Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 12, 2021 15:16:36 GMT -5
One of those quirky actor stories you just can’t make up. And Tom Noonan was involved too!
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 13, 2021 21:16:08 GMT -5
open.spotify.com/episode/0uAeiUtDfXm1mk7AUI6Ui2I’m listening to this podcast and wow Christopher Reeve and Jonathan Frakes were pretty tight back when they were younger. Frakes amusingly comes off like his assistant at times but this was before either one of them were really famous. It’s a good listen. Not too long but McFadden and Frakes cover a lot about his life and career in less than an hour.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on May 14, 2021 5:08:58 GMT -5
Could Frakes be one of the mysterious Reeve Only People?
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 16, 2021 10:41:07 GMT -5
Good find!
I've only heard good things about Frakes unilaterally... More and more I feel like he's the center of what made TNG as a cast behind the scenes work.
On another note:
If only Frakes directed "Nemesis" I think there'd still be more Trek movies today.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 17, 2021 12:33:42 GMT -5
Good find! I've only heard good things about Frakes unilaterally... More and more I feel like he's the center of what made TNG as a cast behind the scenes work. On another note: If only Frakes directed "Nemesis" I think there'd still be more Trek movies today. You might have a point. Most of the other casts seemed to have at least a point of conflict between a couple of people or more. Most of TOS’s cast famously had their issues with Shatner. I sometimes sensed that the DS9 set was pretty tense too. With TNG you always hear about how much fun they all had on set and Frakes seemed to be one to keep it light. It wasn’t until movies like Nemesis where the cast didn’t seem to like working for Stuart Baird. I think the TNG movies were done no matter who directed it though. Baird was out of his element but the problems went much deeper than him. The script was way off the mark. Frakes seems like a good guy. And a fun guy who doesn’t take himself too seriously. Margot Kidders niece recently worked with him on something and she said she adored him. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 17, 2021 17:54:27 GMT -5
Good find! I've only heard good things about Frakes unilaterally... More and more I feel like he's the center of what made TNG as a cast behind the scenes work. On another note: If only Frakes directed "Nemesis" I think there'd still be more Trek movies today. You might have a point. Most of the other casts seemed to have at least a point of conflict between a couple of people or more. Most of TOS’s cast famously had their issues with Shatner. I sometimes sensed that the DS9 set was pretty tense too. With TNG you always hear about how much fun they all had on set and Frakes seemed to be one to keep it light. It wasn’t until movies like Nemesis where the cast didn’t seem to like working for Stuart Baird. I think the TNG movies were done no matter who directed it though. Baird was out of his element but the problems went much deeper than him. The script was way off the mark. Frakes seems like a good guy. And a fun guy who doesn’t take himself too seriously. Margot Kidders niece recently worked with him on something and she said she adored him. With DS9, years ago, Marina Sirtis (a controversial figure on her own) said at a convention that she visited her friend Terry Farrell once on set and how it was like being at a funeral, whereas with TNG, it was like being at a party... which I didn't quite get- But then cut to years later and I remember Joss Whedon saying that the leads of a tv show often set the tone behind the scenes- and that Nathan Fillon was the core of what made the Firefly cast fun- and one gets the sense from the DS9 documentary that Avery Brooks took himself (and perhaps a couple of other actors on set) quite seriously- so that being the case, it makes sense why some actors were happy to get out of the contract.... On the flip side- with 1 percent of actors actually able to get work, and the types of work many HAVE to do to put food on the table- acting on a set that doesn't have a family atmosphere is hardly the worst work situation to be stuck with.... |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 17, 2021 19:03:50 GMT -5
You might have a point. Most of the other casts seemed to have at least a point of conflict between a couple of people or more. Most of TOS’s cast famously had their issues with Shatner. I sometimes sensed that the DS9 set was pretty tense too. With TNG you always hear about how much fun they all had on set and Frakes seemed to be one to keep it light. It wasn’t until movies like Nemesis where the cast didn’t seem to like working for Stuart Baird. I think the TNG movies were done no matter who directed it though. Baird was out of his element but the problems went much deeper than him. The script was way off the mark. Frakes seems like a good guy. And a fun guy who doesn’t take himself too seriously. Margot Kidders niece recently worked with him on something and she said she adored him. With DS9, years ago, Marina Sirtis (a controversial figure on her own) said at a convention that she visited her friend Terry Farrell once on set and how it was like being at a funeral, whereas with TNG, it was like being at a party... which I didn't quite get- But then cut to years later and I remember Joss Whedon saying that the leads of a tv show often set the tone behind the scenes- and that Nathan Fillon was the core of what made the Firefly cast fun- and one gets the sense from the DS9 documentary that Avery Brooks took himself (and perhaps a couple of other actors on set) quite seriously- so that being the case, it makes sense why some actors were happy to get out of the contract.... On the flip side- with 1 percent of actors actually able to get work, and the types of work many HAVE to do to put food on the table- acting on a set that doesn't have a family atmosphere is hardly the worst work situation to be stuck with.... Brooks was serious. Ive seen behind the scenes footage where he looked constantly pissed. But he could be fun at times too. I think it was more than that. The cast of DS9 also talked about how strict the higher up executives were and how much bs they had to go through to have any kind of flexible creativity. With Voyager Berman was more hands on and they had a network to deal with in UPN. The TNG cast eventually got the freedom to have more fun on set. I know they’ve all talked about how some directors hated worked with them because they didn’t take the job as seriously as some would like sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 17, 2021 21:18:14 GMT -5
With DS9, years ago, Marina Sirtis (a controversial figure on her own) said at a convention that she visited her friend Terry Farrell once on set and how it was like being at a funeral, whereas with TNG, it was like being at a party... which I didn't quite get- But then cut to years later and I remember Joss Whedon saying that the leads of a tv show often set the tone behind the scenes- and that Nathan Fillon was the core of what made the Firefly cast fun- and one gets the sense from the DS9 documentary that Avery Brooks took himself (and perhaps a couple of other actors on set) quite seriously- so that being the case, it makes sense why some actors were happy to get out of the contract.... On the flip side- with 1 percent of actors actually able to get work, and the types of work many HAVE to do to put food on the table- acting on a set that doesn't have a family atmosphere is hardly the worst work situation to be stuck with.... Brooks was serious. Ive seen behind the scenes footage where he looked constantly pissed. But he could be fun at times too. I think it was more than that. The cast of DS9 also talked about how strict the higher up executives were and how much bs they had to go through to have any kind of flexible creativity. With Voyager Berman was more hands on and they had a network to deal with in UPN. The TNG cast eventually got the freedom to have more fun on set. I know they’ve all talked about how some directors hated worked with them because they didn’t take the job as seriously as some would like sometimes. Ironically- I feel the quality of DS9 (season 3 on) was FANTASTIC. When they got permission to do a long 'war arc' towards the end of the series- they REALLY were firing on all cylinders, whereas TNG (and the producers openly admitted it) ran out of steam in the last season and went back to open submissions to pump up the story quality before the end. (Though the series finale kicks SO much arse). Sadly, no matter how good some of "PIcard" and parts of "DIscovery" are--- overall they can't hold a candle to what DS9, TNG, or even the last two seasons of Enterprise. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 18, 2021 8:41:22 GMT -5
It’s no coincidence DS9 got the freedom to do that when Voyager went on the air. All the focus from Berman and Paramount was on Voyager as the flagship series of UPN AND the Trek franchise. They weren’t as concerned about DS9 and it following certain rules anymore. So we got more serialized storytelling.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 19, 2021 22:15:28 GMT -5
It’s no coincidence DS9 got the freedom to do that when Voyager went on the air. All the focus from Berman and Paramount was on Voyager as the flagship series of UPN AND the Trek franchise. They weren’t as concerned about DS9 and it following certain rules anymore. So we got more serialized storytelling. Sad that Voyager got so much focus and then ended up being so limp creatively.... but then again, I would prefer most episodes of Voyager to the new Treks. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 21, 2021 9:06:20 GMT -5
It’s no coincidence DS9 got the freedom to do that when Voyager went on the air. All the focus from Berman and Paramount was on Voyager as the flagship series of UPN AND the Trek franchise. They weren’t as concerned about DS9 and it following certain rules anymore. So we got more serialized storytelling. Sad that Voyager got so much focus and then ended up being so limp creatively.... but then again, I would prefer most episodes of Voyager to the new Treks. I can’t argue with that. New Trek has lost any real appeal to me. Even Picard. I don’t mind changes and new takes but the quality of the writing and drama just feels...substandard. They’re relying more on style and gimmicks over strong storytelling. I found stuff like Picards speech at the end of The Drumhead more compelling than anything on Discovery. TNG could get it done with only words when it needed to. Even Voyager found deliver the occasional strong episode. It just feels like Paramount/CBS are churning out content to lure people onto the service rather than worrying about the shows being good. Trek never felt that way when it was on tv and before it was behind a pay wall. Now that I’m expected to pay for it my expectations for the quality are much higher. The behind the scenes talent just isn’t there. Even the new characters aren’t as interesting. I’m saying that about a LOT of stuff lately though. The generation before honed their craft. What we’ve got now is fanboys who grew up watching those old shows but who didn’t get forged into the same kind of talent the same way. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 24, 2021 0:10:57 GMT -5
Sad that Voyager got so much focus and then ended up being so limp creatively.... but then again, I would prefer most episodes of Voyager to the new Treks. I can’t argue with that. New Trek has lost any real appeal to me. Even Picard. I don’t mind changes and new takes but the quality of the writing and drama just feels...substandard. They’re relying more on style and gimmicks over strong storytelling. I found stuff like Picards speech at the end of The Drumhead more compelling than anything on Discovery. TNG could get it done with only words when it needed to. Even Voyager found deliver the occasional strong episode. It just feels like Paramount/CBS are churning out content to lure people onto the service rather than worrying about the shows being good. Trek never felt that way when it was on tv and before it was behind a pay wall. Now that I’m expected to pay for it my expectations for the quality are much higher. The behind the scenes talent just isn’t there. Even the new characters aren’t as interesting. I’m saying that about a LOT of stuff lately though. The generation before honed their craft. What we’ve got now is fanboys who grew up watching those old shows but who didn’t get forged into the same kind of talent the same way. Agreed- the themes and messages of much of the previous Treks were timeless and deep when well done. Also, the Star Trek future shown in the previous versions showed an optimistic future to aspire to.... but that seems to have been shot down from the Abrams' movie on.  Picard is just bizzare now if it's 'Robo-picard' and a supporting crew that bores me to tears (not the actors' fault but outside of Space Legolas, I just don't find them interesting and I'm so sick of every male Star Trek officer having to sport a beard now. Really?). I liked Discovery in the beginning part of season 1, but after Bryan Fuller got pushed out/quit, it just became more and more uninteresting to me. I like the actor who played Pike in season 2, but I need better writing not just good actors to want to follow that spin off series too.... |
|
