Jammer's Review

Star Trek: The Next Generation

"I, Borg"

****

Air date: 5/11/1992
Written by Rene Echevarria
Directed by Robert Lederman

Review by Jamahl Epsicokhan

The Enterprise encounters a small Borg scout ship crashed on the surface of a planet with a sole adolescent male survivor in critical condition. After considering the options, Picard has the survivor beamed aboard the Enterprise rather than leaving him to die. Then a daring plan is hatched: The Enterprise could perhaps use this Borg as a Trojan horse carrying a destructive computer virus (*); when the hive returns to retrieve this drone (as they typically do), the virus could eventually spread through and destroy the entire Borg collective.

Perhaps not everyone will agree, but in my opinion "I, Borg" was, at the time, the correct turning point in TNG's Borg saga. Granted, it would mostly become a moot footnote by the time First Contact would roll around, essentially undoing the ideas put forth here (and in the season six/seven bridge, "Descent"). But at this point, going on two years since we last saw them on the verge of assimilating/destroying Earth in "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II," the idea of taking the Borg, the previously big, scary, action-movie-spectacle-generating interstellar locusts that they were, and bringing the question of their nature into a smaller, more intimate and introspective situation (albeit with questions put forth here that are definitely big ones) — well, I think that's the right choice. A new spin on the material was appropriate at this stage in the game.

This is a different take on the Borg, and a very well executed one that considers the question of Who We Are just as much as it ponders Who They Might Be. The central issue becomes not whether we can use this Borg drone — which gets the nickname "Hugh" — to destroy the rest of the collective, but whether we should, and what responsibilities we have as human beings as we make this decision. (Conveniently, the story leaves out any mention of this course of action being discussed with higher-ranking people at Starfleet Command or the Federation government. Which is just as well — this is a story that is and should be about Picard and the Enterprise — but whatever their chosen course of action, you'd think the rest of humanity would've wanted a say.)

In true TNG tradition, this is a morality play — though it's worth pointing out that there's a legitimate point of view that can argue that humanity also has a moral imperative to protect itself from a race of amoral cybernetic beings bent only on turning us into them. But when the crew no longer sees the Borg as a swarm of locusts but instead as this individual named Hugh who appears to have feelings, the moral waters get murkier. And increasingly so as Hugh becomes more and more individualized the longer he's separated from the collective. The idea of negotiating with the Borg once was assumed to be impossible, but in spending time with Hugh the story challenges this belief.

There are some fascinating dialogue scenes where people have their longstanding beliefs thrown into question. Guinan is initially chief among the skeptics ("You have a Borg named Hugh?"), but she visits Hugh in the brig and gradually realizes she has doubts of her own — and this translates into a thoughtful scene between Picard and Guinan that considers the moral implications of this potentially genocidal plan. One thing I'll say is that this story shows people's ability to actually listen and rethink their previous conclusions — something that often seems hopelessly optimistic (and, yes, possibly naive) when you look at the world we live in today.

Picard finally realizes what he must do when he has a fascinating one-on-one conversation with Hugh where Picard plays the part of Locutus. It's an interesting bit of staging and acting; Picard essentially plays the part of the Borg collective in order to see if there's the possibility that Hugh has himself become a free thinker willing to go against that hive mentality. And therein lies the genius of this story: Even without a computer virus, Hugh might still wield a widespread influence if returned to the collective, because that sense of individuality might itself be the Trojan horse.

Is Picard and the Enterprise crew foolish not to use this opportunity to destroy the Borg? I could see the argument, but I'm glad this episode doesn't argue it. Trek is, after all, built on a philosophy of optimism and individual responsibility, and the way the story ends here is the only way the writers can practice what they preach. Besides, what better way to beat the Borg collective than by having it assimilate the sense of the individual self into its hive mind? Perhaps then it is we who are assimilating them.

* The computer virus designed here strikes me as an unlikely way to cripple an entire race of cyborgs. It's essentially a paradoxical 3D image that cannot exist in real space; Data says this paradox would spread though the collective and cause a massive system failure because of unending calculations and analysis. This strikes me as a very fancy TNG version of the old TOS cliche of Kirk Outsmarting The Computer With Circular Logic; wouldn't it be more likely that the Borg, with all their knowledge, would simply conclude the paradox is a paradox and then purge it from their system?

Previous episode: Imaginary Friend
Next episode: The Next Phase

Season Index

59 comments on this review

Latex Zebra - Wed, May 11, 2011 - 2:53am (USA Central)
The bit right at the end were Hugh looks back at where Geordie was (or something like that) puts a lump in my throat.
Destructor - Wed, May 11, 2011 - 8:41pm (USA Central)
Love this episode! Almost every scene is a delight. Also it's nice to see the usual 'moral yardsticks' (Picard and Guinan) be the ones with hate in their hearts. Some real growth for both characters.
Destructor - Wed, May 11, 2011 - 8:44pm (USA Central)
"If you're going to use this person..."
"It's not a person, damn it, it's a Borg!"
"If you are going to use this person to destroy his race, you should at least look him in the eye once before you do it. Because I am not sure he IS still a Borg."
bigpale - Wed, May 11, 2011 - 11:55pm (USA Central)
I loved Patrick Stewart in this episode. The scene when he's arguing with Guinan about going to see the Borg is played with such skill.

He added a layer of willful-denial to the scene. It was obvious Picard knew that if he went to the Borg he would end up changing his mind, so he avoided going.
methane - Mon, May 16, 2011 - 2:39pm (USA Central)
I think this is the best Borg episode in any series. Star Trek does lots of 'moral episodes', but few rise to this level.
Patrick - Thu, May 19, 2011 - 6:29pm (USA Central)
This is why I love TNG. Instead of playing it safe and doing "The Best of Both Worlds part III" or "Q Who redux" or something to that effect, they instead take something familiar and completely change the paradigm surrounding it in order to tell a compelling story. That was ballsy to put quality storytelling over fanboy wishes. You won't find that today in genre storytelling.
Paul - Fri, May 20, 2011 - 5:14am (USA Central)
I agree, Patrick. TNG invented the Borg, and still they used them very sparingly. Compare that to Voyager where it seems that every even numbered episode featured the Borg. Talk about sensory overload.
Nick P - Sat, May 21, 2011 - 2:46pm (USA Central)
OK, I love this episode, and I love the morality play, but I want to be very clear that I do believe the crew made the wrong choice. I think Morality plays are fine and dandy, but in reality, survival is always desired.

