IMO, Picard IS the better captain due to being a better written (and frankly acted) character. If both Jean-Luc Picard and Jim Kirk were real people, I think I would get along with/respect Picard more so than Kirk.
TOS- Overrated?
- Thread starter AdmiralScreed
- Start date
IMO, Picard IS the better captain due to being a better written (and frankly acted) character. If both Jean-Luc Picard and Jim Kirk were real people, I think I would get along with/respect Picard more so than Kirk.
The Federation is not an empire that annexes planets whenever it wishes to. TOS features plenty of fine Prime Directive stories that made this point clearly enough.
Perhaps you experience a spontaneous confusion between Wars and Trek?
If the planet doesn't belong to the Federation then the Klingons, Romulans or some other power can come in and annex it, correct? Or is the Federation going to spend tens of thousands of live to protect them?
Of course the Federation tries to grow but not via forcefully relocating an alien species and stealing their planet. They want other cultures to join willingly, because they share some basic values with the Federation, among them anti-imperialism, and because they see the advantages of joining a large economic, political and military union. It's comparable e.g. to the European Union, we don't have to force anybody with a gun to join us, everybody wants in anyway.
Trelane and Q is a nice example. TOS was original and had the idea, TNG refined it to something more. After all Q is not just a mere nuisance but the equivalent of God in TNG. Picard would of course vigorously deny such an interpretation of Q but he shows humankind its limits as well as its potential, he annoys them and plays with them but also appreciates them and cares for them in a warped way.
Trelane and Q is a nice example. TOS was original and had the idea, TNG refined it to something more. After all Q is not just a mere nuisance but the equivalent of God in TNG. Picard would of course vigorously deny such an interpretation of Q but he shows humankind its limits as well as its potential, he annoys them and plays with them but also appreciates them and cares for them in a warped way.
Especially if your the member of a species that's getting ready to have its atmosphere ripped away while Picard watches and mumbles on about the Prime Directive...
The Federation is not an empire that annexes planets whenever it wishes to. TOS features plenty of fine Prime Directive stories that made this point clearly enough.
Perhaps you experience a spontaneous confusion between Wars and Trek?
If the planet doesn't belong to the Federation then the Klingons, Romulans or some other power can come in and annex it, correct? Or is the Federation going to spend tens of thousands of live to protect them?
Yes.
I sense a serious lack of understanding of the Prime Directive. You don't interfere with pre-warp civilizations, you are not out there to play God. As Phlox said in Dear Doctor, gladly no intergalactic nannies protected the poor Neanderthasl from the violence of homo sapiens. If they did the dominant human species on this planet might not write today on internet boards but still sit in caves due to their smaller brain.
If you stop natural catastrophes you gotta stop diseases, if you stop diseases you gotta stop wars ... and before you notice it you end up running the place.
Klingons were a TOS invention, yes, but TNG (and DS9) fleshed them out and made them more interesting than just your average stereotypical bad guys. Similar things could be said about the Romulans.
And since you seem to believe that TOS is more intellectually stimulating (that is what you believe, yes?), explain to me what it is about TOS that you find to be more intellectually stimulating than TNG?
In general, I found that the TNG stories were much more complex (very occassionally to the point that they were overly convuluted, ala "Masks"), and many TNG plots relied on much more advanced scientific concepts than there were on TOS. Granted, TOS was made in the 60's, so of course science was not going to be as advanced, but nevertheless TNG does have that unfair advantage over TOS.
I'm not sure what (a?) Trelane is, so I can't comment on that.
So you shouldn't divert an asteroid about to hit a planet either?
The Prime Directive of TNG was a gross distortion of the TOS version.
How can you compare the two fairly if you haven't seen all of one of them?
Not at all, you just don't understand it. As I just explained it, interfering with other species is the first step towards imperialism. As you believe that the Federation is an empire you naturally also dislike the Prime Directive.
Sorry to bring you the sad news, but the Federation is only an empire in your head.
I've seen enough of TOS to fairly judge them. At this point in time I have watched about 40 episodes total from all 3 seasons, and I've tried to focus on the episodes that most TOS fans consider to be the best (Space Seed, Amok Time, Mirror, Mirror, The Trouble with Tribbles, Journey to Babel, The City on the Edge of Forever, etc.). My favorites are probably The Trouble with Tribbles and Journey to Babel.
And going back to what I was saying about TNG having original ideas, TNG also introduced us to the Cardassians and the Bajorans, who would go on to be major characters in DS9.
I'm sure that I understand Star Trek in general and the Prime Directive in particular far more than you do after reading your posts. You don't have to be an Empire to believe in the sanctity of life and that each race brings something unique into the fold if allowed to develop. Helping those who aren't to a point that they can recognize the dangers that exist does not make one an imperialist.
My honest response to this is so what, so yould have another less intelligant race on earth living in caves. Violence inflicted on them is not their fault, unless you think stupid people should have no rights and be abused. Nobody's got to do anything. An alien would choose to stop a catastrophe or cure a disease or stop a war. The Metrons and the Organians did it. Saved alot of lives that way. The Federation is not the police but where help is wanted, help is or should be given. Phlox was an ass and was wrong, wrong, wrong and so was Archer for believing and buying into it. Non interference and natural selection are not the same thing unless you think the weak should die. Whether survival trumps everything is another question as it was to the Klingons who were freedom fighters and considered themselves justified in their actions to survive.
You said that the Federation legitimately annexed Ba'ku, thus advocating imperialism and thus revealing your total lack of understanding of what Trek is about. To discuss something as complex as the Prime Directive with an imperialist would be, to say it with the Bard, love labour's lost.
A god of war. Or a small boy, and a very naughty one at that.
Your loss. Maybe if you learned to actually examine others viewpoints instead of categorically calling them wrong you might learn something.
I disagree. I live in the empire state and it seems that nobody has read my posts thus far. Hey maybe the next generation will read this and...Data will download the thread from space and Picard won't understand it or want to get involved with it either.
it's ironic that a guy who prefers TNG for its "discipline and maturity" compared to TOS can't make arguments without constantly resorting to childish insults.
Incidentally, after reading your posts, I find it hard to believe you've watched very much TOS.
You guys have drifted off topic... comparing Picard & Kirk, debating the prime directive.
Is Kirk rated as a better captain than Picard? NO. They're different. That's what is great about Star Trek, the diversity of captains and episode stories.
Getting back to the original topic, I think people confuse the reverence for TOS to be over-rating it. You simply can't argue the fact that TOS started it all, and without it we wouldn't have anything else. Maybe a very different space faring series. But would it have been as good? Ah, just remember "Battlestar Galactica" from the late 1970's. Great special effects, but the story telling never reached the level of Star Trek.
And then there's this problem with trying to say which is better, TNG or TOS. You can't fairly compare them! Two very different eras, production staff, actors, and film studio technologies. Now, one person may "enjoy" one more than the other, but to say one is better is like comparing apples to bananas.
(silence)
OK, glad I got your attention. Please continue...
Is Kirk rated as a better captain than Picard? NO. They're different. That's what is great about Star Trek, the diversity of captains and episode stories.
Getting back to the original topic, I think people confuse the reverence for TOS to be over-rating it. You simply can't argue the fact that TOS started it all, and without it we wouldn't have anything else. Maybe a very different space faring series. But would it have been as good? Ah, just remember "Battlestar Galactica" from the late 1970's. Great special effects, but the story telling never reached the level of Star Trek.
And then there's this problem with trying to say which is better, TNG or TOS. You can't fairly compare them! Two very different eras, production staff, actors, and film studio technologies. Now, one person may "enjoy" one more than the other, but to say one is better is like comparing apples to bananas.
(silence)
OK, glad I got your attention. Please continue...
Similar threads
