Do you want to have kids?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The first two, twins, will be named James Tiberius and John Kennedy--Jim and Jack, for short. One after the greatest starship captain and the other after our greatest Catholic President. In order to spare them the uncertainty I face, they'll each be required to know one language, one instrument, play one sport, and possess a fourth, quasi-occupational hobby (underwater welding or programming, for example). I'll leave it to my future ex-wife to name the daughter.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The first two, twins, will be named James Tiberius and John Kennedy--Jim and Jack, for short. One after the greatest starship captain and the other after our greatest Catholic President.

You misspelled "Jean-Luc".

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

I would certainly say that the wise, eloquent, firm but kind authority figure makes for a better captain than the brash, impulsive gambler with an overinflated ego, yes. That's what you meant, right?

Sure, Picard is objectively the better captain, but that's not why most people I know watch Star Trek.

I also think Picard makes for a great character. He can be badass, he can be moving and profound, he can be hilarious, and he can be terrifying as well. Not saying Kirk didn't have his great moments (Wrath of Khan is an amazing movie) but I didn't see as much depth and complexity to him.

Isn't that partially just because Picard is played by a much better actor? I bet there'd be a lot less of a gap if one sat down and read the scripts.

That might be true. Admittedly I haven't seen any TOS episode, so my impression of Kirk isn't fully formed (though I've seen most of the movies and I tend to imagine that the flaws that annoy me in older Kirk would be even worse in younger Kirk). The actor is definitely part of what makes a character, though, even if I agree that the script is the most important part.

Regardless, Kirk's brash idiocy, braggadocio, and suave with the ladies is that same spirit that sent mankind and his absurd ego propelling into space. Without the world's Kirks, there would be no Jean Lucs.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The first two, twins, will be named James Tiberius and John Kennedy--Jim and Jack, for short. One after the greatest starship captain and the other after our greatest Catholic President.

You misspelled "Jean-Luc".

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

I would certainly say that the wise, eloquent, firm but kind authority figure makes for a better captain than the brash, impulsive gambler with an overinflated ego, yes. That's what you meant, right?

Sure, Picard is objectively the better captain, but that's not why most people I know watch Star Trek.

I also think Picard makes for a great character. He can be badass, he can be moving and profound, he can be hilarious, and he can be terrifying as well. Not saying Kirk didn't have his great moments (Wrath of Khan is an amazing movie) but I didn't see as much depth and complexity to him.

Isn't that partially just because Picard is played by a much better actor? I bet there'd be a lot less of a gap if one sat down and read the scripts.

That might be true. Admittedly I haven't seen any TOS episode, so my impression of Kirk isn't fully formed (though I've seen most of the movies and I tend to imagine that the flaws that annoy me in older Kirk would be even worse in younger Kirk). The actor is definitely part of what makes a character, though, even if I agree that the script is the most important part.

Regardless, Kirk's brash idiocy, braggadocio, and suave with the ladies is that same spirit that sent mankind and his absurd ego propelling into space. Without the world's Kirks, there would be no Jean Lucs.

That's a good point - and indeed the fact that I myself don't much care about space exploration probably says something about my own personality. I just tend to prefer people who, to speak in Lavenous terms, know exactly what they are doing.

I must admit, as much as I adore inspiring the imagination or whatever other prissy crap we tell kids in order to make them perform better, my primary value in space exploration is either (A) space weaponry/gaining the upper hand on other stupid countries, or (B) having a fallback planet for when our ridiculous ideology of individualism finally leads to ecological post-catastrophe here.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The first two, twins, will be named James Tiberius and John Kennedy--Jim and Jack, for short. One after the greatest starship captain and the other after our greatest Catholic President.

You misspelled "Jean-Luc".

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

I would certainly say that the wise, eloquent, firm but kind authority figure makes for a better captain than the brash, impulsive gambler with an overinflated ego, yes. That's what you meant, right?

Sure, Picard is objectively the better captain, but that's not why most people I know watch Star Trek.

I also think Picard makes for a great character. He can be badass, he can be moving and profound, he can be hilarious, and he can be terrifying as well. Not saying Kirk didn't have his great moments (Wrath of Khan is an amazing movie) but I didn't see as much depth and complexity to him.

Isn't that partially just because Picard is played by a much better actor? I bet there'd be a lot less of a gap if one sat down and read the scripts.

That might be true. Admittedly I haven't seen any TOS episode, so my impression of Kirk isn't fully formed (though I've seen most of the movies and I tend to imagine that the flaws that annoy me in older Kirk would be even worse in younger Kirk). The actor is definitely part of what makes a character, though, even if I agree that the script is the most important part.

Regardless, Kirk's brash idiocy, braggadocio, and suave with the ladies is that same spirit that sent mankind and his absurd ego propelling into space. Without the world's Kirks, there would be no Jean Lucs.

That's a good point - and indeed the fact that I myself don't much care about space exploration probably says something about my own personality. I just tend to prefer people who, to speak in Lavenous terms, know exactly what they are doing.

I must admit, as much as I adore inspiring the imagination or whatever other prissy crap we tell kids in order to make them perform better, my primary value in space exploration is either (A) space weaponry/gaining the upper hand on other stupid countries, or (B) having a fallback planet for when our ridiculous ideology of individualism finally leads to ecological post-catastrophe here.

(B) is admittedly a very valid reason, and I agree that we'll probably have to get around to it sooner or later because of this. Obviously (A) is sh*t.

Because the PR of China or the Russian/Klingon Federation cornering the market on the previous space minerals we use to power our sex robots is just "okay" and "totally acceptable".

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Nathan, your sociological ideal differs with my single personal experience, so I'm offended!

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Why is this thread still happening?