I sometimes think we are so evolved as a society we forget that we didn't always run the earth. The only reason humanity exists at all is because we were smart enough to kill off the lions and the bears (and possibly the Neandertals), and had we NOT killed them as ruthlessly as possible, we would not all be here on the internet instead of scavenging for food on the African Plains between lion sightings.

The borg ARE the new lion on the African plain. There is no Morality argument here, they die or we do. Every death (human or not) from that point on is Picards fault, DIRECTLY.

I love that because hugh seems nice, the borg are not evil??????? I am sure some of the nazis were deligtful conversationalists, but if you were a jew in Poland, you get the hell out!

again, I do love this episode, but disagree with the finale.
anthem47 - Sun, May 22, 2011 - 10:08am (USA Central)
I'd argue that "survival is always desired" isn't necessarily true though. If surviving meant becoming a monster, if it meant me slaughtering millions of brainwashed people, I'd rather die. I'd be alive but it wouldn't be much of a life worth living after that. I don't think surviving is enough, because after you've done what you had to do to survive, you still have to look at yourself in the mirror.
Nick P. - Sun, May 22, 2011 - 10:23am (USA Central)
@anthem47

I think you are moralizing where there does not need to be a moralization. We are not talking about exterminating a bunch of people who are following a weird preacher, we are talking about a group of organisms whose sole purpose is to destroy you and your way of life. The only way you become a monster by destroying them is if you yourself tell yourself you are. But I am not. I am trying to survive.

There is no moralizing if your dead. And I don't think you are a better person than me either if you are dead. I think you are frankly dumber, if you would willingly let survive the race trying to destroy you.
Plain Simple - Tue, May 24, 2011 - 10:53am (USA Central)
From the review: "Besides, what better way to beat the Borg collective than by having it assimilate the sense of the individual self into its hive mind? Perhaps then it is we who are assimilating them."

I guess this is a point that belongs more in "Descent" then here, but since you bring it up: I've always wondered why Hugh's individuality was so special to the collective. Presumably everyone they assimilate comes in with a sense of individuality, not only Hugh. Or is the point that they didn't expect it in Hugh and so didn't purge it when they took him back? (Hmm... random thought about First Contact/Voyager that just came up: could Hugh's individuality be the source that sparked the Borg's creation of their Queen? Was the Queen's origin ever addressed? I don't remember.)
Weiss - Wed, May 25, 2011 - 10:55am (USA Central)
lions were not wiped out from the face of the earth... humans became stronger than them (and other competitors)...lions still exist and are top players in the animal kingdom, but humans are stronger... athough we know a lion can kill us, we dont go about unleashing viruses to wipe out lions

the federation are allowing their opponents to survive... but that does not mean they cannot become stronger... and really who knows what the consequences of destroying the borg will be to the whole galaxy, maybe their destruction (before their time) would create an imbalance (similar to destroying any species on Earth)

--
although i do think that your logic was pursued in DS9 with the dominion, unleashing the virus.
Nick P. - Wed, May 25, 2011 - 12:47pm (USA Central)
@ Weiss

You are arguing a distinction without a difference ( a logical fallacy). You are correct in the absolute technical sense that Lions still exist, but I meant the lions as an analogy of being at the top of the Earths food chain, and with humans taking over that rule through absolute ruthless intellegence.

Although Lions still exist, they used to be at the absolute top on almost every continent. There is only one reason they are no longer, the Roman Empire (mostly).

Further, Lions were not focused on our destruction, the brog were. If the Jews in 1944 had a virus that would kill every German, I would hope they would have the sense not to be as "sophisticated" as posters here.
Plain Simple - Wed, May 25, 2011 - 3:15pm (USA Central)
Nick P., so you're saying you would willingly trade one genocide for another? It's an impossible choice to make. I guess if you were a Jew in your scenario you could argue, rather the Germans than us, and if you were a German you could say the reverse. If you were a German Jew you were screwed anyway.

A better analogy might be, what if you had the opportunity in 1944 to blow up the leaders of the Nazi party (so not all Germans), would that be an acceptable choice to make? Or hey, lets make it even more topical, murdering Bin Laden (not in self defense or during combat, but actually going there with the intent to murder him), is that an acceptable choice to make? I don't know. I can sort of see why many people would say "yes", but it also makes me very uncomfortable. At what point is it justified to violate the principles you're fighting for to, seemingly, defend those same principles?
laurelgirl - Sun, May 29, 2011 - 2:17pm (USA Central)
All I can say is it's a good thing there wasn't an agent from Section 31 on board the Enterprise. There's a terrible disconnect between Picard's moral choice to NOT use Hugh, a Borg who becomes a sympathetic character over the course of a few days, as an instrument of genocide, and Section 31 (and by extention the Federation) who had no compuction about infecting Odo, a Bajoran citizen and trusted officer on DS9.

What makes these different choices all the more tragic is that when Odo contronted Sisko with the Federation sanctioning of genocide, Sisko becomes an apologist for their actions. I don't see Picard making that choice.
Stef - Wed, Jun 1, 2011 - 9:52am (USA Central)
This is one of those episodes that every Trek fan has to like, just like The Inner Light or Darmok (Or The Visitor from DS9). It's the LAW!!!!

Alas, this one just doesn't do it for me. (Visitor and Inner Light definitely do).

It is the forgone conclusion of the whole thing. You know Picard is going to turn around and not go through with the plan. Geordie develops an instant bro-mance with Hugh, and the actual scene where Hugh gets his name is stomach turning.

On top of that, I just didn't like the performance of the actor playing Hugh. It would have felt more at home in The Original Series. (in fact Hugh looked like one of the recurring red-shirts from TOS, as he has that same distinctive facial structure).

I bought this on VHS thinking it would be a great episode, and was disappointed. The Next Phase was on the same tap, which I found a lot more enjoyable (if lightweight).
Fanner - Tue, Jul 12, 2011 - 6:35pm (USA Central)
Just reading the above comments - which I greatly enjoy - it seems to me that possibly many hany confused what the so-called ''Morality Debate'' actually was centered on. Not to end a sentence on a preposition - which I just did.

It was not ''Is it wrong or right to kill an entire race of beings?''

It was ''Is it wrong or right to use this ONE being (Hugh) as the tool to achieve that goal''

Noone ever seemed to beat up over the possibility of possibly wiping all Borg out of existence, the dilemma was if it was ok to use HUGH to do that...because, what WAS Hugh? Individual entity - or collective piece? If the latter, you can really more easily ignore any whispers of conscience about wiping out all Borg by using Hugh...if the former, those whispers of doubt get murkier - and louder.
Nick P. - Tue, Jul 12, 2011 - 11:49pm (USA Central)
@Plain Simple,

Just thought I would comment again, since your scenario just occurred, we killed Bin Laden, and yes, I was one of those "mindless children" dancing in the street. He is my countries enemy and I am quite happy dancing on his grave, I am having 0 problem moralizing his death.

I consider myself a "true" liberal, I do not believe life is the only thing in and of itself, I believe in making the world a better place, for those who follow the rules. I am pro-choice, pro-death-penalty, pro-killing civilizations' enemies. I have 0 problem killing or torturing anyone who has sympathy for the Bin Ladens in the world. is the US partly responsible for the creation of Bin Ladens, yes, sure why not, I just don't give a shit. I live in America, and as much as some here sympathize with the Bin Ladens, he is certainy not YOUR friend, he would kill you just as quick as he would me.
Elliott - Thu, Aug 25, 2011 - 6:31pm (USA Central)
@Nick :

It is possible to condone the execution of Bin Laden (which I, for example do as you do) without rejoicing in it. Such bloodsport is a little terrifying : when global politics and deep-rooted terrorism is reduced to lines like "he is certainly not YOUR friend," I start to worry--I don't envy you having "0 problem moralizing his death" because it is that very problem which gives our species dignity and had the problem occurred to Bin Laden himself, perhaps a lot less people would be dead today.
Nick P. - Fri, Aug 26, 2011 - 8:25am (USA Central)
@Elliot.

Really? You really don't rejoice over the death of Bin Laden? Have we really come to such a sanitized point in human existance we cannot rejoice the death of civilizations enemies? I really think I was born 100 years too late. Victory over your enemies is a primal emotion, and a healthy one, what you call a "problem" I call the struggle for survival. It is Darwinian, scientific, and correct. I have no problem with people dying who are trying to make the world a worse place.

Death is not the worst thing on earth. I really regret that liberalism as a concept can justify the deaths of pre-born children at the drop of a hat, but the death of civilizations greatest enemy must be a time for "reflection". F-THAT.
TH - Fri, Sep 9, 2011 - 6:46am (USA Central)
I really don't like where the commenting on this episode has gone. I agree with Elliott that we don't have to be smug and celebratory about shooting an unarmed man in his bedroom to be relieved and comforted by the fact that the man was a threat who is now dead.

Nick, you must understand that there are multiple perspectives in the world and yours is not the only one. I'm not suggesting that you are wrong for having the emotional response to Bin Laden's death that you have/had; I'm merely suggesting that there are others out there who have a more muted response, and that does not make either side wrong. I will point out, however, that just because "liberals" support the right of a woman to cause the "death of pre-born children", as you put it, does not mean liberals support throwing "I just had an abortion!" parties to celebrate the decision.

Ultimately, I agree with Fanner. I believe the true debate in this episode was not "let's not kill the Borg"; it was "is it right to use Hugh to kill the Borg?"

To use already-used analogies, most of us would not have questioned putting a bomb under the car of one of Bin Laden's couriers that would have unbeknownst exploded when he returned to his compound, killing Bin Laden and his supporters there. But what if Bin Laden was found hiding in the USA, would we still be alright hiding the bomb on an unsuspecting and innocent US Post worker, knowing he too would be killed? It's not a perfect analogy, but I think it makes the point.

I also agree with the previous commenter in questioning why Hugh is unique in that everyone that is assimilated had individuality. I also conclde that that it's because Hugh is already a drone and his individuality won't be purged from him (as evident in Descent).

To the computer virus discussion; the crew never get to impliment the 'virus', so perhaps the borg would NOT have been confounded by the shape. We'll never know, but just because LaForge and Data say it should work doesn't mean it actually would.

Ultimately, good episode; perhaps 3.5 stars due to some of the more pedantic moments, but ultimately good.
Nick P. - Fri, Sep 9, 2011 - 11:41am (USA Central)
@TH, I respect your comment, but there is this impression among liberals (I am quite liberal, BTW, I did not mean to imply otherwise), that anyone who rejoices over Bin Ladens death is a country lovin, jesus-lovin, hillbilly, and obviously has no intellect.

All I am saying is that you can rejoice your enemies death and still be a functional intellectual and yes LIBERAL person. I think modern times have become very sanitized (for lack of a better term) and that we should feel bad about emotions. But that is why I brought up Darwin, survival of the fittest. It is death that moves evolution forward. We are so stigmatized by death as a people we cannot move past it. I am glad America celebrated the death of Hitler. i am glad that people celebrated the death of Bin Laden.

Obviously you are correct that people have different viewpoints. But Bin Laden sure didn't care. Hitler didn't care about your viewpoint. Bin Laden wanted YOU dead. and ME. He is my enemy, and I would like him dead before he can kill me or my children. There is nothing Jingoistic or anti-liberal about celebrating the death of your enemies. If being glad about the death of my enemies means I can't be a liberal, than count me out.
Jay - Thu, Sep 15, 2011 - 3:25pm (USA Central)
what are "preborn children"?

The attempt to equate pro-choice with pro-abortion is one of my biggest pet peeves.

If not for the stigma and the profound shortage of availability of abortion, abortions after the first trimester would be essentially unheard of.

Captain Tripps - Thu, Oct 20, 2011 - 10:46pm (USA Central)
Comments have veered into strange territory.

I actually thought this episode had wider ramifications than it did, canonically speaking anyway - I had always connected Hugh with the Unimatrix Zero plotline from Voyager, but apparently the two were never tied together.

TH - a better analogy I think would be, is it ok to place a bomb under the car of a random Muslim to kill a known terrorist, because you know they'll be in the same place later. This is a completely relevant issue today whenever you turn on the news and hear about "collateral damage" from another drone strike over in the Middle East.

Is our moral compass really going to be What Would Hitler Do?
TH - Fri, Oct 28, 2011 - 2:54pm (USA Central)
>what are "preborn children"?
>The attempt to equate pro-choice with pro-abortion is one of my biggest pet peeves.

I don't really understand your point. I mean, if you're trying to say that someone can be pro-choice but still be anti-abortion (i.e. "I don't believe in abortion but I support your right to have one if you do?")

