Voyager made the Borg wusses

[Anwar]

Voyager did an excellent job of using the Borg in Scorpion and managed to introduce Seven of Nine. They should have left it at that. One big, bad Borg story that ends with Voyager being on the other side of Borg space and then we rarely, if ever, hear from the Borg again.

If they were only in Scorpion and not seen again, then the reaction still be "Voyager made the Borg wusses" because their one major appearance was of them fighting someone who could fight back.

In TNG, did we ever see the Borg fight someone who could fight back on their level? No, which means the Borg were no longer the same threat they were in TNG and thus "Wusses".

 

[CoveTom]

If they were only in Scorpion and not seen again, then the reaction still be "Voyager made the Borg wusses" because their one major appearance was of them fighting someone who could fight back.

In TNG, did we ever see the Borg fight someone who could fight back on their level? No, which means the Borg were no longer the same threat they were in TNG and thus "Wusses".

I am curious where one buys the crystal ball that tells what fan reaction would have been to a hypothetical event.

What I do know is that, generally, fan opinion of "Scorpion" is extremely positive. People generally only criticize what Voyager did with the Borg after that point. Which sort of disproves your assertion. Also, many people, as evidenced in this thread, peg the downfall of the Borg to other events such as "I, Borg" or First Contact, which had nothing to do with Voyager.

It really isn't all a conspiracy to make Voyager look bad. Really.

 

[sonak]

It wouldn't have worked, "Descent" showed us that. All their virus would've done is either make Hugh's ship breakaway or take out his one ship.

"descent" showed us no such thing. The influence of Hugh's individuality had nothing to do with the effects of a potential virus.

Still, whether it worked or not is beside the point of whether or not it was the right call.

 

[Anwar]

I am curious where one buys the crystal ball that tells what fan reaction would have been to a hypothetical event.

Hindsight, looking back at opinions of the show by people know is proof enough that nothing would've satisfied them. Particularly concerning the Borg.

What I do know is that, generally, fan opinion of "Scorpion" is extremely positive. People generally only criticize what Voyager did with the Borg after that point.

That's because they thought "Scorpion" would be the start of some 100-part mess and every Borg appearance would have something to do with the 8472 aliens. Basically for the Borg to take over the show.

Also, many people, as evidenced in this thread, peg the downfall of the Borg to other events such as "I, Borg" or First Contact, which had nothing to do with Voyager.

I agree that it started with TNG. The Borg are really only good for 2 or so stories the way TNG portrayed them, which is why they needed to be changed.

 

[CoveTom]

That's because they thought "Scorpion" would be the start of some 100-part mess and every Borg appearance would have something to do with the 8472 aliens. Basically for the Borg to take over the show.

But I'm talking about the opinion of fans today, not the opinion they may have had at the time. Today, knowing that "Scorpion" is not the part of "some 100-part mess," fans regard the episode highly and as an example of Voyager using the Borg well.

I agree that it started with TNG. The Borg are really only good for 2 or so stories the way TNG portrayed them, which is why they needed to be changed.

Well, I agree they were only good for 2 or so stories, but I don't think they needed to be changed. I think they just needed to be not used. I would be perfectly happy if the entirety of the Borg in Star Trek was "Q, Who?", "The Best of Both Worlds", and "First Contact".

 

[Anwar]

But I'm talking about the opinion of fans today, not the opinion they may have had at the time. Today, knowing that "Scorpion" is not the part of "some 100-part mess," fans regard the episode highly and as an example of Voyager using the Borg well.

Not really, it's still considered the beginning of the fall of the Borg because it showed they were beatable in a non-plot contrivance way. Any goodwill is merely revisionist history within the fandom.

I think they just needed to be not used. I would be perfectly happy if the entirety of the Borg in Star Trek was "Q, Who?", "The Best of Both Worlds", and "First Contact".

I would've been happy if the BOBW Cube was the only Cube and contained the entire Borg population and when it blew up their entire species was annihilated. Get rid of them permanently to the point they aren't ever coming back.

 

[Saul]

I thought at the time that the point of 'Scorpion' was to introduce a new big bad to the Trek universe with species 8472 that would take the Borg's place. An Alien race that could beat the Borg sounded like something cool but instead of developing them they just fell back on the ole reliable Borg time and time again. So in fact they made species 8472 wusses.

 

[Deks]

What people seem to be forgetting is that the Borg ARE beatable regardless of their superior technology.

There is this 'phobia' that people seem to be exhibiting when technological solutions are found to solve a problem.
This in turn seems to be a byproduct of bad Hollywood movies that perpetuate an irrational fear of 'technology taking over' which has 0 basis in reality.

People need to understand a few things about Trek:
Humans are centuries more advanced and their technology experienced a practical 'quantum leap' on a regular basis.
Why?
Because they got rid of money and allowed people to pursue their own interests in life, encouraging creativity to the maximum, mechanizing repetitive tasks (and a great deal of many others) - all of which could have been done for decades in real life (along with creating abundance).
People seem to know so little about what we were capable of doing from a technological/resource point of view for a LONG time now because they are blinded by 'money' (the premise of 'value', 'how much would it cost') - and NEVER do they ask themselves can we do all these things if 'money' was no object (to which the answer is almost always YES).

This is the notion that seems to have been forgotten by the writers past TNG seasons 1 and 2.

Getting back to the point... Voyager if anything was in my eyes at least sticking to the notion of a technologically advanced society that uses technology for betterment of mankind and help them solve problems.

You cannot fight the Borg with sticks, stones, fists or words.
You need technology, innovation, and adaptation.
Trek writers even on Voyager most definitely practically never showed severe mechanization (for example, ship construction, repairs, etc. would be mostly if not fully automated).
Showing people doing it is idiotic because humanoids are slow, and cannot go up against a machine that can do 100x more.
This is why I cringe at a notion that it takes decades to construct a mushroom type starbase or even months for a Galaxy class ship.
It simply DOESN'T MAKE SENSE - not for their level of technology.
Look at what WE can do today - a lot of products and some buildings are pre-fabricated and then assembled.
Now compare that to the Federation that has centuries more advanced construction technology and transporters.
Transporters alone could speed up construction times, and with the later advent of replicators in the 24th century (and industrial grade replicators), lol...

My point is that seeing humans doing menial labor is idiotic. Diagnostics are fine, but major repairs or construction?
Lol... every ship in the Federation would have to have these systems and necessary technology to maximize automation.

I like the premise that Voyager was using technological solutions for a lot of things... its the future after all - its our future (to a degree) as well (provided we can remove this idiotic monetary system - well, we have the technology and means to create abundance as it is - and no you don't need replicators or transporters to do it - just a different way of thinking).

Bottom line is, I agree with Anwar.
Voyager spent most of the time running away from the Borg or barely getting out of certain situations alive.
As for 'incredulous' battle that happened in 'Unimatrix Zero'... its not really, not when you take into account the upgrades from 'One' and subsequent tactical upgrades from Starfleet - plus presence of 7 on board.
All of those aspects can easily contribute to the ship staying longer in a fight... plus the crew has experience fighting the Borg, so a carefully formulated plan would probably result in a longer lasting battle - whereas getting into a fight relatively unprepared will result in something short term - which is exactly what we saw.

I don't get what the big deal is.

I do think the Queen should never have been introduced in the first place.
The Borg are much more interesting without the Queen limitation - 'no single leader' as Troi said in 'Q who?'.

 

[Knight Templar]

^I agree almost completely.

One thing the Star Trek writers seemed to have regarding the Borg is a crushing lack of imagination.

There are a number of ways they could've featured the "unbeatable" Borg in TNG that would've stopped them but left them just as unstoppable as before

1) The Romulans could've come under attack by the Borg and begged the Federation and Klingons for help.

2) A distant alien race could've come under attack by the Borg and the Enterprise (being the fastest ship) could've been dispatched to help them defeat the Borg (or perhaps, NOT defeat the Borg at all).

And that is just two examples off the top of my head.

The thing is regarding "I, Borg" was that it was a "feature the Borg but save money" episode. Basically, according to one of the books about TNG, the staff of the series was unenthusiastic about spending major amounts of money on another Borg episode knowing it would be compared (probably unfavorably) to "The Best of Both Worlds".

 

[CoveTom]

The thing is regarding "I, Borg" was that it was a "feature the Borg but save money" episode. Basically, according to one of the books about TNG, the staff of the series was unenthusiastic about spending major amounts of money on another Borg episode knowing it would be compared (probably unfavorably) to "The Best of Both Worlds".

Well, also, and this is sort of foreshadowing what was to come, Michael Piller has said that he felt you couldn't do another big "uber villan" episode after BoBW, because they'd been there/done that, and also because the Borg would lose their intimidating quality. They decided to take it in an entirely different direction with "I, Borg." Even with "Descent," they dodged the issue by having the Borg be completely separated from the collective and under Lore's control.

