View Single Post
Old January 11 2013, 12:19 AM   #137
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Putting the Shatner "ego issue" from TOS to rest

AtoZ wrote: View Post
TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
ssosmcin wrote: View Post
It all adds up to the same thing for the lower tier cast: get over it.
Agreed. It was borderline insane to take what was in large part a fan invention of a completely united cast/happy family, then turn around and magnify Shatner's past into something negative for not fitting into that post-series invention.

...as mentioned a week ago, the lower tier cast conveniently spare Nimoy, who was bucking for an expanded role, more money, etc., which would not help give more screen time to the others, but reduce it, as the pie was primarily cut up between three actors. No word about that, but Nimoy was looking out for himself during the TOS production as much as Shatner. In fact, his high visibility in early merchandising (Spock was the only character to have his own model kit during the first run) insured he could argue for a bigger part/profit, and since Shatner was the series star and as crucial to its success as Nimoy, that meant the bitter bunch were not going to be elevated. Add guest stars--who serve the next vital component to weekly episodes, and the rest had to work with what was left.

Nimoy would not stand up for them until the TAS production intended to elminate the lower tier characters, but what was happening on the TOS set/production office was clear, yet they said nothing about it in their generations' worth of bitching.

Hypocrites.
Excellent post!
And what is particularly damning is the about-face some of them did. In the bio SHATNER WHERE NO MAN from 1979 came out, Doohan has words to the effect that Nimoy was always concerned about the character of Spock, but Shatner was concerned about the whole show.

Doohan even goes on to admit that while he might not have thought this way earlier, by the time he was interviewed he thought Shatner was the best actor in the cast. Now some of this could just be telling the interviewers what they wanted to hear, but why put it all across this way when you know you'll probably be dealing with these issues and questions repeatedly for the next 20 years?
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote