underscore Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 I pick sisko, Picard was a great actor, but overall I prefer DS9 to TNG by a long distance, so I pick sisko. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bones2097 Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 theres a difference in experiance too... picard is well seasoned shall we say whilst the sisko is still wet behind the ears.... its a matter of age picard was a risk taker to begin with too (his artifical heart..) but then he got civilised ... alas what a waste.. he lost his bite.... sisko still nu to the game still had his bite & thats what ppl like.... but on thinking about it i don't picard being as skinny as he is, being much of th challegening type :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tablet Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 I think that the two are so different to compare them is like comparing a pen to a block of cheese. Sisko had the domionion war and the profits to deal with and picard had exploring the unknown. Sisko was a commander and Picard a captain, Sisko also seemed more american, maybe it was his baseball obsession but it probably gave the veiwers something to relate to but with picard he had his little flute and a whole lot of reading. Anyway me vote goes to Picard simpley because ive only seen about half of DS9 and ive seen almost all on TNG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exterus Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Picard. Patrick Stewart is the shit. I never liked Sisko particulary much. He was creepy. EDIT: This censoring of cusswords is getting on my nerves. What are we, five years old? Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 I dunno, some people spell/act around that age enough. How was Sisko creepy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted April 8, 2006 Author Share Posted April 8, 2006 for me the better starfleet officer is picard but i find myself wondering how the dominion invasion would have been managed by picard had he been in command of DS9. the prime directive as with many other rules are open to interpretation, in their application. what comes out is the values of the man when each different one applies those rules. each captain was given jobs to do and did them the each saw fit. i wonder which i would have preferred (and by that i mean, ehich would i have grown with as an individual and an officer or whatever) to serve under. it'd be a tough decision. yeah, i thought about that too. I would hope that picard acted like sisko. but it wold be intresting to see picard and weyoun going at it in a debate ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 hmm...well Sisko seemed like the better tactition to me - so i think the war would have played out a little poorer in the Federations favor if Picard was in Sisko's position - but you never know... I do wonder what kind of stuff Picard was up to while the war was on though... :rolleyes: *Whispers* Risa..... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Naturally, you're forgetting the events of 7x01-2 which essentially proved that the war was won by the Prophets. Sisko being the Emissary won the war - not any of his tactics. At least, that's what I got from the season 7 opener... and Sacrifice of Angels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted April 9, 2006 Author Share Posted April 9, 2006 Naturally, you're forgetting the events of 7x01-2 which essentially proved that the war was won by the Prophets. Sisko being the Emissary won the war - not any of his tactics. At least, that's what I got from the season 7 opener... and Sacrifice of Angels. sisko had nothing to do with it. the prophets didnt want bajor to be overtaken, and that would have happened if the DOM came through. If that fleet came through it would have only prolonged the war, I dont think that would have won tthe war. The founders where dying, the jem'hedar would have fallen to ruins and killed each other. So I agree that that eps does not count for sisko's tactical skill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steveo Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Well, Sisko had a lot to do with it in his role as emissary in both occasions. He persuaded the Prophets in Sacrifice of Angels and he found the orb in Image in the Sand. Secondly, that fleet would have won the war, no doubt about it, when combined with continuating reinforcements it would have been quick. Winning by numbers. Red Army anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Yes - Sisko persuading the Prophets to stop the DOM fleet from coming through the wormhole was obviously a turning point in the Feds favour thanks to the Prophets but if you think of all the battles such as the battle of DS9 or the battle of Chintauka - could those battles have gone as well had Picard been in Command Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exterus Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Yes - Sisko persuading the Prophets to stop the DOM fleet from coming through the wormhole was obviously a turning point in the Feds favour thanks to the Prophets but if you think of all the battles such as the battle of DS9 or the battle of Chintauka - could those battles have gone as well had Picard been in Command Of course they would. The good guys always win in Star Trek, no matter how clever tacticians they might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 If you look at it that way - the captains have nothing to do with it - the writers are then ones we should be discussing here... :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted April 9, 2006 Author Share Posted April 9, 2006 Yes - Sisko persuading the Prophets to stop the DOM fleet from coming through the wormhole was obviously a turning point in the Feds favour thanks to the Prophets but if you think of all the battles such as the battle of DS9 or the battle of Chintauka - could those battles have gone as well had Picard been in Command Of course they would. The good guys always win in Star Trek, no matter how clever tacticians they might be. well in Nor the Battle to the Strong the klingons messed up the Feds... so the GOod guys dont always win ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exterus Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 If you look at it that way - the captains have nothing to do with it - the writers are then ones we should be discussing here... :rolleyes: Yes, pretty much. Thank you for clarifying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Yes, that's the real problem with sensible discussion of tv is generally it all boils down to "Because the good guys had to win." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exterus Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Yes' date=' that's the real problem with sensible discussion of tv is generally it all boils down to "Because the good guys had to win."[/quote'] Yes, because that IS the real reason why picard and sisko came out on top. Any other theories are simply indulgent fantasies. Not that there are anything wrong with those, but I'm far too cynical not to comment on it. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Yes but the writers wrote those characters to be different - they are not the same people and have different characteristics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now