Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Gert wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Talking about one of the most thoughtful, intelligent and tempered characters in the history of the franchise beheading Sarak of Vulcan on the steps of the Vulcan Academy of Science is one of the most offensive things you could do to a character. It's just gross.

That's the point though? The whole point of this alternate timeline is to show how bad it is so you take the best people and turn them into monsters. Did you just not watch any of the Mirror Universe stuff or see any alternate timeline episodes of any TV show ever?

I've never liked that part of Trek. I intentionally skip all the mirror universe episodes of the 90s shows because I just do not like them. But I do understand the point, it's just not sitting with me on a personal level.

 Togusa wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Talking about one of the most thoughtful, intelligent and tempered characters in the history of the franchise beheading Sarak of Vulcan on the steps of the Vulcan Academy of Science is one of the most offensive things you could do to a character. It's just gross.

That's the point though? The whole point of this alternate timeline is to show how bad it is so you take the best people and turn them into monsters. Did you just not watch any of the Mirror Universe stuff or see any alternate timeline episodes of any TV show ever?

I've never liked that part of Trek. I intentionally skip all the mirror universe episodes of the 90s shows because I just do not like them. But I do understand the point, it's just not sitting with me on a personal level.

Mirror universes are my fav - and the cast seem to have great fun.

 Togusa wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Talking about one of the most thoughtful, intelligent and tempered characters in the history of the franchise beheading Sarak of Vulcan on the steps of the Vulcan Academy of Science is one of the most offensive things you could do to a character. It's just gross.

That's the point though? The whole point of this alternate timeline is to show how bad it is so you take the best people and turn them into monsters. Did you just not watch any of the Mirror Universe stuff or see any alternate timeline episodes of any TV show ever?

I've never liked that part of Trek. I intentionally skip all the mirror universe episodes of the 90s shows because I just do not like them. But I do understand the point, it's just not sitting with me on a personal level.

One thing I like about most mirror and alternate timeline stuff in Star Trek is that at the end of the event its normally back to normal, or near enough. So they are, at least in regular series, often more like a sub-adventure. As noted above sometimes something that just feels fun and fresh for the cast and crew and such.

This being a Q related story gives me confidence that whilst we will go on a rollercoaster, we will come out the end without the new timeline the "new future" (and if it is then you can bet season 3 would be fixing it).


It's one reason the Temporal War felt wrong in the Enterprise series because in general you knew it had to basically end and then vanish to maintain the timeline.

 Overread wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Talking about one of the most thoughtful, intelligent and tempered characters in the history of the franchise beheading Sarak of Vulcan on the steps of the Vulcan Academy of Science is one of the most offensive things you could do to a character. It's just gross.

That's the point though? The whole point of this alternate timeline is to show how bad it is so you take the best people and turn them into monsters. Did you just not watch any of the Mirror Universe stuff or see any alternate timeline episodes of any TV show ever?

I've never liked that part of Trek. I intentionally skip all the mirror universe episodes of the 90s shows because I just do not like them. But I do understand the point, it's just not sitting with me on a personal level.

One thing I like about most mirror and alternate timeline stuff in Star Trek is that at the end of the event its normally back to normal, or near enough. So they are, at least in regular series, often more like a sub-adventure. As noted above sometimes something that just feels fun and fresh for the cast and crew and such.

This being a Q related story gives me confidence that whilst we will go on a rollercoaster, we will come out the end without the new timeline the "new future" (and if it is then you can bet season 3 would be fixing it).


It's one reason the Temporal War felt wrong in the Enterprise series because in general you knew it had to basically end and then vanish to maintain the timeline.

Yeah. I did enjoy the DS9 episode where the alternate Shakar tries to steal and Orb. But the others just never really sat well with me.

The mirror universe gave us Spock with a goatee, so it's not all bad.

 Togusa wrote:
As long as Kurtzman has anything to do with it, I doubt we will get anything of value. S3 is the biggest bunch of memberberries I've ever seen. To announce it when the current season isn't even finished is very telling of the fact that the show isn't doing as well as they'd hoped and they're trying to build hype to get viewership to the level they want it to be at.

What are you babbling on about? S3 was announced either before S2 started to be released, or around the launch of S2, along with confirmation that S3 of Picard would be the final season.

The main thing that is new from recent news is how many of the crew from TNG are due to appear for the first time since Nemesis, even if it sounds like neither Wesley Crusher nor Chief O'Brien will be in it, which is a shame, IMO.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
As long as Kurtzman has anything to do with it, I doubt we will get anything of value. S3 is the biggest bunch of memberberries I've ever seen. To announce it when the current season isn't even finished is very telling of the fact that the show isn't doing as well as they'd hoped and they're trying to build hype to get viewership to the level they want it to be at.

What are you babbling on about? S3 was announced either before S2 started to be released, or around the launch of S2, along with confirmation that S3 of Picard would be the final season.

The main thing that is new from recent news is how many of the crew from TNG are due to appear for the first time since Nemesis, even if it sounds like neither Wesley Crusher nor Chief O'Brien will be in it, which is a shame, IMO.

Making the announcement of the cast reunion before the current season has even finished premiering seems as though they are trying to build hype because the current season is floundering with the audience. It's literally a "memberberries" style ploy to try and get more folks to sign up or sign back up for Paramount+ because "member LeVar? member Dr. Crusher? member the Enterprise-D? Oh, yeah, I member!" Given that both S1 and S2 have been dumpster fires, and having Patrick in it didn't make it any better, it's easy to speculate that simply bringing back the full cast for some kind of one off adventure won't fair any better. If the material and script is trash, even some of the finest television actors in the world won't be able to save it and make it tolerable. From what I've been reading, a lot of people have abandoned S2 at this point. The current audience score on RT is 48%. That's not looking good.

That or more likely it's taken two successful seasons to work up the budget and interest in previous cast to get them to come back.

As for abandoning season 2 it seems strange considering its pace is speeding up, last episode had some huge revelations and changes and events.

I think its just that its not episodic so you don't have the whole story to judge. If anything it might have done better as a direct season all in one go instead of drip fed weekly episodes. Yes you lose out on the time aspect, but at the same time it would mean people could binge the whole story in one go and see the start, middle and conclusion - we are still very much in the middle.

 Overread wrote:
That or more likely it's taken two successful seasons to work up the budget and interest in previous cast to get them to come back.

As for abandoning season 2 it seems strange considering its pace is speeding up, last episode had some huge revelations and changes and events.

I think its just that its not episodic so you don't have the whole story to judge. If anything it might have done better as a direct season all in one go instead of drip fed weekly episodes. Yes you lose out on the time aspect, but at the same time it would mean people could binge the whole story in one go and see the start, middle and conclusion - we are still very much in the middle.

I almost feel like Picard would have been a better trilogy of films.

See that's a different problem caused by streaming services needing to have everything on demand always. Being forced to wait is only annoying (rather than say exciting) because we've been spoiled for years by Netflix and Prime or whatever the yanks have. There's no more suspense or intrigue because you can just binge a whole season in a day. I was really disappointed when Netflix released the final season of Last Kingdom all in one go because I watched it once and being able to just blitz through made the experience worse and I didn't enjoy the show as much. With shows that are released weekly, there is time to discuss what's going on with my friends and we can actively enjoy the show together rather than waiting for someone to catch up because they had to work a lot or something.
I find complaints like "but we have no idea whats going on" about shows that are weekly episodes rather than binge dumps to be the funniest because, yeah, that's the whole point.

 Togusa wrote:

 Overread wrote:
That or more likely it's taken two successful seasons to work up the budget and interest in previous cast to get them to come back.

As for abandoning season 2 it seems strange considering its pace is speeding up, last episode had some huge revelations and changes and events.

I think its just that its not episodic so you don't have the whole story to judge. If anything it might have done better as a direct season all in one go instead of drip fed weekly episodes. Yes you lose out on the time aspect, but at the same time it would mean people could binge the whole story in one go and see the start, middle and conclusion - we are still very much in the middle.

I almost feel like Picard would have been a better trilogy of films.

In a way that's what they are.

Honestly we are really only entering the era where its possible to do shows like this in any degree of volume. Most TV series historically were very strong on the weekly episodic formula. Even shows that were held up high often only had a few episodes that directly linked and didn't fit the formula for a weekly one and done episode.

