PDA

View Full Version : The Asgard's Fate ('Unending' SPOILERS)



Starrtom
February 19th, 2008, 01:12 PM
I think the final end of the Asgard was the wrong move. How can a race that has been around for eons and the level of technology they achieved just give up and destroy themselves because they couldn't solve what is in essance a technological problem? It beggers belief, if mankind was in their position would we do what they did? I think in the end they showed that they are neurotic whimps, it was totally unnecessary to end such a great race. What do you folk think?

AscendedThor
February 19th, 2008, 03:49 PM
I think the Asgard faked their deaths. think about it, where is their fleet? where are all their ships? why didn't they give them to Earth?

I think they faked their deaths. they did destroy their planet but not before storing all their brains on their ships and moving to some other distant galaxy to restart thier civilization without constantly being bothered by replicators, ori, goauld, and earthlings asking for help.

Starrtom
February 19th, 2008, 04:17 PM
I think the Asgard faked their deaths. think about it, where is their fleet? where are all their ships? why didn't they give them to Earth?

I think they faked their deaths. they did destroy their planet but not before storing all their brains on their ships and moving to some other distant galaxy to restart thier civilization without constantly being bothered by replicators, ori, goauld, and earthlings asking for help.

That's not a bad idea, I like it, unlikely but I like it.

Starrtom
February 19th, 2008, 04:20 PM
I think you should have used the search function.

sorry didn' realise there was a similar thread. Still welcome to express a view though:)

Myles
February 19th, 2008, 04:33 PM
Yes, killing off the Asgard is perhaps the only thing nearly all Stargate fans will agree to hate. That and maybe Kinsley.

Cynycal
February 19th, 2008, 07:30 PM
the faked deaths thing is a cool idea, if they did maybe we could find out about it in SGU and be like wtf are you doin here and get all pissy with em lol

Blistna
February 19th, 2008, 07:57 PM
Yes, killing off the Asgard is perhaps the only thing nearly all Stargate fans will agree to hate. That and maybe Kinsley.

I actually liked it, but hated Unending. The Asgard dieing should have happened last, as a climax of sort. But I don't like them moving away from us and their problems....hell, we saved them a thousand times, and i am sure they aren't cowards, and thats what the would be if they were "running away".

And why would they kill themselves? Ask yourself this: Would you jump off a 20 story building that on fire, and you as well? I mean, your burns are only a "technology" problem, who cares that it will hurt like hell...

Would you jump and kill yourself? They admit it to themselves and everyone, they made to many grave mistakes, I believe their words were.

Now as to where their fleet is...good question, plothole? Or did they solve their problem, wanted the Ori to believe they were dead so they could go off and actually fix themselves in peace, and then come back when Earth kills the Ori? Who knows. The writers might not even know.

So maybe we all are waiting!

Starrtom
February 19th, 2008, 08:33 PM
I actually liked it, but hated Unending. The Asgard dieing should have happened last, as a climax of sort. But I don't like them moving away from us and their problems....hell, we saved them a thousand times, and i am sure they aren't cowards, and thats what the would be if they were "running away".

And why would they kill themselves? Ask yourself this: Would you jump off a 20 story building that on fire, and you as well? I mean, your burns are only a "technology" problem, who cares that it will hurt like hell...

Would you jump and kill yourself? They admit it to themselves and everyone, they made to many grave mistakes, I believe their words were.

Now as to where their fleet is...good question, plothole? Or did they solve their problem, wanted the Ori to believe they were dead so they could go off and actually fix themselves in peace, and then come back when Earth kills the Ori? Who knows. The writers might not even know.

So maybe we all are waiting!

I am not sure I agree with your anology of juming off the building if it's on fire. My answer to that is, if there are no other options I probably would, but this is an immediate life and death issue. The Asgard weren't about to die within minutes. Yes they made a lot of mistakes, they could have asKed theTauri to help them, like we did with their fight against the replicators. Get a differernt way of looking at the problem, why didn't they do that? The Tokra might have been able to help them, there was still a few options.

February 19th, 2008, 08:51 PM
At the VERY least, couldn't we have hooked them up with Harlen from "Tin Man" so that they could get robot bodies? Surely they could have figured out an internal power source so that they wouldn't be stuck there fixing crap all day long!

