“I hadn’t acted in a long, long, long time,” Frakes said, according to Comic Book. “I hadn’t played Riker in 18 years, and I’ve been very fortunate to be busy directing. I acted briefly in a movie in Winnipeg about 10 years ago. And I had a major anxiety attack because, for whatever reason, I’d forgotten to act. I forgot how to act. I was not a pretty picture for a few hours. I got my sh*t together and ended up doing fine.”
But I really shared this in order to share this comment on the above article:
"Don’t be nervous just keep throwing that leg over the backs of chairs and all will be fine"
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,489PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,489
Miami, FL USA
Frakes also had the patented "look serious while standing behind Picard" pose whenever Picard would be communicating with some alien on the viewscreen.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
Frakes also had the patented "look serious while standing behind Picard" pose whenever Picard would be communicating with some alien on the viewscreen.
He's also quite good at the forehead-first slightly-sideways forward-lean walk. Quite hard to do, lots going on.
"They might look the same, but they don't taste the same."
#4488500 - 09/05/1902:20 PMRe: Jonathan Frakes Forgot How to Act
[Re: DM]
Frakes also had the patented "look serious while standing behind Picard" pose whenever Picard would be communicating with some alien on the viewscreen.
He's also quite good at the forehead-first slightly-sideways forward-lean walk. Quite hard to do, lots going on.
Upon reading your description I immediately saw him in my head doing that walk down an Enterprise corridor!
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
I never thought much of his acting to be honest, esp in the early episodes, so how much worse could he be now I wonder?? Of course, he wasn't nearly as bad as Tasha Yar.
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck.” -Robert Heinlein
Talking about Star Trek actors makes me think about Patrick Stewart vs. William Shatner. I know it's common to comment on Shatner's over-acting, and how Stewart is a better actor, but when I have watched the old Star Trek shows recently, I find there's just something about Shatner's Kirk that comes across as more genuine somehow. Maybe it's the character more than the actor, but when not screaming or something, and just talking, Shatner's Kirk seems more like a real person to me for some reason.
Ken Cartwright
No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.
Talking about Star Trek actors makes me think about Patrick Stewart vs. William Shatner. I know it's common to comment on Shatner's over-acting, and how Stewart is a better actor, but when I have watched the old Star Trek shows recently, I find there's just something about Shatner's Kirk that comes across as more genuine somehow. Maybe it's the character more than the actor, but when not screaming or something, and just talking, Shatner's Kirk seems more like a real person to me for some reason.
Kirk seems like a real person, Picard seems like a real stick in the mud.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,489PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,489
Miami, FL USA
Both William Shatner and Patrick Stewart have TONS of on-screen charisma and you can clearly see that in their Kirk and Picard characters. However, while Kirk was designed to be a maverick, emotional and "down to earth" leader, Picard was designed to be an intellectual, methodical and "by the book" leader. Both actors pulled off those roles perfectly.
It's personal preference as to which one you like more.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
You can have Picard, my two favorite captains were always Kirk and Sisko.
Yep, same here. Stewart as Picard seemed more like a Shakespeare actor emoting than a real person. Both Kirk and Sisko seemed more like real people to me.
Ken Cartwright
No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.
Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,489PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,489
Miami, FL USA
Since we are talking now about other Star Trek captains I must mention Bakula as "Archer". Bakula is a very good actor and he's done some great work but I simply found him dull as Archer on "Enterprise". He didn't have that on-screen charisma that Shatner, Brooks and Stewart had.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
Since we are talking now about other Star Trek captains I must mention Bakula as "Archer". Bakula is a very good actor and he's done some great work but I simply found him dull as Archer on "Enterprise". He didn't have that on-screen charisma that Shatner, Brooks and Stewart had.
I would only half agree. Duller than Kirk, yes. But I wouldn't use "dull" as a descriptor for Archer other than in comparison to Kirk/Sisko. Overall I think "Enterprise" was some of the best Trek ever and Archer/T'Pol/Trip/Phlox were mostly responsible. Individually none were particularly great but together they were greater than the sum of their parts.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
Kirk seems like a real person, Picard seems like a real stick in the mud.
For me, the difference was that Kirk was a leader, in that he made decisions himself. Picard was always calling a committee. Not always, but you know what I mean Kirk did accept ideas from Bones and/or Spock, and Picard did make solo decisions, but still that idea sticks for me. Kirk = Leader, Picard = consensus.
"They might look the same, but they don't taste the same."
Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,489PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,489
Miami, FL USA
+1 DM
In how many episodes of TNG did we have a scene where Picard was having a meeting with his subordinates in the conference room so they could debate about what should be done? A lot!
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
In how many episodes of TNG did we have a scene where Picard was having a meeting with his subordinates in the conference room so they could debate about what should be done? A lot!
Quite right, but that's probably why I tend to favor Kirk and Sisko. They're a bit more wild west in space and less The Office.
Technically Voyager and Enterprise were also wild west in space, I just never got into them, or their captains, as much as the first three shows.
Kirk was the epitome of being human, with the reason of Spock and the accountability of Bones on his shoulders. Or should I better say raw man, and to borrow from the film, "As Good as it Gets," Kirk without Spock or Bones would be an emotional mess. Because that's what he was without them--which, according to Jack Nicholson's character, would have made him a woman.
I think Picard lacked the complexity of this trichotomy. Though by #%&*$# he had a way with Shakespearian presence. But he was kind of a wuss, as were most of Next Generation's plot lines. Hardly seat-of-the pants oak and pine mains'l swashbuckling new world conquest we'd oft find in the fourteenthish century. Thankfully we had awesome characters like Data, Geordi, Worf and Riker to balance him out.
I agree with F4U, Enterprise was great and underrated. I liked Archer, but Trip was great, too.
For the record, I was referring more to the delivery of lines and things like that, not so much the characters' management style.
While I think generally Kirk commanded while Picard ruled by committee, there are plenty of examples where each did the opposite. Kirk had staff meetings all the time and took advice, and it's kind of a meme how Picard shuts down Worf all the time.
Ken Cartwright
No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.