An interesting question to me is when an actor gets on a hit television show, how likely is it that he or she will have subsequent hits as big or bigger? It might just be a matter of regression toward the mean such that anyone who is a cast member on a hit show is unlikely to have equal or bigger successes afterwards.
I caught Patrick Stewart about seven or eight years ago as the narrator in Stravinsky’s The Soldier’s Tale with the San Francisco Symphony. I expect he does a lot of that sort of thing.
And Kirstie Alley has had some wide-profile work. 
Stewart’s wiki page lists a load of theatre work, including his famous one-man adaption of A Christmas Carol (playing 40-odd characters himself).
By the way, I saw Avery Brooks last year in a production of Othello. He might not be on television, but he’s still working, and he’s damn good.
Nimoy’s lack of work is also self-imposed. He says his life now revolves around his photography and his grandchildren. From what I’ve heard he has constantly declined to appear on Boston Legal, despite Shatner’s begging.
Sir Rhosis
Nitpick: Stewart was already a well-regarded Shakespearian actor and had a major part to play in the landmark mini-series “I, Claudius” (although most people wouldn’t recognize him - he had hair!). While he wasn’t a household name, he was hardly unknown.
And the blunt thruth of the matter is - does anybody really want to see Wil Wheaton, Johnathan Frakes, Marina Sirtis or Majel Barrett in new projects anyway? Let’s be honest, they weren’t the cream of the acting crop even on Star Trek! They ought to count themselves lucky they got the breaks that they did.
I guess you’re too young to have seen “I, Claudius” I, Claudius (TV Mini Series 1976) - IMDb in its original showing (1976), but it was rerun on PBS in the 90s.
Sheesh, “I, Claudius” was over 30 years ago? Now I feel old.
It’s difficult to say what makes an actor “good”, but it is often said that everybody can play one role to perfection, which may be the case with Kelsey Grammar; if so, that doesn’t say much for his acting ability. I agree Keanu Reeves is a bad actor by most any measure you use, and if i had to pick one to spend dinner with (as fair a way as any to evaluate who is more talented), I’d pick Grammar.
While there may be some talent in plumbing the depths of a single character, IMHO this pales as an evaluation of acting talent when compared to actors that can make vastly different characters interesting. One current TV actor who does this is Michael C. Hall; I always suspected he was a great actor from his role as the gay son David in Six Feet Under, but he has proven it by creating a believable, interesting, yet completely different character in Dexter. Compare this to his castmate Peter Krause, who is basically doing Nate Fisher again on “The Lost Room” (OK, it’s a Sci Fi channel anthology series–which is pretty limiting to start with–so perhaps he hasn’t been given the opportunity to prove himself yet).
I didn’t - although I misspelled her first name as Nichole.
Unless they turned to porn out of desperation, no it’s not.
You could claim Stand By Me killed Wheaton’s career, since that was the last hit movie he had, and sci-fi TV, no matter how popular, or good, is clearly inferior to a hit non-genre theatrical movie.
I don’t agree with that argument, but it’s no less ridiculous than ‘cartoons and video games, no matter how good or popular, are inferior work to live action sci-fi TV’ and ‘small films, no matter how good, are inferior to popular sci-fi TV’,
Avery Brooks has always put stage work over film and TV. He is also a tenured professor at Rutgers University and has been for some time. IMHO he is probably the best actor in any of the Trek shows. He’s at least in the top three.
I can into this thread to mention what others have said, it is not unusual for an actor to disappear after being on a TV show. In fact the opposite is more unusual. To have two hit shows is an accomplishment that few have done. For example I just happened to have looked up Harry Anderson earlier today. He had one big hit and one smaller hit show then disappeared. He seems to be concetrating on other business ventures now including a club in New Orleans.
Just a WAG or two, but it strikes me that actors with a strong theatrical background a) adapt well to the grind of the network show filming schedule and b) treat acting as a job, and tend not to be terribly precious about how they earn their money.
So you did. No wonder I missed her name in your posting. << Sigh >>
And Majel Barrett Roddenberry has that little hobby job that brings in some pin money, running her late husband’s business. I think we can assume she ain’t hurtin’ none.
Does anyone happen to know what an average main character on a Star Trek show makes, salary-wise?
I always figured if I managed to get a role on a show like that which went on for five, or six or seven seasons then afterward I’d be tempted to sit back, collect my royalty checks and tend to my home & garden. At least until a really interesting role came along.
I wouldn’t be a prima donna about it or anything, but once I had a decent net worth I probably wouldn’t be as motivated as your average starving artist.
I’ve heard that about a hundred shows and then syndication makes a lot of money for the main characters. Which is why I’d imagine that Scott Bakula isn’t too worried about working again.
Yeah, this isn’t unique to Star Trek actors at all. Take any three popular shows from early in the 1990s, such as E.R., Beverly Hills 90210, and Seinfeld. Are those actors doing markedly better work, for more money, more consistently than Star Trek’s players? Sure, there’s one or two that have gone on to bigger things — George Clooney springs to mind — but the others?
Television stars are lucky to get one good hit. I don’t think it’s anything to do with Trek.
I think inventors get royalties. Actors get residuals.
I was always amused by Jonathon Frakes’ Futurama appearance - three words.
I don’t know about the TV salaries, but back in the 80s, Doohan, Koenig, Takei and Nichols all received salaries of 200K each per Trek movie. Nimoy and Shatner topped out at around six mil for the last couple films, while De Kelley topped out around 2 mil.
Sir Rhosis
I was actually researching this for the Buffy (incl. spinoff) the other night, and, while
some (Boreanaz, SMG, and Trachtenberg) are going pretty well right now, many are in the
doldrums. I think the regression to the mean theory is a good one: most of these actors
were unknown before their big break, so why should we expect most all of them to remain
in the limelight afterwards, even if (unlike Buffy) the show had broad mainstream appeal?
It is a mystery to me however why so few seem to jump into the top cinematic tier (well
there’s the 1st generation of SNL alums, tho with age and death their peak is past). Could
David Boreanaz be a top leading action hero? I guess he’s happy with his current gig. :shrug:
Alyson Hannigan’s career is the most puzzling to me: is her personality type just not
solid enough on its own to carry a star vehicle (big or small screen)?