Inspired from a discussion in another thread on the BBS. 
I thought the beard was indisputably a good move for both Frakes the actor and Riker the character back in 1988. Frakes has what we call a weak chin structure, and the season one Riker with his dimples... you know, the later description of him as 'Babyface Riker' is apt. The character didn't quite look comfortable in his own skin at times in that first season. I recall comparisons being made between Riker and Potsie from Happy Days and tbh I can totally see it. When Season 2 rolled around and Riker shows up with his 'Walter Raleigh beard' as Gene Roddenberry called it, what it did was fill out his features, give his chin that added structure that was missing. It's an archetypical example of where some guys simply look better with face hair than without.
However.....
By 1999, I believe that, while Frakes didn't look entirely wrong *with* beard, his face has fleshed out enough in the intervening 11 years that the removal of the beard served him pretty well. In Insurrection, we get beardless Riker but by no means is he 'babyface' Riker. Jonathan Frakes' somewhat more matured features in 1999 actually carry the clean skin look incredibly well. Even with beard removed he now looks confident, mature, certainly more Kirk-like. Removing the beard de-ages him but doesn't remove the masculinity he gained from growing the beard in the first place. In fact, when the beard returns 3 years later for Nemesis, something feels wrong about it. It's now flecked with grey and looks shabbier than before. Frakes looks like he gained twenty years in the space of three. I really feel like he could've just run with the clean shaven look by then and actually pulled it off.
But what say you?
I thought the beard was indisputably a good move for both Frakes the actor and Riker the character back in 1988. Frakes has what we call a weak chin structure, and the season one Riker with his dimples... you know, the later description of him as 'Babyface Riker' is apt. The character didn't quite look comfortable in his own skin at times in that first season. I recall comparisons being made between Riker and Potsie from Happy Days and tbh I can totally see it. When Season 2 rolled around and Riker shows up with his 'Walter Raleigh beard' as Gene Roddenberry called it, what it did was fill out his features, give his chin that added structure that was missing. It's an archetypical example of where some guys simply look better with face hair than without.
However.....
By 1999, I believe that, while Frakes didn't look entirely wrong *with* beard, his face has fleshed out enough in the intervening 11 years that the removal of the beard served him pretty well. In Insurrection, we get beardless Riker but by no means is he 'babyface' Riker. Jonathan Frakes' somewhat more matured features in 1999 actually carry the clean skin look incredibly well. Even with beard removed he now looks confident, mature, certainly more Kirk-like. Removing the beard de-ages him but doesn't remove the masculinity he gained from growing the beard in the first place. In fact, when the beard returns 3 years later for Nemesis, something feels wrong about it. It's now flecked with grey and looks shabbier than before. Frakes looks like he gained twenty years in the space of three. I really feel like he could've just run with the clean shaven look by then and actually pulled it off.
But what say you?
