvok was simply a boring character. Neelix was annoying and somewhat useless, especially early on in Voyager. Tuvix took what little there was of the best of both characters and discarded all the bad parts to create a truly interesting and compelling character (and wonderfully acted as well).

    Janeway's decision to kill Tuvix just to bring back her friend and Kes' weird boyfriend (I wish this was a storyline that never existed) has never sat well with me. To me, it always came off as a selfish decision since Tuvix had Tuvok and Neelix's abilities and could perform Tuvok's duties without being a boring statue. Whenever I watch the episode it breaks my heart to see the Voyager crew just stand there quietly while Tuvix pleads for his life. Great episode.
  • ClanofClanof ✭✭✭
    To me that was the worst episode of Voyager. Even worse than Threshold. If they had kept Tuvix as a main character for the rest of the series it would have been awesome, but the plainly immoral decision to allow Janeway to murder him is unforgivable.
  • (HGH)Apollo(HGH)Apollo ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes it was poorly written and it didnt make sense. Tuvix was real and he was there. There was no guarantee that Tuvok and Neelix could be restored. Janeway was willing to kill Tuvix for a chance of getting Tuvok and Neelix back. It was very much like the terrible Enterprise episode with the Tucker clone that Phlox and Archer were willing to murder to have a chance of saving the original Tucker.
    Let’s fly!
  • Data1001Data1001 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Janeway's decision to kill Tuvix just to bring back her friend and Kes' weird boyfriend (I wish this was a storyline that never existed) has never sat well with me. To me, it always came off as a selfish decision since Tuvix had Tuvok and Neelix's abilities and could perform Tuvok's duties without being a boring statue.

    Well, yes, but... it's one of those moral conundrums that has no good answer. Like this philosophical question: if you were driving an out-of-control vehicle, would you choose to run down (and likely kill) your best friend/lover/family member, rather than run your vehicle into a large crowd of mothers with their young children?

    In this case, besides the "logical" considerations of losing two crew members to gain one new one, the emotional considerations are huge. If your significant other was merged with another person and you would never have that person back again in the same way that they were before, I think you would likely want to go through with the procedure in order to get them back. It is selfish, but that in itself doesn't make it wrong. Or right, really. I agree with you that such an episode which explores those very gray, very dark areas, is what makes for incredibly compelling drama.


    Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing.
    ~ Data, ST:TNG "Haven"
  • Capt. ChaosCapt. Chaos ✭✭✭✭✭
    I can't get beyond the transporter malfunction creating a multi-species hybrid with complete memories from both instead of a pile of goo. The writers lost me right there.
  • JhamelJhamel ✭✭✭✭✭
    Satanic chroniton amount you got there in your screenshot. :D
    "Everything about the Jem'Hadar is lethal!" - Eris (ST-DS9 Episode 2x26 "The Jem'Hadar")
  • DralixDralix ✭✭✭✭✭
    I can't get beyond the transporter malfunction creating a multi-species hybrid with complete memories from both instead of a pile of goo. The writers lost me right there.

    As opposed to a transporter malfunction separating someone into good and evil versions? Or sending them to an evil parallel universe? Or deflecting back and creating an exact duplicate? Or transforming their bodies into children - with appropriate sized uniforms no less?
  • Capt. ChaosCapt. Chaos ✭✭✭✭✭
    Dralix wrote: »
    I can't get beyond the transporter malfunction creating a multi-species hybrid with complete memories from both instead of a pile of goo. The writers lost me right there.

    As opposed to a transporter malfunction separating someone into good and evil versions? Or sending them to an evil parallel universe? Or deflecting back and creating an exact duplicate? Or transforming their bodies into children - with appropriate sized uniforms no less?

    Haven't seen the kid episode. 😀 I think part of the issue is that the transporter was pure magic and the writers could never decide how it was supposed to function technically. Sometimes people got lost in transit, sometimes they were in a "pattern buffer", sometimes weird crap like Tuvix. Pretty janky tech if you ask me.
  • MagisseMagisse ✭✭✭✭✭
    Dralix wrote: »
    I can't get beyond the transporter malfunction creating a multi-species hybrid with complete memories from both instead of a pile of goo. The writers lost me right there.

    As opposed to a transporter malfunction separating someone into good and evil versions? Or sending them to an evil parallel universe? Or deflecting back and creating an exact duplicate? Or transforming their bodies into children - with appropriate sized uniforms no less?

    Haven't seen the kid episode. 😀 I think part of the issue is that the transporter was pure magic and the writers could never decide how it was supposed to function technically. Sometimes people got lost in transit, sometimes they were in a "pattern buffer", sometimes weird crap like Tuvix. Pretty janky tech if you ask me.
    Kind of makes Pulaski and Reg sound a little more reasonable with their transporter phobias, doesn't it?

  • DralixDralix ✭✭✭✭✭
    Magisse wrote: »
    Kind of makes Pulaski and Reg sound a little more reasonable with their transporter phobias, doesn't it?

    Don't forget Bones. What does it mean when the doctors don't trust the transporters?

    Anyway, I always thought of it as a parallel to flying - the statistics say flying is the safest mode of transportation today, just like the transporter.
  • Paund SkummPaund Skumm ✭✭✭✭✭
    Dralix wrote: »
    Magisse wrote: »
    Kind of makes Pulaski and Reg sound a little more reasonable with their transporter phobias, doesn't it?

    Don't forget Bones. What does it mean when the doctors don't trust the transporters?

    Anyway, I always thought of it as a parallel to flying - the statistics say flying is the safest mode of transportation today, just like the transporter.

    Sure... but I have a couple million miles in a plane and have had not problems (aborted landing in Dubrovnik yesterday was the first ever for me) whereas it seemed like the transporter malfunctioned or caused some funky stuff (evil clones, zapping you to a parallel universe, transporting you into vacuum, or just not working for x reason) every other episode in TOS... If I’d seen as many screw ups as Bones, I’d be paranoid about the damned thing scrambling my molecules across the galaxy too !!!
  • DralixDralix ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sure... but I have a couple million miles in a plane and have had not problems (aborted landing in Dubrovnik yesterday was the first ever for me) whereas it seemed like the transporter malfunctioned or caused some funky stuff (evil clones, zapping you to a parallel universe, transporting you into vacuum, or just not working for x reason) every other episode in TOS... If I’d seen as many screw ups as Bones, I’d be paranoid about the damned thing scrambling my molecules across the galaxy too !!!

    Geordi addressed that - there are millions of successful transports compared to a few incidents. On the shows, we see the high profile incidents. Just like on the news we see plane crashes. Someone who thinks flying is dangerous doesn't think about all the flights that don't crash. That's the parallel they drew.
  • Paund SkummPaund Skumm ✭✭✭✭✭
    Dralix wrote: »
    Sure... but I have a couple million miles in a plane and have had not problems (aborted landing in Dubrovnik yesterday was the first ever for me) whereas it seemed like the transporter malfunctioned or caused some funky stuff (evil clones, zapping you to a parallel universe, transporting you into vacuum, or just not working for x reason) every other episode in TOS... If I’d seen as many screw ups as Bones, I’d be paranoid about the damned thing scrambling my molecules across the galaxy too !!!

    Geordi addressed that - there are millions of successful transports compared to a few incidents. On the shows, we see the high profile incidents. Just like on the news we see plane crashes. Someone who thinks flying is dangerous doesn't think about all the flights that don't crash. That's the parallel they drew.

    Oh I get that... but the crew of the Enterprise must be the most unlucky in the galaxy because for all the other millions of successful transports in the rest of the galaxy, they got the problems and failures virtually every episode.

    The equivalent would be a commercial pilot whose personal experience is engine failures, mechanical problems, and the occasional crash landing every couple of flights... but manages to survive every time. if Ihat happened to me, I’d be as jaded as Bones as well...
  • Data1001Data1001 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Interesting discussion. Aside from the risks of something going wrong, I think I'd be more concerned with the idea that you are basically killed every time you transport somewhere. The version of you which appears at the destination is not technically the same exact person who said "Energize." A collection of molecules at your destination were re-formed into a set which should exactly match the same collection of molecules that "you" were before the transport. But it's not the same, not really. This raises all sorts of moral and ethical and spiritual questions for me, which might be enough to keep me from agreeing to be transported anywhere, unless it was a life-and-death situation. (Then again, any use of the transporter, by the terms I described above, is, in a sense, a life-and-death situation. ;) )


    Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing.
    ~ Data, ST:TNG "Haven"
  • Paund SkummPaund Skumm ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2017
    I believe that the transporter was originally put in the TOS because of timing and budget constraints of them having to shuttle down to every planet (I mean reality budget in our real world Hollywood, not budget constraints of Starfleet). It then got coded into the script writing DNA that transporter failures were a great plot device for writing aka “we’re In trouble, beam us up... sorry, transporter problems, looks like you’re going to have to cheat death on your own”.

    I remember we were debating (yes I’m that old) prior to TNG release if the transporter would keep failing like in TOS (it didn’t) and if they would keep the classic “expendable crewman” aka “red shirts” whose only purpose was to beam down with the captain and get killed before the intro credits.

    Those of us weaned in TOS are always leery of the transporter... I mean, they even killed two people at the beginning of TMP movie in a transporter “accident” for no reason other than to show us (and reinforce Bones existing phobia) that transporters still sucked 15 years after TOS. Those who grew up on TNG and later don’t have the same phobia as they seemed to not kill, maim, clone, etc. as much as they did on TOS. The Tuvix episode on Voyager was a rare exception, in TOS it happened virtually every episode.
  • Always hated the way the Tuvix episode ended. Murdering a person to bring 2 people back to life, with absolutely no regard for the wishes of the individual. Imagine what the world would be like if our hospitals acted like that:

    "Well Mrs. Summers it looks like you have breast cancer. We could give you a mastectomy, but we've got 2 people downstairs in need of organ transplants and you're a match. An orderly will be by in a moment to escort you to the execution chamber."

  • Capt. ChaosCapt. Chaos ✭✭✭✭✭
    Bobkyou wrote: »
    Always hated the way the Tuvix episode ended. Murdering a person to bring 2 people back to life, with absolutely no regard for the wishes of the individual. Imagine what the world would be like if our hospitals acted like that:

    "Well Mrs. Summers it looks like you have breast cancer. We could give you a mastectomy, but we've got 2 people downstairs in need of organ transplants and you're a match. An orderly will be by in a moment to escort you to the execution chamber."

    In this case it would be like returning the donated organs to the original donors. Is it better to kill one to let two live? And at what point does killing an individual to save many make actuarial sense? A plot device straight out of a freshman philosophy class.
  • Black PebbleBlack Pebble ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2017
    In this case it would be like returning the donated organs to the original donors. Is it better to kill one to let two live? And at what point does killing an individual to save many make actuarial sense? A plot device straight out of a freshman philosophy class.

    https://youtu.be/bHI2QV_-mF0
    Hosun Lee
    Civilian, Brand and Marketing
    Ex-Disruptor Beam
  • MagisseMagisse ✭✭✭✭✭
    Always seemed to me like the darn holodeck was more trouble than the transporter. Thing seems to try and take over the ship every other week.
Sign In or Register to comment.