Definitely Kirk, he was a man of action, if something needed done, he did it.
Picard on the other hand, something needed done, he just pulled his shirt down, and said make it so, and relied on other people to do it for him. That and he has a French name, was supposed to of been born in France, yet he has an English accent? whats up with that?
So yeah Kirk, and this isnt merely my opinion, this is actually fact here! KIRK!
Picard had alot more personality (also a better actor).
My choice is Sisko; cowboy attitude like Kirk tempered by the reason and sensibility of Picard, with a little bit of jazz thrown in.
But he was on a station.
Kirk and Picard were going where no human/vulcan/klingon has gone before.
Picard could not even deal with knock-off Cybermen! If Kirk encountered The Borg, he would have destroyed the WHOLE DAMN COLLECTIVE with a silly logic-bomb!!!
Unlike Kirk, Picard is not afraid of his boldness ("Is that a Tribble on you head, or your hair is happy to see me?").
Unlike Picard, Kirk leads away missions (to be fare, it was countless child support clams - mostly because of Kirk - that keeps Captains from leading away missions).
Picard supports and encourages Mary-Sues; Kirk just bangs them!
Capt. Sisko is so PIMP!
For a time without cigarettes, Capt. Janeway has such an ashy smoker's voice.
Sam Beckett once leaped into the body of Capt. Archer. If it was not for the fact that Archer was pregnant and talking to an imaginary friend named Al, the viewers wouldn't have known the difference.
Anyone who bangs sexy, green-skin alien chicks like its in their job disruption is tops in my book!
My choice is Sisko; cowboy attitude like Kirk tempered by the reason and sensibility of Picard, with a little bit of jazz thrown in.
But he was on a station.
Kirk and Picard were going where no human/vulcan/klingon has gone before.
Sisko did eventually captain the Defiant though. So if the criteria is ship captains, he does still count.
Going with the original two choices though, I have this to say: Kirk was a better warrior, Picard was a better officer. I definitely want Kirk commanding on the front lines, but I want Picard in charge of the diplomacy, the peace-keeping, the strategic planning, etc. For me, the fact that Picard can do all those other things better than Kirk while still kicking butt when he needs to, makes him the better captain.
I do think Sisko does a good job of blending the positives of both Kirk and Picard while maintaining his own originality. My two favorite Sisko moments: 1) When he lies to get the Romulans into the war against the Dominion, 2) When he uses a bio-genic weapon in pursuit of the traitor Eddington.
I'm not a real Trekie, but I just wanted to say that Picard was the better captain but Kirk had the better second in command. In fact, I think Kirk had the better crew with the exception of Data (god I hope I didn't spell his name wrong).
Honestly, I think when they decided to come up with the cast personalities for TNG, they just said "what if Spock was captain and Kirk was first officer?". Picard shares many similarities with Spock, yet he also has elements of Kirk in him (but so did Spock if we all remember him correctly). At the same time, Riker is so much a reinvented Kirk that he might as well be Kirk's reincarnation.
Who's the better captain?
Mu.
Sisko is the best though. He's a blend of the two with his own soul thrown in. And the Dominion War was the single best Story Arc any Star Trek has ever had and more than likely ever will have.
Picard had the better ship though. The Holodeck was awesome.
Umm... if we're basing this decision on who had the better ship, Sisko is still the dop dawg; the Defiant had a holodeck too (smaller and only one) and it was the only ship in the Federation that could cloak. Hands down, Sisko wins.
Don't base the decision on who had the best alien crewmember either; Klingons out do Vulcans any day, and Sisko had one of those (took him from Picard at that), two Ferengi, a Bajoran, one (sometimes two) Cardassians, a Trill (and she was hawt), a Changeling, and a Genetically suped up doctor. The only true human on the crew was O'Brien; he can out do Scotty any day (rebuilt a frickin' station) and he was taken from Picard too.
Picard had the better ship though. The Holodeck was awesome.
Umm... if we're basing this decision on who had the better ship, Sisko is still the dop dawg; the Defiant had a holodeck too (smaller and only one) and it was the only ship in the Federation that could cloak. Hands down, Sisko wins.
Don't base the decision on who had the best alien crewmember either; Klingons out do Vulcans any day, and Sisko had one of those (took him from Picard at that), two Ferengi, a Bajoran, one (sometimes two) Cardassians, a Trill (and she was hawt), a Changeling, and a Genetically suped up doctor. The only true human on the crew was O'Brien; he can out do Scotty any day (rebuilt a frickin' station) and he was taken from Picard too.
If we're going with crew members Janeway wins. Borg b****es!
As a captain? I gotta go with Picard - between him and Kirk he was much more believable as somebody that the Federation would trust their freaking flagship to...
Kirk only works as a starship captain within the context of the original series, and can't honestly be compared to Picard or the others, since they're all from essentially a completely different genre - the later series' unified and coherent science fiction world as opposed to the original series' "Wagon Train...in Space" feel. Character-driven Science Fiction series vs. episodic Space Opera...
Honestly piggy my captain Micha Cassius Roan is more in the running for best Captain than Janeway is. He's fought Borg, Klingons, Romulans, Naucissans (sp whatever), Orions, Remians, and species 8472. I've got an all xenos crew, AND a recovered borg officer. Not to mention the kick ass scar on my captain's face. Oh I've also got Plasma and Disruptor based weapons. And my Captain you know actually follows the Prime Directive. And he's got the benefit of being in a game with competent story writers. So yeah he trumps Janeway in every way shape and form. And he's a freaking MMO Character.
Re Sisko: not only does he have the Defiant but he's got a Space Station. A space station that can take on Entire Fleets without support.
Religious topics are a violation of the CoC.
You, sir, win an internet.
Kirk all the way. Not only was he the better captain with the better crew, he was in a better series as well. He was an active, present leader who'd freely put himself in harm's way in order to Get Stuff Done, willing to violate the rules in the name of doing the right thing and getting problems fixed. The crew of the NCC-1701(And 1701-A) were a perfect complement to him and all awesome in their own right. Star Trek, and the original series movies, all had a sense of... Of wonder, is how I'd put it. Even when they were going somewhere they'd been before, there was still a sense of wonder to it. Even in the movies and episodes that sucked. It always felt like an exploration of some new strange place.
TNG didn't do any of that for me. It was too civilised, too 'let us visit this planet we have longstanding diplomactic relations with', too 'let's stay in this time period, Picard was too hands-off, the crew had large swaths that annoyed me or just didn't do much for me. It seldom felt like new ground. The best episodes featured either Q or Lwaxana Troi, who both brought a spark to the show that it was frequently missing.
I suppose part of it is that even in retrospect as someone born in 1983, I can look at the old series and also see the ground it was breaking at the time, even when things got stereotyped, forced or silly - A russian on the bridge, on TV during the cold war, a woman, an african-american woman at that, on the bridge, as a ranking officer, performing a vital role, nevermind dismissals of 'glorified switchboard operator'. The Kirk/Uhura kiss. It was a reflection of the hopes and struggles of the time, some of which continue to this day, and it still means something today.
And there was Kirk at the center of this, the perfect man in the perfect place, perfectly matched to his ship, his crew and his series.
Kirk, by a landslide.
I'll bow to your opinions because as I recall it was a pretty awesome show.
'sides, it's just fun to say "Forward shields are down, hair-style at 30% integrity!"
Picard would likely stick to his orders and if they needed to be changed, he could be relied to try stick as close to his orders as is possible.
Also, Kirk had no business being a Captain. Who in their right mind would call him command material?
Voyager on the other hand? Never good, you can't even say it was good for a season. Because really if you could describe Voyager's writing it's Points of Good in the Sea of Crap.
I think his personality is better.
--
IMAGINARY PLAY
Kirk all the way. Not only was he the better captain with the better crew, he was in a better series as well. He was an active, present leader who'd freely put himself in harm's way in order to Get Stuff Done, willing to violate the rules in the name of doing the right thing and getting problems fixed.
1. Picard was active and present every bit as much. Crew's loyalties to their captains are matched among the two ships.
2. Picard did, on as many occasions, put himself in harms way for his crew. In fact, I just watched an episode of TNG last night that had Picard push Wesley Crusher out of the way of falling boulders only to get life-threateningly injured in the process.
3. Kirk was willing to violate the rules whenever he damn well pleased. The entire purpose of the Prime Directive is to prevent Starfleet personnel from imposing their own moral and ethical beliefs on other cultures. Kirk has destroyed multiple paradises because he thought it was more important for the people to have sex than to live in peace without trouble or want.
How did Sisko even get into this? PUHLEASE! Sisko was just a rip off of captn Scarecrow from Babylon 5!
DS9 came before Babylon 5.
So Picard is definately the best captain. Sisko was alright, especially after he grew his beard.
I did like Paris and Kim though.
I always find these discussions amusing on account of me being the only one ever that liked Voyager more then the others. Ah well.
Get out and don't come back.
Get out [...]
(Checks his avatar icon)
Yep. Still out.
I always find these discussions amusing on account of me being the only one ever that liked Voyager more then the others. Ah well.
I liked it too.
I always find these discussions amusing on account of me being the only one ever that liked Voyager more then the others. Ah well.
I liked it too.
I also liked it. If you average out the quality of the shows throughout their entire run, I actually like Voyager better than DS9, and just as much as I like TOS.
I always find these discussions amusing on account of me being the only one ever that liked Voyager more then the others. Ah well.
I liked it too.
I also liked it. If you average out the quality of the shows throughout their entire run, I actually like Voyager better than DS9, and just as much as I like TOS.
I liked the Borg episodes, and if you think about it the writers had no background materiel (not a typo, it's the English way to spell material) to work with.
I liked the Borg episodes, and if you think about it the writers had no background materiel (not a typo, it's the English way to spell material) to work with.
That is the worst excuse for bad writing ever, and it doesn't account for their blatant contradictions of Trek canon.
My choice is Sisko; cowboy attitude like Kirk tempered by the reason and sensibility of Picard, with a little bit of jazz thrown in.
No kidding!
Janeway rocks too though.I liked the Borg episodes, and if you think about it the writers had no background materiel (not a typo, it's the English way to spell material) to work with.
That is the worst excuse for bad writing ever, and it doesn't account for their blatant contradictions of Trek canon.
Pigknight, the writers were the material. Plus for a tv show Voyager had a very good sized budget. There's no excuse for the utter lack of quality of writing. To say nothing of it failing in almost every way imaginable to staying true to the franchise.
Meh. I'd rather not have to completely reboot something with that kind of history to it. The 'good', as you call it, isn't an extension, it's a friggin' do-over cuz it got so abysmally screwed up from Voyager on. And I still haven't seen the new movie thing. I may, but I don't really care about it either way.
You've still not seen Star Trek? HERETIC. *Burns the Zombie Babies at the stake* Dude what kind of Trekkie are you? GO SEE IT NAO.
Star Trek was ruined by more than Voyager, Enterprise and Nemesis. It was ruined by the horrid Continuity Issues that plagued it for decades, having Too Much History, and Star Trek Generations really didn't help things any.
There are three official Star Trek Universes now (not Counting Mirror) there is the Star Trek post Voyager, which is what STO is set in (and by the way it's actually pretty neat), the new movie franchise Universe where they get a free pass to redo, or do new things as they desire, and the Shatner Verse. Yes you read that right, the Shatner verse. This one was created around the time of Generations, and no Kirk Doesn't Die in it. Actually that's a rule of the Shatner verse. Kirk never dies.
And it gets to a point where rehashing something gets boring. TNG was good since it wasn't the same as TOS. DS9 was a good sequel to TNG, but even if VOY was good, it would've just been another rehash of TNG.
I think they should have traveled more into the future, but I guess they still wanted to make more TNG movies, but Nemesis was just so awful that they finally realized they have to stop. And it doesn't help when some of the best people left the franchise to other series like Battlestar Galatica (which I haven't seen, but only hear good things about).
So they got to a point where they could try to rehash it again with worse talent or just do something different. I'll take different and good over the same, but bad.
Meh. I'd rather not have to completely reboot something with that kind of history to it. The 'good', as you call it, isn't an extension, it's a friggin' do-over cuz it got so abysmally screwed up from Voyager on. And I still haven't seen the new movie thing. I may, but I don't really care about it either way.
You should see it. It's the best Star Trek movie. Period.
Now, if you're a trekkie, you'll notice a ton of gaping holes in its plot, the timeline, and many of the details, but it's still awesome.
Oh, BSG was awesome. Like really good an' stuff.
Meh. I'd rather not have to completely reboot something with that kind of history to it. The 'good', as you call it, isn't an extension, it's a friggin' do-over cuz it got so abysmally screwed up from Voyager on.
It's a bit simplistic to blame the demise of Star Trek on Voyager. It, and Enterprise, were just symptoms of a much deeper problem.
And I still haven't seen the new movie thing. I may, but I don't really care about it either way.
Thing is, it's only sort of a reboot. Because it deviates into a parallel time line/quantum universe it actually allows for the original Trek universe to continue as well as teh new one.
Really, mate, give the movie a shot. It's actually quite good. I rarely see movies more than once in theatres. Through various occurrences I ended up seeing ti three times in theatre and enjoyed it just as much the second and third time as I did the first.
The one thing I thought they could have done without was the return of Leonard Nimoy as the original Spock. For one thing, I thought Zachary Quinto was much more convincing as a half-human, half vulcan torn between emotion and logic. Secondly, the old Spock seemed to be just a MacGuffin, put there just to explain the plot and provide insight on how to over come the problem. Thirdly, the ending left much to be desired: he warns Kirk of the disastrous implications of being mentioned to his past self, yet takes it upon himself to meet his past self corrupting the timeline even further; it very much seemed like the older Spock was in the movie just so Nimoy could be in the movie. I found that a bit distasteful.
Except for older Spock, I did like the movie for its potential, and I hope to see the series remade to a more updated look (but perhaps new stories.) I recommend seeing it.
You should see it. It's the best Star Trek movie. Period.
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home called. It said 'double **** on you' and various other colorful metaphors.
Edit: Bah, stupid censor. If you've seen the movie you know what the missing word is anyway. 
It's a bit simplistic to blame the demise of Star Trek on Voyager. It, and Enterprise, were just symptoms of a much deeper problem.
Of course. But Voyager and Enterprise were both so bad, it's easy to blame it all on them.
In reality, I think the trouble really started with the way they ended DS9. It was too permanent an ending for ST. They couldn't make movies after that, there was no real way to make a series that could follow it, it just sort of cut everything off. And then you get Voyager. Ech.
Thing is, it's only sort of a reboot. Because it deviates into a parallel time line/quantum universe it actually allows for the original Trek universe to continue as well as teh new one.
Really, mate, give the movie a shot. It's actually quite good. I rarely see movies more than once in theatres. Through various occurrences I ended up seeing ti three times in theatre and enjoyed it just as much the second and third time as I did the first.
Like I said, I'm not averse to seeing it, I'm just not really inspired to either. I'm sure I will at some point, but it's just not a burning desire. If they make another in the series, maybe I'll see the first then in order to see the second in the theater.
Thirdly, the ending left much to be desired: he warns Kirk of the disastrous implications of being mentioned to his past self, yet takes it upon himself to meet his past self corrupting the timeline even further;
Yes, but they dealt with that in the film: Spock lied.
Spock lied.
That should be an internet meme.
You can do DS9 movies. Just open up the DS9 time line, throw a dart. Put the movie there.
Maybe your doing a film about a mission by the Excalibur patrolling a quiet front. Maybe it really is just 2 hours of space battles in the dominion war.
Time isn't a line, it's a great big broad river fed by a thousand streams.
I always find these discussions amusing on account of me being the only one ever that liked Voyager more then the others. Ah well.
(I liked Voyager too.)
You people that liked Voyager are the people responsible for Enterprise and, therefore, the death of the Star Trek franchise. Think seriously about what you did.
Enterprise was terrible! Worst episode of quantum leap I ever saw...
...
Worst Captain?
Stanley Tweedle has a strong case as worst Captain despite his Joe every man appeal.
Assuming of course the everyman in your test group is 40, sexually frustrated, unattractive to women, curiously attractive to men, incompetent, cowardly and lacks any redeeming qualities at all.
curiously attractive to men
Not this one.
curiously attractive to men
Not this one.
I know, it's weird but for some reason he has more near **** encounters then the love slave.
You should see it. It's the best Star Trek movie. Period.Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home called. It said 'double **** on you' and various other colorful metaphors.
Edit: Bah, stupid censor. If you've seen the movie you know what the missing word is anyway.
the best Trek ever is the Wrath of Khan! cmon EVERYBODY knows that!
Enterprise was terrible! Worst episode of quantum leap I ever saw...
I know, right? I kept waitin' for Al to pop in and the bastard never showed. And Quantum Leap used to be so good, too. Oh well.
EDIT: Enterprise did have a couple of things goin' for it, though. And her name was Jolene Blalock.
I'm normally not a huge fan of blondes, but she actually looks hotter as a non-Vulcan.
I have to agree. She looked pretty hawt in that Stargate ep she did, too. Long blond hair. Not typically my style, but there's somethin' about her that makes it forgivable.
So, after seeing my Captain's badass scar I posit him as the Best Captain.
And only two weeks after anyone would care.
So, after seeing my Captain's badass scar I posit him as the Best Captain.
And only two weeks after anyone would care.
He's talking about how badass his mmo character is. There was never a point when anyone would have cared.
So, after seeing my Captain's badass scar I posit him as the Best Captain.
And only two weeks after anyone would care.
He's talking about how badass his mmo character is. There was never a point when anyone would have cared.
I care.
Which is more than the amount of people that would care about Janeway being in this category.
Also this is Starfleet Captain. Which includes you know following the Prime Directive, or at least pretending to. Something that Janeway you know, doesn't do. Like At All, Ever.
EDIT: Kirk also had some pretty awesome hair.
Kirk also had some pretty awesome hair.
Meh. It was nice for the 60's, I suppose.
Well, neither did Kirk. It's what was so endearing about him.
EDIT: Kirk also had some pretty awesome hair.
Actually, that's what was so terrible about him, and why Picard and Sisko are often considered the superior captains.
Kirk not only ignored the Prime Directive, but it would be more specific to say that he regularly abused his power as a Starfleet Captain, and took an active role in the destruction of numerous civilizations. His being heralded as a hero in TNG era is the least believable part of Star Trek history.
Well, neither did Kirk. It's what was so endearing about him.
EDIT: Kirk also had some pretty awesome hair.
Actually, that's what was so terrible about him, and why Picard and Sisko are often considered the superior captains.
Kirk not only ignored the Prime Directive, but it would be more specific to say that he regularly abused his power as a Starfleet Captain, and took an active role in the destruction of numerous civilizations. His being heralded as a hero in TNG era is the least believable part of Star Trek history.
Not really. Andrew Jackson is still a U.S. hero despite being the one who caused the "Trail of Tears". If you'll excuse the WWII reference (it's not one I personally make), many native americans today think of him as America's Hitler; and there are some native americans who feel so strongly about it they refuse to accept $20 bills because they bear his face.
Also bear in mind that Columbus and Cortez's heroic journeys of exploration also led to the destruction of native peoples. It's really all a matter of perspective.
Kirk may have ignored the Prime Directive from time to time, but it was for the better good! Thats what I liked most about him, he didnt give a damn about rules and regualtions, just right and wrong.
But that's why the Prime Directive exists, so that Starfleet captains don't go deciding what's right or wrong for other civilizations. The damage Kirk has inflicted on numerous alien cultures is not only terrible and immeasurable, but also wholly irreparable.
and yet he thinks about them as often if not more than Janeway, who will destroy civilizations or heavily alter them to simply suit her needs, not her moral views. At least in Kirk's case, it wasn't to simply and ruthlessly exploit a not as developed civilization to suit his end goals.
Hmmm? Do you have any particular examples of this? I'm trying to recall wtf your talking about, but can't seem to think of anything.
and yet he thinks about them as often if not more than Janeway, who will destroy civilizations or heavily alter them to simply suit her needs, not her moral views. At least in Kirk's case, it wasn't to simply and ruthlessly exploit a not as developed civilization to suit his end goals.
Hmmm? Do you have any particular examples of this? I'm trying to recall wtf your talking about, but can't seem to think of anything.
I'm trying to think of what he might be talking about, but I haven't seen all of VOY as recently as I've seen all of TOS.
and yet he thinks about them as often if not more than Janeway, who will destroy civilizations or heavily alter them to simply suit her needs, not her moral views. At least in Kirk's case, it wasn't to simply and ruthlessly exploit a not as developed civilization to suit his end goals.
Hmmm? Do you have any particular examples of this? I'm trying to recall wtf your talking about, but can't seem to think of anything.
I'm fairly sure anything involving the Kazon. There's a few others. But Voyager's they Appear once and are utterly forgetable Races aren't helping my memory much. I just remember Janeway can and would violate the Prime Directive, if it saved her five minutes on her voyage home.
and yet he thinks about them as often if not more than Janeway, who will destroy civilizations or heavily alter them to simply suit her needs, not her moral views. At least in Kirk's case, it wasn't to simply and ruthlessly exploit a not as developed civilization to suit his end goals.
That's an interesting notion, but I wasn't actually comparing Kirk to Janeway. I was measuring Kirk against my interpreation of the Prime Directive.
Honestly, if you want to go there, Kirk and Janeway are the same. They're both frontier captains, they both break the Prime Directive when it suits them, and they both practice that unique brand of "coyboy diplomacy" that doesn't really work when governments have to interact with each other.
and yet he thinks about them as often if not more than Janeway, who will destroy civilizations or heavily alter them to simply suit her needs, not her moral views. At least in Kirk's case, it wasn't to simply and ruthlessly exploit a not as developed civilization to suit his end goals.
Hmmm? Do you have any particular examples of this? I'm trying to recall wtf your talking about, but can't seem to think of anything.
I'm fairly sure anything involving the Kazon. There's a few others. But Voyager's they Appear once and are utterly forgetable Races aren't helping my memory much. I just remember Janeway can and would violate the Prime Directive, if it saved her five minutes on her voyage home.
Only thing wikipedia mentions about the kazon is that they have large war ships which lack transporters, and that they once captured voyager by invading it through the cargo bays or something.
The applicable part of the 'prime directive', as wikipedia states it, would be either 'not informing them of the existance of alien life', 'not interfeering in their cultural development' and 'not leaving behind advanced technology'.
A) They are crusing around in ships they stole from other species. As such they are plainly aware of the existance of alien species.
B) Their culture appears to be in-fighting and stealing foregin ships. Last time we saw them, they where still very intent on doing that.
C) The ship was taken. Not taking it back from them would have been a violation of the prime directive.
Is their something I'm missing? Seems rather by-the-book to me.
Might be a fun little thread.