Could the Pike era have worked?

[Christopher]

Hunter was saddled with a character starting out as emotionally defeated. We know Hunter had the range and ability to portray a more expressive character, but as written Pike wasn't that way.

Avery Brooks was also saddled with a character who started out as emotionally defeated. "Emissary" is strikingly similar to "The Cage" in the emotional arc for the lead character -- he starts out in pain from a personal loss, tired of his work and considering retirement; he's captured by aliens and interacts with them through illusions taken from his memory; and in the experience, he gains perspective on his problems and comes out of it restored and rededicated to his career.

So the question is, did Brooks suffer from those limitations on his character in the pilot? Or is it maybe not the situation that's to blame? (If there is any blame required.)

John Hoyt was a competent enough actor, but he did strike me as perhaps a bit too old for the role of Boyce (even though I don't know what his actual age was compared to DeForest Kelley).

He was born a bit over 14 years before Kelley. So Hoyt in "The Cage" would've been about 12 years older than Kelley in season 1.

The actor who played Piper in WNMHGB also struck me as not the right type and he didn't impress me at all. DeForest Kelley was indeed the oerfect fit.

Apparently Roddenberry wanted Kelley as the doctor from the start, but the network disagreed. It took three tries to get them to say yes.

In the end NBC not only chose the wrong kind of story for the kind of show they wanted (at least as a pilot to launch the series) but GR and company simply didn't produced a polished enough effort. The second time around allowed them to do it better.

I think "The Cage" is a very good science fiction mini-movie, and my favorite Roddenberry script for the show. But it is perhaps a little rarefied for an action-adventure series pilot.

 

[Harvey]

It wasn't the network that disagreed, according to Inside Star Trek (I'm recalling this from memory, so please correct me if I'm wrong). Bob Butler wanted John Hoyt, and James Goldstone wanted Paul Fix. Roddenberry acquiesced to the director until the series proper.

Also, one point of correction -- the letter Maurice quoted from Mort Werner is actually dated August 17, 1966.

 

[Warped9]

I don't get the criticism of Majel. She was great as Nurse Chapel and put in a ton of brilliant performances as Lwaxana Troi. Number One just wasn't much of a character to work with.

Number One and Christine Chapel simply didn't have enough to do. It isn't Majel's fault--that's just the cards she was dealt back in the day.

The idea of a commanding woman was also still in its evolution. There had been roles in film depicting string women and yet many of those were still characters within a limited framework. Today we have no problem with a strong female character in a commanding position, but back then it was still early days on television.

But there were sufficient examples on television that illustrate it could have been done on Star Trek given the right writing and the right actress. The role of Number One could have been a real break out one for the right actress if GR had simply recast the character and continued on that path. But he chose a different path which opened the door for Nimoy and Spock. If there's a disappointment it's that it had a lingering effect throughout the rest of the series. After the brief appearance of Number One we didn't get another woman in a command role until the Romulan Commander in "The Enterprise Incident," and she was an alien rather than Starfleet.


Jeffrey Hunter was predominatly a film actor who had the right looks for it for that era. But with his Hollywood good looks he actually might have been too good looking for television and the role of a starship captain. That isn't to say Shatner was not good looking. He most certainly was, but he had something of a more common kind of good looks that fit with an adventurous type of character.

The real distinction (for me) is energy. Shatner brought energy to the role that Hunter didn't have (even while acknowledging that Pike as written in "The Cage" wasn't supposed to exude much dynamic). Shatner is magnetic while Hunter was essentially just there.


So it comes back to the question: what would Hunter have been like if he had stuck around for WNMHGB and what would Shatner have been like if he had done "The Cage?"

Shatner is an easy answer because we saw Kirk in roughly similar situations later on. And WNMHGB shows us what Shatner could have been like right out of the gate if he had done "The Cage."


As it is I now liken Jeffrey Hunter's Pike akin to the character of Geoffery Sinclair in Babylon 5's first season. He was more of a military style character who wasn't very emotive in front of others. Now I don't mind the character of Sinclair, but quite a few fans didn't take to him because of his apparent emotional flatness.

 

[Christopher]

As it is I now liken Jeffrey Hunter's Pike akin to the character of Geoffery Sinclair in Babylon 5's first season. He was more of a military style character who wasn't very emotive in front of others. Now I don't mind the character of Sinclair, but quite a few fans didn't take to him because of his apparent emotional flatness.

Although he wasn't replaced for that reason; as we now know, it was because Michael O'Hare was suffering from mental illness and was unable to continue in the role.

I think a similar analogy can be drawn with Roddenberry's '70s pilot movies Genesis II and Planet Earth. The former stars Alex Cord as Dylan Hunt, a 1970s scientist trapped in suspended animation until the post-apocalyptic 22nd century, and he plays the role with a cool aloofness that isn't too appealing. In the second pilot Planet Earth, retooling the premise for a new network, Dylan is played by John Saxon, who makes the character a lot more charming and witty. It's Hunter and Shatner all over again, except that Roddenberry didn't change the character name this time. (And of course a third version of Dylan Hunt was played by Kevin Sorbo in Andromeda decades later.)

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I'm not convinced the network would ever have okayed Barrett. Even aside from the issue of whether she was a strong enough actress to carry a lead role (which she probably wasn't at the time, though she was really good by the TNG years), there's the scandal of the producer casting his own mistress as one of the stars.

I'm more interested in the scenario where Roddenberry bent on the Number One issue and recast the role. Who might have been Number One instead? Lee Meriwether and Julie Newmar both strike me as strong prospects. Maybe Diana Muldaur or Lee Grant.

For me, I'd have liked to have seen Eartha Kitt in the role. It would be nice to have both a predominate female lead and a woman of color. I know my casting choice is a bit pie in the sky since Kitt wasn't really looking to commit to a television series at the time, content with the freedom of doing guest roles.

As for Hunter, he lacked the charisma of Shatner in the role. He just didn't have the energy that the role needed, especially with Spock taking on the more logical aspects of the Number One character.

I've also considered Robert Culp in the captain's role —whether it was April, Winters, Pike or Kirk. He certainly had a certain sparkle that was a bit different than Shatner. And I often wonder how Culp would've done.

 

[Warped9]

For me, I'd have liked to have seen Eartha Kitt in the role. It would be nice to have both a predominate female lead and a woman of color. I know my casting choice is a bit pie in the sky since Kitt wasn't really looking to commit to a television series at the time, content with the freedom of doing guest roles.

That could have been CRAZY, but in a good way. A female First Officer and a woman of colour to boot back in the '60s.

Wow!

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

For me, I'd have liked to have seen Eartha Kitt in the role. It would be nice to have both a predominate female lead and a woman of color. I know my casting choice is a bit pie in the sky since Kitt wasn't really looking to commit to a television series at the time, content with the freedom of doing guest roles.

That could have been CRAZY, but in a good way. A female First Officer and a woman of colour to boot back in the '60s.

Wow!

It would've been amazing. And "Star Trek" would've beat "Julia" by several years with having a black woman in a leading role.

 

[Warped9]

Make no mistake that I would ever want to replace TOS as we got it...

Okay there are a couple of episodes (notably "And The Children Shall Lead") I could have done without. But it has been an idea of mine that if Trek were ever (again) rebooted if one could go back to the beginning and tweak what we first glimpsed in "The Cage" and make it work.

As it was GR made wholesale changes for WNMHGB, but it's still intriguing to wonder of he could have just tweaked what we saw in "The Cage" and manage to make it work better the second time around.

So Number One has to be recast and her character redefined. Nimoy is retained and Spock is redefined into something now more familiar. Pike has to be more engaged and dynamic. And the rest of the cast is recast.

 

[Christopher]

I've also considered Robert Culp in the captain's role —whether it was April, Winters, Pike or Kirk.

Let's face it, those were just different names for the same character. At least, the first three were, and the fourth essentially was as far as the initial characterization was concerned.

Really, in '60s TV, it was seen as desirable for characters filling the same role to be interchangeable, to be able to plug into the same script with only the name needing to be changed. All the brothers Maverick got assigned scripts interchangeably. On Mission: Impossible, Jim Phelps was basically the same character as Dan Briggs and Paris was the same character as Rollin Hand. And so on. (Heck, it goes back even earlier -- Shemp and Curly Joe, anyone?)

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I've also considered Robert Culp in the captain's role —whether it was April, Winters, Pike or Kirk.

Let's face it, those were just different names for the same character. At least, the first three were, and the fourth essentially was as far as the initial characterization was concerned.

Really, in '60s TV, it was seen as desirable for characters filling the same role to be interchangeable, to be able to plug into the same script with only the name needing to be changed. All the brothers Maverick got assigned scripts interchangeably. On Mission: Impossible, Jim Phelps was basically the same character as Dan Briggs and Paris was the same character as Rollin Hand. And so on. (Heck, it goes back even earlier -- Shemp and Curly Joe, anyone?)

I completely understand that. I've also studied television of the time closely.

I was merely saying that I'd be interested in seeing Culp in the captain's role be it named April, Winters, Pike or Kirk or whatever. Kirk is essentially the same character as Pike. It was only Shatner's performance that made the role feel different, which the writers glommed on as they wrote the character of Kirk.

 

[Christopher]

Culp would certainly have been a fine choice. Although I guess he was unavailable, given that I Spy debuted in September '65. (Ooh, imagine an alternate world where Culp played Captain Kirk and Shatner played Kelly Robinson.)

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Hunter was saddled with a character starting out as emotionally defeated. We know Hunter had the range and ability to portray a more expressive character, but as written Pike wasn't that way.

Pike was sullen or snapping, but in every pre and post ST performance i've ever seen, Hunter was not the kind of presence--that kind of new actor that would propel a series airing in the post-Kennedy, warm, yet bold mindset required for ST. Hunter was so much a part of that hard-formatted, studio system performing, and never broke out of that right up to his last work. He could not work as ST's lead, and his Pike was a far different character when compared to the development and engaging quality of Kirk only in that 2nd pilot.

The rest of the cast was bland. Tyler comes across as a kid and Colt left me unmoved.

Tyler was straight from the Forbidden Planet / 50's sci-fi well Roddenberry so liberally drank from: the young, go-getter officer, eager to leap into action, sometimes against better judgement.

That archetype would be recycled--through the Davy Jones Monkees Transformation Machine--into the character of Chekov.

The threat of the Talosians and the danger of illusion is an idea that isn't easy to convey and so it's a challenge to telegraph a real sense of jeopardy to our heroes.

I'll disagree here, in that the Talosians demonstrated (as Vina warned) that through illusion, they could manipulate the Enterprise crew to do whatever it takes to destroy the ship, so in that sense, they posed a danger. Certainly not matching the implications of Gary Mitchell's constantly growing awareness/power, but a threat in any case.

The second time around allowed them to do it better.

Well, its the reason we're talking about ST today. If left on the shoulders of Hunter and/or "The Cage," we might be talking about only as one of those "lost" pilots with a known lead.

 

[J.T.B.]

Has anyone here seen Temple Huston, the one season Western that Hunter starred in before Star Trek? That might give one a better idea of what his range might have been over the course of a series than just "The Menagerie."

Alas, no, I've never been able to track that one down. I have seen the pilot, released as the feature The Man from Galveston, and Hunter is very good, playing from easy-going to passionate. Grace Lee Whitney was also in it. I did see Hunter's Death Valley Days episode recently, and he was good there also.

No, because Hunter was never the kind of actor with that soulful, appealing range that moves between stern commander and a world of earthly appeal as friend, romantic lead, or playful.

I would say he did exactly that in Sergeant Rutledge.

To me, the fact that John Ford used him in three films (as he did Paul Fix) is evidence that he had "something." Ford valued naturalistic characterizations and underlying good humor, and Hunter could display those readily. Only a few of the John Ford Stock Company went on to TV series leads (Ward Bond and Ken Curtis are the ones that come to mind), but others like Willis Bouchey, John Qualen, Harry Carey Jr. and Anna Lee had extensive TV character credits.

Hunter was a good actor and a pro. Would he have made of Pike everything that Shatner made of Kirk? Impossible to say. But one episode is not enough to judge by, and I think the evidence of Hunter's body of work weighs more in favor of him making a series work than not.

 

[Maurice]

Also, one point of correction -- the letter Maurice quoted from Mort Werner is actually dated August 17, 1966.

Whups. Fixed.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I would say he did exactly that in Sergeant Rutledge.

He was still more manufactured studio product than anything else. As the expression goes, Your Mileage May Vary, but I think the difference between Hunter and Shatner in their single pilots is glaring in what it exposed about Hunter not being what a potential series needed.

Hunter was a good actor and a pro. Would he have made of Pike everything that Shatner made of Kirk? Impossible to say. But one episode is not enough to judge by, and I think the evidence of Hunter's body of work weighs more in favor of him making a series work than not.

I'm only using the pilots for comparison--which is all NBC had to work with. In WNMHGB, Shatner was a revelation as the very human, but strong Kirk, while Hunter was...he was just a captain working his way out of a situation.

 

[Zaminhon]

I am pretty sure that the stories with Hunter would have been different and basically stuck to either romance or full out battle mode. We might have seen a COTEOF but as I mentioned in another thread, I don't think he had the range to pull off the over-acting parts such as in Return To Tomorrow , Enemy Within and Turnabout Intrude, to name a few. I'm not even sure if he could have even pulled off COTEOF.

 

[Christopher]

I am pretty sure that the stories with Hunter would have been different and basically stuck to either romance or full out battle mode.

There's no reason the writing would've been different, not at first, anyway. As I said, first-season Kirk was written exactly like Pike; only the acting made it different. That's how a lot of '60s shows handled cast changes, treating the replacements as functionally identical to their predecessors.

Presumably Hunter would've had different degrees of chemistry with different cast members, so maybe it wouldn't have become as much a Captain-and-Spock two-hander as it did in the second and third seasons. And we might not have had as many humor-oriented scripts if Hunter couldn't bring the comedy like Shatner could.

 

[uniderth]

I am pretty sure that the stories with Hunter would have been different and basically stuck to either romance or full out battle mode. We might have seen a COTEOF but as I mentioned in another thread, I don't think he had the range to pull off the over-acting parts such as in Return To Tomorrow , Enemy Within and Turnabout Intrude, to name a few. I'm not even sure if he could have even pulled off COTEOF.

I'm Captain Pike. I'm Captain Pike! I'M CAPTAIN PIIIIIKE!

 

[Zaminhon]

Just can't see it...

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[The Old Mixer]

Hunter was saddled with a character starting out as emotionally defeated. We know Hunter had the range and ability to portray a more expressive character, but as written Pike wasn't that way.

Avery Brooks was also saddled with a character who started out as emotionally defeated. "Emissary" is strikingly similar to "The Cage" in the emotional arc for the lead character -- he starts out in pain from a personal loss, tired of his work and considering retirement; he's captured by aliens and interacts with them through illusions taken from his memory; and in the experience, he gains perspective on his problems and comes out of it restored and rededicated to his career.

So the question is, did Brooks suffer from those limitations on his character in the pilot? Or is it maybe not the situation that's to blame? (If there is any blame required.)

I never understood that complaint about Pike's situation in the pilot, nor did it ever bother me when watching the episode. What's more, it doesn't seem to have been a terribly unusual hook for introducing a lead character. In the first episode of Adam-12, Malloy is in a funk, ready to quit the force, and unwilling to take a rookie under his wing because he'd recently lost a partner. Did it sabotage his character? No, it made him interesting.

I imagine that these three shows (including DS9) aren't the only cases where this angle was used in a pilot. Can anyone throw in some more examples?

Comparing "The Cage" to the first episode of Adam-12, though, does bring one weakness in the former's structure to mind...Pike spends the bulk of the story interacting with guest characters rather than regulars. Other than his scene with Boyce, we don't really see any ongoing relationships forming or being introduced. It might have been more interesting if he'd been breaking in a new first officer or something.