Voyager: The Borg

[Withers]

Not if you're competent and strong enough, which the haters clearly didn't want the VOY crew to be. And yes, they DID want them to quickly discard morality and it IS possibly to still make the good choice in a bad situation. They just wanted VOY to always make the bad ones the whole show because they couldn't stand that they didn't fall to pieces and spend the show hating each other. That's not better drama, it's just anti-Trek. Trek is managing to find the good way no matter how bad you think things are.

You're describing a criticism and want that is non-existent. No one in any of the recent threads has made any claim that even vaguely resembles a want of the Voyager crew to quickly abandon their morality as Starfleet Officers. "No one wanted Janeway to be Ransom." You're in effect telling me the opposite of what I think (as "hater") is what I want. I can't stop you from ranting about the phantom element of Voyagers critics (that are no where to be found) but you're not allowed to tell me what I think.

At worst you didn't understand the premise. At best you viewed it in a radically extreme way and thus are able to ascribe its faults and its critics at the same time to the idea that it was inherently flawed. If anything you claimed about the critics of the show were true I'd be more inclined to take you seriously but as it is you can't respond to whats been posed. All you're able to do is use hyperbole to describe legitimate beefs with the show and point to a group of "haters" whose supposed complaints are as ridiculous as your attempts to fix them.

I'm going to pose something to you; did you ever take the time to consider that maybe Voyager isn't what people don't like but rather it's discussing it with you that they find so abhorrent?


-Withers-​

 

[Saito S]

I try not to double post, but I felt this needed its own response, and not just an edit to my big post about debating and whatnot.

I consider myself a Trek fan.

Well, you're wrong.

Crossing a line there. It is not at all appropriate for you (or any of us) to be telling people whether or not they are Trek fans. Telling him he's "wrong" about thinking of himself as a Trek fan is honestly pretty fucked up. And frankly, no one gives a shit what the Anwar Judiciary Committee's requirements to be a "Trek Fan" are (anymore than anyone would - or should - give a shit what the Saito S Committee's requirements are).

The idea isn't for them to be quick to discard morality. Rather, is it that, in life, sometimes difficult situations arise where one is forced to make a decision wherein all the choices are bad/immoral ones; there is no good option available to choose.

Not if you're competent and strong enough, which the haters clearly didn't want the VOY crew to be. And yes, they DID want them to quickly discard morality and it IS possibly to still make the good choice in a bad situation. They just wanted VOY to always make the bad ones the whole show because they couldn't stand that they didn't fall to pieces and spend the show hating each other. That's not better drama, it's just anti-Trek. Trek is managing to find the good way no matter how bad you think things are.

Again with this crap. It is not always possible to "make a good choice". Sometimes one is faced with NOTHING but bad choices. Or choices that each carry both good and bad consequences within them. It's not just a matter of being "strong" or "competent." The idea that there's no such thing as a morally difficult choice is offensive. As I said before, this is the most wrong thing you've ever said, and is one of the most wrong things I've ever seen anyone say.

And one more time, for good measure: no one wanted the crew to "fall to pieces" and "spend the show hating each other." You are making stuff up. Just like the "hatedom" that was determined to hate everything about the show from the moment the first episode aired. It's a myth.

 

[Anwar]

This comes back to your notion that Voyager's premise dictated that they MUST NOT EVER show them getting outside support. A better overall show would have pleased LOTS of people, including me.

If they did get outside support, then people wouldn't complain about the ship getting fixed up AT ALL. Any explanation given over new torpedoes would've been "they can't get new torpedoes because the ship can't handle non-fed tech, and they can't make new torpedoes because they can't make new anti-matter!", and any explanation over shuttles would've been "if they can just build new shuttles with the replicators or have enough spare parts then there's no drama because they can fix things!".

And like the cake argument I had with Withers, even if they "added sugar" to make the cake "sweeter" then the only reception the new cake would be "eh, it's sweet but could be sweeter and it needs frosting and vanilla extract, etc" instead of "It's a good cake, could be better but it's still a good cake". Nothing was ever going to make anybody here say that VOY was good, at anything. They do those changes and the reception is "Eh, could be better" and NOTHING else.

So... wait. What? Drama is bad? Conflict is bad? All of it? Always? I'm confused. Do you hate... well, fiction? Stories of any kind? You must, with that statement.

No, just the forced contrived drama we would've gotten on VOY. With a better premise there'd be a better shot at normal drama, like say if the other crew had been Romulans and it was split half and half with the crew complement instead of 120/30 in show-proper.

