Who is your least liked Captain, and why?

[indolover]

For me, it's probably Kirk. He was too shallowly developed, and apart from his charisma, using wits/unorthodox means to get out of situations, and being a ladies man, he had no other depth to him. Picard and Sisko had episodes that featured their families, hobbies, love interests/girlfriends/wives, etc. But never one for Kirk.

I think Kirk was also not as well acted as Picard and Sisko. Which Kirk scene was ever as powerful as "And I will make them pay for what they've done!" or Benny Russell's breakdown?

 

[Gul Re'jal]

I think I'd say Archer. It's not even a matter that I didn't like Archer, because I did. I just didn't like the whole ENT series (ironically, Archer was one of few things I did like in ENT).

 

[Alienesse]

I agree. Archer, because he didn't know what he was doing half the time and struck me as unacceptably naïve. To give one small example, I remember this episode (I think it was "Singularity") where he and Malcom had a telling conversation. Malcolm had been working on a new tactical program meant to ensure a more efficient reaction of the crew and ship in case of an attack and he wanted to run his ideas by the captain. He told him about some of the commands involved, among which the famous “battle stations”. Archer’s reply was: “Don’t call it battle stations, think of something less aggressive.” Well, maybe they should have tied a pink bow around the Enterprise and called it a day.

To me that's a really stupid approach of space travel. We know that the Enterprise is on a peaceful mission of exploration, we’ve gathered that from the previous ST installments. However, it is utterly naïve to think that if you venture out into space, obviously uncharted territory for humans in the “Enterprise” era, your peaceful mission will go undisturbed and you’re not going to encounter any hostile characters. Adversity is to be expected when you venture into the unknown. Probably any girl scout knows that. Being realistic about threats and taking precautions does not imply that you’re thinking in aggressive terms. Besides, aren’t these people trained as military officers basically? They have ranks, uniforms and a chain of command that is reminiscent of a military organization. I don’t suppose they learned to handle phasers and shoot torpedoes to go prancing in the fields. There’s nothing aggressive about defending yourself, or at least it’s a sort of aggression that has to be accepted as part of the bargain. So, really, something “less aggressive” than “battle stations” does not seem like such a practical way of going about space exploration, C'pn Archer. Especially after already having had your ass kicked by the Suliban.

 

[RegFan]

Kirk, for reasons stated in the first post. I'm not too fond of Janeway either because of her voice and inconsistent writing.

 

[siskokid888]

Janeway. She is just a zero. Not the actress' fault, of course, the writers didn't know what to do with the character. What makes the Trek captains great are the character flaws each has and how they overcome them - Kirk is self-righteous, Picard is arrogant, Sisko has a bad temper, Archer is naive. What was Janeway? The least developed and least "human" character of them all.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I'd have to say Archer. Janeway had horrible writing but a good actress for the role, Archer had horrible writing and was horribly miscast (I think Scott Bakula is a good actor, but was terrible as Archer).

 

[Mr Silver]

I liked all the Captain's...

The obvious answer would be Archer, because its easy to say, since many Trek fans didn't get into ENT as much as others (like myself did), first and foremost, Scott Bakula is an excellent actor, nobody can deny that, in the late 80's early 90's he was the face of Sci-Fi over on NBC (Quantum Leap, which he won a Golden Globe for and four Emmy nominations) Bakula excels at character acting and has a background in Broadway Productions and the Theatre..anyway

What most people don't like about Archer is the "Untrekness" of the character..bear in mind that ENT is set in the 22nd Century, before anything outside of our Solar System has been explored and Earth is still ironing out issues left over from WW III...Archer is eager to explore, he has no real experience with Alien Cultures (except the Vulcans), his ship hasn't been fully outfitted, his "Vulcan" initially annoys him and acts as a chaperone and his senior officers are just as inexperienced...in fact the Doctor knows more about Alien Cultures than probably the entirety of Starfleet Command

What Archer "Characterises" is a completely new form of "Captaincy", so far removed from the likes of Kirk, Picard, Sisko and Janeway, that its enough to turn core Trek fans away..however if you give the show a chance and watch the development of Archer, you'll see familiar qualities start to emerge and in the continunity of Trek, these qualities became the model of a Starfleet Officer later in the series..

Essentially what i'm getting at is I like Archer, he brought a sense of realism to the show that wasn't so far removed from 21st Century Culture (do you really think that 150 years later and a 3rd World War, we're gonna be perfect?!)

As for least favourite Captain, i'm going to have to say TOS Kirk....let me explain, In TOS, Kirk is the emobodiement of 1960's Television "Hero", he's a shallow, one sided and predictable character, however that being said, the TOS Movies Kirk, became one of my favourites, beginning in 1979 and refined greatly in 1982 a new Kirk emerged, one with so much depth it was hard to believe that this was the same character that graced the screens of a 1960's production, we found out numerous things about Kirk,

*He persuaded Starfleet to give him back the Enterprise and in the process shatter the dreams of its newest Captain

*He cheated in a Major Exam

*He has a Son, who he has never been involved with

*He doesn't get on well with "Ageing"

*Him and Spock are much closer than could be portrayed in a "campy" 1960's tv show (no slash comments, i'm talking about friendship here, brothers from other mothers and all that)

*He defies orders, steals the Enterprise and rescues Spock

*He essentially murders a Klingon crew (although this was a last resort, kill or be killed situation, he even offered to rescue their Captain)

*His ongoing hatred of Klingons and what they stand for, even showing reluctance to be a major part of a crucial diplomatic mission(as a result of them murdering his son in cold blood)

Things like this added so much more depth to the Kirk character, its amazing looking back at TOS and thinking "how did this guy become that guy?!"

 

[C.E. Evans]

Captain J.T. Esteban of the late Starship Grissom. Had more book sense than common sense, IMO, and wasn't one to think quickly on his feet.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Captain Jellico.

Actor did a great job - I wanted to kick his ass!

 

[BillJ]

For me, it's probably Kirk. He was too shallowly developed, and apart from his charisma, using wits/unorthodox means to get out of situations, and being a ladies man, he had no other depth to him. Picard and Sisko had episodes that featured their families, hobbies, love interests/girlfriends/wives, etc. But never one for Kirk.

I think Kirk was also not as well acted as Picard and Sisko. Which Kirk scene was ever as powerful as "And I will make them pay for what they've done!" or Benny Russell's breakdown?

I've never understood these criticisms of James Kirk. We saw him develop a deep relationship with Edith Keeler in City on the Edge of Forever, had to kill his best friend in Where No Man Has Gone Before and had to sacrifice his principles to save his ship in Mudd's Women.

"We're killers. But we're not going to kill... today."
"Let's get the hell out of here."
"Will you try for one moment to feel? At least act like you've got a heart. We're talking about Gary."
"Come along Dr. Daystrom... M5 is out of a job."

People seem to have this grudge against Kirk/William Shatner because Star Trek was an entirely different beast, made in a different time from Modern Trek. And it had a hell of a lot more interference during production than either The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine.

 

[flemm]

People seem to have this grudge against Kirk/William Shatner because Star Trek was an entirely different beast, made in a different time from Modern Trek. And it had a hell of a lot more interference during production than either The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine.

I don't know, that might be true for some, but there is also a lot of built-up reverence for the character that nothing we see on screen really justifies. Personally I've always enjoyed Spock and Bones more than Kirk, both the characters and the actors' performances.

My least favorite Captain would easily be either Janeway or Archer, though, since I never got into either Voyager or ENT.

 

[sonak]

First to C.E. Evans-you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Esteban was a fantastic captain who got caught in a bad situation, in command of a virtually unarmed science vessel and facing a surprise attack from a Bird of Prey.



In answer to the topic, I'm with most of the group here-Jonathan Archer is the worst Captain, for his petulance, incompetence, immaturity, and for his actions in "Dear Doctor."

 

[PsychoPere]

For me, it's probably Kirk. He was too shallowly developed, and apart from his charisma, using wits/unorthodox means to get out of situations, and being a ladies man, he had no other depth to him. Picard and Sisko had episodes that featured their families, hobbies, love interests/girlfriends/wives, etc. But never one for Kirk.
I think Kirk was also not as well acted as Picard and Sisko. Which Kirk scene was ever as powerful as "And I will make them pay for what they've done!" or Benny Russell's breakdown?

I've never understood these criticisms of James Kirk. We saw him develop a deep relationship with Edith Keeler in City on the Edge of Forever, had to kill his best friend in Where No Man Has Gone Before and had to sacrifice his principles to save his ship in Mudd's Women.

Not to mention that we do get to know some of Kirk's history throughout TOS, in great episodes such as "Obsession" and "The Conscience of the King."

I also don't understand this idea that we don't see things such as "families, hobbies, love interests/girlfriends/wives, etc." for Kirk.

Examples based solely on the tv series, excluding movies:

Family: There are references in episodes such as "Spectre of the Gun," "The Conscience of the King," "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" and in "Operation -- Annihilate!" we meet Kirk's sister-in-law and nephew.

Hobbies: We hear about his strong focus on academics while at the Academy in episodes such as "Patterns of Force," "Whom Gods Destroy," and "What Are Little Girls Made Of?". He had an interest in history (multiple possible examples) and archaeological medicine. From numerous occasions, we saw Kirk playing 3D chess. I think it likely he also had an interest in engineering matters, considering the number of times in which we see him aiding in repairs that was uncommon for later captains (for example, "Court Martial" and "The Doomsday Machine," constructing the cannon in "Arena"). He was an accomplished tactician, again likely more so than any of the other series captains.

Love Interests: The aforementioned Edith Keeler. The "blonde lab tech" from the Academy, mentioned in "Where No Man Has Gone Before." Janice Lester while at the Academy ("Turnabout Intruder"). Ruth, a construct of whom was seen in "Shore Leave." Miramanee from "The Paradise Syndrome."

 

[Mr Silver]

In answer to the topic, I'm with most of the group here-Jonathan Archer is the worst Captain, for his petulance, incompetence, immaturity, and for his actions in "Dear Doctor."

Sorry, but what Archer did in "Dear Doctor" took a lot of balls, he followed the advice and evidence provided by his CMO and made a decision based on fairness, even though it was extremely hard for him, he decided to leave the Planet to its natural process, sure he could have helped with the cure, but he chose not to get involved with the affairs of other worlds (something which laid out the foundations for the Prime Directive)

This is more or less something which the likes of Picard (one of, if not the most popular Captains) would do, so I hardly call it immature, incompetent and petulant

 

[Piper]

Janeway. She makes far too many questionable decisions to inspire confidence.

 

[C.E. Evans]

First to C.E. Evans-you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Esteban was a fantastic captain who got caught in a bad situation, in command of a virtually unarmed science vessel and facing a surprise attack from a Bird of Prey.

A fantastic captain? Esteban? That is one of the funniest things I've ever heard on a Trek website. Kudos!

 

[JohnChod]

Tough call.

Janeway appeared to be too inconsistent. I don't blame Mulgrew for that. She had to work with what was written.

Archer was just too dumb. Again, not Bakula's fault - although I do agree that he was miscast. The writers were trying to put across a naivete that would appear to be fitting for people just beginning to experience the wonders of space travel. Unfortunately, they didn't know how to do that. They substituted stupidity, which was apparently much easier for them to write. I love the comment above regarding battle stations. Although I don't recall it specifically, it's a good example of Archer spouting nonsense that was supposed to be indicative of naivete.

However, I must give my vote to Janeway because I went through the entire seven year run of Voyager. I gave up on Enterprise after one and one-half seasons, so the worst I can do to Archer is give him an incomplete.

 

[Mr Silver]

First to C.E. Evans-you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Esteban was a fantastic captain who got caught in a bad situation, in command of a virtually unarmed science vessel and facing a surprise attack from a Bird of Prey.

That is one of the funniest things I've ever heard on a Trek website. Kudos!

In hindsight though, Esteban was actually terrible, even if he had a brand spanking new Excelsior Class Starship, he probably would have got his ship destroyed, nonetheless his command style prior to his demise was questionable

"Regulations state...blah blah blah"

"Ooh Saavik, we're picking up Radiation from the lifeform, i'm just going to leave orbit in case it breaches the atmosphere and effects my ship"

He wasn't willing to take any risks, even though he was assigned to study the Planet with David Marcus, after all would a Science Ship not be equipped with a de-con chamber and/or an isolation bay?? The guy worried too much about Radiation

 

[C.E. Evans]

First to C.E. Evans-you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Esteban was a fantastic captain who got caught in a bad situation, in command of a virtually unarmed science vessel and facing a surprise attack from a Bird of Prey.

That is one of the funniest things I've ever heard on a Trek website. Kudos!

In hindsight though, Esteban was actually terrible, even if he had a brand spanking new Excelsior Class Starship, he probably would have got his ship destroyed, nonetheless his command style prior to his demise was questionable

"Regulations state...blah blah blah"

"Ooh Saavik, we're picking up Radiation from the lifeform, i'm just going to leave orbit in case it breaches the atmosphere and effects my ship"

He wasn't willing to take any risks, even though he was assigned to study the Planet with David Marcus, after all would a Science Ship not be equipped with a de-con chamber and/or an isolation bay?? The guy worried too much about Radiation

Yeah, Esteban struck me as someone who hid behind rules and regulations, and not really one to deviate from that unless he was talked into it.

 

[sonak]

In answer to the topic, I'm with most of the group here-Jonathan Archer is the worst Captain, for his petulance, incompetence, immaturity, and for his actions in "Dear Doctor."

Sorry, but what Archer did in "Dear Doctor" took a lot of balls, he followed the advice and evidence provided by his CMO and made a decision based on fairness, even though it was extremely hard for him, he decided to leave the Planet to its natural process, sure he could have helped with the cure, but he chose not to get involved with the affairs of other worlds (something which laid out the foundations for the Prime Directive)




This is more or less something which the likes of Picard (one of, if not the most popular Captains) would do, so I hardly call it immature, incompetent and petulant

This is wrong on every level, but I'm tired of discussion on this issue. It's sad how many Star Trek fans agree with the garbage and pseudoscience in this episode. If you read or watch "Sci-Fi Debris" reviews, just check out his review for "Dear Doctor," as he sums it up better than I can.



As for the awesome Captain Esteban, where you and C.E. see "hiding behind regulations," I see caution, wisdom, and prudence.


(And Picard is actually my second-least liked captain, precisely because he spouted similar nonsense-reasoning as was in that infamous episode at various times throughout the series , so you're right that he might have made a similar decision Also Picard was wrong in St: Insurrection as well.)


My ranking of the regular captains goes:

1. Kirk
2. Sisko
3. Janeway
4. Picard
5. Archer