Is Patrick Stewart responsible for virtually all Star Trek past the late 80s?

[Angry Fanboy]

As per the thread title - just how much of Star Trek's success post the premiere of Star Trek: The Next Generation can be traced back to Patrick Stewart's performance as Jean-Luc Picard?

I'd venture that virtually all of it bar the final couple of films staring the original crew rests largely on Stewart as Picard.

I propose to you that the success of TNG over 7 seasons, providing the momentum for Deep Space Nine, Voyager and onwards to Enterprise and the TNG films would not have happened but for Stewart, and that TNG itself would have not succeeded as it did and gotten past the first few seasons had another actor, Steven Macht for argument's sake, been cast in the role. Had TNG not succeeded, there would be no DS9, VOY or ENT and obviously no TNG film series (the quality of which is an argument for another day).

In my opinion it is from Stewart's charasmatic, definitive performance as Picard that Star Trek's immense success from the late 80s to early 00s is hung. The recent resurgence with a recast crew may well have still happened, perhaps at a different time or with another actor than Chris Pine as Kirk, but then again it just as easily may not have.

I am of the opinion that Star Trek would have been a successful 3 season 1960s TV series, 6 films, and an aborted 1980s relaunch without Patrick Stewart in the leading role of TNG. As much as I love the TNG crew, and as loved as those characters (Brent Spiner's Data in patlrticular) are, Stewart was unquestionably the leading man and at once the most compelling, commanding presence on the screen from and including Encounter At Farpoint and All Good Things.

Opinions?

 

[Lord Garth]

TFF would've been the last TOS movie. I think TNG kept Star Trek alive along enough to reach the 25th Anniversary in 1991, thus prompting Paramount to want to make TUC.

Otherwise, Harve Bennett wanted to do a Starfleet Academy movie after TFF. It probably wouldn't have done well. Then, at some point down the line, they still would've rebooted Star Trek. At least for the big screen, but I think it would've happened sooner and probably not by JJ Abrams.

There wouldn't be any new TV series for sure. DS9, VOY, and ENT all spun-off from TNG. DSC probably only even exists because CBS thought to themselves, "Hey! Remember when Star Trek used to be a TV juggernaut with all those series? It's been a while, people are starting to miss it, let's bring it back!"

So, yeah. Without TNG, we wouldn't have the franchise as we know it today.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I am of the opinion that Star Trek would have been a successful 3 season 1960s TV series, 6 films, and an aborted 1980s relaunch without Patrick Stewart in the leading role of TNG.

Sir Patrick deserves his share of credit for the success of TNG, but there's no way to know whether TNG would have been just as successful with another cast.

 

[Angry Fanboy]

Sir Patrick deserves his share of credit for the success of TNG, but there's no way to know whether TNG would have been just as successful with another cast.

Oh there's no way to know, that's unquestionable, but that's also true of any number of things. This is merely an opinion of mine that without Stewart specifically TNG would not have succeeded, and therefore what followed on from TNG would not have happened.

 

[Tenacity]

this is merely an opinion of mine that without Stewart specifically TNG would not have succeeded

I disagree. Steward was great in the role, but he was never the only option, and there are other actors with his level of training, skill and natural abilities

 

[Angry Fanboy]

I disagree. Steward was great in the role, but he was never the only option, and there are other actors with his level of training, skill and natural abilities

But therein lies my point - I genuinely believe that some actors are PERFECTLY cast in particular roles and without *that* actor in *that* role the success wouldn't follow, or at least not anything like the same degree of success.

Case in point - Ryan Reynolds in the Deadpool films. I very much doubt there is any other actor who could have played that part with anywhere near the success Reynolds is enjoying.

 

[Spot261]

Thought experiment, try turning this on it's head and asking if Patrick Stewart actually held the show back, that his performance was the weak link that kept Trek from mainstream success a la SW, Marvel, DC...that his role as Professor X was also the weak link that made the X Men the baby brother of the MCU?

We can never really know what "would have" happened, only speculate.

 

[Terok Nor]

He's the best actor that's ever been in Star Trek. It certainly didn't hurt to have him as the lead in TNG. I think a lot of elements came together to keep Star Trek going but there was a certain amount of prestige having a British Shakespearean actor as Picard I'm sure. I dont think one person or one character is responsible for Trek's continued success. It's been a group effort from a hell of a lot of people for the past 52 years including the fans who got TOS a third season back in 1968 and kept it alive for 10 years until the movies came along.

Picard is 90s Trek though. Only Data comes close to him.

 

[USS Firefly]

Well then he is also responsable for his bad story input for "Insurrection" and "nemesis"

 

[BillJ]

Part of the reason for its success? Sure.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Until the X-men films his relationship with McKellen, Stewart was a middling star. He was/is an extremely good actor sure, but he wasn't a marquee talent. And it's pretty silly to suggest it would have been impossible to find someone else who was similar.

TNG did become its own cultural phenomenon, but it was never what TOS was. And it certainly could have achieved that - or even exceeded it - with someone else. And the other shows didn't falter because they didn't have Patrick Stewart.

But therein lies my point - I genuinely believe that some actors are PERFECTLY cast in particular roles and without *that* actor in *that* role the success wouldn't follow, or at least not anything like the same degree of success.

Case in point - Ryan Reynolds in the Deadpool films. I very much doubt there is any other actor who could have played that part with anywhere near the success Reynolds is enjoying.

This is a cognitive bias.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I disagree. Steward was great in the role, but he was never the only option, and there are other actors with his level of training, skill and natural abilities

Who are also willing to take the role though?

 

[Tenacity]

Stewart took the role (as I understand it) because he needed employment.

It's important to remember that Picard isn't solely the creation of Stewart, various writers and directors had a part to play in the final product.

Any actor who could have been hired as Picard would have brought their own interpretation to the character. It would be them playing Picard, not them (somehow) playing Stewart playing Picard.

 

[Draculasaurus]

"Picard" is the result of a team effort, but yeah, the chord that the character struck with the mainstream audience definitely gave the franchise years and years of momentum.
IMHO

 

[Captain Rob]

For all of the accolades and laurels being heaped upon Stewart (which he truly deserves) I have one word (title actually):
"Lifeforce"
Here's a thought. John Delancie as the Captain of the USS Enterprise-D.

 

[Spot261]

He's the best actor that's ever been in Star Trek. It certainly didn't hurt to have him as the lead in TNG. I think a lot of elements came together to keep Star Trek going but there was a certain amount of prestige having a British Shakespearean actor as Picard I'm sure. I dont think one person or one character is responsible for Trek's continued success. It's been a group effort from a hell of a lot of people for the past 52 years including the fans who got TOS a third season back in 1968 and kept it alive for 10 years until the movies came along.

Picard is 90s Trek though. Only Data comes close to him.

Whilst I obviously made my suggestion he may have held the show back as a hypothetical stance and not one to be taken seriously, I'm finding it very difficult to rate Stewart above Spiner in terms of his acting in the show. For the most part his portrayal of Picard was charismatic and captivating, but as a consequence primarily of his Shakesperean background neatly dovetailing with the material he was given. He convinced as someone who could command a ship because he is so gifted at commanding the screen (or the stage).

Data, on the other hand, was an almost entirely a self invention on the part of Spiner, a very finely nuanced balance between innocence, sympathy and childlike curiosity which had to also be sufficiently alien to leave the viewer in no doubt as to his nature without making him unrelatable. Not only that but he managed to sustain that balance flawlessly throughout seven seasons, never once missing a beat. What makes the portrayal even more impressive is the way he contrasted it with Lore and B4, which were both played so as to emphasise the differences in character and cognitive capabilities whilst still clearly having the same underlying qualities which made Data stand out from the organic beings around him.

There was (and remains to this day) few genuine parallels to that performance and most of those that have come since have drawn heavily on Spiner's lead.

 

[Butters]

But therein lies my point - I genuinely believe that some actors are PERFECTLY cast in particular roles and without *that* actor in *that* role the success wouldn't follow, or at least not anything like the same degree of success.

Case in point - Ryan Reynolds in the Deadpool films. I very much doubt there is any other actor who could have played that part with anywhere near the success Reynolds is enjoying.

A different actor would have brought something different that’s certain, but we can’t know what. It’s a bit of an affront to the efforts of the rest of cast and crew to suggest it was all down to Pat. It wasn’t the Picard show. Who knows, maybe another actor might have played it less smug.

 

[Tenacity]

And let's be honest, if Stewart continued playing Picard as he was doing in the first season of TNG, it would have been Stewart himself who brought down the Trek franchise.

I think Mitchell Ryan (daddy Riker) would have made a wonderful lead actor for the series. He has a commanding presence, beautiful speaking voice, handsome and a wide acting range.

A decade older than Stewart, he would have been closer to Picard's age.

 

[CorporalClegg]

He has a commanding presence,

He can even induce people to burn themselves with pocket lighters.

 

[Riker'sMailbox]

Yes and no. Aside from the great points others have mentioned, you have to look at Star Trek as a generational thing. There are those who were around to see TOS in real time or who got to see TOS before TNG. They were already fans. Then you have the TNG generation of viewers. Certainly, PS's performance as JLP was a huge reason for those viewers tuning in and becoming immersed in the ST universe. Then you have younger viewers who may have been more familiar with VOY or ENT and got to know TNG and PS through syndication and Netflix.

I do think that the initial interest in DS9 can be attributed to the success of TNG, which was definitely due, in a large part, to PS.

Certainly, for someone like me, that was 10 when TNG came out, PS as JLP got me hooked when I watched TNG on Netflix. But, it was DS9 th at ensured I would watch all the series.