Another reason why Kirk is better than Picard

[Darth Wong]

Oh I know, people could write books about this. There's even a top-100 list of reasons, although it's mostly facetious.

But while watching ST6 recently, I noticed Kirk saying "I'd gotten used to hating Klingons", and that's the character of the man in a nutshell. He's a human being, with human foibles. He loves and he hates. But he is also capable of growth, and in the twilight of his career, he sees a chance to make a difference, even to change the texture of his own career legacy.

Despite its disconnected episodic stories, TOS has that sort of growth in it. You get the feeling, after "Devil in the Dark", that Kirk has learned something. You get the feeling, after "Galileo 7", that Spock has learned something. And despite McCoy's blustering, you get the feeling over the years that he has learned to respect Spock's "damned Vulcan logic".

But what about Picard? Surely he's well-written and well-acted, right? Well, that's the problem. He's such a goddamned polished character that there's no potential for growth. He's so complete before the show even begins that he never has to learn anything throughout the entire series run or any of the movies! Instead of being a flesh-and-blood man who makes his way through life and learns as he goes, he's the wise sage who already knows every fucking thing and teaches the youngsters what's right and wrong.

When do we ever see Picard acting out of hate, or anger, or foolhardiness? No, he's always responsible, always respected, always measured, never really wrong. Even when he does something we may consider wrong, it's obviously portrayed as "right" in the morality of Trek. My question is this: has Picard grown in any way since we first saw him? I question the wisdom of making characters who do not grow. How do you relate to someone who has no journey to make?

[Vympel]

In First Contact he seemed obsessed with hatred for the Borg- although this didn't make much sense to me, as I thought he had 'dealt' with it in "I Borg" (that's the episode with Hugh, right)?

[Moonshadow]

he did sort of go nuts in First Contact, but you have a point about Picard just about every other time.

[Master of Ossus]

This is a major fault of TNG. Even before they began writing the first few episodes of the series, the writers should have gotten together and figured out a list of personality traits, strengths, and weaknesses for each of the characters. Instead, we only see any real character growth in Data during TNG. Not even Wesley Crusher seems to change much, despite his brashness and youth early in the series.

[Lord Poe]

I like the TOS episode, "Errand of Mercy". Kirk is pissed that the Organians have prevented him from fighting with the Klingons. He's yelling "We have the right--" and then the Organian asks him if he has a right to wage war and kill . Stops Kirk in his tracks. Even Spock looks at him like he was led by the nose into that one.

[Robert Walper]

Oh I know, people could write books about this. There's even a top-100 list of reasons, although it's mostly facetious.

But while watching ST6 recently, I noticed Kirk saying "I'd gotten used to hating Klingons", and that's the character of the man in a nutshell. He's a human being, with human foibles. He loves and he hates. But he is also capable of growth, and in the twilight of his career, he sees a chance to make a difference, even to change the texture of his own career legacy.

Despite its disconnected episodic stories, TOS has that sort of growth in it. You get the feeling, after "Devil in the Dark", that Kirk has learned something. You get the feeling, after "Galileo 7", that Spock has learned something. And despite McCoy's blustering, you get the feeling over the years that he has learned to respect Spock's "damned Vulcan logic".

But what about Picard? Surely he's well-written and well-acted, right? Well, that's the problem. He's such a goddamned polished character that there's no potential for growth. He's so complete before the show even begins that he never has to learn anything throughout the entire series run or any of the movies!

From Q's perspective, Picard was arrogant and self righteous, convinced the Federation could deal with anything they were out discover. In response, Q flung the the Enterprise into the path fo a Borg ship, forcing some humility into him.

Instead of being a flesh-and-blood man who makes his way through life and learns as he goes, he's the wise sage who already knows every fucking thing and teaches the youngsters what's right and wrong.

When do we ever see Picard acting out of hate, or anger, or foolhardiness?

When he tears into two Borg drones with a holodeck tommy gun, and when dead already, tries to beat the bodies. How about when Guinan has to convince him that Hugh from "I, Borg" is a living, breathing, feeling individual? He had to overcome predujice there...and in the end makes the mistake of not trying to eliminate a threat to the galaxy.

No, he's always responsible, always respected, always measured, never really wrong.

That was never my impression.

Even when he does something we may consider wrong, it's obviously portrayed as "right" in the morality of Trek.

Like when he'd rather fight to the death onboard his starship against the Borg, until he's talked out it by a sane woman? Clearly, Picard hates the Borg, and he was not portrayed as right in that instant, and that's just off the top of my head.

My question is this: has Picard grown in any way since we first saw him? I question the wisdom of making characters who do not grow. How do you relate to someone who has no journey to make?

While you might have an overall point, some of your claims such as his "inability" to hate or be predujice seems inaccurate. We've seen him display such attributes. His arrogance in "Q, Who?" was evident, his predujice in "I, Borg" was evident, his hate and loathing in "First Contact" was evident. He's admitted mistakes and been seen to make clearly defined mistakes. Frankly, I do not see the shining image of Picard you are attempting to portray, nor do I see every episode or movie attempting to portray him as such.

[Darth Wong]

From Q's perspective, Picard was arrogant and self righteous, convinced the Federation could deal with anything they were out discover. In response, Q flung the the Enterprise into the path fo a Borg ship, forcing some humility into him.

I should have known some robotic Trekkie fan-whore would leap into this and try to mindlessly defend Picard. I can't believe you're using Q as an authoritative judge on human character

When do we ever see Picard acting out of hate, or anger, or foolhardiness?

When he tears into two Borg drones with a holodeck tommy gun, and when dead already, tries to beat the bodies.

And so you missed the whole point. He does not grow; we've already seen him for more than ten years before he does this, and it's nothing more than a blip, a temporary outburst which has no effect on his rock-stable character.

The point is the lack of GROWTH, you idiot. An occasional deviance from perfection does not change the fact that the line of his character is flat; it does not go upwards, ie- there is no growth over time. And the fact that he never demonstrates anything remotely resembling hate against anything but the Borg is hardly proof of irrationality; the Borg have demonstrated their intent to enslave humanity.

The whole point is that he:

A) Never does anything really WRONG according to Trek morality
B) Never changes or grows as a person. After STFC, what is he in STI? The same old Captain Picard. Nothing changes.
C) Never has to eat crow for being morally wrong. Oh, he can make mistakes. He can have lapses. But he never has to look back on his attitudes and prejudices and say "my God, I was wrong".

Frankly, I do not see the shining image of Picard you are attempting to portray, nor do I see every episode or movie attempting to portray him as such.

Of course not, because you're being a mindlessly reflexive Trekkie knee-jerk fan-whore. You missed the entire point about growth, and if you need to invoke the Borg to show Picard getting mad, that's like saying you know a guy who got angry at Nazis. Ooooohhh.

This is why it's often difficult to discuss Trek in any measured way. Even without any SW vs ST issue, some Trekkie fan-whore will still come crawling out of the woodwork to say "no no no, Trek ownz j00!!!!"

[Robert Walper]

The point is the lack of GROWTH, you idiot. An occasional deviance from perfection does not change the fact that the line of his character is flat; it does not go upwards, ie- there is no growth over time. And the fact that he never demonstrates anything remotely resembling hate against anything but the Borg is hardly proof of irrationality; the Borg have demonstrated their intent to enslave humanity.

The whole point is that he:

A) Never does anything really WRONG according to Trek morality

From my perspective, Starfleet gave Picard a real lashing for not attempting to destroy the Borg when he had an apparent chance to do so. And I suspect many of his fellow humans on Earth and such would share this view, he was wrong not to try. And what is Trek morality anyhow? From my perspective, there have been many different versions of morality, like my above mentioned example of Picard's morals deviating from Starfleet command's.

Of course not, because you're being a mindlessly reflexive Trekkie knee-jerk fan-whore.

That has got to be one of the most amusing things I've ever been called.

You missed the entire point about growth, and if you need to invoke the Borg to show Picard getting mad, that's like saying you know a guy who got angry at Nazis. Ooooohhh.

This is why it's often difficult to discuss Trek in any measured way. Even without any SW vs ST issue, some Trekkie fan-whore will still come crawling out of the woodwork to say "no no no, Trek ownz j00!!!!"

Mr Wong, I'm not intent on getting into a flame war with you. I submitted disagreement, but also that you might have a point(aka: you might be right)...but somehow you translated this into me saying "you're wrong! wrong! wrong!". Appparently, if one does not agree with you right away, they never will, and are stupid for posting opposing views(guess I was never won over on the Empire beating the Federation debate with your arguements ). In that case I apologize for participating in your thread, and shall leave accordingly, since you are apparently convinced I am incapable of changing my veiw, or capable of acknowledging errors on my part.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Ironic that one of the few TNG characters that actually grew and developed was Data.

And Mike please, show some respect for l33t: it should be "7r3|< 0\/\/n2 j00"

[Master of Ossus]

The point is the lack of GROWTH, you idiot. An occasional deviance from perfection does not change the fact that the line of his character is flat; it does not go upwards, ie- there is no growth over time. And the fact that he never demonstrates anything remotely resembling hate against anything but the Borg is hardly proof of irrationality; the Borg have demonstrated their intent to enslave humanity.

The whole point is that he:

A) Never does anything really WRONG according to Trek morality

From my perspective, Starfleet gave Picard a real lashing for not attempting to destroy the Borg when he had an apparent chance to do so. And I suspect many of his fellow humans on Earth and such would share this view, he was wrong not to try. And what is Trek morality anyhow? From my perspective, there have been many different versions of morality, like my above mentioned example of Picard's morals deviating from Starfleet command's.

Where was this lashing? The last we see of Picard, afterwards, is him being a captain in command of the flag ship of the UFP. He has faced no repercussions for his actions. His crew still supports him. SF command does not seem pissed off at him. Where are the consequences for his decision?

I submitted disagreement, but also that you might have a point(aka: you might be right)...but somehow you translated this into me saying "you're wrong! wrong! wrong!". Appparently, if one does not agree with you right away, they never will, and are stupid for posting opposing views(guess I was never won over on the Empire beating the Federation debate with your arguements ). In that case I apologize for participating in your thread, and shall leave accordingly, since you are apparently convinced I am incapable of changing my veiw, or capable of acknowledging errors on my part.

What's your point? You were clearly misinterpreting Mike's original point and rebutted using a strawman. Mike does not need to defend his original point, since you attacked it by ignoring it completely. Your rebuttal had nothing whatsoever to do with Mike's statement, and you must agree with Mike's perspective or present evidence of why his perspective is wrong in order to be able to justify your disagreement with him. You have done neither.

[Darth Wong]

I like the way he tries to appear calm and reasonable, even though his first knee-jerk reaction upon seeing my post was to completely ignore its central point and try to nitpick it.

Walper, you have obviously been taught to believe that you can determine how reasonable someone is by a polite demeanor, not by the actual use of reason. That flies in politics, but this isn't politics. Just admit you were being a knee-jerk Trekkie fan-whore because it's bloody obvious.

[Robert Walper]

I like the way he tries to appear calm and reasonable, even though his first knee-jerk reaction upon seeing my post was to completely ignore its central point and try to nitpick it.

I personally believe I am calm and reasonable during debates. Although, what matters is if other objective people believe I'm a calm and reasonable debater.

Walper, you have obviously been taught to believe that you can determine how reasonable someone is by a polite demeanor, not by the actual use of reason.

I suspect I can identify a reasonable person despite whatever "politeness" level is.

That flies in politics, but this isn't politics. Just admit you were being a knee-jerk Trekkie fan-whore because it's bloody obvious.

Very well.

I, Robert Walper, freely admit that my first response to Darth Wong's post was pretty much a "knee jerk Trekkie fan-whore" response.

Mr Wong, would you be willing to concede that also in my first post, I said you might have a point? And does this not potentially translate to me saying "you might be right, and I'm not"?

Perhaps instead I should simply have said you might be "right" instead of having a "point", which implies me dismissing your other ones?

[Ender]

There was the episode where he lives the live of the alien after the probe flashy things him. He gets to relive a life, and has children and what not, then comes back to being the captain at the end of the episode and plays that flute, while relfecting on what might have been.

Best example of growth I can think of.

[neoolong]

There was the episode where he lives the live of the alien after the probe flashy things him. He gets to relive a life, and has children and what not, then comes back to being the captain at the end of the episode and plays that flute, while relfecting on what might have been.

Best example of growth I can think of.

Past that episode though? I can only remember that the flute is brought up in only one other episode. I don't remember him growing much from that experience past the end of the hour.

[The Yosemite Bear]

We have never seen Picard nearly off the whole of reality for a socialist peace loving "Chick" either, or watched as he was torn and temped by it.

The characters in TNG were archtypes, they were incomplete as well. Data was part spock, Hell they turned Kirk into Worf, Riker, & Picard, and never made them a whole character to begin with. They never learned anything, they just kept repeating the same mistakes over and over.

Half of TNG's episodes were rehashes of TOS episodes, and they never learned from the lessons of what had gone before either.

[Darth Wong]

I, Robert Walper, freely admit that my first response to Darth Wong's post was pretty much a "knee jerk Trekkie fan-whore" response.

Good. Because everyone else already noticed that.

Mr Wong, would you be willing to concede that also in my first post, I said you might have a point? And does this not potentially translate to me saying "you might be right, and I'm not"?

Hardly. You completely ignored the central point of my post, so your statement that I "might" have a point was nothing more than diplomatic boiler-plate.

Perhaps instead I should simply have said you might be "right" instead of having a "point", which implies me dismissing your other ones?

When someone makes a post with basically one point, and you completely ignore that point in favour of nitpicking supporting statements, it doesn't matter precisely which words you use.

[Robert Walper]

I, Robert Walper, freely admit that my first response to Darth Wong's post was pretty much a "knee jerk Trekkie fan-whore" response.

Good. Because everyone else already noticed that.

Do I get SD.net credits for admitting it?

Mr Wong, would you be willing to concede that also in my first post, I said you might have a point? And does this not potentially translate to me saying "you might be right, and I'm not"?

Hardly. You completely ignored the central point of my post, so your statement that I "might" have a point was nothing more than diplomatic boiler-plate.

If that's the way you choose to see it, very well. In the future, I shall be sure to include at the beginning of every and any response to any post of yours, a clear message that I reserve the right to make mistakes and be proven wrong.

Perhaps instead I should simply have said you might be "right" instead of having a "point", which implies me dismissing your other ones?

When someone makes a post with basically one point, and you completely ignore that point in favour of nitpicking supporting statements, it doesn't matter precisely which words you use.

Mr Wong, in multiple communications I've either had or attempted to have with you, I've gotten the impression you seem to find me irritating, and such communication usually degenerates into you sounding slightly pissed off at me. If this impression is correct, I'm willing to "back off" so to speak. From all accounts, you deal with more then your share of those you consider irritating. If you submit that I fit this category, I shall make my best efforts to avoid bothering you in the future. Note, this doesn't mean I intend to avoid Stardestroyer.net, merely that I'll do my best not to butt in on any of your posts and/or responses as I have here.

[Patrick Degan]

Oh, there was "character growth" in TNG. The only problem is that it was all like germ samples you grow in a petri dish for a biology class experiment. You set up the nutrient in the dish, introduce the germs, watch them grow through the experiment —and then wash the damn things out afterward when the project's done. It has no meaning whatsoever to anything else going on in the rest of the big wide world.

We can point to all the various incidents where Picard encounters some character defect or weakness, learns from his experience, and "grows" somewhat. The problem is that the defect or weakness is situation-specific; it's set up beforehand in what is otherwise an unbroken line of continuity in which Picard is the same allegedly omnicient, tedious pile of tweed. Picard deals with his trauma of being assimilated by the Borg in "Family" —and then for just about the rest of the series it is as if nothing had ever happened to him. He becomes racist against the Borg in First Contact —except that it violates the entire continuity line in which he had supposedly "dealt" with being Locutus and he snaps out of it as soon as Lily Sloane reminds him that he's being less than perfect. He humiliates himself to Q to save the Enterprise from the Borg in "Q Who?", yet by the time of "Deja Q", he's as stuffy and arrogant with the transdimensional demigod as ever.

Nothing that ever happens to Picard in the way of character exploration and growth seems to have any context to his overall existence, and is erased or forgotten about by the next movie or episode. The same is true with Data and his interminably "witless exploration of humanity" (my favourite observation of Q's in the entire series). Ten entire years of alleged "character growth" in the android, which included the implantation of the emotion chip, was erased in a stroke by Berman Braga in the script for the movie Insurrection. It was as if it all had never happened.

That is the whole problem. An entire set of characters who play out their existences within petri dishes.

[TheDarkling]

Robert Walper: He finds you irritating because he seems to think anyone who disagrees with him must be an idiot or trouble maker, you will notice he doesn't think its possible to disagree with someone yet remain polite (no I'm not ascribing to style over substance but you often accuse people of fake politeness when they disagree with you because politeness and disagreement seem to be mutually exclusive in your eyes).

What discussion where you looking for in this thread Wong? While Robert may not have justified his argument to well it seems like you had already decided anyone disagreeing would be unreasonable, did you just want people to crowd around and agree with you?

Picard starts off as being very reclusive and runs to his cabin after his duty shift but he eventually grows closer to his friends, culminating in joining the poker game in All Good Things.

We also get to see where Picard came from (due to Q's deathbed intervention) and who he learned that the mistakes of his youth weren't as grievous as he had thought.

That’s the only sort of character development we see in TOS, the friend growing together, we don’t get much beyond that really except in individual episodes which aren't constantly referenced.

Now to the second (and apparently lesser) part of your argument - Picard too perfect? I would agree he is more "perfect" than Kirk but he still has other issues he must deal with (his self imposed isolation for one) which he does work through, so while Kirk was more flawed than Picard I wouldn’t paint Picard as perfect by any stretch.


Wong:Feel free to call me whatever names you like, I disagreed with you and I knew the price going in.

[Mark S]

Oh, there was "character growth" in TNG. The only problem is that it was all like germ samples you grow in a petri dish for a biology class experiment. You set up the nutrient in the dish, introduce the germs, watch them grow through the experiment —and then wash the damn things out afterward when the project's done. It has no meaning whatsoever to anything else going on in the rest of the big wide world.

We can point to all the various incidents where Picard encounters some character defect or weakness, learns from his experience, and "grows" somewhat. The problem is that the defect or weakness is situation-specific; it's set up beforehand in what is otherwise an unbroken line of continuity in which Picard is the same allegedly omnicient, tedious pile of tweed. Picard deals with his trauma of being assimilated by the Borg in "Family" —and then for just about the rest of the series it is as if nothing had ever happened to him. He becomes racist against the Borg in First Contact —except that it violates the entire continuity line in which he had supposedly "dealt" with being Locutus and he snaps out of it as soon as Lily Sloane reminds him that he's being less than perfect. He humiliates himself to Q to save the Enterprise from the Borg in "Q Who?", yet by the time of "Deja Q", he's as stuffy and arrogant with the transdimensional demigod as ever.

Nothing that ever happens to Picard in the way of character exploration and growth seems to have any context to his overall existence, and is erased or forgotten about by the next movie or episode. The same is true with Data and his interminably "witless exploration of humanity" (my favourite observation of Q's in the entire series). Ten entire years of alleged "character growth" in the android, which included the implantation of the emotion chip, was erased in a stroke by Berman Braga in the script for the movie Insurrection. It was as if it all had never happened.

That is the whole problem. An entire set of characters who play out their existences within petri dishes.

I find this one of the major stinks eminating from TNG. At the beginning of each episode the ship is shiny and new, the characters shiny and happy, and whatever happens in the middle, by the end they are the same way.

I could stand it during the shows because I new they were made to episodic, but it's particularly pungant in the movies. Especially when held against the old movies.

The old movies had growth and continuity. The next generation movies are still just two hour episodes.

Sorry if that was a little off topic

[Vympel]

It's the Trek reset button in a less obvious form is all- it's evident in both TNG and VOY. And TOS, dare I say it.

[Darth Wong]

Robert Walper: He finds you irritating because he seems to think anyone who disagrees with him must be an idiot or trouble maker

Standard-issue asshole response; instead of recognizing that it's rude to completely ignore someone's point and nitpick at him, simply assume that I hate anyone who disagrees with me. Do they take all of you Trekkies aside and explain that this is the preferred way to address me, asshole?

[TheDarkling]

Wong: Actually it isn't trekies that dislike you its just warsies that like (sometimes extending into worship) you, everyone else tries to give you a wide berth.

He wasn't ignoring your main point he just thought your main point was Picard was too perfect (as did I until you chewed him out for it), you did make that point and he tried to rebutt it although he wasn't gretaly sucessful.

The TOS movies did have more continuity but thats because 2,3,4,5 all take place in a very short space of time.
TOS as a series had less character continuity than TNG, Kirk altered very little during the series (not to say it didnt have some great character building eps like City on the Edge of Forever) whereas the change in Picard can be seen over time.

[Darth Wong]

Wong: Actually it isn't trekies that dislike you its just warsies that like (sometimes extending into worship) you, everyone else tries to give you a wide berth.

I'm sure you must have performed a wide-ranging survey before coming up with these broad generalizations

I have no patience for assholes, trolls, idiots, and nitpickers. Sue me. The fact that legions of rabid Trekkies tend to fall into these categories when attempting to bolster the sagging credibility of their show is not my fault.

He wasn't ignoring your main point he just thought your main point was Picard was too perfect (as did I until you chewed him out for it), you did make that point and he tried to rebutt it although he wasn't gretaly sucessful.

Then he can't read. I'm not responsible for people who don't know how to read.

The TOS movies did have more continuity but thats because 2,3,4,5 all take place in a very short space of time.

No, it was because they were made by people who cared.

TOS as a series had less character continuity than TNG, Kirk altered very little during the series (not to say it didnt have some great character building eps like City on the Edge of Forever) whereas the change in Picard can be seen over time.

What change in Picard? He's the same two-dimensional stuffed shirt in season 7 as he is in season 1. He's the same two-dimensional stuffed shirt in the movies as he is in the show. Kirk, on the other hand, waxes from expansionist militaristic to contemplative and cautious, a change which costs him dearly in ST2 but which he has now grown far enough to deal with.

You can't have your cake and eat it too; how can TOS have less "character continuity" than TNG while simultaneously having less growth? Character continuity is another term for stagnation, which is precisely what I'm talking about in TNG.

If Picard were split in two by Kirk's infamous transporter accident, there would be no dark side and light side. Just a light side and a regulation-spouting side. His only "dark" side is anger at the Borg for mutilating him and attempting to enslave his race. Oooohhh.

[TheDarkling]

No kirk during TOS is the same guy during all the eps then in the films we see his character has changed and we also see his character change.
We don't see this in the TNG films however Picard does change over the course of TNG, during Season one he is very uptight but over time he becomes more personable, more willing to take risks etc.

Picard does have less edge than Kirk but the entire Federation has lost its edge, Picard is a product of his time.
By saying the lack of a darkside makes the character bad, when did we see spock darkside often?, we saw it for a moment or two during ST6 as I recall, what about McCoy? just because they have a less present darkside doesnt make them any less interesting.

By character continuity I refer to the fact that characters change over time and the events in earlier episodes change them - this does occur more during the TNG show than during the TOS show.