Realistically, it would probably be common for a lot of officers to hit a plateau around Lieutenant. Full Lieutenants and Lieutenant Commanders are often department heads. Not everyone needs to be a department head. It was kind of weird for the ship to have three officers with the rank of Captain in the TOS movies. Kor
If I were an actor and played a main character, I would like to have a say about how my character should develope and act. But not everybody are like that. In certain rock bands there are one or two members who write the songs and set the standard for the band while one or some member just tag along. I guess it's the same in a bunch of actors. There are those who are coming up with ideas and those who are satisfied which just playing a character no matter what. But if someone is kicked out for that, despite doing a good job, then something is very wrong and obviously those in charge didn't listen to everybody either. Robert Beltran did have a lot of ideas for his character which all were ignored by those in charge and that was a reason why he became very dissatisfied with the series. As for Dawson, they obviously didn't listen that much to her considering how her character were shoved in the background in the later seasons. As for budget issues, if the budget was so tight, then they shouldn't have made any changes in the cast att all. Instead they should have done their best to write the best possible stories for the excellent characters they already had. They could also have made some cuts in the budget by not using some of the recurring characters as much as they did. I don't think that the actors who played Vorik, Naomi Wildman and Icheb worked for free.
I wonder how much it's expected that actors will actively engage with the creative process in developing their characters, since that really isn't their job. Similarly, an actor who directs an episode or movie undoubtedly has a good idea of how to direct actors, but about the technical aspects such as cinematography/videography, etc.? Kor
I don't know what's expected but it's pretty obvious that those who did it, those who went beyond just reading the pages they were handed, were better actors and their characters had more development. Like with any job. You can do what is the minimum expected and get by. But there are those who go above and it is reflected accordingly
Perhaps Kes was just difficult to write for after a certain point. Since we weren't there, we can't know what the reasons were. Voyager may have been difficult to write for in general, compared to the other series. DS9 told many stories that could have been told in any genre. TNG started half the episodes of every season with a distress call. Voyager had to be more creative in many ways.
I read at some point by the fifth season of DS9 the writers admitted they ran out of ideas or something.
The most basic reason for not dropping Harry is that, apart from Janeway, he was the only 'pure Starfleet' character in the regular cast. I doubt the production team cared that much by season three, but still...
I don't think it's harder to hook Voyager up to your premise than it is TNG. You lose the distress call but you gain "We're running low on rapdinium crystals and we found a deposit. Oh look, aliens!"
Jeri was brought on to appeal to the T & A crowd. The PTB didn't want two cute blondes. That's really about the long and short of it.
I don't think it is appropriate for an actor to interfere with the creation of the actual story. They are there to deliver a performance and be part of something greater. It's natural they would want to hog the camera even pander to the fans. Reminds me of a soap opera I used to watch and in it there was this one guy.. Ridge. He had these two ugly women desperately trying to win his attention. Okay they weren't ugly. The fan bases for Taylor and Brooke were so intense that if the actual actor playing Ridge showed any preference it was like he had betrayed the other fan base.
I think it depends on the situation. I think the actor has a responsibility to their character. If they have an idea for a story or for some development i think it's perfectly appropriate for them to share that thought. Also if they get handed something that is completely out of character I think it would be appropriate for them to voice that
^Agree with that. Also, I'd think that an actor has to live with the character, identify with the character he or she plays to a certain extent ('Exactly how would the Chakotay character convey his reaction to this situation.. the script says x but would it fit my character?'), and that from that perspective, I think it could be quite natural that the actor, after having played that character for some time starts having ideas for stories or arcs of development that would indeed fit the character. And I see no problem with that, as long as the writing team, charged with creating the best possible overall story lines, clearly stays in charge.
Especially since there are multiple writers, guest writers, and so on. The actor may be the best authority on their own characterization.
I'm not honestly sure what the ultimate goal of this thread has become other than to rehash a subject that has been presumably debated since the end of 1996.
I disagree about an actors influence, they are too self-serving to be trusted, lol. If they were writers they would be writers. Let them emote, that's their input.
Debating getting rid of Kim, or discussing an actor's influence on their characterization? Not all actors are Narcissistic. On Trek, it's mostly just the captains. I've listened to interviews with Dawson, and McNeal, and they're very humble and professional. I'd say the same for Picardo and Phillips, but they're always joking and it's hard to tell. Garrett Wang spent 7 years trying to convince the producers to have a "talent show" episode, where Kim has the star performance doing some musical number of something.