If his flaws can be at worst described as Shatnerian... what is the problem here?
Or should we be seeing Nimoy as the embodiment of Star Trek?
TNG Actors Were Cast Incorrectly
- Thread starter ThePlumsofWrath
- Start date
Or should we be seeing Nimoy as the embodiment of Star Trek?
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Stewart's strengths are in the underplaying, like the 'we're losing to the klingons' stuff in YESTERDAY'S E. I think Shat's greatest strength is underplaying too, like CHARLIE X with 'go to your quarters or I'll pick you up and carry you there,' but his charm lets him get away with SOME of the ham stuff.
Stewart hasn't got anything in the way of charm in my eyes, so he has to do it just with acting chops, and his chops are those of a character actor. Which is fine, but not for the continuing lead character captain of a starship, unless you are writing him a HELLUVA lot better and more consistently than they ever managed on TNG or VOY or ENT.
Well, I'm in between. I'm Wil Wheaton's age. To depart from the generational faux controversy, it is interesting and valid to see comparisons of Shat and Stewart, having both had Shakespearian backgrounds. I can understand the parodies and why some equate it to bad acting when someone like Stewart projects his lines from the Bridge like he's projecting to the back of a large theater.
But ultimately we're talking about style here, not substance. The substance of Stewart as Picard is top notch. Some people just have a preference for different styles, similar to episode content preferences, or choice of humor. Stewart has a lot of "classical" in him, some would prefer other styles.
So any opinion about casting, or miscasting, is valid enough, but its more constructive to frame it in a less combative way: Stewart is a fine actor, but I would prefer XYZ because...rather than to say "he sucks as Picard". There's no discussion in such statements.
I think I have to agree with this somewhat. I like that though. Kirk's charm was not one of his best traits IMHO. Riker's imitation of Kirk's smirk and other mannerisms was even worse.
Valid points, 'Stoner. As a Stewart fan from way back when -- I, Claudius, for example -- he was perfect for Picard. Frankly, if I were TPTB, I would have made the captain's role in the beginning dependent on the actor, like they did with Scotty and James Doohan. Stewart's role could've been built around his English-ness, so to speak, and the captain would've been finally cast as a British character. Because, after all, Picard is essentially British with a French name. -- RR
ThePlumsofWrath
Commander
While I have little time for the man's politics, I am able to seperate his work from his personal life unlike some of my fellow forumites. That he is a great actor, there is no doubt, no-one could argue he is not. Any prominant RSC actor will be amongst the best there is.
My point, as you well know you naughty little boy, is that he was mis-cast and that mis-casting was compounded by the woefulness of the rest of the cast. Don't be so mischevious.
That is all.
^ @Keep Calm and Carry On
But it's not merely that you have "little time for the man's politics," is it?
It's that you absolutely despise the politics he espouses and you let that inform your attitude towards him as an actor.
That's fine - but just be honest about it.
What you have failed to show in all of this is that you are indeed able "to seperate [Stewart's] work from his personal life" - by which I take it you mean "politics," as this is the only part of his so-called "personal life" that you have decided to write about in this and the other thread in which you provide us with your wit and wisdom about Stewart and his "politics."
Just wondering whether you are retrofitting your opinion in the wake of the Blair-Brown years or have you always disliked Stewart because of his politics?
All that said, I'd be interested in knowing who you would have considered, had you been placed in the position of casting the role 20 years ago, as captain?
But it's not merely that you have "little time for the man's politics," is it?
It's that you absolutely despise the politics he espouses and you let that inform your attitude towards him as an actor.
That's fine - but just be honest about it.
What you have failed to show in all of this is that you are indeed able "to seperate [Stewart's] work from his personal life" - by which I take it you mean "politics," as this is the only part of his so-called "personal life" that you have decided to write about in this and the other thread in which you provide us with your wit and wisdom about Stewart and his "politics."
Just wondering whether you are retrofitting your opinion in the wake of the Blair-Brown years or have you always disliked Stewart because of his politics?
All that said, I'd be interested in knowing who you would have considered, had you been placed in the position of casting the role 20 years ago, as captain?
J
Jetfire
Guest
Jonathan Frakes should have got the lead in TNG as Captain...Patrick Stewart is a great actor but I wasn't really into Picard.
I'm always quite surprised when Riker suggests something clever and scientific, because I tend to assume he's a bit thick rather than one of the brightest Starfleet officers of his generation.
Jonathan Frakes may have something to do with this, or perhaps his regression into a Neanderthal in Genesis.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I won't go that far (Frakes was awful till he grew the beard), but I do wish Picard had died in BOBW II and had Riker take over after that.
Picard, for all his era's progressiveness, comes off like a retroKing from centuries past at times, and that undermines not only Picard, but the whole 24th century fed enlightenment angle, because he seems so imperial and imperious at times.
Shatner's selfdescribed 'wearing command like an old comfortable jacket' is a lot easier for me to buy into for the future being shown ... and also a style I find more successful.
^That's called a "personality flaw", and is a further example of Stewart's fine performance as Picard - Picard is arrogant, and his arrogance does shine through from time to time. All the Trek captains had personality flaws that made them interesting - Kirk was self-righteous, Picard is arrogant, Sisko has a bad temper, Archer is naive. The Janeway character was so poorly written that I could never figure out what her personality was, much less any flaws in it. The point is Stewart is a reknown Shakespearean performer that took a job on a syndicated sci fi show where he could have mailed in his performance and gotten paid. Instead he made the role his own, and gave us 7 + years of enjoyment and created a much loved character. That's talent.
Well he wouldn't be the only one. Bloody Normans.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I just found that character issue as he portrayed it to be very much at odds with the character as written and in those more enlightened (supposedly) times.
Well-written contradictions build character depth; if they aren't well written and played, they come off badly.
But many had French Names and spoke a dialect of French.The Normans weren't French.
While I have little time for the man's politics, I am able to seperate his work from his personal life unlike some of my fellow forumites. That he is a great actor, there is no doubt, no-one could argue he is not. Any prominant RSC actor will be amongst the best there is.
My point, as you well know you naughty little boy, is that he was mis-cast and that mis-casting was compounded by the woefulness of the rest of the cast. Don't be so mischevious.
That is all.
The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. I think you've actually convinced a number of people here of the opposite -- that you're unable to separate Stewart's politics from his acting ability, and that your opposition to his politics informs your opinion of his portrayal of Picard. That is all!
Worth remembering the initial order was just 13 episodes.
