Who’s the star of the series?

[Botany Bay]

It's the third season, and things are getting pretty ugly between Shatner and Nimoy behind the scenes.

Herb Solow and Bob Justman describe the situation in Inside Star Trek (pp 396-398) :

Nimoy’s constant demand for scripts with a more involved Spock – and a Spock who
maintained his original character values – and Shatner’s insistence that he was still the star of the series put unusual pressures on Freiberger. In his desire to solve the problem, Star Trek’s new producer, frustrated and fed up with the bickering, arranged a meeting with the players: Shatner, Nimoy, and Roddenberry.

Freiberger held the meeting in Roddenberry’s old office, where he explained the complex nature of the situation, something that Roddenberry had been well aware of for at least two years. Freiberger then proceeded to confess that those pressures were preventing him from properly performing his role as the series’s producer. Shatner and Nimoy hung on his every word.

“Gee, I’m sorry to hear that, Fred, “ said Roddenberry. “I hope you get it straightened out real soon.” Roddenberry stood. “Well, I have to go now.” As
Roddenberry started to leave his old office, Freiberger stopped him and asked the million-dollar question: “Gene, please tell me. Who’s the star of the series? Is it Bill – or is it Leonard?” Both actors leaned forward eagerly.

You are GR. What is your answer?

 

[BillJ]

Shatner

 

[Kai "the spy"]

They're both the stars. They need to be together to play off of each other (and I'd include Kelley to some extent). Alone, they are good, but together, they are great.

 

[Alienesse]

^ I feel the same way. Both actors/characters are essential to the show.

But if I really have to choose, my vote goes to Nimoy. I think he was the better actor and, to me, his character and the way he played it are the most memorable aspect of the Original Series.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Nimoy's was the character who was more immediately popular, got the show the most frequent coverage in the entertainment press as well as general circulation newspapers and magazines, and really galvanized early fandom - you can see as much even now by looking at the period stuff that various fans have uploaded on to the Internet.

The stories really usually revolved around Shatner's role as Kirk, though, and so over time and through repetition it's become clearer that Kirk is the "star" of Star Trek.

Shatner would also probably have been harder to replace, since so much of Kirk was simply his personality and performance - writers wrote for Spock, his unique motivations and mannerisms and so forth whereas Shatner made a fairly generic TV Hero into a recognizable character. This has repercussions for Trek down to this day - Abrams and company found it a lot easier to cast the "iconic" Spock role than to find a new Kirk.

Shatner was the star, and when his feet were held to the fire GR didn't have a choice other than to say so.

 

[Shatnertage]

I'm not sure who the star really is, but Roddenberry's “Gee, I’m sorry to hear that, Fred, I hope you get it straightened out real soon,” is a classic "not my problem anymore" line.

 

[jayrath]

Shatner. Easily.

He owned -- and owns -- a percentage of the series. All praise to Nimoy, but even Laurel needed Hardy.

 

[maryh]

I won't vote because neither one is "star" material without the other. I'd tell them they are both only mildly interesting, and only mildly appealing, and only mildly enduring by themselves... but together they are both big stars - interesting, appealing and enduring.

 

[T'Bonz]

Shatner. But I preferred Nimoy's Spock to Shatner's Kirk.

 

[Noname Given]

You realize that GR finally GAVE the answer at that meeting, right? (However not to influence polling, I'll leave it for those that also know what the actual anwer was.)

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm glad they didn't pull a Happy Days and switch the focus to Spock. I guess in this day and age a quirky lead in drama works (think Bones) but not so much in the 1960s.

 

[Gojira]

Shatner was supposed to be the star but Nimoy's popularity grew rapidly and I do believe that caused friction for a while between the two.

Personally I see the show as having two stars of equal value.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Nimoy's was the character who was more immediately popular, got the show the most frequent coverage in the entertainment press as well as general circulation newspapers and magazines, and really galvanized early fandom - you can see as much even now by looking at the period stuff that various fans have uploaded on to the Internet.

The stories really usually revolved around Shatner's role as Kirk, though, and so over time and through repetition it's become clearer that Kirk is the "star" of Star Trek.

