Kirk Vs. Riker

[J.T.B.]

Didn't think it was a "major point", but aside from that it changes nothing about what I said.

Maybe but I'd say it's one of the main things we know about Riker's backstory.

Just to clarify, a character that is offered command but doesn't take it is less regarded than one that isn't offered it to begin with.

Yes, because if they don't make a point of offering the command -- in the scripts, I mean -- the audience would never know the difference. They would think it's normal for a commander to stick around as second-in-command for x-number of years. Once that option is presented, they opened the character up to being perceived as an also-ran, a second fiddle, one who's afraid of the responsibility. Or a bit spoiled: "If I can't be on the best ship in the fleet I won't go!"

The Kirk character was written in a way that the audience can't imagine him not jumping at the chance to command a starship: However small or where ever it's assigned, he would make something of it. That's where the Riker character suffers in comparison.

I understand that TV shows have to keep the cast together, but better to avoid the issue than bring it front-and-center and knock the legs out from under one of your main characters.

btw, the show established how the Ent D was the ship to serve on, and how it was competitive and desirable to be posted on it, and Picard was the captain to serve under.

That's more writing I have a problem with. Can you imagine a r/w navy where the perception is allowed to develop that one aircraft carrier is "the best" and the others are second-rate? A pretty poor situation to allow to develop, I'd say. It just doesn't ring true.

People change, goals in life change...is it so wrong for Riker to change his mind and want to stay on the Enterprise? I've been in similar situations before, where what I thought I wanted ended up being different in the end. It's not that uncommon.

It's pretty uncommon in a military organization. If you're offered the chance to move up a rung in your career, you take it, because there is always someone else coming up, and it's not like you can go to the help wanted ads and take your pick of career military officer openings.



Justin

 

[CoveTom]

This is fine, to a point. The XO slot on the best ship would be desirable, but only as a stepping stone to your own command. In all honesty Picard should have forced Riker to take the first available slot. So it wasn't the Enterprise. It's not the ship that makes the name for the man, it's the man that makes the name for the ship.

This, and most of the other arguments I have seen here, are applying 21st century military logic to the 24th century Starfleet, which we have seen is in many ways quite different from today's military.

Why is it not acceptable for Riker to be happy as the first officer on the Enterprise and decide, after a period of time, that he really does want to be there and not in command of some other ship?

 

[BillJ]

This is fine, to a point. The XO slot on the best ship would be desirable, but only as a stepping stone to your own command. In all honesty Picard should have forced Riker to take the first available slot. So it wasn't the Enterprise. It's not the ship that makes the name for the man, it's the man that makes the name for the ship.

This, and most of the other arguments I have seen here, are applying 21st century military logic to the 24th century Starfleet, which we have seen is in many ways quite different from today's military.

Why is it not acceptable for Riker to be happy as the first officer on the Enterprise and decide, after a period of time, that he really does want to be there and not in command of some other ship?

So it really doesn't matter that he's blocking other up-and-coming officers by squatting on the Enterprise XO position? Hell, he's blocking Data. Who has been promoted to the position on a temporary basis a number of times. By blocking Data, he's blocking Worf whose been shown to be next in line for Operations Manager.

Riker's decision to remain effects not only him.

 

[Captain April]

This, and most of the other arguments I have seen here, are applying 21st century military logic to the 24th century Starfleet, which we have seen is in many ways quite different from today's military.

Why is it not acceptable for Riker to be happy as the first officer on the Enterprise and decide, after a period of time, that he really does want to be there and not in command of some other ship?

Starfleet would have need for qualified Captains for more reasons than military ones. By refusing command Riker deprives Starfleet of an officer they deem qualified to command and force them to look for one that might not be as ready.

 

[Ghrakh]

Oh dear god, the rationalizations are spinning out of control.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Kirk gets my vote. I like him better than any character in the franchise.

I think he'd be fun to hang out with, but he might stiff you with the bar tab if he finds some green skinned, three brewasted alien chick to go off with. However, I like Riker a lot and Frakes is a shitload of fun to be around.

Riker would love a command, but he apparently wanted the Enterprise. Finally, after 15 years, he realized Picard had his ass sewn into the center seat, so he finally took the Titan.

