Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing them
- Thread starter redshirtguy1001
- Start date
Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing
Been around long before then, at least in the UK. "Only Fools & Horses" faced the decision when Lennard Pearce aka Grandad died in 1984. Series 4 included his funeral - and back then, the idea of a funeral in a comedy series was pretty unusual!
I think that happened a few times. The most recent I can think of is when John Ritter died. Not only did they kill off his character on 8 Simple Rules (the show he starred in) they also killed off the character he played on ScrubsThen they could have had Crosby guest star from time to time as Yar rather than Sela. At least that would have spared us another instance of Hollywood Genetics: people are exact duplicates of their parents (or distant ancestors) at the same age.
Agreed 100% on the stupidity of the Sela character looking exactly like Tasha with pointed ears. That just sucked so bad.
As for the O.P.'s question, it does suspend disbelief a great deal if the character is played by another actor, esp. if the actor only slightly resembles the prevoius actor.
I believe that practice began with some sitcom where the actor died, so they then wrote in the death of the character into the show rather than replace the actor. May have happened in the late 1970s.
Oh, and welcome, redshirtguy1001.
Red Rum!
Been around long before then, at least in the UK. "Only Fools & Horses" faced the decision when Lennard Pearce aka Grandad died in 1984. Series 4 included his funeral - and back then, the idea of a funeral in a comedy series was pretty unusual!
Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing
Exactly. This reboot was not an inevitable, god-given thing.
Exactly. This reboot was not an inevitable, god-given thing.
Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing
.
Mad Men even wrote into the show a death of a character that they really were not forced to write, since he was a guest actor and had appeared only in one season 1 episode
(Pete's father)
Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing
I suppose I represent the minority, but I'll take Robin Curtis over Kirstie Alley anyday, and I'm not saying that based on 2009 Kirstie Alley (which begs the question, does 2009 Robin Curtis even exist?) Anyway, even on Cheers where Alley was supposed to be a sultry and beautiful alternative to Shelley Long's Diane Chambers, I've never really gotten that from her.
I suppose I represent the minority, but I'll take Robin Curtis over Kirstie Alley anyday, and I'm not saying that based on 2009 Kirstie Alley (which begs the question, does 2009 Robin Curtis even exist?) Anyway, even on Cheers where Alley was supposed to be a sultry and beautiful alternative to Shelley Long's Diane Chambers, I've never really gotten that from her.
Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing
Agreed - Curtis (for me) always seemed to be doing one-note line readings as Saavik - not only no emotion, but no inflection, no interest, no variation, Bleah.
Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing
Not every human behaves like McCoy or Archer or Trip - Picard is, for instance, a very Vulcan-like human, as Spock observed. It doesn't make sense for every Vulcan to act the same. Sure, their culture requires them to suppress their emotions as much as they can, but not everyone is going to do it the same way, and some of them might do it to a lesser extent than some others.
I'm also aware of the story that Saavik was supposed to be half-Romulan and that this is why Alley played her like that... Which I find to be an annoyingly stupid idea. What difference would that have made, if she was brought up on Vulcan?! It would be silly to suggest that Vulcan genes (even if we forget that they're supposed to be very similar to Romulan genes) make one suppress their emotions, rather than their upbringing.
The 'hotness' debate aside, Robin Curtis' acting was really stiff and unengaging. I don't know if this was her fault or if it this is what Nimoy wanted from her, but to me it seemed like a caricature of what Vulcans are supposed to be like. I've seen people praise her portrayal for exactly the same reason, because they thought she "acted more like a Vulcan" or that Alley's Saavik was "too emotional". Geez, people, there are several billion Vulcans, you don't think they are all exactly the same, do you? That's like expecting every human to have exactly the same personality.
