I'm pretty sure this thread has been started before, but even so, I am curious to know who's your favorite.

For me Picard will always be numero uno.
#2 Sisko
#3 Kirk

Picard
Janeway, I know lots of folks don't like Voyager, and to be honest it wasn't great, but I liked Janeway.
Sisko
Kirk
and Archer brings up the rear. I think Bacula did what he could with what they gave him, which was pretty much doo doo.

They all have their strong points, but one stands out as making Trek fun.
www.khaaan.com
Or maybe just a little bit silly. ;)

Kirk :thumbsup:
Picard :)
Janeway ;)
Sisko :drunk:
Archer :cry:
In that order.

Kirk


Jellicoe

Sisko

Garth of Izar (based on his rep, anyway)

The others don't even place, (well, maybe Spock.)

JAMES TIBERIUS KIRK!!! :thumbsup:

That's LORD Garth!!!!

There's only one Star Trek, only one Enterprise, and only one Captain!http://www.movieup.it/Autografi/shatner,%20william.jpg

BTW, IMNSHO, Capt. Picard is a boring, pompous old fart!

(Okay, okay, I'm kidding! He's not that old.)

Captain Kirk was the only TRUE Starship Captain, IMO..The rest were socialist utopian pacifists..there was a better chain of command on "the Love Boat" than
there was on the Enterprise D or even worse, the voyager!:p

The rest were socialist utopian pacifists..

I'm not sure exactly how to describe Sisko, but utopian and pacifist aren't on the list. :freak:

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? There's more than one Kirk? James T. always and forever, a ledgen long after were all dust.

.... Yamahog

http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/500/ch_balok1_03_vpv_216.jpg

Picard, love the refined approach, very much a leader. Then again Patrick Stewart's an amazing actor.

Next: Kirk, don't really think of Shatner in the same league as an actor as Stewart, but the fit to the character is perfect. Kinda like Burt Reynolds and The Bandit.

James T. Kirk


I would follow Kirk through the gates of Hell, knowing
he would get us back.
(Just have to check my shirt; hope it's not red!)


Rachel Garrett :thumbsup:

you can basically take them in order of the series appearances. kirk, picard (damn near tied, but kirk gets the edge for being the original), sisco, janeway, archer.

kirk and picard are so different that its a really tough comparison to make. theres such a difference in tone between tos and tng, they are very much different things, whereas ds9, voyager and strangely enterprise are more spin offs of tng than tos.

captfrank, i feel just the oppisite. id be much more secure on picards ship.

Kirk's a big DUH. Shatner set the mold, but maybe only because he got there first.

Which leads me to my second choice

Captain Christopher Pike. Jeffrey Hunter is my "what if" choice. He really has great screen presence and I like to wonder how he would have shaped Trek differently than Shat.

I'm glad someone else mentioned him, Captain Edward Jellico. I always liked Ronnie Cox's hard edged take on a starship captain, a fun contrast to the more PC leadership style of Jean Luc.

John O.

Rachel Garrett :thumbsup:

In one single episode, she was a more impressive and capable captain than Janeway AND Archer were in their combined 11 years.

I'm glad someone else mentioned him, Captain Edward Jellico. I always liked Ronnie Cox's hard edged take on a starship captain, a fun contrast to the more PC leadership style of Jean Luc.

John O.

My favorite thing about that episode was that he was never "enlightened" by the warm & fuzzy Enterprise crew!

There's only one Star Trek, only one Enterprise, and only one Captain!http://www.movieup.it/Autografi/shatner,%20william.jpg



I could not have said it better myself

.... Yamahog

http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/500/ch_balok1_03_vpv_216.jpg

He he he.... Zorro.... You've got the con.

- GJS

My choice would be Kirk.
He had the best gig as the youngest starship captain.
He had a ship full of young women in mini-skirts.
He had more women.
Had a personal female yeoman.
He got to fight and win more often.

All other Trek captains seemed to have to deal with a time that was ruled by lawyers or other "overseeing" rule makers. Example: Sisko had to deal with the Temporal Squad in Trials and Tribulations.