I think my point was mostly skipped over and I think it was an important one: I think there are very few people in America (liberal or otherwise) who would prefer Bin Laden to be alive now. I simply think that people can be satisfied or relieved or happy that he has been killed without being CELEBRATORY, holding parties, making banners or signs or shouting about it etc. In the same way I don't personally think that if someone is executed in capital punishment, it is not appropriate to throw a post-execution party with dancing, cake and cocktails.

That's my personal opinion. I don't claim to tell anyone else how to feel, and if you feel it is worth celebrating, that is fine.

I did not mean to suggest to Nick that I believe everyone who celebrated was a red-neck yokel. I understand that celebrators included liberals and conservatives, urban and country dwellers alike. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's also nothing wrong with simply being relieved and at peace knowing that he is dead, without a raucous celebration.
Paul - Wed, Nov 16, 2011 - 7:53pm (USA Central)
@Nick P.
"I am quite liberal, BTW, I did not mean to imply otherwise"

Since these comments have already veered into some strange land of politics, let me just jokingly add that, as far as I know, what in USA passes for "liberalism" would in Europe probably be viewed as pretty hardcore rightwing philosophy. And vice-versa, of course, European ideas of social democracy seem like marxist horror stories to some in the US. :)
altair77 - Mon, Jan 16, 2012 - 8:54am (USA Central)
Wow! I just can't agree with most of you. I'm working my way through TNG chronologically, and save some stinkers in season 1 this is among the worst IMO.
Maybe part of the problem for me is that I'm coming into this having recently watched all of Voyager and seen a lot of borg fish out of water stories that just don't wash with this one. Obviously this predates all of them, and therefore cannot be judged in the same context.
That being said I still hated it. More than anything it is one of the most sentimental treatments I've ever seen TNG. The idea may have contained a valid moral question "Can you blame an individual for the crimes of the group that they are part of?" or something like that. I just don't think it is relevant to this context.
This is the borg we're talking about! I find the whole notion of borg as a lost puppy to be ridiculous. It totally negates the entire borg mythos. They are not individuals. That's the whole point. And don't even get me started on Picard's nonsense at the end about infecting the borg with "singularity". Puke. Star Trek can be so much better than this wet blanket stinker.
nytwin81 - Thu, Mar 15, 2012 - 10:53pm (USA Central)
I just watched this episode again and found it somewhat disturbing. My main complaint is, whatever the story the episode wanted to tell, I wish that at least *someone* had retained the perspective that Captain Picard expressed at the beginning of the episode: that, given the Borg's non-negotiable intention to destroy the human race, the Federation had the right to do whatever it took to stop them.

Instead, the episode takes a somewhat soft-headed position that, because this one poor Borg was lonely and kind of cute, we should let him go without using him to attempt to destroy the Borg collective.

Does anyone on the Enterprise remember what happened at Wolf 359? Or how close the Borg was to assimilating all of Earth? Sure, Hugh is kind of endearing. But the Borg are not, and would kill or assimilate every last person in the Alpha Quardrant if giving the chance. The moral debate isn't that difficult, and clearly favors using Hugh to annihilate the Borg, if possible.

Setting aside my own moral views, the episode unrealistically portrays startling changes of heart by Picard and Guinan. The Borg tortured and mutilated Picard; would a Borg who said "I am lonely" really change his thinking so quickly? Similarly, the Borg essentially destroyed Guinan's entire race; imagine an alien species had destroyed humanity and then think of how quickly you would warm up to that species. It would probably take more than one conversation.

This episode too easily portrays the crew taking an "enlightened" view of the Borg. It presumably reflects the worldview of the comfortable Hollywood screenwriters who wrote it. The unyielding perspective that Picard and Guinan take at the episode's start is the less naive, more reasonable point of view.

The Borg are hell-bent on total assimilation of all non-Borg species; they have far superior weapons; in their collective mind-set, they will not negotiate or compromise. By failing to take the opportunity to introduce a virus into the Borg collective, the Enterprise crew has endangered all life in the Federation. This is a grave error. The supposed moral of this episode rings false.
Nick P. - Fri, Mar 16, 2012 - 8:50am (USA Central)
@NYTWIN81, I completely agree with you and I have one question, I wonder how a certain Benjamen
Sisco feels about the events of that day on the Enterprise. I remember when I first watched Emmisary, the first episode of DS9, at first I thought , hey Sisco, don't be so mad at Picard, he couldn't control his actions, but then I remembered I'borg, and realized he is actually probably pissed that Picard could have ended the borg threat right then and there, but didn't. I would be pretty pissy with Picard TOO.

you are totally right, it is the left wing screenwriters who loved this script, because it made them feel better, but I still say that every single person who was killed directly or indirectly by a borg every day after this episode can blame Captian Picard.
Elliott - Fri, Mar 16, 2012 - 10:49am (USA Central)
Do you see, Jammer, where my argument comes from that DS9 was the answer for those who never actually liked Star Trek?

Folks, Star Trek is defined in great part by its idealism. I find it truly remarkable that a man like Picard can be tortured and raped by a species, find the personal courage to both move past his experience (mostly) and set aside his own personal feelings of anger to make a moral choice, and THEN be hissed at by various admirals, Ben Sisko and a number of commenters on this site for being so courageous.

@ Nick P. Please don't sully this argument with our modern conceptions of right and left wing. All people should be able to agree about basic moral choices like "killing is wrong" without categorising them in partisan camps.

@ nytwin81 :

"because this one poor Borg was lonely and kind of cute, we should let him go without using him to attempt to destroy the Borg collective. "

The fact that Hugh was "lonely and...cute" has nothing to do with anything aside from offering an emotional portal to discover if the crew's preconceptions were justified.

" would a Borg who said "I am lonely" really change his thinking so quickly? "

The fact that he is lonely does not garner sympathy in the way you imply. It's not as though they feel sorry for him and so decide against using him like a bomb--the fact that he expresses loneliness means he is no longer Borg. If the drone had remained a drone and his individuality never resurfaced, the argument would be different and the crew's (admittedly ridiculous) plan to destroy the collective would be afoot.

Regarding René Echevarria, I'd look up his other work before boxing into some Hollywood stereotype. The first episode to contradict that assessment which comes to mind is "Children of Time."

Remember what Guinan and Picard discussed back in BOBW part I; will humanity survive, or do we "turn the page"? For us to matter, to justify our fragile existence, we must live by those qualities which define us, even unto our own extinction. That is nobility and it is to be honoured, admired, respected and above all emulated, not ridiculed.
Nick P. - Fri, Mar 16, 2012 - 12:05pm (USA Central)
@Elliot, I don't believe "killing is wrong". IMO that is a platitude, not a philosophy, even vegans KILL plants to survive. That is LIFE.

