TOS- Overrated?

[sonak]

by the way, "Insurrection" was one of Picard's WORST moments, not his best, but that's for another thread.

Whether or not you agree with what Picard did is beside the point because he at least had the courage to follow his principles and stand up for what he believed in. I'll confess that had I been in Picard's position, I may have reluctantly followed orders and removed the Baku because billions of people could have been helped with the healing properties of the Baku homeworld. The rights of billions trumps the rights of 600 in my book, especially considering that the Baku were not going to be killed, just relocated to a different planet. Nevertheless, I admire Picard for doing what he believed was right by standing up for the rights of the minority. That takes a lot of courage.

why is standing up for principles a good thing if they're BAD principles?


a lot of folks in history have stood up for what they thought was right, when what they were "standing up for" would be considered monstrous today.


I don't admire just anybody who stands up for their convictions-they should at least be GOOD convictions

 

[horatio83]

Since when is not being an imperial power that forces its will upon other species a bad principle?
The Prime Directive can often be pretty ambiguous but INS was not an ambivalent PD case, it was crystal clear. It might have been a mediocre movie but Picard quitting Starfleet in order to save Starfleet always gives me the goose bumps precisely because, as Screed as pointed it out, it is not something a lot of us would do if we were in Picard´s shoes.

 

[Mark 2000]

Are you also saying that you think Kirk is more timeless than Picard?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Kirk is every bit as deep as Picard and more so. We seen the man grapple with every issue, from starting a war to loosing friends. Mid life crises. Dealing with his own prejudices. Choosing his ship and a family. Loosing his ship to an underling.

On top of that Kirk was much more human and likable person. He was warm to the crew and he wasn't afraid of women. Not just that he was a sex machine - because most of the Kirk in love moments are honestly insufferable - but he acknowledged sex. Picard could even go to Risa and get laid. The most passionate thing he ever did was decide to go back in time and screw his college best friend. Otherwise he was hiding from girls like a middle school kid. That's really just pathetic.

I think Riker removed a lot of the labito and enjoyment of adventure from Picard. Picard and Kirk are both intellectuals (remember, Kirk was an uptight book worm in the academy), but Kirk is able to be both intellectual and passionate. When Kirk sits down with a book he pours some hard alcohol. Picard is a Frenchman and yet he just sips tea. I think that says a lot.

 

[horatio83]

Judging a fictional character by how much booze he consumes and how often he gets laid does indeed say a lot.

 

[plynch]

Kirk, so far, is more timeless. When I walk through the WalMart card aisle, there are talking greeting cards of Kirk and Spock. No Picard. The pop culture gift catalogs this time of year have a page or two of classic Trek crap to buy. My daughter even bought me a metal lunchbox of the TOS gang. TNG is not there, unless Picard face is on one t-shirt along with all other captains. Other than that, it's TOS.

It's too soon too call Kirk more timeless, but the results so far after 17 years of TNG being off the air seem to favor him.

 

[WarsTrek1993]

by the way, "Insurrection" was one of Picard's WORST moments, not his best, but that's for another thread.

Whether or not you agree with what Picard did is beside the point because he at least had the courage to follow his principles and stand up for what he believed in. I'll confess that had I been in Picard's position, I may have reluctantly followed orders and removed the Baku because billions of people could have been helped with the healing properties of the Baku homeworld. The rights of billions trumps the rights of 600 in my book, especially considering that the Baku were not going to be killed, just relocated to a different planet. Nevertheless, I admire Picard for doing what he believed was right by standing up for the rights of the minority. That takes a lot of courage.

Kinda makes you question Spock: Do the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few?

 

[xortex]

In the offspring, Picard battles that Admiral over Lal's (Data's daughter) rights to decide her own fate but when push came to shove he caved in like a house of cards. He's all talk. I guess getting stabbed in the heart will do that to you and make you second guess yourself.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Is there anyone else that feels the same way as I do?

No. My favorite Star Trek episodes come from TOS. But TNG has a lot of really good episodes too.

 

[xortex]

Voyager has even better stories so it's not the quality of stories that makes TOS so great, it's the character of the production.

 

[sonak]

Kirk, so far, is more timeless. When I walk through the WalMart card aisle, there are talking greeting cards of Kirk and Spock. No Picard. The pop culture gift catalogs this time of year have a page or two of classic Trek crap to buy. My daughter even bought me a metal lunchbox of the TOS gang. TNG is not there, unless Picard face is on one t-shirt along with all other captains. Other than that, it's TOS.

It's too soon too call Kirk more timeless, but the results so far after 17 years of TNG being off the air seem to favor him.

um, you realize that there's an ongoing popular series of movies with versions of those TOS characters right now, while the TNG guys haven't been in theaters in almost a decade, right?

I mean, I agree with your overall point, but it's not exactly a fair comparison. If there was an ongoing popular TNG reboot there'd probably be Picard stuff all over the place.

 

[AdmiralScreed]

by the way, "Insurrection" was one of Picard's WORST moments, not his best, but that's for another thread.

Whether or not you agree with what Picard did is beside the point because he at least had the courage to follow his principles and stand up for what he believed in. I'll confess that had I been in Picard's position, I may have reluctantly followed orders and removed the Baku because billions of people could have been helped with the healing properties of the Baku homeworld. The rights of billions trumps the rights of 600 in my book, especially considering that the Baku were not going to be killed, just relocated to a different planet. Nevertheless, I admire Picard for doing what he believed was right by standing up for the rights of the minority. That takes a lot of courage.

why is standing up for principles a good thing if they're BAD principles?


a lot of folks in history have stood up for what they thought was right, when what they were "standing up for" would be considered monstrous today.


I don't admire just anybody who stands up for their convictions-they should at least be GOOD convictions

It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. I honestly don't believe that there is a right answer to the moral dilemma presented in Insurrection. Both sides of the argument have their pros and cons. It's ignorant to say that one side is completely right and the other is completely wrong.

 

[sonak]

Whether or not you agree with what Picard did is beside the point because he at least had the courage to follow his principles and stand up for what he believed in. I'll confess that had I been in Picard's position, I may have reluctantly followed orders and removed the Baku because billions of people could have been helped with the healing properties of the Baku homeworld. The rights of billions trumps the rights of 600 in my book, especially considering that the Baku were not going to be killed, just relocated to a different planet. Nevertheless, I admire Picard for doing what he believed was right by standing up for the rights of the minority. That takes a lot of courage.

why is standing up for principles a good thing if they're BAD principles?


a lot of folks in history have stood up for what they thought was right, when what they were "standing up for" would be considered monstrous today.


I don't admire just anybody who stands up for their convictions-they should at least be GOOD convictions

It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. I honestly don't believe that there is a right answer to the moral dilemma presented in Insurrection. Both sides of the argument have their pros and cons. It's ignorant to say that one side is completely right and the other is completely wrong.

well I guess I'm "ignorant" then, because I think Picard and the Baku are wrong.


but this really isn't the thread for this, sorry to have brought it up.

 

[AdmiralScreed]

why is standing up for principles a good thing if they're BAD principles?


a lot of folks in history have stood up for what they thought was right, when what they were "standing up for" would be considered monstrous today.


I don't admire just anybody who stands up for their convictions-they should at least be GOOD convictions

It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. I honestly don't believe that there is a right answer to the moral dilemma presented in Insurrection. Both sides of the argument have their pros and cons. It's ignorant to say that one side is completely right and the other is completely wrong.

well I guess I'm "ignorant" then, because I think Picard and the Baku are wrong.


but this really isn't the thread for this, sorry to have brought it up.

No worries. This is a good discussion topic, even if it's going off on a tangent.

 

[BillJ]

I nonetheless consider Picard, to pick your very words, to be the "better hero" because he dared to confront superior officers and risk his career in order to fight for the often endangered principles of Starfleet.

Where was Picard's vaunted morality in episodes like Homeward and Journey's End?

Jean-Luc Picard had some memorable moments, but the character was mostly a subdued sort. While Jim Kirk was, to quote a character from another series, "a big, damn hero". Jim Kirk touches deep down in a hidden part of our psyche and tickles us in a way Picard never could. Who doesn't want to punch the bad guy, save the day and get the girl? Or guy (depending on sexual preference and gender)?

