Just a breif overview of my Star Trek opinion

[jasons99]

A BREIF OVERVIEW OF MY STAR TREK OPINION


It is simply that. MY OPINION
I own every season of every star trek series from the original star trek through enterprise in box sets.
​

You will never beat CPT Kirk ‘cause he’s the badass to end all badasses.I need say nothing more on this one. James T. Kirk speaks for himself.

Jean Luc Picard was a great successor for Kirk and next gen gave us other great characters like Riker, Q, and of course the Borg. Also it set the stage for some great films and gave us some very memorable episodes. I wasn’t too impressed with a lot of the underlying social ideals from TNG though.

Deep space nine was just so damn boring for as many seasons as they had and in my opinion Sisko was one of the absolute worst characters for a commanding officer of any magnitude in the star trek world. But in all fairness it gave us some really good and important canon, and at least they TRIED to tie it in with next gen.

Voyager had so much potential to be a great show but Janeway was such a contradictory bitch! She had a bad habit setting a double standard for her crew by saying one thing and doing another with her do as I say not as I do attitude. She always got so preachy about the stupid prime directive but had no issue violating it when it suited her needs, and that just drove me crazy. But it was a fresh change of pace from deep space nine and it let us explore a new part of the galaxy.

Enterprise was in my opinion a really good concept and they did a very good job of tying it in with first contact. Casting Scott Bakula for the role of CPT Archer was really just the producers’ attempt to see how long I could keep my quantum leap jokes to myself, especially when they had Sam guest star in season one. I think the general idea of what they were TRYING to do was good, but in the end I think the only reason I kept watching it was so I had more fuel for my fantasies about Tapal and Hoshi.

I now welcome any and all critisism.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Kirk is overrated. Picard often let his own code of morality get in the way of the greater good. Sisko is the ultimate badass and best captain. Janeway is psychotic. Archer is a great flawed hero.

As for the series themselves - TOS was pretty good, not great, but pretty good. TNG was absolutely god-awful for two years, then it got better and better even though it often lapsed into "soap-box preachy" mode. DS9 is literally the greatest thing ever to happen to the Trekverse. More characters, better characterization, more storylines, more epic, etc. VOY was okay for what it was, popcorn entertainment, but if you look to closely, you could end up thinking it's awful. ENT was slow and plodding for two years, but still enjoyable, then it got good in Season Three and amazingly good in Season Four.

Even with all its ups and many downs over the decades, Trek always remained enjoyable and good entertainment, until that was all destroyed by Star Trek XI.

 

[sonak]

Kirk is the best captain, but not one I'd want to serve under, as he's too much of a gambler and cavalier about risks. Picard combines aloofness with pompous speechifying on points he's often wrong on anyway. Sisko was good before they made him a demigod, but he's hard to compare to the others since he didn't command a ship. Personality-wise, Janeway was often nice and caring toward her crew, but all over the place in her values and decision-making.


Archer came off as a random guy on the street who happened to be the captain. Like he was working at a Seven-Eleven, and won a "who wants to be a starship captain?" Lotto prize, or sweepstakes, or something. If that's what they were going for, then they succeeded.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

DS9 is not boring. Quite the contrary, really.

That's about all I have to say about this topic.

Oh damn, I can't help it...

Kirk is overrated. Picard often let his own code of morality get in the way of the greater good. Sisko is the ultimate badass and best captain. Janeway is psychotic. Archer is a great flawed hero.

Kirk is a fascinatingly complicated character, and I hope the movie character played by Chris Pine can evolve in that direction. Picard is a boring old granny. Sisko is the ultimate badass and best captain. Janeway was undermined by terrible writing and comes off as a psychotic. Archer needed a total rewrite, as did the show he was on, and Scott Bakula might have been the wrong actor for the part.

Archer came off as a random guy on the street who happened to be the captain. Like he was working at a Seven-Eleven, and won a "who wants to be a starship captain?" Lotto prize, or sweepstakes, or something. If that's what they were going for, then they succeeded.

The only thing wrong with this statement is that you misspelled 7-Eleven.

 

[Yevetha]

DS 9 is the best trek ever.

 

[Mage]

Sisko is the ultimate badass and best captain.

nuff said.

 

[Butters]

Sisko is the ultimate badass and best captain.

nuff said.

The way Sisko is written, I would agree, but the delivery by Avery destroys it for me. Almost to the extent that I can't watch DS9.

The best captain is the mature Kirk of the movie era.

 

[Paradon]

I think Kirk is too impulsive to be a great captain when compared to Sisko (which is the best captain ever) and Picard. Picard was, IMO, too politically correct which you see a lot of that in young people and Sisko has a mental problem (I think some kind of bipoloar) which was OK since it explained his behavior and give you a clue why an intelligent, preceptive man like him would act on an impulse from time to time, but not nearly as much as Kirk. i think Kirk may have inferiority complex which I think that's from which most of his problems stems. Janeway...I don't know about Janeway. She seems a little naive at time, like she converted to some form of warped-brand athiestsism. And, lastly, Archer is a little goofball, who sometime can't speak right for some reason. [laugh] Enough said!

 

[Paradon]

To be fair I think even a military geniuses also act on impulse. Hannibal let his personal feelings get the best of him after he lost a battle against Skipio Africanas and made a hole bunch of mistakes after that. Robert E. Lee, who is considered to be American greatest general, made a critical error in The Battle of Gettisburg by ordering his men to charge up the hill attacking the Union Fort rather than advancing on Washington D.C. trying to capture it and forcing the majority of the Union troops out so they can be ambushed. He also let his pride and personal feelings get the best of him rather than doing what's right. Of course, he took full blame and responsible after that. He got a lot of major critisms from his officers, who strongly quesiton his judgement on that day and strongly opposed it, before he order his troops to charge up the hill on that day, but he ignored the advice. You can tell the reality of war was hitting him pretty hard.

 

[Admiral Shran]

^ True. Lee did make a monumental mistake at Gettysburg because he let his pride and ego overtake sound tactical reasoning. But, at least he was man enough to take full responsibility for it - even going so far as to offer President Davis his resignation, only to have Davis refuse to accept it.

 

[Yevetha]

Sisko is the ultimate badass and best captain.

nuff said.

The way Sisko is written, I would agree, but the delivery by Avery destroys it for me. Almost to the extent that I can't watch DS9.

The best captain is the mature Kirk of the movie era.

Why?

I think he portrays Sisiko with skill and dignity.

 

[PathWithoutEnd]

Who is the best trek captain by what standards? To be more exact, according to what episodes?

All captains have embarassing failures/unethical actions on record - the kind of failures that would cost a real world captain/military leader his career, at the very least.
On the other hand, all captains have great achievements on record.

 

[RoJoHen]

nuff said.

The way Sisko is written, I would agree, but the delivery by Avery destroys it for me. Almost to the extent that I can't watch DS9.

The best captain is the mature Kirk of the movie era.

Why?

I think he portrays Sisiko with skill and dignity.

I like Avery Brooks most of the time, except when he needs to get emotional. He has a tendency to overact, which would be fine if he was in a play and needed to project his performance to the audience. Sometime I think he forgot that he had a camera just a few feet away from his face.

 

[Paradon]

Maybe it's difficult to understand how bipolar people think! [laugh]

 

[Butters]

The way Sisko is written, I would agree, but the delivery by Avery destroys it for me. Almost to the extent that I can't watch DS9.

The best captain is the mature Kirk of the movie era.

Why?

I think he portrays Sisiko with skill and dignity.

I like Avery Brooks most of the time, except when he needs to get emotional. He has a tendency to overact, which would be fine if he was in a play and needed to project his performance to the audience. Sometime I think he forgot that he had a camera just a few feet away from his face.

Something like this. I'm not articulate enough to describe what I don't like about a particular performance/performer. Only that with sisko, I mostly feel like I'm watching an actor and not an act. Had a similar thing with B5 Sinclair at the start but more inclined to see past it, unlike Buffy's Willow, how does she still get work?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Yep, Brooks is a bit stagey for my tastes, too. I've often wondered how Sisko would come across if played by Tony Todd. He would be just as big a badass because the badassery was written into the script, but he would also have a calm, reflective and more approachable side. I think Todd would have been better as the moral center to the series.

You can play a similar game flipping Marc Alaimo and Andrew Robinson's roles as Dukat and Garak. We'd have a scarier, more competent and less self-deceiving Dukat and a sexier, creepier Garak. Still interesting, but there would have to be changes. Robinson's Dukat would never fall for that paghwraith BS, and the scenes with Garak and Bashir might be so sexually charged they'd be unwatchable (even by me, which is saying something ). Wish they could run thru the same story again, with different actors.

 

[T'Girl]

Wish they could run thru the same story again, with different actors.

I wonder if they would have to pay the writers a second time? Might be able to save a boat load of money if they employed the exact same shooting script.

 

[RoJoHen]

unlike Buffy's Willow, how does she still get work?

She's funny, and people like her.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I don't understand the claim that Voyager had so much potential. It was the very premise of the show that ultimately sunk it.

 

[JeffM]

Kirk is overrated. Picard often let his own code of morality get in the way of the greater good. Sisko is the ultimate badass and best captain. Janeway is psychotic. Archer is a great flawed hero.

As for the series themselves - TOS was pretty good, not great, but pretty good. TNG was absolutely god-awful for two years, then it got better and better even though it often lapsed into "soap-box preachy" mode. DS9 is literally the greatest thing ever to happen to the Trekverse. More characters, better characterization, more storylines, more epic, etc. VOY was okay for what it was, popcorn entertainment, but if you look to closely, you could end up thinking it's awful. ENT was slow and plodding for two years, but still enjoyable, then it got good in Season Three and amazingly good in Season Four.

Even with all its ups and many downs over the decades, Trek always remained enjoyable and good entertainment, until that was all destroyed by Star Trek XI.

I pretty much agree with everything written here, with the exception of the Kirk and Sisko comments.

Nice summary of Trek.