Sargent really looked like he belonged alongside William Windom in one of those Frank Sinatra crime movies about homophobia from the late 60s. If I was going to give it much thought, he looked the type to slap Samantha around, which is probably why I rarely ever watched the Sargent episodes, despite the fact Sam's skirts were shortening by that time.
People,
You do realize that if the character name stayed the same, Captain Pike, and Shatner was the second person to play Pike, we would have threads today debating the two actors' merits, kind of like the "two Darrens" debate on Bewitched!![]()
Red Ranger
But afterward, thanks to network pressure and Arnold's departure, it degenerated into shallow farce and gimmickry and "What curse can Endora put on Derwood this week?"
And I never got Darren's intolerance of the witchcraft. What a dunce! Man, if I could clean the entire house in a second by twitching my nose, or put a new car in the driveway, or transport myself to Paris for a vacation...
My mother.^^^And the source for that assertion?
I found Dick York to be brittle and a huge jerk. But I think a large part of it in both cases with the way Darrin was written - he was a dum-dum, as Endora put it. And his prejudice would never have worked in a sitcom today; he'd be a witch-lover by the end of the series, and they'd have brought in a new witchphobic character to balance it.I found Sargent's Darrin brittle, unlikeable, and the actor uncharismatic.
Sargent really looked like he belonged alongside William Windom in one of those Frank Sinatra crime movies about homophobia from the late 60s. If I was going to give it much thought, he looked the type to slap Samantha around, which is probably why I rarely ever watched the Sargent episodes, despite the fact Sam's skirts were shortening by that time.
I'm not sure what you mean by that -- from the juxtaposition of statements, are you suggesting him as the type to play a violently homophobic character? Ironic, since he was gay.
"
...And in general, the bigger the changes between the pilots, the lower the odds that the things that had annoyed the critics originally would keep on annoying them the second time around.
It's a good thing that the original pilot didn't establish too much about things like "Starfleet" or "the 23rd century", because the second pilot would have been compelled to change those, too, creating incompatibility rather than mere variety.
What? "The critics" never saw "The Cage." Only the network executives did. And they loved the story, except for certain specific things that they objected to.
It's the nature of the business that writers and producers need to respond to notes from those they answer to. But you only change what's specifically asked for in the notes. You don't change they things they don't ask you to change, because that might take away something they did like. You don't just randomly try to make it as different as possible and hope that satisfies them. The business isn't as shoddily run as that; they tell you specifically what they liked and didn't like, rather than forcing you to guess.
But is this whole two-pilot thing completely unique to Trek? If a second pilot is ordered, doesn't that send the strong message that the network wants something completely new, rather than a rehash with minor changes?
What would be the point of making a second pilot that doesn't try to offer anything new to the critics?
Just following their instructions in the production of a second pilot would seem to prove nothing, except that the people making the pitch can read. Which may be a good thing in general, but probably not the criterion the network would aim at.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.