Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flagship

[Loneknight]

Re: Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flag

Fraid not, Red Ranger. The very Q example you cite is the evidence. Retcon or not, by the time Picard says "We don't nee3d your help!" it conclusively proves that he is an arrogant fool. Miscalculation and mistake I can accept from most anyone. It happens. Personal character flaw arrogantly expressed in the face of direct evidence of as superior godlike being is STUPID.

At least Kirk had a reason to ask "why does godf need a starship? when confronted with a similart threat situation to make the correct deduction.

Picard committed the worst sin in my book, that a commander can commit. he was stupid: not once but many times.

Buy time for Humanity? Scoff. Q wanted to play with the mouse and hear him squeak. Nothing Pocards said or did mattered in the Farpoint trial.

Tasha Yar was lost due to criminal stupidity. For that I blame Riker, the dufus, for failing to run a scan on the creature and engage it in talk. he should have spoken first, not Yar. Leaders lead, not stand around and look stupidly on as events cascade around them.

At least when Kirk lost men it was for a reason. Even Archer and Janeway lost people for reasons. Picard? Oh well, somebody died when I sent them into Cardassian space on a suiciode mission. Hohum.

Dreadful character writing and acting, simply dreadful.

Wait...so you're saying that Picard was an arrogant fool because....why? Because he told Q they didn't need his help?

I suppose the whole purpose of exploration would be thrown out the window, then. Why have a ship to take you light-year to light-year? Just have Q snap his fingers and you're halfway across the quadrant! New species? Let's see what Q has to say about them! Arrogant, insipid, droveling pre-evolved beings? Hell, we wouldn't want to deal with them, let's move on (even though that's what he said about the last twenty species we were about to contact)!

Perhaps Picard refused Q's help because he, as a representative of the human race and one for believing in the ideals of Starfleet (you know, that whole 'to seek out new life, boldly go, etc' shtick?), wanted to move forward into the galaxy and experience new things for themselves...I mean, heaven forbid we should ever do anything for ourselves, right? Picard only asked for Q's help because, after being unwillingly thrown into the delta quadrant and running into the Borg, Picard had no choice but to say, "Q, I need your help!" Again, let me repeat: unwillingly thrown into the Delta Quadrant. Did Picard ask Q to that? No. Q did it on his own, thus forcing Picard into a situation. That's arrogance?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Tasha decide to try and walk past Armus on her own initiative? It's not like Picard was telling her exactly where to go, nor did Riker have any immediate control over her. People lose their lives in the line of duty all the time on the show...why single out Yar? What about that boy's mother in "The Bonding"? Yep, that was Picard's fault all-right! Don't see how, but it was his fault! He was trying to help the boy by getting him away from that alien, came to terms with Wesley about his father's death which helped the other boy get over it, but it was still Picard's fault. Right?

Seems like you're of the absolute that no matter what proof is presented, you will not hear anything cited against your arguments. Most of your reasons are kind of vague, as if you're just citing example but not backing the rest of it up with clear, concrete evidence to support it.

"At least when Kirk lost men it was for a reason. Even Archer and Janeway lost people for reasons. Picard? Oh well, somebody died when I sent them into Cardassian space on a suiciode mission. Hohum."

What? Again....Tasha's funeral, dealing with the boy in "The Bonding", Kirk's death in Generations...and wasn't the focus of that "Cardassion mission" episode on the crewmates, instead of Picard?

 

[bintak]

Re: Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flag

Dreadful character writing and acting, simply dreadful.

Wait...so you're saying that Picard was an arrogant fool because....why? Because he told Q they didn't need his help? [/quote]

Actually that is but one example of his arrogance.

I suppose the whole purpose of exploration would be thrown out the window, then. Why have a ship to take you light-year to light-year? Just have Q snap his fingers and you're halfway across the quadrant! New species? Let's see what Q has to say about them! Arrogant, insipid, droveling pre-evolved beings? Hell, we wouldn't want to deal with them, let's move on (even though that's what he said about the last twenty species we were about to contact)!

What has that to do with Picard's lack of judgment or non-relevence?

Perhaps Picard refused Q's help because he, as a representative of the human race and one for believing in the ideals of Starfleet (you know, that whole 'to seek out new life, boldly go, etc' shtick?), wanted to move forward into the galaxy and experience new things for themselves...I mean, heaven forbid we should ever do anything for ourselves, right? Picard only asked for Q's help because, after being unwillingly thrown into the delta quadrant and running into the Borg, Picard had no choice but to say, "Q, I need your help!" Again, let me repeat: unwillingly thrown into the Delta Quadrant. Did Picard ask Q to that? No. Q did it on his own, thus forcing Picard into a situation. That's arrogance?

Again you miss the point. You also try to reframe the question to suit your preconceived notion of a correct answer? The question was and is, "did Picard show good judgment in insulting a very powerful being who by all observed experience to this point was certainly capable of responding to a puppy's perceived arrogant challenge with a swat?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Tasha decide to try and walk past Armus on her own initiative? It's not like Picard was telling her exactly where to go, nor did Riker have any immediate control over her. People lose their lives in the line of duty all the time on the show...why single out Yar? What about that boy's mother in "The Bonding"? Yep, that was Picard's fault all-right! Don't see how, but it was his fault! He was trying to help the boy by getting him away from that alien, came to terms with Wesley about his father's death which helped the other boy get over it, but it was still Picard's fault. Right?

1. Riker was leader of the away team. He didn't control his troops. It was he who blew it on the ground. Picard blew it in orbit, when he sent them down there without doing a site survey from orbit and analyzing Armus and then assigning an incompetent to lead the rescue. Later he buingled the negotiations with the inkblot, and needlessly got Ryker absorbed. It took a deux ex machina writer's trick to get Ryker back. I would have left that Ruben in the inkblot and extracted my other people. Improve the Human gene pool.
2. What does your second example show that is relevent? That Worf also didn't control his troops? That Picard got lucky that he was dealing with another superpowerful alien who was much smarter than he was? You know that alien could have taken the boy and swatted the ship, right?

Seems like you're of the absolute that no matter what proof is presented, you will not hear anything cited against your arguments. Most of your reasons are kind of vague, as if you're just citing example but not backing the rest of it up with clear, concrete evidence to support it.

That is called a strawman argument combined with a red herring. I gave precise examples and explanations. Do much better.

"At least when Kirk lost men it was for a reason. Even Archer and Janeway lost people for reasons. Picard? Oh well, somebody died when I sent them into Cardassian space on a suiciode mission. Hohum."

What? Again....Tasha's funeral, dealing with the boy in "The Bonding", Kirk's death in Generations...and wasn't the focus of that "Cardassion mission" episode on the crewmates, instead of Picard?

Picard was the one who ordered the wastage. The focus of the argument is on his sheer incompetence in sending a total neophyte into a situation that demanded a trained expert operator.

The character studies you bring up to deflect away from Picard's bungling in picking the wrong person for the job at hand is another red herring.

 

[Iamnotspock]

Re: Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flag

Sheesh, Bintak. Did Patrick Stewart turn down your request for a signed autograph?

 

[Red Ranger]

Re: Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flag

1. Tomalak is not the sharpest Romulan knife in the drawer.
2. Took him a long time to figure out that Shinzon was a menace and he had three opportunities to kill or incapacitate that villain in one on one and group encounters before he, Picard, finally figured it out. He, Picard, wasted and failed miserably all three subsequent times. I would attribute that to horrible writing of a bad Nemesuis script, but still its filmed Trek history.
3. How many Stargazer contacts were successful? Not many. See 4.
4. Didn't he fall into Ferengi traps repeatedly? TWICE involving the Stargazer?
5. How many tactical exercises did he bungle? (Peak Performance)
6. Got his security officer killed, too, in a wasteful useless manner.
7. Couldn't handle Q either. A certain captain was able to handle Organians, Trelaine, First Federation, Metrons, etc. If Janeway can handle Q, what is Picard;s excuse?
8. Allowed his Borg mania and general ineptitude to take a simple interception and Borg stomping in First Contact and spool it out into a full length movie. not to mention that he let his arrogance get the Fe34deration to show up on the Biorg radar in the first place, (So much for his diplomacy, and his ability to handle alien contact situations. Kirk read his opponents and adapted his approach to the circumstance as he found it. Picard never lost his egotism and unwonted arrogance and got MILLIONS killed, or do you think ticking off Q was the right thing to do? I suggest that part of the reason I hated him in Nemesis was his self righteoyus arrogance blinded him to what was the chief character flaw and tactical exploit against Shinzon. And Kirk was supposed to be the egotist!

Well, I have a preference for Sisko, and a acceptance of Janeway and even the inept Archer, but how do you explain the bumbling Picard?

As I said, I'm open to some positive feedback, but until I see that something, I'll have to stick with the Emissary, the Xindi Killer, and the coffee drinker. Picard doesn't even make the grade.

Bintak:

Don't think you're as open-minded as you think you are. But more on that later. To address your points:

1. Maybe so, I'll grant you that.

2. Uh, guess you forgot that starship captains don't go around killing at the drop of a hat. Look at your other idols and you'll see that in most circumstances, they also don't go half-cocked and just kill with little provocation.

3 and 4. Off base. Only once did the Ferengi get the drop on Picard while he was in command of the Stargazer, and he then got the upper hand when he destroyed their ship using the Picard Maneuver. The other time, he was under the influence of the thought maker of Daimon Bok while he was in command of Enterprise.

5. I can think of many other tactical exercises the other captains messed up, too. Sisko underestimating the Jem'Hadar's ability to penetrate the Defiant's cloaking device in The Search. Archer getting his ass handed to him by the Andorians. Kirk letting Khan get the drop on him initially in TWOK. Janeway underestimating Species 8347. See? All commanders have successes and failures, no matter how good they are.

6. Yes, Tasha did die a senseless death, but how many redshirts died under Kirk's command? And how many other personnel died under the commands of Sisko, Janeway, and Archer? It happens.

7. Depends on what you mean by "handling Q." More often than not, Picard handled him just fine. He outsmarted him in his first two appearances, gaining time for humanity in Encounter at Farpoint, for example, and pushing him off the ship when he failed to tempt Riker into joining the Q in Hide and Q.

8. So many statements here to refute. Let's take the "Picard put humans on the Borg's radar." As I recall, due to a retcon in ENT, the Borg were already aware of humanity back in the 22nd century, and that led to their long-term interest in assimilating humanity. Also, guess you don't remember the TNG ep The Neutral Zone, which later on was established that those missing colonies were probably assimilated by the Borg. That happened before Picard arrogantly said to Q that his help wasn't required. And he was humble enough to admit he messed up to Q and said he needed him. Doubt Kirk would've done the same, although I do like him.

You see, your single-minded obsession with finding fault with Picard has blinded you to the errors of the other captains and magnified his mistakes in your eyes. They're all capable of making good and bad decisions. I could go on and on about the various follies of Kirk, Sisko, Janeway, and Archer, but I choose not to.

Oh, well! Bias is bias.

Red Ranger

Fraid not, Red Ranger. The very Q example you cite is the evidence. Retcon or not, by the time Picard says "We don't nee3d your help!" it conclusively proves that he is an arrogant fool. Miscalculation and mistake I can accept from most anyone. It happens. Personal character flaw arrogantly expressed in the face of direct evidence of as superior godlike being is STUPID.

At least Kirk had a reason to ask "why does godf need a starship? when confronted with a similart threat situation to make the correct deduction.

Picard committed the worst sin in my book, that a commander can commit. he was stupid: not once but many times.

Buy time for Humanity? Scoff. Q wanted to play with the mouse and hear him squeak. Nothing Pocards said or did mattered in the Farpoint trial.

Tasha Yar was lost due to criminal stupidity. For that I blame Riker, the dufus, for failing to run a scan on the creature and engage it in talk. he should have spoken first, not Yar. Leaders lead, not stand around and look stupidly on as events cascade around them.

At least when Kirk lost men it was for a reason. Even Archer and Janeway lost people for reasons. Picard? Oh well, somebody died when I sent them into Cardassian space on a suiciode mission. Hohum.

Dreadful character writing and acting, simply dreadful.

Bintak:

What you're forgetting is that Q wanted to become a member of the crew, which prompted Picard to say that they simply didn't trust him. This was based on their previous encounters, which gave Picard and his crew reason to distrust Q's motives.

Don't agree with your assessment one bit on Tasha's death, either. As we saw, at times Tasha could be undisciplined and take unnecessary risks, as she did while admirably trying to save a fellow crew-member's life. Neither Picard nor Riker are to blame at all for Armus's attack on Yar.

Making such accusations is akin to calling Kirk stupid when he failed to stop one of his security men from drawing a phaser when he saw a Klingon in Friday's Child, forcing one of the Capellans to kill him with his weapon. It happened too suddenly.

Also, your assessment on Picard's actions during Encounter at Farpoint is again flawed. Q was going to pass summary judgement on humanity for being a dangerous, savage, child-race. Picard did buy time by asking Q's court to judge whether it was presently true of humans. Picard had no idea Q wouldn't adjourn the court. And then, at the end of . . . All Good Things, Picard once again saved his ship, as well as humanity, by figuring out the time paradox and how to solve it, which even Q congratulated him for.

It took Kirk some time to confound Trelane, as I recall. And if it weren't for Trelane's parents' intervention, Kirk and his crew would've all been killed, most likely. So much for Kirk's brilliance -- he got lucky!

Once more, your blind hatred of the character, and opinion that the writing of the character was bad, has prompted you to make judgements which don't stand up to scrutiny. Like I said, bias is bias.

Red Ranger

 

[Red Ranger]

Re: Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flag

Sheesh, Bintak. Did Patrick Stewart turn down your request for a signed autograph?

To paraphrase Ruk in What Are Little Girls Made Of, "THAT WAS THE EQUATION!" Our dear friend Bintak is just determined to hate Picard! Bless his heart! -- RR

 

[Cyke101]

Re: Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flag

All I need, really, is either Encounter at Farpoint, Darmak, or Chains of Command to know Picard's a good captain. All other episodes are, frankly, just icing on a very heroic cake.

