I disagree. Scott Bakula is not a "weak" actor. Archer was written inconsistently, but the character is in no way as bad as many of you make it out to be.
Did Brooks' eccentric acting put people off?
- Thread starter MadBaggins
- Start date
I disagree. Scott Bakula is not a "weak" actor. Archer was written inconsistently, but the character is in no way as bad as many of you make it out to be.
I don't think the character of Archer was all that bad actually and I like Bakula's acting. I just don't think the character as he was played was a good fit as the prototype starfleet captain in an era before Kirk. I've said many times that thought Archer should have been a tough-as-nails, no-nonsense, womanizing, bar-brawling, loyal-to-a-fault, larger than life guy with a surprising amount of culture without being an overly cerebral intellectual. In short the type of guy that a young james t kirk would have read about and wanted to be like.
Bakula does not have the knack for that type of personality - though I think he would have made a terrific prototypical starfleet doctor.
maybe you are right in that Jim Kirk was not like that at all to begin with. from all accounts, he was arguably a bookworm, introverted, cerebral, and anal. his knack for sneakiness (who else would rewire a program in order to beat it) was fueled by a desire to win, but not at ALL costs. he had a brain AND a conscience. that is what found a kindred spirit in Spock. so I can see that maybe he could have wanted to be -- as you described above -- a swashbuckler like the Archer you describe. so, yes, I'd agree with you on that.
that said, I think Archer was actually written well, though, as I said before, inconsistently. but watching the series all over again on DVD, I have to say that the inconsistency is actually consistent!
I quite liked the fact that he was driven by a desire to right a personal wrong (or something he took rather personally -- i.e., the Vulcans' treatment of his father), and by the fact that he was hopelessly underprepared for what he had volunteered. those two situations combined with his need to do the right thing, his enormous compassion, and his inability to believe that he may have been wrong in his perceptions at times makes (at least for me) a very colorful and dramatic and, indeed, a flawed hero. and I find that kind of a protagonist far more interesting than the one you describe. so we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.
that said, I think Archer was actually written well, though, as I said before, inconsistently. but watching the series all over again on DVD, I have to say that the inconsistency is actually consistent!
I quite liked the fact that he was driven by a desire to right a personal wrong (or something he took rather personally -- i.e., the Vulcans' treatment of his father), and by the fact that he was hopelessly underprepared for what he had volunteered. those two situations combined with his need to do the right thing, his enormous compassion, and his inability to believe that he may have been wrong in his perceptions at times makes (at least for me) a very colorful and dramatic and, indeed, a flawed hero. and I find that kind of a protagonist far more interesting than the one you describe. so we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Indeed!
In the end it comes down to personal preference. Maybe one day, media technology will be advanced for people to customize their entertainment to suit their tastes...until then i think there will always be somebody that is not content. That said though, despite my opinions on the direction they took with the character, I actually did like Bakula's Archer.
DS9 has been the one Trek show (along with the original series) that I have always loved and for me one of the big draws was Brooks. his character is really put through the ringer in Emissary. from the Borg attack, the confrontation with Picard, moving to ds9 and his time among the prophets; i really can't imagine anyone but Brooks as Sisko. He owned that role from the get go 
i went to Generations II way back in 96 and got to hear Brooks speak. very entertaining character and even form sitting up in the nosebleed seats in the Royal Albert Hall there was still something about the way he spoke to that crowd that just drew you in.... Jennifer Lien on the other hand hahaha
i went to Generations II way back in 96 and got to hear Brooks speak. very entertaining character and even form sitting up in the nosebleed seats in the Royal Albert Hall there was still something about the way he spoke to that crowd that just drew you in.... Jennifer Lien on the other hand hahaha
Since we're talking about whether or not DS9 is Roddenberry's vision of Trek, i'll just chime in with my two cents: I lovelovelove the fact that DS9 was, really, the only Trek show to truly analyze Roddenberry's vision to see how it came to be, how it could be maintained, and how it would affect people on a realistically social level. Really, if the 20th and 21st Centuries were considered brutal by TNG standards, then there had to be some sort of transition with ramifications lasting beyond TNG. Seriously, for a utopia exist, something has to be examined. And the finale of DS9 hints at a peace unseen in *any* Trek incarnation, including TOS.
Back to the subject:
I think Brooks is one of Trek's greatest actors. However, in Emissary, when he orders a lieutenant to help him lift some rubble, I cringed. "Help MEEEEEEEE!"
Back to the subject:
I think Brooks is one of Trek's greatest actors. However, in Emissary, when he orders a lieutenant to help him lift some rubble, I cringed. "Help MEEEEEEEE!"
Since I never thought of Brooks acting as eccentric I will have to try to watch from that perspective in the future. I just thought of Sisko as a different personality from Picard.
DS9 is my favorite Trek but I don't have a problem with it being different from the other Treks even if it does not correspond to Roddenberry's vision. The self righteous goody two shoes Federation makes me want to puke sometimes. I am a science fiction fan not a Star Trek fan.
Kirk may be my least favorite captain actually. I think Roddenberry just used that "Wagon train to the stars" line with the TV executives because he didn't think they would have the brains to see what he really wanted to do. The fact that The Cage is so different from other TOS episodes showed more of what he really wanted to do. And the execs ran the salt monster episode first anyway. The TV execs expect the audience to be dummies and they are correct far too often. Kirk was The Lone Ranger in outer space and Spock was an Uncle Tom Tom alien. The show was TOO 60s, like The Green Hornet and Kato.
I think this episode best eximplifies the difference between DS9 and the rest of Trek. Plain and simple Garak made all the difference.
OK! I don't want to be sent to jail on my first day. I should at least wait a week.
The episode I am referring to is:In the Pale Moonlight
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/DS9/episode/72359.html
It is currently on YouTube and can be found by searching on "pale moonlight". It is so nice the way the law can be obeyed to the letter but effectively broken. No doubt Garak would appreciate that.
psik
DS9 is my favorite Trek but I don't have a problem with it being different from the other Treks even if it does not correspond to Roddenberry's vision. The self righteous goody two shoes Federation makes me want to puke sometimes. I am a science fiction fan not a Star Trek fan.
Kirk may be my least favorite captain actually. I think Roddenberry just used that "Wagon train to the stars" line with the TV executives because he didn't think they would have the brains to see what he really wanted to do. The fact that The Cage is so different from other TOS episodes showed more of what he really wanted to do. And the execs ran the salt monster episode first anyway. The TV execs expect the audience to be dummies and they are correct far too often. Kirk was The Lone Ranger in outer space and Spock was an Uncle Tom Tom alien. The show was TOO 60s, like The Green Hornet and Kato.
I think this episode best eximplifies the difference between DS9 and the rest of Trek. Plain and simple Garak made all the difference.
OK! I don't want to be sent to jail on my first day. I should at least wait a week.
The episode I am referring to is:In the Pale Moonlight
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/DS9/episode/72359.html
It is currently on YouTube and can be found by searching on "pale moonlight". It is so nice the way the law can be obeyed to the letter but effectively broken. No doubt Garak would appreciate that.
psik
Last edited:
Since I never thought of Brooks acting as eccentric I will have to try to watch from that perspective in the future. I just thought of Sisko as a different personality from Picard.
DS9 is my favorite Trek but I don't have a problem with it being different from the other Treks even if it does not correspond to Roddenberry's vision. The self righteous goody two shoes Federation makes me want to puke sometimes. I am a science fiction fan not a Star Trek fan.
Kirk may be my least favorite captain actually. I think Roddenberry just used that "Wagon train to the stars" line with the TV executives because he didn't think they would have the brains to see what he really wanted to do. The fact that The Cage is so different from other TOS episodes showed more of what he really wanted to do. And the execs ran the salt monster episode first anyway. The TV execs expect the audience to be dummies and they are correct far too often. Kirk was The Lone Ranger in outer space and Spock was an Uncle Tom Tom alien. The show was TOO 60s, like The Green Hornet and Kato.
I think this episode best eximplifies the difference between DS9 and the rest of Trek. Plain and simple Garak made all the difference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9echp2kCHV4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34NLVjzvahE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIPnMdLH7RQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2O4q-nPmvE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc4_JnKflAs
psik
You've actually just motivated me to go back to DS9 and watch it from the beginning. (i stopped watching this show regularly around seson 3)
I'm glad to hear that. It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to corrupt young minds.
psik
Agree with this. I also think that Nog becoming a Starfleet officer was more in touch with Gene's vision. Hell Harry Kim tells Quark that they were "warned" about the Ferengi at the academy. Now one of them could outranks him!
Brooks acting style turned me off during season one and it took me well into the later seasons to like him or the character.His acting style was Boring
ReallY? I had the opposite reaction. It was this, more than anything else that made me prefer Sisko to Kirk (not that I hate Kirk). Sisko always spoke slowly ans enunciated each word, while Kirk spoke so fast, I always had to put on the closed captions just so I could follow him.
I rather enjoyed Brooks' performance.
Until Sisko got angry.
Then. He. Gasped. For. Air. Between. Every. LINE.
*rolls eyes*
Until Sisko got angry.
Then. He. Gasped. For. Air. Between. Every. LINE.
*rolls eyes*
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
Avery Brooks = William Shatner. Nuff said!
Red Ranger
I do think that sometimes his eccentric style took you out of the story, but alot of times, it drew me further in.
One of my favorite low-key Sisko moments came in the S4 premeire, The Way Of The Warrior...
After arranging to meet up with a Cardassian Ambassador ship captained by Gul Dukat, Sisko and the Defiant travel out into free space to find that the ship was under attack by Federation allies, The Klingons. The Klingons, who where betting that the Federation would not want to risk rekindling Federation/Klingon hostilities, decided that they would brazenly invade Cardassia to search for shapeshifting founders. In the heat of the moment, the defiant crew are relaying data to the captain in order for him to make an informed decision... back down and allow the Klingons to continue to kill the Cardassian rulers or engage the Klingons and potentially throw the Federation under the bus...
Sisko takes a breif moment and goes over all the details in his head.. opens his eyes and calmly says "Drop the cloak. Raise sheilds. Arm Quantum topedos." He had made a decision and closed the door behind himself.
It was, IMHO, one of the most superbly acted scense in all of Trek. He communicated so much without one word being uttered. You have to see it to understand what I'm talking about.
Last edited:
RobertScorpio
Pariah
I agree that many people were put off by it..but I always like Brooks and I felt, as time went on, he became Sisko as much as Shatner did Kirk....Both of them have unique staccaato acting styles...
Rob
Scorpio
