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.

As the title says.

He has much of the recklessness of Kirk, but tempered by experience.

Unlike Janeway, when tested, he does not let protocol and rules decide his course of action.

Unlike Sisko? OK, as my second fave I can’t really put a ciggie paper between the two.

But Picard is the Captain I know I would follow into and beyond the very gates of Hell. He is a man of action, a man of learning, a man of honour. He will (sensibly) week the diplomatic solution, but isn’t afraid to smash face when there’s no alternative. His stentorian tone is exactly the kind needed for both.

He is no fool, and he doesn’t suffer fools. But he has compassion all the same.

And this thread is your chance to similarly sing the praises of other Starfleet Captains. And even, who knows, change my mind...

Can't disagree, Picard is the best of them (and probably, among the best of humanity in fiction period).

Undoubtedly, his greatest strength is an understanding of balance. He'll negotiate before fighting, but when the time comes and that fails, he'll fight to the bitter end. He'll always try to reach a compromise where one can be found, but never appear weak or sacrifice what he believes is right. He'll step up to the plate whether it's for one close friend or crewmember, or for an entire civilisation. Not veering to the extremes but remaining professional, taciturn and fair in all his dealings.

And yet, for all that, he never comes across as an unreasonably or unrealistically competent. His trouble and trials are all very human, and it's always possible to see the man behind the myth. I think a lot of this kind of comes down to Sir Patrick's phenomenal talent at portraying so much in just a handful of lines and gestures, but I'm sure the writing has a lot to do with it as well.

On a similar note, I feel Riker doesn't get nearly enough credit for being the greatest right hand a Captain could ask for. Beyond all the over-the-top charm and frankly stupid ways of sitting on chairs, he makes Picard a better captain, challenging him where necessary, but deferring when it's appropriate. There's a load of stories about him turning down captaincy, defying ambition to stay at Picard's side, and I think that's greatly to his credit.



Honourable mention to Pike. So far on Disco, he's been a highlight of the second series and a far better Kirk than Kirk, for me at least. He's even good enough to stop me yelling 'just make Saru captain' at the screen every week, which I've basically been doing since the Lorca twist.

Though do definitely make Saru captain in S3, CBS...

Excuse me?



But nah I think I like Picard the most, if only because that man really had the highest "ups" in my book for any Star Trek captain, and his downs were mostly just mediocre, not bad. Or maybe I should say, I like Sisko's character more than Picard's, but without a doubt Patrick Stewart is a superior actor to Avery Brooks and made much more out of his character than otherwise would have been.

I’m more of a Sisco man myself.

Who I enjoy watching on screen the most: Sisko
Who I'd prefer to serve under if I were in Starfleet: Picard
Who I'd go for a beer with: Kirk

I admit I hesitate between Picard and Sisko, both seem to strike a good balance between decisive leaders and compromisee driven diplomats. Both show the great qualities of the Federation.

 Paradigm wrote:

Honourable mention to Pike. So far on Disco, he's been a highlight of the second series and a far better Kirk than Kirk, for me at least. He's even good enough to stop me yelling 'just make Saru captain' at the screen every week, which I've basically been doing since the Lorca twist.

Though do definitely make Saru captain in S3, CBS...

I am really enjoying Pike on Discovery too.

On Sisko vs Picard, I find it quite tricky as it took me a long time to warm to Sisko.

First impression bias aside, one of the key factors that keep me on team Picard is Siskos actions during the Dominion war and how he got the Romulans involved. I can't help but think Picard would have found a way.

 Riquende wrote:
Who I enjoy watching on screen the most: Sisko
Who I'd prefer to serve under if I were in Starfleet: Picard
Who I'd go for a beer with: Kirk

LoL, make sure your birth control is up to date before that beer with Kirk. Whether you're male or female, alien or robot, no one is safe from his 'exploration'.

Picard is by far the most responsible commander. He's probably got the highest survival rates for his crew of any of the series captains.

The Sisko would be almost as bad as serving under a Klingon. You will almost certainly die, but with honor (probably).

Janeway... Man, I'd rather serve on the Orville than the Voyager under her.

I didn't like Sisko at first. Then he went into Hawk mode and turned the whole series around...

I find Sisko to be in a harder position than Picard was. I love both characters, but Sisko was a frontier sherif, and his source of authority was a long ways away.

Picard’s crew were federation all the way. Sisko had to build trust between various factions *on his own team* much less the factions around him. The episode where he declares, “I can live with it.” Picard would never do that. Picard was in many ways *able* to be a hardline idealist. Sisko had to get his hands dirty for the greater good.

Picard was a better captain. Sisko was a better at “the game”.

 Vulcan wrote:
I didn't like Sisko at first. Then he went into Hawk mode and turned the whole series around...

Funny, I feel exactly the opposite. Sisko of Seasons 1-3 is an interesting character with human flaws and relationships, who manages to strike a blow against an opponent of the Federation and prove an ancient theory in a way that boosts the reputation and self-esteem of an ally, all while indulging a hobby in order to take a wee bonding trip with his son and without firing a shot or even a word in anger, which is probably one of the most Star Trek things in all of Star Trek. The premise of the show also had promise, forcing people to confront the consequences of their worthy ideals up-close over an extended period of time rather than just flying off into the sunset each week.

When they shave his head and turn him into "Captain Baldhead McShoutybeard, Messiah In Waiting" all that goes out the window so he can chew the scenery and blow stuff up, and the writers prove incapable of living up to the show's promise, descending instead into pew-pew-phazorz and lazy deconstructionism. Total waste. EDIT: And the episode where he declares "I can live with it" is a perfect example of that. In The Pale Moonlight is not Sisko "compromising" because of his position as a frontier sheriff, it's an explicit repudiation of the basic concept of Star Trek by the writers. "Compromise" is the Federation putting up with the Bajorans' religious pageantry. "Compromise" is his dealings with Quark in the pilot two-parter. Being actively complicit in a plot to murder a diplomat in order to deceive a foreign power into joining a war isn't "compromise", it's criminal. When I think of "worst moments in Trek", it's a coin toss between Sisko's warmongering criminal conspiracy and Janeway's act of callous murder of a sentient being with the tacit agreement of the crew.

I fully agree with the OP - Picard is the best captain. I just hope he stays that way after Kurtzman is done with him.

I always loved Sisco’s hair migration...

Picard is a good solid captain in times of exploration and diplomacy. He's a perfect mediator who isn't afraid to get his hands dirty or get into a fight if need be, but he will try everything else first.
It's also important to note that he never really takes centre stage in an actual "war". He's more of a battle captain able to fight in one-off engagements; which I think is why his tactics can often be quite dramatically suicidal. He's willing to ram his ship into things and risk the whole ship going down in a blaze because its one battle to end all situations. He's not got think about tomorrows battle or the rest of the fleet etc...


Sisko is different because he's tempered against an actual prolonged war and being right on the forefront of it. This changes him quite significantly from his earlier state and, whilst he's still a diplomat, he's also far more willing to tip the scales and deal a bloody blow instead of just relying on words. Partly because once he's in a war the words have moved back a step.


Both are very top rate captains, though they behave differently yet its important to note that through their respective series they are presented with different situations. I'd also argue that one major difference is that TNG, whilst introducing some long story arcs, was still built, at its core, on alien of the week. DS9 however abandoned that pattern and was focused far more on its long term stories. Furthermore the nature of DS9 meant that Sisko rarely had a retreat option. He didn't have the safety net of jumping to warp and being able to get out of there - he was on his station and that was basically immobile. Yes it had engines but no warp and even at its top speed it was slow.


Both are formidable they just take a different approach toward resolution.


I also like to think that Sisko was a nice blending of Kirk and Picard - the maturity of Picard with the brawling personal strength of Kirk.

Picard is a better diplomat and science ship guy.
Kirk is a better Captain Cook explorer.

Sisko is a good Adama.

That’s a fair assessment.

There is a lot to commend Sisko. He’s the poor sod faced with near impossible choices at times, and is torn between Doing The Starfleet Thing, and Winning A War With As Few Casualties As Possivle.

He can be abrasive, but is rarely an unsympathetic character (compared to Janeway, who at times feels Holier Than Thou).

But Picard is best summed up as a true Statesman. The he chose his Number One on the strength he’ll stand up to him speaks highly of his overall character.

He’s also put through the ringer somewhat. First he has to contend with Q (always a good episode), then he’s Assimilated and returned. He’s hideously tortured by Cardassians, and then loses his family, one he’d only relatively recently reconciled with in a fire.

I’m particularly fond of his speeches, whether he’s quietly making a point, or being more robust. This is writ large for me during First Contact. He bawls out Worf, calling him a coward. But his later apology is genuine and heartfelt.

And much of that in the face of some of the ropiest of scripts and plots!

Picard is the best...insomnia remedy.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That’s a fair assessment.

There is a lot to commend Sisko. He’s the poor sod faced with near impossible choices at times, and is torn between Doing The Starfleet Thing, and Winning A War With As Few Casualties As Possivle.

He can be abrasive, but is rarely an unsympathetic character (compared to Janeway, who at times feels Holier Than Thou).

But Picard is best summed up as a true Statesman. The he chose his Number One on the strength he’ll stand up to him speaks highly of his overall character.

He’s also put through the ringer somewhat. First he has to contend with Q (always a good episode), then he’s Assimilated and returned. He’s hideously tortured by Cardassians, and then loses his family, one he’d only relatively recently reconciled with in a fire.

I’m particularly fond of his speeches, whether he’s quietly making a point, or being more robust. This is writ large for me during First Contact. He bawls out Worf, calling him a coward. But his later apology is genuine and heartfelt.

And much of that in the face of some of the ropiest of scripts and plots!

Indeed.
If I wanted a captain to discover the Klingons and then soberly sentinel the border in a cold war, it would be Kirk.
If I wanted an Admiral to lead the campaign of multiple allies to then defeat the Klingons it would be Sisco. (or John Sheridan)
(if I wanted an Admiral to lead the battle fleet that executes the campaign and beats the Klingons it would be Adama... )
If I wanted a negotiator to successfully conclude a peace treaty bringing the Klingons peacefully into the Federation, it would be Picard.

Kirk is Captain Cook. Sisco is a combination of Eisenhower and Nimitz. Picard is a combination of Churchill and Carter.

Picard is great but sisko is the most believable to me, Captain Insaneway is also bad ass but they ruined her in the last 2 episodes of voyager by making her a mass murdering sociopath haha.

Kirk is also great, Archer was meh and cant even remember the name of STDs old captain? new Pike is cool though, oh, and Saru for captain next series please.

 Formosa wrote:
Picard is great but sisko is the most believable to me, Captain Insaneway is also bad ass but they ruined her in the last 2 episodes of voyager by making her a mass murdering sociopath haha.

In fairness they rushed the ending of Voyager. They wrote it into a bit of a black hole of plots and ran out of drive and wanted to end it. So they came up with a rather extreme way to do it that sort of fastforwarded everything too much. I think the also sort of wanted to give closure to Startrek itself, hence why they used it to defeat the Borg - basically the big bad that no one had defeated outright. Leaving nothing but more minor powers and a few god-creatures roaming the Galaxy, but nothing with a dead set hatred and capacity to carry it through, against Starfleet.

 Overread wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Picard is great but sisko is the most believable to me, Captain Insaneway is also bad ass but they ruined her in the last 2 episodes of voyager by making her a mass murdering sociopath haha.

In fairness they rushed the ending of Voyager. They wrote it into a bit of a black hole of plots and ran out of drive and wanted to end it. So they came up with a rather extreme way to do it that sort of fastforwarded everything too much. I think the also sort of wanted to give closure to Startrek itself, hence why they used it to defeat the Borg - basically the big bad that no one had defeated outright. Leaving nothing but more minor powers and a few god-creatures roaming the Galaxy, but nothing with a dead set hatred and capacity to carry it through, against Starfleet.

In the novels her actions led to a much worse borg threat down the line, and it got stupid from there onwards, kinda glad they did not carry on that story line.

 Formosa wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Picard is great but sisko is the most believable to me, Captain Insaneway is also bad ass but they ruined her in the last 2 episodes of voyager by making her a mass murdering sociopath haha.

In fairness they rushed the ending of Voyager. They wrote it into a bit of a black hole of plots and ran out of drive and wanted to end it. So they came up with a rather extreme way to do it that sort of fastforwarded everything too much. I think the also sort of wanted to give closure to Startrek itself, hence why they used it to defeat the Borg - basically the big bad that no one had defeated outright. Leaving nothing but more minor powers and a few god-creatures roaming the Galaxy, but nothing with a dead set hatred and capacity to carry it through, against Starfleet.

In the novels her actions led to a much worse borg threat down the line, and it got stupid from there onwards, kinda glad they did not carry on that story line.

I was always rather sad that they never followed after Startrek the Motion Picture film when they did Voyager. Those first few ST films maintained an element of magical mystery about space and aliens that ST never really recaptured again and Voyager would have been a brilliant way toward that considering how they were very far from established space and in the region that (if I recall right) is where Vger went (plus you know the name Voyager was on the darn ships hull!)

I agree Picard was best. Sisco is a close second, Kirk third. JJ Abrams Kirk is 4th and Janeway is appalling.

 Overread wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Picard is great but sisko is the most believable to me, Captain Insaneway is also bad ass but they ruined her in the last 2 episodes of voyager by making her a mass murdering sociopath haha.

In fairness they rushed the ending of Voyager. They wrote it into a bit of a black hole of plots and ran out of drive and wanted to end it. So they came up with a rather extreme way to do it that sort of fastforwarded everything too much. I think the also sort of wanted to give closure to Startrek itself, hence why they used it to defeat the Borg - basically the big bad that no one had defeated outright. Leaving nothing but more minor powers and a few god-creatures roaming the Galaxy, but nothing with a dead set hatred and capacity to carry it through, against Starfleet.

In the novels her actions led to a much worse borg threat down the line, and it got stupid from there onwards, kinda glad they did not carry on that story line.

I was always rather sad that they never followed after Startrek the Motion Picture film when they did Voyager. Those first few ST films maintained an element of magical mystery about space and aliens that ST never really recaptured again and Voyager would have been a brilliant way toward that considering how they were very far from established space and in the region that (if I recall right) is where Vger went (plus you know the name Voyager was on the darn ships hull!)

Couldn't agree more dude, I feel that is what star trek needs to get back to, as much as love DS9 for the darkness that has never been to me what star trek is, to me (highly subjective I know) star trek was about showing a bright future and introducing fantastical concepts that are grounded in some sort of reality, STD managed it with one episode so far and that was the living planet AI, more of that kind of thing and less of the Hollyoaks in space.

 Fifty wrote:
I agree Picard was best. Sisco is a close second, Kirk third. JJ Abrams Kirk is 4th and Janeway is appalling.

No I'd put the JJ Abrams Kirk well below Janeway. See Janeway is a captain, the JJ Abrams Kirk is, well at least in the first film, mostly put in there to be the joke character.

I'm serious! Spoke rules the roost as the most interesting and matured lead; McCoy hardly appears much and is sort of tacked into the side because he has to be there; whilst Kirk is bumbling around being the general brazen fool. I also found him more on the unlikeable side than the loveable rouge that Kirk often presented himself as. Quit why anyone listens to him or how he ends up in the captains chair is mostly plot armour more than his actual character.

For me, the great regret is that we haven’t got to see a post-Dominion War Alpha Quadrant.

After all, that brought the main powers together in a single effort. How might each seek to exploit such unity, temporary as it may have been?

I mean, your Admirals on all sides wound up with at least working relationships with their opposite numbers. There’s an awful, awful lot of narrative potential their to be mined.

I’m fingers crossed for the Picard series, especially if it offers tantalising backstory another series might be able to pick up on.

Sadly, we went to Voyager, the god-awful Enterprise (whyyyyy!), and the ‘pretty marmite, but I likes it) Discovery. All retreading TNG or inexplicably set well before the most momentous confilict Trek has ever seen.

And I’m pretty sure Picard would’ve played a central role!

Enterprise was terribly stuck for what to do that they invented the idea of a temporal war which annoyed me because it was a way to write loads of stuff that would then just be removed from the timeline because "time travel".

Which is a shame because those early days should have been chock full of things to do - connecting with Klingons - still at a time when vulcan mind melding and vulcans were near magical elves (whilst in latter series the mind-meld is well known and not all that "mysterious"). etc... They had a solid cast and I just feel the writers took the wrong direction with the series.



That said I feel that even though DS9 did really well they keep trying to take ST back to the original "monster/alien of the week" formula.

Enterprise was too much the 'Archer, Trip and T'Pol' show and gave everyone else on the ship a single character facet and thought "done!"

Mayweather was experienced at being in deep space (which was rare for the time)
Hoshi was afraid of space
Phlox kept animals
Reed was... British?

I get that the show didn't have longevity that the previous shows did, but what made TNG and DS9 work so well was that the whole crew were fleshed out, had arcs and and had neat little interactions that didn't need to be viewed through the lens of the captain.

Voyager started that particular rot though. Chakotay & Harry the particular nadirs but there's not a lot to be said for most of them. I think some of it stems from trying to make Janeway hypercompetent. She was the best at leadership, best at tactics, best at science (which meant she could bandy the technobabble with Belanna). The reason the EMH was so popular was maybe not just down to Picardo but also the fact Janeway didn't come busting into sickbay every 5 minutes to overrule his decisions.

 Riquende wrote:
Enterprise was too much the 'Archer, Trip and T'Pol' show and gave everyone else on the ship a single character facet and thought "done!"

Mayweather was experienced at being in deep space (which was rare for the time)
Hoshi was afraid of space
Phlox kept animals
Reed was... British?

I get that the show didn't have longevity that the previous shows did, but what made TNG and DS9 work so well was that the whole crew were fleshed out, had arcs and and had neat little interactions that didn't need to be viewed through the lens of the captain.

Voyager started that particular rot though. Chakotay & Harry the particular nadirs but there's not a lot to be said for most of them. I think some of it stems from trying to make Janeway hypercompetent. She was the best at leadership, best at tactics, best at science (which meant she could bandy the technobabble with Belanna). The reason the EMH was so popular was maybe not just down to Picardo but also the fact Janeway didn't come busting into sickbay every 5 minutes to overrule his decisions.

Enterprise did have truely epic and wonderful Mirror Unverse episodes - otherwise agree re the neglect of the other crew - its getting very bad with Discovery

I would probably go

Sisco
Kirk
Philippa Georgiou
Mirror Lorca ( )
Picard

Janaway - just no

Pike could be really good - if they let him be in a bit more. He is different to the others and interesting.

Major issue for me with Janeway is Kate Mulgrew’s voice. I know there’s not a great deal she can do about it, but man, it just grates on me.

I also don’t feel she ever really did much to inspire her crew to listen to her? Maybe I’m just not familiar enough with that show, but that’s my take away from it.

Picard and Sisko? Yes. I absolutely see how they managed to climb the ranks.

I think Enterprise fell into the trap of trying to re-create the holy trinity effect. Spock McCoy and Kirk was a very powerful trio of characters and actors that were the primary focus of most episodes; though they did well to flesh out many of the other key bridge crew. TNG Sort of did similar but mixed it up a few times and used relationships far more so (eg Riker and Troy). DS9 never had it, whilst Voyager sort of tried here and there. I think Enterprise started to get really strong with it and, as noted, it can work in detriment when one uses an old method that a series has evolved or moved past.


Janeway I think had one weakness in that because of the nature of Voyager there were fewer outside long term forces influencing the ship and crew. Most that were were basically borg and short term story lines that hung around for a while. Otherwise they basically shot into and out of territories and races all the time. I think it removed something. DS9 and TNG had to contend with outside forces and political shifts and suchlike. DS9 very much so.