I am on the "They faked their deaths" bandwagon. They are simply not stupid enough to commit mass suicide....right?????? :mckay:


Com-traya!

NoobTau'ri
February 19th, 2008, 10:00 PM
I am sick and tired of people in this board boasting ad nauseum about how we have "saved" the Asgard a dozen times. Guess what? If the Asgard hadn't included us in the Interplanetary Protection treaty, the System Lords would ahve wiped us out, no "ifs", "ands" or "buts". However, it is not a sure thing the Asgard wouldn't have survived the replicators without our help, so stop boasting because the Asgard did much more for us then us for them.

umopapisdn
February 20th, 2008, 12:32 AM
I still like the idea that not all asgard would have acceptedb the cloning and would have left only to go to another galaxy cluster or something, it's a long shot but I would like it. They must have had very few asgard left to get rid of all of their population at once, perhaps in the asgard cc they have the minds of all of them stored. I hate not having the asgard around, I hope they did fake their own death then step in and save atlantis from total destruction in season 5/6. If they had gone around blowing up loads of ships and things no-one would have noticed.

NoobTau'ri
February 20th, 2008, 04:49 AM
Yes, the Asgard are capable of building hyperdrives that make their ships be able to cross galaxies in minutes, but they can't fix a genetic problem. Makes as much sense as anything else in Stargate...

Aryk Celestis
February 20th, 2008, 05:11 AM
It's sad to see the Asgard go, but in my opinion, it's a necessary step of the series. For years, there was always this sense that if things were to really go wrong, the Asgard could always step in and help. Since the destruction of the MW Replicators, that has been even more so. I know there have been plenty of fans that wondered why there weren't anymore Asgard kicking Ori butt.

This way, Earth is really on it's own again (for the most part) despite having some awesome technology; they're now the Fifth Race, it's up to them to guide the galaxy, despite not really being ready for it. It significantly ups the danger-level now that the Asgard are gone.

Finally, I think the writers also wanted to sort of make a point that no species can outrun their demise. By cloning, the Asgard had done more wrong than good to themselves and rendered themselves incapable of Ascension. When you're dying, you can fight all you want, but there comes a point where everyone has to throw in the towel.

Prior_of_the_Ori
February 20th, 2008, 05:28 AM
Why would the Asgard give their fleet to Earth? Seriously, how much more powerful do you people want Earth to get? They already have a database full ofthe Asgard's knowledge allowing them to create whatever they want once they understand its contents and giving it to a race who are as capable of destroying themselves then using it in any meaningful manner and doesnt even have an established world government.......

Anyway, as Heimdall said, the Asgard were a dying race... their mistake on using cloning technology exclusively meant that their genome was irrepairbly damaged. It would have taken a deus ex machina to save them due to the constant failure.

Another reason was to remove such a powerful force from protecting Earth all the time... I mean how many people have said, the Ori are invading the galaxy where are the Asgard? Anubis sent an asteroid at Earth, where are the Asgard? My car is not working, where are the Asgard?! It makes Earth walk by itself without using the Asgard as effective cover.

Jackie
February 20th, 2008, 05:43 AM
but, but, but...if tptb didn't kill the asgard how else would we get a plot device to explain the rapidly growing new tech toys that is currently replacing the stargate itself and morphing the run off show into...Stargate Enterprise.

a6346
February 20th, 2008, 07:03 AM
also what happened to the other asgard planets they had more than 1. but would be cool of the asgard came back and sadi in 4 years oh were not realy did we were just facking it so we didnt have to babysit the universe for a while.

also could be cool that atlantis is exploring an anceint or wratih compound and finds a frozen asgaurd thats been captured either the wraith wanted its technology and didnt feed on it or the anceints were impressed by the asgard brain and when they werent looking thought lets just go steal one and find out what makes it tick.

if the asgard were gona commit suicide they could atleast kamikazied there ships into the ori home galaxy and saved us one last time but thats just sucky.

oh well long live the asgard.