So it really doesn't matter that he's blocking other up-and-coming officers by squatting on the Enterprise XO position? Hell, he's blocking Data. Who has been promoted to the position on a temporary basis a number of times. By blocking Data, he's blocking Worf whose been shown to be next in line for Operations Manager.

He's only blocking them in moving up on the Enterprise. However, Data could have been probably transferred to another ship as XO, especially after Locutis trashed the fleet. Same with Worf. I'm actually surprised Starfleet Command didn't yank Riker off the Enterprise at that point and put him on a new ship to fill in all the new vacancies once the fleet up back up.

Also, I can't imagine Data, Worf and Geordi didn't get offers from other ships. I'm sure a number of commanders would love to steal some of the guys from the amazingest ship in the universe. There's no guarantee that everyone would move up a rung on the Enterprise if Riker left. Maybe Picard would decide that he'd rather have an XO who can relate to people better than an android. Okay, fine, he was giving Data the boost in Nemesis, but - if we go by the deleted scenes - after Data was killed, they brought in Marty Madden. What did Worf get out of that? A douchy new boss.

Not saying your wrong, by the way. Riker is blocking someone, but the "who" is in question (not that it matters in the context of this conversation, I guess).

 

[Ghrakh]

This is fine, to a point. The XO slot on the best ship would be desirable, but only as a stepping stone to your own command. In all honesty Picard should have forced Riker to take the first available slot. So it wasn't the Enterprise. It's not the ship that makes the name for the man, it's the man that makes the name for the ship.

This, and most of the other arguments I have seen here, are applying 21st century military logic to the 24th century Starfleet, which we have seen is in many ways quite different from today's military.

Why is it not acceptable for Riker to be happy as the first officer on the Enterprise and decide, after a period of time, that he really does want to be there and not in command of some other ship?

Yep. It worked for Spock.

 

[J.T.B.]

This, and most of the other arguments I have seen here, are applying 21st century military logic to the 24th century Starfleet, which we have seen is in many ways quite different from today's military.

Why is it not acceptable for Riker to be happy as the first officer on the Enterprise and decide, after a period of time, that he really does want to be there and not in command of some other ship?

Except Starfleet has been written with 20th-21st century assumptions about characters and organizations, so waving away the consequences as "Well it's different in the future" doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Does Starfleet have a hierarchy of ranks and military discipline? They do. Do they give positions of progressively greater responsibility corresponding to increased rank? They do. Are there a finite number of commands and positions that people can move in to as they progress in rank? There are. Are there ambitious people who want to progress in their careers? There are. So the logic still stands. As others have pointed out above, the converse of Riker parking in the position he prefers indefinitely is that there can be someone in a position they don't prefer indefinitely. That kind of thing already went on in the past and was shown to be a dismal failure, creating a stagnant and inefficient corps of personnel. And nobody who argues for Starfleet working that way has advanced a plausible alternative or remedy for the problems it would cause.



Justin

 

[CoveTom]

Except Starfleet has been written with 20th-21st century assumptions about characters and organizations, so waving away the consequences as "Well it's different in the future" doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Does Starfleet have a hierarchy of ranks and military discipline? They do. Do they give positions of progressively greater responsibility corresponding to increased rank? They do. Are there a finite number of commands and positions that people can move in to as they progress in rank? There are. Are there ambitious people who want to progress in their careers? There are. So the logic still stands. As others have pointed out above, the converse of Riker parking in the position he prefers indefinitely is that there can be someone in a position they don't prefer indefinitely. That kind of thing already went on in the past and was shown to be a dismal failure, creating a stagnant and inefficient corps of personnel. And nobody who argues for Starfleet working that way has advanced a plausible alternative or remedy for the problems it would cause.

Starfleet fits with 20th-21st century assumptions to a point. But it also diverges from them on many points.

First off, Starfleet is by no means a small organization. There are literally thousands of starships, starbases, planetary outposts, research stations, etc. that an officer can serve on. I find it hard to believe that Riker staying in one position over the course of 15 years before moving on, even if that position is on board a prestigious ship like the Enterprise, is preventing other qualified officers from moving up in the ranks.

Second, Starfleet can move personnel as they see fit and with or without their consent. We've seen this on numerous occasions. Yet they're content to allow Riker to stay in his position on board the Enterprise, even while they're trying to coax him into accepting a command of his own. Clearly, they don't think his being there is creating a disservice to other officers, and they think he's well suited for the position.

