Missing citations Edit

There are a few more to be added, according to Shran and Jörg on this page. These include:


-- I added all of them, except Tom Jones, which is not verified by any sources I know of. Where does that info come from? -- Ltarex 12:15, 4 August 2010 (CET)

  • Arnold Schwarzenegger (according to Jörg. Very interesting, not sure where) (Jorg is full of it, he got that information from here.)

A great many of these are very interesting and they should be included with citations, eventually. Additionally, those approached who already have pages should also be included. Off the top of my head, that would include Mark Lenard and Lawrence Montaigne for Spock, and the pre-production pages of Geneviève Bujold and (I think was agreed to be eventually made) David Rappaport.

Given that this page could become big, we might not want to place a paragraph for every single instances (although big ones for people like Bridges, Williams, and Murphy may be appropriate). Listing, or small bulletted explanations is good in some of these cases.--Tim Thomason 02:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dont forget Tim Russ for Geordi La Forge and Jeffrey Combs for William T. Riker. --Alan del Beccio 02:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Charles Hallahan would count as well. He was cast as Liam Bilby a few weeks before his death. -- Tough Little Ship 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, what about those people who played one role and approached to play another? That would include Famek Janssen. -- Tough Little Ship 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
For those performers such as Famke Janssen who played a role on Trek but were approached for a different role earlier or later on, I think just linking them in a list with a brief description should suffice. After all, we already have (or should have) full-fledged articles for them. Something like this, for example:
...and so on. If necessary, they can be listed under a seperate category. How's that look? --From Andoria with Love 11:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
There are different levels: Cast but... died, ill, fired, quit, etc. Auditioned but... not considered, shortlisted, etc. Approached but...refused, scheduling problems, etc. You can't obviously have categories for everything, but some general ones might be "cast, auditioned, approached/offered" with each entry having an explanation of what happened. Examples:
Michelle Forbes was offered a leading role on DS9 in her character Ro Laren, but she declined. (Listing reason and citation.)
Genevieve Bujold was cast as Captain Janeway on Voyager and began filming for the pilot but quickly left the show. (Listing reason and citation.)
Tim Russ auditioned for the role of Geordi La Forge but the role went to LeVar Burton. (Saying, maybe he was shortlisted or merely tried out for the role, plus citation.)
Additionally, just other tidbits like Marina Sirtis trying out for Natasha Yar and instead getting Deanna Troi, etc. --Lt. Washburn 13:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Article name Edit

Is it right to say that all these performers were approached for Star Trek roles? Some of the actors in the lists are people who auditioned for various roles through the normal auditioning process, and lost out to somebody else. To my mind, that doesn't mean that they were approached — they could have had an audition because their agent put their name in with the producers and/or the casting director, who agreed to see them, in which case it would be the agent who approached the Star Trek people rather than the other way around. Would it be better to say that this is a list of performers who were considered for Star Trek roles, but who did not ultimately appear in the role? That would cover everyone on the list, I think. —Josiah Rowe 20:14, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

The word "considered" versus "approached" seems more appropriate to the intent of this article, given the perspective of the recent discussion. To my mind, knowing about people who were auditioned (or screen tested, or even put under contract, or actually filmed but died) but did not ultimately appear in the role are all as interesting to know. I would be cautious, however, to draw the line at the Dave Thomas sort of story, where it is documented that his interest was not reciprocated by the Star Trek people (else this would become a very long article...who amongst us wouldn't have been interested in a part?).--TRHickey 03:01, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it would probably be better if it said "considered". If it did, we wouldn't have had the previous discussion. I agree that this article should be limited to those asked/considered by the Star Trek people. --31dot 03:14, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
Not that I didn't enjoy the previous discussion, but I concur and made the revison. Note that I only changed the initial definition, not the actual name of the article. --TRHickey 03:17, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
Logically, we should also move the article, but if anyone does that without updating all of the redirects, I will personally shoot them. :)
I'll look into sorting that out tomorrow or Monday if we still think that this should be "considered" rather than "approached". -- sulfur 03:21, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
I deliberately refrained from retitling the article because [1] concerns about getting the redirects right, [2] the word "approached" wasn't necessarily wrong but improved when modified by the word "considered" in the text definition, and [3] the title of the article has been long established in its present form. That being said, I could go either way on the subject of moving the article as long as someone with better skills and more expereince gets the redirects right.--TRHickey 04:24, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

If we agree that "considered" improves the text, why wouldn't it improve the article title as well? If we all agree that the article should be moved to Performers considered for Star Trek roles, I'll make that move and fix all the redirects (unless Sulfur gets around to it first). —Josiah Rowe 14:50, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, moved the page, half of the link fixes beyond the redirects were direct links to the page direct instead of Eddie Murphy. We really should only link to redirects at this point, just to know who's linked where. - Archduk3 22:13, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Split Edit

The article is getting a bit long. I propose we split this list along the lines of studio model into pages for the various series (and a page for the films). This would cover everyone except for the undeveloped series, which could remain on the main page (since there's only two so far).– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:23, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We could title them like this Performers considered for TOS roles, instead of adding disambiguations. - Archduk3 23:29, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Need for the article? Edit

Although interesting, is there really a need for this article since none of the actors actually appeared in Star Trek in these roles? It just seems like it's going outside of Memory Alpha's remit, so to speak. -- TrekFan TALK 14:56, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Our mission as stated on the Main page is to create "the most definitive, accurate, and accessible encyclopedia and reference for everything related to Star Trek". A list of people considered for Star Trek roles provides insight into the production process.--31dot 15:19, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess. I didn't say it wasn't interesting. I was merely wondering why we had the page if none of the actors actually appeared in these roles in the show. -- TrekFan TALK 15:22, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Organizing by role considered for Edit

In cases where multiple actors/actresses were considered for the same major character role, maybe we should also organize them that way somewhere on this page, if we haven't already done so. Has that already been done somewhere? --LauraCC (talk) 15:31, August 10, 2016 (UTC)

I know you could go to a major character's page and probably find a list of all actors considered for their role, but with a list, you could compare, for instance, the number of people known to have been considered for specific roles and see which role had the most potential actors considered. It could be sorted by show/film as well. --LauraCC (talk) 21:07, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

No. By series, and then alphabetical is easier to find stuff in general. -- sulfur (talk) 21:19, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

Are more people interested in specific actors, or the roles they could have played? I've never heard of many of these people. I was suggesting an additional way of sorting these, not a replacement, if that wasn't clear. --LauraCC (talk) 21:22, November 30, 2016 (UTC)