Comments on: Stewart Talks Trek, Success, American Dad and more

By: Eric Cheung

Eric Cheung — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:04:53 +0000

28. Thank you for the insight. That model is as I suspected. I hope this isn’t condescending, but I’ve always considered myself something of an Anglophile. So maybe it’s that, or just seeing the grass as being greener on your shores, but I think the British model of television cycles is superior. It seems to have influenced American television positively over the past decade or so, what with their move towards serialized character-based television. Though that could be because premium cable networks follow a model similar to British television. Also, much as I don’t want to admit it, I think reality television has also influenced the serialization and verite feel of television over the last decade. The two major shows that brought non-actors back to prime time were imports from Europe: Survivor and Who Wants to be a Millionaire?

By: Jay - "The Real Jim Kirk"

Jay - "The Real Jim Kirk" — Wed, 07 May 2008 12:53:07 +0000

#2 well, Englishmen and Germans are very similar, as the English are from German decent…

What happened to Americans?? lol… i blame the French ;) hehe

By: Jim Smith

Jim Smith — Wed, 07 May 2008 10:12:04 +0000

There’s not a standard TV ’season’ here, no, series of programmes begin and end at all different times of year and they tend to be shorter. It’s not the ‘launch all new shows in one month’ thing you do. Neither is better or worse, just different. They both work as models.

Laurie’s problem was that he had a very definite ‘persona’ – the George from ‘Blackadder’, Hugh from ‘A Bit of Fry and Laurie’, Bertie from ‘Jeeves and Wooster, etc, and as a writer as well as an actor he was expected by many to generate his own material. He had to go to a country where he was basically unknown – and audition cold – to get taken seriously as an actor, but he was a victim of his own previous success in light comedy, rather than someone who didn’t get the work/wasn’t making a lot of bread.

I would expect Laurie to do the Anthony Stewart Head thing when ‘House’ finishes – head back to the UK and do odd bits of prestigious TV here and there, rather than try and become a movie star.

By: shat hands

shat hands — Wed, 07 May 2008 05:37:35 +0000

#24

no offense taken but taking your grammar into account are you british or a pirate? ….. no sorry just got it!

much love

By: Garovorkin

Garovorkin — Tue, 06 May 2008 21:45:51 +0000

#25 In Mckellen will always be Gandalf to me, but if not him Patrick Stewart would have filled the role nicely, He have also acquited himself well as either Saurman or the High King.

By: snake

snake — Tue, 06 May 2008 18:50:56 +0000

5 – I read in an interview where he said he auditioned for LOTRs (he didnt say what part..but people have speculated it was for Gandalf or The King that Bernard Hill played)

anyway i hope he finally gets cast in the prequels in some role…especially since he was considered for lotrs

Patrick Stewart is one of the worlds greatest actors and hasnt been seen much on the big screen (if at all) since the Star Trek Next Generation and X Men films ended..(maybe he will cameo in the new Star Trek movie or X4: Wolverine in may next year but i wouldnt bet on iy)

yea..Itd be good to see McKellan and Stewart together on screen again

By: British Naval Dude

British Naval Dude — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:44:30 +0000

So what have we learned from this here thread?

1. Some of us would pay to see Lindsay Lohan do MacBeth… drunk and nude, tho. “Is this a Jager I see before me????”
2. Art as expression, not just as ad campaigns will still capture our imaginations… but where would ya get all tha’ plastic phazors and wee Yoda dolls then?
3. Why is grandpa asking me to run as fast as I can whilst shooting at me? Oh, because I’m tha’ most dangerous prey.
4. Hugh Laurie was Wooster, who woulda hated “House” and vice versa… and it’s odd William Katt be not on “House”… wuz his film role… but he’s not English and only Limeys can friggin’ act, ye american hack wankers

and

4. no offense, but if yer name is “shat hands”, mayhaps ya best wash up

By: Garovorkin

Garovorkin — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:00:48 +0000

#22 very well said and point taken

By: coxathrobbin

coxathrobbin — Tue, 06 May 2008 08:04:52 +0000

I like this intelligent discussion of art vs. commerce. I’d say that art cannot exist without a fiduciary consideration. My opinion of art is like that old philosophical question: if a tree falls in the woods, does it make any sound? Well, does art without an audience really exist? What purpose would art fulfill? The audience in this case manifests itself in terms of paying customers who view Trek or whatever.

As such, producers of art have to acknowledge some relationship to its audience, whether that is Trek or Shakespeare (who was very aware of his audience, yet still managed to be sublime). None of this stuff is done in a vacuum and art is simply the product of the leisure created by the luxury of the specialization of labor. Ergo, to produce art is to expect to be supported by it. Money only cheapens art when it is the only reason it is created. The fact that Stewart does this without needing the money (regardless of whether he takes any) is one of the highest manifestations of contemporary art. Furthermore, even if someone were to take money, it means they are professionals and are devoting their lives to it, unlike the vast majority of Hollywood airheads (our friend Lohan) who seem to do it FOR the money with quality being an afterthought.

By: Battletrek

Battletrek — Tue, 06 May 2008 06:58:35 +0000

Remember Stewart got picked by Justman out of the blue for TNG, its not like his goal was to get on a TV show. Seems to me he was happy mainly doing stage work .