Finally, I think the arc of Kirk's character in the movies demonstrated the exact opposite of what folks here are trying to argue based on modern day military experience.

Kirk completed one or two five year missions, depending on how you interpret the timeline, as captain of the Enterprise, and then was moved up to the admiralty apparently as part of the type of "onward and upward" policy being advocated here. But as an admiral, he stagnated. He was unhappy. And he was not serving Starfleet to his fullest potential.

It took a crisis or two to shake things up, but Starfleet finally recognized this and was willing to move Kirk back DOWN the chain -- wrapping it up in a thin veneer of "disciplinary action" -- and put him back in command of a starship because that's where he belongs, and where he can do the most good. As Spock said, "Commanding a starship is your first, best destiny. Anything else is a waste of material." Was Kirk competent to run Starfleet Operations? Sure. He'd have been competent to captain a freighter too. But neither was where he needed to be.

Not everyone who makes an excellent first officer will make an excellent starship commander. Not everyone who makes a good starship commander will make a good admiral. And it seems that Starfleet learned that lesson and applied it later on.

 

[sonak]

except the issue with Kirk was that he wasn't a very good admiral. Riker really is a good captain, he's just happier in Picard's shadow, which is kind of odd.

Also, by definition, he is holding others back, it doesn't matter how big Starfleet is, that's just the way it works. At the very least, he's holding Data back from being XO.

 

[CoveTom]

except the issue with Kirk was that he wasn't a very good admiral.

Do we know that? Was it ever said he was a bad admiral? I don't recall anyone ever saying that on screen. All I recall is discussion with people like Spock and McCoy about how he was unhappy as an admiral, and not doing what he is best cut out to do. But that's different from saying he is a bad admiral.

Also, by definition, he is holding others back, it doesn't matter how big Starfleet is, that's just the way it works. At the very least, he's holding Data back from being XO.

Well, he's holding Data, or anyone, back from being XO of the Enterprise. But he's not preventing Data from being the XO, or captain for that matter, or another ship.

 

[sonak]

except the issue with Kirk was that he wasn't a very good admiral.

Do we know that? Was it ever said he was a bad admiral? I don't recall anyone ever saying that on screen. All I recall is discussion with people like Spock and McCoy about how he was unhappy as an admiral, and not doing what he is best cut out to do. But that's different from saying he is a bad admiral.

Also, by definition, he is holding others back, it doesn't matter how big Starfleet is, that's just the way it works. At the very least, he's holding Data back from being XO.

Well, he's holding Data, or anyone, back from being XO of the Enterprise. But he's not preventing Data from being the XO, or captain for that matter, or another ship.

Well, Spock says it was a "mistake" to accept promotion.

 

[CoveTom]

Well, Spock says it was a "mistake" to accept promotion.

True. But that's the same quote where he goes on to tell Kirk that it's his best destiny to command a starship and that doing anything else is a waste of material. It sounds to me, at least, more like he's saying that Kirk never reaches his full potential in any job other than starship command, not that he's telling Kirk he's a lousy admiral.

 

[MacLeod]

We can also infer from the line "two and a half years as chief of Starfleet operations may have made me a little stale"

Whilst we don't know exactly what the role invovled, he did fufil the role for a couple of years.

As I suspect not many of us have/do serve in the military if we look at a similiar situtation in the civilian sector. Perhaps the closest analogy might be large chain stores that have thousands of outlets. Each one has a Manager (Captain) and a Deputy Manager (XO), the Deputy has to be trainined to virtually the same level as the Manager so that he/she can assume the role of Manager if need be. And they can be transferred should the buisness need arise. But whilst they might make an excellent Deputy, and they make a compitent Manager they are more comfortable in the Deputy role.

 

[BillJ]

Wasn't Kirk's first command the Enterprise? But saying that from what we can infer from the movies and shows. It was Kirk that made the Enterprise's name, until then it was just another ship.

I think we can infer from Chain of Command that some of the shine is off of Riker's star...

 

[Jonas Grumby]

Why is it not acceptable for Riker to be happy as the first officer on the Enterprise and decide, after a period of time, that he really does want to be there and not in command of some other ship?

But is it acceptable? Captain Picard and Admiral Hanson don't seem to think so. And Hanson seems to be expressing not just his own opinion, but the common opinion of Starfleet's upper command echelon. Hell, even Riker himself seems to have misgivings and doubts about his course of action.