If you want to DEBATE with us, you HAVE to acknowledge that. Or this whole thing is pointless. (Though it has been HIGHLY entertaining, so no matter what, not totally pointless. )

Fine, I do. I just don't think it's any good.

Anyway, no you did not give US anything even close to what we were saying we would have liked to see from Voyager.

You wanted more 8472, a darker heavier tone, more competent Kazon and all the other ungodly billions of things you've said that would've made VOY better. I gave it to you.

Whether you like middle ground or not is irrelevant. When we say "we wanted the show to be darker than it was, with more conflict than there was", we DO NOT mean SUPER DARK DEATH AND DESTRUCTION JANEWAY IS AN INHUMAN MONSTER AND THEY BLOW UP PLANETS FOR FUN RRAAAAAAAGH.

Uh-huh, so if anybody says anything about making the show more like Equinox then they must be lying? Because I gave you the monstrous captain and the general nastiness that entails.

Whatever your reasons for arguing this way, if you wish to debate us further, it needs to STOP, or there is no debate. End of story.

Fine, the premise stunk as was because it limited the show too much, the conflict was never there to begin with because even with some of the crew as Maquis it's not enough to justify it, VOY didn't have the resources available to it to match up to the examples TNG and the book series have when it comes to Borg storytelling. There's more but I'll stick with this for now.

And Withers, VOY has been getting trashed by haters LONG before I started posting here. So no, it has nothing to do with me.

EDIT: Okay, read Saito's latest post.

I've been growing more disgusted with the notion of "The world is all grey, no black and white". There is very much black in white in nearly everything done, but for some reason people don't have the courage to simply admit that something is still wrong when going through with it. In a morally difficult situation (if you let yourself get faced with one, which speaks more about the person), it's the stronger person who either doesn't make a choice out of the bads in the name of ruthless pragmatism and lives with the consequences OR they admit to themselves that despite being better off (or less worse than the other choices), what you did was still wrong. No cowardly justifications on the lines of "Well, it was a tough choice but the world is grey anyways so it doesn't matter", just "Yeah, I did something bad. Now I have to live with it forever".

All my personal opinion of course.

 

[RyuRoots]

Actually, the shuttle thing is kind of exactly what happened since they seemed to have an infinite amount and they built the Delta Flyer from scratch with no resource drain of any kind, apparently. Except no one complained about there being "no drama" due to the shuttle supply (where do you even GET these insane ideas?), it was just a stupid detail.

And no. Again, you are factually incorrect. Myself and many others think that VOY is fantastic when it's at its best. Oh but wait, silly me. That would be an argument that would depend on you actually reading and understanding the posts other people have written.


Again, you do not understand what a premise is.


Okay! That's valid! You just have to understand that projecting that onto US makes you a terrible debater.

...do you read any of what you type before you post it? Saito S did not want that. Withers did not want that. I did not want that. I cannot see anyone else in this thread that say they wanted that. Stop shoving things into our mouths for just one minute, would you? Again. You need to acknowledge that WE believe in middle ground, or you are one of the worst debaters ever.

Yes, you did, and we all reply to you and say "No, we don't want that." Again, please actually read other people's posts. You'll look a lot smarter for it.


The premise. is. not. that. constricting.


And oh. my. god. Wow. You really must hate all fiction ever if you believe things are always that simple in every situation.

 

[Withers]

If they did get outside support, then people wouldn't complain about the ship getting fixed up AT ALL. Any explanation given over new torpedoes would've been "they can't get new torpedoes because the ship can't handle non-fed tech, and they can't make new torpedoes because they can't make new anti-matter!", and any explanation over shuttles would've been "if they can just build new shuttles with the replicators or have enough spare parts then there's no drama because they can fix things!".

The excuse that explaining things as opposed to not explaining them wouldn't have satisfied everyone isn't a legitimate one. I'd take any explanation as opposed to none. Would I have liked every single reason they gave? Of course not. But at least there'd be one whether I personally found it reasonable or not.

And like the cake argument I had with Withers, even if they "added sugar" to make the cake "sweeter" then the only reception the new cake would be "eh, it's sweet but could be sweeter and it needs frosting and vanilla extract, etc" instead of "It's a good cake, could be better but it's still a good cake". Nothing was ever going to make anybody here say that VOY was good, at anything. They do those changes and the reception is "Eh, could be better" and NOTHING else.

Right, their cake had no sugar in it at all. The cake we've been suggesting had sugar in it. Of course, if they'd made it with sugar, we'd still say it needed frosting. That's what people do with Trek. They pick it apart and improve on it. Usually, that means adding frosting or putting some ice cream with the cake. In Voyagers case, however, we're telling them something much more basic which is to use sugar. Would it have satisfied everything? No. It would have made it more tolerable and would have quelled the "outrage" you're seeing at the moment.

No, just the forced contrived drama we would've gotten on VOY. With a better premise there'd be a better shot at normal drama, like say if the other crew had been Romulans and it was split half and half with the crew complement instead of 120/30 in show-proper.

I'd take forced, contrived drama (which... I'm not even sure specifically what you mean by that) over no drama or in Voyager's case the inexplicable lack of it. It's not that the drama wasn't dramatic enough. It's that it was suddenly completely absent where it should have been according to the story we were told that I have a problem with. (If they'd shown Kira suddenly best friends with Dukat without any explanation I'd have a problem with that too.)

You wanted more 8472, a darker heavier tone, more competent Kazon and all the other ungodly billions of things you've said that would've made VOY better. I gave it to you.

If someone said I have a head ache would you then proceed to cut their head off? That was essentially your "solution" to the complaints directed at the show. It was hamfisted at best.

Uh-huh, so if anybody says anything about making the show more like Equinox then they must be lying?

Who has said "I wanted Voyager more like Equinox?" Aside from the battle damage they sustained (which I'll grant would be depressing to look at week after week) they were just what the writers wanted them to be; the mirror image and example of what not to do in that situation.


-Withers-​

 

[Saito S]

And like the cake argument I had with Withers, even if they "added sugar" to make the cake "sweeter" then the only reception the new cake would be "eh, it's sweet but could be sweeter and it needs frosting and vanilla extract, etc" instead of "It's a good cake, could be better but it's still a good cake".

So you're saying that none of us would EVER go as far as to say Voyager was basically good, but could have been better.

Can't Voyager just have straight up FLAWS and still be a good show, on the whole? I still consider it to be so. I had a lot of problems with it, more than you or some other fans did, but I'd give it a 6 or 6.5 out of 10, on the whole. An up and down ride, but with enough good (or even exceptional, like Scorpion) eps to keep it on the positive side of "just average, neither bad nor good", which would of course be 5. ... This is the biggest shame to me about Voyager in general. I can't just write the whole series off and say "It sucked" because it had moments of greatness. The writing was just so damned inconsistent.

Nothing was ever going to make anybody here say that VOY was good, at anything.

So you're saying that none of us would EVER admit that ANYTHING Voyager did was good, let alone great or on par with previous Treks.

Specifically, "Scorpion". That was brilliant. One of the best 2-parters in all of Trek. And the Borg were handled perfectly. They were menacing, threatening, and scary as ever, despite the fact that Species 8472 was tearing them apart (which was, in and of itself, a great twist).

They do those changes and the reception is "Eh, could be better" and NOTHING else.

Right.

You wanted more 8472, a darker heavier tone, more competent Kazon and all the other ungodly billions of things you've said that would've made VOY better. I gave it to you.

You gave us nothing even close to what we said we would have liked to see on the show. I've already explained this, and feel no need to do so again.

Uh-huh, so if anybody says anything about making the show more like Equinox then they must be lying? Because I gave you the monstrous captain and the general nastiness that entails.

Since we didn't WANT the monstrous captain and the general nastiness that entails, this is further proof that you completely missed the point of my rant in bold.

And Withers, VOY has been getting trashed by haters LONG before I started posting here. So no, it has nothing to do with me.

Except for the fact that Voyager hasn't been "trashed by haters" to NEARLY the degree you say. Note that I'm not saying that NO ONE IN THE WORLD EVER treats Voyager unfairly. For EVERY show, there are people that just HATE IT irrationally. Voyager is no exception. But those people are so far in the minority that their message is irrelevant. Certainly, I have almost never seen anyone on this board act like a "hater" the way you describe. And the idea that it has "nothing to do with you" is just insane. With the number of times you have jumped into a legit, calm discussion about an aspect of the show with a post that says nothing more than "JUST MORE VOYAGER HATE/DOUBLE STANDARD", you do NOT have the right to throw up your hands and go "Hey, I dunno man, it's got nothing to do with me."

I've been growing more disgusted with the notion of "The world is all grey, no black and white".

Of course there isn't NO black and white in the world. No one is suggesting there is none at all. However, this:

There is very much black in white in nearly everything done,

...is a gross exaggeration. There IS black and white in the world, but there really is a TON of gray.

And by the way: the "hatedom", as you describe it, was foretold in the ancient Bajoran texts, but alas, was one of the few prophecies that never came true.

 

[Anwar]

So you're saying that none of us would EVER go as far as to say Voyager was basically good, but could have been better.

So you're saying that none of us would EVER admit that ANYTHING Voyager did was good, let alone great or on par with previous Treks.

Right.

No, I was wrong and you have stated before that VOY was a decent show with very good points to it. But all the "VOY should've done this" and "VOY could've been so much more that" stuff drives me nuts sometimes. If it was more balanced with stuff like "VOY was good, I'd have liked it if they occasionally did some of this but even without it it's still good" then it's more tolerable.

You gave us nothing even close to what we said we would have liked to see on the show.

Darker tone, competent Kazon, Borg-8472 war, etc?

There IS black and white in the world, but there really is a TON of gray.

It can still be seen as Black and White, if people are brave enough to admit it. "Grey Morality" is being used more and more as an excuse for people to not have to be brave enough to admit it.

 

[Withers]

If it was more balanced with stuff like "VOY was good, I'd have liked it if they occasionally did some of this but even without it it's still good" then it's more tolerable.

Sweet fancy Moses...

That is all anyone here has done. 6 pm is darker than 5pm. No one said they wanted it to be midnight. The inability to screw in a light bulb makes you comically stupid. Having that ability doesn't make you a super genius. I'm still not sure what would be so wrong about an arc involving the Borg and 8472 but that boils down to execution. Regardless of what they did it is generally thought that, with slightly greater attention to detail, it could have been better.

It can still be seen as Black and White, if people are brave enough to admit it. "Grey Morality" is being used more and more as an excuse for people to not have to be brave enough to admit it.

Well, as far as this is concerned, you'd either do what the Captains did in the various examples or you'd keep your "white morality" and let humanity be destroyed. You've some how fundamentally missed the idea that facing a tough decision and considering it tough doesn't make you weak and that making the decision quickly doesn't make you strong.


-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

I'm still not sure what would be so wrong about an arc involving the Borg and 8472 but that boils down to execution.

They're both too powerful to have a protracted arc about, and unless it ends in the 8472 leaving the Trekverse permanently while the Borg swear off Fluidic space the end results of such a conflict would spell doom for the Trekverse (either the 8472 win and begin killing everyone else, or the Borg find out how to assimilate 8472 and become invincible as a result of all the new power and take over the Trekverse).

You've some how fundamentally missed the idea that facing a tough decision and considering it tough doesn't make you weak and that making the decision quickly doesn't make you strong.


-Withers-

Justifying your end choice as "Well the world is full of grey so what we did isn't reprehensible" is weaker than "Okay, we did a really crappy thing in order to do a good thing and there's no way around that. We just have to live with the fact that we aren't unblemished perfect people anymore and have done a bad thing while doing our best to never allow ourselves to be in such a position where we have to make that kind of choice again."

 

[Withers]

They're both too powerful to have a protracted arc about, and unless it ends in the 8472 leaving the Trekverse permanently while the Borg swear off Fluidic space the end results of such a conflict would spell doom for the Trekverse (either the 8472 win and begin killing everyone else, or the Borg find out how to assimilate 8472 and become invincible as a result of all the new power and take over the Trekverse).

Your facing north. In your mind you can only keep going north, go east/west, or go south. There's no such thing in your brain as north east or south west. The people who were hammering you on creativity earlier were talking about exactly that. Just because you can't think of anything but the four cardinal directions doesn't mean the others don't exist or that there aren't people who can fathom them. Next you're going to demand I write you another fanfiction about the Borg and I'm not going to do that. What I will do is tell you that an arc, that includes as its ingredients both species, could in fact work. (Also, the Borg did get the upper hand in that conflict and the STU didn't end. But that's moot.)

Justifying your end choice as "Well the world is full of grey so what we did isn't reprehensible" is weaker than "Okay, we did a really crappy thing in order to do a good thing and there's no way around that. We just have to live with the fact that we aren't unblemished perfect people anymore and have done a bad thing while doing our best to never allow ourselves to be in such a position where we have to make that kind of choice again."

