You do realize that actors make convention appearances for money? They aren't appearing out of the kindness of their hearts. Brooks probably would make $150-200,000.
there was a really good article a while ago about the hierarchies in conventions - with people like William Shatner at the top and then people like Lou Ferrigno who make their own change.
I appreciate seeing the trek stars at the convention but we have to remember this was nothing more than a job for them. It's thier choice if they want to be more attached to it but it was just a job. That's like saying the place where you worked forced you to participate in work functions. It is disappointing as a fan that Brooks, or anyone else who chooses to keep out if the limelight, doesn't want anything to do with trek anymore but it's understandable.
Is Brooks obligated to appear? No. Would it be gracious, given how much benefit he has drawn from the fanbase, and what an impact he has had on them? Yes.
If we think they owe us personal appearances or interviews for the money they made, we are seriously undervaluing the skill, effort, creativity, and very long hours they put into the show. How many are very wealthy from it all? Not that many, I'd guess.
They do owe us. They owe us EVERYTHING! THEY OWE US THEIR FIRST BORN IN TRIBUTE!! why is everybody looking at me like that?
They're only actors! We don't really know them or them us! It's the characters that they bring to life that we love, not the actors, whomever they are! We don't know their family problems, their money worries or whether they fart in the bath or not! We are simply fans of a show called Star Trek in one of it's many guises! JB
JB, I dig your rap! It is why I always felt out of the norm at conventions. If I was in the audience for DeForest Kelly, for example, I wanted to hear anecdotes from his career (like what was it like to work with the legendary Bette Davis?) rather than fighting with him over whether or not he was wearing his pinky ring in episode 62 (really happened). I've always realized that while I may love their character I may loathe the person (sort of how I feel towards modern-day William Shatner).
I remember a time when the Trek actors successfully hid behind the plausible deniability that the reason they were there was to thank the fans for keeping the franchise alive and enabling them to have a career. That was back when the basic convention fee covered the autograph and there were not tiers or the indignity of handing over cash directly to these people in exchange for faux pleasantries. Now it's a cash-cow and fans are treated like ATMs.
As said before, I do not believe that any of actors owes to fans anything, they made what in their contract requested, is paid for this, we got our entertainment and studios their money. That is all. If they are kindly and lovely at the cons to the audition, maybe it is caused by payment of organizer or maybe not. I do not think it is a fair and proper action to write something critical where the fans express their admire. I do not want to provoke anyone. Sorry for this one, but it must be said. I never like Avery Brook's interpretation of Captain Sisko, frankly do not like the Sisko either. He was to me typical "American Politician" who brings the democracy and freedom to the "barbarian" with all these religious colored speeches that no one believes anymore but from so called democracies of this world no one dares to contradict, if anybody does who will be definitely punished. Brooks delivered to well fitting totally overacted scenes which are even toooo much for some b movies. I never buy a second that this person can be a captain or any kind of leader. (OK, only once: Our Man Bashir. He did not need to "over"act, he acted as always.) Classical Shakespeare player as Patrick Stewart or John de Lancie made great job with their back rounds, but Brooks? He never get out of it. It has to be always dramatically, even he tells recipe . He cried loudly the audition with his every words, every moves, "Look, I am too good for such crap, but I need money and bring you asocial proles a little bit high culture" . His attitudes to fans or con-folks (or to ISB ) not surprise me, he is just consequently.
I remember those days where your entrance fee was guaranteed to get a few autographs or whatever! But now you see all these prices above the actors heads and you think to yourself it's enough for me to say I've seen you in the flesh rather than shell out £35-£50 for a scribble and a two minute chat to somebody who won't even remember your name or face three minutes later and who really doesn't need that cash like I do! JB
Yes. Not every actor who has worked on Trek wants to answer the same questions that have been asked dozens of times, or wants to do convention after convention. For some there are other things to aspire to.
An actor who has made more money in a year than I will likely ever see in my lifetime (not even counting residuals of any form) and who is also making money for simply appearing at a convention should not be asking $ for autographs. This is one of the reasons why I don't want to support conventions.
Agreed! It used to be that you paid a whopping entrance fee and got all your autographs for 'free' as it were as long as you could take the large three hour long queues! But then some bright spark came up with the idea for individual charging! Makes no diff to me as I can say I've seen said actor in the flesh and saved my valuable cash in my pocket and not given it to someone who has probably two or three homes as big as royal estates and organizers who are literally obese with money coming out of their ears! JB
I just finished reading The Fifty-Year Mission: The Next 25 Years by Mark A. Altman & Edward Gross. For those of you haven't read it, it's an oral history of Star Trek through interviews with almost everyone involved in each incarnation of the show. The DS9 section has several disclosures that I had not heard before surrounding Avery Brooks. These quotes can be found between pages 450 and 500. According to Rick Berman, "Avery was very talented and a very odd human being. I think you could categorize him as an angry person [...] I got the sense he was never really happy with his involvement with the show. [...] The only members of the cast he got along with extremely well were Nana and Colm. He was very close with Cirroc too. And the others all had a very odd relationships with him. They were almost frightened of Avery's demeanor [...] His temper was the stuff of legend by the time the series wrapped." Armin Shimerman said "It was clear from day one, Avery saw this as a job and nothing more. I don't think he enjoyed doing television to be honest." Alexander Siddig said "Avery and I did not get on sadly [...] there was a tension between us for much of our time together on set. I didn't even seen him as my colleague. He was my boss. But professionalism won out massively and our method of working together was to deliver our lines and stay out of one another's way between takes. [...] His moods were very up and down. When he got angry, he got angry."
If you are going to quote Fifty Year Mission, you must do so accurately. I've noted a number of important deviations from what s available in the book (some of which are present in Google's preview of the book) that have changed the impression that comes from the book.
Wasn’t sid originally going to play Sisko, till they met him in person and realised how young he was?
Berman invited Siddig to audition for Sisko, believing he would be a strong candidate. And yes, he realized Siddig was too young. Siddig was never offered the part.