News Behr: Deep Space Nine – What We Left Behind

[Tosk]

Do we really need to vilify him for answering questions the way he wants to? Avery has spoken directly on Trek at length. And if someone asks him a question at a convention, since when is he under contract to answer it the way someone else wants him to? If you want to hear what the man has to say, listen. If you don't, don't.

 

[Navaros]

Do we really need to vilify him for answering questions the way he wants to? Avery has spoken directly on Trek at length. And if someone asks him a question at a convention, since when is he under contract to answer it the way someone else wants him to?

But the thing is, often he doesn't really answer the questions, because his response has little to no relevance to the questions.

As for if he is under contract to answer the questions: I'd argue that yes, he is, even if the contract is an ethical one and not a formal one. Trek fans pay lots of their good, hard-earned money to see actors at conventions. The actors aren't showing up out of the goodness of their hearts. They are showing up for the cash money that fans put into their pockets. Not to answer fan questions and/or discuss Trek for them, while at the same time taking money from them, is dirty pool. Apparently Brooks is not the only Trek actor who does this though so I don't mean to single him out as if he is. It's equally not cool when any of them do it.

Likewise for the "Captains" doc that was brought up in this thread. I've watched both versions of that doc, and Brooks says virtually nothing about Trek in either of them (and neither do most of the other actors, except for the Janeway actress who spent a lot of time discussing how much she hated being on VOY...her interview is literally the only worthwhile & Trek-related thing in that whole doc). Fans who bought that doc would not be unreasonable to feel ripped off at exchanging their money for an allegedly Trek-based product that is ~95% irrelevant to Trek.

For those reasons, it's actually good that Brooks is not included in new DS9 doc...because if he was, then that doc would be plagued with the same problem as the conventions & "Captains" doc: Brooks' offtopic, freewheeling rants would take up precious time that DS9 fans expected to be spent discussing DS9 instead.

When, precisely, did Brooks speak about Trek at length? Where does one go to access the content of those talks?

 

[Tosk]

The Captains is about the actors. I don't recall it being advertized as "Specifically exploring Trek minutiae with the actors" but I could be wrong.

When, precisely, did Brooks speak about Trek at length? Where does one go to access the content of those talks?

The extras for the DS9 DVDs, just for starters. And most of the con footage I've seen. Yes, he meanders sometimes...makes esoteric points that mean something to him and quite possibly less to the listener (depending on their point of view).

To turn it back...when, precisely, did Brooks avoid answering Trek questions?

Really, my only point is that is there any real gain to trying to rip Avery a new one just for being himself?

 

[Navaros]

The Captains is about the actors. I don't recall it being advertized as "Specifically exploring Trek minutiae with the actors" but I could be wrong.

The extras for the DS9 DVDs, just for starters.

To turn it back...when, precisely, did Brooks avoid answering Trek questions?

Brooks did not discuss Trek at length on the DS9 DVDs. Those DVDs contain nothing more than a few small, ~45 second snippets of comments from Brooks, which the editors constantly interrupt with tons of footage that was copy & pasted from the show. He probably did talk at length about Trek during that interview, but as I've said, most of that interview has been concealed from the public; the public has only ever received those cherry-picked small snippets of it.

The way Brooks rails against DS9 in some of those snippets is fascinating, though. That's why I maintain that Paramount should release the whole interview, and that Behr would have been better off buying the rights to that full interview (and the other interviews from the same period) rather than making a new doc many years later when the players' memories are much less fresh.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about in terms of Brooks talking about random stuff that's irrelevant to Trek:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Ditto for all of the Brooks footage in either of the two versions of the "Captains" doc.

If "The Captains" is not supposed to be relevant to Trek, then it shouldn't be called "The Captains;" it should be called "The Actors," or something like that. And it shouldn't have a cover that clearly & heavily advertises it as a Trek product, i.e: http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net...ision/latest?cb=20130308231416&path-prefix=en

 

[Tosk]

Behr would have been better off buying the rights to that full interview

How do you know he hasn't?

 

[Navaros]

How do you know he hasn't?

I don't "know" that he hasn't, but I can make reasonable deductions that he hasn't, because if he had, then:

1. Most likely he would be advertising that fact in order to generate hype for his new film.

2. All indications are that the main purpose of the new film will be to fawn over DS9, not to criticize it. So to include footage of Brooks criticizing DS9 would be incongruent with that mission, and illogical.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Brooks did not discuss Trek at length on the DS9 DVDs. Those DVDs contain nothing more than a few small, ~45 second snippets of comments from Brooks, which the editors constantly interrupt with tons of footage that was copy & pasted from the show. He probably did talk at length about Trek during that interview, but as I've said, most of that interview has been concealed from the public; the public has only ever received those cherry-picked small snippets of it.

The way Brooks rails against DS9 in some of those snippets is fascinating, though. That's why I maintain that Paramount should release the whole interview, and that Behr would have been better off buying the rights to that full interview (and the other interviews from the same period) rather than making a new doc many years later when the players' memories are much less fresh.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about in terms of Brooks talking about random stuff that's irrelevant to Trek:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Ditto for all of the Brooks footage in either of the two versions of the "Captains" doc.