I certainly agree with killing there a BIG grey area, but what people arguing how great this episode fail to realize, is that killing to SAVE YOUR SPECIES, has no grey area.

Go to the BSG episode board and see the discussion there. If you have the chance to eliminate the threat that is killing you (borg, cylons) and you do NOT take that chance, you are not fit for survival, I don't care how morally superior Picard or Adama are to me, I will be ALIVE, and they will be DEAD. It is that simple, no grey area.
Elliott - Fri, Mar 16, 2012 - 2:51pm (USA Central)
@ Nick P.

I am on that board. As soon as you draw a line in the sand about where the grey areas end, you've set a precedent for evil actions. There is a reason why in every great scifi series (DS9's Dominion, VOY's Borg, BSG's Cylons), an enemy which seemed once shrouded in implacability, defeatable only through extreme genocidal methods, is eventually revealed to possess the same motivations and fears as ourselves (or the protagonists), and thus can be defeated through negotiation, adaptation or merely the destruction of its ideological leader.

The Taliban has declared war on our way of life, but it is neither necessary nor morally justified to wipe every last member of the organisation out to "win"--we must, probably, destroy its leaders, but we must also 1) give every attempt to coëxist, coöperate and educated the others and 2) most importantly, question whether there's any validity to their claims against us and whether we can hope to better ourselves in that questioning. That is Trekkian idealism, but it is not simple nor unrealistic.

You make it seem as though, in the real world, nonnegotiable threats to a society or species are successfully met only with genocide. When exactly has that been the case? War, death, certainly. But genocide? The "real world" has more evidence to offer the benefits of negotiating and educating.

A good drama doesn't defend the grey areas only when there is little to risk in defending them. A good drama knows that to mean something, to mean anything worthwhile, those principles must be worth a sacrifice, even the ultimate one. Turn the page.
Keiren - Tue, Apr 17, 2012 - 4:53am (USA Central)
The reason this episode asks its moral quesiton, is because it sets a precedent. If one person can be used once to attack an ememy, then it will happen again and again in the future, all pointing back to one example, like a pandoras box, it can never be shut.

@ Nick, saying you would kill any enemy to survive could be considered wrong, because how do you decide who is the enemy? What gives you that right to decide? Nothing, you could then turn your ideals against innocent people. It is just easy to say you would kill to survive when you have such an obvious enemy like terrorists...
Justin - Mon, Apr 23, 2012 - 5:29pm (USA Central)
This thread is shocking in its implications. Elliott listed DS9 as a "great scifi series." I need to sit down.
Elliott - Mon, Apr 23, 2012 - 5:43pm (USA Central)
@ Justin :

Compared with most sci-fi series, hell, most television shows, any incarnation of trek is "great."

I don't think (and I've said this in numerous posts) that DS9 was a bad series or even mediocre. For the most part, there were a lot of good things going on. I take issues with the show's identity as a series and the means by which it attempts to justify that identity in much the same way others take issue with VOY's purposeful abandonment of plot continuity and its non-existent attempts to justify it. Neither of these shortcomings makes the series poor. They were both great. The question of which is greater, it seems, depends upon how one feels about TNG. There are elements in that show which clearly sow the seeds for the other series and whether one found them distasteful,brilliant, pregnant or superfluous, I think, informs one's feelings about the DS9 and VOY.
Sanagi - Sun, May 6, 2012 - 10:00pm (USA Central)
The genocide vs. survival argument was easier to answer in Doctor Who's Genesis of the Daleks, where the Daleks just wanted to kill or enslave everyone in the universe, but even then the Doctor couldn't bring himself to push the button. The Borg on the other hand believe they are improving the universe. As we see in Hugh, the Borg as a race are not malicious. Instead they are a cult of naive children. Their collective is one of blissful torpor rather than mind-expansion. Picard's notion that individuality is the better virus to inflict on the Borg completely works for me.

The best thing about this episode is definitely the fact that Picard and Guinan are wrong about something and are willing to admit it, which is much better character development than always being right or being stubbornly neutral in the face of common sense. This is my favorite Guinan appearance for that reason.
John - Fri, Jul 6, 2012 - 10:18am (USA Central)
This episode is a good direction for the Borg, yes.

But it still suffers from predictability and some overly simplified moralizing.

As can be seen by some of the comments above, these kinds of issues can provoke some varied and even extreme responses. I think the episode does well to raise them but then too neatly resolves the outcomes.

Still, some very good material. Picard-Guinan and Picard-Hugh are particularly potent scenes.

3.5 for me.
Man-O-Lantern - Thu, Jul 19, 2012 - 12:53am (USA Central)
Wow! I've read Jammer's review of "I, Borg" a number of times, but only today read all of the commentary. While unexpected, I like the direction and overall thoughfulness of the comments posted.

To add my own two-cents worth to the Nick P/Elliot/nytwin81 thread, despite the implacable nature of the Borg, I believe that it isn't necessary to perpetrate a genocice-scale atrocity to overcome such a foe. In fact, ST-Generations and ST-Voyager made it easy for Humanity to do so by introducing and expanding upon the concept of the Borg Queen.

The idea is simple: cut off the head and the body will die. In this case, remove enough of the Borg's command infrastructure (including the Queen) and all of the "units" that make up the collective will revert to their individual selves. As originally presented in "Q Who" and "The Best of Both Worlds", every Borg played a part in the collective and gave it guidance. That concept would have made it much more difficult to deal with the Borg, as it would require the Federation to destroy (i.e. kill) most or all of the collective in order to "change its mind". A genocide no matter how you slice it.

But even assuming that we are dealing with a pre-Queen Borg, there is still an "out" short of genocide to remove the threat they present. The game "Squad Leader" taught me that you don't have to kill your opponent to achieve your aims; you simply need to break their will to resist. The perfect way to do that with the Borg (in fact, the only way) is to disrupt each individuals' link to the collective, as presented in this episode. I'm sure that the Federation could have figured out a way to do that. Then you can deal with a "them" as apposed to an "it", hopefully with diplomacy and negotiation as opposed to the end of a phaser.
Cail Corishev - Thu, Dec 27, 2012 - 7:53pm (USA Central)
Altair77 nailed it: this is pure sentimentalism. The argument was never the one from BSG where they agonized over whether wiping out another species is acceptable in self-defense. (That was the point where I stopped watching that show. The answer is, "Yes, stupid.") Everyone was on board with wiping out the Borg, and objectively they all agreed that putting a "virus" in a drone was a great way to do it. Even freakin' Guinan, normally the poster child for giving peace a chance, was like, "Strap the bombs to it and push it out the airlock already." If they could have simply uploaded the virus a la Independence Day, they would have done it in a second and had a party while Hugh and trillions of other Hughs died.

