Wouldn't it have made more sense for Tom Paris to simply have been Nicholas Locarno from the outset The backstory is right there for us....young dynamo with great prospects who's career is ruined by one mistake (It seems odd that they would give Paris such a similar backstory but not actually just use the established Locarno character) and it would make sense for Locarno to join the Maquis as Starfleet obviously wouldn't take him I think some of the writers said it would be too difficult for Locarno to find redemption so they went with the Paris character instead but i don't see how that's the case Locarno was an interesting character and Voyager would have been the perfect (and possibly the only) way for him to find redemption and it would have given the audience a much better background and foundation for the character (not to mention the same actor)
The name was changed for penny pinching reasons - they'd have had to pay the writers of "The First Duty" royalties every episode had they stuck with Nick Locarno (who Paris definitely started off as - take a look at the early character sheets in A Vision of the Future: The Making of Voyager)
I don't know about television rights and royalties and payments and such. But ST has had very many characters/concepts reappear from earlier eps and earlier series. Is it always a case of going back to pay off the writer/creator from the earlier eps? Every time Kor appeared (TAS/DS9), was there an issue of royalty payments to the TOS character's creator? I know they originally considered having Ro Laren come back to star in DS9 (rather than Kira) but the actress Forbes declined. Why wasn't there a similar problem as Locarno being in VOY? In any case, I agree Locarno would have been a better choice and would have fit very well. I will say I like the fundamental difference between Locarno/Paris, despite the obvious similarities. Locarno was an early proto-Kirk type, a bold and capable risk-taker. He seemed to be a hero in the making, but had a fatal flaw that would prevent him from achieving greatness. Paris was the opposite. He appeared to be the bad boy, the Starfleeter gone wrong, the rebel. But in fact he was a good and decent fellow, who couldn't live up to the rebel image he projected.
I consider him Locarno anyway, in my own private canon or whatever. Can't cite the source but I remember reading something about the casting for Voyager, they couldn't find a guy with the right "Locarno fit" and they went through many actors... so in the end they just offered the part to Robert DM anyway.
Someone asked McNeill this question last weekend when I saw him at a con, and he said what KingDaniel said. Because he was channeling KingDaniel, no not really though that would be cool. But anyway yeah, money.
Whenever "they" brought up Tom Paris' prison time and whatnot, it always kind of lept me out of the story, for precisely that reason. Anybody who knows Lacarno from TNG knows he's Paris. If they didn't bring it up, I could almost accept that they're "different" characters. I like McNeill and making him a series regular makes sense to me. But "they" knew they weren't going to get Locarno, they should've just written another character for him to play. Somebody like Reed from ENTERPRISE, with shady dealings and connections to STARFLEET's underbelly, or something like that. But for Berman it wasn't either the actor, or the character, he was going to have both, no matter how absurdly moronic it seemed. Because ... I don't know. There's so much that's off about VOYAGER, that this stuff with Paris just seems like more of the same. For instance, how starship Voyager never gets a scratch or a blemish, despite all of the scrapes it runs into in the Delta Quadrant - without access to a spacestation to tart it back up, again.
Tom Paris's history also had him as a smarmy, creepy liar. His time on Voyager was his personal second chance at redemption. It always surprises me what TV writers think the audience will find irredeemable. What Nick Locarno did was terrible but it's no less redeemable than the flaky loyalty-floating we learn of Paris' past. Also in Blacklist James Spader is built up to be this horrible criminal of criminals but then none of his crimes (At least in the few episodes I saw) were violent crimes. He's built up as more of a Snowden figure, and that qualifies him according to the writers to be one of the world's most notorious criminals. Ever notice the first time we see Admiral Paris early on in a hallucination, he's this big imposing judgmental figure, but then when we see him in person in Pathfinder he's a small likable old man?
Exactly. Locarno tried to cover everything up from the get-go. Paris eventually came clean and admitted what he'd done. Paris had a conscience; Locarno didn't.
Paris is so much Locarno that they even used a photo of Locarno to represent a younger Paris in one episode.
^ That means exactly as much as does the fact that two different actors portrayed Tom's dad. Which is to say, not at all.
I believe the difference is if the character is created by the producers( or paid member of the writing staff) vs the character being created by an independent writer. For example, Braga created Seven of Nine, her name and character likeness are trademarked under Paramount. However if they use a story written by an independent writer, any original character is owned by that writer and can't be used in a story not written by them without compensation. Kor, Kira & Ro Laren are all owned by Paramount Nick Lacarno isn't, I believe the same holds true of "Tam Elburn" from "Tin Man". Same reason every time the name "Droid" is used to advertise a phone, George Lucas has to get paid for it. "Droid" is trademarked under Lucas Entertainment.
I wouldn't say Locarno didn't have a conscience. He tried to avoid taking responsibility for what he did but in the end he fell on the sword to protect the rest of his squad. I think the average 22 year old, if they accidentally caused the death of a friend, would try to cover it up out of fear. He deserved what he got certainly, but after serving his time he was every bit as redeemable as Tom Paris, if he took the initiative to redeem himself.
Yeah, the word 'Android' pre-dates George Lucas. I doubt even Google has got dabs on 'Android' as copyrighted word. They've got IP over their funny little robot logo character thingy, but the word 'Android' itself is uncopyrightable. But then again, every bar of Cadbury's milk chocolate bears the words 'The color purple is copyright Cadbury'. So wtf would I know? Regarding Nick Locarno, what always buggered me was how the writers themselves seemed to kinda forget they were different characters after a point. There's an episode where Belana makes the statement that Tom Paris was "expelled" with the Academy -- uh, no he wasn't. Paris graduated, his incident happened when he was already an officer. Nick Locarno was the one who got expelled from the Academy.
Didn't Locarno do what he did simply to protect his team. He knew he'd made a mistake but wanted to make sure his team didn't all get punished for it....when that was no longer possible, he took full responsibility (as he said he would) He never bullied or threatened Wesley to tow the line....he allowed him to make his own choice but strongly felt that the team should protect each other I always thought he was a far more principled and mature character than Paris was....Paris had a bit of a goofy, boyish quality that Locarno probably didn't (but Locarno may have developed that as the series went on if he'd been on board)
That might simply be that shade of purple, or that using a purple wrapper on a cholcate bar is copyrighted. I suspect if Cadbury's decided to launch a similar bar to a Mars Bar put it in a black wrapper with red lettering for the name say Ares. Mars might have a thing or two to say.