^ I've heard that stated before, but when I check the script, neither the words 'delta' nor 'quadrant' nor 'galaxy' seem to appear in it. If I recall correctly they travel through a wormhole over 65 light years, which would be a small distance- they just do it at least 20 times faster than their maximum warp. So while descent directly confirms they have this superior capability (which we already knew indirectly from BOBW), if it also expresses that the Borg are from the DQ quadrant, it does so in words I haven't been able to find yet. However, I did find this, where it says it was established around the time of the descent episode: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/que...-intended-to-be-a-delta-quadrant-power/148958
I also remember galactic maps showing their region in the DQ, but nothing canon before FC. I even thought "wow, the maps are confirmed!" back then when I first saw FC! But why did the mappers know that before it was confirmed? XD
Well, in the mean time I looked back part of the episode back and they do show a diagram in the episode that says : "extrapolated termination, Delta quadrant", so I suppose that's where the idea comes from. https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Transwarp_conduit?file=Transwarp_conduit_topology.jpg As far as I can tell, up till that point there have been 4 conduit travels in the ep: 1) the time the Borg vessel disappears before their eyes from Ohniaka 3 2) the time the ENT-D travels along with it in pursuit of the Borg vessel, starting near the colony MS one. 3) the time the Borg vessel flees through it, immediately after (2) when they beam two drones to the bridge of the ent-D as a distraction 4) the time the shuttle disappears through it and the ENT-D follows again ; this one is supposed to be 65 light years. So if that diagram is supposed to be to scale, the implication would be that it would be their analyses of either (1), (2) or (3) since this is the first time the Borg are connected to these transwarp conduits and (4) is only 65 light years. Now, I also suppose it wouldn't be (2), because why would they need to 'extrapolate' a location they're already at and they can determine directly? So that leaves their analysis of the readings of either (1) or (3). Both of which would indicate that the DQ is a location the Borg have travelled to, at least. It does not directly indicate the Borg are from there, but I suppose the idea took hold from that point on.
I think what makes me a little different is that I don't compare the series too much. Voyager is my favorite, but I like them all. I think all of the series got off to a slow start; TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT, but that's not to discount those first couple of seasons, it takes every seriestime to gain it's foot hold.. I think it would have been obnoxious to have the maquis crew acting up for 75 years. I LIKE how everyone learned to work together. This is the nature of Star Trek, isn't it? Ditto for conflicts amongst the crew. I've written a lot about what i think was "wrong" with Voyager. I think they initially had serious ensemble problems, and just waited too long to address and correct them. In every series, the human characters are often the least interesting, and the shows rely on the alien characters and the internal and external conflicts and story lines that they bring. Voyager did not have a Data or a Worf, and Kes and Neelix just weren't going to bring in stories at their level. B'Elanna was too hostile and virtually unlikable. Also, the Kazon were just horrible adversaries. Neelix, Kes and B'Elanna were just bad casting. Maybe B'Elanna could have been salvaged, but the other two added little to the show. i agree.
Yeah, I can see it's slow to start as VOY and TNG also were (can't recall TOS in that manner since I saw it so long ago)... I started DS9 last week and am only up to episode 4, but I like it so far. I am also not in the habit of making gross comparisons between (well, anything really), but with Trek series I could probably compare/contrast them some since they are all Trek and there are similarities between many of them. Comparison I feel can frequently "hurt" one side or the other, which is why I don't tend in that direction, but when you get two series, movies, racehorses, whatever that have similarities a comparative analysis can be enjoyable for my brain to engage in.
Janeway is one of my favourite Captains, but I have grown to increasingly dislike Voyager over the years. As Jonathan Frakes said recently, it was the product of Paramount greed. It has boring characters, particularly Paris, Kim and Chakotay and simply recycles TNG plots over and over again. DS9 - which I now like far more - at least tried to do something completely different.
Ive said the same elsewhere about the maquis crew. They alomst immediatly began to act like a starfleet crew and would have been good to see a slightly less by the book attitude to life and work than the SF crew had. And the Borg work best as a single minded mystery and they should have stuck more to groups like the Hirogen and other unique VOY aliens
I'm a huge Beatles fan. I'm not a memoribilia collector, but I am kind of a "fact" collector. I own just about every biography ever published, and have every every piece of music they released both together an apart. I also have dozens of unofficial releases. As a musician, I've studied their music, and the Lennon/McCartney songwriting dynamic extensively. I have also taught university classes on the subject of their music. Several years ago, when the internet was fairly new, I discovered and joined a Beatles-centric forum much like this one. The forum was terrible. It seemed everyone was polarized. Instead of realizing how important each element was to the whole, people would put thier "favorite" (usually John of Paul) on a pedestal, and minimize or negate the contribution and talent of the other. The point of this story is: I was sucked into it and it got so bad that even I, a person who knew better, took sides. Eventually I couldn't bear to listen to the music. So, I don't care how your mind has been changed about Voyager. That's what happens when you listen to constant negativity. The things you wrote are a load of one-sided crap. Chakotay, Tom and Kim are absolutely no more boring that Uhura, Sulu and Chekov. They are no more boring than Beverly Crusher, Deanna Troi and Geordi LaForge. The difference is, each of these othr ensembles had other characters that made the supporting characters more interesting. People tuned into TNG for Data and Worf.They certainly didn't tune in to hear about LaForge's visor, or hear him yell "coolant leak". These characters were interesting because of their intereaction with the more interesting characters, e.g Data and Worf. Voyager did not have a Data or Worf character to balance the ensemble. I've written about this extensively here. Human characters like Chakotay, Paris and Kim are not going to support a series like this. The ensemble needed a Data and a Worf, unusual conflicted characters to support complex interaction with the other characters, and complex story lines. Instead they had Neelix and Kes. Neelix was a poorly developed, poorly acted and poorly cast character that will always be a "could have been", and enough has been written about Kes to fill a book. By the time they brought in Seven, which is exactly what I described, an unusual conflicted character that could support complex and interesting stories and complex interactions with the other characters, it was too late for many. Re-read the above paragrah, and honestly tell me that TNG would have been watchable without Data and Worf. Put Miles O'Brien in Data's chair and leave Tasha Yar back there and tell me that you have a 7 year show. It was the Data show from day one, then the addition of Worf, and they gave the boring characters like Riker, Laforge and Crusher a solid footing. I don't give a crap about Jonathan Frake's opinions or Paramount's motivations. I've got news for you... It's always about money and profits. And the idea the stories were recycled TNG plots, again, a one sided opinion. How many TNG plots were recycled TOS plots? I can name 4 right off the top of my head. How many were used from the stalled TOS mid-70's reboot? You can't just ignore these FACTS while disparaging another show for the same thing. The Pulaski-Data dynamic was an EXACT rip off of the McCoy-Spock dynamic. What is your point?
All of them... took two or three seasons to get it down. I wonder if that would have been true of TOS. It only lasted three seasons... had it lasted longer. I wonder.... I find comparing the series entirely useless. For one thing, it's impossibe to do it objectively. Did you ever have a boy or girlfriend in your past with whom you were infatuated... to the point their voice sounded like music and their farts smelled like perfume? And then after it was over, you couldn't see anything in all the things that were once so attractive? Remember this when you compare what you lie to what you don't. You will see negative things in one, while you ignore the same exact negative things in the other. It's all John vs Paul to me.
Oh yes. I'm not a fan of Star Trek but I like watching Voyager, especially 2 parts episodes which were brilliantly made with very interesting storylines. :-)
Agree to disagree, at least in part. I think comparative analysis has its merits. I do agree it's largely subjective depending on what one is comparing, but there is an objective component (at least for me). I do understand what you say about the classmate analogy, though I am not sure that's the best analogy since one involves a basic, natural function of human biology and the other has to do with watching a TV series. You describe the act of a classmate having a crush on another and this introduces a whole slew of hormonal activity that has the effect on the human body of creating a loss of objectivity. This, in effect, can happen to many women when they go on birth control since the hormone alteration affects their bodies in different ways, some of which can alter the decision-making process that goes on the brain. I think for most people ST (one would hope) does not have quite this effect. The most objective example (in the entertainment world) I can come up with is horse racing: I compare two horses that will race against each other under the same circumstances (i.e. the same race), then I get to put my money down and see if I am right. There is a right or wrong, because one can win the other won't (unless there is a rare dead heat), but it's how the race will unfold that is the unknown. And the best horse does not always win not because they are not faster, but because any multitude of tings can happen once the gates open. So I could actually be correct in my analysis, but if the best horse gets bad a trip (pinched back in traffic, stumbles out of the gate, etc.) then the outcome will be affected. I guess you have never engaged in critical analysis of two pieces of artwork? That's actually much closer to comparing Trek series. I actually was taught how to do this in college and we did it almost every class, every semester, regardless of teacher for 4 years, so I do think there is value in the activity somewhere, else why would my professors all have given me similar lessons in it? I guess the bottom line is I feel there is ultimate value in others' opinions via comparison, even if I come to different conclusion and disagree with them. I like seeing the differences because they help me understand the entire whole of the two sides more objectively.
Are you serious here? When you compare two TV SHOWS, the comparison is MOOT. When you compare two race horses one is measurably better than the other. Tell me... how does what you wrote make sense to you? How does one prove to another that one tv show is better than another? Isn't it easy to prove one race horce is better than another? And I can't even imagine where the hell you're going with the former paragraph... people tend to see what they favor favorably. It's a fact, not something open for debate. When you like something, you ignore the negative things, when you dislike something you magnify the negative things even when those things are exactly the same between the subjects. I can't imagine where you're going with birth control, but you know what? I don't care. You defy logic.
What I wrote makes perfect sense to me and, I see now, what your real reason for engaging is. A few months ago I agreed with you on a point regarding a couple of episodes, you aggressively responded, I asked what the problem was, and you admitted that you were drunk when you responded to me. Are you drinking now? That's about all I can hear from your response, which seems unusually abrasive and hostile. Pardon me for genuinely trying to have a discussion with you to understand your stance. This is why I began with "agree to disagree " which A. You don't know the meaning of Or B. You are just looking for a fight ....since B seems more likely I'll just C my way out of this thread and put you on ignore. I would close by saying, "peace", but you might miss my point, so I won't bother.
I tend to be very passionate, yes. It isn't abrasive, or hostile. If one has an opinion, one should not be afraid to defend it when it is challenged. People tend to see what they favor more favorably. It is fact, which means it isn't open for debate. I illustrate how people tend to see what they favor more favorably, to show how people's opinions are often so profoundly positive in regards to what they favor, they will contradict themselves when speaking about something they don't favor. You respond with what? An analogy to illustrate that you see quantifiable properties of horses... with what? The same subjectivity? Measureable properties are not open for debate. One horse will run faster than the other, more often. One horse is better than the other. Subjective opinion on the subject is irrelevant, so I don't know how to respond. I'm not looking for a "fight"... just an intelligent, thoughtful conversation. What I get instead is "WE learned from some show what GOOD science fiction is" ... in a Star Trek forum! I don't like Discovery. At all. Not one bit. I don't go to the GD Discovery forum and piss in everybody's Wheaties. What does saying this accomplish?
Not my favorite, but I liked it overall better than DS9 (especially when the latter got hung up with the Dominion War and went off the deep end with Pah Wraiths), and better than the third season of ENT, and better than DSC. Of course, bad Star Trek (and mediocre B5) are still far better than the best Cattlecar Gigangica. (I will also note that I've liked Kate Mulgrew since "Mrs. Columbo.")