Kirk or Picard?

[jpchewy01]

Self-explanatory title is self-explanatory. Support your answer to the age old question with reasons please.

 

[Kaeb]

I've always tossed this question aside as being silly and missing the point, but when I really stop to think about it, I genuinely can't come up with an answer.

Although it depends on which version of the question you're asking:

Who is better?

OR

Who do you like better?

 

[Empress]

nononono

if you really wanna start the rage:


Joel or Mike

 

[jpchewy01]

Who do you like better?

 

[Demiurge]

I like Picard best. Never really warmed up to Kirk's character all that much

 

[Kaeb]

I think I'm also a Picard man, I always felt there was a lot more complexity to his character, which makes him much more endearing, personal and mature, although with quite a dark streak given his heart and his ties to the Borg.

 

[Jiang Winters]

Picard, for the reasons Kaeb mentioned and because Kirk was always too asshole-tastic for my tastes.

 

[Zurg56]

Picard all the way just by his sheer awesomeness, and the fact that Kirk tries, usually unsuccessfully, to respect other cultures. Picard
tries, usually successfully, to get other cultures to respect him.

 

[Black Noise]

All the reasons I like Picard more have already been stated, so it goes without saying, Picard all the way.

 

[Kaeb]

There should be a poll...

 

[jpchewy01]

I really like Picard a lot, but I realised that I like Kirk better when I was watching The Wrath of Khan last night. Kirk's main character feature is that he's an explorer. He's always learning something, even when he's an old admiral. Picard always seemed to know the answers and always has some Shakespeare monologue to prove it. Kirk's speeches never sounded rehearsed and always seemed like they were from the heart and spur of the moment. He's just a man, a man sent out among the stars. Picard was always more than a man. The mre one-dimensional characteristics of him and the rest of the TNG crew worked on television, but never translated well to film. The TOS crew, on the other hand, was developed even more and benefited greatly when transitioned to film.

 

[Kaeb]

The mre one-dimensional characteristics of him and the rest of the TNG crew worked on television, but never translated well to film. The TOS crew, on the other hand, was developed even more and benefited greatly when transitioned to film.

Nope.

The reason TNG wasn't translated to film very well, was because the writers of those films didn't understand or know how to write the characters, so they made them into one-dimensional characters. It's called writing yourself out of a writing hole.

 

[jpchewy01]

Nope.

The reason TNG wasn't translated to film very well, was because the writers of those films didn't understand or know how to write the characters, so they made them into one-dimensional characters. It's called writing yourself out of a writing hole.

Alright, but they still suffered there from the bad writing. It's just like how David Tennant is probably the best actor based solely on acting ability to play Doctor Who but he suffered from the craptastic writing of Russell T. Davies.

 

[Kaeb]

Alright, but they still suffered there from the bad writing. It's just like how David Tennant is probably the best actor based solely on acting ability to play Doctor Who but he suffered from the craptastic writing of Russell T. Davies.

Which was not the fault of the TV series OR the characters within the series, it was the fault of those behind the films. Trying to make Picard into a John McClane style action hero despite his archetype, is a perfect example.

 

[jpchewy01]

But the films still count. Kirk and his crew had a better run on the big screen and that should be counted towards them. With regards to the series, I still felt that Kirk was more human than Picard and this is true. Picard and the 24th Century crew were so advanced to the point where they were alien, acting in some ways like the Vulcans. Their regard for the classics of our era was portrayed as distant. This is, of course, normal given the state of humanity in the 24th Century but it, in my opinion, detracts from the humanity of the character. Now, don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Picard and TNG and think that the show was in many ways better than the original. It's just that I can relate more to Kirk who is a man and flawed, as a man should be.

 

[Kaeb]

But the films still count.

Nope. Although your reasoning contradicts your specified question, I thought you where asking us who we liked more, not who is objectively better, which would explain such an approach as who has had more successful or well-made films. It's irrelevant, but I'll bite.

Many fans (myself included), recognize the TNG films as cheap romps/cash ins on established characters in the public spectrum. The films from TOS had just about run their course, so what else where they going to do, but make TNG films?

Yet instead of making these films based around characterization, story or even a stable tone, they made shitty action movies with characters who looked, sounded and had the same names as the characters from the show, but where nothing like them in terms of their personality and other characteristics. So no, they don't count.

Kirk and his crew had a better run on the big screen and that should be counted towards them.

I thought this was about Kirk VS Picard, not about which television series transferred better to the cinematic medium? Because for every good TOS film that was made, there was a shit one made in it's place.

With regards to the series, I still felt that Kirk was more human than Picard and this is true. Picard and the 24th Century crew were so advanced to the point where they were alien, acting in some ways like the Vulcans. Their regard for the classics of our era was portrayed as distant. This is, of course, normal given the state of humanity in the 24th Century but it, in my opinion, detracts from the humanity of the character. Now, don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Picard and TNG and think that the show was in many ways better than the original. It's just that I can relate more to Kirk who is a man and flawed, as a man should be.

This is more relevant to the discussion than your previous points, something I'm sure you'd agree with once you re-read your previous comments, because all of this is pretty subjective.

For me, there's a barely a fraction in the difference between my like for Kirk and my like for Picard, but Picard steals the top spot in the end.

 

[jpchewy01]

Nope. Although your reasoning contradicts your specified question, I thought you where asking us who we liked more, not who is objectively better, which would explain such an approach as who has had more successful or well-made films. It's irrelevant, but I'll bite.

Many fans (myself included), recognize the TNG films as cheap romps/cash ins on established characters in the public spectrum. The films from TOS had just about run their course, so what else where they going to do, but make TNG films?

Yet instead of making these films based around characterization, story or even a stable tone, they made shitty action movies with characters who looked, sounded and had the same names as the characters from the show, but where nothing like them in terms of their personality and other characteristics. So no, they don't count.

Part of my reason for liking Kirk better is that he was better developed in the films.

I thought this was about Kirk VS Picard, not about which television series transferred better to the cinematic medium? Because for every good TOS film that was made, there was a shit one made in it's place.

I count four good movies (II, III, IV, VI) and two truly bad ones (I, V).

This is more relevant to the discussion than your previous points, something I'm sure you'd agree with once you re-read your previous comments, because all of this is pretty subjective.

For me, there's a barely a fraction in the difference between my like for Kirk and my like for Picard, but Picard steals the top spot in the end.

What puts Picard over the top for you?

 

[Kaeb]

Part of my reason for liking Kirk better is that he was better developed in the films.

Well then you and I take very different approaches when it comes to valuing and/or examining fictional characters. Just because Picard was handled by some shit writers for a few shitty action films, does not erase his characterization within the TNG series.

I count four good movies (II, III, IV, VI) and two truly bad ones (I, V).

Our opinions differ here as well.

What puts Picard over the top for you?

The very last episode of TNG.

 

[jpchewy01]

Well then you and I take very different approaches when it comes to valuing and/or examining fictional characters. Just because Picard was handled by some shit writers for a few shitty action films, does not erase his characterization within the TNG series.

It doesn't, but it was also the deciding factor for me. Based on their shows, Picard and Kirk were neck-and-neck, but The Wrath of Khan and the rest of the films after that (bar The Final Frontier and Generations) put Kirk over the top for me.

Our opinions differ here as well.

III was the weakest of the good films, but I hesitate to place it in the same category as the film where Kirk, Spock, and McCoy sing "Row, Row, Row Your Boat."

The very last episode of TNG.

I would have said The Inner Light.

 

[BLADE]

Sisko.