I have seen the glory of the coming of the lord! (That's my second reference to the Battle Hymn of the Republic... I don't know why that's on my mind so much lately)

You get it! Great day in the morning, it's a miracle. The later thing you described is exactly what every Captain who has had to make a morally questionable decision did. They were then no longer just pure goodness because they'd had to make those decisions to save the Federation (or Earth in Archers case or her crew in Admiral Janeways case.) That is exactly what they did. And they themselves knew (with the exception of the Admiral) that what they had to do was wrong but that it ultimately served the greater good. They didn't justify those actions by saying "the universe is bad so its okay that I'm bad." They did just what you said and that's what makes them real and deeper than they would have been otherwise.



-Withers-​

 

[borg_curious]

There are many schools of thought when it comes to the Borg on Voyager.

A very common complaint is that the Voyager era Borg were overused. Another common complaint is that they were "powered down." Yet another issue fans have is The Borg Queen herself (and whether or not First Contact screwed Voyager by adding her to the line up.)
​

"WE ARE THE BORG"...it was better that way. The whole queen like in a beehive switch that occurred in First Contact hurt the whole concept of the borg. The collective with no queen/leader made them more believable & menacing. The borg from TNG episode "Q Who" is the definitive borg!​

 

[Anwar]

Then how come the Cybermen can pull off having their own Hive leaders?

 

[RyuRoots]

Then how come the Cybermen can pull off having their own Hive leaders?

Okay, you obviously still don't have this "reading comprehension" thing down like I mentioned elsewhere. I'll try to speak slowly and in small words.


That. is. something. completely. different.

What works for one TV show just MIIIIIIIIIGHT not work for another show that has virtually NOTHING in common with it. Just maybe.

 

[Saito S]

Hey, this thread is back on the first page...?

"WE ARE THE BORG"...it was better that way. The whole queen like in a beehive switch that occurred in First Contact hurt the whole concept of the borg. The collective with no queen/leader made them more believable & menacing. The borg from TNG episode "Q Who" is the definitive borg!

Then how come the Cybermen can pull off having their own Hive leaders?

Oh for Prophet's sake.

Didn't I already explain why that argument is leakier than the boat Jack Sparrow sailed in on at the beginning of Pirates of the Caribbean? I believe I did:

The Cybermen are Doctor Who villains who (possibly) were the inspiration for the Borg in the first place: A race of humanoids who turned themselves into cyborgs and now went around cyber-converting every sentient race they encountered. They also have "leaders" despite being a single-minded collective, Cyber-kings/Cyber-Queens/Cyber-Emperors. So why is it no one complains that THEM having a leader type who commands the others is bad and contrary to their basic idea yet Trek gets nothing but Hell for introducing the Queen?

First of all, "nothing but hell" is a bit much.

Ok... how is that even relevant? Why on Earth would you ever look at two different works of fiction, note that both works have a similar element within them (cyborg baddies, in this case), and then expect that because those elements are there for both shows, anything that works for ONE show with regard to those elements must automatically work for the OTHER show? They are different shows with different priorities, storytelling styles, and universes/backstories.

Just because a sci-fi story has a large, multi-planetary, tyrannical empire doesn't mean that everything that worked to define the character of the Galactic Empire from Star Wars would work for this other empire in this other story. I've never seen much Doctor Who, I don't care about the Cybermen, and I don't feel the need to draw any comparisons to them. I feel that with the way the Borg were presented in Trek, introducing the Queen was a bad creative decision. Period.

Doctor Who is not Star Trek.

 

[Anwar]

But when the concepts are THAT similar (Hell, some believe that the Cybermen were the inspiration for the Borg), then there HAVE to be questions and comparisons raised. The Cybermen have had their own leaders for decades and NO ONE complained, but when the Borg do it all there is, is criticism. So WHY?

I admit there are differences that may support why the Cybermen can do it:

1) Each Cyberman is capable of action separate from the group, so they aren't a bunch of ants.

2) Once assimilated into a Cyberman, you can never be de-assimilated. Anyone that tries goes insane and died.

3) They had their leaders from their earlier appearances, while the Borg didn't get theirs until way later.

 

[Withers]

I don't... really even understand how this is an argument; you're essentially saying that two completely different shows, with completely different writers, plots, and execution had roughly similar villains and that it is a mystery to you why a certain approach worked on one of the shows but not the other? Even within Star Trek that kind of thinking doesn't pan out; nobody likes Neelix but a lot of people like Quark. They're both aliens that serve food to primary cast so, by your logic, Neelix should've been just as popular as Quark. See how that doesn't add up?