So in a sense I think writers and directors are still learning. One angle is what we've got with Picard where each episode basically runs right into the back of the next. There's some opening and closure at the start and end, but by and large there's no format to each episode to follow; no structure or internal story. Indeed catch one episode out of sequence and it totally fails. Meanwhile something like NCIS you can watch huge chunks out of sequence, even between seasons and you can still work out what's going on because its so episodic.


I feel like something like Picard would work better as 3 films released in one chunk instead of being broken into episodes. Then again being broken into episodes lets them go longer than a single film* and it also creates a LOT of free marketing through chatter during the week between episodes. If its all done in one go then the buzz around it hypes up super fast, but also dies super fast too.



*you wouldn't watch a 5 hour film but you will binge watch a season in one weekend that lasts 10 hours

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

There is an decent amount of people who grew up watching shows with these messages, then in adulthood have completely different ideals, but because they didn't realize those messages, are now thinking they shows became political. Like the X-Men fans who are upset it's woke.
It doesn help that these shows are under scrutiny constantly by culture war bs.

IMO, it isn't even culture war bs that has so many shows, and media in general under constant scrutiny.

I read an article some weeks back about how many people are "cancelling" bands that have been broken up for 40 years over songs and lyrics they wrote 45+ years ago. The article's writer, an academic though writing in laymen's terms and in a layman's publication, wrote to how they think the evidence points to streaming services being a large part of this "new" dialogue.

Many of us on this forum are old enough to remember the days when you had to watch TNG, thursday night at 9pm, and if you missed it, you better hope they make some mention of that episode next week or you're doomed. Same thing with most music: a new album comes out, it sits at or near the top of many charts for a few weeks to a few months, then sales taper off. Over the course of a couple years, radio airtime for songs on that album dwindle to near nothing, so we "forget" about them.

But now, with streaming, and especially at the beginning of streaming, the draw was "come watch ALL of your favorite old episodes" and "never miss anything again!!" (tho, tbf, that idea was preceded by TiVO, so not entirely unique), and part of the draw was dusting off the really old stuff, digitizing it for posterity and putting it up.

What that article I mentioned goes on about is how young people may hear a song, or see a show and become interested in the larger piece of that thing (ie, Immigrant Song leading to exploring Led Zeppelin, or a short clip leading to a binge of Seinfeld, etc) and because the people who are being introduced to a given media "thing" don't have perhaps some of the knowledge of the way things were when that "thing" was made, they are approaching it with today's views. Streaming has allowed the "old" to become "new" again, because entirely new generations of fans are springing up, with their own takes and modern views on whatever that thing is.

I mean, I think it goes without saying that some stuff, like X-Men, Rage Against the Machine, and things of that nature had, even at their initial release a clear bend to them, and a clear cut message. . . . and I think its obviously safe to say that some vocal folks announce to the world that they never actually got what that bend was, they never got the actual message in the first place, so of course they will say negative things about that stuff now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Rage Against the Machine, and things of that nature had, even at their initial release a clear bend to them, and a clear cut message. . . . and I think its obviously safe to say that some vocal folks announce to the world that they never actually got what that bend was, they never got the actual message in the first place, so of course they will say negative things about that stuff now.

To my utter befuddlement, I have a 5k upvote comment on Reddit that is nothing but me expressing confusion at someone who didn't know Rage Against the Machine is an explicitly leftist band. It's not a clever comment (it's literally 15 words long) by any measure, but apparently a lot of people shared my 'wtf' at someone who never realized a band named Rage Against the Machine who performed such songs as 'Can't Kill the Revolution,' 'Zapata's Blood' and of course, their own cover of feth the Police had a political attitude baked into its music.

In general, it can be really surprising how frequently people miss the point of a lot of media so I don't think it's a new thing. There are still people who don't get that Dukat was a bad guy.

Lolita (the novel) gets hit with this pretty hard too. Lolita is an extremely difficult novel to qualify, and it contains lurid and extremely politically incorrect content (even by the standards of its time), but the number of people who dismiss the book seemingly on nothing but its title and summary do the work a disservice. Nothing will teach you how to spot a sociopath or false personas faster than reading Lolita. Humbert Humbert isn't the hero, itself something of a lost art as true villain protagonists have become something of a dead concept in modern pop culture, no anti-villains who are just misunderstood don't count. I'm not sure it's even possible to say what Lolita is exactly about (I'd say it was explicitly written to not have an exact point but rather to comprise a range of thoughts that can paint a lot of different pictures depending on how you approach it) except that it's not about glorifying pedophila like a lot of knee jerk reactions think it is.