Who wouldn't want to challenge a god-like entity to a duel?

Who wouldn't want to tell a god of myth to go away, we don't need you anymore?

Who wouldn't want to single-handedly bring down a Nazi regime?

TOS has been remembered so fondly, for so long because it was fun in a way that TNG could never be. A huge part of that is the character of Jim Kirk and how he was portrayed by Bill Shatner.

The producers of TOS realized that they were there to entertain people first and foremost. That was the point of doing TV for them. The producers of TNG seemed to buy into the hype that they were there to do God's work, that they were above merely being entertainment. And to be honest, in the long run it hurt the product.

 

[horatio83]

Heroes aren't people who fight the dragon and rescue the princess. Once you reach the age of reason you normally realize that real heroism has nothing to do with such fairy tales, that real heroism has more to do with discipline, courage and the strength to look beyond your petty self and care for the common good, all traits that are to be found in Picard. As I already said in another thread, the issue is indeed about discipline vs. doing whatever the hell you want.

Roddenberry considered TOS to be a first attempt and TNG the real thing for a good reason. I frankly don't understand why people watch Trek if they have a problem with Gene's vision.

 

[BillJ]

As I already said in another thread, the issue is indeed about discipline vs. doing whatever the hell you want.

I can tell one of three things is happening with you just by reading this quote:

A) You've never watched TOS.
B) You watched but you obviously weren't paying attention.
C) You're simply trolling.

You can slay the dragon, rescue the princess and still be a man of principle. And if the character can do all those things then he's going to be far more entertaining than a character that simply sits around pontificating. I don't know about you, but I watch TV to be entertained.

Roddenberry considered TOS to be a first attempt and TNG the real thing for a good reason. I frankly don't understand why people watch Trek if they have a problem with Gene's vision.

As anyone will tell you, Gene Roddenberry of 1966 was far different than Gene Roddenberry of 1987. Gene Roddenberry of 1987 bought into the hype that Star Trek was suppose to be some type of roadmap to the future while Gene Roddenberry of 1966 knew he could use the sci-fi trappings to tell stories he couldn't do otherwise. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how Gene Roddenberry of 1987, who had control of TNG and no network interference was able to tell stories that were less relevant to society than Gene Roddenberry of 1966 who had all those roadblocks?

I'm sure that while Gene Roddenberry of 1987 may have tried to distance himself from Star Trek, he was still cashing the checks for the work of Gene Roddenberry of 1966 and hiring the people that made TOS successful.

 

[horatio83]

This is my Kirk but at the moment we talk about your Kirk. You clearly stated that the great thing about Kirk is that he embodies your juvenile hero picture. Not my problem that you haven't grown up yet, not my problem that your anti-intellectualism makes you dislike Picard.

 

[BillJ]

This is my Kirk but at the moment we talk about your Kirk. You clearly stated that the great thing about Kirk is that he embodies your juvenile hero picture. Not my problem that you haven't grown up yet.

So what? There's something to be said for hanging onto those things that you valued in your youth...

There is a simple reason why JJ Abrams decided that a motion picture that featured the characters from TV series that failed forty years ago would succeed over the characters from a TV series that generated 20 million viewers a week.

He knew which ones were the more timeless characters and which ones movie goers would connect with.

 

[horatio83]

I love how TNG bashing always boils down to plain and simple anti-intellectualism. Picard is too preachy and disciplined, Picard does not drink booze, punch the baddy and get the girl, Picard does not reactivate those childhood fantasies ...

 

[BillJ]

This is my Kirk but at the moment we talk about your Kirk. You clearly stated that the great thing about Kirk is that he embodies your juvenile hero picture. Not my problem that you haven't grown up yet, not my problem that your anti-intellectualism makes you dislike Picard.

No matter how many insults you toss, the simple fact of the matter is that Kirk is more popular than Picard. That really must hurt someone like you, to know that no matter how hard you try to wish it away, no matter how many times people like you will go on and on about TNG's viewership totals. That your captain and your series are nothing without TOS. That you owe its very existence to us anti-intellectual types whose devotion to TOS is the only thing that made TNG possible...