When First Contact rolled around, I think Moore and Braga felt it was safe to go back to the Borg well one more time because it was a big motion picture. But that was it for their TNG appearances, and aside from a flashback in the pilot, DS9 avoided the Borg altogether.

Voyager forgot those lessons, though, and failed to exercise the restraint that TNG had exercised. Probably not coincidentally, this all happened after Piller's tenure as showrunner of Voyager was over.

 

[Knight Templar]

The thing is regarding "I, Borg" was that it was a "feature the Borg but save money" episode. Basically, according to one of the books about TNG, the staff of the series was unenthusiastic about spending major amounts of money on another Borg episode knowing it would be compared (probably unfavorably) to "The Best of Both Worlds".

Well, also, and this is sort of foreshadowing what was to come, Michael Piller has said that he felt you couldn't do another big "uber villan" episode after BoBW, because they'd been there/done that, and also because the Borg would lose their intimidating quality. They decided to take it in an entirely different direction with "I, Borg." Even with "Descent," they dodged the issue by having the Borg be completely separated from the collective and under Lore's control.

When First Contact rolled around, I think Moore and Braga felt it was safe to go back to the Borg well one more time because it was a big motion picture. But that was it for their TNG appearances, and aside from a flashback in the pilot, DS9 avoided the Borg altogether.

Voyager forgot those lessons, though, and failed to exercise the restraint that TNG had exercised. Probably not coincidentally, this all happened after Piller's tenure as showrunner of Voyager was over.

Well, I was at a convention where one of the DS9 writers was speaking, and he said that there had been several scripts examined that featured the Borg on Deep Space Nine and that the staff (before the Dominion War story began) had really been interested in doing one to give Sisko a chance at a confrontation with the aliens that killed his wife and destroyed his ship.

But they ran into practical problems. The space station was "just sitting there". It couldn't run or hide from a Borg attack. So having the Borg suddenly pop in would cause all sorts of story structure problems.

I've heard that someone even pitched a "time travel to Wolf-359" idea but that it was thought to be too similar to the series premier.

 

[Anwar]

^I agree almost completely.

One thing the Star Trek writers seemed to have regarding the Borg is a crushing lack of imagination.

There are a number of ways they could've featured the "unbeatable" Borg in TNG that would've stopped them but left them just as unstoppable as before

If they can be stopped, they aren't unstoppable.

1) The Romulans could've come under attack by the Borg and begged the Federation and Klingons for help.

2) A distant alien race could've come under attack by the Borg and the Enterprise (being the fastest ship) could've been dispatched to help them defeat the Borg (or perhaps, NOT defeat the Borg at all).

And that is just two examples off the top of my head.

1) If the Romulans came under attack and the Feds/Klingons came in to help them, unless you want to get rid of the Romulans and have a permanent Borg presence in the Alpha Quadrant the Borg would have to be stopped. So they wouldn't be unstoppable anymore.

2) Same, only now the protagonists would look like wusses for not stopped the Borg when Kirk was able to stop things just as powerful on a regular basis (V'Ger, the Whale Probe, the Doomsday Machine, etc).

All you're suggesting is giving the stories lots of cannon fodder for the Borg to kill without harming the main characters.

Of course, this is what TNG did (the Fed colony world destroyed by the Borg, the Armada at Wolf 359) by having the Borg kill people NOT on the Enterprise.

DS9 did this too, they had the whole Trekverse to play with and had tons of cannon fodder to kill off without harming the main cast.

VOY couldn't do that, because all they had was a small scout ship and it was stated that they couldn't lose any crew or they'd be dead.

 

[CoveTom]

VOY couldn't do that, because all they had was a small scout ship and it was stated that they couldn't lose any crew or they'd be dead.

There was plenty of cannon fodder to be had in the Delta Quadrant. Just not from amongst the Voyager crew.

 

[Kelthaz]

People need to understand a few things about Trek:
Humans are centuries more advanced and their technology experienced a practical 'quantum leap' on a regular basis.
Why?
Because they got rid of money and allowed people to pursue their own interests in life, encouraging creativity to the maximum, mechanizing repetitive tasks (and a great deal of many others) - all of which could have been done for decades in real life (along with creating abundance).
People seem to know so little about what we were capable of doing from a technological/resource point of view for a LONG time now because they are blinded by 'money' (the premise of 'value', 'how much would it cost') - and NEVER do they ask themselves can we do all these things if 'money' was no object (to which the answer is almost always YES).

