Picard qualified to command Enterprise?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

Funny. I thought the point of Trek was to tell us something about ourselves.
Oh, right. That was TOS.

Oh, was that the point? TOS did a poor job, in that case. Good thing the spaceships were cool looking.

[CoveTom]

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

Funny. I thought the point of Trek was to tell us something about ourselves.
Oh, right. That was TOS.

Funny. I thought the point of TOS was to tell entertaining stories in a sci-fi setting as a way of attracting viewers and, ultimately, making money. I also thought all the "using Trek as a vehicle to explore the human condition" bullshit was just that.

[R. Star]

CoveZombie wrote:

---

Funny. I thought the point of TOS was to tell entertaining stories in a sci-fi setting as a way of attracting viewers and, ultimately, making money. I also thought all the "using Trek as a vehicle to explore the human condition" bullshit was just that.

Gene Roddenberry would disagree..
"[Star Trek] is my social philosophy, my racial philosophy, my overview on life and the human condition."

But what did he know about it's point? He was just the creator after all.

[BillJ]

Zombie Redshirt wrote:

---

Gene Roddenberry would disagree..
"[Star Trek] is my social philosophy, my racial philosophy, my overview on life and the human condition."

But what did he know about it's point? He was just the creator after all.

It also provided for him and he was going to pander to those that spent money on it. Just look at the IDIC symbol.

[Nerys Myk]

Zombie Redshirt wrote:

---

Gene Roddenberry would disagree..
"[Star Trek] is my social philosophy, my racial philosophy, my overview on life and the human condition."

But what did he know about it's point? He was just the creator after all.

Depends on when he said it.

[King Daniel]

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

Funny. I thought the point of Trek was to tell us something about ourselves.
Oh, right. That was TOS.

Especially the tribble episode.

[CoveTom]

Zombie Redshirt wrote:

---

Gene Roddenberry would disagree..
"[Star Trek] is my social philosophy, my racial philosophy, my overview on life and the human condition."

But what did he know about it's point? He was just the creator after all.

Gene Roddenberry was perhaps the greatest peddler of bullshit ever to be associated with Star Trek.

I'd be curious to know when that quote dates from. It's well-documented that as time went on, Roddenberry began embracing more and more the "visionary" label that had been attached to him, and wasted no opportunity to exaggerate the cultural significance of what he had done.

When Roddenberry set out to make TOS, he sought to make a successful and entertaining TV series, nothing more. By the time he got to TNG, he felt as though he were on some sort of great societal crusade. But that certainly wasn't the case back when he was writing "The Cage."

My point is not that TOS didn't have some relevant and thought-provoking things to say about our society. Sure it did. Sometimes it said them well, other times it said them rather badly. But, regardless, my point is that no one set out to make Star Trek to make some sort of social statement. They set out to make a good TV show. Everything else came later.

[scotthm]

Enterprise is Great wrote:

---

The original premise for TNG was that the Enterprise-D was going to be out on the edge of known space for 2 decades and would rarely have contact with Starfleet. I'm guessing that in the past other starships were sent out on long deep space voyages and Stargazer was one. So it's not really some kind of career staller to be on a long deep space voyage.

What the original premise was and what "actually happened" are different things. I was personally disappointed that Picard and crew strayed into unknown territory as seldom as they did, and the idea that ships went out for a decade or more without revisiting the Federation just didn't come across to me in the series.

I still think a captain staying with a single command for so long would be bad for a career, but then again Riker turned down command enough times it began to be ridiculous.

---------------

[A beaker full of death]

CoveZombie wrote:

---

Funny. I thought the point of TOS was to tell entertaining stories in a sci-fi setting as a way of attracting viewers and, ultimately, making money.

no, that was Berma-Trek.

CoveZombie wrote:

---

I also thought all the "using Trek as a vehicle to explore the human condition" bullshit was just that.

no, it wasn't. ALL writing - when done by writers - is created because the writer has something to say. That doesn't mean they're trying to expound on deep meaningful philosophy, as people later interpreted Trek. But yes, writers, even tv writers, like all artists, write because they have something to say.
Now, people who start out as suits, who then take writing credits, are another animal entirely.

[Timo]

ALL writing - when done by writers - is created because the writer has something to say.

Judging by the results, this might not be as common a phenomenon as you suggest it to be.

Timo Saloniemi

[Anwar]

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

no, that was Berma-Trek.

No, all Trek starting with TOS. Once you take off the nostalgia goggles that is.

[Captaindemotion]

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

Truth is, win, lose or draw, loss of a ship would have disqualified him from another major command. That's just politics of the service.u

What about when Kirk, you know, blew up his own ship?

[CoveTom]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

What about when Kirk, you know, blew up his own ship?

Indeed.

I suppose one could ask, though, if there is a difference in Starfleet's eyes between losing a ship as a result of an intentional self-destruct and losing a ship by other methods, such as an accident or in battle.

Presumably, Starfleet equips starships with self-destruct routines because they believe there are circumstances in which it is necessary and expected. Surely, then, every case of using the self-destruct sequence couldn't automatically carry a penalty for the commanding officer. How can you penalize someone for doing what they're supposed to do?

OTOH, a loss from an accident, or even a loss in battle, could be seen as the result of incompetence or doing something improper and could potentially result in disciplinary action. Certainly at least a court martial proceeding to discern the truth.

[Captaindemotion]

^But we already know that there's an automatic court-martial when a captain loses his ship. And in Picard's case, he was exonerated after the Stargazer's destruction. So I can't see how this would disqualify him from commanding again.

[Distorted Humor]

A court martial is required if a ship is lost. Even if it a "no fault". For example, and surviving captains at Worf 359 would have to face a court martial, to both make sure they fought like they should of, but also to find information on how to better face the Borg threat.

And if you think Captains who lost ships do not get promoted or gain other ships, tell that to Elliott Buckmaster, Fredrick Sherman, Forrest Sherman, Charles P. Mason, and John M. Hoskins - What they had in common was that they where the captains of US aircraft carriers lost in battle. All became admirals, and John M. Hoskins was giving command of the USS Princeton (CV-37), after the loss of the USS Princeton (CVL-23).

and Charles Purcell Cecil lost a ship and had two navy crosses and a couple ships named after him.