In fact, the only one I can recall giving unconditional support for Riker's moss-gathering is Deanna Troi.

 

[CoveTom]

But is it acceptable? Captain Picard and Admiral Hanson don't seem to think so. And Hanson seems to be expressing not just his own opinion, but the common opinion of Starfleet's upper command echelon. Hell, even Riker himself seems to have misgivings and doubts about his course of action.

But if the upper echelons were really dissatisfied with Riker staying in that position, they could move him with or without his consent. They're obviously not too concerned about it, since they let him stay in that post for another 11 years or so.

 

[BillJ]

But is it acceptable? Captain Picard and Admiral Hanson don't seem to think so. And Hanson seems to be expressing not just his own opinion, but the common opinion of Starfleet's upper command echelon. Hell, even Riker himself seems to have misgivings and doubts about his course of action.

But if the upper echelons were really dissatisfied with Riker staying in that position, they could move him with or without his consent. They're obviously not too concerned about it, since they let him stay in that post for another 11 years or so.

Problem is that post-Best of Both Worlds, he's a war hero who saved the Federation...

I twisted it around in my own mind that Starfleet kept Riker on to keep an eye on Picard after his encounter with the Borg. But that only makes sense for so long.

 

[J.T.B.]

First off, Starfleet is by no means a small organization. There are literally thousands of starships, starbases, planetary outposts, research stations, etc. that an officer can serve on. I find it hard to believe that Riker staying in one position over the course of 15 years before moving on, even if that position is on board a prestigious ship like the Enterprise, is preventing other qualified officers from moving up in the ranks.

Other officers moving around the fleet while Riker sits still implies a couple of things: One, that Starfleet does not treat all its officers equitably, and that Riker is getting some kind of special treatment. Owing his position to some kind of favoritism is not good for the character nor does it reflect well on Starfleet. Or, two, Riker is "out of the game" while go-getter officers are moving around and getting more leadership experience than him, potentially putting him it the position to be taking orders from his former classmates who took the next step when offered. Again, not good for a character who is supposed to be a leader.

Second, Starfleet can move personnel as they see fit and with or without their consent. We've seen this on numerous occasions. Yet they're content to allow Riker to stay in his position on board the Enterprise, even while they're trying to coax him into accepting a command of his own. Clearly, they don't think his being there is creating a disservice to other officers, and they think he's well suited for the position.

Agreed, another stupid situation which should have been avoided. Being given a command is an order, as was shown in "Chain of Command." For some reason, instead of ordering Riker to report at such-and-such place and time and take command of a vessel, the admirals at Starfleet Command feel they have to coax him into it? Like he's the only commander in the whole of Starfleet who can command this ship? It's silly.

Finally, I think the arc of Kirk's character in the movies demonstrated the exact opposite of what folks here are trying to argue based on modern day military experience.

Kirk completed one or two five year missions, depending on how you interpret the timeline, as captain of the Enterprise, and then was moved up to the admiralty apparently as part of the type of "onward and upward" policy being advocated here. But as an admiral, he stagnated. He was unhappy. And he was not serving Starfleet to his fullest potential.

Yes, I've always been clear that I think that was terrible for the Kirk character. The great leader we saw in the series apparently couldn't take all his experience and carry it to the next level. Apparently there were other captains better suited to be leaders over Kirk than he was to lead them. It knocks the character down a peg IMO.



Justin

 

[sonak]

Why is it not acceptable for Riker to be happy as the first officer on the Enterprise and decide, after a period of time, that he really does want to be there and not in command of some other ship?

But is it acceptable? Captain Picard and Admiral Hanson don't seem to think so. And Hanson seems to be expressing not just his own opinion, but the common opinion of Starfleet's upper command echelon. Hell, even Riker himself seems to have misgivings and doubts about his course of action.

In fact, the only one I can recall giving unconditional support for Riker's moss-gathering is Deanna Troi.

the bottom line is that Starfleet, if it's even remotely like the military, is career and advancement oriented. Realistically, if Riker sat at that position that long, he'd be told to step up or leave, hero of the Borg war or not. It's fine from a fictional perspective because we want to see the character every week, but they should have just quietly ignored the issue on-screen and not kept bringing it up.