You can say it as many times as you like. The character's name was still Kowalski, played by the same actor... etc. For all effective intents and purposes, the same guy... and even written as such in the given plot.Originally Posted by David85
Should they re-introduce any other characters, such as Janet, she would be called Janet, portrayed by the same actress, behave in much the same fashion, and so on. For all intents and purposes, Janet.
If you want to have a fanwank snit-fit over the differences of some sort of fictional pseudosciences technojabber, be my guest. The net effect is "bringing a character back." But please, ignore the entire purpose of the plot device... and lecture me some more.
Treat it not as a story, but treat it as some sort of objective reality. Treat it not as a mechanism to return an actor to a show, but some cosmic means of literally bringing an alternate version of the same person to another reality. I need the laugh.
Edited to add:
And as the quantum mirror was ordered destroyed by Hammond when it last appeared, I suppose that plot device is laid to rest anyway.
Characters come back from the dead far too often. Sometimes HUGE efforts are involved (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock) and it doesn't seem to be quite so cheap. On the other hand, a "temporal shower scene" (cleverness borrowed ... but I can't recall from where) that would cheapen the very concept of a character dying to the point of making it no longer dramatic.
If they're going to do it... better it be something dramatic.