Cynycal
February 20th, 2008, 09:48 AM
[mod snip]

seriously though it is a cool idea for the Asgard to have a "shoot-off" race maybe less technologically advanced even, elsewhere (other galaxy perhaps)

Blistna
February 20th, 2008, 10:01 AM
I am not sure I agree with your anology of juming off the building if it's on fire. My answer to that is, if there are no other options I probably would, but this is an immediate life and death issue. The Asgard weren't about to die within minutes. Yes they made a lot of mistakes, they could have asKed theTauri to help them, like we did with their fight against the replicators. Get a differernt way of looking at the problem, why didn't they do that? The Tokra might have been able to help them, there was still a few options.

First off...I guess I wasn't exactly clear on my analogy. I meant about the pain part. They said they, as a race, were almost dead in Unending. Almost as in...who knows? Days? Years? But not many years. And yes, we don't know if they were in pain, but I can only imagine.

And it's been a long time coming, anyway. We have known they were a dieing race for a long time...and they have known way before us. And who knows if the Tokra could have helped, I mean...there problem is in the cloning... and have Tokra ever experiments with that? And I don't know that we could help them, we can't even clone a human....

PG15
February 20th, 2008, 10:57 AM
Yes, the Asgard are capable of building hyperdrives that make their ships be able to cross galaxies in minutes, but they can't fix a genetic problem. Makes as much sense as anything else in Stargate...

That makes no sense. Just because they're advanced in one area of technology, doesn't mean they're equally advanced in all areas. Besides, we don't even have a "scale of advancement". For all we know, getting hyperdrives is nothing compared to how much you have to advanced to reach the level they're at with cloning tech.

s09119
February 20th, 2008, 11:34 AM
That makes no sense. Just because they're advanced in one area of technology, doesn't mean they're equally advanced in all areas. Besides, we don't even have a "scale of advancement". For all we know, getting hyperdrives is nothing compared to how much you have to advanced to reach the level they're at with cloning tech.

Very true. For example, the Lanteans could build drone weapons and the stargate network, but their hyperdrives took months to cross the Pegasus Galaxy ("Aurora").

striker7770
February 20th, 2008, 11:48 AM
also if the asgard ships were as powerful, like destroying a ship with three blasts. why don't they fight, they could win. At least 5 ships to 2 or three.

Also why didn't the asgard try to destroy the supergate.

s09119
February 20th, 2008, 11:50 AM
also if the asgard ships were as powerful, like destroying a ship with three blasts. why don't they fight, they could win. At least 5 ships to 2 or three.

Also why didn't the asgard try to destroy the supergate.

In "Beachhead," the Asgard are still rebuilding from their war with the Replicators, and couldn't spare any ships on such short notice. And in "Camelot," they arrived only a short while before the Ori arrived, and seeing as the Jaffa had already tried and failed they probably figured it would be a better use of time to try and disable the gate rather than try and destroy it.

NoobTau'ri
February 20th, 2008, 12:10 PM
That makes no sense. Just because they're advanced in one area of technology, doesn't mean they're equally advanced in all areas. Besides, we don't even have a "scale of advancement". For all we know, getting hyperdrives is nothing compared to how much you have to advanced to reach the level they're at with cloning tech.

Building an intergalactic hyperdrive requires far more advanced science than curing a physiological condition. There is no reason why a civilization capable of that wouldn't be able to cure a genetic disease. And you are wrong about being advanced in one area but not in others. For instance, creating the hydrogen bomb and sending man to the Moon required the development of computers, because the sheer amount of computations necessary for accomplishing that is not possible with a pocket calcluator. So here we have an example of an advancement in one area of technology advancing others. Look at us. We are far more advanced today in all areas of technology than we were a thousand years ago. Not in some, but in all. Technological development in different areas correlate. You will never see a species that is super-advanced in one area being completely primitive in another. As we advance, all of our technologies advance as well. Some might advance faster than others, but advacement in all areas of technology correlate.

s09119
February 20th, 2008, 12:13 PM
Building an intergalactic hyperdrive requires far more advanced science than curing a physiological condition. There is no reason why a civilization capable of that wouldn't be able to cure that. And you are wrong about being advanced in one area but not in others. For instance, creating the hydrogen bomb and sending man to the Moon required the development of computers, because the sheer amount of computations necessary for accomplishing that is not possible with apocket calcluator. So here we have an example of an advancement in one area of technology advaning others. Look at us. We are far more advanced today in all areas of technology than we were a thousand years ago. Not in some, but in all. Technological development in different areas correlate. You will never see a species that is super-advanced in one area being completely primitive in another. As we advance, all of out technologies advance as well. Some might advance faster than others, but advacement in all areas of technology correlate.

Considering you don't know of any real alien civilizations, that entire post is speculative. Of course a society may be very advanced in one area and not much in another. For all we know, the Asgard spent 3000 years devoted entirely to hyperdrive research and not much else. We have no idea.

NoobTau'ri
February 20th, 2008, 12:17 PM
Considering you don't know of any real alien civilizations, that entire post is speculative. Of course a society may be very advanced in one area and not much in another. For all we know, the Asgard spent 3000 years devoted entirely to hyperdrive research and not much else. We have no idea.

I don't need to know any alien civilizations because I have us as an example. Like I said, disprove my claims that technological progress in all fields correlate. You can't, because I have evidence for this in that we are more advanced today in all fields of technology than we were a few centuries ago. It is impossible for the Asgard to have intergalactic hyperdrives but a level of medical science that is only equal or inferior to that of us today.

s09119
February 20th, 2008, 12:34 PM
I don't need to know any alien civilizations because I have us as an example. Like I said, disprove my claims that technological progress in all fields correlate. You can't, because I have evidence for this in that we are more advanced today in all fields of technology than we were a few centuries ago. It is impossible for the Asgard to have intergalactic hyperdrives but a level of medical science that is only equal or inferior to that of us today.

Um... I highly doubt humanity as of today could solve a rapidly-progressing genetic disease caused by a "glitch" in a cloning process. I'd equate it to cancer, actually, and we can't cure that, can we?

Starrtom
February 20th, 2008, 01:03 PM
Um... I highly doubt humanity as of today could solve a rapidly-progressing genetic disease caused by a "glitch" in a cloning process. I'd equate it to cancer, actually, and we can't cure that, can we?

Some cancers we can cure and others we can slow down; whilst others we can't cure at all. But in all cases we know what is going on and how the disease works. Given that I am sure in time we will be able to cure them all. We might not be able to solve the Asgard genetic problem, but maybe we can show them a new way of tackling the problem. Remember they used Sam with her stupid idea's to fight the replicators.

The old saying goes" it's the first sign of insanity of you try the same thing twice and expect a different outcome".

s09119
February 20th, 2008, 01:34 PM
Some cancers we can cure and others we can slow down; whilst others we can't cure at all. But in all cases we know what is going on and how the disease works. Given that I am sure in time we will be able to cure them all. We might not be able to solve the Asgard genetic problem, but maybe we can show them a new way of tackling the problem. Remember they used Sam with her stupid idea's to fight the replicators.

The old saying goes" it's the first sign of insanity of you try the same thing twice and expect a different outcome".

Remember, though, the Asgard no longer think on our level. They try to achieve a "win" through elegant technology and powerful weapons; they may never consider sabotage or spying. This can be applied to medicine, too. They could be pumping out all sorts of amazing medicines and surgical tools, but might never think of using nanites to to crawl inside you and cut out a tumor.

Cynycal
February 20th, 2008, 01:58 PM
oops I must have said something bad or revealing to get snipped I guess, kinda hard to believe though since I don't know anything "revealing" so maybe i cursed accidentally...

anyway I forget what the term is called when a society develops to a certain point then they shun technology to a degree for whatever reason, It could be interesting to see an off-shoot of the asgard that for some reason did that, be it religious (which i doubt) or perhaps just through self-preservation and in the end they ended up being the ones that were right because the more technologically advanced asgard "done blew themselves up"

PG15
February 20th, 2008, 02:40 PM
I don't need to know any alien civilizations because I have us as an example. Like I said, disprove my claims that technological progress in all fields correlate. You can't, because I have evidence for this in that we are more advanced today in all fields of technology than we were a few centuries ago. It is impossible for the Asgard to have intergalactic hyperdrives but a level of medical science that is only equal or inferior to that of us today.

While you definitely have a point there, s09119 is right. We weren't told the details of the genetic disease that plagued the Asgard, and thus we can't really say that it'll only take what we know to cure it. It could be ridiculously complicated for all we know.

And aren't some people already looking into developing hyperdrives?

Aewon
February 21st, 2008, 09:26 AM
Building an intergalactic hyperdrive requires far more advanced science than curing a physiological condition. There is no reason why a civilization capable of that wouldn't be able to cure a genetic disease. And you are wrong about being advanced in one area but not in others. For instance, creating the hydrogen bomb and sending man to the Moon required the development of computers, because the sheer amount of computations necessary for accomplishing that is not possible with a pocket calcluator. So here we have an example of an advancement in one area of technology advancing others. Look at us. We are far more advanced today in all areas of technology than we were a thousand years ago. Not in some, but in all. Technological development in different areas correlate. You will never see a species that is super-advanced in one area being completely primitive in another. As we advance, all of our technologies advance as well. Some might advance faster than others, but advacement in all areas of technology correlate.

1. You're assuming the technological timeline is linear. It is not. If Einstein had died in childbirth there would be no Theory of Relativity, or at least not for decades later, and we would not have had nuclear weapons. Besides, did you know that steam was originally invented by a Greek philosopher in Alexandria more than 2,000 years ago?

2. A civilization can, in theory, build air planes and quite possible rockets that can leave the orbit of the civilization's home planet without going through an industrial revolution. Technological development would have been a lot slower, but it would have moved forwards.

3. The "Western" civilization today was created by European imperialists that forcibly modernised other civilizations in the world that were less advanced. That happened in the Americas, Africa and China and southern Asia. And Australia, too. The Greeks would not have done that. They would have made trade-partners across the seas (they already had such trading partners, but I'm talking globally here) and only influenced them in some ways as they would in turn have influenced them.

kymeric
February 21st, 2008, 02:22 PM
I think the final end of the Asgard was the wrong move. How can a race that has been around for eons and the level of technology they achieved just give up and destroy themselves because they couldn't solve what is in essance a technological problem? It beggers belief, if mankind was in their position would we do what they did? I think in the end they showed that they are neurotic whimps, it was totally unnecessary to end such a great race. What do you folk think?

LAWL

Titanic: how can something soo big sink?

Mobiac
February 21st, 2008, 11:45 PM
I think the Asgard faked their deaths. think about it, where is their fleet? where are all their ships? why didn't they give them to Earth?

I think they faked their deaths. they did destroy their planet but not before storing all their brains on their ships and moving to some other distant galaxy to restart thier civilization without constantly being bothered by replicators, ori, goauld, and earthlings asking for help.

I believe they faked their deaths, aswell. Also, I never bought their inabillity to ascend. I always thought/looked at ascention as a cerebral eveolution, not souly a biological one. But I digress, I keep thinking somewhere out there they have their new and improved bodies (I would imagine scrauny human size body mixed with asguard chracteristics). Still P.O.ed about the Furrlings though.

meenamjah
December 7th, 2015, 02:07 PM
this whole thing is completely idiotic. what were the writer thinking? They weren't anywhere close to dying off. There was still hope. and if the time travel pod of the ancients is any indication, more than just hope.
Also, considering their ability to upload their consciousness to a computer, no reason they couldn't survive in some sort of mechanical or robotic form.

everything about it completely reeks.

KingIsulgard
November 14th, 2017, 12:37 AM
this whole thing is completely idiotic. what were the writer thinking? They weren't anywhere close to dying off. There was still hope. and if the time travel pod of the ancients is any indication, more than just hope.
Also, considering their ability to upload their consciousness to a computer, no reason they couldn't survive in some sort of mechanical or robotic form.

everything about it completely reeks.

I started watching Stargate SG-1 this year and just finished the last episode of the series. Really enjoyed it.
My bet is that the Asgard gave humans Asgardian technology and faked their deaths as a way to test humans for their true worthiness of being a 5th race.

With the Asgardian technology and the Asgards gone, Earth now basically has an unchallenged power over the entire universe.
Would they abuse their superior power or still use it to do good? Would they just use it for only helping themselves or would they become the new protectors of life throughout the universe? How do they act when no one is watching them anymore?

Anyway I hope to know more about their faith when watching SGU or SG Atlantis or the continuum movie.