Are Trek characters more the actors that played them?

[c0rnedfr0g]

In television/film, some characters are simply that: fictitious characters that have had numerous incarnations played by multiple actors (eg Batman and Superman).

Then there are other characters that personally, I could not imagine being played by another actor since the character is as much a "fictitious character" as it is the actor that portrayed them. For instance, I could not imagine anyone other than Harrison Ford as Han Solo or Indiana Jones, anyone other than Sly Stallone as John Rambo or Rocky Balboa, anyone other than Arnold Schwarzenegger as Terminator model 101, anyone other than Mark Hammill as Luke Skywalker, etc.

Is this the same with Star Trek? Personally, can you not imagine anyone other than Nimoy and Shatner playing Spock and Kirk, respectively? Would this translate to other Star Trek spinoffs (could you imagine anyone other than Patrick Stewart portraying Picard?)?

Are the actors that played the TOS crew so intertwined with their characters, so ingrained into our minds, that they could never be replaced? Or, like Batman and Superman, given enough time and reincarnations, will we come to accept multiple portrayals of these characters?

 

[MisterPL]

I think we're about to find out.

 

[urbandk]

I would have prefered an African American woman for Captain Kirk this time, so I say no. (if the question is whether they are "more the actors that played them," then no. if the question is whether they are more than the actors who played them, then the answer is yes)

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I can usually immerse myself into a film or TV show well enough that I can look past actors' portrayals to see the character. The characters of Kirk, Spock, McCoy et al. are "real" enough for me (in a mentally healthy way!) that I never think of them as Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley. A decent actor should be able to make me believe I'm seeing Kirk or Spock and not "some actors trying to be like Shatner and Nimoy".

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

Some people had a very difficult time accepting any of the new BSG cast over the classic '78 cast, and it ruined the new series for them.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

A character is always a collaboration between actor and writer. When they're well done, it's a seamless merger - Spock, Garak.

There are actors with so much "personality" that the character is essentially un-repeatable. Kirk and McCoy are the clearest examples of that, and are the two recast characters that I won't expect to be dopplegangers of the original.

When the actor is wrong, you notice the disconnect. Scott Bakula was the wrong guy to play Archer. (And it didn't help that the writing was pretty sketchy.) Avery Brooks as Sisko was also a questionable casting choice but in his case, the writing was much better so people usually think Sisko was a much better character than Archer.

When the actor is good and the writing stinks, you also notice. Kate Mulgrew was fine as Janeway, but nobody was overseeing the stories to make sure the character remained consistent enough not to give the impression of mental illness.

And then there are the cases of glaring imbalance, where an actor is doing their job and half the writers' job too in a heroic attempt to salvage a botched character. The best example I can think of is tangentally linked to Trek, so I guess it's still kosher - Zachary Quinto as Sylar, a character who is worthwhile entirely because of the actor and is written so badly and incoherently you'd suspect the writers just hate Quinto and are trying to torture him.

I can't think of any example of good writing that was totally let down by the actor.

For instance, I could not imagine anyone other than Harrison Ford as Han Solo or Indiana Jones, anyone other than Sly Stallone as John Rambo or Rocky Balboa, anyone other than Arnold Schwarzenegger as Terminator model 101, anyone other than Mark Hammill as Luke Skywalker, etc.

I could imagine new actors in all those roles. Indiana Jonse is probably the toughest one to re-create, but Kirk and McCoy are impossible. So I'll cut Pine and Urban some slack - they will be creating new characters to a larger extent than the others.

It's Star Trek's bad luck to have two of the most un-copyable characters in existence. All the other examples I've been running through in my head strike me as easier.

could you imagine anyone other than Patrick Stewart portraying Picard?

I think I'd prefer it! I've never been a fan of Stewart. Maybe another actor could have portrayed the character as less off an old granny. In general, Trek has had bad luck with captains - either the actor or the writing is off, or both. Kirk's the most successful of the bunch as a character.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

^^ wasn't Edward James Olmos considered as Picard?

 

[urbandk]

When the actor is wrong, you notice the disconnect. Scott Bakula was the wrong guy to play Archer. (And it didn't help that the writing was pretty sketchy.) Avery Brooks as Sisko was also a questionable casting choice but in his case, the writing was much better so people usually think Sisko was a much better character than Archer.

When the actor is good and the writing stinks, you also notice. Kate Mulgrew was fine as Janeway, but nobody was overseeing the stories to make sure the character remained consistent enough not to give the impression of mental illness.

...

could you imagine anyone other than Patrick Stewart portraying Picard?

I think I'd prefer it! I've never been a fan of Stewart. Maybe another actor could have portrayed the character as less off an old granny. In general, Trek has had bad luck with captains - either the actor or the writing is off, or both. Kirk's the most successful of the bunch as a character.

not to get too off topic following up on this post, but i thought i'd rush to stewart's defense. i thought he did a magnificent job with picard.

i agree about bakula. he had too much of an "aw shucks" kind of feel for a captain, although i think bakula is an excellent actor otherwise.

i liked avery brooks as sisko and don't quite know in what respect you think he was miscast.

on the other hand, i never warmed to kate mulgrew as janeway.

anyhow, there's no accounting for taste.

i agree with your assessment of the new kirk and mccoy characters.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

...I could imagine new actors in all those roles. Indiana Jonse is probably the toughest one to re-create, but Kirk and McCoy are impossible. So I'll cut Pine and Urban some slack - they will be creating new characters to a larger extent than the others.

It's Star Trek's bad luck to have two of the most un-copyable characters in existence. All the other examples I've been running through in my head strike me as easier...

Oh, I don't know. To me, at least, I consider Han Solo, Jack Ryan, and Indiana Jones to be three very separate characters. Also I think James Kirk, TJ Hooker, and Denny Crane have nothing in common personality-wise. If the actor was so important to the character, I would think that the actor's persona would be more visible in each character.

You would probably argue that what your saying (that Kirk is an impossible character to recreate) and what I am saying (that the actor's persona doesn't have much to do with the character) are two separate things. However, I don't think they are....

....If William Shatner himself is such an important factor in the personality of the character of James Kirk, don't you think Shatner's personality would also show up in his other characters? And since Kirk's personality doesn't match Shatners other characters, doesn't that mean that Shatner's personality probably is NOT a big part of "James T. Kirk"? Therefore I think another actor could possibly recreate that character.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Kirk is Shatner in his thirties, full of piss and vinegar, a few tragedies to overcome, but still a pretty happy guy, ready to take on the universe, while Hooker is Shatner in his fifties, a little more set in his ways, still ready to kick a few asses, but not so ready with the dropkick (note that the Trek movies at the time also reflect this), and Crane is Shatner in his seventies, the kids are all grown up and moved out, nobody's expecting him to save the universe, so he's more inclined to have some fun.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If these characters are not more than the actors who play them, then Star Trek is no more than a worthless fetish which will evaporate within a few more decades.

 

[Captain Mike]

If these characters are not more than the actors who play them, then Star Trek is no more than a worthless fetish which will evaporate within a few more decades.

But wasn't that the idea for Abrams to go back to this era and capture the feeling the popularity of TOS? And another was ( posted here many times) the popularity of Shatner and Nimoy as Kirk & Spock? I seem to remember in Shatner's "Star Trek & Movie Memories" DVD that he said he basically poured himself into that role,...essentially making Kirk a part of him IMO.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If these characters are not more than the actors who play them, then Star Trek is no more than a worthless fetish which will evaporate within a few more decades.

But wasn't that the idea for Abrams to go back to this era and capture the feeling the popularity of TOS?

Uh, yeah - by casting new actors to play these characters. Are you getting the point of the question, at all?

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

...I seem to remember in Shatner's "Star Trek & Movie Memories" DVD that he said he basically poured himself into that role,...essentially making Kirk a part of him IMO.

Shatner may have said that, but I see no evidence of it. We saw a lot of Shatner throughout the 1970s because of the success of Star Trek, and I don't really remember seeing any of that "Shatner Public Persona" in the character of James Kirk.

Perhaps I'm wrong...Perhaps the real Shatner is nothing like his public persona, and the "real" Shatner is just like Kirk. That is entirely possible. I'll admit that I never met the guy. However, what I know about Shatner isn't very Kirk-like.

the bottom line is this:
Will these actors' portrayals be at least slightly different than the original actors' portrayals? Yes --of course they will. But will I still possibly find these actors' to be believable in the familiar roles? Sure -- I see no reason why I wouldn't.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...I seem to remember in Shatner's "Star Trek & Movie Memories" DVD that he said he basically poured himself into that role,...essentially making Kirk a part of him IMO.

Shatner may have said that, but I see no evidence of it.

It's just pooh-bah. However good or interesting Shatner is as a performer, I can't recall ever seeing him say anything smart or perceptive about the process - which, of course, just puts him in the same class with 99% of actors, good, bad or indifferent.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

Since the original actors created and set the standard for the role, is anyone willing to perhaps accept the new actors' portrayals as superior?

 

[M'Sharak]

Since the original actors created and set the standard for the role, is anyone willing to perhaps accept the new actors' portrayals as superior?

Only if they actually are clearly superior. Given that determining superiority between one actor's portrayal and another's with complete objectivity is pretty much impossible if both actors are competent, I'll go in expecting a portrayal of Kirk which is different from Shatner's (i.e., not an imitation of him or his Kirk) but which is still recognizably Kirk. If I get that, I think I'll be satisfied.

 

[Borgminister]

I think the Kirk, Spock and McCoy dynamic goes beyond the actors, although they sold it so very well.

We shall see if the new actors can convey that dynamic as well as the old guard.

I very much hope so.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Since the original actors created and set the standard for the role, is anyone willing to perhaps accept the new actors' portrayals as superior?

I don't know what the criteria would be. If I enjoy watching them play the characters I'll be happy.

 

[Cakes488]

If these characters are not more than the actors who play them, then Star Trek is no more than a worthless fetish which will evaporate within a few more decades.

But wasn't that the idea for Abrams to go back to this era and capture the feeling the popularity of TOS?

Uh, yeah - by casting new actors to play these characters. Are you getting the point of the question, at all?

Damn what do you eat lemons for breakfast? Anyhoo, the answer is NO. Kirk, Spock, McCoy et. al. made the characters...not just anybody can fill those shoes. I'll advise if I have a different opinon after this movie.

I'd rather it be a "worthless fetish" (bizarre choice of words) than my beloved crew be turned into a stunning piece of CRAP. But again I'll wait and see the movie for final judgement which is approaching.