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.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Kirk has no place in a real military organization

Well not in the current ones perhaps? (any serving forces people with insights or stories here?)

There were definately some 16th-18th century ship captains that were pretty similar and even in fairly recent history some pretty excentric charatcers in the various militaries of the world

Actually, yeah... Kirk would be the "best" kind of officer in the current military to have. Say what you will about Into Darkness, but he very clearly defines his success by how many crew he loses. He may not know each crewmember by name, but he does care that each one makes it home from their missions alive. In the current US system of ratings, he'd do fairly poorly for sure, but the people under him would love him

Most recent real life example to this that I can give is H.R. McMaster.

Let's take a page from political horseraces and change the question to 'which captain would you most like to have a beer with?'

Picard's out...although he'd have a ton of interesting experiences under his belt, he'd end up droning on about some tedious nuance of Starfleet policy, and in a lecturing tone no less. I'd excuse myself, and he'd sit there yammering on, lost in his greatness and unaware that I'd left the table.

Sisko's too intense and scary. Even sitting at the bar it'd be too many stony silences and too much glaring, punctuated by the occasional angry outburst. Everyone around us would be on edge and jumpy. I'd *chug* my beer, mumble a 'thanks' and get the feth outta there.

Janeway explored an unknown, uncharted quadrant for years and would have nothing interesting to say. ZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Archer would be solid enough. I'd stick around for a couple beers and he'd probably share some good stories about the first time he encountered the Romulans or whomever. It'd be a worthwhile enough evening.

The winner is Kirk, as if there's any question. Because 'a' beer would turn into many, and I'd end up playing wingman for the life of the party anywhere and a galaxy-class p-hound. It'd be the best night out ever, and I'd only remember 20% of it. Think The Hangover but with green chicks...

Picard because Picard.

The Sisko.

Punched out Q.

Sanctioned murder to bring the Romulans into the Dominion War.

Screwed Jadzia in an alternative dimension.

Screwed Kira in same dimension.

Had the best ship.

Frequently kicked the shiz out of multiple Jem'Hadar supersoldiers in close combat.

Often totally threw the stupid Federation rulebook out the window and got stuff done by means necessary.

Commanded entire armadas frequently.

Was a messiah.



Seriously, no contest at all.

I watched 'By the Pale Moonlight' the other night and when he punches Garak, he knocks the trained obsidian order assassin clean across a room.

If I was going into battle in a ship commanded by any of these folks, I'd put my faith in Sisko over any of the others.

I would rather have a drink with Kirk, but if I was going to travel the galaxy in a starship, I'd rather have Picard on the bridge,

 gorgon wrote:
Let's take a page from political horseraces and change the question to 'which captain would you most like to have a beer with?'

Picard's out...although he'd have a ton of interesting experiences under his belt, he'd end up droning on about some tedious nuance of Starfleet policy, and in a lecturing tone no less. I'd excuse myself, and he'd sit there yammering on, lost in his greatness and unaware that I'd left the table.

Sisko's too intense and scary. Even sitting at the bar it'd be too many stony silences and too much glaring, punctuated by the occasional angry outburst. Everyone around us would be on edge and jumpy. I'd *chug* my beer, mumble a 'thanks' and get the feth outta there.

Janeway explored an unknown, uncharted quadrant for years and would have nothing interesting to say. ZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Archer would be solid enough. I'd stick around for a couple beers and he'd probably share some good stories about the first time he encountered the Romulans or whomever. It'd be a worthwhile enough evening.

The winner is Kirk, as if there's any question. Because 'a' beer would turn into many, and I'd end up playing wingman for the life of the party anywhere and a galaxy-class p-hound. It'd be the best night out ever, and I'd only remember 20% of it. Think The Hangover but with green chicks...

Gorgon has the way of it. Come on, look at his friends. Spock is an epic chick magnet. Kirk's doc peddle's illegal alien booze. Thats my kind of guy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 friendlycommissar wrote:
I would rather have a drink with Kirk, but if I was going to travel the galaxy in a starship, I'd rather have Picard on the bridge,

If I were going into space I'd want Kirk. He got out of too many scrapes against advanced species that makes us look like ants.
Just as long as I weren't wearing a red shirt...

 Paradigm wrote:

squidhills wrote:
let's all admit it; Kirk has no place in a real military organization

The Federation fleet is not military, it is exploratory/diplomatic.

Which makes Kirk even less qualified. His idea of diplomacy is to punch it in the face, and his idea of exploration is to see how many Redshirts it takes to give a carnivorous alien diabetes.

I see it's me and one other anonymous voter in the Janeway camp.

If I had to pick a starship captain to serve under, then Picard by a longshot. But to watch a television show about? Janeway.

Patrick Stewart may be a barrel of laughs, but Picard was about as entertaining as an old sock. Kirk was a maniac with a starship. Archer was pretty awesome, but I don't think he holds a candle to Sisko or Janeway.

I just do NOT see the common complaint of 'inconsistent writing' (?) when it comes to Janeway. (Although we've already gone two pages without someone making the joke about her being the only female captain and getting lost on her first day--so kudos!) It always played to me as someone who was trying to balance having some kind of real life with her duty/career. Sisko definitely gives her a run for her money, though.

This might, of course, be tainted by my like of DS9/Voyager more than TOS or TNG. The first two were based much more around the notion of a positive future, showing people overcoming their differences to work side-by-side and solve any problem in a quasi-utopia. DS9 and Voyager were much more of a 'motley crew' theme, with a disparate band of characters forced together by circumstance and compelled to depend on one another. They might fight amongst each other, but they were quick to rally to each other's defense in the face of an outside threat. That's pretty much my FAVORITE type of storyline. (Aaron Dembski-Bowden talked about this at length on his blog a few years ago, much more eloquently than I could.)

In any event, to each their own.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Kirk has no place in a real military organization

Well not in the current ones perhaps? (any serving forces people with insights or stories here?)

There were definately some 16th-18th century ship captains that were pretty similar and even in fairly recent history some pretty excentric charatcers in the various militaries of the world

Actually, yeah... Kirk would be the "best" kind of officer in the current military to have. Say what you will about Into Darkness, but he very clearly defines his success by how many crew he loses. He may not know each crewmember by name, but he does care that each one makes it home from their missions alive. In the current US system of ratings, he'd do fairly poorly for sure, but the people under him would love him

Most recent real life example to this that I can give is H.R. McMaster.

QFT. I had 8 captains in the decade I was sailing tin cans in defense of the document. Kirk is John Paul Jones which beats the hell out of the PowerPoint fapping nerds who currently have command.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I see it's me and one other anonymous voter in the Janeway camp.

If I had to pick a starship captain to serve under, then Picard by a longshot. But to watch a television show about? Janeway.

Patrick Stewart may be a barrel of laughs, but Picard was about as entertaining as an old sock. Kirk was a maniac with a starship. Archer was pretty awesome, but I don't think he holds a candle to Sisko or Janeway.

I just do NOT see the common complaint of 'inconsistent writing' (?) when it comes to Janeway. (Although we've already gone two pages without someone making the joke about her being the only female captain and getting lost on her first day--so kudos!) It always played to me as someone who was trying to balance having some kind of real life with her duty/career. Sisko definitely gives her a run for her money, though.

This might, of course, be tainted by my like of DS9/Voyager more than TOS or TNG. The first two were based much more around the notion of a positive future, showing people overcoming their differences to work side-by-side and solve any problem in a quasi-utopia. DS9 and Voyager were much more of a 'motley crew' theme, with a disparate band of characters forced together by circumstance and compelled to depend on one another. They might fight amongst each other, but they were quick to rally to each other's defense in the face of an outside threat. That's pretty much my FAVORITE type of storyline. (Aaron Dembski-Bowden talked about this at length on his blog a few years ago, much more eloquently than I could.)

In any event, to each their own.

I agree. "Classic" Star Trek had a little too much optimism. Plus they seemed to recycle plot elements a little too much.


It almost felt that at times they were just Mad Libbing a preset story line


Its a normal day on the Enterprise, when a _adjective_noun__ manages to _verb_ the Enterprise's main __noun__. _number_ redshirts die before _main character_ finds its weakness which is ____

Captain Jack Sparrow or GTFO.

 Breotan wrote:
Captain Jack Sparrow or GTFO.

I imagine he and Q would have quite the time together.

 Grey Templar wrote:


I agree. "Classic" Star Trek had a little too much optimism. Plus they seemed to recycle plot elements a little too much.


It almost felt that at times they were just Mad Libbing a preset story line


Its a normal day on the Enterprise, when a _adjective_noun__ manages to _verb_ the Enterprise's main __noun__. _number_ redshirts die before _main character_ finds its weakness which is ____

Don't get wrong, for the time period, it was a very positive message, and it's certainly a worthwhile theme for a show. I just like the 'pack mentality' stories better. (Although Star Trek has always had a problem with plot recycling. 'Holodeck runs amok' episodes, 'Picard hates kids' episodes, they tend to not tinker too much with winning formulas. Of course, with a total of 28 seasons on the air (and what, twelve motion pictures?) there might be something to be said for plot recycling. )

 Ahtman wrote:
If you are a dress wearing, tea sipping fancy lad then Picard is the Captain for you.

Pour vous...

Picard by a warp factor of ten. Kirk and Sisko are cool, I guess, but they are only caricatures. Picard is a believeable, inspiring command.

I always liked these 2 for their high level of acting, ok maybe their skintight uniforms had something to do with it


But seriously Kirk #1

I have to say Archer for me. Even though the series ended suddenly the exploits of the NX-01 and its crew is what made me the ST fan I am today.

Picard is my second favourite, he is a great leader and also Patrick Steward is pretty awesome.

I have yet to watch DS9 and Voyager.

Daemonhammer wrote:
I have to say Archer for me. Even though the series ended suddenly the exploits of the NX-01 and its crew is what made me the ST fan I am today.

Picard is my second favourite, he is a great leader and also Patrick Steward is pretty awesome.

I have yet to watch DS9 and Voyager.

Highly recommend them. As a series, every Star Trek iteration was better than the one that had come before it.

Yes. Its just a shame that one cant really watch ST on tv anymore.

The USS Defiant: Because the USS Ben Sisko's melon-fething Pimp Hand was just too long.

no gargoyles? that's... just sad, really.
i'd suggest babylon 5, or, better yet, farscape, if ya want a good space-faring sci-fi series.
as far as which captain... picard. always picard.

Captain Geech is the only captain that matters. Can't wait for the next Shrimp Shack Shooters album.

Daemonhammer wrote:
Yes. Its just a shame that one cant really watch ST on tv anymore.

TNG and TOS are on TV from time to time. BBC America, of all places, has been running TNG marathons.

There is only Picard.
No one else even compares.

 purplefood wrote:
There is only Picard.
No one else even compares.

You're correct, no one else compares to the boring.

Daemonhammer wrote:
Yes. Its just a shame that one cant really watch ST on tv anymore.

All of them are on Netflix, though. So there's that...

It seems to be about the only thing on netflix.

 Frazzled wrote:
It seems to be about the only thing on netflix.

Good god, ain't that the truth. Still, between Star Trek and Breaking Bad, it isn't a total failure.