Howling:Burning Jack

In Miracle Day, the non-dying can be killed by burning them completely into dust, so why hasn't anyone done this to Jack yet? Why bothered trapping him in a block of cement and creating massive explosions and stuff when you can incinerate him into dust? But his existence is also fixed...so what happened to his consciousness? If it takes him a long time to gather together, then it would still have been worth it to burn him, yet people don't do it. Certainly disintergrating him into atoms would make it at least extremely troublesome and takes a long time for him to recover. Yet, he was still physically relatively unharmed after travelling through the time vortex unprotected. Jack certainly can't be truly immortal if time is finite, when Jack travels back in time every time he reaches the end of time, there would be infinite copies of Jack at every instance. --222.166.181.234 22:28, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

Jack does seem to have died eventually, in Gridlock. Anyway, the difference between Jack and the category ones is that Jack can heal. The Daleks incinerated him in Journey's End, and Jack just came out of the incinerator unharmed (even his clothes were okay somehow). Same in Utopia-stet radiation instantly turns people into dust, but it seems to have just caused Jack minor discomfort. Containing Jack is much more practical than trying to kill him.Icecreamdif talk to me 05:16, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

The Daleks didn't incinerate Jack. They put what they thought was a dead body into the incinerator and assumed that it would be incinerated. Jack wasn't even unconscious at that stage, however. (We'd already seen him wink at the Doctor, while he was lying on the deck of the Vault.) He simply played possum until the Daleks left, then got out of the incinerator PDQ, which is why his clothes were undamaged. --89.240.242.174 12:08, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

I thought he wasn't able to get out until after he was incinerated. Anyway, the worst that burning him could possibly do would be to make it take longer for him to come back to life. Burning presumably didn't even kill the category ones, but just disposed of their bodies. Burning Jack would kill him, but not for long.Icecreamdif talk to me 18:48, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

"the worst that burning him could possibly do would be to make it take longer for him to come back to life": Exactly. And, in Journey's End, he was up and running almost instantly. The scene with the incinerator was pretty much in real time, so he was in there only for seconds. --89.241.66.83 03:37, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, incineration DID cause proper death on miracle day. But rest assured it was only one of very few ways you could kill a category one. 83.100.186.113talk to me 14:31, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

That would already be good enough to enforce a lot of plans. It took him relatively long to recover from the explosion, burning him down to ashes or even disintegrating him into particles would almost certainly mean that they could do other safety measures. Not to mention that disintegrating him and sealing each particle in cement blocks and scatter the blocks would by this implication means an effective measure of keeping Jack from interfering. --222.166.181.222 22:14, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Burning isn't instant though. He could start healing before he was reduced to ashes.Icecreamdif talk to me 00:29, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the temperature and the area. You can claim explosion isn't instant if you moves at the speed of light and we clearly see it worked somewhat well and delayed his complete healing by quite a bit of time. --222.166.181.239 08:15, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

The reason that they tried the explosion was because they assumed that his immortality had something to do with the rift, and they thought destroying the hub would render him mortal. Once they realized that putting a bomb in his stomach wasn't enough to kill him, they would have also realized that burning him would be useless. He would still heal eventually. Putting him in the cement, however, was a pretty effective way of containing him. Remember, they weren't trying to stop other people from breaking him out. Johnson's other men were supposed to kill Gwen and Ianto, and then they didn't expect either of them to make it past the guards. They just figured that Jack, being Jack, would probably be able to break out of an ordinary prison cell, but nobody could possibly escape being encased in cement by themselves. Burning his body, and then encasing the ashes in cement would have just seemed like overkill.Icecreamdif talk to me 15:58, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

It sucessfully took him long enough to regenerate so burning him down into ashes would theoretically take longer, and cementing it and distributing it would effectively prevent him from interfering. The cement plan failed so encasing ashes in cement is certainly not overkilled. --222.166.181.230 16:59, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but they didn't think it would fail. They had Jack encased in a cement cell, at a secret complex in the middle of nowhere. He certainly can't escape by himself. The rest of his team is on the run without any resources. They didn't think that Gwen and Ianto would be able to find Jack, much less free him. Gwen only made it their because someone who Johnson had never even heard of defected, and Ianto only made it their because he managed to get their license plate number, which she didn't know he did, and because he was able to get his sister's car and laptop, despite the fact that her house was being watched. Even then, they only managed to free Jack since they both coincidentally showed up at the same time. That turn of events was completely unforseeable, and at the time it would have seemed like overkill to burn jack and encase his ashes is cement. Of course, in hindsight it might have been a good idea.Icecreamdif talk to me 20:06, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