If "The Captains" is not supposed to be relevant to Trek, then it shouldn't be called "The Captains;" it should be called "The Actors," or something like that. And it shouldn't have a cover that clearly & heavily advertises it as a Trek product, i.e: http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net...ision/latest?cb=20130308231416&path-prefix=en

You are projecting. Every clip of every convention shows Brooks to be who he is. He is not behaving or answering differently because it is Star Trek. Every interview on every subject, from Spencer for Hire to his current stage projects,all feature this sort of free form train of thought and devolves from the specifics of the questions and tries to come to some sort of broader topic. As Alexander Siddig puts, Brooks is not very conversant, but he'll talk AT you.

 

[Tosk]

if you go to a convention to see a trek actor and he refuses to discuss trek, then why is he there.

Show me where he refused to discuss Trek.

1. Most likely he would be advertising that fact in order to generate hype his new film.

"If he has a change of heart he knows we would make every effort to get him filmed. If not, we have plenty of archival footage of him."

All indications are that the main purpose of the new film will be to fawn over DS9, not to criticize it. So to include footage of Brooks criticizing DS9 would be incongruent with that mission, and illogical.

It's only your assumption that he criticized it in the first place.

You defending him just because he was in trek is blinkered

I'm defending him because it all sounds like, "Make him talk about Trek or I will hate him now!"

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I am referring to previous members who claimed at conventions he avoided answering trek questions.
Are you now calling those members liars ?

The issue I have is that this is being interpreted as avoidance, when he is clearly speaking the way he would normally. And I do suspect that those who interpret it as avoidance are trying to find reasons to be appalled.

ETA: Famously, Shatner talked about elephant dung on the special for Star Trek's 30th Anniversary. Thankfully, it was cut from the show, but I doubt it was because it showed how much he hated Star Trek.

There are also examples of Spiner interrupting his co-stars' convention panels, spewing nonsense. I doubt it is evidence that he hates Star Trek.

 

[mattyhugh]

If you go to a convention, fans expect the stars to dance as requested to the music box they have wound for them.

 

[Triskelion]

Fans are such assholes to go to a Trek convention with a Trek question.

 

[mattyhugh]

Fans are such assholes to go to a Trek convention with a Trek question.

Not my intention, i apologize if it came across that way. I merely meant that stars can answer the questions however they want. And some fans ask them to jump and expect the star to ask how high.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Not my intention, i apologize if it came across that way. I merely meant that stars can answer the questions however they want. And some fans ask them to jump and expect the star to ask how high.

Sometimes they must dance, dammit!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Michael]

Here is an example of what I'm talking about in terms of Brooks talking about random stuff that's irrelevant to Trek:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I have honestly no idea what you are on about regarding his appearance in this video. I agree that in “The Captains” his responses seemed more incoherent, but here his answers are very relevant to Trek and how he sees his role in it. It's a very personal and at times almost philosophical Q&A that in the end becomes downright magical. And you can see that the audience just adores him. So, what again is your problem with him in this video?

 

[Triskelion]

Not my intention, i apologize if it came across that way. I merely meant that stars can answer the questions however they want. And some fans ask them to jump and expect the star to ask how high.

Sorry Matty, it's all good, I was more speaking in general response to the issue and not singling you or anyone out - sorry it just happened to come after your post.

But if I may address this point you raise - first let me preface by saying that I have no concrete opinion (yet) on what Brooks brings to a convention, and also tomorrow his choices could be entirely different. But now hearing this and seeing some of these issues from various sources, and hearing the man myself - I would certainly do my research before buying a ticket.

It is very true that some customers want to treat the service provider as a tool to be abused and commanded. Welcome to life on Earth! You are absolutely right!


(And now more generally....)

And it is also true that the fans are the customers and decide what they will spend their hard earned money on - and some celebrities might do well to realize that the sun doesn't shine out of their bungholes on every topic under the stars. They are entertainers, not cult personalities, although one can certainly see how Trek fandom would make it seem that way.

But take Brooks' case - it is precisely because of fan discussions like this thread that anyone wanting to get more information about the production of DS9 can save their money for appearances by more dedicated personalities. The only guy that's going to hurt is the one who has contempt for the audience. That's not to say Brooks does - I have no idea really - but contempt will make itself known over time. Now, it's a decades-old show and that's all water under the bridge - except someone is still attempting to cash in on it - while somehow remaining above it. Well, OK, he can knock himself out as his ticket revenue decreases for some mysterious reason.

Personally? I would rather be entertained Trek-style by a very gracious and hilarious Ethan Phillips than be talked down to on random topics by some ersatz jazz vibist - and I'd vote with my bucks. Love them both, love their work, and there you go - but I'd pay for what a marketing campaign leads me to expect, and not whatever's behind the mystery door. I do not go to a Trek convention to hear about Donald Trump, but no doubt I'm sure some celebrities would use their stage to proselytize their tangential values.

I'm intelliigent, (LOL spellcheck), and I can follow much of what Brook's talks about; but I can guarantee that half the world does not think in terms of inferences, and that sort of communication style will alienate a lot of people (Dennis Miller and Sarah Palin do that too, and it can come across as wildly random to someone not catching their esoteric inferences). It's simply not the most effective nor optimal communication style for reaching a mixed audience, though it may work on a specialized audience or cult following).

I've done the same job for as long as they have, and it does not have to get old, because you are dealing with different people, who bring their own personalities to the table. It only gets old if you stop caring but are still holding out your hand for the payoff.

Of course I have no doubt at all that being a celebrity can suck. But a convention isn't the time nor place to grouse about it, nor be passive aggressive about withholding your value and shitting on your invitation. Just do everyone a favor and stay home if you have no intention of getting into the spirit of things. It's just a show and a bit of fun, why be a skeleton at the feast.

Do not say that at the time of accepting the role of CAPTAIN of a STAR TREK SHOW, you had no idea it would come with after-production opportunities and show-related questions. You signed on that dotted line, remember making that choice?

 

[cultcross]

You are projecting. Every clip of every convention shows Brooks to be who he is. He is not behaving or answering differently because it is Star Trek. Every interview on every subject, from Spencer for Hire to his current stage projects,all feature this sort of free form train of thought and devolves from the specifics of the questions and tries to come to some sort of broader topic. As Alexander Siddig puts, Brooks is not very conversant, but he'll talk AT you.

This is the core of it for me. There is a lot of bitterness being directed at Brooks because he isn't Sisko, or isn't someone else the fans want him to be. He's himself - and he is relentlessly himself, when not in character. I've interacted with him in conventions and he is exactly the same as in The Captains documentary, or anywhere else I've seen him speak. He is a slightly odd man, granted, but not unpleasant, hateful, bitter, or any of the other spiteful adjectives directed at him in this thread. He just talks like that - long philosophical musings which meander from topic to topic and can be quite fascinating, but cannot be easily directed. When he's Ben Sisko, he's acting. Avery Brooks is not like Sisko. He's also not like any of the other captains. Shatner is a self important ass who is nonetheless quite witty and enjoys talking about Trek (seemingly more so as he ages). Stewart is a self deprecating, intensely focused man who seems able to hold an interest for any topic at all. Mulgrew is a direct and honest woman who speaks her mind and has some really good insights about the acting world in general. Scott Bakula is like your dad, doesn't portray a sense of celebrity or gravitas, a very normal person and probably has the most blurred line between character and actor. Brooks is the antithesis of that. Looks aside, you don't see Sisko in him when he's not acting - if anything, you see Benny Russell. He's eccentric, passionate, doesn't stand on ceremony, and makes you a little uncomfortable with his control of a conversation.

In short, you may not like Avery Brooks, but what you see is not hatred for his past work or bitterness, it's just him being himself. And that is surely what you want when you pay to see an actor. I'd certainly rather that than the painted on smile and the false interest of some convention attendees.

 

[Michael]

This is the core of it for me. There is a lot of bitterness being directed at Brooks because he isn't Sisko, or isn't someone else the fans want him to be. He's himself - and he is relentlessly himself, when not in character. I've interacted with him in conventions and he is exactly the same as in The Captains documentary, or anywhere else I've seen him speak. He is a slightly odd man, granted, but not unpleasant, hateful, bitter, or any of the other spiteful adjectives directed at him in this thread. He just talks like that - long philosophical musings which meander from topic to topic and can be quite fascinating, but cannot be easily directed. When he's Ben Sisko, he's acting. Avery Brooks is not like Sisko. He's also not like any of the other captains. Shatner is a self important ass who is nonetheless quite witty and enjoys talking about Trek (seemingly more so as he ages). Stewart is a self deprecating, intensely focused man who seems able to hold an interest for any topic at all. Mulgrew is a direct and honest woman who speaks her mind and has some really good insights about the acting world in general. Scott Bakula is like your dad, doesn't portray a sense of celebrity or gravitas, a very normal person and probably has the most blurred line between character and actor. Brooks is the antithesis of that. Looks aside, you don't see Sisko in him when he's not acting - if anything, you see Benny Russell. He's eccentric, passionate, doesn't stand on ceremony, and makes you a little uncomfortable with his control of a conversation.

In short, you may not like Avery Brooks, but what you see is not hatred for his past work or bitterness, it's just him being himself. And that is surely what you want when you pay to see an actor. I'd certainly rather that than the painted on smile and the false interest of some convention attendees.

Very well put! That's exactly how I view Brooks as well. And I must say, I'm very envious that you have met him in person. I imagine he's quite an imposing presence.

 

[cultcross]

He's one of my favourite convention 'meets', I saw him at an event in Milton Keynes which is a shit town, at a shit venue, for a poorly advertised event. As a result, the 'crowds' were minimal and I got a good time to chat to him. My opening gambit was to ask him what he was doing now, and he looked at me like it was the weirdest question ever and answered "Why, I'm signing a photo for you, of course."

I think it was the same event I met Andrew Robinson, and Nathan Fillion, so it was a good event. The following year they had Nimoy, his last appearance in the UK, and as luck would have it I couldn't go. I still regret that.