Shatner and Stewart were friendly rivals rather a lot, and the most interesting quote I read was Shatner, in the early days of TNG, pointing out that Kirk was a much more three dimensional character than Picard. I can't see this at all, myself. Does anyone agree? I am not interested in whether or not one character obeyed the Prime Directive or saved enough lives. I just mean it from a dramatic perspective, as Shatner did.

I always found Picard much more interesting a person. Being reserved and introspective, for me at least, makes him much more interesting. I thought Picard was by far the best Captain, and I am not sure exactly why. I think the reason may be that he was so much more than a mere military leader. He could easily have been a teacher, or archeologist or diplomat. He had different aspects to his character and behaved in a moral, consistent sort of way.

Does his lack of the outward excitement and gung-ho attitude of Kirk really make him two-dimensional?

Peter.

Nice post, Peter.

I suspect that during the early days of TNG, people were hoping for something a tad more exciting from Picard. Remember, Picard used to be "banned" from away missions. My guess is that TPTB realized this and gave him more to do.

I think that Picard and Kirk represent the extremes, with Sisko and Janeway in the middle. It's hard to tell where those two are in the spectrum, with Sisko disobeying direct orders, etc... and Janeway doing whatever the heck she feels like this week...

To be honest, I like both Picard and Kirk. I think that Sisko is my favorite captain, though.

At the risk of starting the Apocalypse, I have to agree 100% with every single thing Peter said in his post.

Picard's the kind of captain I'd want to serve under if this occurred in real life. He's very measured, diplomatic, versatile, and pensive.

And when push comes to shove he can kick butt with the best of them. Hell, he took out TWO Klingons in The Sins of the Father(TNG), and not ONCE did he have to do a jumping body kick that caused him to fall to the ground.

Also, remember from the "50 reasons... " list...

Picard: Only freshman winner of the Academy Marathon.
Kirk: A stack of book with legs.

Hell, he took out TWO Klingons in The Sins of the Father(TNG), and not ONCE did he have to do a jumping body kick that caused him to fall to the ground.

ROFL. Yeah, I think TNG was wise to get rid of the Batman-style fighting of TOS.

Peter.

Interesting topic. I like both Kirk and Picard, and I think they are equally three-dimensional in their own ways, but I still prefer Kirk by a mile. Luigi has a point about Picard being more measured and diplomatic and so on, and he might well be a better captain in the real world, but personally, one of the chief reasons I watch Star Trek is to get away from the real world!

To me, Kirk's boldness makes him more of a hero in the classical literary sense. He may not be totally realistic, but there must be a reason that the archetype has persisted for all these thousands of years.

Kirk was not patterned on your boss or your next-door neighbor, he was meant to be larger than life. If anyone but Kirk had been the captain of the Enterprise in 1966, I doubt we would be here talking about Star Trek 35 years later.

Doh! 36 years later.

If anyone but Kirk had been the captain of the Enterprise in 1966, I doubt we would be here talking about Star Trek 35 years later.

Do you mean that if anyone besides Shatner playing Kirk had had the captain's role? Or a different character than Kirk?

Made me think of something -- Imagine Shatner playing Picard and Stewart playing Kirk. It would have brought an entirely different dimension to each of those shows.

Wow...that actually could have happened in real life. Stewart is 9 years younger than Shatner, but still would have been old enough to play Kirk...interesting.

Do you mean that if anyone besides Shatner playing Kirk had had the captain's role? Or a different character than Kirk?

Good question. I should have been more straightforward and said, "If Picard had been the captain of the Enterprise in 1966...." I just didn't want to start WWIII between the Kirk fans and the Picard fans. But what the hell:

Kiiiiirk is better than Picaaaaard. Neener neener!

Seriously, Star Trek could not have become as popular as it is with Picard at the helm. Roddenberry had created a modern myth with the original Star Trek. He wanted to continue milking cash out of the franchise, but creatively he didn't want to go and just redo the original series, he wanted to do something different. So he created the anti-Kirk, ie. Picard.

Roddenberry should have realized that you can't take a character who has achieved cult status, write a new character to be his near opposite, and expect that new character to be equally popular. I mean, I like Picard, and I think Stewart and the writers did him very well, but a modern legend he is not.

First off Luigi, as this is a nitpicking board I feel obliged to point out that the episode was just "Sins of the Father". No "The".

And I think Picard has reached cult status. So there.

It depends on who is writing the script.

OK, we don't deal in reality. If I was an Ensign trapped under a rock with a broken leg and 100 Klingons (or for TNG, Romulans) approaching, I'd want Kirk (and I'd pray my shirt wasn't red). If I was taken prisoner and my captain was negotiating for my release, I'd want Picard.

juli, seriously, you need to relax. It's just a tv show.

And in most polls, Picard wins favorite Captain. So there :p

And I seriously doubt Kirk has anything to do with Trek's popularity. Heck...most people's favorite TOS character is Spock.

Interestingly, before I really knew anything about Star Trek, I knew what Spock looked like, and I knew the Captain was called Kirk, but I thought that Patrick Stewart *was* Kirk. If someone had asked me to point out Kirk Stewart's picture is the one I'd have pointed to.

Peter.

I would have to say that each captain was a product of their time. Kirk was from the days when the federation was still a wild and frontier place. It took bold people to tame this land er space. While Picard was from a more settled and calmer era. Each captain was the most appropriate for their time and would not have done as well if they had retained their personalities in the other's era. So my personal favoite is Kirk if I have any kind of combat scenario while Picard can handle the negotiations after Kirk wins.

Picard was definitely more interesting than Kirk.
Kirk was simply a James Bond wannabe(which may have been what NBC wanted since, by 1966, James Bond was already a world famous hero).

Picard, though, is the kind of leader the world needs today. Someone who is willing to negotiate peace in order to save lives.
And he can also kick a$$ when the need arises("The High Ground," "Sins of the Father," etc.).

And, unlike Shatner, Patrick Stewart never stole his co-stars' lines & camera time.

And he can also kick a$$ when the need arises("The High Ground," "Sins of the Father," etc.).

Don't forget "Die Hard" -- oops, I mean "Starship Mine".

I'm in the 'Picard was technically the better captain but Kirk was a lot more fun to watch' camp.
I mean, Stewart is a tremendous actor who created a complex and fascinating character. But Picard (and to a certain extent the entire NextGen crew with him) was just so...so...sensible about the whole 'boldly going' thing. By now space wasn't really as much of a frontier, so the basic approach to life on the Enterprise was sorta one more day at the office.
Kirk on the other hand had no idea what was around the next intergalactic corner, so just threw himself into the breach with all the bravado he could muster. He was altogether a very human human being, out there coping with the unknown, and he was larger-than-life because he succeeded in spite of human failings.

I guess I just identified with that POV better than I do Picard's.

Well said, kerriem. I agree 100%!

However, while I do enjoy a good Kirk vs. Picard knock-down dragout , I'd hate to get too far away from the original question, which is an interesting twist on the old debate. Putting aside which captain you like better, is one any more three-dimensional than the other?

I think not. Like I already said, Picard was well written and acted and had about as much depth as you can get in a TV character. More, in fact, than most. Not many people would dispute that.

In Kirk's case, critics tend to focus on the action-oriented facets of his personality as well as Shatner's stylized acting, which is unfortunate, because that is only part of the character.

Kirk was also a thinker. He was well-read in classic literature, history, and philosophy. He was deeply introspective and was often found agonizing over his personal and command decisions. Anyone who has paid attention knows that it is his impassioned speeches which define him, much more than his jumping body kicks or his (greatly exaggerated) sexual pursuits.

I haven't watched many Bond movies, so I'm no authority, but I really can't imagine James Bond saying things like:

--The more complex the mind, the greater the need for the simplicity of play.

--No wants, no needs? We weren't meant for that, none of us. Man stagnates if he has no ambition, no desire to be more than he is.

--The illogic of waste, Mr. Spock. The waste of lives, potential, resources, time. I submit to you that your empire is illogical. I submit that you are illogical to be a willing part of it. If change is inevitable, predictable, beneficial, doesn't logic demand that you be a part of it? ....What will it be? Past or future? Freedom or tyranny?

--Doctor McCoy is right when he points out the enormous danger potential in any contact with life and intelligence as fantastically advanced as this. But I must point out that the possibilities, the potential for knowledge and advancement is equally great. Risk--risk is our business! That's what this starship is all about. That's why we're aboard her!

If James Bond says stuff like this, then I really need to watch more Bond movies.

My point is, just as it is wrong to assume that Picard is boring because he is measured and reserved, isn't it also unfair to assume that Kirk is a two-dimensional airhead because he happens also to be bold and athletic?

A related question is, can a character be both larger than life and three dimensional at the same time?

Like Bond, Kirk:
*is super-horny
*has technology at his disposal(although Kirk's ship looks dated today, whereas Bond's car in Goldfinger still looks awesome)
*became a widower
*is sexist
*has the same first name

If all this doesn't say 'James Bond knockoff' about Kirk, I don't know what does.
The only differences between the 2 that I can see(their respective times notwithstanding) are:
*Connery could act
*Connery's wig was more convincing

Were you turned down for the role of Kirk in favour of Shatner or something, Anonymous?

Peter.

Yeah, really. Sheesh, a healthy chunk of the '60's American male population answered to those particular attributes! (Well, except maybe the technology.)

Were you turned down for the role of Kirk in favour of Shatner or something, Anonymous?
LOL. No kidding!

Okay, Anon, let's see...First off, Kirk was not a widower unless you count "The Paradise Syndrome," which didn't happen until the third season, and Kirk was not exactly himself when it happened anyway.

If having technology at his disposal makes Kirk a Bond wannabe, then do Picard, Sisko, and Janeway get to be Bond wannabes, too?

As for being sexist, you would have us believe that Kirk and Bond were the only men in the '60s who didn't act like men of the '00s? Okay....

It appears you're right about them both being super-horny, though. Right here in my encyclopedia it says:

---

Quote:

...James Bond was significant in that he was the first fictional character in Western popular culture ever to exhibit the quality of being a total horndog.

---

---

Quote:

The highly innovative Bond character was also the first to carry the exceedingly rare male given name 'James.'

---

juli posed:"A related question is, can a character be both larger than life and three dimensional at the same time?"
I'd say so. A good example of this would be the characterization of T.E. Lawrence in "Lawrence of Arabia"

On the topic: Picard is miles above Kirk. Whenever I get caught up in this argument (a daily thing) with the people I eat lunch with, I always say: "Remeber Star Trek II? When Kirk has every reason, every directive in the book is telling him to raise the friggin' shields and he just DOESN'T??" That is perhaps the best evidence of why Kirk is a really sappy captain who takes far too many liberties with the lives of others. He shouldn't be getting any commendations in Star Trek III, he should be court martialed!

True, Wes, it was a horrendous command decision by Kirk, but does that make him any less three dimensional? I say not.

Plus, it would have been an awfully short movie if he had raised the shields when he was supposed to. =P

I do agree, though, that a character can be both three dimensional and larger than life. Frankly I prefer them that way, at least some of the time, which is why I really dislike the trend toward "realistic" characters in TV and movies these days.

I really disagree with many of Kirk's actions. "The Apple" is probably the best example. He had no business destroying Vaal.

yeah kirk was more three dimensional especially when he forgot his girdle!

D*mn, I read that last one just as I took a sip of coffee, and nearly choked!

Rene: Except that in The Apple, Vaal was trying to destroy the Enterprise - pull it down into the atmosphere and burn it up. Granted, Kirk never likes computers which control every aspect of people's lives and crush their individuality. So he probably would have set out to destroy Vaal anyway. But in The Apple the only way to save his ship was to destroy Vaal - that seems to be a good excuse. For a somewhat more gratuitous computer-bashing, check out Return of the Archons

As Kirk stated in "The Omega Glory", a starfleet Captain's duty is to sacrifice his ship before violating the Prime Directive.

Was that just his opinion, or a regulation?

If we're gonna base opinions on violations of the Prime Directive, here, Picard's just as guilty.

And anyway, Rene, the fact that you disagree with Kirk's actions goes a long way toward proving that he was in fact a three-dimensional character, doesn't it?

Warning: This product may cause unintentional snarfing. The manufacturors are not responsible for any nasal injuries incurred in the use of this product.

Does like Janeway. Becomes shocked when another captain violates the Prime Directive. Claims sacrifice of ship is top priority over violation of Prime Directive.

The original series was generally written so that at the end of an episode, you carried home one big message. Certainly, Kirk violated the Prime Directive in destroying Vaal in "The Apple," as well as in "Return of the Archons," but the primary message of those episodes was not, "Go out and violate the Prime Directive" or even "Go out and mess with other cultures that don't suit your fancy." Not even close.

What we were supposed to take home from those stories was the message I quoted above from "This Side of Paradise": Man stagnates if he has no ambition, no desire to be more than he is.

Vaal and Landru were mere vehicles for representing stagnation, and the only way to end those stories in a manner consistent with the TOS moral universe was to somehow remove Vaal and Landru so that the people of those worlds (in other words, humans) could continue on their natural course of progress.

I watched the TNG episode "Homeward" recently. There was a pre-industrial society on a doomed planet. The Enterprise had the power to help them, but what did Picard and his crew do? They basically just stood and held a moment of silence as all those people died, and shook their heads sadly as if to say, "If it weren't for that darned Prime Directive...." If the episode had ended here, the message it would have sent home was, "Rules are rules, and we have to follow them even when they require thousands or (even billions) of people to die for no particular reason." What the heck kind of lesson is that?

Luckily for Picard, someone came along and broke the rules for him and saved at least some of the people on the planet so that the episode could end with the proper message. Say what you want about Kirk, but he wouldn't have needed a guest star to do his dirty work for him.

As for Janeway, Kirk is different from her because when he broke the rules he did it mostly for consistent reasons, not because he was having a bad hair day or whatever.

Not that this has anything to do with which character is more three dimensional, of course....

Well, the Borg Queen *did* call Picard three dimensional

Oh, okay. Good enough for me. That settles it.

I think both captains were three dimensional, since I've met real people that have similar personalities to each of them. When I was a teenager in the 70's, Kirk seemed very much larger than life. As an adult, I prefer Picard's version of larger than life. It's all a matter of taste. Or maturity. Whatever.

Juli,

Kirk was also a thinker. He was well-read in classic literature, history, and philosophy. He was deeply introspective and was often found agonizing over his personal and command decisions. Anyone who has paid attention knows that it is his impassioned speeches which define him, much more than his jumping body kicks or his (greatly exaggerated) sexual pursuits.

I just can't see how that's typical of kirk. If anything, his pensive moods struck me as jarring, not-fitting with his real personality. To me, Kirk always appeared to be a teenager, sb. whos not grown up. He may say sth. that appears to be pensive or whatever, but it doesn't fit in with his behaviour all the rest of the time.

For me, the most typical moment is in STII, when everybody is in the genesis cave, and kirk admits to cheating at the kobayashi maru in order not to loose. That shows his whole attitude for me. He just can't grow up, he can't handle death.

Therefore, I can't perceive any honest depth to his character.

I don't think that this has anything to do with the times - I'm still annoyed today with how many people act like overgrown teenagers.

The question of threedimensionality isn't related to "are there people like this out in the real world?", because you can find shallow people around any time.

I don't see kirk as an old-time, greek hero, either.

(In the books, kirk often shows a different side, and his character is enhanced more, but in the TOS, he often annoys me with his juvenile attitude.).

About the lessons: I don't agree with the lessons you gave for the ep.s above. The prime directive has a good reason: Help, even if intended good, means intrusion. A culture is special and has its own pace of development. By simply helping you are already interfering and changing the culture. This has happened before in several cases. Even sth. simple like giving foods to some tribes during times of draught has changed the whole culture of the tribes in one go, taking away the old kind of life, but leaving nothing else to replace it.

In the case of vaal, why does kirk need to destroy it? Even if mankind needs challenge, why doesn't he let the people choose for themselves?

(It reminds me strongly of the time when the colonists came over to america and forced their culture on the Indian Natives, simply declaring themselves and their culture superior despite moral decay, and the indians inferior. The big chance of letting the indians develop at their own pace has been lost - that would have been a profit for everybody. Interacting with other cultures gives you a chance to grow and learn and adapt. Forcing one culture on everybody causes real stagnation.)

In one of the books on Star Trek (I can't remember which one) somebody compared STar trek not to the wild west series, but to hornblower (the book series by forrester). Having now read it, I can say that hornblower stands out as real hero for me, but is miles away from the personality of kirk. I can't remember the introspective self-doubts typical for hornblower anytime of kirk (only the obsession ep.). hornblower envies the physical strength of the sailors, but is smart, while kirk delights in physical fights.

Picard comes much closer to hornblower, because he uses his head to find alternatives, instead of staking his whole ship on a stopid physical fight like kirk. (I'm ignoring ST:Generations, because its the worst ST movie for me, way worse than STFinal Frontier.)

So I'll always cast my vote for picard as real hero and threedimensional.

and I wish janeway wouldn't waffle so much on her decisions.