No..Originally Posted by Jowy
because...
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE
Kirk
Picard
No..
because...
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE
Okay I love Picard and voted for him but Kirk is in dire need of some love here. The great thing about Kirk was that he was what everybody secretly wanted to be: rash, bold, a smartass, and picking up all the alien chicks.
I thought the great thing about Kirk was the those tight shirts accentuated his gut?
okay okay guys
the kirk in the new star trek is hot
That is great.
I agree that Kirk wasn't bad by any stretch of the imagination. The banter between Kirk, Bones, and Spock is some of the best parts of the Original Series. He is just not Picard.
Someday William Shatner is going to join this forum to discuss Final Fantasy with cool peeps, and just end up crying.
Well considering he used to have some lingering negative feelings about his time on Star Trek and the fans he might be cool with it.
Than again, Patrick Stewart did cure him of those negative feelings.
I have respect for the original series, and if you enjoy Star Trek, even if it's not your favorite, you can sit down and watch the episodes and enjoy yourself.
I think a lot of it could be at least partially do to a generation gap. We all grew up with Picard. Kirk was some brash, overly dramatic jackass that commanded with his libedo. He's okay, but he's the captain of a different generation of fans.
YEAH NAMELY MY GRANDPA
It's more than just the generation gap. I rarely watched Star Trek growing up, and when I tried to get into it, started with the original series. It was ok, and entertaining to varying degrees. TNG did pretty much everything better: better writing, better development, dealt with deeper issues (torture, witch hunts, what is life, what is "reality," etc.), and had more in-depth characters. Picard was much more complex than Kirk, and of course it didn't hurt that Patrick Stewart is an incredibly complex actor.
And don't forget Warf.
I agree that if you took someone of any age that hadn't seen either series, they would probably find TNG, it's writing, and characters like Picard better. What I meant by generation gap was the people that grew up with Kirk. Nostalgia does things.
Let's talk about leadership. Basically the difference is that Kirk may be good at some things, but Picard is either just better or can find smarter solutions to things.
Kirk is smart and resourceful; Picard is an intellectual and a tactician.
Kirk is hot-headed; Picard is cerebral.
Kirk is a ladies' man; Picard is a gentleman.
Kirk is a man of impulse; Picard is a man of strategy.
Kirk is a fighter; Picard is a diplomat.
In short, Kirk was a great character in a great series, but Picard is the man I'd want in my Captain's Chair. (Not a euphemism.)
My grandfather was in his 30s with Star Trek, and late 40s/early 50s with TNG. He prefers TNG. My mum and uncle grew up with Star Trek, but prefer TNG.I agree that if you took someone of any age that hadn't seen either series, they would probably find TNG, it's writing, and characters like Picard better. What I meant by generation gap was the people that grew up with Kirk. Nostalgia does things.
No one can resist le Jean Luc.
It's the only reason I can think of why people would prefer Kirk, and some people do.My grandfather was in his 30s with Star Trek, and late 40s/early 50s with TNG. He prefers TNG. My mum and uncle grew up with Star Trek, but prefer TNG.I agree that if you took someone of any age that hadn't seen either series, they would probably find TNG, it's writing, and characters like Picard better. What I meant by generation gap was the people that grew up with Kirk. Nostalgia does things.
No one can resist le Jean Luc.
EDIT: Also, it's awesome you have several generations of family that enjoy the show!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