There's a lot of things we can point too, but honest the first one I'd point to is the illusion of legitimacy created by the Internet. By that, I mean any idiot with the ability to string words together now has a platform and can reach all the other idiots. Thinking about stuff is kind of hard. Talking about it is even harder. It is comparatively, very easy to find something old and make a banal statement about it and then get lots of likes, upvotes, retweets or whatever so long as you cater to an audience. Trivia, and I love trivia don't get me wrong, has overtaken true criticism in the current internet environment.

Pointing out that a TV show from the 70s contains racist stereotypes isn't that clever. I find the whole saga of Speakchucker Jones in M.A.S.H. fascinating sure, but pointing it out isn't exactly a stroke of genius. A banal comment (my own at that) that someone wasn't paying attention if they didn't notice any of Rage Against the Machine's politics will get upvoted to hell despite there being nothing interesting about it. You'd never be able to tell though with how the internet clamors and rewards it.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I don't get why people are saying Picard the show lost it's hopefulness.
He outright says things can get better, that while it can be bad now doesn't mean it is going to stay bad.
This story is about them working on making sure hopefulness can stay alive as Picard said, sometimes the bad conditions are a catalyst for the new


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
A random thought: Star Trek often addressed the politics, issues, and morals of its day. For all of us who grew up with TOS, TNG, and/or DS9, are we now so old that we are on the "wrong" side of the politics/morals/issues that today's Star Trek is addressing? And is that why some people don't like modern Star Trek?

There is an decent amount of people who grew up watching shows with these messages, then in adulthood have completely different ideals, but because they didn't realize those messages, are now thinking they shows became political. Like the X-Men fans who are upset it's woke.
It doesn help that these shows are under scrutiny constantly by culture war bs.

The trick is to deal with politics or 'wokeness' in an interesting story, rather than allow politics and 'wokeness' as a substitute for an interesting story. For example, if we change the Star Wars OT and replace Luke with a character who is a lesbian, or bi/pansexual of any gender, literally nothing else has to change and the story still plays out the same. If he's gay, the only change is that he's no longer a romantic rival with Han for Leia's affections, a small but noticeable loss to the story unless you make Leia a boy and Han gay as well.

This is the strength of a good story. Changes to race, gender, or orientation do not mandate wholesale changes to remain a good story.

Likewise, just featuring different races, genders, or orientations do not magically make a story good. Bring up the 2001 movie 'Evolution' to woke society and you'll likely hear some complaints about how Orlando Jones got stuck into the typical 'token Black comic relief' stereotype. Then when you point out that John Boyega plays EXACTLY the same role in the sequel trilogy... well, they won't like that very much.

WAIT there's a Sequel to Evolution?!

I know there was a kids cartoon but a sequel?!

 Overread wrote:
WAIT there's a Sequel to Evolution?!

I know there was a kids cartoon but a sequel?!

...I think the reference is to the alleged SW sequel trilogy.

I would think more so Nu Trek like Picard and Discovery handle its politics like worst episodes of TNG and the rest of the bunch, and if anything, worse.

It's like watching a chicken with its head cut off running around and floundering.

When it comes to “KeEp PoLiTiCS oUt Of MeDiA”, just remember behind such nonsense, especially SciFi and Trek in particular which have always been inherently political? And utterly regardless of how a given SciFi critiques or endorses a political leaning? Those first raising are either intensely stupid, or only there to try to sway folk.

And can probably more accurately be described as “I lack the language and critical skills to explain exactly what it is I disagree with, therefore they just shouldn’t do *that*, because only a political leaning I personally endorse should be allowed. Anything else is (delete as appropriate) communism/fascism, but again only because I lack the social skills, language skills and ability to explain nuance to express myself any other way”.

Without mentioning my own political leanings, because they’re irrelevant to this post? I’ll proper cringe at certain artistic visions for its own lack of nuance/subtlety, just as folk on the other end of the political spectrum might do to stuff I happen to enjoy.

Just don’t ever, ever forget or pretend certain shows didn’t push certain boundaries in their own specific heydays. And don’t demand something drop a political lean just because it doesn’t tickle your pickle.

Don’t be Mary Whitehouse. Your telly has not only an off switch, but also a change channel button. Even better? Unlike when I was proper tiddly wee? You don’t even have to get up off your arse to change said channel these days.

Don’t be a bore. You no like? You no watch.

This is why I don’t watch many shows. Because I don’t enjoy them, and I’ve far, far better things to do with my time than first watch a show I don’t like, let alone jump on the internet to bore others by telling them I don’t like it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
When it comes to “KeEp PoLiTiCS oUt Of MeDiA”, just remember behind such nonsense, especially SciFi and Trek in particular which have always been inherently political? And utterly regardless of how a given SciFi critiques or endorses a political leaning? Those first raising are either intensely stupid, or only there to try to sway folk.

And can probably more accurately be described as “I lack the language and critical skills to explain exactly what it is I disagree with, therefore they just shouldn’t do *that*, because only a political leaning I personally endorse should be allowed. Anything else is (delete as appropriate) communism/fascism, but again only because I lack the social skills, language skills and ability to explain nuance to express myself any other way”.

Without mentioning my own political leanings, because they’re irrelevant to this post? I’ll proper cringe at certain artistic visions for its own lack of nuance/subtlety, just as folk on the other end of the political spectrum might do to stuff I happen to enjoy.

Just don’t ever, ever forget or pretend certain shows didn’t push certain boundaries in their own specific heydays. And don’t demand something drop a political lean just because it doesn’t tickle your pickle.

Don’t be Mary Whitehouse. Your telly has not only an off switch, but also a change channel button. Even better? Unlike when I was proper tiddly wee? You don’t even have to get up off your arse to change said channel these days.

Don’t be a bore. You no like? You no watch.

This is why I don’t watch many shows. Because I don’t enjoy them, and I’ve far, far better things to do with my time than first watch a show I don’t like, let alone jump on the internet to bore others by telling them I don’t like it.

Personally I don't mind political discussion in my media. I mean, let's just think about Star Trek.

There were episodes about:

Data allowing his child to choose their own sex AND gender
Global Warming in the context of Warp Drive damaging subspace
The rights of the individual vs. the state
Witchhunts
Corporate issues and pollution

The difference today, and what I think has a big impact on these discussions is that the way in which the issue is framed and presented is wildly different. Let's take the Global Warming episode of TNG as the example. The point of the episode was we're destroying the planet with fossil fuels. But, the episode covered this in clever allegory. The basic principle is that heavy use of Warp technology, can over thousands of years damage subspace. This effect is cumulative. The loss of Warp Drive would be massive, just like losing our cars today would cause massive disruption to our lives and our economies. The TNG episode frames the issue, shows BOTH sides of the debate and then creates a story around it. If this episode were made today, it likely wouldn't be so well thought out and subtle. More than likely the issue would be poorly explained, shrouded with either sarcasm or crude humor and the Obvious solution would be pounded into the audience with a hammer (Think the "Orange Man Bad" arguments from our real world modern political issues).

I could’ve gone into deep and exacting detail myself. But…..

No Political Discussion On DakkaDakka.

I do not disagree with anything you said. But I respect the rules.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I could’ve gone into deep and exacting detail myself. But…..

No Political Discussion On DakkaDakka.

I do not disagree with anything you said. But I respect the rules.

I do respect them, and I won't further discuss beyond what was said. I just wanted a firm explanation. Hopefully the post can skirt by and not start a gak storm.

So S3 looks like the last squeeze of the TNG memberberries so can we move onto DS9 memberberries, I got an idea for a Big Dax, Little Dax show (wormhole aliens Sisko tinkering)

 Togusa wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I could’ve gone into deep and exacting detail myself. But…..

No Political Discussion On DakkaDakka.

I do not disagree with anything you said. But I respect the rules.

I do respect them, and I won't further discuss beyond what was said. I just wanted a firm explanation. Hopefully the post can skirt by and not start a gak storm.

I'll give it a shot.

