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

[SilentP]

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

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

The fact that his father is called Admiral Paris contradicts it, unless Tom changed his name for his time at the Academy, then changed it back to his original name after he was kicked out. Depends how much mental acrobatics you want to do to avoid hurling.

 

[JarodRussell]

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

If you can accept all the retcons ST Enterprise, then you can easily accept that there never was a Cadet Locarno to begin with, it has always been Cadet Paris.

 

[SilentP]

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

If you can accept all the retcons ST Enterprise, then you can easily accept that there never was a Cadet Locarno to begin with, it has always been Cadet Paris.

Can't remember where I read it, but wasn't there something that said that the writers thought that Locarno was 'irredeemable', hence why they wrote Paris as a similar, but more morally redeemable and just kept the same actor, since he was most suited?

 

[SFRabid]

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

I just watched Voyager - Initiations and it really bothered me to see Nog in another part of the galaxy. It was Nog. He had a different name and forehead but the voice, actions and mannerisms were the same. Worst of all it was the same story. Nog, struggeling to grow up and be accepted. This is the worst example of recasting. Sometimes it works, but not this time.

 

[DevilEyes]

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

I just watched Voyager - Initiations and it really bothered me to see Nog in another part of the galaxy. It was Nog. He had a different name and forehead but the voice, actions and mannerisms were the same. Worst of all it was the same story. Nog, struggeling to grow up and be accepted. This is the worst example of recasting. Sometimes it works, but not this time.

They really did should not have done it that time. Usually it's an actor who had bit parts or a one episode guest star stint getting a major recurring role. This is the only case I can think of where it was the opposite, and it didn't work, because the actor has become too etched in viewers' minds. (Unless they presumed that most people who watched VOY had never seen DS9. ) Some actors can overcome that because they are able to completely change their mannerisms and voice (Jeffrey Combs) but most can't.

 

[milo bloom]

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

Personally, I'll never understand why anyone likes Kirstey Alley's Saavik (or thinks she's hot for that matter; I just don't see it). Changing to Robin Curtis is the single best recast decision Trek has made, ...

Alley was comfortable in the role, she was loose, confident and passionate. Curtis was stiff.
Alley had a woman's body, Curtis had the body of a boy.
Alley could have fitted into both The Voyage Home and Undiscovered Country
The pon-farr scene with Alley would actually have been sexual.
Alley informing Kirk of his son's death would have come with sympathy.

Alley playing opposite Kim Cattrall as Valeris would have been great.

Alley had a long career after TWOK.
Curtis disappeared after TSFS.

I agree with all of these, have for years, (though the last bit is kinda extraneous) but I've been absolutely enchanted with the bolded line ever since reading it a couple of days ago. If I'm reading you right, and you're talking about TUC having both Saavik and Valeris, then consider my mind boggled. I always liked to think I could handle Saavik being the traitor, after what the Klingon's did to David, but imagining a TUC with Saavik and Valeris both under suspicion, and both hissing and spitting at each other like a couple of cats in heat through the whole movie just makes my spine tingle to think about it

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.

First point, I'm really bad with re-castings like this, in that I mean I rarely notice them. I never realized it was Majel playing both characters until I read some goofy speculation story somewhere about the two being sisters or clones or somesuch silliness.

Second point, I bet I can find more than a few nurses who'd take umbrage with the tone of your comment about Chapel's "demotion". Nurses a hard working lot, and just from watching them do their jobs when I go in to the office or the hospital, they may not have all the professional schooling as MD's, but they certainly have plenty of credits at Real Life U. I'd wager most would consider Majel's character change one for the better.


As for the Tom Paris/Nick Locarno debate, it's a little bothersome seeing RDM playing both (nothing on RDM mind you), but the theory that the writers thought Locarno was "irredeemable" really bugs me. Instead of taking the easy way out with Tom Paris' "easier to redeem" backstory, it would have been far more interesting to see them do their darnedest to try and redeem Locarno out in the Delta Quadrant. Make him suffer and sweat, and maybe even just earn some redemption for his past.

But then again this is the same network that had the Feds and the Maquis getting along by episode 3, and also had a magical shuttle making machine somewhere on the ship.

 

[Nevyn]

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

It's not such a bad idea. It certainly worked for James Bond so I see no reason why it wouldn't work for a Star Trek character.

 

[Bisz]

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

I always hate it when they change an actor and keep the character - for me this goes all the way back to Dynasty I much rather that they kill off the character or just have them leave - like they did with Ivanova in B5 for example.

 

[milo bloom]

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

I always hate it when they change an actor and keep the character - for me this goes all the way back to Dynasty I much rather that they kill off the character or just have them leave - like they did with Ivanova in B5 for example.

The killing bothers me in cases where it really doesn't serve the story or even the tone of the series. Tasha Yar and Jadzia Dax both could have been rotated to other ships/stations, allowing Crosby or Ferrel the opportunity to come back at some point. This would have also served the dual purpose of satisfying the military viewers who complain about command crews being static for years at at time.

 

[SFRabid]

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

[
Second point, I bet I can find more than a few nurses who'd take umbrage with the tone of your comment about Chapel's "demotion". Nurses a hard working lot, and just from watching them do their jobs when I go in to the office or the hospital, they may not have all the professional schooling as MD's, but they certainly have plenty of credits at Real Life U. I'd wager most would consider Majel's character change one for the better.
...

I work with several nurses and have three as neighbors. They all understand command structure and some have worked their way into management. There is no tone to that statement, only fact. Number One, second in command, has a much higher rank than Nurse Chaple.

 

[Trek Survivor]

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

If you can accept all the retcons ST Enterprise, then you can easily accept that there never was a Cadet Locarno to begin with, it has always been Cadet Paris.

Can't remember where I read it, but wasn't there something that said that the writers thought that Locarno was 'irredeemable', hence why they wrote Paris as a similar, but more morally redeemable and just kept the same actor, since he was most suited?

That was one reason - the other was that if they'd used the character of Locarno, they would've had to keep paying the writer who contributed that character to "The First Duty" every single episode of Voyager.

 

[milo bloom]

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

[
Second point, I bet I can find more than a few nurses who'd take umbrage with the tone of your comment about Chapel's "demotion". Nurses a hard working lot, and just from watching them do their jobs when I go in to the office or the hospital, they may not have all the professional schooling as MD's, but they certainly have plenty of credits at Real Life U. I'd wager most would consider Majel's character change one for the better.
...

I work with several nurses and have three as neighbors. They all understand command structure and some have worked their way into management. There is no tone to that statement, only fact. Number One, second in command, has a much higher rank than Nurse Chaple.

I'm not debating that, I just got the impression from the original comment that being a nurse was "lesser" job than being a first officer. Both are very important, and as much as a ship needs a first officer, I certainly wouldn't want to leave dock without a nursing staff either.

 

[Anji]

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

You can't replace one actor with another in Star Trek because we're very passionate about our series.

Or we're just plain nuts? Take your pick.