Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing them

[SFRabid]

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".

I kept waiting for that.

The only thing worse than replacing the actor and keeping the character is having the same actor play 3 or 4 roles in the same series.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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".

I kept waiting for that.

The only thing worse than replacing the actor and keeping the character is having the same actor play 3 or 4 roles in the same series.

You must hate Jeff Combs, Vaughn Armstrong and Mark Lenard.

 

[SFRabid]

Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing

No, but with all the actors in Hollywood looking for work I don't know why they keep using the same people to play different recognizable parts.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing

You Hire people who do a good job. If they've worked for you before you know that. Not unlike a carpenter or plumber. Hollywood isn't in the business of "charity"

 

[SFRabid]

Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing

What does charity have to do with it? Are you comparing acting to carpentry? Yes, if i want several chairs made I would hire the same carpenter to make them so they turn out the same. If you have several different characters to be portrayed do YOU hire the same actor so they all turn out the same?

When they do so they walk a fine line between fans appreciating the return of a favorite actor and the distraction to the story it causes when the audience focuses on the actor instead of the character.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing

Acting is a craft and an art. You hire them for their skill, just like a carpenter. If the guy does a good job you hire them again. Playing different parts and making them different is the actor's job. They get cast because they're good at it.

"Charity" would be giving the part to an actor because they need the work, rather than because they are the best person for the role.

 

[SFRabid]

Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing

Ahhh. I see. All those actors that have not worked on Trek are not any good and hiring them would be an act of charity. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[DevilEyes]

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".

I kept waiting for that.

The only thing worse than replacing the actor and keeping the character is having the same actor play 3 or 4 roles in the same series.

That is more of a problem on shows like Law and Order, than on Trek where the actors are under heavy makeup and not easily recognizable. (Although there were cases when they were recognizable because they looked similar both times - as in cases of Mark Lenard and Michelle Forbes.)

And why would you reject the opportunity to give an excellent actor a great major recurring role or ever hire him/her again just because they had a bit role earlier?

I mean come on, were you really confused by Weyoun, Brunt and Shran or thought they were the same guy?! Do you think that they should never have hired Combs again just because he was in "Meridian"? Do you think they made a mistake of casting Marc Alaimo as Dukat, just because he had had a bit part in a lame S1 TNG episode as an Antican in which nobody could possibly recognize him, another bit part with one scene and a few lines as a Romulan in another lame S1 TNG episode, another bit part with one scene and a few lines as a 19th century human in a half-lame TNG episode, and one substantial one-time guest starring role as a Cardassian in a good TNG episode, inspiring Michael Westmore to design the Cardassian look in the first place? If that's what you really think, I can only completely disagree with you.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing

Ahhh. I see. All those actors that have not worked on Trek are not any good and hiring them would be an act of charity. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Don't think I said that.

 

[SFRabid]

Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing

... I can only completely disagree with you.

That's ok. I don't mind people having a different opinion as long as they don't mind me having a different opinion. I'm not extreme about it, and I don't get upset over someone who had a minor roll in a past ST series getting a big role in a later series. But at times I think they get a little lazy with casting, much as they do with repeating stories and canon violations. Those don't bother me as long as the story it good and they keep me entertained. You have to admit, it is a bit strange watching the Menagerie and wondering how Nurse Chapel got demoted from Number One to a nurse. At least there was a reason for that. At the time I think they never expected The Cage to be broadcast in any form.

 

[Lynx]

Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing

They shouldn't bring in an ew actor for a character if the original actor wants to quit, that's only stupid. In that case it's better to write out the character.

But I don' think that they should kill off the character either. The actor might want to come back or they need to bring back the character and actor because of a decrease in ratings (the Bobby Ewing case). The best thing is to write off the character by sending the character somewhere else, on some mission or so.

 

[Cyke101]

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.

Just a comment, but I felt that Russ' Tuvok was the most smug out of the main Vulcan characters we've had, and that's something I wouldn't attribute to Nimoy Spock (that's also not to say that I didn't enjoy Tuvok -- I thought his smugness was just about perfect. He can be smug because he's usually right!).

Quinto's Spock is pretty smug, but I got the impression that it was through anger and emotional issues, rather than as an actual character trait.

ANYway, you may now return to your regularly-scheduled thread topic

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing

... I can only completely disagree with you.

That's ok. I don't mind people having a different opinion as long as they don't mind me having a different opinion. I'm not extreme about it, and I don't get upset over someone who had a minor roll in a past ST series getting a big role in a later series. But at times I think they get a little lazy with casting, much as they do with repeating stories and canon violations. Those don't bother me as long as the story it good and they keep me entertained. You have to admit, it is a bit strange watching the Menagerie and wondering how Nurse Chapel got demoted from Number One to a nurse. At least there was a reason for that. At the time I think they never expected The Cage to be broadcast in any form.

A lot of TV shows us a "repertory company" of players. Can't say I thought twice when I saw "The Menagerie" for the first time and noticed the actress playing Number One also played Chapel

 

[SFRabid]

Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing

... I can only completely disagree with you.

That's ok. I don't mind people having a different opinion as long as they don't mind me having a different opinion. I'm not extreme about it, and I don't get upset over someone who had a minor roll in a past ST series getting a big role in a later series. But at times I think they get a little lazy with casting, much as they do with repeating stories and canon violations. Those don't bother me as long as the story it good and they keep me entertained. You have to admit, it is a bit strange watching the Menagerie and wondering how Nurse Chapel got demoted from Number One to a nurse. At least there was a reason for that. At the time I think they never expected The Cage to be broadcast in any form.

A lot of TV shows us a "repertory company" of players. Can't say I thought twice when I saw "The Menagerie" for the first time and noticed the actress playing Number One also played Chapel

So much for trying to bow out gracefully and let the thread get back on track. I guess we are different. Sorry that bothers you so much. Please forgive me.

 

[Lynx]

Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing

^^
But imagine how many great debates and theories which will be the result of actors having different roles in Star Trek.

Like the Paris-Locarno debate and that "Tuvok lookalike" in "Starship Mine".

 

[SFRabid]

Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing

Oh the possible conversation.

DS9 Writer: "We are killing one of your characters."
JC: "Which one?"
Writer: "Brunt."
JC: "But I like that one. What happens to him?"
Writer: "You kill him."
JC: "I commit suicide?"
Writer: "No. Weyoun kills him."
JC: "Oh."
Writer: "Don't worry. We are bringing your character back."
JC: "You are killing Brunt and bringing him back?"
Writer: "No. No. We are not creating another 'back from the dead' Weyoun. We are bringing back Tiron."
JC: "I'm going to miss Brunt."
Writer: "Don't worry. We will make it up to you. Do you like the color blue?"

 

[barnaclelapse]

Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing

Saavik, anyone?

Sincerely,

Bill

I happen to like Robin Curtis and think she did fine in the part.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing

That's ok. I don't mind people having a different opinion as long as they don't mind me having a different opinion. I'm not extreme about it, and I don't get upset over someone who had a minor roll in a past ST series getting a big role in a later series. But at times I think they get a little lazy with casting, much as they do with repeating stories and canon violations. Those don't bother me as long as the story it good and they keep me entertained. You have to admit, it is a bit strange watching the Menagerie and wondering how Nurse Chapel got demoted from Number One to a nurse. At least there was a reason for that. At the time I think they never expected The Cage to be broadcast in any form.

A lot of TV shows us a "repertory company" of players. Can't say I thought twice when I saw "The Menagerie" for the first time and noticed the actress playing Number One also played Chapel

So much for trying to bow out gracefully and let the thread get back on track. I guess we are different. Sorry that bothers you so much. Please forgive me.

Was that what that was?

 

[Odo's Bucket]

Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing

^^
But imagine how many great debates and theories which will be the result of actors having different roles in Star Trek.

Like the Paris-Locarno debate and that "Tuvok lookalike" in "Starship Mine".

Wasn't the Paris-Locarno thing just that Star Trek wee too cheap to pay royalties to the writer for the use of the character though?

 

[Shazam!]

Re: Why not replace a character with another actor instead of killing

The Paris-Locarno things bugs the hell out of me.

Maybe he had an [in-universe] name change. Is there anything that contradicts that? I can only stomach so much Voyager without throwing up.