I'm very happy for you.
I've been micromanaged. I've micromanaged. I've been flexible and I've adjusted.
It all depends on the situation and the team.
Spoilers Questions about a certain admiral and how it colors other aspects of "Trek"
- Thread starter Citiprime
- Start date
I've been micromanaged. I've micromanaged. I've been flexible and I've adjusted.
It all depends on the situation and the team.
In that particular instance, yes, but keep in mind that he was appointed to command the ship in an urgent crisis. He didn't believe there was time to ease the crew in gradually; he had to push them to get ready for what he believed was necessary for a time-sensitive, high-stakes mission. Was it the wrong approach? Yes, but it wasn't arbitrary. And it's entirely possible that in a different, less pressing situation, he might be more willing to listen. I see Jellico as the wrong captain for that mission, taking the wrong tack both to the crew and to the crisis. But we've only seen him in that one situation prior to his appearance in Prodigy. We don't have enough information to know whether what we saw was the rule or the exception. There's a difference between making bad choices and being a bad person.
True. I'm basing my opinion solely on Chain of Command. And what I've seen so far on Prodigy ( I'm on episode 17) hasn't changed my understanding on who he is. He seems still cut from that same cloth. But yeah I conceed it's possible he's not as rigid and inflexible as what we've seen. But all we have to go on is what we've seen.
By that same token, a one off character like Okona, who has been portrayed as a womanizer and rouge, may not be the real him if we saw much more content . But End of the day we can only go on what we see.
One mission is hard to dislike a person.
Disinterested, maybe. Dislike takes more.
Disinterested, maybe. Dislike takes more.
Ok.. I will meet you half way. He gave me a bad first impression. An impression that has not yet changed based on what I've seen on Prodigy.
Bad first impressions is a real thing and part of the human condition . I have disliked what I've seen of him so far.
Opinions can change. Case in point, Damar in DS9.
Last edited:
Again, though, that's his designated role in the story. He doesn't come off to me as a bad guy, just someone who's issuing orders that make sense from his perspective but get in the way of what the main characters need to do.
I mean, really, Janeway was willing to risk messing with time travel to save Chakotay. Considering that her alternate future self from "Endgame" wiped out decades of her own history just to selfishly save a few members of her crew, I can't blame Jellico or Starfleet Command for deciding they didn't trust her with a time-travel mission. Particularly since the mission did go wrong in a way that literally endangered the entire universe. Frankly, I think Jellico was on the right side of that one.
And later on, he initially resisted sending the Voyager-A to the Vau'Nakat homeworld, but he came around and authorized it when the situation changed. So he wasn't unreasonable.
The thing is, most of the time, if there's a character who's in authority over the main characters, their role in the story is usually to be wrong so that the main characters can be right, or to be an obstacle that the main characters have to overcome, or to be ineffectual so the main characters have to step up. That's been the pattern ever since TOS -- Commissioner Ferris, Ambassador Fox, T'Pau, Commodore Decker, Commodore Stocker, Admiral Morrow, etc. I don't see why Jellico gets singled out when he's just a typical example of the pattern.
Not a "bad" guy, just not someone I would not want as a boss.
Accurate.
I try not to let first impressions color everything with people.
But, then, I'm less sympathetic towards Garak too. It's complicated.
Because TV and movies are fiction, I'm a bit quicker to judge especially since we often only get snapshots of their character. In real life, I do try not to let first impressions colour my opinion.
That's reasonable in real life.
There are many characters that I simply have no interest in. Some would rise to dislike, but most simply are uninteresting to me to go forward watching. Okona is one, Picard another, Quark another.
Jellico is one that I'm intrigued by because I see the point of view he takes, and think the crew is as unreasonable at points. So the drama of that episode is predicated on a lot of inflexibility that makes little sense.
Seeing Jellico in that mission probably wasn't going to to show him at his best.
That's what I like about how Jellico is written and acted in "Chain of Command," though. I think he's given enough texture to suggest that he's a more likeable guy in some situations than others, like most people are. Although I seem to be one of the few people who see that in the episode.
We could be prejudging Jelluco. But ironically Jellico is guilty of pre judging himself when he flat out says Riker is not a good first officer , all based solely on his limited relationship with him.
Last edited:
The thing about Chain of Command everyone always overlooks is that nothing Jellico wanted was impossible or unreasonable. This is proven in the scene where Jellico is going over what he wants done and Data explains exactly how they can do it. And before anyone starts with "well, Data is an android, he's of course more capable than others on the crew" while that is true, Data also knows his crewmates, their capabilities or limitations. If Jellico expected anything that exceeded those standards, Data would have stepped forward and said that couldn't be done.
Honestly, I've always felt Chain of Command paints a negative picture of the rest of the TNG cast than Jellico. The characters really come off as whiners simply because they're working for a different Captain with a different style even though they logically should have expected to work for someone else at some point anyway, either through being transferred elsewhere or because they shouldn't have expected Picard to command the Enterprise indefinitely. And this isn't even an isolated incident, back in Sins of the Father when Kurn was acting first officer, they have the same complaints about him they would later have about Jellico, and in this case, Picard was still there to rein Kurn in if he did step over the line, which he didn't.
Honestly, I've always felt Chain of Command paints a negative picture of the rest of the TNG cast than Jellico. The characters really come off as whiners simply because they're working for a different Captain with a different style even though they logically should have expected to work for someone else at some point anyway, either through being transferred elsewhere or because they shouldn't have expected Picard to command the Enterprise indefinitely. And this isn't even an isolated incident, back in Sins of the Father when Kurn was acting first officer, they have the same complaints about him they would later have about Jellico, and in this case, Picard was still there to rein Kurn in if he did step over the line, which he didn't.
I think there’s been maybe a certain amount of flanderization for Jellico. Like, some people reacted to Jellico being “wrong” (as they saw it) in “Chain of Command”, and so have grown up to write him that way intentionally as Admiral Jellico, Starfleet Ideals Party Pooper.
I think part of it is that some people just expect a Ronny Cox character to be Dick Jones from RoboCop, a complete hateful bastard. Which is ironic, because before RoboCop, Cox was generally typecast as a really nice, friendly guy, which was why Dick Jones was such a standout role for him.
True. It’s funny, I always think of him as the perfectly-decent CIA boss who got sidelined on The Agency.
Think about the real world parallels too - Federation citizens have just watched the Federation, and within that Starfleet have disaster after disaster which will inherently damage their opinion of it and likely make those considering joining the academy rethink said plan and maybe opt for civilian life instead.
Following the clusterfucks in Afghanistan and Iraq (not looking to start a political discussion on it - presenting this as the general view in the UK that it was a shambles) the young are typically more anti-war than ever - this leads to a reduction in those joining the forces.
Trust being lost in the police over here too would appear to be part of the reason (Tory funding cuts not withstanding) that we don't have enough officers.
Could therefore be a pincer of reduced resources both material and people.