That only changed because they met the drone and had their heart-strings pulled. So they were really saying, "We won't kill this person in front of us for the self-defense of trillions of lives including ours and our families'." That may be an argument worth having, but it's pretty shaky and built on nothing but sentiment.

I still enjoy the episode, though. I disagree with their decision, but it's in character for them to make it. It's that Trekkian optimism that peaked in TNG, that says you can take whatever rarified, righteous, moral stand you like, and things will work out okay anyway. I prefer DS9's (or Farscape's) more realistic take, but the TNG viewpoint is a nice fantasy to indulge in.
Mad - Mon, Jan 14, 2013 - 1:47pm (USA Central)
Personally, I do agree with their decision. I would propably be against it, if the situation was more desperate, but at this point, using sentient being, to kill trilions of potentialy sentient beings just to save people they can stil save, isn't something I woud consider moral decision.
xaaos - Sun, Jan 20, 2013 - 5:16am (USA Central)
Nice episode, but VOY did it better with the "Drone" one.

One thing: before Geordi beamed down with Hugh, it was said that there was no danger, as the Borg only assimilate cultures, not just individuals. Yet, Annika's parents were assimilated as individuals.
Nick P. - Sun, Mar 17, 2013 - 10:30pm (USA Central)
@Cail Coreshev,

You have the best response I have seen yet in this (old) thread. I completely agree. Gene would have loved this episode. And I have said, it is charming and nice to watch. But it is not reality. And I am bothered by some posters on this board who think the rational answer to a hive mind trying to destroy your species is to try to "work somethin' out". The only correct answer as far as Evolution is concerned, and myself, is to eliminate the threat.
warp - Sun, May 19, 2013 - 8:53pm (USA Central)
bow-locks!
yeah, don't destroy the borg when you have a chance, let them live, the poor things, even if they will come back to bite your sorry ar...

if a vulcan was there, he would have seen how illogical it would have been not to take the chance: you spare their species, and how many other species will then be wiped away by the borg thanks to you in the next few centuries? and possibly yours too!
bumfingerers!

their "justification", the hope that hugh's individuality will change them, is one of the most stupid things you can come out with!
they constantly assimilate individuals, never been a problem, has it?

they could have tried, the borg would have survived because they are... well, the borg, and everyone's a winner.

but no.

there is a line between compassion and stupidity, and they crossed it.
by several kilo-parsecs ffs!

not a bad episode though.
at least is not filled with damn kids like too many episodes in season five.
Corey - Sun, Jun 9, 2013 - 9:34pm (USA Central)
To all the people talking about Bin Laden; you're creating a false dilemma. It's not a question of "killing Bin Laden and loving it", "Killing Bin Laden and being all liberal and hating what you've done" or "not killing Bin Laden"...it's a question of realizing that Bin Laden was created by and as a response to you. You are the Borg. Act altruistically or not at all.

dipads - Sun, Jun 23, 2013 - 11:32am (USA Central)
Great 43 minutes of entertainment. ST episodes dealing with moral issues are always the best. At the end, when Hugh is brought back by the Borg, I would have given them Alexander as a going-away present.
Corey (a different one) - Thu, Jul 11, 2013 - 3:39pm (USA Central)
Just wanted to say that the comment posted above under "Corey" is not me, I've made many posts on the site under "Corey" (well, it is my name), but that one is some-one else.

As for this episode, I enjoyed it and agree with Jammer's rating for it. I find it interesting that later, Starfleet orders Picard to TAKE ADVANTAGE of an opportunity to destroy the Borg, if it should occur again. So the brass apparently, once again, disagreed with Picard's decision - it's amazing Picard is keeping his job.
mephyve - Thu, Jul 25, 2013 - 8:36pm (USA Central)
I hated this episode when I first saw it and I still hate it. They had a chance to destroy the Borg and they let it pass. Now that i have hindsight my foresight back then is even more justified. Every society that was wiped out and assimilated between this episode and First Contact, has the Enterprise to blame. Why did Hugh decide to go back? Because he knew how dangerous and destructive the Borg are. They finally got it right in First Contact and wiped out the Borg. How many lives could they have saved? I hate this episode.
mephyve - Thu, Jul 25, 2013 - 9:12pm (USA Central)
I'm even more glad that that woman had sense enough to kill the Crystalline Entity when she did. All it would have had to do was say, 'Geordi' and this crew would have fawned over it like it was a cute little puppy instead of a menace that already committed numerous genocides and had no intention of stopping. I really hated this episode !!
William B - Wed, Aug 14, 2013 - 1:47pm (USA Central)
OK, so. Controversial episode, it seems. Where to start?

First off: it is not true that "no one" has qualms about destroying the entire Borg Collective, though it's true that this is not the central concern for most of the episode. Beverly immediately expresses reservations about destroying the Borg, and her arguments are immediately dismissed. This is mostly for good reasons; Beverly's arguments are fairly weak, though I don't think she's entirely wrong. Beverly says that the Borg have not declared war on the Federation, which is a fairly disingenuous argument. But when she says that even in war there are rules, I find myself nodding in agreement. Beverly as the voice of life and humanism favours non-violence even in extreme situations, and her voice is important but ultimately rejected for sensible reasons. The Borg are a threat and they do need to consider them.

So then after this, the question eventually becomes whether it is right to send Hugh back to destroy the entire Borg Collective. But Picard even discusses the implications of Hugh finding some semblance of individuality at the episode's end, though the episode perhaps doesn't dwell on this point long enough to make it obvious. In the comment thread for "The Measure of a Man," I mentioned that the reason Guinan's argument to Picard about slavery hits Picard and changes the whole tenor of the trial is that the scope has suddenly changed. One loss of life, one loss of freedom, is tragic, but individuals die in tragic accidents all the time. What is devastating is the realization that one loss of life or freedom implies others. Whether Data himself is a person or not is very important. But it's much, much more important to consider that whether or not Data is a person could potentially determine whether thousands upon thousands of Datas will be considered persons. It is the same with Hugh, there. If Hugh is a person, then all it takes for the rest of the Borg to become people is a few days' separation from the Collective.

