Do actors ever provide in-depth insights about characters or stories at conventions?

[Greg Cox]

Roger & Scotch, a winning combination.


I didn't remember that, although I do like that movie. If you've heard the commentary for the sequel, you'll remember they had to insert an extra scene after the sex scene, to avoid an unfortunate juxtaposition...

Only listened to the commentary on the first film. Clearly, I need to remedy that. What was the juxtaposition?

 

[Lance]

Even though actors can be absorbed in their characters when playing a role -- for example, creating in their heads a fictional backstory so they can "live" the character as though they've had a long history before the segment of their life that we get to see in a movie or show -- the reality is that once an actor leaves a part, it ceases to have that same resonance. They move onto other characters and, yes, having seven years of Star Trek on your resume is going to be something that was important to you, but it isn't going to be something that an actor holds in their head 25+ years after the fact or whatever. Those characters, or whatever motivations or insights they had about them at the time, are lost to the mists of history. This is part of the reason why, for example, sometimes a "reunion special" of a TV show can fall flat, because actors come back to roles without the same clear definition of it that they had at the time.

I remember Patrick Stewart doing an interview for the BBC where he answered viewers questions, one of which was about whether he ever misses being on the Enterprise sets. His answer wasn't dismissive, but it was matter-of-fact: something to the effect of "It's just a stage" and that he doesn't have an emotional connection to it. There are super-obsessive fans out there who would probably be outraged by those comments, but to me it makes perfect sense. Why would he have a warm and fuzzy connection to those particular pieces of plywood? As an actor, he can live and breathe the role, but it doesn't mean he can provide anything more to it than inhabiting the role for however long it goes before the cameras.

 

[eyeresist]

Only listened to the commentary on the first film. Clearly, I need to remedy that. What was the juxtaposition?

Spoiler

The hero and heroine embrace passionately. DISSOLVE TO: Water pouring noisily from a drain. They inserted a brief sequence of the baddy brooding on his ship.

 

[Lee]

For a textbook example, check out the audio commentary on the first UNDERWORLD movie. Scott Speedman barely seems to remember starring in the movie, or anything about it, to the extent that co-star Kate Beckinsale starts teasing him about it.

"There was this movie, UNDERWORLD, Scott. You and I were in it . . . ."

I remember Jonathan Frakes' commentary to an episode of "Roswell," for which he was an executive producer and directed several episodes. I like Frakes as an actor and he seems like a nice guy, but I was puzzled by his commentary, which consisted entirely of his memories of joking around with the actors on the set. No memories of anything more substantive like behind-the-scenes production or what he did in his role as executive producer. My impression after hearing the commentary was that he really didn't do much on the show, and that the bulk of his executive-producer-ship consisted of arriving late, joking around with the actors, taking long lunches, joking around with the actors, and leaving early. Of course, to be fair, I don't know if that was actually the case or not.