|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 6, 2014 13:23:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jun 6, 2014 16:08:27 GMT -5
I'd still argue Picard is the better captain, but it sort of apples and oranges. Kirk's maybe the better character, and definitely more fun (at least in a more obvious kind of way), as Brannon points out. But Kirk also had a smaller crew and no families to worry about on his ship. He was younger, and his Federation was a smaller, different world. Also notice how Braga handles the killing Kirk question. If he were Orci and asked something similar, he'd get all indignant, and then blame his writing partner. In the case of killing Kirk, Braga certainly could pass the buck to Ron Moore who is absolutely more responsible for it, but he doesn't. He's just like, "we did it, people got mad, it's not as bad as it used to be." -TK |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Jun 8, 2014 12:38:37 GMT -5
Braga is an ass, even if he picked the obvious choice.
Braga is also responsible for not bringing Shatner back when he wanted. Not to mention the damage he did to the franchise.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 8, 2014 19:02:43 GMT -5
Braga is an ass, even if he picked the obvious choice.
I think he was just trying to ingratiate himself with classic Trekkers given that he played a major role in killing the character off. Let's not forget that he didn't hesitate to say that he didn't like the original series, and even plainly stated here that he was more of a "Star Wars" fan as a kid than a fan of "Star Trek" (Gee, who could have guessed?). |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 8, 2014 19:20:43 GMT -5
I'd still argue Picard is the better captain, but it sort of apples and oranges. Kirk's maybe the better character, and definitely more fun (at least in a more obvious kind of way), as Brannon points out. But Kirk also had a smaller crew and no families to worry about on his ship. He was younger, and his Federation was a smaller, different world. Also notice how Braga handles the killing Kirk question. If he were Orci and asked something similar, he'd get all indignant, and then blame his writing partner. In the case of killing Kirk, Braga certainly could pass the buck to Ron Moore who is absolutely more responsible for it, but he doesn't. He's just like, "we did it, people got mad, it's not as bad as it used to be." -TK
Picard is a good delegator, whereas Kirk preferred acting on instinct. He was sort of like James Bond in that he didn't necessarily know just what he was going to find himself confronted by, but had the confidence to face it when the crucial moment arose. Picard on the other hand would prefer to just sit on the bridge, or in his Ready Room, and would wait to hear from Riker or Data about what was down on the planet surface. It's easier for me to respect a guy who wouldn't put his men into a situation that he wouldn't put himself in first. And you're also right that it was a smaller universe in Kirk's time. He and his crew were being sent out to the frontiers of space to find out what was there, and they knew the risks, whereas in Picard's time, the Federation was firmly established and had been for a long time. I think that also served to make him cocky at times in his own stuffy, stoic way.
As for Braga accepting blame, if you would call it there, in contrast to Orci, who's always looking to blame his colleagues ...what does he care? For a hack, the guy has done pretty darn well for himself. He pops up all over the place, gets prominent gigs on shows like "24", and is even involved in a major capacity on the new "Cosmos" series. Hell, I'm only up to episode seven of that show, and noticed that he was listed not only as an Executive Producer for the show, but also directed that one to boot. I'd probably take things in stride too if I were in his shoes and knew I could just think about my bank accounts and laugh it all off at my leisure. |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jun 8, 2014 20:01:29 GMT -5
Picard is a good delegator, whereas Kirk preferred acting on instinct. He was sort of like James Bond in that he didn't necessarily know just what he was going to find himself confronted by, but had the confidence to face it when the crucial moment arose. Picard on the other hand would prefer to just sit on the bridge, or in his Ready Room, and would wait to hear from Riker or Data about what was down on the planet surface. It's easier for me to respect a guy who wouldn't put his men into a situation that he wouldn't put himself in first. And you're also right that it was a smaller universe in Kirk's time. He and his crew were being sent out to the frontiers of space to find out what was there, and they knew the risks, whereas in Picard's time, the Federation was firmly established and had been for a long time. I think that also served to make him cocky at times in his own stuffy, stoic way.
Part of why Picard remains on the bridge is that Riker "won't let him" beam down. But we know from certain episodes ("Conspiracy", "Starship Down", et al.) that Picard is capable on away missions. There are even times when he insists he get to go. The idea of having a Riker who's basically Kirk and then a delegate captain above him makes perfect sense in conception. Unfortunately that didn't always (or often?) come across over the course of the series. But I think Picard is totally willing to put his life in danger; he just knows for the good of the ship it's better he doesn't risk his life because 1000 people are counting on him. I'd add also that Picard used to be more like Kirk in his youth, and it got him stabbed through the heart. That seriously affected his perspective for the rest of his life. Meanwhile, Kirk "never faced death", but cheated his way out of it. I do feel like both are very much connected to their crews and care about every redshirt that dies. But yes, Picard's tasks were rarely of exploratory nature in the same way Kirk's was. He was tasked with minor diplomatic issues far more than Kirk was. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Jun 9, 2014 12:35:10 GMT -5
Part of why Picard remains on the bridge is that Riker "won't let him" beam down. But we know from certain episodes ("Conspiracy", "Starship Down", et al.) that Picard is capable on away missions. There are even times when he insists he get to go. The idea of having a Riker who's basically Kirk and then a delegate captain above him makes perfect sense in conception. Unfortunately that didn't always (or often?) come across over the course of the series. But I think Picard is totally willing to put his life in danger; he just knows for the good of the ship it's better he doesn't risk his life because 1000 people are counting on him. I'd add also that Picard used to be more like Kirk in his youth, and it got him stabbed through the heart. That seriously affected his perspective for the rest of his life. Meanwhile, Kirk "never faced death", but cheated his way out of it. I do feel like both are very much connected to their crews and care about every redshirt that dies. But yes, Picard's tasks were rarely of exploratory nature in the same way Kirk's was. He was tasked with minor diplomatic issues far more than Kirk was. -TK Right, and he has families aboard, which Kirk didn't really have to worry about in contrast. Kirk's crew was also less than half the number of people that were aboard the Enterprise-D, but I never liked the idea of families and kids being aboard since TNG made its debut. I always thought it was silly, especially for a ship that would be more likely to encounter danger than, say, a science vessel restricted to Federation space, which would be the kind of ships families should have been allowed to be stationed on instead. The Enterprise-D in contrast was a ship bound for exploration and discovery, and even though the times were different compared to Kirk's day, that put the ship and its crew more at risk. Kirk's Enterprise was more akin to the seafaring or naval vessels of old, wherein if the ship faced danger, the captain was caught in the thick of it with his crew, and if the ship went down, so did the captain, crew and all. But Kirk's command style was also more attributable to his wanting to know what he and his ship would be facing firsthand, so he could make the necessary judgment calls rather than receiving calls and getting a secondhand report from one of his lower-ranking senior officers. And if Kirk was off the ship and in peril, he knew that his senior officers would know exactly what to do --if he couldn't be retrieved from where he's at, the first priority is to get the ship to safety, whether it be done by Spock sitting in the command chair, or Scotty, or even Sulu for that matter. These men were trained, experienced, and competent, and would have as their only real goal getting the ship out of the danger zone beyond a certain point. Did it always work out that way? Of course not, because often Kirk and his ship were inextricably linked regardless of where he was versus where the ship happened to be, which was usually orbiting a planet he happened to be down on along with a small landing party, and he would have to get himself, his landing party, and the ship all out of danger at the same time, but again, because he was caught in the thick of things where it was all happening. He wanted that firsthand knowledge of exactly what the danger was that they were facing. In "The Galileo Seven" you can see how tortured he is by not being able to retrieve the shuttle craft crew, feeling totally helpless aboard the Enterprise, and not changing course until the last possible moment, and even then, at only space normal speed toward their new heading. He wanted to be on that shuttle craft to know what his people were facing in order to deal with it and get the Galileo and its small compliment back to the Enterprise. That was just his command style, and Pike was similar, because in their time, that was how things were done. Picard, on the other hand--I wouldn't call him a coward and didn't intend to imply that in my prior post if that was how it came across to any extent--but he was an administrator by comparison. Yes, he had to be more careful because he had a much larger crew, including children and families, as previously noted, but it also made him more boring. He could certainly think on his feet where necessary, but a good old fashioned drop-kick or throwing a punch? The latter only very seldomly obviously, which was why Kirk was the better character in the sense you probably meant, because he was more colorful and less dull, and I get the feeling that the Metrons would only be slightly more approving of Picard over Kirk, but not by much, so I'd go with Kirk because he was the more interesting guy, and he appeared to suffer the death of a crew member, or harm to his ship more deeply. That's not to say Picard took either lightly, but he buried it to a great extent. I liked him, but he was a stoic stuffed shirt by comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Jun 9, 2014 19:04:12 GMT -5
That was just his command style, and Pike was similar, because in their time, that was how things were done. We don't get to spend a lot of time with Pike, obviously, but from what we get in "The Cage" he seems like the perfect mixture of Kirk and Picard. Pike was a great captain. The thing I'd fault Picard more for is the fact that almost every away team, particularly in dangerous circumstances, consists of the entire bridge crew, or the strongest parts of it. Sometimes that's on Riker, sometimes that's on Picard (and of course it's due to TV convention that the regulars do more on the show), but beaming into a hostile environment with your chief of security, your chief engineer, your first officer, your chief medial officer and the only sentient android in the entire Federation just seems like bad planning. Kirk took a lot more random guys down by comparison, and he had a much smaller staff. -TK |
|
