Memory Alpha
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
57,147
pages

Talk: Dark Frontier (episode)

Back to page
Sign in to edit
Talk page help
Maintenance links
  • T: Dark Frontier
  • A: VOY
  • N: 5x15/16
  • P: 40840-211/40840-212
  • C: 556
  • D: 17
  • M: February
  • Y: 1999
Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion, please visit Memory Alpha's Discussions feature, or join the chat on Discord.
Please click here to start a new discussion

FA status[]

FA nomination (06 Aug - 15th Aug 2008, Success)[]

I would like to nominate the article VOY: "Dark Frontier" as it is extremely detailed. The summary is well written and complete, there are a decent amount of quotes and the background section has some interesting points. An all round excellent article, in my opinion. TrekFan 18:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Minor Oppose The captions for the pictures are not very encyclopedic. They are more humorous than they should be. Also, the Background Info section could use expanding. --Nmajmani 13:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: While I agree that the background section could use some (slight) expansion, I disagree about the image captions. I don't think that they are humorous at all, and I think that they describe the subject matter well. So, find some more background stuff and you'll have my support. ---- Willie LLAP 15:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I have added a couple of background notes to the article. If anyone else can find any more interesting notes that would be great. -- TrekFan 19:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: After the expansion to the background, I give this a Support -Nmajmani 16:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: Excellent article, very well written summary, well chosen images. Good stuff! – Bertaut talk 19:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: Very detailed, I usually worry that I put too much in my articles but this one has eased my concern! Great pics as well. Dave 15:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: Nice one. --36ophiuchi 16:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: My concern for my above comment was taken care of. ---- Willie LLAP 16:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I know the guy who wrote the episode summary. He has moved on, but I'll tell him that this is up for FA status. he'll be pleased. :) On his behalf, I thank everybody who has made improvements to it. – Watching... listening... 19:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

With six votes, nomination is considered successful and archived. -- TrekFan 23:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

FA removal (18 Apr - 28 Apr 2011, Success)[]

Dark Frontier (episode)

For a feature-length episode, its summary seems far too long. Also, the structure of the summary is suspect (to say the least!), and the page has a distinct lack of bg info. --Defiant 15:36, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Eleven Acts and an Epilogue? That can't be right... there is also little background info, with citation problems. –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:27, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
Support removal for the above reasons.--31dot 23:35, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I'm gonna try to sort out the bg info, while this FA removal process is ongoing, as I did with "Hope and Fear". I have the scripts for both parts of "Dark Frontier", which kinda helps. --Defiant 17:01, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
Archived on this date. --Defiant 09:55, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Non-canon?[]

When this episode came out, I read in StarWeek (a Canadian TV guide) that it was meant to be a non-canon episode. Is there any thruth to that? I've never heard of that being done before (other than TAS). Jaz 15:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...And Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. Nevertheless, I don't see any reason why they would make such a claim to this episode. --Gvsualan 16:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Raven personal logs[]

Has anyone else noticed a rather obvious continuity problem with this episode with relation to "The Raven"? In this episode, Seven studies the personal logs and other information from her parents' time studying the Borg. The essential problem with this is that in the previous episode when Seven and Tuvok were on the Raven, there didn't seem to be any time to download the ship's memory logs before it was destroyed added to the fact that the ship's systems were either destroyed or partially assimilated by the Borg. True, that Janeway tells Seven to look up information on her parents from Voyager's databanks but surely Starfleet wouldn't hold this information considering the Raven was transported to the Delta Quadrant? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by KiraMeru (talk • contribs).

It's possible that Voyager was able to connect to what was left of the computer cores when they arrived in orbit, or Tuvok may have been able to download the logs onto his tricorder. Tiberius 11:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Borg Queen[]

The Queen mentioned that seven of nine was the first borg to become a single personality, though Hugh was freed by the Enterprise D crew. Did I hear this wrong or was this a continuity issue. SimonD 14:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It could be that he wasn't counted because he was eventually returned to the Collective. And where as Seven of Nine was also liberated from most of her Borg implants, Hugh still retained all of his cybernetic implants and prosthetics -- Enigmatarius 10:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


She probably meant the first Human drone, since this was the perspective she was tactically interested in. --Chris
Clearly, she was lying and trying to manipulate Seven of Nine to get her to return to the collective. --User:205.237.164.187 03:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of Locutus, Picard was Human and escaped the collective. Trekky0623 03:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Production No. Clarification[]

Shouldn't the production number for the feature-length version of this episode be listed as "824" (as given in the Voyager DVDs)? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Telly1138 (talk • contribs).

Stardate Mix-up?[]

I haven't seen the episode in Season 4 (?) where the Raven is previously featured, but isn't it a bit weird that the Borg seem to have first been discovered on stardate 32###, and the first encounter (before that episode) was on stardate 42###? Is it a mistake/obvious ignorance on the part of the Voyager writers, or did Starfleet simply not really care until the Enterprise-D encountered them? – Tranchera

As I understand it (been a long time since I saw this one), Starfleet did not receive any results from the Raven. Therefore it would not have known of the encounter. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
"Results" of the Hansens' study aren't at stake here. Starfleet approved the Hansens' flight plans, and the Hansen's scientist peers understood the nature of their research, before they left on the study mission. So Borg weren't unheard of when the Hansens started. Results? OK, you're right about that. Good spot. --68.121.165.204 06:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, results ARE at stake. I can send scientists out on something that I think is false and insane of them, after all. I'm pretty sure the episode made a point of saying that no one really believed them, or something... --OuroborosCobra talk 14:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Today there's no scientific proof of Bigfoot, but according to your argument that means none of us have heard of it either. Federation people obviously had heard of the Borg before Hansens set out. 68.121.163.0 05:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It's another of those fantastic continuity errors, actually. It can be explained away by saying that Starfleet had heard of the Borg and thus allowed the Hansens to go on their mission, but for various reasons (including the Hansens' disappearance) Starfleet didn't understand the danger of the Borg till Q Who. But yeah, continuity error, in the grand ol' tradition of our favourite show. XD 202.156.12.10 14:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I always figured that after the timeline incursion of "First Contact", Lily and Cochrane talked about the Borg to other people, but it pretty much just remained a sort of "legend" over the years, as nobody but Lily actually had seen them and Cochrane knew about them. Thus a only a few people, like the Hansens, actually went looking for them. But before, during the timeline -not- influenced by the 2063 temporal incursion, these kind of expeditions had arguably never taken place. I might just be way off though. :P 193.215.199.34 12:15, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Death Star[]

The wikipedia article of this episode shows a screencap with the picture of the queen's sphere's wireframe. It looks like the death star. I just figure it would be worthy to put in the trivia section of this episode. Do others feel the same? -- Thero

Really, any sphere done in wireframe would look a bit like the death star. So, debatable at best. I'd say. -- Sulfur 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, this looks a LOT like the Death Star. Even has the main gun. see for yourself. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I think this would be eligible for a background note. - Enzo Aquarius 22:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean this kind of in-joke isnt unheard of. Hell in First Contact they put the Millenium Falcon in the background fighting. - Thero

And R2-D2 in Star Trek. --Alan 16:06, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Differences between feature-length ep and subsequent two-parter[]

There are a number of differences between the originally released feature-length version of the episode and the subsequent two-parter. Which should the summary reflect? Right now it seems to be based more on the two-parter, but that leaves out material that was in the feature-length. 202.156.12.10 14:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nits[]

  • The stardate for this episode appear to be inconsistent. For e.g. the stardate referenced suggests that the Federation knew about the Borg before the Enterprise-D's first encounter with the Borg, when Q tossed the Enterprise to the Delta Quadrant.
  • The Raven's LCARS also seem inconsistent with the timeframe of the episode. It should have been more like the Stargazer's design.

I've removed the following nits, as per policy. --From Andoria with Love 14:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The stardates given in the flashback scenes for the work done on the Raven appear to correspond to only a few months, not the several years that Annika and her parents were chasing the Borg. Given the incongruities present in the stardate system, however, little can be derived from this.
  • The Borg Queen tells Seven that the Voyager crew removed her (Seven's) Borg technology, including her ocular implant. This is an incorrect term; the correct term is eyepiece.
  • The Queen states that Seven of Nine was the only Borg to return to a state of individuality. She seems to have either forgotten or neglected Locutus, as well as Hugh and any of the Borg that followed him in the events of "Descent". It's possible that she did not count Locutus as he was considered to be unique and more than just another drone. It is also conceivable that she still considers the "Descent" Borg part of the Collective and are simply malfunctioning drones that needed to be recovered; as was seen in "Survival Instinct", or may not know about them at all. Finally, the Borg Queen may simply be trying to manipulate Seven of Nine under the guise that she is unique.* Some have speculated that Seven was going to be groomed to become a replacement as a Borg Queen, upon the current queen's death, given her state of "individuality" but still having her connection to the Collective.
  • When describing Fort Knox, Paris states that it contained 50 metric tonnes of gold, worth $9 trillion dollars. This means that gold would have to cost $2.9 million dollars per ounce.
  • The Borg Queen said the Borg failed once to assimilate humanity. The Borg have in fact made two attempts on Earth. The first attempt occurred in the events of "The Best of Both Worlds" and "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II" and the second attempt during Star Trek: First Contact.
Also removed – Morder 23:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Borg POV[]

I believe this is only time we see the attempted assimilation of a vessel entirely from the Borg's point of view. As far as I can remember, other assimilations have been from the "people being assimilated"'s point of view. Can anyone verify this, and if it is correct, would it be noteworthy? --TrekFan 17:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek: Armada[]

In the games ST:Armada and ST:Armada II the Borg "probe" is given the name "Interceptor". Would this information be included in the background section? TrekFan 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No. It might fit into the probe's article as apocrypha though. -- Sulfur 17:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, Armada does have a borg scout ship called a "probe", but it is of a conical design. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've added the information to the Borg probe article under "Apocrypha". TrekFan 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Restored nitpick[]

The following was restored to the article, with a slightly different wording:

The Borg Queen tells Seven that the Voyager crew removed her (Seven's) Borg technology, including her ocular implant. This is an incorrect term; the correct term is eyepiece.

I oppose its restoration, as it is still a nitpick, no matter how correct it might be.--31dot 01:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That was the whole point of nitpicks to point out errors in production. It will be removed again because that's what it does...point out an incorrect term that the writers screwed up on. — Morder 04:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Read Memory Alpha:What Memory Alpha is not if you're not sure what constitutes a nitpick. — Morder 04:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, if, at most, this should be noted on either device page, not the episode page. It has nothing to do with the form or function of the episode. --Alan 21:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
But how could pointing out a dialog gaffe relating to two important items be such a bad thing?– Watching... listening... 22:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Because that's not what MA is. And if we started doing that, we'd become nothing more than a nitpick/gaffe/blooper website. Which is not the aim. As noted above, if we choose to use this, the only place should be on the device's article. If there. -- Sulfur 22:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand now. Thanks.– Watching... listening... 22:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Chronology Problem?[]

Why are the flashbacks dated as 2353? According to the Seven of Nine page, Annika Hansen was born in 2350, and dialogue in "Dark Frontier" indicates that she was four years old at the start of the expedition. And the stardate corresponds to 2355. The Seven of Nine page contains a similar inconstency as to the dates of the Raven expedition. – 72.49.80.42 13:25, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Never mind; I see that Seven said the Hansen expedition lasted for three years. It still creates some discrepancies that might be worth commenting on, though.– 72.49.80.42 13:44, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Removed[]

  • Magnus Hansen, Seven of Nine's father, presumably dies when the Queen's ship explodes at the end. It is not known whether or not he remained on the Queen's ship when it gave chase of Voyager
  • The small amount of data collected at the Borg encounter in ENT: "Regeneration" and the El-Aurian accounts of their planet's assimilation prior to Star Trek Generations may be responsible for these rumors.

Unknown and Speculative. — Morder (talk) 21:43, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Artistic License?[]

Can anyone tell me why this page maintains a "novella" type feel? is this not supposed to be straight information? I find the use of superfluorious adjectives distracting from the information on the episode. Italianajt 18:21, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Here is my list of all of the adjectives or common sayings that I strongly feel should be removed. In fact,this whole write-up should be re-written. It's as though someone wrote this as they would a short story and NOT in the matter-of-fact voice that is prevelant throughout the rest of Memory Alpha. I stopped in Act Six becuase the list was becoming too long.