Shatner would also probably have been harder to replace, since so much of Kirk was simply his personality and performance - writers wrote for Spock, his unique motivations and mannerisms and so forth whereas Shatner made a fairly generic TV Hero into a recognizable character. This has repercussions for Trek down to this day - Abrams and company found it a lot easier to cast the "iconic" Spock role than to find a new Kirk.

Shatner was the star, and when his feet were held to the fire GR didn't have a choice other than to say so.

Indeed. Kirk was the hero and Spock the sidekick but Spock was the best kind of sidekick, the kind that is--in some ways--more intriguing than the hero, more Tonto than Robin.

When Shatner was on top of his game, which was more often than not, he brought a quality to Kirk that few actors could. Kirk could be grim, determined and serious and light, mischievous and funny and it almost always felt organic to the character. It is fashionable to think of Shatner as a bad actor and he is more than capable of turning in a bad performance but, on the whole, he was perfectly cast as Kirk and very much the "star of the ship captain," to quote the Areel Shaw blooper.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

He owned -- and owns -- a percentage of the series.

Shatner never owned a percentage of Star Trek. He was an actor hired under contract, and was due residuals for the show but sold them back to the studio at the conclusion of production since there was no reason to expect the show to be particularly successful in reruns.

 

[jayrath]

He owned -- and owns -- a percentage of the series.

Shatner never owned a percentage of Star Trek. He was an actor hired under contract, and was due residuals for the show but sold them back to the studio at the conclusion of production since there was no reason to expect the show to be particularly successful in reruns.

He owned a percentage and had to give half of it away to his ex when he first divorced. And you can't "sell" your residuals back to a studio. SAG would have kittens. What's your source?

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

Reminds me of Peter Sellers' tendency to sell his percentages back to the studios after he was through with a production he didn't think would work. Happened to him in "Murder by Death" and "Casino Royale," iirc. It was Bob Osborne that was talking about it last month.

Back to Star Trek: Shatner (Kirk) is and always will be THE star, but without Nimoy, as an alien counterbalance, he's just any ol' hero. Throw in De Kelley as McCoy, and you've got quite a powerful triumverate, again with Shatner at the top, but what a stroke of genius.

If we'd had Kirk, Gary Mitchell and Dr. McCoy, you'd end up again with something like what we saw in FORBIDDEN PLANET... which is extremely good in its own rights. But Spock's alienness is what makes it work for Trek.\

Now, back to makin' copies....

 

[Ssosmcin]

Shatner, no question. He was the lead and the main hero. When Kirk had to work without Spock, Kirk was still just as interesting and entertaining, but Spock without Kirk just didn't work as well. Nimoy is more of an internal actor and is most effective when he has the right people to work with. Spock needed Kirk to bounce off. Shatner, the extrovert, just needed the camera. Spock brought some really awesome beer to the party, but it was still Kirk's shindig.

 

[Spirit]

If I’m speaking for myself, Shatner.

However, if I'm Gene Roddenberry, then the answer is “Neither.” Followed by something ambiguous. Perhaps Lieutenant Uhura. Give the person asking something to think about.

That’s what makes it a million dollar question.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Shatner never owned a percentage of Star Trek. He was an actor hired under contract, and was due residuals for the show but sold them back to the studio at the conclusion of production since there was no reason to expect the show to be particularly successful in reruns.

The "standard contract" of the day, IIRC, offered what appeared to be quite generous residuals for "one screening and two repeats". The stars of "Gilligan's island" and "Batman" also never expected their shows to be repeated more than twice.

 

[Bishop76]

If I’m speaking for myself, Shatner.

However, if I'm Gene Roddenberry, then the answer is “Neither.” Followed by something ambiguous. Perhaps Lieutenant Uhura. Give the person asking something to think about.

That’s what makes it a million dollar question.

I think you give Roddenberry far too much credit. At the time, I think he was done giving a rat's ass about Star Trek. My guess is he just gave his answer and walked out. Though I am curious what his answer was. Feel free to PM me if you know.