View Single Post
Old June 15 2013, 11:48 PM   #47
Christopher's Avatar
Re: Would Spock Prime think Kirk and a young Kirk Prime look identical

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
Heck, I never found Jeremy Kemp convincing as Picard's brother. He just didn't look like he could be related to Patrick Stewart. In an ideal world, I would've liked to see Sean Connery in the role. .
Nah, F. Murray Abraham or Ben Kingsley.
Yeah, there is a certain resemblance between Stewart and Kingsley too, not just in appearance but in speech mannerisms and delivery. And at least then Robert wouldn't have had a Scottish accent.

I have a good ear for speech rhythms, and I've noticed that a number of English actors seem to have almost identical rhythms and performance styles to Patrick Stewart's, including Kingsley and Michael York. It makes me wonder if they all were trained by the same acting teacher, and if so, just how meticulous the training is.

Yeoman Basha wrote: View Post
The alternative is to not write a clone story in the first place unless it can be done convincingly.
I find that a distasteful answer. I don't like the attitude that a given kind of story "shouldn't" be told at all. It smacks of censorship at worst, a failure of imagination and ambition at best. Everything is worth trying, even with no guarantee of success. If it's difficult to pull off, then that makes it a challenge even more worth attempting.

Part of the screenwriter's job is not only to write a story that is dramatically compelling (not that Nemesis was) but also to write a story that can be put on film in a convincing way -- using the tools that the filmmaker has on hand at the time. I wouldn't write a Picard clone story for the same reason I wouldn't write a story where the gravity on the Enterprise goes out and the characters spend the entire two hours floating around: it's just too difficult to put on film and make it look believable.
Yes, using what's on hand at the time. Which means it doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be the best available approximation -- trusting that the audience has engaged, non-atrophied imaginations and will actually make the effort to meet them halfway. For generations, filmmakers did the best they could to create images that were beyond the state of the art -- and that's the only way the state of the art could ever advance! If people had thought the way you do, that if something couldn't be achieved perfectly it shouldn't even be tried, then filmmakers would never have challenged themselves to push their limits and discover new ways of doing things. And actors can't improve as actors if they aren't willing to tackle difficult challenges -- like giving a good enough performance to convince an audience to accept that they're the same person as someone they don't look or sound like. Would Tom Hardy be as respected an actor as he is today if he hadn't been willing to tackle challenges like pretending to be Patrick Stewart's clone? Whether he succeeded or not, the challenge itself, the attempt to surmount it, was how he refined his craft and gained experience. Your attitude is one of surrender and avoidance, and that's not what makes creativity work. It's not what enables anyone to succeed at anything in life.
Written Worlds -- Christopher L. Bennett's blog and webpage
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote