Though I watch little television, I occasionally tune in to to “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” while exercising or working on a woodworking project. My knowledge of the program is still limited, but what I’ve heard from more knowledgeable viewers is that most cannot abide Commander Ryker–the character evokes fairly strong opinions.
When I ask them why, the answers I usually get are that (a) his character is a wimp, or (b) the actor who portrays him is a bad actor. I really haven’t noticed either.
So I ask you: is Commander Ryker a wimp? Do you object to Jonathan Frakes’ acting?
Wimp? try wesley for wimp! Riker’s problem was he kept letting Troi slip out from his grasp! And then their were two of him! And one is in a Cardie jail! But i never noticed Frakes being a bad actor.
Hrm…I wasn’t a big Riker fan but calling him a bad actor is just dumb. You couldn’t swing a cat on that show without hitting a good half-dozen bad actors - no need to single him out.
It was the irritating smirk, and the assumption on the part of the casting people that anyone would find him remotely sexy or interesting (especially compared to Picard) that bugged me. Luckily there seemed to be less of that after the first couple seasons.
Thing is, when Gene Roddenberry designed the new Star Trek series, he cast a bald, late-middle-aged actor as the captain. The captain was meant to be a distinguished, elder statesman type of character who never went down to the planet.
The first officer character was therefore supposed to carry the Kirk banner and be the swashbuckling, handsome ladies’ man.
Roddenberry never dreamed Captain Picard would become a sex symbol. And when that happened, Riker was seen as being redundant, a pretty-boy not serving any purpose in the cast.
So I think most of the criticism of Riker (note the spelling, by the way) and Frakes is just blowback from that.
I don’t hold with it; I think he’s an adequate actor, and while he was seldom given great material to work with, he did have some standout episodes, like the one where he was split in two and his guest turn on Deep Space Nine.
I’ve never heard that either bad character or bad actor, although he isn’t a great actor. Now the Wesley Crusher character is an awful character with an actor (Wil Wheaton) that should have won an Oscar for Stand By Me. Whether we will ever see either of these actors in a really juicy role remains to be seen.
It’s not that Riker was annoying, really, the writers just never developed the character. His background was never explored, except for the never-fully-explained breakup with Troi. We were never shown how he got to where he was, why he thought the way he did, etc. in the way that Picard and Data especially, and even Dr. Crusher, were. All we got were 200 episodes of him being handsome, dashing, and witless.
Maybe that’s because the writers worked harder for actors they thought were worthy of it and would be able to do their work justice. The hack actors perhaps got hack writing.
I really hated it when Rikker was offered command of his own ship. He turned it down because he wanted to stay on the Enterprise. Well if Star Trek were anything like real life Rikker would have just flushed his military career down the tubes. 7 years as the Executive Officer who had his chance at command but turned it down?
Riker wasn’t dumb for turning down the commands he was offered. He would have rather been first officer of the flagship, then a captain of some little bucket of bolts. Think about it, would you rather be on a battleship or some little pt boat.
First, there were 178 episodes, plus guest spot on DS9 and Voyager, and 3 feature films.
Second, Riker’s background (career, anyway) was elaborated, more than, say, Data or Troi. “The Pegasus” is loaded with Riker characterization. Granted, no Star Trek characters have very fleshed-out backstories. Usually, the more they heap onto a character’s background, the more it conflicts. Riker, for example, is bestowed the gift of superlative piloting skills in “Chain of Command part 2,” in a fine example of retrocontinuity.
As for “witless,” most of the humorous scenes involving Riker just wouldn’t work with any of the other cast members. Recall the seduction demonstration with Guinan in “The Dauphin” (the only good scene in that show) – I can’t imagine LaForge doing that. Indeed, it seems a lot of Jonathan Frakes’ reputation as a practical joker wormed its way into Riker, just as his trombone playing did.
Plus, Frakes directed the only genuinely good Star Trek movie since Wrath of Khan.
I always liked Riker, myself. Thought he was interesting, kinda funny, had some good action scenes. And they didn’t drive his character into the ground like they did to Data.
If I wanted my career to advance I’d become captain of that little bucket of bolts. Picard’s first command wasn’t a huge ship like the Enterprise it was the Stargazer.
The thing is, in a real fleet, he wouldn’t have had the choice of “Command a bucket of bolts, or stay on as exec on the flagship”. He would have been given the choice “Command a bucket of bolts, or retire”. An officer does not, repeat does not turn down a chance at independent command. The logical corrolary is that any person who turns down an independent command is not an officer.
Besides, the whole “I’ll screw anything that looks approximately like it exists and is at least 50% female” thing got old real quick.
I think others touched upon it already: Riker was Kirk’s replacement. It made more sense that way, too. Kirk didn’t make for much of a captain. A good captain ought to exude authority. Whenever Picard speaks, I almost want to scream “YES, SIR!” Kirk just made me want to punch him on the nose. So, if you take the first officer and make him the adventurer/ladies’ man, there is less harm done. That’s how Riker comes into play. However, as was also mentioned above, Picard himself became somewhat of a sex symbol, which led Riker’s role to become obsolete.
I think one of the problems with the Riker character is that Frakes had no idea who he was, or how to play him. To tell the truth, I don’t think anyone really knew what to do with the character - aside from making him lead most away missions. I find he got better with time. It almost coincides with the growth of his beard, which I always saw as a device to make his character lose the Kirk stigma. It seems like the character developed something of a life of his own right around that time.
As far as his acting skills go: they’re adequate. It’s almost impossible for anyone to look good as an actor when playing alongside the insult to all thespians that is Marina Sirtis (Troi).
Someone here mentioned Tasha Yar. Well, although she wasn’t bad to look at (not great either), I was overjoyed when they killed her off. Her acting was quite probably the worst in all Star Trek history. I refer you to the pilot episode (granted - they all sucked in the pilot, including Patrick Stewart) where she screamed out something to the effect of “I grew up on a planet where people like you blah blah blah,” and thereby redefined “overacting.” I was glad when Q turned her into a statue and shut her up. I was dismayed when she turned back.
The Riker character always seemed to me to be just about right - for a second in command. His character simply did not have the dead serious and dull attititude of Picard. I think that in TOS Kirk was almost eclipsed by Spock, and in TNG JPS simply outshone Mr. Frakes. Never connected with Troi (who always knew what he wanted - wait - doesn’t every woman know that anyway? - never accepted a captain’s chair? a womanizer? Do I see a fear of commitment here? There has to be a reason for him to be the second in command after all, and not the captain. He will eventually get to Captain and Admiral, but keep in mind that Star Fleet is a wussy, sensitive, touchy-feely Canadian Film Board version of a military organization.
