test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Best and Worst ST Characters

18911131421

Comments

  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    worffan101 wrote: »
    Yes, TEHO, yeah he was a hero, and seconded.

    My central gripe is that Kirk was like 5 years younger when he fist-fought a Klingon captain on the imploding Genesis planet, and won. He goes with Picard to fight Soran, and falls off a cliff that Wrath of Khan Kirk could've jumped off without so much as a twisted ankle, and dies.

    Basically, the writers killed off Kirk to show that they could.

    It would've been so much cooler if he died fighting an army of Klingon berserkers, though.

    It was a bridge, not a cliff, and the bridge fell on top of him. He was not making it out of that one.

    But, granted, it would have been cooler. I just mean that I was perfectly happy with the way he died. It's more important to me why they die than how.
  • worffan101worffan101 Member Posts: 9,518 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    ryan218 wrote: »
    It was a bridge, not a cliff, and the bridge fell on top of him. He was not making it out of that one.

    But, granted, it would have been cooler. I just mean that I was perfectly happy with the way he died. It's more important to me why they die than how.

    He could've survived it without so much as a broken rib in TOS. Heck, even in WOK.

    Yeah, it would've been a LOT cooler. And call me crazy, but I think that dying well...is important.

    I think that the First Ideal of the Knights Radiant, from Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight Archive novels, sums it up perfectly: Life before death, strength before weakness, journey before destination.

    In a nutshell, what you do isn't as important as how you do it.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    worffan101 wrote: »
    But he was in the Nexus, with timeline-altering power.

    TRIBBLE DTI and their regulations. Picard could do it, and there's no reason not to.

    The whole thing was a Narrative jury-rig to get Picard and Kirk to fight Soran together, and then to get Kirk killed.

    There's also the fact that Picard simply didn't take time to think that far ahead. From his linear temporal perspective, time was still of the essence - he needed to save Veridian III as quickly as possible. Our linear perception of time isn't something you can turn off like a switch. If you watch the Nexus scene with Guinan, you can hear the sense of urgency in his voice.
  • worffan101worffan101 Member Posts: 9,518 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    ryan218 wrote: »
    There's also the fact that Picard simply didn't take time to think that far ahead. From his linear temporal perspective, time was still of the essence - he needed to save Veridian III as quickly as possible. Our linear perception of time isn't something you can turn off like a switch. If you watch the Nexus scene with Guinan, you can hear the sense of urgency in his voice.

    Point, that.

    He is human, after all.

    Ah, well. It was very dramatic.
  • azniadeetazniadeet Member Posts: 1,871 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Or he could've left the Nexus and gone to a cave beneath San Francisco in the 1870s, where he could've warned his past self and Guinan about what was to come- so that the El Aurien transports could avoid the nexus, Kirk would've been able to live out his life in peace, Picard would've known to warn Robert and Renee, and then Future Picard could've stayed behind in the 1870s, where he could hang out with Mark Twain, grow a long beard, and assume his place in history by running for president under the assumed identity 'James Garfield'.

    They could call it "M. Night Shyamalan's Star Trek Generations"
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    worffan101 wrote: »
    He could've survived it without so much as a broken rib in TOS. Heck, even in WOK.

    Yeah, it would've been a LOT cooler. And call me crazy, but I think that dying well...is important.

    I think that the First Ideal of the Knights Radiant, from Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight Archive novels, sums it up perfectly: Life before death, strength before weakness, journey before destination.

    In a nutshell, what you do isn't as important as how you do it.

    In fairness, in TOS he would have been quickly beamed up to the Enterprise, which wasn't a factor in Generations.

    In WoK/SfS/TVH, the writers wouldn't have jumped the shark as to have a bridge fall on top of him in the first place.

    Heck, Worf was made of sterner stuff and he almost died from a crate which was lighter than that bridge falling on top of him.
  • edited February 2014
    This content has been removed.
  • worffan101worffan101 Member Posts: 9,518 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    azniadeet wrote: »
    Or he could've left the Nexus and gone to a cave beneath San Francisco in the 1870s, where he could've warned his past self and Guinan about what was to come- so that the El Aurien transports could avoid the nexus, Kirk would've been able to live out his life in peace, Picard would've known to warn Robert and Renee, and then Future Picard could've stayed behind in the 1870s, where he could hang out with Mark Twain, grow a long beard, and assume his place in history by running for president under the assumed identity 'James Garfield'.

    They could call it "M. Night Shyamalan's Star Trek Generations"

    Not, actually, a bad idea.