My choice would be Kirk.
He had the best gig as the youngest starship captain.
He had a ship full of young women in mini-skirts.
He had more women.
Had a personal female yeoman.
He got to fight and win more often.

All other Trek captains seemed to have to deal with a time that was ruled by lawyers or other "overseeing" rule makers. Example: Sisko had to deal with the Temporal Squad in Trials and Tribulations."Trials and Tribble-ations," actually. A pun, get it? (Nudge, nudge.) Since that episode was mainly a comedy, I liked the idea of the Federation having a "Temporal Investigations" unit made up of humorless, stuffy, anal-retentive bureaucrats. Beginning with TNG, the whole Trek universe became too PC for my taste. The Zeitgeist, you know. Kirk lived in a wilder, woolier time, when a starship captain could always find some excuse for violating the Prime Directive, get into plenty of fistfights (and somehow always manage to get his shirt torn), and bonk lots of pretty space babes. It would be great to serve under Kirk's command (as long as I didn't have to be the extra Redshirt in the landing party who gets killed off in the teaser). On Picard's ship, I'd be bored to death!

I'm not sure exactly how to describe Sisko, but utopian and pacifist aren't on the list. :freak:

Nope..I never included Sisko..He is right behind Kirk on my list..That was the only Post Classic Series that actually had drama and dimension..He was definitely one of the best captains..

I think all subsequent captains should have had the title "Kirk" applied after their names just as Caesar became the title of emperors after the reign of Julius Caesar.

Picard Kirk.

Janeway Kirk.

Sisko Kirk.

I think all subsequent captains should have had the title "Kirk" applied after their names just as Caesar became the title of emperors after Caesar.

Picard Kirk.

Janeway Kirk.

Sisko Kirk.

I know many like and appreciate Kirk. Not trying to start something but, Kirk was too cocky and had so much confidence, it's almost unbelievable. The other Captains seemed to have *realistic* leadership qualities. They did what needed to be done in a more believable manner. Kirk's character and attitude were too "comic bookish" and unrealistic for my taste. Even Pike showed better character and looked like a more realistic and natural leader. I think it would have been better if the Captain on the production run of TOS was Pike.

Kirk's character and attitude were too "comic bookish" and unrealistic for my taste.

That's why I liked him! :p

My favorite thing about that episode was that he was never "enlightened" by the warm & fuzzy Enterprise crew!And yet, he had impact on them ...at least one of them. IIRC, at Jellico's insistence, that was the point at which Troi began wearing her blue duty uniform instead of civilian clothes and started taking her role as a command officer more seriously.

"Get it done".

John O.

comic bookish , cocky , and at his hammy best , i like James T. Kirk .
hb

Captain Sheridan or Commander Sinclair...

<<ducks>>

José

There's only one Star Trek, only one Enterprise, and only one Captain!http://www.movieup.it/Autografi/shatner,%20william.jpg

BTW, IMNSHO, Capt. Picard is a boring, pompous old fart!

(Okay, okay, I'm kidding! He's not that old.)

AMEN, Brother!! :thumbsup:

Captain Sheridan or Commander Sinclair...

<<ducks>>

José

*throws rotten tomatoes*

Sisko and Kirk are tied in my mind for all-around best. I like Picard, but he seems more like a diplomat than the captain of the Federation flagship. My "what if?" pick goes to a tie between Pike, Garrett and Bateson.

*throws rotten tomatoes*

Sisko and Kirk are tied in my mind for all-around best. I like Picard, but he seems more like a diplomat than the captain of the Federation flagship. My "what if?" pick goes to a tie between Pike, Garrett and Bateson.

You mean Bateman?

José

http://www.startrek.com/imageuploads/200303/tng-218-captain-bateson-of-the/120x90.jpg


Captain Morgan Bateson
Played by Kelsey Grammer
Episode: TNG 218 - Cause and Effect


Commanding officer of the 23rd-century Federation starship Bozeman, which became trapped in a temporal causality loop near the Typhon Expanse in 2278. Bateson and his crew emerged in 2368, unaware they had passed through 90 years of time, until Captain Picard of the U.S.S. Enterprise-D set them straight.

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought Spe was referring to some other dude. Never mind, I have no idea what I'm talking about... :lol:

José

Yep. Grammer just seemed comfortable sitting in the captain's chair. :thumbsup:

It might be neat to see the
Adventures of Captain Bateson in the 24th Century! :thumbsup:

Hmm...Kelsey Grammer, an outmoded ship...didn't we see this one already? :freak:

Outmoded ship?.....weellllllll, maybe not. In the battles with the Dominion in DS9, we saw many similar ships based on the Miranda/frigrate class hull. The Bozeman could have gone thru a refit with upgraded weapons and gear. All the Captain needs to do is brush up on recent history while the ship undergoes the refit and the crew learns the new systems. :thumbsup:

In "Cause and Effect" it was stated that the Soyuz-class variant of the Miranda-class had been out of service for 80 years. They apparently didn't go over well. That said, it's possible the Bozeman was refitted after it reappeared.

The "outmoded ship" comment was a joke towards Grammer's submarine movie, "Down Periscope."

Outmoded ship?.....weellllllll, maybe not. In the battles with the Dominion in DS9, we saw many similar ships based on the Miranda/frigrate class hull. The Bozeman could have gone thru a refit with upgraded weapons and gear. All the Captain needs to do is brush up on recent history while the ship undergoes the refit and the crew learns the new systems. :thumbsup:

And in Star trek First Contact you could hear that he as well as the Bozeman were present at the battle with borg at sector 001. The bozeman was also mention in Star Trek generations in the stellar cartography scene.

We never saw it, though. It's entirely possible that the original Bozeman was too outdated to be used, but that in order to help them adjust to the new time, the crew was kept together on a new Bozeman. That said, it probably was the same ship.

Captain Kirk ( Once again) was a TRUE Captain.."Captain" is a Military term for the most part, and Starfleet was INDEED a Military organization when we saw it on TOS..Kirk was a "take charge" captain..His ship and crew went to many sectors where " No man had gone before"..They traveled further out in the galaxy than any other ship did , so therefore Kirk HAD to make his own discretionary decisions..Some may have been wrong, but for the most part, were largely correct..Kirk had character flaws, as well as his command crew did as well..That led to "Conflict" which is the essence of DRAMA..Kirk also was fiercely defensive of his ship and crew, as a Captain should be..His chief Enjineer Loved the enterprise like it was his woman, as most enjineers love any ship under thier stewardship..Tha vast majority of Episodes were VERY well Written and are of course considered classics today, since they were So well written and full of drama, action, and as Gene Roddenberry Heralded it " A Wagon Train to the Stars"..Kirk was patterned after Admiral Horatio Hornblower..18 years later,
Gene Roddenberry writes a NEW series..and throws OUT all canon from the series, since now he has no more sensors, and decides he can get all his political messages out in any form he wishes, since the show is syndicated..
he turns the Star Trek world into a Kind of "Columbia College super liberal"
Forum, and takes out all Drama, and dimension..not to mention conflict..
The starfleet academy sounds like its full of banana peel smokers that debate whether trees dream, rather than reading and learning about military exploits
and great battles Like Kirk did..The new Captains, it seems, must have a "commune" with all of thier staff and act as if they are incapable of making any decisions on thier own, even in the HEAT of a battle...NONE of the command officers seem to have any TRUE love for whatever ship they are on, nor sense of mission, EXCEPT if it interferes with any other society that they happen to come across..Then they hide behind the "prime directive" of course in the most CONVALUDED way, that they cant "interfere" with the society..but the real PC message GR wanted to make was that we must never PUSH "The establishment" on anyone..In any case, this could go on and on..but the bottom line to me..is Captain Kirk and his universe BLOWS away any Post TOS universe GR ever came up with..I prefer Drama and conflict to socialist utopian Political correctness..Its much more entertaining