This is the notion that seems to have been forgotten by the writers past TNG seasons 1 and 2.

No, that would do the opposite of what you're suggesting and slow technological advancement to a standstill. Necessity and competition is what breeds technological advancement, not people puttering about working on whatever they want to work on.

The Federation is a wacky 60's concept that would completely and utterly fail in real life. If the writers forgot this notion after TNG's second season, then thank god for the writers getting some sense knocked into them.

 

[Knight Templar]

The Borg can be stopped and still be "unstoppable" in that no conceivable conventional force (fleets of ships) can stop them without absorbing ruinous losses.

That means the encounter with the Borg becomes a race against time to discover, invent, steal, or uncover some kind of technological trick, alien technology, or unused tactic that will stop them.

Once.

Then the next time you have to start all over again.

 

[Deks]

No, that would do the opposite of what you're suggesting and slow technological advancement to a standstill. Necessity and competition is what breeds technological advancement, not people puttering about working on whatever they want to work on.

The Federation is a wacky 60's concept that would completely and utterly fail in real life. If the writers forgot this notion after TNG's second season, then thank god for the writers getting some sense knocked into them.

Incorrect.
Your notion stems from a monetary system with a specific set of values and myths that have been perpetuated for a long time that science itself doesn't agree with.
Competition and greed are not part of human nature (that's a myth) - they are learned behavior and a byproduct of a system that doesn't encourage creativity or critical thinking.

DaVinci, Tesla and Einstein (to name a few) did not make their inventions/discoveries due to the incentive of money - and a lot of people today volunteer their free time and ideas without compensation or competition of any kind.

And money if anything grinds certain technologies down to a halt (as is evident with renewable energy sources, some of which like geothermal energy could have been used to replace coal since 1911, but there was 0 incentive to do so, much like with orbital solar panels that could transfer power via wireless beams to us since the 1980's, then of course, there's wind power, recycling technologies that were available since the early 20th century, etc.).
'Cost effectiveness' does NOT equal 'the best we can do in the most efficient way' - instead, it means to invest the smallest amount of money possible to gain maximum profits with an intent to stay competitive with other companies.
Today's products are designed with planned obsolescence in mind.
They are NOT made to last, and equipment which is subject to fastest evolution such as computers are mostly NOT made to be upgrade-able in the long run before you have to replace something - oh and lets not forget the amount of electronic waste alone that piled up on the planet.
And who can forget about milking consumers for their every penny using old technologies that could have been phased out since the mid 90-ies (man-made diamonds were made in 1996 and were cheap/easy to make from a monetary point of view - and computer chips could have been made since then - but patent issues delayed it for years - never mind the premise that computer chips made from diamond would be roughly 40x more powerful/faster/efficient using less power than silicon based chips. Oh and Graphene was invented in 2004 - 2 or 3x better in every respect than diamond, and could have been used in electronic production at least in hybrid form since 2006 - even scientists admit that a multi-billion dollar silicon industry would be the LAST to adapt diamond, let alone Graphene as base materials.
First you will likely see silicon/diamond hybrid... followed by maybe partial use of graphene - at least until they start revising the heck out of those technologies and releasing minor improvements every 12-24 months or so to keep continuous profits flowing.

Current monetary and consumer system promotes wastefulness with 0 sustainability in mind.
Anyone who is able to think in a critical fashion would be able to see that.
As for technological evolution, get rid of money and people can be reeducated to be problem-solvers that would put in their ideas to benefit mankind - and you will effectively see explosions in terms of technological development.

I have to laugh at the defendants of the monetary system because they perpetuate outdated myths and the system that simply don't hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Anwar]

VOY couldn't do that, because all they had was a small scout ship and it was stated that they couldn't lose any crew or they'd be dead.

There was plenty of cannon fodder to be had in the Delta Quadrant. Just not from amongst the Voyager crew.

They tried THAT as well in "Dark Frontier" and "Hope and Fear" and the audience still didn't like it.

The Borg can be stopped and still be "unstoppable" in that no conceivable conventional force (fleets of ships) can stop them without absorbing ruinous losses.

That means the encounter with the Borg becomes a race against time to discover, invent, steal, or uncover some kind of technological trick, alien technology, or unused tactic that will stop them.

Once.

Then the next time you have to start all over again.

