Could they have replaced Shatner/Kirk?

No. A good standard for TV acting is Lorne Greene.

 

My bewilderment remains.

 

I don't think you're in the game with this acting lark at all.

But given that you think Shatner is a good TV actor in TOS, that's to be expected.

 

HAH!
Nice.

 

Shatner's roots were in theatre, but by the time of Star Trek, he had built a career of over ten years as a reliable and dependable actor in television guest shots, a recurring character on Dr. Kildare, and even had his own series for 13 weeks, as well as film credits. He certainly knew how to work a camera, but some of his choices are noticeably playing to the back of the house.

Roddenberry and others did consider a replacement, but for Nimoy, whose agent impulsively made a salary demand that would have priced him out of the series for season two. They even considered possible replacement actors if it became necessary.

 

Shatner on Star Trek was not the same thing as Marilyn on The Munsters, or even Darrin on Bewitched.

Mission Impossible is also an inapt comparison, because that show didn't merely downplay, but for most episodes utterly omitted any personal side to the characters. It was the driest and most barren procedural show I've ever seen. So it didn't matter who was the star of Mission Impossible, as those leads were playing cardboard placeholders anyway, and were thus interchangeable.

I'd also like to say that simply promoting Spock after Shatner left would have been a mistake. Spock makes a bad captain. He functions dramatically as an outside observer of humans, a disdainer of our expressive nature, who often fails to understand us. He can do that in the upward direction, to his superior, and come off okay, but when he does it to his subordinates (The Galileo Seven, That Which Survives, The Tholian Web), he comes across as a jerk.

The other side of Spock is when he is vulnerable because his Vulcan logic is upended by an outside influence or ponn farr. And again, that just works better when he has a superior to protect him or reign him in.

Another thing: Kirk's most interesting decisions are not made on the basis of strict logic. Spock would never lead the crew into situations he himself was passionate about. It would be dry, bare-bones leadership.

 

Considering the TV era TOS was made in, Shatner's acting is more or less on par. At least on the green. Hammy at times, but damn good at others. He "Let's get the hell out of here!" moment in "CotEoF" for example.

 

A better comparison perhaps, is when Pernell Roberts walked away from Bonanza after six years, and was replaced by David Canary as a completely different character.

 

Quite true, and it makes no sense to compare the character/casting situation of a show (M:I) with its inherent structure being one of swap-out characters based on a particular skill, (ex. Landau's Rollin Hand was half-cloned to become Nimoy's Paris--merely fitting a slot with no unique, defined characteristics). That in no conceivable way is the Star Trek situation.

Well said. The point of post-Hunter Spock was to struggle with his mixed heritage, while standing as a contrast to the energetic / troubled / gregarious Kirk. He was learning from Kirk from 2nd pilot until the end of the series, because Spock was not born to be that "onward!" individual--the embodiment of the Starfleet mission, or in possession of the ancient adventurer's spirit.

Its only fitting that in "Mirror, Mirror" Spock's counterpart offers the most truthful character assessment of himself and (unknowingly) the real Spock:

That was his place in life--not being that once leading the charge or to become philosophical about the motivating reason for Starfleet, etc. Then, there's the rest of that line:

While Mirror Spock was specifically talking about the cutthroat nature of the crew, one could suggest real Spock would also desire to be a lesser target--only in his case, of the emotional depth and almost creative/dreamer quality required to be a captain. He was never comfortable with being on the receiving end of that firing range, and understood that.

 

Could they have replaced Shatner/Kirk?

No.

Next question....

 

Recently, I seconded the rather fulsome description you ascribe to Shatner's abilities, but only to a degree. Before Trek, he was certainly an accomplished TV guest actor for a number of years, and was memorable in spots like his turn in The Twilight Zone. He also appeared in some films throughout the early part of his career, including The Brothers Karamazov and Judgement at Nuremberg. His initial experience was in the stage where early on he received very good notices, both regionally and on Broadway. But I think it far to say that the esteem with which his early potential was given, never came to fruition and he appeared in his fair share of schlock as well. He came to be considered as a dependable go to guy, a professional who did his job but nothing much more.

Certainly, the role of Kirk as envisioned by Roddenberry, played to his strengths and weaknesses in a way that nothing else had previously and likely ever would have subsequently. So to laud him as some exemplar of actors in action oriented television, with a bit of introspection thrown in, throughout all the 60's seems more than a bit hyperbolic to me. To suggest that he was the perfect fit as captain, whether with the name of Kirk or not, ignores other choices that might have been configured a bit differently as personalities, but would have been able to illustrate the same level of growth or indeed, wisdom, and also could've been quite the effective mentor/partner for Spock as he developed, as well.

You discount Hunter as being an inferior actor generally and lacking the emotiveness to play the effective and engaged leader that was a requisite condition for the role. I simply don't agree that his portrayal in the first pilot exemplified that kind of detachment. He was first shown as being weary and questioning of his resolve to continue as captain, but not because he was indifferent or resigned, but more I think of his disappointment in not displaying the high degree of acumen in judging situations, that in this case, resulted in the loss of life. Despite the expressed reservations, he does not continue to wallow in self-recrimination, but is able to focus his full attention on the situation that they come to face with his professionalism fully charged and what seems to be an innate curiosity about new experiences intact. His responses to the depredations foisted on him by the Talosians, show a keen intuition and indeed a vital forcefulness that essentially scuttles his host's smug assumptions as to his malleability and weakness.

In essence, I see in Hunter's portrayal not a feckless ennui but a veteran's presence and verve that will eventually overcome those times of deep introspection that is another trademark of his personality. I compare this with Kirk's rookie like performance in his roll out and find that a supposed obvious superiority to the latter's model should not at all be granted an unwarranted pass. I think Hunter's mix of physical vigorousness, quiet intellect, and likely superior apprehension of the fault lines in others, as well as himself, would have expressed itself admirably as Pike, which may very well been the actual result, if I understand it correctly that his monetary demands made that result untenable.

Another focus could have been on an older figure to play the role, someone that might not be required to hit all the notes of the torn shirt routine as a physical presence, but more as an avuncular figure, who after many years in the chair, has refined his ability to characterize situations to a razor's edge and already has the unquestioned respect and admiration that will take Kirk a considerable amount of time to realistically come close to acquiring. I guess I'm envisioning someone like Picard in his gravitas, who could likely fill the role of a flag officer if he so chose, but still has the desire to be in the mix directly. Someone that would also counsel Spock in much more the role of the father that the latter has had denied him. I think I find a fine choice for such a portrayal, could well have been James Daly.

It is hard to speculate how other actors who might have done a superlative job in a different iteration of the captain, might have impacted the soon to grow increasing clamor for the continuation of Trek in a major form, that resulted a decade after cancellation with TMP. I won't claim to know if that ardor might have been diminished if not for the presence of Shatner. But I can feel confident in saying that the qualities he brought to Kirk, were in no way integral to that chair being solidly filled and with abilities that at the least, would have certainly allowed the show to have had the limited popular success that it achieved during the initial run, if not the possibility of even a bit more.

 

I see that different people are interpreting the question differently. I've been addressing it in terms of whether the show would've had a chance of surviving in the ratings in the 1960s if there had been a change in the lead actor, and in my opinion, such a change would not have been fatal so long as Nimoy remained on the show -- in the same way that Happy Days survived the loss of Ron Howard and Blake's 7 survived the loss of its own title character, because both series' leads had been overshadowed by the breakout stars and thus rendered expendable.

But I think TREK_GOD_1 and maybe others are addressing it more in the sense of whether it should have been done, whether the show would've been as good or enduring in the eyes of later fans. And in those terms, I agree that the show would've been less without Shatner. I believe it would've survived on the air with a different lead, or with Nimoy promoted to lead, but it would've lost something, and it might not have been as enduringly popular after its cancellation, once Spockmania wore off. Indeed, maybe fans in later years might've come to resent Spock for driving Kirk off the show, in the same way many Lost in Space fans resent Dr. Smith for overshadowing the Robinsons.

 

This.

The closest we ever got to it really happening was the 'contingency plan' for Phase II, where they had the notion of hiring Shatner for the first 13 episodes, but then keeping the option open for bumping him out of the series after that and transitioning Decker to the captain's chair, should Shatner get too difficult, or had his then anticipated movie career finally picked up steam.

 

Does anyone know what Shatner's contract was like - how much, how long, buyout clauses, etc.

Given there wasn't much budget to begin with, I'm not sure it would have been cost-effective and then having to search and negotiate a new deal with another actor.

And getting GR and the studio to agree on the replacement may have been problematic too.

 

and 20 years TV later, having many other shows already establish the idea of killing off a character, and considering TNG had always planned killing Picard off and having Riker take over as a contingency plan.

Hence the maybe, maybe not line…

His acting works great in Shakespeare, about 20 years ago I took classes with Raphael Kelly a Shakespearean acting coach, in NY who claimed he taught Shatner, but the long pause coupled with a quick delivery can actually work very well in a Shakespearean monologue. also year later I was flipping channels and came across a Shatner in a western, where his pausing and speeding up was great for this heart felt realization at a camp fire.

But I agree that his bad acting rep is compounded by comedians exaggerating his delivery.

Never knew that…

In your own words describe why

And the replacing of Spock, with Xon as Nimoy was doing quite well at the time.

To be honest I don't know if it would of worked, with a different set of circumstances, the overall chemistry was great.

 

I always thought of his pauses as a naturalistic touch, because it suggested that the character had to stop and think about what he was going to say next, rather than just rattling off a memorized speech. Lots of people talk that way in real life -- including Vice President Gore and President Obama in their speeches.

For that matter, when it comes to delivering lines with long pauses, Shatner has nothing on Scott Bakula. I've never had a problem with Shatner's delivery, but Bakula's is often rather tiresome to me. So I find it odd that Shatner's the one who gets grief for this. I think some people just focus on the targets that it's fashionable to mock, whether it makes sense or not.

 

Shatner is an over-actor, plain and simple. It's just not about the pauses, it's the entire package. I love his treatment on "The Family Guy" which parodies him to the extreme.

 

You can't count things like that, because ever since Airplane II, Shatner has based his career largely on parodying his own exaggerated reputation as a ham. It would be nonsense to interpret that self-parody as being the same as his dramatic acting style, when there's a wealth of filmed evidence proving the difference.

This is the same unfair stereotyping that ruined Adam West's career. He was a superb actor, and on Batman he was hired to overact and he did a brilliant job of doing just what was asked of him, which unfortunately led people who couldn't tell comedy from reality to believe that overacting was all he was capable of. And like Shatner, he never really had a career renaissance until he stopped fighting that stereotype of being a ham and embraced it. He, too, has built his modern career on parodying his own image. And while I'm glad he bounced back, it's always upset me that he was never given his due as a serious actor.

 

Adam West's flair for light comedy really comes out in his Bruce Wayne. For his sci-fi dramatic touch, he has a small role in Robinson Crusoe on Mars, and stars in the original Outer Limits episode "The Invisible Enemy". He and Shatner are both in the unsold pilot "Alexander the Great".

 

I think they'd have certainly tried to replace Shatner whilst the show was still viable. Would I be right in remembering they at least put some thought into a new "Vulcan" (what I remember reading was unclear if it would be a Spock recast or an entirely new character, but as with Xon in TMP being a Vulcan seems to have been a prerequisite for the character) actor between seasons 1 and 2 when Nimoy was being (as the studio saw it) difficult? So yeah, it's hard not seeing them just casting a new captain if Shatner had left for any reason.

Whether it would have worked or not is much harder to say as it would depend entirely on the casting and chemistry with the rest of the cast (presumably, as was the wont of '60's TV recasting, the writing would be basically the same even if it had been a new character). It's not as if we don't have a good degree of evidence that Star Trek can be successful with different characters/actors in every role, replacing just one--even the lead--wouldn't have been impossible.