Captain Kirk ( Once again) was a TRUE Captain. . . and Starfleet was INDEED a Military organization when we saw it on TOS.Because of his leftward political leanings, Gene Roddenberry was never really comfortable with making Starfleet a military outfit. It was a compromise to make the show easier to sell and easier for a TV audience to grasp — Horatio Hornblower in space. After all, "space armies," "space navies" and the like are a staple of pulp SF going back to Heinlein and Gernsback. The Starfleet of TNG and its spinoffs was probably closer to G.R.'s original vision — proving that, while the Great Bird of the Galaxy may have been a creative genius, he was far from infallible!
The vast majority of Episodes were VERY well Written and are of course considered classics today. . .Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, IMO. Most of the first season and about half the second season episodes were good. The rest were either mediocre or just plain awful.
The "outmoded ship" comment was a joke towards Grammer's submarine movie, "Down Periscope."Yes, I got it! He also played an A-hole Army general in the HBO movie Pentagon Wars, a fact-based but satirical account of the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The man's getting so comfortable in an officer's uniform that, if I ever meet him, I feel as though I should salute!

Yes, I got it! He also played an A-hole Army general in the HBO movie Pentagon Wars, a fact-based but satirical account of the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The man's getting so comfortable in an officer's uniform that, if I ever meet him, I feel as though I should salute!

A surprisingly funny movie. You gotta love Rip Torn and Bruce Dern as the two competing Admirals - inspired casting.

Rear Admiral Yancy Graham: You watch yourself, Dodge. You are addressing a superior officer!
Lt. Comd. Dodge: No, merely a higher ranking one. Catch us if you can!

[QUOTE=scotpens]Because of his leftward political leanings, Gene Roddenberry was never really comfortable with making Starfleet a military outfit. It was a compromise to make the show easier to sell and easier for a TV audience to grasp — Horatio Hornblower in space. [QUOTE]

Many consider Gene Roddenberry a genius ( as well as myself, as I am of course, a HUGE Classic Star Trek Fan) , it becomes blatantly obvious, he had ALOT of help after anyone watched "Forbidden planet"..He basically took the Lions share of his series framework from that movie...Id hardly call it
"creative originality"..I think he was more of a "Poineering series genius" than
creative..Over the years I have met Him a few times at conventions, and once had lunch with him, his wife and his son ( who was about 6 years old at the time)..He was interesting to talk with but of course, he was So super liberal, that I think the term "liberal " was too far to the right for him..I also think that GR could have never anticipated The Massive success that The Star Trek Saga became..I spoke with Bob Justman in 1996 by phone, and he told me Star Trek TOS was a TOTAL Loss for the studio..It lost Money..I think Grs show was a bit ahead of its time, when it came out, then had the wrong time slot, which also added to its demise..In syndication, it just happened to be seen by more that didnt see it on prime time, and then it was at the right time and place, and it was sheer "Luck" for GR..Lets not forget that anything GR attempted AFTER Star Trek, never achieved the success that This show did..

[QUOTE]Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, IMO. Most of the first season and about half the second season episodes were good. The rest were either mediocre or just plain awful.[QUOTE]

Well of course, thats VERY debatable, IMO..

The second season to myself, and many, is considered defining for the series..it established the villians, as well as forming many basic premises of Starfleet.
as well as character development

. . . I prefer Drama and conflict to socialist utopian Political correctness..Its much more entertaining

Well said, sir! :thumbsup:

Well said, sir! :thumbsup:

Thank YOU, Sir!..coming from YOU, Perfesser, I consider that a TRUE Compliment!

Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, IMO. Most of the first season and about half the second season episodes were good. The rest were either mediocre or just plain awful.

