Is Best of both Worlds overrated?

They had thought about chopping off Picard's arm in assimilation and from then on giving him a grey robotic arm to serve as a permenant reminder of BOBW, but then changed their minds.

The anti-matter spread wasn't a weapon, it was just a diversionary sensor scrambling thing done to distract the Borg with a combo of sensor scrmabling and "WTF are they doing that for?" to give Data and Worf enough time to get Locutus and get back.

Admiral Hayden told Picard the Federation wasn't ready for another prolonged conflict in "Wounded" and it can be implied this was due to Wolf 359.

If Data and Worf brought a bomb the Borg would've probably detected it because they could still get some small readings of the shuttle through the anti-matter spread. A bomb along with the shuttle would've made it easier for them to be detected and killed before they got there. They only let the teams on because they figured that since they couldn't pull off their pior sabotage again there wasn't anything else they could so (they didn't suspect rhe "rescue Picard" plan)

The Wolf 359 Survivors probably used the impulse engines on the escape pods to head for Earth or some closer Starbase that wasn't on the Borg flight plan.

Remember the New Providence colony, and how the whole city and all 900 people there were assimilated and no trace found? There was probably a second Borg vessel in Fed Sapce that was to transport all that stuff back to the DQ or some other closer Borg outpost while the main Cube went to Earth. We know there was already one Cube in the Alpha Quadrant as it was the one that attacked the Neutral Zone at the end of Season 1.

 

Well, folks, this BBS has indeed voted BOBW Pt. 1 as one of the top 3 all time favorite Star Trek TV episodes. Hard to see how it's over rated if that episode has lasted so long in the polls. Just my two cents there. As I stated above, I can think of several TNG episodes I like better, but it's hard to disagree with the results of the polls.

 

They had already shown in "Q Who" and the earlier acts of the two-parter that a direct assault against the Borg would be ineffective. For those who didn't like the "sleep" command, I'd like to hear other ideas as to how the Federation could have stopped the Borg in a plausible but entertaining way.

 

Part I was fantastic, Part II felt rushed and kind of hollow at the end. Almost could have been a 3 parter with no loss of tension, or a bigger budget

I always appreciated the irony of the machine man trying to save the man machine.

 

Piller wanted a third part, but the studio said no. The best we got was an episode which dealt with the personal consequences for Picard. And this episode always got the lowest ratings.

Part 2 did not have the same "end of the world" feel as part 1, but it was still a damned good follow up. I thought the sleep command was actually pretty original and more in tune with the series than a major space or ground assault. We got plenty of that stuff in the movies and everyone bitched it wasn't "TNG" enough. Go figure.

The reality is, the budget for TNG was not enough to support prolonged space battles, as this was pre CGI. And I think the episode is all the better for it. Every other SF show does battles. Hell, every future Trek show went down that path. TNG tackled the Borg and defeated them while still adhering to it's core standards.

Both parts make the Best. TNG. Episode. Ever.

 

It suffers from each part having been written at totally different times. I recall reading something where the 2nd part had not been written by the time part 1 aired.

 

I'll just jump right in...

Putting the Borg to sleep by using Data and Locutus to hack into the Collective is not a let-down. It's great!

Clearly, it was estabished that you cannot defeat the Borg with conventional weapons and tactics. So no big kewl battles to resolve the crisis.

And it was ingenious that they used the Borg strength as a weakness against them (like they said...one of them jumps off a bridge, they all jump off). It's just great.

It really worked well. Showed the crew using their wits and skills in a good light, wasn't a forced resolution dictated after writing themselves into a corner, and ultimately wasn't a technobabble nonsensical solution. It was logical and made sense and worked.

 

The first half is not overrated. The second half has always been considered a bit of a letdown, so it's hard to say it was overrated.

I pitched TNG during the Summer after Part I ran.

At one point I'm left to sit alone in Eric Stillwell's office, briefcase in my lap.

I notice I'm sitting next to a stack of scripts with the title "Best Of Both Worlds, Part II" on their red covers.

I didn't even peek...I really wanted to work for the show a lot, but I've never forgotten how much I wanted to browse one of those suckers.

 

I don't think it's overrated at all the fact that it's still a good story even would seem to prove otherwise. And I too liked Vendetta it was a real page turner for me I couldn't even put the book down in the book store even if the copy I was reading wasn't my own. :thumbsup:

 

I find that most of the episodes people around here heap gobs of praise on are all a tad overrated.

 

In an alternate reality in DC Comics (STTNG #50), they used the eat command. Personally, I would've plugged them into distributed.net and got them working on RC5-72.

 

Part two was a bit of a letdown but part one was amazing throughout and so was part two for that matter until the sleep command. The sleep stuff wasn't bad it's just people expected something more complex.

 

Logical fallacy: Appeal to popularity argument.

 

The only part of that I'd take exception to is the insinuation the producers were looking to save some money with the climax. It was already established that 40 ships couldn't make a dent in the Borg cube. The Enterprise herself couldn't do a thing (as evidenced in "Q Who" and the first part of the episode). What else was there? You don't keep firing away if phasers and torpedoes don't work.

 

That's not a logical fallacy. However, the argument is logically fallacious as it runs something like this: Is BOBW overrated? No, it is rated highly by many. Now, as something that is rated highly by many may or may not be overrated, but certainly something not rated highly by many can ever be considered overrated. So, ah, it's not the best response...

As we're dealing strictly with opinion, let's chuck logic out the window. Ahem, that said... I think BOBW Part I is a tad boring at times. Oooh, I'm going to die now, aren't I? I like "Chain of Command" better, a solid first and second half - and one of the few times on TNG the second half is much better than the first.

 

Would you prefer it in Latin instead?

 

*sigh* But it's not a true fallacy. It is in some cases, not all, and it isn't in this one. An argument about the worth of a piece of art is inherently based on opinions - yours, mine, guy in street. While there is an artificial construct of experts and novitiates, it is not as absolute as, say, the difference between solid medical knowledge and a popular nonsense treatment. So, Ebert may say a movie is terrible and Roeper may say it is great. But doctors can agree on good and bad treatments a tad more absolutely.

More than that, entertainment is about popular opinion. It's made to be popular enough to justify its expense. Be it quality or not, it has that basic imbued goal. Thus, popular appeal or lack thereof is a key aspect in evaluating entertainment, and noting it does not in itself constitute a fallacy.

Ultimately, there's no argumentative way for saying something is good or bad. What we do have is the ability to argue why we think something is good or bad, but even that is based on what we assume is good or bad. 'I thought this movie was good because it had a lot of gore', or 'I thought this movie was bad because it had a lot of gore', for example.

Reason is a multi-faceted thing.

 

Of course it is. In logical debate you cannot claim something is true because it's the most popular choice.

My premise is that BBOW as an older adult for me is at best mediocre as you reach the middle or the end of part II.

Yes, it's my personal opinion but to claim that my opinion is invalid because the majority of people feel otherwise, is violating the logical fallacy.

No, a good argument is based on a solid premise, logic and facts. In this case, we lack the third but the other two are based on opinion.