  1. "In the clipped, precise manner of a computer, the Collective identifies the vessel..."
  2. "In a voice of iron, she warns the Collective..."
  3. "But there is no air of triumph; only disappointment, and from Janeway, annoyance."
  4. "A crafty look appears in her eyes..."
  5. "Chakotay informs her that they have indeed gotten some useful stuff..." (useful "stuff"??)
  6. "Seven also has news which eases Janeway's chagrin somewhat..."
  7. "The crafty look re-appears in Janeway's eyes as a plan begins to form in her mind."
  8. "Seven gingerly picks up one of the PADDs and, with a deep breath, activates it."
  9. "Magnus muses that this confirms his theory..."
  10. "...before the sphere races away at speeds they could never hope to approach."
  11. "Unhindered, the monstrosities continue coming." (this is the perfect example of what I am talking about)
  12. "Then Chakotay barks an order to the computer: "Freeze program; both holodecks!". The drones stop dead in mid-stride."
  13. "Janeway and the other team members look at each other, chagrined." (we like this word chagrined, don't we?)
  14. "Seven swallows nervously, acknowledges and walks off. Janeway watches her go, gravely concerned."
  15. "The doors hiss open."
  16. "Naomi begins peppering her with questions..." (except cinnamon, Seven of Nine hates cinnamon)
  17. "Seven cannot take this in her current state. She tersely orders her to return to her quarters."
  18. "Then the child advances on her, and in a cold, hard voice, intones..."
  19. "She glares at him angrily..."
  20. "She storms out as he gapes after her, goes into a corner and struggles to regain control of herself."
  21. "Seven is horrified..."

I would just say to look into why this entry was written this way and I believe that it should be changed, as soon as possible. Italianajt 18:58, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Be bold. -- sulfur 19:55, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

While I can take that many different ways I will simply post this: "Text that has no redeeming value may be deleted at the contributor's discretion." I'll get on this as soon as I find time and I will try not to ruin the story. Italianajt 20:35, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

And that was precisely my point with the "be bold" comment. Fix what you feel is incorrect and over-the-top. Anything that people disagree with in your changes will be changed, tweaked, or commented on here. -- sulfur 20:41, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Two parters[]

"This episode is the second of only three feature length episodes that are not series pilots or finales within all the Star Trek series"

What about "Unification Part I/II", "Chain of Command Part I/II", "Birthright Part I/II", "The Maquis Part I/II" and "Past Tense part I/II"? They are not pilots or finales. It could also be possible to include "Improbable Cause/The Die is Cast" and "Homefront/Paradise Lost" as well, though they are not titled as Part I/II explicitly. 193.215.199.34 11:51, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

All those episodes were originally aired in two parts, this one wasn't. That's why it's a "feature length" episode instead of a "two-part" episode. - Archduk3 11:56, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Fort Knox[]

During the briefing scene, Janeway remarks that a group of Ferengi attempted to break into Fort Knox ten years ago, presumably to acquire its gold reserves. This is contradictory to a statement made by Quark in the DS9 episode "Who Mourns for Morn?", in which Ferengi in fact regard gold as "worthless."

That gold theory is pure speculation, it is clearly mentioned that the place was turned into a museum, so there could be other things of value in there. -- 77.22.159.28 02:07, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The note has been removed.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 02:41, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
10 years previous corresponds roughly to TNG Season 2, whereas in TNG 3x08, the Ferengi were attempting use gold as a bribe/payment in negotiations for the Barzan wormhole (which is noted in the Continuity section of that episode). This could be a nod to the Ferengi's switch from gold to latinum... Izkata 01:00, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Removed bg notes[]

I've removed the following 2 notes of bg info, as they were both uncited:
  • With its large, crater-like apparatus in the upper hemisphere and long path leading down from the crater to the other end, the graphic of the Borg sphere accessed by the Voyager crew is very similar to the schematics of the Death Star seen in the first Star Wars film. As the creators of the sphere intentionally modeled the sphere after the Death Star, this is likely not a coincidence.
  • At the start of the first flashback scene, Annika Hansen is seen playing with a miniature replica of a Borg cube. The model in question is actually a cameo appearance by the electronic model released in the early 1990s by Playmates Toys.
I hope no-one has a problem with their removal. --Defiant 09:47, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Redundant Information[]

The 'Production' section as well as the 'Continuity and trivia' section contain the information that this was the last episode directed by cliff bole. Shouldn't it be enough to mention this only one time (at whichever section is more suitable)? 79.197.17.117 02:27, March 19, 2017 (UTC)

Seven of Nine was assimilated in 2350[]

I have a question regarding that this episode in part takes place in 2356. According to the latest Star Trek: Picard episode "Penance" suggests that part of this episode actually takes place in 2350.

With this new information, should this be updated to reflect this episode in part takes place in 2350? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thylorion01 (talk • contribs).

We really don't need multiple conversations about the same thing going on at once; I already mentioned this at talk:Seven of Nine. –Gvsualan (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement