Favorite Star Trek Captain

[SlackerinDeNile]

Picard: Awesome acting, writing is all over the place.

Sisko: Well written, acting is good but prone to shatning at times.

Overall favorite is still Sisko, but you have to respect Stewart's acting skills.

That's a good summary and we share the same view, I like these two Captains almost equally.
They're both strong, intelligent, admirable characters with their own flaws.
As for their acting, Avery Brooks is usually great but sometimes he got really hammy and overdid things a bit, like
that weird speech pattern he would sometimes start when Sisko got really emotional (Shatning is a good term for it) or the jazz noises he occasionally made, it's especially noticeable in the pilot.
Patrick Stewart was fantastic, he gave Picard such a cool sense of culture, experience and authority which managed to show through even some of the worst written episodes of TNG.

[Anduinel]

Patrick Stewart was fantastic, he gave Picard such a cool sense of culture, experience and authority which managed to show through even some of the worst written episodes of TNG.

QFT. I've been introducing a friend to Trek over the last few months. We made it through the highlights of TOS, a couple of animated episodes, 4 of the 6 original films (for 3 and 5 we just did the summary versions at SFDebris), and Chaos on the Bridge. Now we're into the first season of TNG. I haven't watched it in over a decade, and even the high points are pretty painful. I'm at this point firmly of the opinion that Patrick Stewart's acting chops are the only reason Picard could be taken at all seriously for at least the first two seasons of this show.

[BunBun299]

The Sisko. First name, Don't Fuck With.

Second place goes to Picard. While I remember seeing an odd TOS episode here or there as a kid, TNG was my first real introduction to Trek, and I loved it.

After that, Janeway. Though I didn't quite stick out that series until the end.

Then Kirk. I enjoy watching TOS episodes on occasion, but it's something before my time.

And after that, my personal STO Captain.

I tend to reject that other series, and I'm normally a fan of Scott Bakula.

[PerrySimm]

I rate them in this order - Sisko, Picard, Kirk, Janeway, Archer. Sisko combines the might of Kirk with wisdom comparable to Picard.

Kirk was at his greatest in the Captain's Chair, but barely held it together at Starfleet Command. Sisko managed to keep his own command despite having religious dealings with the Bajorans unplatable to many in Starfleet *and* essentially becoming becoming a flag officer during the war. Kirk was a hero to Sisko. They were both steadfast in their dedication to achieve their goals. If anything, Sisko is the better captain because he stood on the shoulders of giants.

Picard was a great diplomat and had strong dealings with the Klingons, but he fumbled with the Cardassians and Romulans, and his failure to treat the Borg as an existential threat was a cataclysmic mistake. Sisko thwarted coups on Bajor, Earth, and Cardassia, and saved the Alpha Quadrant from the Dominion multiple times - and accomplished all this despite Picard having previously destroyed his life.

After Sisko, well, Picard versus Kirk is always a complicated debate. Picard may not be as tough in a battle, but I still prefer his style.

Janeway versus Archer for last place - both had a constant need for moral superiority despite being in charge of first contact with countless species, not exactly the ideal personality for the job. Archer's agenda was to throw out the history books and make his own, something that repeatedly came back to bite him. Despite being just as stubborn and perhaps even more foolishly optimistic than Archer, at the very least Janeway was occasionally willing to contemplate the fact that she was wrong. Archer didn't gain any kind of non-genocidal introspection until he was bashed over the brain with Surak himself.

[Paul Walker]

It depends what you're looking for.

Kirk set up the captain's role to be more of a friend to his senior staff than their superior officer.

Picard had all the acting skills of Patrick Stewart to back up rather shoddy scripts early on, and to significantly boost his scripts when they were strengthened.

Sisko was well written throughout, with good character progression, but Avery Brooks was, in my opinion, the weakest actor until Scott Bakula to sit in the captain's chair.

Janeway, well let's admit that Mulgrew can act. When she had a good script she did it well. Other than those five episodes, she did her best to elevate the weaker scripts.

Archer.....and moving on!

To me, Picard wins for me based almost entirely off Patrick Stewart's acting skills. He shines in episodes like The Measure of a Man, The Defector, Who Watches the Watchers, Inner Light, Darmok, Chain of Command, Tapestry and All Good Things. Were Stewart playing Ben Sisko, we'd have a home-run winner.

[SuccubusYuri]

Sisko > Picard > (SMART Archer) > Janeway > Kirk (old Kirk then Diet Kirk) > Duchess

Sisko has THE character arc of everybody and its hard to top that. Picard's a strong character, though any growth we see is mostly from "angry gandfather" to "kinda chill granddad", its all variation on the same ideas. But in general the same sentiments here; he has an arc, he feels genuinely conflicted, and don't fuck with The Sisko. The only thing I like Picard more for is his ability to distance himself, like that whole Worf suicide episode, it made him feel much more genuine as an explorer and diplomat used to dealing with alien races. Sisko didn't always purge himself of that prejudice for good or for ill. Not better or worse structurally, just personal preference how a space opera should handle its universe.

The bottom three really jockey for me because the captains don't fall into my "loved characters" lists, they would be the last things on my lists for why I should watch the show. I am at best neutral though often yelling at them through screen.

The Good Archer is the exception, but his presence, for whatever reason, was inconsistent and not conveyed very strongly. It's like the Azati Prime arc, we can see the shades to Archer, but be it Bakula's acting or inconsistent direction mucking it up, he's sometimes not consistent through single episodes and Duchess peeks in behind the veil. When he's good, I find him very engaging and compelling, but when he's bad it's just awful, too awful to just ignore or laugh off like Janeway or Kirk.

[FaxModem1]

Remember, I limited it to captains, not series leads. Captain Sulu, Jellico, Kor, etc are all viable choices.

[Robovski]

Remember, I limited it to captains, not series leads. Captain Sulu, Jellico, Kor, etc are all viable choices.

The problem with selecting those choices for most people is that there is so little material to work off of (at least in TV/Movies) that they cannot compete with our series leads.

I like Captain Sulu from what I saw, and wanted that as the basis for a series for years but there is so much more to the leads to make him my favourite.

That said, Sisko. Captain Sulu probably beats bad Archer and bad Janeway, but those are fighting over the bottom ranking for the leads anyway.

[The Romulan Republic]

If all characters who held the rank of captain, not just leads, are acceptable, then Picard still wins for me, but I dare say Spock and reboot Pike are probably close runner-ups.

[SuccubusYuri]

Yeah the only way to take the side-captains is if you're also giving them a value judgment on command styles. And stuff like Riker technically being a Captain at the end of Nemesis but we never really see him on-screen AS captain (just CO), but does that all still count because we know the character intimately, just not AS a captain?

For that matter does Worf count being the CO of the Defiant for so much time? And if its just the rank of captain that was important, what about the characters we know WERE captains but didn't see onscreen as such, like Admiral Nechayev and her 3 fans?

Nah, I think we're just saving ourselves a big headache xD