The Borg Queen gets so much "hell" because of the way she was used. She was largely ineffectual (and that's when they didn't just outright kill her.) Every time Voyager bitch slapped the Borg around the DQ they lost a little more of there ability to be scary (especially after hunting them and turning Assimilation into a completely reversible act.) There were ways to go about doing stand alone Borg stories that didn't have to amp up the camp factor.

-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

Even within Star Trek that kind of thinking doesn't pan out; nobody likes Neelix but a lot of people like Quark. They're both aliens that serve food to primary cast so, by your logic, Neelix should've been just as popular as Quark. See how that doesn't add up?

Because Quark had criminal connections, was in a stationary spot, was played NOT as a cheery fellow but a nasty fellow, and an inkling of double standard. Most of which wouldn't work in Neelix's position as it was.

Every time Voyager bitch slapped the Borg around the DQ they lost a little more of there ability to be scary (especially after hunting them and turning Assimilation into a completely reversible act.) There were ways to go about doing stand alone Borg stories that didn't have to amp up the camp factor.

Most of which would require oodles of expendable characters to get killed/assimilated, VOY SOMEHOW managing to escape the superior in every way Borg, or ones where the Borg were disappointingly used as a cameo shot at the beginning or ending of the episode ("I, Borg").

Hell, Doctor Who always managed to get away from the Cybermen or defeat them in outright combat and THEY never got decayed because of it.

 

[RyuRoots]

Even within Star Trek that kind of thinking doesn't pan out; nobody likes Neelix but a lot of people like Quark. They're both aliens that serve food to primary cast so, by your logic, Neelix should've been just as popular as Quark. See how that doesn't add up?

Because Quark had criminal connections, was in a stationary spot, was played NOT as a cheery fellow but a nasty fellow, and an inkling of double standard. Most of which wouldn't work in Neelix's position as it was.

*facepalm* You don't get it. He's pointing out that this is the level of fallacy you are making. He's not saying he believes that. PLEASE ACTUALLY READ OTHER PEOPLE'S POSTS.

Every time Voyager bitch slapped the Borg around the DQ they lost a little more of there ability to be scary (especially after hunting them and turning Assimilation into a completely reversible act.) There were ways to go about doing stand alone Borg stories that didn't have to amp up the camp factor.

Most of which would require oodles of expendable characters to get killed/assimilated, VOY SOMEHOW managing to escape the superior in every way Borg, or ones where the Borg were disappointingly used as a cameo shot at the beginning or ending of the episode ("I, Borg").

Hell, Doctor Who always managed to get away from the Cybermen or defeat them in outright combat and THEY never got decayed because of it.

Argh! NO. NO NO NO NO NO. The Borg are already established as extremely dangerous. Q, Who, Best of Both Worlds, and First Contact all established thoroughly their menace. We already know that they're very scary and dangerous, and we know why. So we don't need people to get killed or assimilated to show how dangerous they are. And again, there is a thing called a creative solution. It means putting more thought into a conclusion than "lol Delta Flyer wins".

Putting aside the fact that there might be people who disagree with your assessment, since you're not some archive keeper of fandoms that you seem to fancy yourself as, DOCTOR WHO IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SHOW WITH NOTHING IN COMMON WITH VOYAGER. What works for one doesn't necessarily work for another.

Christ, you'd make a Vulcan's head implode if you tried to talk to him.

 

[Anwar]

The Borg WERE established as extremely dangerous, and to MAINTAIN that they have to be shown continually doing stuff along those lines. Having them show up and NOT assimilate or destroy only adds to the villain decay effect. And in VOY's situation, the only creative that CAN be done is "They win" or "They get away". Anything else and you are left with the audience going "WTF, how can one small ship manage to do what the entire Federation can't?"

 

[RyuRoots]

The Borg WERE established as extremely dangerous, and to MAINTAIN that they have to be shown continually doing stuff along those lines. Having them show up and NOT assimilate or destroy only adds to the villain decay effect. And in VOY's situation, the only creative that CAN be done is "They win" or "They get away". Anything else and you are left with the audience going "WTF, how can one small ship manage to do what the entire Federation can't?"

See, that completely collapses in on itself considering that in, for some variety here, Best of Both Worlds (the fleet did nothing but get trashed, the ones who saved the day were purely the Ent-D crew), First Contact, Greater than the Sum, and Scorpion (A VOYAGER EPISODE) all managed to triumph over the Borg with only one ship and circumstances of the time available to them. Also Anwar, I don't think you understand what the word "creative" means considering how you used it there.

It could have been done better, Anwar. It just wasn't. And I don't get why you have this intsense desire to be the world's biggest apologist for bad writing.