Part of the issue is that there are always the usual suspects. Cynical diversity or performative allyship have increasingly become a topic in media criticism to the point that there is media based on the criticism (Master is a recent film where it's a strong theme), but you rarely ever see those discussions breach the broader internet. This is for what I'd point to as two primary reasons. 1) The usual suspects who jump on any depiction of a non-cis white character without fail, and heaven forbid anyone comment on liking more diversity in casts and crews. The bigots jump right on board and get nasty about it. They're real, and constantly pretending that they're not leads directly into 2) People are so paranoid about the usual suspects they themselves jump in without fail and will pick at anything and everything regardless of its merits. This becomes a feedback loop, where 2 produces 1 and 1 produces more 2. Frankly, 1 and 2 are kind of a 'chicken or the egg' question.

Throw in the discussion itself being extremely complicated and wrapped up with a whole lot of other ideas and criticisms, and the whole thing becomes a circus faster than you can say welcome to the Thunderdome.

Talking past one another is also a real thing as MadDoc points out and it doesn't help but distinguishing when you're talking past someone and when someone is just nasty or stupid is hard on the internet. No one is holding a gun to your head and demanding you watch something you don't want to watch. I'd suggest though that sometimes, the people doing the complaining aren't watching in the first place and never intended to because it's not really about the media. It's about looking for a fight. Some people are addicted to it.

I laugh at people who complaina bout "forced diversity" in star trek. I mean seriously, do these people think it was a COINCIDANCE that the bridge crew of the enterprise 1701 "no bloody a b c or d" consisted of a white man, a black woman, a russian man an asian man, and a alien?


as for holding off till season 3 for the "big TNG cast reuinon" it makes sense, it gives us two seasons to meet the new characters and to see them grow develop etc. without being over shadowed by the entire cast of TNG

 Togusa wrote:

The difference today, and what I think has a big impact on these discussions is that the way in which the issue is framed and presented is wildly different. Let's take the Global Warming episode of TNG as the example. The point of the episode was we're destroying the planet with fossil fuels. But, the episode covered this in clever allegory. The basic principle is that heavy use of Warp technology, can over thousands of years damage subspace. This effect is cumulative. The loss of Warp Drive would be massive, just like losing our cars today would cause massive disruption to our lives and our economies. The TNG episode frames the issue, shows BOTH sides of the debate and then creates a story around it. If this episode were made today, it likely wouldn't be so well thought out and subtle. More than likely the issue would be poorly explained, shrouded with either sarcasm or crude humor and the Obvious solution would be pounded into the audience with a hammer (Think the "Orange Man Bad" arguments from our real world modern political issues).

I think you're giving the current shows too much credit. Its not even that they can't wrap a story around it and discuss complex issues the way older series did. Its almost like the writers/producers left the office one day and discovered social issues in LA for the first time ever. Its been... 2 and a half decades since I lived there, and you'd have to be really blind to have your only commentary on life in LA (and the surrounding climate and landscape) is just to have your characters pronounce 'this is horrible, how can THeY Do ThIS?' and move on. Offering no insight, no solutions, hope or alternatives. Just the horror of first contact with an alien civilization the writers have never seen before, because they're just that sheltered and lack the ability to critically comment on it, even in the most distant way.

Pretty sure they’ve probably killed every butterfly on the planet at this point…

So episode 7. I do not get it -

I know that early TNG had Q be "afraid" of Guinan but I don't recall the El-Aurian's fighting the Q. It more seemed that it was Guinan herself that had dealings with Q in the past rather than her race.

 Gert wrote:
I know that early TNG had Q be "afraid" of Guinan but I don't recall the El-Aurian's fighting the Q. It more seemed that it was Guinan herself that had dealings with Q in the past rather than her race.

The implication is that the El-Aurians are not bound by linear time or even universes (alternate Guinan in the Enterprise-C episode had main Guinan's knowledge to a point). As powerful as the Q are, they do seem to be mostly linear. It's possible that the El-Aurians could pose a threat to them there. The Borg thing has always been weird but it could also be that the El-Aurians ended up not featuring much in future Star Trek while the Borg were increasingly a 'defined' quantity by Voyager. They were a lot more mysterious in the TNG days. Maybe they adapted some kind of tactic that worked against the El-Aurians?