Which is what makes them good for only 2 stories. After that, you're better off just destroying them entirely.

Or you just realize the Borg were never meant to be a Universal threat and just a tough foe.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Deks
Monetary this, monetary that.

You do realize money is just a different word for resources, yes?
You can have no money, but you will ALWAYS have shortage of resources; the objective laws of this universe dictate this.

And without money, government, other societal structures -, you will have no efficient means of concentrating those resources for a certain task.
All this translates in a LOT less resources available at the end of the day.

"geothermal energy" - without money, it still wouldn't have happened. Why? Lack of resource concentration for such a massive project.
It didn't happen because it cost too much? Frankly, resource expenditure vs future gain is a highly relevant criterion for any enterprise; any society that doesn't follow it will grow poorer and degrade. Hardly the benevolent utopia you envisage.

Deplore the evils of money all you want. If you want to see what happens in less develped economic systems, all you need to do is read history. Hunter-gatherers had no time whatsoever for R&D; too busy scratching the dirt or hunting, looking for their next meal.

 

[Deks]

Money stopped representing resources a long time ago (more accurately when the US was first struck with the great depression - because production was very high, and purchasing power was low - why? - because of mechanization - there was enough material goods to go around but no money to buy them).
As for why geothermal was not tapped in - very simple: the coal based industry was already very big at that point and was still quite lucrative - there was no monetary incentive to go into it.

As for history... I'm well aware of it. I'm not saying that the monetary system had no place in history... it did, but we are way past the point where we need it.
It's an outdated system that was kept around simply because anything else that is presented as alternative is attacked under the guise of: 'its been tried before', 'its communism', 'its Marxism', etc.

You do realize we live on a planet where 1% of the worlds population controls 40% of global resources, right?
Oh and lets' not forget that there are about 2 billion people out there right now starving, even though over 50% of food is being destroyed because it cannot be sold (nevermind the premise that we had the technology for some time to feed the entire planet).
History is repeating itself.
Purchasing power is dropping, and production is increasing.
The industry is already mostly automated as is... majority of the workforce is in the service industry (and even that is being automated).

Seriously... are you blind to what is happening on the planet or is just your delusion with a monetary system that keeps you that way?

 

[CoveTom]

Money stopped representing resources a long time ago (more accurately when the US was first struck with the great depression - because production was very high, and purchasing power was low - why? - because of mechanization - there was enough material goods to go around but no money to buy them).
As for why geothermal was not tapped in - very simple: the coal based industry was already very big at that point and was still quite lucrative - there was no monetary incentive to go into it.

As for history... I'm well aware of it. I'm not saying that the monetary system had no place in history... it did, but we are way past the point where we need it.
It's an outdated system that was kept around simply because anything else that is presented as alternative is attacked under the guise of: 'its been tried before', 'its communism', 'its Marxism', etc.

You do realize we live on a planet where 1% of the worlds population controls 40% of global resources, right?
Oh and lets' not forget that there are about 2 billion people out there right now starving, even though over 50% of food is being destroyed because it cannot be sold (nevermind the premise that we had the technology for some time to feed the entire planet).
History is repeating itself.
Purchasing power is dropping, and production is increasing.
The industry is already mostly automated as is... majority of the workforce is in the service industry (and even that is being automated).

Seriously... are you blind to what is happening on the planet or is just your delusion with a monetary system that keeps you that way?

This thread is not really the place to discuss the pros and cons of monetary systems and policy. It was a discussion about the Borg and their use or misuse during Voyager. However, I will say that if you feel the current problems with the allocation of resources is due to the monetary system and would all go away if we "moved past" money, then I do question whether you have an understanding of economics and/or history.

I don't mean that as an insult. I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm just saying that your arguments make no sense in either an economic or an historical context. The basic problem with the allocation of resources is that you are dealing with human beings, and human beings are flawed. One of our biggest flaws is greed. Another one of our biggest flaws is the tendency to desire power, and the belief of many that the only way to keep power is to keep others dependent and subservient. Until you can solve those issues, no monetary system, monetary policy, or lack thereof is going to solve problems like starvation.

And, to keep this mildly Trek-related, that's why I find Trek's vision of the future to be enjoyable but unrealistic. I do not believe in the "perfectibility of man" as Roddenberry seemed to. And it seems to me that even if you do away with money, and suddenly have a fantastic technology like replicators, you are going to still be dealing with flawed human beings with their same foibles and, therefore, are going to continue to have some with more than others and lots of arguments over resources.