 

[Red Ranger]

Re: Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flag

All I need, really, is either Encounter at Farpoint, Darmak, or Chains of Command to know Picard's a good captain. All other episodes are, frankly, just icing on a very heroic cake.

Agreed, Cyke101! Of course, to answer the o.p. without any levity, it would seem that Picard already came to the same conclusion Kirk had before he uttered those famous lines in GEN. As I recall, in the 1st season ep where Remick examines the crew and ship, Admiral Quinn wanted to promote Picard to the admiralty and put him in charge of Starfleet Academy. I also stand by my suggestion that Picard would only be promoted to the admiralty if he retained command of Enterprise, albeit as part of a small fleet with a special long-range missiong to an unexplored part of the galaxy. -- RR

 

[bintak]

Re: Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flag

Sheesh, Bintak. Did Patrick Stewart turn down your request for a signed autograph?

Nope. I just dislike him as an actor. He rubs me that wrong way, that bad writing, or an incompetent producer (Rick Berman, Ron Moore) does.

 

[Timo]

Re: Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flag

...Then again, "rubs the wrong way" is something of a real-world constant for officers who get promoted to the really important positions.

Statistically speaking, all the Trek captains have had a roughly equal share of pants-down moments where they have lost control of their ship or facility to sometimes laughably inferior enemy forces. That sometimes happens in the real world, too, but usually it's a career-ending situation. Starfleet clearly cannot think in such terms, though, probably because the Trek universe is a riskier and richer environment than today's naval warfare theaters, and the gains from pressing on with a mission far outweigh the gains of stopping to assign blame and perhaps devise improved procedures.

Of course, there are some differences between the skippers, too. Picard commands a high value asset in situations where it usually is more important to avoid scratching the paint than to act briskly and decisively. The sort of behemoth that he commands can afford to take the time needed for brainstorming, second-guessing and soul-searching. Sisko in turn commands assorted midget ships and floating junkyards, and minding his physical assets would get him nowhere, while arrogant bluff is often the only way to get his missions accomplished. Janeway's ship is a local top dog, but she has no reserves, backups or fallback options, so she has to be an interesting mix of cautious and rash in order to get home.

Kirk is probably pretty close to Sisko in these terms, as his ship is not so superlative that he could afford to prevaricate, nor so indispensable that Starfleet wouldn't allow him to use her for suicidal antics. There are also unique characteristics to his position, though, and it does seem as if a different command style would be needed of all the different captains.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[bintak]

Re: Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flag

Bintak:

Don't think you're as open-minded as you think you are. But more on that later. To address your points:

1. Maybe so, I'll grant you that.

2. Uh, guess you forgot that starship captains don't go around killing at the drop of a hat. Look at your other idols and you'll see that in most circumstances, they also don't go half-cocked and just kill with little provocation.

3 and 4. Off base. Only once did the Ferengi get the drop on Picard while he was in command of the Stargazer, and he then got the upper hand when he destroyed their ship using the Picard Maneuver. The other time, he was under the influence of the thought maker of Daimon Bok while he was in command of Enterprise.

5. I can think of many other tactical exercises the other captains messed up, too. Sisko underestimating the Jem'Hadar's ability to penetrate the Defiant's cloaking device in The Search. Archer getting his ass handed to him by the Andorians. Kirk letting Khan get the drop on him initially in TWOK. Janeway underestimating Species 8347. See? All commanders have successes and failures, no matter how good they are.

6. Yes, Tasha did die a senseless death, but how many redshirts died under Kirk's command? And how many other personnel died under the commands of Sisko, Janeway, and Archer? It happens.

7. Depends on what you mean by "handling Q." More often than not, Picard handled him just fine. He outsmarted him in his first two appearances, gaining time for humanity in Encounter at Farpoint, for example, and pushing him off the ship when he failed to tempt Riker into joining the Q in Hide and Q.

8. So many statements here to refute. Let's take the "Picard put humans on the Borg's radar." As I recall, due to a retcon in ENT, the Borg were already aware of humanity back in the 22nd century, and that led to their long-term interest in assimilating humanity. Also, guess you don't remember the TNG ep The Neutral Zone, which later on was established that those missing colonies were probably assimilated by the Borg. That happened before Picard arrogantly said to Q that his help wasn't required. And he was humble enough to admit he messed up to Q and said he needed him. Doubt Kirk would've done the same, although I do like him.

You see, your single-minded obsession with finding fault with Picard has blinded you to the errors of the other captains and magnified his mistakes in your eyes. They're all capable of making good and bad decisions. I could go on and on about the various follies of Kirk, Sisko, Janeway, and Archer, but I choose not to.

Oh, well! Bias is bias.

Red Ranger

Fraid not, Red Ranger. The very Q example you cite is the evidence. Retcon or not, by the time Picard says "We don't nee3d your help!" it conclusively proves that he is an arrogant fool. Miscalculation and mistake I can accept from most anyone. It happens. Personal character flaw arrogantly expressed in the face of direct evidence of as superior godlike being is STUPID.

At least Kirk had a reason to ask "why does godf need a starship? when confronted with a similart threat situation to make the correct deduction.

Picard committed the worst sin in my book, that a commander can commit. he was stupid: not once but many times.

Buy time for Humanity? Scoff. Q wanted to play with the mouse and hear him squeak. Nothing Pocards said or did mattered in the Farpoint trial.

Tasha Yar was lost due to criminal stupidity. For that I blame Riker, the dufus, for failing to run a scan on the creature and engage it in talk. he should have spoken first, not Yar. Leaders lead, not stand around and look stupidly on as events cascade around them.

At least when Kirk lost men it was for a reason. Even Archer and Janeway lost people for reasons. Picard? Oh well, somebody died when I sent them into Cardassian space on a suiciode mission. Hohum.

Dreadful character writing and acting, simply dreadful.

Bintak:

What you're forgetting is that Q wanted to become a member of the crew, which prompted Picard to say that they simply didn't trust him. This was based on their previous encounters, which gave Picard and his crew reason to distrust Q's motives.

Don't agree with your assessment one bit on Tasha's death, either. As we saw, at times Tasha could be undisciplined and take unnecessary risks, as she did while admirably trying to save a fellow crew-member's life. Neither Picard nor Riker are to blame at all for Armus's attack on Yar.

Making such accusations is akin to calling Kirk stupid when he failed to stop one of his security men from drawing a phaser when he saw a Klingon in Friday's Child, forcing one of the Capellans to kill him with his weapon. It happened too suddenly.

Also, your assessment on Picard's actions during Encounter at Farpoint is again flawed. Q was going to pass summary judgement on humanity for being a dangerous, savage, child-race. Picard did buy time by asking Q's court to judge whether it was presently true of humans. Picard had no idea Q wouldn't adjourn the court. And then, at the end of . . . All Good Things, Picard once again saved his ship, as well as humanity, by figuring out the time paradox and how to solve it, which even Q congratulated him for.

It took Kirk some time to confound Trelane, as I recall. And if it weren't for Trelane's parents' intervention, Kirk and his crew would've all been killed, most likely. So much for Kirk's brilliance -- he got lucky!

Once more, your blind hatred of the character, and opinion that the writing of the character was bad, has prompted you to make judgements which don't stand up to scrutiny. Like I said, bias is bias.

Red Ranger

Read what you wrote. None of it bears relation to ground truth.

1. If Q wanted to crew, why not? Trust wasn't the question that was being addressed then. To claim otherwise is your mistaken read of the situation. You don't go around insulting the guy with the howitzer if all you have is a popgun. Diplomacy 101. Ist das klar?

2. Tasha's impetuousness is a known quantity. i already pointed out that Ryker didn't know how to handle his troops. Your argument fails the basoic leadership test. KNOW YOUR PEOPLE.

3. Kirk made mistakes. Just not all the time and for the same painfully stupid reasons over and over again. Counter-example: Obsession: apparently Kirk cannot get poast a stupod bete n'oiren that interferes wityh hios corre3ct handling of Garrovick. He learns better once he looks past his emotional stumbling block. Once he gets that out of the way, he adopts a positive rather than negative leadership rolwe that allows him to use his people, because he knows them to best use, and to even teach Garrovick in the end the same lesson he learns himself. On toip of that he was correct about the monster.

4. What did Picard do again at Farpoint? Try to argue a legal case badly? If that is your defense of the great Jean Luc Picard then you need to rethink your poisition. He was lucky that Q took him for the joke that he was.

5. The time paradox was so obvuious a three year old could map it out. Let me also point out that this was one episode where Picard's bumbling actually set the tempioral rift in motion. Q just pushed it along as another rat maze for his pet mouse to run.

 

[bintak]

Re: Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flag

...Then again, "rubs the wrong way" is something of a real-world constant for officers who get promoted to the really important positions.

Statistically speaking, all the Trek captains have had a roughly equal share of pants-down moments where they have lost control of their ship or facility to sometimes laughably inferior enemy forces. That sometimes happens in the real world, too, but usually it's a career-ending situation. Starfleet clearly cannot think in such terms, though, probably because the Trek universe is a riskier and richer environment than today's naval warfare theaters, and the gains from pressing on with a mission far outweigh the gains of stopping to assign blame and perhaps devise improved procedures.

Of course, there are some differences between the skippers, too. Picard commands a high value asset in situations where it usually is more important to avoid scratching the paint than to act briskly and decisively. The sort of behemoth that he commands can afford to take the time needed for brainstorming, second-guessing and soul-searching. Sisko in turn commands assorted midget ships and floating junkyards, and minding his physical assets would get him nowhere, while arrogant bluff is often the only way to get his missions accomplished. Janeway's ship is a local top dog, but she has no reserves, backups or fallback options, so she has to be an interesting mix of cautious and rash in order to get home.

Kirk is probably pretty close to Sisko in these terms, as his ship is not so superlative that he could afford to prevaricate, nor so indispensable that Starfleet wouldn't allow him to use her for suicidal antics. There are also unique characteristics to his position, though, and it does seem as if a different command style would be needed of all the different captains.

Timo Saloniemi

Well reasoned and well described: but lets take three real world examples, shall we?

The negation of the rule is the proof that the rule does not hold.

Raymond Spruanxce of the American Navy was highly competent and proficient. Promoted without rubbing men the wrong way her never lost a battle nor wasted men-Kirk without the histrionics.

Frank Jack Fletcher of the American Navy, again very competent but unlucky and less proficient than Spruance. Losdt some battles ands scratched a lot of paint. Got beached after the Solomons for aq couple opf mistakes, but all in all still a good adnmirtal and with a refurbished repoutation after sixty yerars. Call him Sisko if you like his work or maybe Janeway if you still think of him as competent, buit not brilliant.

Then there is HALSEY, a stupid incompetent, no good SOB who ran fleets into typhoons, rubbed his fellow shipmates the wrong way, made rash decisions based on his command ego, and is mostly famous for Bull's Run when he left a fleet of weak American ships uncovered to slaughter to chase after Japnese bait.

Reminds me very much of the episode where Data had to save Picards's bacon when the Romulans had completely outfoxed Jean Luc's so-called tachyon defense net. Data played the role of Ziggy Sprague to Picard's Halsey then.

THAT is the Picard I despise-incompetent on so many levels, so many times, that he has to be constantly bailed out of his failings by other people including godlings, teenagers, and androids.

 

[LaBarre]

Re: Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flag

Um,...Bintak, you do realise that Picard and Kirk and Data and the Romulans, Sisko and Janeway are FICTIONAL characters. You don't have to like any of them. You don't have to vote for any of them and you don't have to actually serve under any of them, drafted or voluntarily.

I mention this because you are comparing apples to trout (a line from Geordie in GoN) - you are taking real life commanders faced with real-life battle situations in real-life wars out of context and comparing them with a Hollywood realised vision of a few writers and the screen characterisations of actors.

If your view is that Admiral Halsey was a bum that's your privilege. I happen to like Patton a great deal, thought Eisenhower was overrated and that MacArther should have been reigned in years before President Truman did the honours. But I would have thought that this venue is not the best possible spot to discuss these matters.

But hey, I'm a newbie. I like Startrek a lot. But I never confuse it with real history as we have lived or studied it.

And I thought that was the whole point of Startrek.

Gene Rodenberry was offering us a fictional post-apocalyptic future hope - after the point at which we've nearly destroyed ourselves as a species.

The key to Picard - and Kirk, BTW - is that they are explorers of the unknown. If we judge either of them from the perspective of today's naval regulations or those of World War II then both fail miserably.

 

[Danoz]

Re: Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flag

Other than the obvious that the Enterprise D has been destroyed I can't see Picard happy in a desk job.

I could see him very, very happy as a professor at the academy.

 

[Red Ranger]

Re: Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flag

Fraid not, Red Ranger. The very Q example you cite is the evidence. Retcon or not, by the time Picard says "We don't nee3d your help!" it conclusively proves that he is an arrogant fool. Miscalculation and mistake I can accept from most anyone. It happens. Personal character flaw arrogantly expressed in the face of direct evidence of as superior godlike being is STUPID.

At least Kirk had a reason to ask "why does godf need a starship? when confronted with a similart threat situation to make the correct deduction.

Picard committed the worst sin in my book, that a commander can commit. he was stupid: not once but many times.

Buy time for Humanity? Scoff. Q wanted to play with the mouse and hear him squeak. Nothing Pocards said or did mattered in the Farpoint trial.

Tasha Yar was lost due to criminal stupidity. For that I blame Riker, the dufus, for failing to run a scan on the creature and engage it in talk. he should have spoken first, not Yar. Leaders lead, not stand around and look stupidly on as events cascade around them.

At least when Kirk lost men it was for a reason. Even Archer and Janeway lost people for reasons. Picard? Oh well, somebody died when I sent them into Cardassian space on a suiciode mission. Hohum.

Dreadful character writing and acting, simply dreadful.

Bintak:

What you're forgetting is that Q wanted to become a member of the crew, which prompted Picard to say that they simply didn't trust him. This was based on their previous encounters, which gave Picard and his crew reason to distrust Q's motives.

Don't agree with your assessment one bit on Tasha's death, either. As we saw, at times Tasha could be undisciplined and take unnecessary risks, as she did while admirably trying to save a fellow crew-member's life. Neither Picard nor Riker are to blame at all for Armus's attack on Yar.

Making such accusations is akin to calling Kirk stupid when he failed to stop one of his security men from drawing a phaser when he saw a Klingon in Friday's Child, forcing one of the Capellans to kill him with his weapon. It happened too suddenly.

Also, your assessment on Picard's actions during Encounter at Farpoint is again flawed. Q was going to pass summary judgement on humanity for being a dangerous, savage, child-race. Picard did buy time by asking Q's court to judge whether it was presently true of humans. Picard had no idea Q wouldn't adjourn the court. And then, at the end of . . . All Good Things, Picard once again saved his ship, as well as humanity, by figuring out the time paradox and how to solve it, which even Q congratulated him for.

It took Kirk some time to confound Trelane, as I recall. And if it weren't for Trelane's parents' intervention, Kirk and his crew would've all been killed, most likely. So much for Kirk's brilliance -- he got lucky!

Once more, your blind hatred of the character, and opinion that the writing of the character was bad, has prompted you to make judgements which don't stand up to scrutiny. Like I said, bias is bias.

Red Ranger

Read what you wrote. None of it bears relation to ground truth.

1. If Q wanted to crew, why not? Trust wasn't the question that was being addressed then. To claim otherwise is your mistaken read of the situation. You don't go around insulting the guy with the howitzer if all you have is a popgun. Diplomacy 101. Ist das klar?

2. Tasha's impetuousness is a known quantity. i already pointed out that Ryker didn't know how to handle his troops. Your argument fails the basoic leadership test. KNOW YOUR PEOPLE.

3. Kirk made mistakes. Just not all the time and for the same painfully stupid reasons over and over again. Counter-example: Obsession: apparently Kirk cannot get poast a stupod bete n'oiren that interferes wityh hios corre3ct handling of Garrovick. He learns better once he looks past his emotional stumbling block. Once he gets that out of the way, he adopts a positive rather than negative leadership rolwe that allows him to use his people, because he knows them to best use, and to even teach Garrovick in the end the same lesson he learns himself. On toip of that he was correct about the monster.

4. What did Picard do again at Farpoint? Try to argue a legal case badly? If that is your defense of the great Jean Luc Picard then you need to rethink your poisition. He was lucky that Q took him for the joke that he was.

5. The time paradox was so obvuious a three year old could map it out. Let me also point out that this was one episode where Picard's bumbling actually set the tempioral rift in motion. Q just pushed it along as another rat maze for his pet mouse to run.

Well, Bintak, it's apparent you've made up your mind and are clearly unable to dispel your biases and fairly judge Picard's actions. That's OK -- blind spots are a lot of fun to see! Enjoying yours immensely, I see!

1. "Ground truth?" WTF? On the contrary, your blind adherence to just one aspect of Q's visit in Q Who is the stumbling block here. Perhaps it was a bit arrogant of Picard to outright refuse a "superior" being's entreaties. But as I pointed out and you failed to understand, Picard had serious reservations about Q's motives, and felt his presence on the ship wouldn't be beneficial, that it would be disruptive.

Picard asks him a number of pointed questions, like what task is too menial for an entity like him? Would he renounce his powers to work within the group? As we later saw in Deja Q, he does have difficulty working within groups because of his own arrogance. Picard does admit, too, that to find out more about Q was intriguing, but "you're next to kin of chaos." No place on an ordered starship for such an agent of chaos. I completely agree with Picard's reasoning, and with his later humility when confronted by the Borg.

2. Your argument fails to assess the situation properly. How would Riker know that Tasha would be that impetuous? What could he have done differently? You offer no solution, just blather on about how Riker didn't "command his troops." (BTW, his last name is spelled with an "i" not a "y.")

3. I actually agree here with the analysis of Kirk's actions in Obsession. Doesn't negate the fact that Kirk makes mistakes too, despite your slavish devotion to him.

4. No one said Picard was a great legal mind, but he did turn Q's arguments against him and bought time for the Enterprise and humanity. Once again, you fail to understand this result.

5. I have a feeling if you were in command of the ship, you wouldn't have figured out the time paradox, in all honesty. So much for comparisons to three-year-olds.

Guess you just have to admit your mind is closed when it comes to Picard, judging from your comments that he "rubs you the wrong way." Illogical and irrational. I think everyone else reading your posts understands this, while you don't. Shame!

Red Ranger

 

[Loneknight]

Re: Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flag

Ranger, I do have to commend your tenacity.

I think this is one of those situations similar to arguing with a moon-hoax believer: no matter the evidence presented or the quantity, you just can't convince them otherwise.

So not to venture completely off-topic, but Picard is an explorer, period. His family holds a long legacy throughout history as being adventurers. Let the man have his ship...

 

[Red Ranger]

Re: Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flag

Ranger, I do have to commend your tenacity.

I think this is one of those situations similar to arguing with a moon-hoax believer: no matter the evidence presented or the quantity, you just can't convince them otherwise.

So not to venture completely off-topic, but Picard is an explorer, period. His family holds a long legacy throughout history as being adventurers. Let the man have his ship...

Thanks, Loneknight! I enjoy hopeless causes. Just call me Don Quixote! I do think there is another aspect of Picard, the introspective scholar, as we see in his interest in archeology, particularly the ep that introduces his old archaeology mentor. So, yes, commanding a starship suits him well, but so do the halls of academia and digging up old relics. -- RR

 

[bintak]

Re: Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flag

It was enjoyable discussing this. Nevermind that I would be filing charges on Jean Luc and he would be facing prison time in Ferengi, Federation and Klingon courts, it was enjoyable.

As for Kirk, its more fair to say I think Sisko did a better job with the chaos he was initially handed. Kirk had a good crew from zero. Sisko has to build his command from scratch. He gets a ton of points for that. (Something for which he never receives enough credit.)

Blind spot is it? Too each his own. Agree to disagree.

 

[superstring01]

Re: Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flag

Why couldn't they promote Picard and let him keep E-D as flag?

This assumes the "battlegroup" strategy of the USA, which just may not exist in the future. More than likely, the UFP uses it's "explorer" and "science" ships to perform individual missions far from command and leave the admiralty on starbases.

~String

 

[Nebusj]

Re: Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flag

Why couldn't they promote Picard and let him keep E-D as flag?

This assumes the "battlegroup" strategy of the USA, which just may not exist in the future. More than likely, the UFP uses it's "explorer" and "science" ships to perform individual missions far from command and leave the admiralty on starbases.

Also from a storytelling perspective having a group under Picard would just complicate the drama: you'd need more models and more effects shots for everything, for a start. You'd need to have at least semi-regular characters to be the captains and often-seen officers for the other ships or else come up with an explanation every week for why they never say or do anything. If you want to tell a story where, say, Doctor Crusher must race against time to save the Enterprise from a deadly space virus ... well, what's keeping the other two dozen sickbays and medical research teams from contributing something useful?

Even if you do let the escort and tender vessels have a relevant part, how to do redress the sets to be obviously and visually clearly different to keep the audience from getting confused without blowing all your set budget on that? Or without having to force some of the crews to have their `bridge' actually be the half-bathroom like Data had to use in ``Redemption, Part II''?

So while all these things could be addressed, a lot of production and story construction problems are cleared away if the Enterprise is just out on its own.

 

[Red Ranger]

Re: Why not promote Picard to admiral and let Enterprise D be his flag

Why couldn't they promote Picard and let him keep E-D as flag?

This assumes the "battlegroup" strategy of the USA, which just may not exist in the future. More than likely, the UFP uses it's "explorer" and "science" ships to perform individual missions far from command and leave the admiralty on starbases.

Also from a storytelling perspective having a group under Picard would just complicate the drama: you'd need more models and more effects shots for everything, for a start. You'd need to have at least semi-regular characters to be the captains and often-seen officers for the other ships or else come up with an explanation every week for why they never say or do anything. If you want to tell a story where, say, Doctor Crusher must race against time to save the Enterprise from a deadly space virus ... well, what's keeping the other two dozen sickbays and medical research teams from contributing something useful?

Even if you do let the escort and tender vessels have a relevant part, how to do redress the sets to be obviously and visually clearly different to keep the audience from getting confused without blowing all your set budget on that? Or without having to force some of the crews to have their `bridge' actually be the half-bathroom like Data had to use in ``Redemption, Part II''?

So while all these things could be addressed, a lot of production and story construction problems are cleared away if the Enterprise is just out on its own.

Nebusj:

You raise many valid points. However, I believe there was a similar set-up with Battlestar Galactica, both old and new series. Since I haven't seen the new one, how do they address the points you brought up -- multiple commanders, etc.?

Speaking of Redemption, Pt. II, I would've used the Battle Bridge set to double as the Sutherland's bridge instead of using the "half-bathroom," as you called it.

Still, I think you've hit on the difficulties of a true "Wagon Train to the stars" approach to a ST show.

Red Ranger