Scot, that comment got me thinking again...If you really want to discuss
"awful"..we can easliy start with season 1 of The next Generation..Id never
seen an entire SEASON of ANYTHING that was so awful in my life!(..well..perhaps Seaquest DSV...but I quit after half a season).. never
did I have such a strong desire to throw my lamp at my TV so many times..
and it didnt get much better after that...It seems that GR was much better
at Star Trek when he HAD censors to keep him in reasonable boundaries
therefore keeping each episode or "play of the week" enjoyable, and still be able to put forth a moral or social message without being so heavy handed..Besides the Characters on TNG having NO dimension, and NO real personailty, and being totally bereft of any conflict, each episode SLEDGEHAMMERED a PC message every chance it got...Id have rather watched "Mork & Mindy" reruns..as bad as it was, you KNEW what it was, and you got a few laughs now & Then.. But again, to get back to the reason for this thread..Captain Kirk, was and is to me...The ONLY and BEST Captain in the saga of Star Trek..my close second was Sisko..In the Mid 90's I saw
Majel Barret at a convention..I asked Her "What input did GR have in DS9?"
Her comment was "absolutely NONE at all"..My inner reply was "Thats WHY the show is SO good...I think that sums it up as Far as GR after TOS....
TV Characters, no matter what premise or storyline, are fictional individuals
and people we are supposed to identify, and empathize with and sometimes see aspects of their personalities that we can identify with in some small or even big way, flaws included..if you take away those dimensions, your'e left with BORING basics...somewhat like having a green salad without the dressing..To Quote a TOS line..."all of the form..but none of the substance"...
Post TOS ( with the exception of DS9) was lacking Substance..In GRS quest to get his PC messages across,and push his "Imagine" socialist Dreams for mankind, he forgot , or chose to IGNORE the fundamental basics of Character and storyline essentials that he did so well on TOS..but then again, he also had ALOT of help there as well: D.C Fontana, Harlon Ellison, etc..And when some of those writers returned, they either quit in disgust, or were fired when they dared to write epsiodes with the same quality. with Drama and dimension as they did for TOS..and they too agreed that if they wrote the way GR preferred, the story/stories would be dreadfully boring....Id wager that if he didnt call any of his Post TOS shows "Star Trek", they would have probably FAILED, or at best, Barely stayed on the air for 1 season...

...It seems that GR was much better at Star Trek when he HAD censors to keep him in reasonable boundaries therefore keeping each episode or "play of the week" enjoyable, and still be able to put forth a moral or social message without being so heavy handed...
Hey, I agree! Star Trek TOS was at its best when it had a social message or philosophy that was subtly delivered, like in "Devil In the Dark" or "The Corbomite Maneuver." It was at its worst when the message overpowered the story, as in "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" or "The Cloud Minders," or when it tried to be "relevant" with eps like "A Private Little War" and "The Way to Eden" (now, that one made me want to throw my lava-lamp at the screen!) And Kirk was a true leader — he welcomed advice from his subordinates, but didn't command his ship by committee.

Hey, I agree! Star Trek TOS was at its best when it had a social message or philosophy that was subtly delivered, like in "Devil In the Dark" or "The Corbomite Maneuver." It was at its worst when the message overpowered the story, as in "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" or "The Cloud Minders," or when it tried to be "relevant" with eps like "A Private Little War" and "The Way to Eden" (now, that one made me want to throw my lava-lamp at the screen!) And Kirk was a true leader — he welcomed advice from his subordinates, but didn't command his ship by committee.

"Way to Eden", YES I agree, was certainly one of the lesser episodes..as well as "Platos stepchildren"..I found "Eden" Laughable, and pathetic at the same time, and Platos stepchildren, QUITE insulting to anyones intelligence...But " who Mourns for Adonis?"...was another story..I found that very well done..But again,we are speaking of THIRD season episodes, which of course are the least in quality of TOS..By then, GR knew the show was on the way out, and wasnt line producing it..The network put it on the WORST time slot, since they got sick of GR constantly pushing the Standards and practices envelope,
and just wanted to get rid of him and the show and be done with it..I never found any Post TOS incarnation episodes the LEAST bit laughable..To me, even "Spocks Brain" ( imo, was the all time WORST Tos episode) was better than any TNG, Voyager, and DEFINITELY Enterprises' BEST episodes...