The initial conception of Third of Five which is presented in the conference room conversation at the episode's beginning is that "it" is essentially an arm or a leg (or, more likely, a single cell) of the Borg Collective, which is a malicious individual, a single entity which is out to destroy the Federation and which we have already seen cannot be reasoned with. It is still true that "the Borg collective" is dangerous and devastating and unreasonable, but the realization in this episode is that the individual "cells" are potentially persons too, and can, in fact, change from being instruments of the destructive whole to persons who can, and in Hugh's case do, choose to recognize others' desire to remain separate from the Collective and even act altruistically to protect them.

TNG is a series which aired as the Cold War was winding down. The Borg Collective is many things, but on one level it is a symbol of the horror of collectivism brought to its absolute extreme. It's the USSR times a billion, and it's frightening also partly because it's an exaggeration of the healthier, consensual collectivism that the Federation represents. "Third of Five's" inability to recognize why humans would not wish to be assimilated is partly because he's been living a life separated from the humans he knows are meant to be assimilated, and has no conception of the fact that humans do not wish to be assimilated and what individual wishes even mean. He's a citizen of a state with sealed borders and constant propaganda, who is unable to think for himself. (I'm not saying that this accurately describes citizens of the USSR, but it does get at some of what US writers' perceptions were likely to be.) Separated from the constant stream of thousands of voices into his head, he can see clearly what the Federation citizens are and want, and wants to act on their behalf. And conversely, seeing him separated from the collective, the Enterprise crew can see that he is a person not unlike them, perhaps with different values (he misses the thousands of voices which he has grown up with, and it's not even wrong for him to value that as long as he doesn't impose this on others) but able to care for others and to refuse to participate in hurting them. Both sides of a war in which communication barriers have prevented them from talking to each other, with the solitary exception of Picard having brought back his experience of Locutus, are able to see each other now; the crew sees that single elements of the Borg collective can be, if left on their own, thinking, feeling individuals, and Hugh sees that the enemy is more than just foolish beings who refuse the Borg's status as obvious benefactors. The recognition that one's enemy is not fundamentally, irretrievably "evil" changes the game and suddenly the question becomes not how to destroy them but how to reach them.

There is also, I think, an important parallel the episode gestures at that often goes missed. Picard/Locutus and Third of Five/Hugh are more connected than is discussed. Picard is an individual the Borg took into their Collective in an attempt to communicate with, and to overtake, the human race; Picard was taken by the Borg and nearly used to overtake everything Picard held dear. Third of Five is a Borg the Enterprise crew found and was planning on using to destroy the entire Borg Collective. The Borg fired first and nearly succeeded in destroying the human race; they are also out assimilating other species, too. But the plan to use Hugh as a gateway through which the entire Borg can be destroyed is eerily similar to the use of Picard/Locutus as a method for destroying humanity (or its freedom, at least). This adds another chilling level to the Picard-Hugh scene, probably the episode's strongest, in which Picard instantly seizes onto the idea of using his Locutus persona to test Hugh to see how strong his beliefs in indivdiuality are, and, effectively, in which Picard-as-Locutus tries to act the part of the Borg Collective, trying to convince Hugh that he is not an individual by laying on the Borg propaganda, in an effort to attempt to prove, for Picard, that Hugh is not a person, and thus it is okay to destroy him. Picard is not just pretending to be Locutus, but in this scene he even acts as Locutus might for a moment -- attempting to crush Hugh's newfound individuality so that Hugh can be used as a tool to further Picard's ideological aims. It adds another layer to Picard's recognition, when Hugh uses "I" and refuses to act against Geordi, that using Hugh would be no different from being the Borg. Not only would they be behaving as the Borg, but Picard specifically would be both being like Locutus himself, *and* would effectively doing to Hugh what the Borg did to Picard, crushing his individuality in an attempt to use him to destroy his species. Is it any wonder Picard could not go through with it?

The Enterprise crew can't do that yet. There is only some hope. Picard thinks that maybe Hugh's sense of individuality will spread to the rest of the Collective. I think the reason that they believe this may happen with Hugh as opposed to others who are assimilated, is that when others are assimilated into the Collective, the Borg work to suppress or remove that person's individual will before they join the Collective. Individual will is something primitive cultures have that needs to be removed along with nonfunctional limbs. But Hugh returns to the Collective as a ready-made Borg drone; they would not process him as an outsider who needs to be brainwashed as part of their processing. His individuality might sneak through. Actually, Voyager does follow up on this episode, though not directly (i.e. the Borg are not influenced by Hugh himself); Seven's arc follows Hugh's in this episode in certain ways, though the more we learn about her the more we understand why she clung more strongly to the Borg as surrogate family than Hugh did, and while I'm not a big fan of "Unimatrix Zero," the idea of Borg whispering to each other in sleep, their only respite from the Collective, reminds me very much of people sharing secrets in a totalitarian world, united only in their hopes for a different world, which seems to me a lot of what Hugh's return to the Collective might represent.

Besides Picard (and Beverly), I've barely even talked about the characters here. Geordi is well positioned to be Hugh's guide to humanity, because Geordi is, after all, a bit of a cyborg (I wish Hugh had asked to see Geordi's "eyepiece" after Geordi asked to see Hugh's), who loves technology like no one else and already is best friends with an artificial being. He's also a bit of an everyman character and someone who makes sense as a guy who has some initial prejudices about the Borg which nevertheless aren't that strong; he neither has Beverly's instantaneous humanism nor Picard or Guinan's personal feelings about the Borg. Guinan is very well used here in one of her best roles; Guinan is very rarely allowed to be wrong or even questionable, and to see her immediately getting on Picard's case about even considering treating the Borg like a human being both increases the stakes and gives voice to the Borg's victims. Hugh himself is occasionally too cute, but his development over the course of the episode, step by step, is done very well, and his last moment looking at Geordi as he heads back to lose himself again (or so he thinks) is heartwrenching.

Anyway. Yeah. One of the series' best, though not quite at the level of "Darmok" and "The Inner Light": 4 stars.
Nic - Thu, Oct 31, 2013 - 5:35pm (USA Central)
Great episode. I wondered why no one thought to ask Hugh his opinion about the virus. Maybe he would have been willing to sacrifice himself for his new friends. It would have made for a great scene in an episode packed with great scenes. But I suppose that's a moot point.

I think some of you are taking the ethical dilemma a tad too literally. As previously mentioned, the Borg represent any nation we are currently "enemies" with (USSR, Iran, North Korea, doesn't matter--using the Borg makes this story transcend current events). I would not condone the destruction of another nation in any circumstances, even supposed "self-defense". Killing another individual may be acceptable in certain specific circumstances, but mass murder to "prevent" a threat which may or may not occur? No thank you.

@Nick P.: I think "Emissary" makes it pretty clear that Sisko blames Picard for the death of his wife, not for his actions in "I Borg". Blaming Picard for all future deaths the Borg cause is simply ridiculous. There is no guarantee that the virus would have been effective in destroying the entire collective (it could have affected only one vessel, or had no effect whatsoever). On the other hand, if the virus did wipe out the collective, then Picard would be definitely responsible for genocide (and for using an innocent individual to commit that genocide). As we later learn, most Borg drones are former individuals who are doing the collective's bidding against their will. There’s a word for that: slaves. So yes, I completely agree with Picard’s choice in this episode, regardless of the consequences. And being able to make such a decision (as opposed to following the "Survival of the fittest" rule) is what makes humanity, in my opinion, superior than other species. To quote Adama from BSG, "It's not enough to survive; one must be worthy of surviving.

@William B: Wow. You said everything I wanted to say, but better.
William B - Sat, Nov 2, 2013 - 1:49am (USA Central)
@Nic, thanks, and I agree with what you say here too (where it diverges from what I said -- the Adama quote is helpful here, too).
Jack - Sat, Nov 16, 2013 - 9:14pm (USA Central)
Nic sez:

@William B: Wow. You said everything I wanted to say, but better.

I agree...he's like the Guinan of this site, only with eyebrows.
Nick P. - Fri, Dec 20, 2013 - 2:23pm (USA Central)
To restart this argument, I finally got to the DS9 ep where they infected Odo to kill the founders and destroy the dominion. I recall Sisko defending this. I am curious what everyone on this thread who defends Picard think about that? Are you going to keep your moral high ground and denounce Sisko and the federation? I will at least admit that in this instance Sisko was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, and Picard wrong.
Jons - Sat, Jan 4, 2014 - 10:50am (USA Central)
I really don't agree with this review. I thought that episode was as subtle as a punch in the face. Maybe it's because I saw Voyager first and saw that idea much, much better executed with 7 of 9.

In any case, Picard's decision is ridiculous: ""Besides, what better way to beat the Borg collective than by having it assimilate the sense of the individual self into its hive mind?" ---> Every being the Borg assimilate comes with a sense of self and individuality. The Borg obviously have very very easy ways to do away with that. There is nothing that suggests even remotely plausibly that it won't happen again here the second "Hughes" is reconnected to the Hive.

Stupid, contrived and forced.
Andy's Friend - Sat, Jan 4, 2014 - 3:33pm (USA Central)
@Jons:
I just made a brief remark to your comment on "The Outcast" (TNG) previously today.

I'm afraid you're just not getting it. At all.

In both cases, that one and this, the episode is holding up that slightly twisted, distorted mirror I spoke of. In that case, you missed the mirror entirely. In this one, you seem to bee too busy counting the little cracks in the glass to try to identify and consider the blurred, deformed images it shows.

No, VOY didn't do this better than TNG.

I also read your comment on "In Theory" (TNG). And while I fully appreciate what you say there about Data's nature vs the Doctor's, I notice that you describe the Vulcans and "especially the Klingons" as societies which are "just incompatible with us and remain incomprehensible to humans". But they are everything but. Both Vulcans and Klingons (and Romulans, and Cardassians, and Ferengi) take a couple of traits typical of human nature, elevate them to the third potency, and throw them right back at us. Again, they're all mirrors, there's nothing incomprehensible about any of them. If you want truly incomprehensible, you'll have to have a look at what is Solaris (I strongly recommend the novel).

Star Trek deals mostly in reflections. Even a species as potentially alien as the Founders turns out to be driven by absolutely human feelings and considerations - of fear, suspicion and protection. So my advice to you, as you view Star Trek and especially TNG, is really quite simple: try to find the mirrors.

As to the phrase by Picard that you criticize... Wow. Wow, man. That phrase represents not only one of the core ideas of this episode, but, if you extend it, of the very Federation itself. What was the reasoning behind the latest expansion of the European Union some years ago, to include various Eastern European and even former Soviet Union countries, if not variations of the theme?

Mirrors, Jons. Think mirrors.
Lapan - Thu, Jan 9, 2014 - 5:51am (USA Central)
There are several problems with this episode, but i don't think the refusal to genocide the borg is one of them.

First, Picard already showed on his own self that it's perfectly possible to separate an assimilated individual from the borg. Yet no such attempt is made on Hugh. It doesn't seem that much has changed about the Borg since then, why not at least try it?
Similar problems arise about the notion that the borg would track Hugh down by any means. Picard has been back on the Enterprise for a while but no Borg vessel even tried to reach him. Somehow Hugh doesn't even seem to know Picard isn't Locutus anymore. Clearly the communication inside the collective isn't nearly as good as they believe.

The notion that a simple paradox would shut down the collective is rather stupid as well. Even assuming it would affect one vessel, most of the borg are on a different end of the galaxy. If they can't even communicate Locutus's capture in this long of a time, how will the virus ever spread beyond the vessel?

What they should have done is removed Highs implants or at least tracking device and integrated him into the Federation. He could have given them information about the borg and it would have been much more likely to help than either sending him back or trying to infect the borg.
Mark Huther - Wed, Jan 29, 2014 - 3:47pm (USA Central)
This is my all time favorite TNG episode and rivals "blood oath" DS9 greatness.
Filip - Fri, Feb 28, 2014 - 5:20pm (USA Central)
There is a mistake in the episode, where Hugh refers to himself as I before grasping the concept of indivituality. Just before getting his name, he ask the doctor and Geordi "Do I have a name?", and then after that keeps refering to himself as 'we'.

Overall a great episode though.
Eli - Fri, Feb 28, 2014 - 7:27pm (USA Central)
This is a very well conceived episode with a very emotionally affecting ending. Truly illuminating. One of my favorites.

Submit a comment

Above, type the last name of the captain on Star Trek: TNG
Notify me about new comments on this page
Hide my e-mail on my post

Season Index

Copyright © 1994-2014, Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of any review or article on this site is prohibited. Star Trek (in all its myriad forms), Battlestar Galactica, and Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc., NBC Universal, and Tribune Entertainment, respectively. This site is in no way affiliated with or authorized by any of those companies. | Copyright & Disclaimer