Something that bothered me about the character especially in the early seasons of the series was how he came off as being indecisive. It seemed like he was written to need and require his senior officers make decisions for him. In TOS, Kirk seemed to be written where he would consult with his senior officers but he would make his own decisions. While Picard asked his officers what they thought he should do.
I think that Picard just had a different leadership style where he preferred to listen and consult his senior staff and formulate more than one plan of action.
If you watch closely, you'll see that Picard made the big calls when he had to, but he was definitely more of a 'leadership by committee' type. Kirk was an authoritarian, 'damn the torpedoes' style Big Damn Hero. More often than not his decisions contradicted the advice of his senior officers, which is more noticeable. He also lived in a different era than Picard, one that was in many ways more dangerous and he operated on average with less support and fewer resources. Kirk is far and away my favorite character in all of Trek. In addition, the way he placed the welfare of his ship and crew above all else was an example for me as a young man aspiring to be a naval officer. Yeah, a lot of red shirts died under his command, but he felt each one and it usually sent him into overdrive to get whatever issue was at hand resolved.
I'm sure there's some telling analysis that can be revealed by your choice of favorite Star Trek character.. Here's one, for instance. Oh, and I'm a Kirk fan myself. I think this one missed the obvious political connections but it's a start.
Not too far off the mark. I have tested as an 'activist' personality, which basically translates to 'go getter'. Maybe I learned that from Captain Kirk.
Thanks for the link. It's kind of interesting looking through the list and seeing the description for Sisco. I think of all the Star Trek captains, he had to be the most "boring" of them all. I enjoyed DS9, and liked the show overall, so don't get me wrong. But, that character at least in my opinion didn't have the same presence that the other captain's had on the other Star Trek shows.
^I think Sisko was more of an every day kind of captain. He was the one you could relate to... which made all the Emissary stuff kind of interesting, because Sisko was such a typical guy, nothing really special about him. He wasn't the dashing hero like Kirk. He wasn't the intellectual diplomat like Picard. He got his hands dirty. He made tough choices. He made mistakes. He was raising a son. He was stuck in a godawful situation and tried to make something out of it. He could fight like Kirk, but he didn't always win. He could negotiate like Picard, but he wasn't always successful. Look at how each reacted to a particular situation. When native people thought Kirk was a god, he reveled in it. When native people took Picard for a god, he utterly rejected it. When natives thought Sisko was a sort of god, he rejected it at first then grudgingly accepted it as necessary, and finally took to the role completely.
Kirk was facing down omnipotent foes and winning before Sisko was an itch in his daddy's pants. Kirk is teh awesome. Always has been, always will be.
I was never that impressed with Picard. One of the greatest moments for me was right in the middle of their first encounter with the Borg and Picard calls, "Conference!" At least he didn't get his ass kicked as much as Archer. But that's only because he rarely went on away teams. I think Picard was designed to be the Anti-Kirk. Kirk was awesome, Picard wasn't.
Ah, but then the plot would have come to a standstill. Unless Q relented and healed him in the next scene. I think you've hit on something very important: Each captain is a reflection of the maturity level of Trek itself at the time. Kirk was a product of the 60s, when Westerns were still the major TV fare, and a hero had to be a loner and a bit of a swashbuckler. Roddenberry, who'd written a lot of those scripts, knew the temper of the times. A character like that *would* enjoy the "natives'" attentions as a way of getting the job done. Picard was the product of Roddenberry's dotage, and a reflection of the CEO model of leadership popular in the 80s. He was interested in the bottom line (and also reflected Roddenberry's disdain for religion), and didn't have time for frills and distractions. Sisko's character was developed by someone other than Roddenberry and didn't come with Roddenberry's baggage. He could combine elements of both of his predecessors without being burdened by their flaws. And being responsible for raising a young son made a significant difference in his actions, something his predecessors didn't have to concern themselves with. When he saw that he'd get more cooperation from the otherwise fractious Bajorans, he conceded to being the Emissary, not quite knowing how it would change his life.
^I think that's absolutely right. Kirk is a product of manliness of the 60s: passionate, in control, physically capable, resourceful, unabashedly American. John F. Kennedy crossed with a Mercury astronaut. Picard reflects manliness from the 80s: sensitive, collaborative, delegating, emphasis of the intellectual over the physical, somewhat European in sensibilities. Phil Donahue crossed with Jacques Cousteau. Guess which one I find far more interesting?
I like the character of Picard the most, but I respect that Sisko had some far tougher decisions to make on DS9. Sisko was willing to get his hands dirty in ways that Picard never had to. Maybe it's because I grew up with Picard, but I find Kirk's self-absorbed, 1960's all-American cowboy style of leadership tiresome and antiquated. Abrams' Kirk has adjusted that image favorably, though.
Interestingly, I thought Abrams' Kirk was more self absorbed and arrogant than the original Kirk. Of course he is a younger version. IMO, Kirk only became self absorbed when Shatner's ego took over and Shatner's own bombastic personality replaced Kirk's more thoughtful personality. This happened during the movies.
LOL! My favorite is Picard and I go back and forth regarding Kirk and Sisko for number two. The writer at the link kind of offended me with his attitude towards Sisko and DS9. Not about the whole "black nerd" thing because I've come to terms with that a long time ago... but his obvious disdain and lack of respect for DS9 and what it accomplished leads me to question his entire analysis of all things Trek. The series went nowhere? How can he say that? Did he even watch it?
The thing about Picard I enjoy is watching his maturation over the run of TNG. In the first couple of seasons my impression was that he wouldn't wipe his ass with out having polled the senior staff first. On top of that his intellectualism made him appear to be was cold, remote, distant towards the rest of the crew. The few outburts he had or when he engaged the crew seemed to be him lashing out. Then over the years you get to watch him morph into something bigger and better. I think the final scene of AGT is the perfect book end to the stack of cord wood that we saw at Farpoint. Watching that progression was enjoyable.
The dude was probably a Voyager fan. Ironically, DS9 explored more new territory than any of the other modern day Treks, despite being on a space station. Yes, in terms of crossing light-years, DS9 didn't go anywhere. But it took its characters, story arcs, and moral dilemmas to places no other Trek show would ever dare to go. On the other hand, Voyager travelled 70,000 light-years across the universe but its characters stayed the same and the stories were the same stories they were telling years ago on TNG.
