I would say that Shatner was clearly intended to be the star, but Spock was a far more interesting character. And, as others have said, neither would have been as good w/o the other.
Who’s the star of the series?
- Thread starter Botany Bay
- Start date
His answer, ultimately, was that Shatner was the star.
Giving Roddenberry credit wasn’t really my intent. Just a general opinion regarding showmanship.
However, if Roddenberry was indifferent to the point where that was no longer a concern, I’d expect a careless answer with no real thought behind it. Something to reflect back on when the movies/TNG came… maybe.
However, if Roddenberry was indifferent to the point where that was no longer a concern, I’d expect a careless answer with no real thought behind it. Something to reflect back on when the movies/TNG came… maybe.
Actually, I'd say Doc Ostrow was more proto-Spock than proto-Bones.
Whatever Roddenberry said, my own opinion is that you can't have Kirk without Spock to make decent Star Trek. We have seen that you can have decent Star Trek with Spock (but no Kirk). And I'm referring to the Next Gen episodes, not the nuTrek crap.
If I had been in Roddenberry's shoes, I'd have said "both" (as a serious answer). If I'd wanted to give a flippant answer, I'd have said "The Enterprise."
Apparently somebody thought the ship was the star of the show - they sent a letter to the show, asking for the Enterprise's autograph!
If I had been in Roddenberry's shoes, I'd have said "both" (as a serious answer). If I'd wanted to give a flippant answer, I'd have said "The Enterprise."
Apparently somebody thought the ship was the star of the show - they sent a letter to the show, asking for the Enterprise's autograph!
I'm not so sure, Spock isn't performing any function that Scotty didn't in his episode or than was done by having Kirk in Generations (however you might feel about that film.) All of those shows were about Picard and crew, not the TOS characters being brought in.Whatever Roddenberry said, my own opinion is that you can't have Kirk without Spock to make decent Star Trek. We have seen that you can have decent Star Trek with Spock (but no Kirk). And I'm referring to the Next Gen episodes, not the nuTrek crap.
If I had been in Roddenberry's shoes, I'd have said "both" (as a serious answer). If I'd wanted to give a flippant answer, I'd have said "The Enterprise."
Apparently somebody thought the ship was the star of the show - they sent a letter to the show, asking for the Enterprise's autograph!
Since you asked "star" and not "best character," or some other permutation, you're talking show biz and network t.v. in 1966. The "star" of the sixties tv show = Shatner.
Most interesting, most integral, most indispensible might make for a different answer.
In TNG, didn't GR say it was the crew as a whole that was the main character, thus the bland, forced agreable-ness ethos (early on anyway)?
You could make a case that the Kirk-Spock-Bones troika IS the character of the show. Jung would want a fourth added to make it a quaternity. Maybe Kirk-Spock-Bones-Enterprise. But now we're drifting into redefining (broadening, fo sho) "character." Words lose their meanings too easily. Back to the OP. Who's the star of the series?
If I ever Trek outa here, I'm goin to SHAT-man-du!
Most interesting, most integral, most indispensible might make for a different answer.
In TNG, didn't GR say it was the crew as a whole that was the main character, thus the bland, forced agreable-ness ethos (early on anyway)?
You could make a case that the Kirk-Spock-Bones troika IS the character of the show. Jung would want a fourth added to make it a quaternity. Maybe Kirk-Spock-Bones-Enterprise. But now we're drifting into redefining (broadening, fo sho) "character." Words lose their meanings too easily. Back to the OP. Who's the star of the series?
If I ever Trek outa here, I'm goin to SHAT-man-du!
A little of Spock, but Doc was both the guy that Adams could have a friend-to-friend conversation with and the father/counselor figure that McCoy also served as where Kirk was concerned. He did have a more scientific, analytical bent than McCoy, it's true.
My opinion is colored some by the deleted FP scene in which Ostrow and Adams discuss Altaira on their way back to the C-57D...so I don't guess it's entirely "canon."
I'd like to see that scene.
It's on the current DVD release, I believe, carried forward from the Criterion LaserDisc.
Of course, like almost everything else in film and television history it's also on YouTube:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogcCTh0IlBk&feature=related[/yt]
Of course, like almost everything else in film and television history it's also on YouTube:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogcCTh0IlBk&feature=related[/yt]
Shatner owned 2-2.5% of the "net", but in Hollywood, the 11th commandment is "there shalt be no net". Norway Productions (GR's company) owned another significant amount. Paramount nee Desilu owned the bulk.
Shatner took a beating during his divorce in that Gloria's attorneys did a generous calculation (for her) of the NPV of those points, and added it to her side of the assets column. This was way before ST went into syndication, and left Shat with a cash hole to fill. It's like having to divvy up an IRA or pension that you can't touch, but have to buy your spouse out.
Both Shat and Norway (Gene) sold their shares back to Paramount in the early 70s for a modest lump sum (D'Oh!).
Additionally, Shat was paid 5K/episode (vs $1250 for Nimoy) in Season 1. Shat got a nice bump in Seasons 2 and 3, but not as good, percentage-wise, as Nimoy. Still, by Season 3, Shat was out-earning Nimoy by quite alot, and he had the points, too.
No question who the producers and the studio thought was the star of the show. As for the fans, well, that will always be up for debate.
"Percentage of the net" aka "monkey points."
Having a share in non-existent profits never generated by a property is not, in any event, holding an ownership share of any percentage in the property itself.
I know that.
All I meant is that you can have a good Star Trek story that contains Spock but doesn't contain Kirk. In my opinion, the reverse is not true.
Ahh, that pesky in your opinionI know that.
Nimoy's role will always be the sidekick. That sidekick may be more interesting and unique than the star but it's still the sidekick. Shatner is the star.
Thanks!
I know that.
If we're going by TNG, I'd say it's a wash, as Reunification and Generations both sucked targ balls.
Apparently somebody thought the ship was the star of the show - they sent a letter to the show, asking for the Enterprise's autograph!
Too funny!
Shatner was the intended star (as in, billed the first in the credits, intended to be the main character etc.). Nimoy was the actual star (as in, the best actor and the most popular and iconic character).
The writers wrote for Spock as the character that was largely shaped by Nimoy's performance and charisma. With some other actor, he might have remained just a cold logical sidekick, instead of a complex character with a developed background. Even the portrayal of Vulcans and their customs was influenced by Nimoy (such as the Vulcan sign).
Only because they had the incredible luck that there was a rather well-known genre actor who besides the acting ability bears a strong resemblance to Nimoy.
The writers wrote for Spock as the character that was largely shaped by Nimoy's performance and charisma. With some other actor, he might have remained just a cold logical sidekick, instead of a complex character with a developed background. Even the portrayal of Vulcans and their customs was influenced by Nimoy (such as the Vulcan sign).
I agree very much with Devil Eyes. Shatner was clearly intended to be the “star” of the show since he already had something of a name at the time and Nimoy had been mostly a bit player in television until then. However, I think Spock was the very heart and soul of the show and the reason that it still resonates with so many people 45 years later. The fact that so many of us could come to admire and love this alien being and forgive his weaknesses was sort of symbolic of the universal theme of the show as I understood it.
After decades of being away from the show, when I redeveloped an interest in it, I began watching whatever I could find of Nimoy’s limited performances prior to Star Trek, and was astonished to find that what I had thought of as Spock was almost entirely Nimoy: his facial expressions, physical mannerisms, intonations. I don’t really think the writers ultimately had all that much to do with creating Spock; he was mostly self-created by the actor within the parameters given him by the writers. I think they were extremely lucky to have stumbled on Nimoy to play Spock and I can’t think of another actor who would have molded the character in quite the same way. Since he hadn’t had much opportunity to display his acting abilities before this character, I expect he put a greater than average amount of thought and energy into creating it.
Unlike many others here, I find the shows where Spock is the focus to be, well, fascinating; but when the show is overly Shatner focused, I have to stifle a yawn. Kirk is the action/adventure hero and a very good one, but I think he could have been played very well by a number of actors. I will say though that as a grownup, I now do appreciate Shatner’s acting much more, being able to notice some of the nuances he gave to Kirk and the subtle and not-so-subtle ways his character could manipulate people flirtatiously (both male and female) and his ability to cut to the chase on matters, and his wit. I agree he made a very satisfying ship’s captain, but I had seen similar performances by others before.
So therefore I am committing a bit of “jury nullification” here and voting for Spock as the star even though I’m very sure it was always intended to be Kirk.
After decades of being away from the show, when I redeveloped an interest in it, I began watching whatever I could find of Nimoy’s limited performances prior to Star Trek, and was astonished to find that what I had thought of as Spock was almost entirely Nimoy: his facial expressions, physical mannerisms, intonations. I don’t really think the writers ultimately had all that much to do with creating Spock; he was mostly self-created by the actor within the parameters given him by the writers. I think they were extremely lucky to have stumbled on Nimoy to play Spock and I can’t think of another actor who would have molded the character in quite the same way. Since he hadn’t had much opportunity to display his acting abilities before this character, I expect he put a greater than average amount of thought and energy into creating it.
Unlike many others here, I find the shows where Spock is the focus to be, well, fascinating; but when the show is overly Shatner focused, I have to stifle a yawn. Kirk is the action/adventure hero and a very good one, but I think he could have been played very well by a number of actors. I will say though that as a grownup, I now do appreciate Shatner’s acting much more, being able to notice some of the nuances he gave to Kirk and the subtle and not-so-subtle ways his character could manipulate people flirtatiously (both male and female) and his ability to cut to the chase on matters, and his wit. I agree he made a very satisfying ship’s captain, but I had seen similar performances by others before.
So therefore I am committing a bit of “jury nullification” here and voting for Spock as the star even though I’m very sure it was always intended to be Kirk.