You could burn Jack, but he would start to heal, so you'd have to burn the body again before he had rehealed enough to ressurect over and over again to make him stay dead. As said before, the Jack in cement stayed dead because there was no air for him to breathe and his body was being tightly compacted, so it was a better idea to do that. The best you could do is throw him in lava or acid, that would keep him dead until the acid or lava drained away or evaporated or whatever. 94.72.209.209talk to me 14:12, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the best you could do is cause Miracle Day, ensure it lasts forever, kill Jack, a billion years later the world would end, the remains of Jack would float through space from within the vicinity of the morphic field, he would heal in space, but not be able to resurrect because... Well he's in space, in a vaccuum, a long while later he might float into another planet's atmosphere, he would heal, and he would ressurrect. That's the best you could do. 178.78.81.210talk to me 11:18, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Come on, if you were really motivated than you can do better. Why not shove him into a crack? Or steal a time machine and take him to 10 seconds before the end of the universe.Icecreamdif talk to me 23:19, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

We don't know cracks actually kill a person, and at the end of the universe presumably time ends as well so Jack's death then wouldn't count. You'd have to use a mixture of killing methods. Keep him in concrete until it starts to wear away, repeat until there is no concrete left in the universe, go back in time, throw him in lava, until it cools and repeat until there are no other places with lava, do the same with acid many times, cause Miracle Day, leave him floating in the vaccuum of space. Hell, it's possible if you have time in your hands to keep him dead for the entire life of the universe, but you would have to be immortal yourself. 77.86.108.251talk to me 16:45, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

The cracks don't technically kill people, but they erase people which would be even better (well, worse for Jack) then killing him. Since time presumably ends at the end of the universe, taking Jack to the end of time would be a good way of getting rid of him. Of course, he might just be stuffed inside of a little sphere and sent back to the 21st century, but otherwise it would be a very good way of getting rid of him. Still, I think there was an episode of SJA where they talked about the universe from before this one, so Jack might just ressurect in the next universe.Icecreamdif talk to me 03:36, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Was the universe in "Secrets of the Stars" actually a universe that existed before ours? I always thought it was just another universe, from what Luke said. Not that it has anything to do with Jack. Anyway there's always a chance he'll turn into a big old face before someone decides to keep him dead for as long as possible (and I don't see any reason why anyone would want to). 87.102.117.106talk to me 16:48, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Luke did say a universe that existed before ours but he was speculating (which was made clear in the story) and there was no confirmation that the speculation was right. In contrast, his idea that he could oppose the "Ancient Lights" because he'd no birth date was confirmed. --78.146.183.1talk to me 21:37, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

On the wiki, it isn't referred to as a universe before ours. It's referred to as the pre-universe. That means before the universe was formed, some things, and even life forms, such as the Beast and the Ancient Lights, still existed. Of course there could well still be a post-universe, which Jack and Rex could wake up in after the end of the universe. 87.102.117.106talk to me 16:55, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Except that Jack did die in Gridlock. Maybe the immortality wasn't permanent.Icecreamdif talk to me 21:07, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

My opinion on Jack's immortality was that Rose "fixed" him in time to make sure he would one day become the Face of Boe no matter what. I reckon if Jack ever reaches the point in time where the big old face existed his age will somehow catch up with him and he will turn into the Face of Boe. Which means that Jack's immortality could potentially be permanent, so long as he never goes in the part if the timeline that the FOB inhabits. However that leaves one puzzling question: What about Rex? If his immortality is a sort of copy of Jack's, then he would probably turn into a face if he reached that time, but there was no Face of Matheson around the time of the Face of Boe. Unless time is still in flux and that's why there was no FOM, it could potentially be that Rex actually doesn't have that handicap in his immortality, and he could well go on into the post-universe. 87.102.117.106talk to me 22:17, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Face of Boe was pregnant in The Long Game, which implies that there was at least other face around.Icecreamdif talk to me 23:44, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Assuming (as is extremely likely) the Face of Boe is Jack, who knows what species the father might be. I refer you to the conversation between the Doctor and Rose about Jack and "dancing" in The Doctor Dances. --89.242.67.48talk to me 00:46, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Well, the species would have to at least be similar if they were able to reproduce. Anyway, whether or not Rex was the mother, he was presumably just another giant head elsewhere in the universe, assuming that his immortality lasted.Icecreamdif talk to me 03:21, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Why would FOB say: "I am the last of my kind" if there was another face knocking around? 87.102.117.106talk to me 10:50, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Gridlock proves that Jack was able to die eventually. Maybe Rex died first. Or maybe he became mortal again after he finished with Jack's blood. Or maybe RTD didn't know that he was going to make another immortal human character yet at the time. Or maybe the face was lying.Icecreamdif talk to me 04:29, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Rex's immortality came from Jack. If it means that he copies Jack in how he ages, turning into a face and all that, then perhaps in Series 5 Rex is going to slowly turn into Harkness. That would be funny to see. 87.102.117.106talk to me 19:56, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean personality-wise, appearance-wise, or both. Either way, I guess that it would be both funny and weird, but I doubt that either will happen.Icecreamdif talk to me 21:17, January 10, 2012 (UTC)