Who’s the star of the series?

[Gary7]

Shatner. But I preferred Nimoy's Spock to Shatner's Kirk.

Agreed. Shatner was certainly the intended star. He was a far more popular actor than Nimoy at that point. Nimoy was supposed to be the secondary star. But as we all know, Nimoy became more popular. After all, Spock was the unusual one, the alien. And besides, Nimoy did a great job with the character. He was able to get his salary renegotiated, but Shatner was still the big money maker, as well as holding a percentage of the residuals.

Impartially, I would say they were co-stars. Both were needed. Without Spock, the series would have died off sooner. Same is true with Shatner.

Shatner was a very good actor in those days, in terms of the fact that he was thorough with his lines, punctual, and had minimal takes compared to the others. I felt his portrayal of the captain was very good... up until the 3rd season.

Nimoy just continued to improve. He actually became even better in the 3rd season.

But according to "Inside Star Trek", the 3rd season was a mess. With Roddenberry on the sidelines, and the loss of both Solow and Coon, the series suffered. One thing that Roddenberry had was good sense on script rewrites. And he'd stopped doing it. So... the actors would just do what they had to do and leave. They all knew that the series wasn't going to be renewed, as word had already spread of the 10pm Friday slot. The writing was on the wall.

 

[Botany Bay]

Wow, I am a bit surprised at the poll result so far, and the overwhelming posts for Shatner.

I agree very much with Devil Eyes. Shatner was clearly intended to be the “star” of the show since he already had something of a name at the time and Nimoy had been mostly a bit player in television until then. However, I think Spock was the very heart and soul of the show and the reason that it still resonates with so many people 45 years later. The fact that so many of us could come to admire and love this alien being and forgive his weaknesses was sort of symbolic of the universal theme of the show as I understood it.

After decades of being away from the show, when I redeveloped an interest in it, I began watching whatever I could find of Nimoy’s limited performances prior to Star Trek, and was astonished to find that what I had thought of as Spock was almost entirely Nimoy: his facial expressions, physical mannerisms, intonations. I don’t really think the writers ultimately had all that much to do with creating Spock; he was mostly self-created by the actor within the parameters given him by the writers. I think they were extremely lucky to have stumbled on Nimoy to play Spock and I can’t think of another actor who would have molded the character in quite the same way. Since he hadn’t had much opportunity to display his acting abilities before this character, I expect he put a greater than average amount of thought and energy into creating it.

Unlike many others here, I find the shows where Spock is the focus to be, well, fascinating; but when the show is overly Shatner focused, I have to stifle a yawn. Kirk is the action/adventure hero and a very good one, but I think he could have been played very well by a number of actors. I will say though that as a grownup, I now do appreciate Shatner’s acting much more, being able to notice some of the nuances he gave to Kirk and the subtle and not-so-subtle ways his character could manipulate people flirtatiously (both male and female) and his ability to cut to the chase on matters, and his wit. I agree he made a very satisfying ship’s captain, but I had seen similar performances by others before.

So therefore I am committing a bit of “jury nullification” here and voting for Spock as the star even though I’m very sure it was always intended to be Kirk.

Nice post. I agree with you 100%

Shatner was highly thought of my the production staff, they chased him hard and they were thrilled to get him. On the first day of shooting, he was the star.

But, there is no doubt in my mind that it was a different story within months. Nimoy was the reason people wrote letters, stampeded at Spock public appearances and there is plenty of evidence he had a huge female following.

Roddenberry knew it too - "Mr. Spock's Music from Outer Space" was one of the first Trek merchandising efforts.

Note also, that each new season was started with a Spock episode (Amok Time and Spock's Brain).

Also, look at the elaborate tactics Desilu used to scare Nimoy into re-signing for the second season. Leaked casting lists of proposed alternate Vulcans, warnings that "the ears are the star, Nimoy." etc...

Put it this way, if I were an NBC executive and Herb Solow came to me after the first season saying "We had to let Shatner go", it would be a loss, but not the end of the show. If Solow told me "We had to let Nimoy go" I would have pulled the show on the spot.

I say this as a huge Kirk/Shatner fan, but Spock was Star Trek in those days.

Nimoy was the star.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Shatner would also probably have been harder to replace, since so much of Kirk was simply his personality and performance - writers wrote for Spock, his unique motivations and mannerisms and so forth whereas Shatner made a fairly generic TV Hero into a recognizable character. This has repercussions for Trek down to this day - Abrams and company found it a lot easier to cast the "iconic" Spock role than to find a new Kirk.

Only because they had the incredible luck that there was a rather well-known genre actor who besides the acting ability bears a strong resemblance to Nimoy.).

No. Spock is the easier character to cast, period. He is the easier character to play, because he is so closely defined by recognized behavior and by mannerism.

They did "get lucky" in finding an actor who most (not all) fans think resembles Nimoy facially - if they had not, the character would simply have had less physical resemblance to Spock just as the new Kirk differs considerably from Shatner and the new Scotty is very different from Doohan.

In many ways, physical resemblance is the least important part of recasting a part.

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

One thing that Roddenberry had was good sense on script rewrites. And he'd stopped doing it.

Actually, imo, GR was terrible at rewriting scripts. It was Gene L. Coon and to an extent Dorothy Fontana who both revised scripts so that they became the best they could be. It wasn't GR's absence that hurt Star Trek; it was Coon's.

 

[Noname Given]

He owned -- and owns -- a percentage of the series.

Shatner never owned a percentage of Star Trek. He was an actor hired under contract, and was due residuals for the show but sold them back to the studio at the conclusion of production since there was no reason to expect the show to be particularly successful in reruns.

He owned a percentage and had to give half of it away to his ex when he first divorced. And you can't "sell" your residuals back to a studio. SAG would have kittens. What's your source?

No he didn't he had a CHOICE to take a percentage; or a lump sum, and he CHOSE the lump sum because he never thought the series would be remembered; (in the 1960ies - if you didn't have 100+ episodes minimum, you didn't get a syndication deal, and no one - not even the studio or executive producer got residuals.)
^^^^^
This is why he was living out of a picup truck fpr a while and doing educational film naration oin the 1970ies. It's also why whenever ythey want him tp reprise Kirk, the price is astronomical. (Yes, he did have a divorce, and I'm sure 1/2 of even the lump sum went to the Ex; but Shatner never got residuals from Star Trek.)

Hell, after thge cancellation Gene Roddenberry SOLD his entire interest in the Star Trek IP to Paramount as he too thought nothing of the series would be remembered or generate a lot of revenue. It's provbably the main reason TNG was s different in concept and execution from TOS as GR felt he no longer had any real stake in prerpetuating the original show; and I think felt he 'sold the show cheaply'; as Paramount has made a mint. Yes, Paramount brought him in for TMP; but after the whole debacle, he never had much input into STII, III, IV, etc. (and he always had a LARGE issue withe the 1701's destruction in ST:III.) Paramount essentially just paid him off for marketing purposes for the films.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

You are GR. What is your answer?

I am! Everyone shut up and get back to work!

 

[Bishop76]

One thing that Roddenberry had was good sense on script rewrites. And he'd stopped doing it.

Actually, imo, GR was terrible at rewriting scripts. It was Gene L. Coon and to an extent Dorothy Fontana who both revised scripts so that they became the best they could be. It wasn't GR's absence that hurt Star Trek; it was Coon's.

Quoted for truth. Rodenberry's touch-ups and stories made for some of the worst episodes in the series. Omega Glory anyone?

 

[Harvey]

Well, those are episodes where Roddenberry is the credited writer. In terms of re-writes, the impression I get from Inside Star Trek: The Real Story is that Roddenberry was re-writing just about everything, especially during the first season.

Now, in terms of episodes where he took writing credit, they're definitely not the best. Of course, he took story credit on "Mudd's Women" for a one-line story idea he developed with the writer of the episode, so we can't blame him for that one, except for being greedy when it comes to taking credit.

I'm surprised "The Omega Glory" was made, though. It had been available in a revised second draft since the first half of the first season (it was, after all, one of the three scripts delivered to the network as possible second pilots). They must have just run out of scripts that were ready to be filmed by the end of the second season, and so they went with it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It appears as if Roddenberry was at least a good rewrite man for budget and format requirements.

 

[Gary7]

^ Yes, that was true according to Solow.

Granted, Roddenberry came up with a rather contentious episode in "Omega Glory" (meaning, there's still a lot of argument as to whether it was any good). But from what I gathered in the book, Gene had tremendous pressure to find ways to fit stories into the budgets. Coon had "City" so lavishly written, there wouldn't have been any way to squeeze it into a single episode, let alone a two-parter. Actually, it probably would have made a good Star Trek movie. And Coon took forever to rewrite it, far longer than was promised... Yes, he had some good story ideas, but he didn't have a good sense of how to make a story fit within a budget. Gene was able to do this.

By the 3rd season, Roddenberry wasn't doing rewrites any longer. Coon had come up with some great stories, but remember that although he officially left after the 2nd season, he contributed several stories to the 3rd season as "Lee Cronin". Accordingly to Solow, the diminished quality of the 3rd season was partially due to Gene's lack of involvement. There were other factors as well... everybody knew it was a dying series, so it was hard to get writers to contribute (they'd rather write for something with more promise).

 

[Ssosmcin]

I love the credits of the unaired version of WNMHGB. Star Trek starring William Shatner. That's it. Credits end. Nimoy? In the back. WNMHGB was Shatner's show. Spock was there, but Shatner sold it. He gave that episode life. I am convinced his performance helped to sell the series.

Nimoy was the co-star. The most popular character? Yes, but the star was the lead that helped make Spock as popular as he was. Thing is, and Roddenberry saw this, people were responding to the combo, not just Spock. They supported each other. But Shatner was the star, he did the heavy lifting to bring his "action hero" character to life and to make him interesting. Spock was interesting just in his existence. I think Nimoy brought sex appeal to Spock that another actor might not have provided. But any good actor could have taken the Spock role and been excellent in it, but whether or not he would have caught on is debatable. However, being an interesting hero is tougher. While Nimoy had to "get into the Spock character," Shatner's own personality shaped a great deal of Kirk. What Shatner brought to the role was completely unique.

Most episodes centered on Kirk and his decisions. Spock was his sounding board. Spock got far fewer stories written around him (which is why they stand out). People say "lose Shatner and the show goes on, lose Spock and it ends." You'd be surprised just how much of the series would be missing without Shatner. His energy, his drive, and his magnetism are a big part of the show's success. A lot of people consider the first season to be the series' best. That was the season, coincidentally, where Spock was more marginalized. Especially in the first half, it was about "Captain Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise." For the great majority of the first season, Spock was a supporting character. It was already evident that Shatner could be the lead on his own. I honestly don't think Nimoy could carry the series with a different or lesser actor. Nimoy is not leading man material, Shatner is. This isn't a slight. Ross Martin wasn't a leading man either, but he was an outstanding actor, yards better than Robert Conrad. Martin was very popular, but Conrad was the lead on The Wild Wild West. As a team they were great, but solo Conrad still worked out fine.

It doesn't matter what we say, Roddenberry made the call and Freiberger went with it. Since Roddenberry was pretty much out of the series and he had nothing to lose by choosing Nimoy, I'll go with his line of thinking. Either way, the question was answered over 40 years ago.

 

[trekfan69]

I've always felt that Leonard Nimoy was the better actor of the two but their onscreen chemistry is what I feel is the true star of the show.

 

[Anji]

I cast my vote for Nimoy. I think his character was more difficult to develop and to portray.

And if I was Roddenberry I would've said "neither" and told both of them to get the hell out of my office.

 

[Harvey]

Roddenberry managed to dodge the question for two seasons, at least. It was only during his diminished and rather disengaged efforts during the third season that he foolishly provided an answer. Not that there was any doubt--Spock may have been more popular, but Shatner as Kirk was top-billed, paid the most, and central to almost every serious decision made on the show.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Just read the opening credits.

"STARRING William Shatner"

"ALSO STARRING Leonard Nimoy"

The difference between "starring" and "also starring" is around a thousand bucks a week.

 

[skylark14]

This post reminded me of something that has often puzzled me. I have wondered why, given that 1) Leonard Nimoy was basically an unknown without any leverage and with a peculiar name; and 2) supposedly the network hated his character and had asked that it be downplayed -- why then was his name prominently displayed as Also Starring from the very first show? I would have assumed he would have been quite happy just having a steady job without demanding title credits. The only answer I can come up with is that Roddenberry was making a statement to the audience from day one that the alien was integral to the show and not just a monster of the week. I also think this may have been why they went with Man Trap as the debut show. I had entirely forgotten until I saw it again recently that Mr. Spock was the first character we ever saw in ST. His name was mentioned in the opening line of the captain’s log as we see him sitting in the command chair (with Uhura front and center too by the way). So we knew right away that he was an important character and central to the show. I think that Also Starring credit (plus the shot of Uhura) said a lot subliminally and that it was intended to do so. Does anybody have any thoughts on this or a more straightforward reason why they even bothered to give him an Also Starring credit in the beginning?

 

[Captain Robert April]

The primary reason they went with "The Man Trap" is that it was one of the few episodes that was ready for air and halfway suitable as a leadoff show. If there hadn't been such a lag in post production, the first episode aired would've been the first episode filmed, "The Corbomite Maneuver" (and, like "The Man Trap", Spock would've been the first character seen).

 

[A beaker full of death]

I can't believe this conversation ever really happened. There were no ensemble shows back then. Captain Kirk was the dramatic hero. Why would it even have occurred to anyone that someone else would be?

 

[Nerys Myk]

I can't believe this conversation ever really happened. There were no ensemble shows back then. Captain Kirk was the dramatic hero. Why would it even have occurred to anyone that someone else would be?

I'm a bit confused by the idea TOS was an ensemble show too. It has a star (Shatner) and co-stars ( Nimoy and later Kelley) plus featured players (Doohan, Nichols, Takei and Koenig) All but Doohan could be and were easily replaced by extras, bit players or guest stars.

 

[Subcommander R.]

I didn't think there was any question on this. Shatner was the star. The Captain is always the star.