    Although I will never let M. Night Shaymalan get his hands on another movie if I can help it. #ATLA #racebending #howdareheruinATLA
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    azniadeet wrote: »
    Or he could've left the Nexus and gone to a cave beneath San Francisco in the 1870s, where he could've warned his past self and Guinan about what was to come- so that the El Aurien transports could avoid the nexus, Kirk would've been able to live out his life in peace, Picard would've known to warn Robert and Renee, and then Future Picard could've stayed behind in the 1870s, where he could hang out with Mark Twain, grow a long beard, and assume his place in history by running for president under the assumed identity 'James Garfield'.

    They could call it "M. Night Shyamalan's Star Trek Generations"

    Okay, that was funny. In this case, DTI wouldn't just throw a fit, they'd have a heart attack! :D
  • worffan101worffan101 Member Posts: 9,518 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    ryan218 wrote: »
    In fairness, in TOS he would have been quickly beamed up to the Enterprise, which wasn't a factor in Generations.

    In WoK/SfS/TVH, the writers wouldn't have jumped the shark as to have a bridge fall on top of him in the first place.

    Heck, Worf was made of sterner stuff and he almost died from a crate which was lighter than that bridge falling on top of him.

    Point, point, and Worf Had The Flu. :D
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    valoreah wrote: »
    Jameson had good reason to go out into the field I think, so that's a pretty poor example. Going out into the field doesn't mean anything really.
    It sets and shows precedent within canon, which is what you are using to defend against any point someone makes which you disagree with. Canon shows that the majority of Admirals of the era were active field officers. The alternate Admiral Janeway from Endgame was also clearly very much still a field officer (and the only incarnation of Kathryn Janeway that I found myself like in anyway) Prime Admiral Janeway was clearly portrayed in canon as a desk admiral, despite the ease with which she could have been shown as in the field. Active officers are only pulled from field duty as punishment. The same conjecture which must be allowed to explain Voyager's offscreen repairs between officer, must also be extended to the transition of the commanding officer of a starship, becoming a desk jockey -- namely, that people at command would have realised Janeway was a liability (as has been proven extensively in this discussion) so kept under closer scrutiny...
  • worffan101worffan101 Member Posts: 9,518 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    valoreah wrote: »
    ...nasty trolling...

    Right, I've about had it with you taking what is otherwise a perfectly reasonable, mature philosophical/nerd debate and trying to drag it into the dirt. Go watch some TRIBBLE--it'll be a better use of your time, and we won't have to buy extra blood pressure meds.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    It sets and shows precedent within canon, which is what you are using to defend against any point someone makes which you disagree with. Canon shows that the majority of Admirals of the era were active field officers. The alternate Admiral Janeway from Endgame was also clearly very much still a field officer (and the only incarnation of Kathryn Janeway that I found myself like in anyway) Prime Admiral Janeway was clearly portrayed in canon as a desk admiral, despite the ease with which she could have been shown as in the field. Active officers are only pulled from field duty as punishment. The same conjecture which must be allowed to explain Voyager's offscreen repairs between officer, must also be extended to the transition of the commanding officer of a starship, becoming a desk jockey -- namely, that people at command would have realised Janeway was a liability (as has been proven extensively in this discussion) so kept under closer scrutiny...

    Could you two drop the 'Janeway was sidelined' debate already? It's not getting anywhere and you're just going round in circles.

    I think Wesley was the best character in Trek history, second maybe to Neelix.

    That oughta get us back on topic!
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    There's a post in this thread, which I can no longer find it's so far back. But it essentially criticized Janeway for not getting back home in one episode, and referenced the Traveller episode of TNG to cite that Picard got his crew back in one episode.

    Seriously, that's so ridiculous it stuck with me all day through work and was still sticking with me as I was about to go make dinner.

    THE PREMISE OF THE ENTIRE VOYAGER SERIES was to have a ship stranded in space far away. Thus, for the series to go on, the ship couldn't return in the span of one episode.

    Conversely, Picard and company HAD to return to Federation space or thereabouts to keep going with whatever whacky new plot the next week's episode would have them do, be it another attempt for Wesley to apply to Starfleet Academy, Captain Rixx to show up and confirm some weird conspiracy in Starfleet command, or just another neutral zone infraction.

    It's such an obvious set of rails for each of the two shows to treat their respective events differently that I can't believe people would try and use that to criticize one of the characters.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • worffan101worffan101 Member Posts: 9,518 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    ryan218 wrote: »
    Could you two drop the 'Janeway was sidelined' debate already? It's not getting anywhere and you're just going round in circles.

    I think Wesley was the best character in Trek history, second maybe to Neelix.

    That oughta get us back on topic!

    Seconded.

    Nice one. I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE!!!
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    There's a post in this thread, which I can no longer find it's so far back. But it essentially criticized Janeway for not getting back home in one episode, and referenced the Traveller episode of TNG to cite that Picard got his crew back in one episode.

    Seriously, that's so ridiculous it stuck with me all day through work and was still sticking with me as I was about to go make dinner.

    THE PREMISE OF THE ENTIRE VOYAGER SERIES was to have a ship stranded in space far away. Thus, for the series to go on, the ship couldn't return in the span of one episode.

    Conversely, Picard and company HAD to return to Federation space or thereabouts to keep going with whatever whacky new plot the next week's episode would have them do, be it another attempt for Wesley to apply to Starfleet Academy, Captain Rixx to show up and confirm some weird conspiracy in Starfleet command, or just another neutral zone infraction.

    It's such an obvious set of rails for each of the two shows to treat their respective events differently that I can't believe people would try and use that to criticize one of the characters.

    Yeah, I shot down that same point earlier. It was a pretty wooly argument.
  • worffan101worffan101 Member Posts: 9,518 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    There's a post in this thread, which I can no longer find it's so far back. But it essentially criticized Janeway for not getting back home in one episode, and referenced the Traveller episode of TNG to cite that Picard got his crew back in one episode.

    Seriously, that's so ridiculous it stuck with me all day through work and was still sticking with me as I was about to go make dinner.

    THE PREMISE OF THE ENTIRE VOYAGER SERIES was to have a ship stranded in space far away. Thus, for the series to go on, the ship couldn't return in the span of one episode.

    Conversely, Picard and company HAD to return to Federation space or thereabouts to keep going with whatever whacky new plot the next week's episode would have them do, be it another attempt for Wesley to apply to Starfleet Academy, Captain Rixx to show up and confirm some weird conspiracy in Starfleet command, or just another neutral zone infraction.

    It's such an obvious set of rails for each of the two shows to treat their respective events differently that I can't believe people would try and use that to criticize one of the characters.

    That was me criticizing Voyager for a sh*tty pilot episode.

    And yes, the rails are obvious. Caretaker could've been done soooooooo much more elegantly.

    And TNG did have some two-part episodes. Picard COULD have been stranded out there for a cliffhanger, y'know.
  • pokersmith1pokersmith1 Member Posts: 2 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Morn

    /10 char
    Elite Defense Starfleet
    Elite Defense Stovokor
  • edited February 2014
    This content has been removed.
  • worffan101worffan101 Member Posts: 9,518 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    ryan218 wrote: »
    Yeah, I shot down that same point earlier. It was a pretty wooly argument.

    Sure, but I was aiming more at Voyager in general than at Janeway specifically.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    ryan218 wrote: »
    I think Wesley was the best character in Trek history, second maybe to Neelix.

    Neelix was absolutely the best dressed character in Trek history. The only time I think anyone ever came close was TMP, with the velour tracksuit unis and Persis Khambatta in the Deltan all white mini-whatsis. But week in and week out Neelix rocked a fashion that to this day can't be matched!
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    ryan218 wrote: »
    Could you two drop the 'Janeway was sidelined' debate already? It's not getting anywhere and you're just going round in circles..
    That oughta get us back on topic!
    You're right, canon clearly backs the point I have made about the activity of the admiralty, there's only so many times I can repeat myself :cool:
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    worffan101 wrote: »
    That was me criticizing Voyager for a sh*tty pilot episode.

    And yes, the rails are obvious. Caretaker could've been done soooooooo much more elegantly.

    And TNG did have some two-part episodes. Picard COULD have been stranded out there for a cliffhanger, y'know.

    Not in the first season. The show was barely out of diapers when 'Where no one has gone before...' aired. It would have been too big a gamble.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    skollulfr wrote: »
    people in this thread bawwing over voyager borg...:mad:

    why dont we have the borg done properly, as the all consuming non-comunicative diabolus-ex machine that they where introduced as.
    not the bastardisation of borg that voyager turned them into.

    that means there wont be the stupid cop-out of bad writing that sees the borg befriended.
    like the fediebears are some gorram magic ponies who are going to gather up all the races of the alpha quadrant under their undine infiltrated asses to form the federation of friendship alpha pony go go magic team.

    ****** NO!:mad:

    bring back the borg as described by guinan. much more interesting.

    only thing that would happen if you allied then is you would be giving the borg dimensional slip tech and who knows what other iconian gadgets to assimilate EVERYONE with.

    I was speaking hypothetically to prove my point that sometimes you have to do morally questionable things for the greater good. I'm not that naive to think that the Federation would unite the Galaxy.

    Unfortunately, the Voyager Borg are canon. We have to deal with it.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    You're right, canon clearly backs the point I have made about the activity of the admiralty, there's only so many times I can repeat myself :cool:

    I'm... not even...

    You know what, I'm not going to get dragged into this argument based on a joke.
  • revandarklighterrevandarklighter Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    azniadeet wrote: »
    Picard ultimately did not remove the native Americans from the Cardassian planet. He struggled very hard with the issue before finally reaching an agreement with the Cardassians that allowed them to stay.

    It should also be noted that this example refers to a planet involved in an intergalactic dispute of territory control. The Ba'ku were on a planet entirely within Federation borders. This fact needs to be considered.

    Last, I would like to note that Picard in Insurrection, was a slightly older, more experienced, more moral officer than he was in TNG.

    And yes, Insurrection is a fine piece of Star Trek lore. I like the movie quite a bit. Way better than Nemesis, and probably even better than Generations.

    Na, sorry, doesn't work for me.
    Movie Picard was another character then series Picard. Or a changeling infiltrator. Or an Undine.
    A lot of his actions were not in line with his character in the series.
    The action-Picard routine worked in first contact alone, because it was based on Picard having a backstory with that enemy and being in a very... special situation.
    For all the others, no. The TNG movies were not very good actually.
    azniadeet wrote: »
    My biggest problem with Generations: if Picard could leave the Nexus whenever and wherever he wanted to, then why didn't he just leave like two weeks prior, send a message back to Earth reminding Robert to turn off the coffee pot, fly out to Amargosa and prevent the station crew from being killed in the Romulan attack, and arrest Dr. Soren on the site for plotting to blow up a star.

    Thats the biggest one?
    Honestly, while, as I said, the TNG movies generally were not very good, generations was particularly awful.
    It was as bad as the JarJarTrek films, the second one might even be better then Generations (and I really really hate the JJ movies).

    The only thing Generations had over the JarJar movies were better actors. It was written just as bad, essentially has all the same flaws.
    But ultimately it had ONE thing over the other TNG movies.... it kind of felt like a movie based on Next Generation (with the series ship and uniforms and "tone"), while the later ones feel very disconnected in terms of visuals.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Na, sorry, doesn't work for me.
    Movie Picard was another character then series Picard. Or a changeling infiltrator. Or an Undine.
    A lot of his actions were not in line with his character in the series.
    The action-Picard routine worked in first contact alone, because it was based on Picard having a backstory with that enemy and being in a very... special situation.
    For all the others, no. The TNG movies were not very good actually.



    Thats the biggest one?
    Honestly, while, as I said, the TNG movies generally were not very good, generations was particularly awful.
    It was as bad as the JarJarTrek films, the second one might even be better then Generations (and I really really hate the JJ movies).

    The only thing Generations had over the JarJar movies were better actors. It was written just as bad, essentially has all the same flaws.
    But ultimately it had ONE thing over the other TNG movies.... it kind of felt like a movie based on Next Generation (with the series ship and uniforms and "tone"), while the later ones feel very disconnected in terms of visuals.

    What was wrong with Generations? Personally, that was my favourite Trek movie.
  • worffan101worffan101 Member Posts: 9,518 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    ryan218 wrote: »
    Not in the first season. The show was barely out of diapers when 'Where no one has gone before...' aired. It would have been too big a gamble.

    Point, I guess.

    Still, it was always a possibility.
  • hopeslayer77hopeslayer77 Member Posts: 6 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Worst: Sisko...at least the actor who played him anyway, made it impossible for me to enjoy the character. IMHO...he couldn't have acted as a random borg drone burnt to death, implants smashed to bits and laying under a sheet of hull plating. If they had cast someone more like Keith David (Pitch Black, Chronicles of Riddick, Mass Effect Series) or Idris Elba (Pacific Rim, Prometheus) the character would have been much more enjoyable. When he told someone he was going to s*** can them you'd of believed it.
  • revandarklighterrevandarklighter Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    ryan218 wrote: »
    What was wrong with Generations? Personally, that was my favourite Trek movie.

    Just everything. Not only was Kirks death awful and killed a legacy... but the whole story made no sense.

    Its essentially the same problem the 2009 JJ movie had:
    They made a list of thing they wanted to have in the movie and just mindlessly connected the dots. There is actually no real plot there just some stuff that happens and its still full of plottholes...
    This is why I like even Star Trek V or Into Darkness better, there was at least a story in there even if it wasn't a good one....
Sign In or Register to comment.