“Jean-Luc Picard is back”: will new Picard show eclipse Discovery?

[Longinus]

The whole thing was about why Spock recast and Stewart reprising his role elicited quite opposite reactions from some people and this was presented as some sort of contradiction even though reason for it is quite obvious. From the viewers' perspective they're quite different things.

 

[fireproof78]

Luckily she had her one, trusted, socially awkward friend that looks up to her, Harry Kim, that still stood by her through all of it even when everybody else was looking down on her.

Allow me to rephrase. The strain between Burnham and the crew was more believable than between Paris and the crew and lasted longer and was more interesting.

The whole thing was about why Spock recast and Stewart reprising his role elicited quite opposite reactions from some people and this was presented as some sort of contradiction even though reason for it is quite obvious. From the viewers' perspective they're quite different things.

For some viewers, this is true. For myself I am happy to see the character again of Spock while not overly caring about the actor. The character is more of interest to me. ​

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Different actors playing the same character is just the flip side of the same actor playing different characters.

One doesn't say that Mulhall, Jones, and Pulaski are the same character.

On the other hand, Saavik is indeed the same character in both TWOK and TSFS. She was recast for STIII, it was a obviously a new story and a different director, and arguably the take on the character was different. But it was still the same character. I really don't know how else to put that.

 

[Longinus]

Of course in universe it is the same character but the viewer it is not the same experience! They're really two versions of the same character. Saavik is a great example, the two actors portrayed her so differently than it hardly feels the same person. And of course Valeris was just a name change away of being yet another version of Saavik.

 

[DaveyNY]

I like both actress that played Saavik, so to me it makes no difference.
I also like that the way the character was played was so different...
TWoK showed us a very Vulcan character who is fresh out of the Academy and TSFS showed us that same person, after having spent just a short amount of time mixed up in the "Frenzied World of Kirk".
That kinda chit has got to have a profound effect on anybody.


Also, I'm very happy that They didn't turn Saavik into a traitor in TUC.

Now that I think about it, Saavik would probably be alive at this point in DISCOVERY's story.
Wouldn't that be a neat kick in the pants if she gets mentioned in passing.
(YES, I Very Much LOVE 'Fanwankery)

 

[Longinus]

I like both actress that played Saavik, so to me it makes no difference.
I also like that the way the character was played was so different...

Really?

You can like both and still recognise that they're different. For example I like both Roger Moore's and Daniel Craig's Bonds, but they're still really pretty damn different. And only one of them can ever evoke certain nostalgic feelings. Like if the new Star Wars films the roles of Han, Leia and Luke had been recast, it could have never had the same impact on me than it had.

This is really bizarre discussion. I really don't understand how this can be so hard to get. A different actor produces a different reaction in the viewer, even though they might be playing the same character.

 

[fireproof78]

This is really bizarre discussion. I really don't understand how this can be so hard to get. A different actor produces a different reaction in the viewer, even though they might be playing the same character.

Because the reaction may not be substantial enough to warrant observation by each viewer. If I'm watching a character and remarking upon the actor then I'm not engaged with the character, at least from my view.

 

[Longinus]

Because the reaction may not be substantial enough to warrant observation by each viewer. If I'm watching a character and remarking upon the actor then I'm not engaged with the character, at least from my view.

That's a bit like saying that if you're engaged with a painting you don't notice it has colours on it. The actor is an integral constituent part of the character. I mean you understand that we're talking about a live action performance here, not a book?

 

[fireproof78]

That's a bit like saying that if you're engaged with a painting you don't notice it has colours on it. The actor is an integral constituent part of the character. I mean you understand that we're talking about a live action performance here, not a book?

Yes. I'm simply expressing how I try to experience a performance, not mandating others do the same...

 

[Longinus]

I literally do not understand how one can watch a live action performance without noticing the actor...

 

[fireproof78]

I literally do not understand how one can watch a live action performance without noticing the actor...

Then it is a matter of personal variation and experience. A feature of human perception, not a bug

 

[Longinus]

Then it is a matter of personal variation and experience. A feature of human perception, not a bug

Ok. But you like literally do notice who the actor is right? I mean if I show you clip of Spock, you can tell whether it is Nimoy or Quinto (or soon Peck)?

 

[Longinus]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[fireproof78]

Ok. But you like literally do notice who the actor is right? I mean if I show you clip of Spock, you can tell whether it is Nimoy or Quinto (or soon Peck)?

Yes, but I am reacting to the character not the actor. I didn't have a different experience with Alley vs. Curtis with Saavik for instance. It was a brief "Oh, new actress" and back in to the character and the experience for me. That's what I want. If I'm remarking upon the actor's ability to convey a character then I'm not engaged with the character in a meaningful way. Any more than if I go "Oh, what beautiful effects" I'm not engaged with the story but with the set dressing.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Hardly relevant to this particular point. In the story as presented it is Sherlock Holmes and Watson. Am I to remark upon every time an actor is different in a story?

 

[Longinus]

Ok, I give up. Sounds to me that you might just as well read the transcript instead of actually watching the show if the actors are that immaterial to you.

 

[fireproof78]

Ok, I give up. Sounds to me that you might just as well read the transcript instead of actually watching the show if the actors are that immaterial to you.

It isn't that they are immaterial. I just don't want to be watching it going "that's some great acting." I want to watch characters. Actors bring it to life but if I'm going "Peck is doing a great job" then I'm not engaged with the character in that moment.

 

[DaveyNY]

Ok. But you like literally do notice who the actor is right? I mean if I show you clip of Spock, you can tell whether it is Nimoy or Quinto (or soon Peck)?

Of course I always can tell the difference...
I just don't really give a chit.

I watch this stuff to enjoy the experience and have a good time, not to spend the time critiquing decisions the Producers make due to 'whatever reasons' they felt were necessary.

I don't put Star Trek (or any entertainment) on a pedestal so high that I can't enjoy it because of changes made due to 'Real Life" Things.
THAT, in my opinion is silly.
YMMV

 

[fireproof78]

Of course I always can tell the difference...
I just don't really give a chit.

I watch this stuff to enjoy the experience and have a good time, not to spend the time critiquing decisions the Producers make due to 'whatever reasons' they felt were necessary.

Yup.

 

[DaveyNY]

Yes, but I am reacting to the character not the actor. I didn't have a different experience with Alley vs. Curtis with Saavik for instance. It was a brief "Oh, new actress" and back in to the character and the experience for me. That's what I want. If I'm remarking upon the actor's ability to convey a character then I'm not engaged with the character in a meaningful way. Any more than if I go "Oh, what beautiful effects" I'm not engaged with the story but with the set dressing.


Hardly relevant to this particular point. In the story as presented it is Sherlock Holmes and Watson. Am I to remark upon every time an actor is different in a story?

Oooo... ooo... ooo... or how about this one...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Longinus]

Yeah, totally the same character there. I literally forgot whether I was watching Will Ferrell or Jeremy Brett there.