The better Captain...

Death said:
Big jump in technology in 14 years, not to mention budget issues (as in, ST had issues, SW had a budget :p ).
Click to expand...

Quite. TOS was made on a budget of a hundred thousand dollars PER SEASON. Yes, that is 1960s dollars, but they still had to pay a couple thousand dollars a year for EACH of the full-time staff they had on the show, plus props and filming costs. Even TNG got like four times the budget in inflation-adjusted dollars as TOS.
 
My favorite captain is Picard, because his personal demons are more interesting than multiple-dimensional personalities and wooing the ship's shrink.
 
Ijuin said:
Quite. TOS was made on a budget of a hundred thousand dollars PER SEASON. Yes, that is 1960s dollars, but they still had to pay a couple thousand dollars a year for EACH of the full-time staff they had on the show, plus props and filming costs. Even TNG got like four times the budget in inflation-adjusted dollars as TOS.
Click to expand...

They got more then just an inflation adjustment, they alsogot an extra boost, plus the money from The motion picture.
 
Considering ST:TMP came out 10 years earlier, that might be a little difficult... :p

ST4 was the movie that came out shortly before TNG started in 1987, and that was still about a year gap between them. At best, the movies kept the "Star Trek" name relatively fresh in the minds of the general public... which isn't exactly all that direct a connection to money availability.
 
Hard to choose, really, both Picard and Riker have positive aspects.
What about data? I didn't see the whole series, but i remember that Data acted as captain once (not the enterprise).
 
Haliwali said:
Look at star wars. The special effects there are from the same time frame, and they still look good today. In my opinion ANH looks better than the first 2 LotR movies. Star wars actually revolutionized special effects.
Click to expand...

Here's a question for you?

What do you think looks better: the ORIGINAL Star Wars effects/visuals (handpainted models) or the revised 1997 version (CGI sequences)?
 
Hmmm the CGI are flashier, but the original effects feel more authentic and fit better with the rest of the footage.
 
Haliwali said:
Look at star wars. The special effects there are from the same time frame, and they still look good today. In my opinion ANH looks better than the first 2 LotR movies. Star wars actually revolutionized special effects.
Click to expand...

Ummm, check your facts. Star Wars came out in 1978.

The original Star Trek ran from 1966 - 1968, but most of the special effects techniques were developed in 1965. Thirteen years makes a lot of difference, especially thirteen years duruing the solid-state electronics revolution.

Plus, Star Wars was a full feature length film. Star Trek was a weekly TV series, and hence was consistently operating on a much shorter time frame with a fraction of the budget.

For its day, Star Trek had some of the most amazing special effects possible for a TV series...to the point where NBC actually stole some of Roddenbery's methods for use in their rival show Lost in Space. Compare it to its actual sci-fi contemporaries...Lost in Space, the Twilight Zone (fantastic show, but made with a budget of about $8.73 per episode), the Prisoner, Buck Rogers, etc, and you'll see that its special effects were the marquee of what the mid 1960's had to offer. There's a reason why (other than the Twilight Zone), Star Trek is one of the only television shows from that era that is still in syndication today.
 
Iceman16 said:
that Ransom guy from Star Trek Voyager, in that episode where Voyager comes across another Starfleet ship which is using some lifeform to supercharge its engines to get home faster, that guy wouldve done anything for his crew.
Click to expand...

I like that choice, not because of his actions but he was probably the most interesting of all the captains, and a strong performance made Equinox one of my favourite episodes of all Trek, shame about the ending though.
 
The best Captain has to be.....Tolwyn.
Come on, you know it was coming sooner or later.
Besides he killed Kirk and captured Picard, so that makes him the king(s).
 
Farbourne said:
Ummm, check your facts. Star Wars came out in 1978.

The original Star Trek ran from 1966 - 1968, but most of the special effects techniques were developed in 1965. Thirteen years makes a lot of difference, especially thirteen years duruing the solid-state electronics revolution.

Plus, Star Wars was a full feature length film. Star Trek was a weekly TV series, and hence was consistently operating on a much shorter time frame with a fraction of the budget.
Click to expand...

Star Wars had a budget of eleven million dollars in 1977. That's more than Star Trek got for all 78 episodes combined, even after adjusting for ten years of inflation.
 
Incidentally, I can't take part in most of this discussion, because any Star Trek franchise after TNG does not exist as far as I am concerned. :-) Yes I'm a crotchedy old timer--I maintain that there have only ever been THREE Star Wars movies, and TWO Star Trek television series, and there has never been a Wing Commander movie... just kidding on the last one!
 
My serious assessment is that neither is great on their own.

Picard has a thirst for knowledge and is great if they're exploring the unknown. The only time I've seen him get really war like was when he was fighting the Borg in First Contact.

Riker is quicker on the trigger and not as concerned with exploration and diplomacy, he's sort of the Maniac to Picard's Jimmy Carter.

Put them together, though, and you have a perfect command team for the Enterprise. A team will seek out new life and new civililzations boldyl blow crap out of them.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top