Not every human behaves like McCoy or Archer or Trip - Picard is, for instance, a very Vulcan-like human, as Spock observed. It doesn't make sense for every Vulcan to act the same. Sure, their culture requires them to suppress their emotions as much as they can, but not everyone is going to do it the same way, and some of them might do it to a lesser extent than some others.I'm also aware of the story that Saavik was supposed to be half-Romulan and that this is why Alley played her like that... Which I find to be an annoyingly stupid idea. What difference would that have made, if she was brought up on Vulcan?! It would be silly to suggest that Vulcan genes (even if we forget that they're supposed to be very similar to Romulan genes) make one suppress their emotions, rather than their upbringing.
Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing
Because she was brought up on an abandoned prison planet, the orphaned offspring of a Vulcan prisoner and a Romulan jailer: the equivalent of a wolf child, whom Spock tried to reeducate by taking her to Vulcan and grooming her for the Academy.
While that never made it onscreen, it was what Kirstie Alley was given to work with.
What difference would that have made, if she was brought up on Vulcan?! It would be silly to suggest that Vulcan genes (even if we forget that they're supposed to be very similar to Romulan genes) make one suppress their emotions, rather than their upbringing.
Because she was brought up on an abandoned prison planet, the orphaned offspring of a Vulcan prisoner and a Romulan jailer: the equivalent of a wolf child, whom Spock tried to reeducate by taking her to Vulcan and grooming her for the Academy.
While that never made it onscreen, it was what Kirstie Alley was given to work with.
Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing
But Nimoy-Spock and Quinto-Spock are amazingly similar.
That alone is so unique that it's fun to see. And although I agree that Shatner-Kirk and Pine-Kirk are distinct characters, there's a good story-based reason for it, and I'm intrigued to see where Pine-Kirk's story takes him.
But Nimoy-Spock and Quinto-Spock are amazingly similar.
That alone is so unique that it's fun to see. And although I agree that Shatner-Kirk and Pine-Kirk are distinct characters, there's a good story-based reason for it, and I'm intrigued to see where Pine-Kirk's story takes him.
Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing
I think the argument could be masde that TOS-Kirk and TOS Movie-Kirk are different characters.
But Nimoy-Spock and Quinto-Spock are amazingly similar.
Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing
Happened on Newsradio too, in even (though ymmv) more tragic circumstances.
You know, I totally agree with the sentiment. But God knows how many times Trek writers have confused the issue by making references to Spock's "human half" having something to do with whatever vague emotion he's supposed to be experiencing at any given time, despite the also oft-repeated notion of Vulcans being savage jerks until Surak showed up to spread the Good News.
I think that happened a few times. The most recent I can think of is when John Ritter died. Not only did they kill off his character on 8 Simple Rules (the show he starred in) they also killed off the character he played on ScrubsThen they could have had Crosby guest star from time to time as Yar rather than Sela. At least that would have spared us another instance of Hollywood Genetics: people are exact duplicates of their parents (or distant ancestors) at the same age.
Agreed 100% on the stupidity of the Sela character looking exactly like Tasha with pointed ears. That just sucked so bad.
As for the O.P.'s question, it does suspend disbelief a great deal if the character is played by another actor, esp. if the actor only slightly resembles the prevoius actor.
I believe that practice began with some sitcom where the actor died, so they then wrote in the death of the character into the show rather than replace the actor. May have happened in the late 1970s.
Oh, and welcome, redshirtguy1001.
Red Rum!
Happened on Newsradio too, in even (though ymmv) more tragic circumstances.
DevilEyes said:I'm also aware of the story that Saavik was supposed to be half-Romulan and that this is why Alley played her like that... Which I find to be an annoyingly stupid idea. What difference would that have made, if she was brought up on Vulcan?! It would be silly to suggest that Vulcan genes (even if we forget that they're supposed to be very similar to Romulan genes) make one suppress their emotions, rather than their upbringing.
You know, I totally agree with the sentiment. But God knows how many times Trek writers have confused the issue by making references to Spock's "human half" having something to do with whatever vague emotion he's supposed to be experiencing at any given time, despite the also oft-repeated notion of Vulcans being savage jerks until Surak showed up to spread the Good News.
Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing
I suppose the decision to replace the actor with another actor rather than kill the character depends upon why the character is being killed. As for recasting characters I have no problem with another actor taking on the role. So the face and the interpretation of the character changes, that doesn't bother me. Characters are roles and many actors can play them. It's a shame, of course, if the replacement actor doesn't play the part as well as the original. I'm thinking that I enjoyed Stephen Grief as Travis far more than Brian Croucher, and Kirstie Alley as Saavik far more than Robin Curtis, but it was still nice to have the character around.
I suppose the decision to replace the actor with another actor rather than kill the character depends upon why the character is being killed. As for recasting characters I have no problem with another actor taking on the role. So the face and the interpretation of the character changes, that doesn't bother me. Characters are roles and many actors can play them. It's a shame, of course, if the replacement actor doesn't play the part as well as the original. I'm thinking that I enjoyed Stephen Grief as Travis far more than Brian Croucher, and Kirstie Alley as Saavik far more than Robin Curtis, but it was still nice to have the character around.
Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing
An even worst treatment of the issue was Voyagers "Faces", in which B'Elanna got literally split into a wimpy human side and an angry Klingon side.
Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing
I couldn't see any similarity between the characters of Quinto-Spock and Nimoy-Spock. Tim Russ as Tuvok was a much better Spock than Quinto's, if you ask me. And I also can't see any similarities between the actors Nimoy and Quinto. They look and sound so totally different.
But Nimoy-Spock and Quinto-Spock are amazingly similar.
I couldn't see any similarity between the characters of Quinto-Spock and Nimoy-Spock. Tim Russ as Tuvok was a much better Spock than Quinto's, if you ask me. And I also can't see any similarities between the actors Nimoy and Quinto. They look and sound so totally different.
Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing
So you're saying that Tim Russ was trying to emulate Nimoy as Spock, or that he was an imitation of Spock, rather than playing a distinct and different character? That's not very complimentary to Russ. (For the record, I disagree. Tuvok is very different from Spock.)
Eh, whatever.
So you're saying that Tim Russ was trying to emulate Nimoy as Spock, or that he was an imitation of Spock, rather than playing a distinct and different character? That's not very complimentary to Russ. (For the record, I disagree. Tuvok is very different from Spock.) Eh, whatever.
Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing
No, I was saying that while he was playing Tuvok, that he was - in comparison to Quinto's portrayal of Spock - still much closer to Spock's character than Quinto. Slightly exaggerated, but still valid, in my opinion.
Sorry, to me, he doesn't look anything like him. Especially his eyes are totally wrong. And he doesn't have the... I dunno what to call it... essence, maybe. Quinto simply doesn't have that "devil-ish" looks, he has to much "boy-ish" looks. Where Nimoy looked deadpan serious, Quinto looks like he's inwardly smirking.
http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/quinto-nimoy-spock.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ojhO_7coVAw/ScvE9Zeg34I/AAAAAAAAByc/ni5z4EnnOxM/s400/leonard_nimoy.jpg
vs.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WK-AO143_STARTR_G_20081230143036.jpg
No, I was saying that while he was playing Tuvok, that he was - in comparison to Quinto's portrayal of Spock - still much closer to Spock's character than Quinto. Slightly exaggerated, but still valid, in my opinion.
Sorry, to me, he doesn't look anything like him. Especially his eyes are totally wrong. And he doesn't have the... I dunno what to call it... essence, maybe. Quinto simply doesn't have that "devil-ish" looks, he has to much "boy-ish" looks. Where Nimoy looked deadpan serious, Quinto looks like he's inwardly smirking.
http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/quinto-nimoy-spock.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ojhO_7coVAw/ScvE9Zeg34I/AAAAAAAAByc/ni5z4EnnOxM/s400/leonard_nimoy.jpg
vs.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WK-AO143_STARTR_G_20081230143036.jpg
Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing
Because it leads to a running joke for years and years. It's called the "Darrin Stephens effect".
Because it leads to a running joke for years and years. It's called the "Darrin Stephens effect".
Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing
