Yeah, they may've had different reasons, but the resentment, itself--"you only think of me as..."--was similar. For Nimoy, I suspect that the opportunities to direct and write that Star Trek opened up helped him to forgive it for derailing his acting career. For Shatner, it may've been a slower realization that all of the work that he was getting because he was Kirk wasn't so bad after all.
Speaking of Nimoy, here's a good blog post on his love/hate relationship with Spock:
https://startrekdom.blogspot.com/2007/05/leonard-nimoys-lovehate-relationship.html
True. I think the difference also is what played a role in how they got over it. Nimoy's resentment of his limited or narrow opportunities lifted in the 70s and 80s as he realized that there were other opportunities open to him that were because of his Spock association. And perhaps the realization that as a guy who was likely more character actor than leading man, having a singular iconic role that would forever engrave him in the public consciousness is a rare and special thing. Meanwhile Shatner's resentment of his limited or narrow
fame took longer to dissipate because it was more internally focused on his own ego and that's a harder thing to rationalize.
But really the most interesting thing I took from that link aside from the excerpts from Nimoy's books and writings is the continued and evolving look at what a tremendous douchebag Gene Roddenberry actually was. That memo where he excoriates Nimoy's camp for trying to leverage Spock's popularity into greater pay smacks of the sort of ego and arrogance that has been increasingly recognized as part of Roddenberry's lording over Star Trek behind his carefully crafted mask as "the great bird of the galaxy": the folksy, happy, fatherly overseer of our imaginations that invites people to play with his wonderful box of toys while he basks in our reverence.
But never forget that this is the dickhead that wrote profoundly shitty lyrics to the TOS theme song that he had no intention of ever using in any capacity, but created solely so he could filch half the royalties for the theme's use (with or without lyrics) from composer Alexander Courage without Courage's knowledge.
It's kind of funny. For as opposite as their franchises are, the fandom wars they've sparked over their shared territory in the pop culture sci-fi zeitgeist, and the different paths they've taken in terms of how they've shaped, impacted, and damaged their creations, Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas have both kind of ended up in the same place: beloved for what they made and well-earned reputations as "idea men", but with the dawning realization that they needed other people to do the heavy lifting and finer details to prevent their limitations from sabotaging the whole product.
Thanks for a well thought out answer to my rhetorical question.
That's why I appreciated Picard. Despite its weaknesses, it's the one and only Trek series to ask 'what happens next?'. It tosses away the crutch of using the 1960s as its foundation and constructs a brand new future. The rest of Trek has turned into yet another Spider-Man origin story – how many ways can Trek show us how Kirk and Spock came to be?
Nothing wrong with nostalgia and a thread connecting past to present. Picard certainly went to town on nostalgia. But push forward, for godsakes. Is Star Trek doomed to be caught in one of its own time-loops? Is that all that's left for this franchise?
Sadly, that's another rhetorical question...
I couldn't get into Picard because in spite of it being new I felt like it nostalgia-bated a bit too hard. It was new stuff but with a "we know new and different is scary, so here's Picard! And Riker, and Dr. Crusher! And Geordi! And Hugh! You know these characters and love them, right? So it's OK if we tell a different story because it's a different story with the same old comfy sweater on it". I ended up watching the first season and then occasionally seeing bits and pieces of the later ones but after season 1 I never made a point of recording it when it aired or sitting down to watch it on the regular.
It's also why I appreciate Lower Decks not just because I got over my initial hesitance for a half-hour sitcom Trek and dislike of Mariner's annoying use of comedy protagonists being allowed to be unaccountable for their flaws (which has gradually faded away) to really enjoy it. Because while it does also do a bit of nostalgia-bating with references and guest stars and some farily explicit "'member this?" bits, it is a brand new story set in the time after the wrap of the TNG/DS9/VOY era that is free to go in whatever direction it wants with a brand new cast of characters that aren't just the people we've become familiar with.
As for once again answering a rhetorical question: I think that's all that's left for a lot of franchises. As long as studios want big money but also want things to be as safe and fail-proof as possible they are going to continue to look at franchise works that they can endlessly reboot and retell as their golden goose: Giving people what they like and will buy without any of the risk associated with trying to get them to embrace something new and different.
Just as an example:
Of the top 20 grossing films of the 1990s, only 5 came with any sort of pre-existing broad appeal (overlooking things that were adapted from works that were not pop cultural phenomona already): Star Wars Episode I, The Lost World: Jurassic Park, Terminator 2, Toy Story 2, and the first of the Mission: Impossible movies. The other 15 films were either entirely new, non-franchise properties (Titanic, Forrest Gump, Independence Day, The Lion King, The Sixth Sense, etc) or were adapted from something that was maybe known but not a huge deal (The first Jurassic Park as I'm counting the Lost World above as a sequel to this and not becuase I think the Chrichton novels were a massive runaway success, Men in Black, Aladdin considering the idea of the tale is well known but not all of its specifics).
Comparatively the top 20 grossing films of the 2010s only
one film in its top 20 is anywhere close to "original": Frozen. Like Aladdin adapted from a fairy/folk tale, but not one that was huge in the public consciousness. The rest of the top 20 is 7 Marvel Movies (all the Avengers films plus Black Panther, Iron Man 3, and Captain America: Civil War), The first two movies in the Star Wars sequel trilogy, 2 Jurassic World movies, 2 Fast & The Furious movies, the last Harry Potter movie, 2 live action Disney remakes (Lion King and Beauty & The Beast), and 3 cartoon franchise sequels/spinoffs (Frozen II, Incredibles 2, and Minions). Hell, the only movies in the top 50 that are completely and totally original are Zootopia (38th) and The Secret Life of Pets (50th)
