I'm saying that, while you might be right, you weren't very diplomatic about it.
A character with a visor was a mistake
- Thread starter You_Will_Fail
- Start date
I'm saying that, while you might be right, you weren't very diplomatic about it.
I'm OBVIOUSLY talking about what I've said generally about the part that eyes play in acting. I've been explaining that eyes are an actor's most important feature when trying to convey emotion on screen and its true that's basically the common consensus among the acting community, as evidenced by the bajillon links I've already shared.
Whether Geordi wearing a visor was a mistake or not is a matter of opinion since plenty of people liked the idea of a somewhat disabled character, and clearly a lot of trek fans were able to connect with Geordi just fine.
Nothing of Geordi's eyes are visible under that visor. I don't know what your problem with understanding the concept of the actual eye itself expressing myriads of emotions is. Maybe you have aspergers I don't know. But clearly plenty of people do believe the eyes are the window to the soul.
God I know, I'm easily frustrated and get worked up.
Okay I've just read this whole thread. If I scream "my eyes, my eyes!!" will it be controversial?
I enjoyed V for Vendetta and The Blues Brothers and yet....
I actually get what the OP is trying to say. But, the producers obviously thought the sacrifice in performance ability was worth it for a secondary character like Geordi. They definitely would not have hindered one of the more prominent characters such as Picard, Riker, or Data.
The OP loses in his repeated demands that a performance should not be done without the eyes visible in all circumstances.
And the eyes do one very important thing besides dilate and roll around. They tear up.
I actually get what the OP is trying to say. But, the producers obviously thought the sacrifice in performance ability was worth it for a secondary character like Geordi. They definitely would not have hindered one of the more prominent characters such as Picard, Riker, or Data.
The OP loses in his repeated demands that a performance should not be done without the eyes visible in all circumstances.
And the eyes do one very important thing besides dilate and roll around. They tear up.
I think you're wasting your time finding all those links; again, no one is denying them. Just because Trekker4747 doesn't find eyes to be most important doesn't mean he isn't aware that other people do.
As for me, I agree with everything your sources say, with the understanding that "the eyes" extends beyond a specific couple of square inches of the face. For example:
Now, if "the eyes" consisted only of the area of Geordi's visor, the ideal shot of maximum emotional intensity would be such that the top to bottom of the frame covers only the height of the visor. However, I don't believe a good director would find that to be ideal. It cuts off too much of the surrounding face -- i.e. the part of Geordi's "eyes" that we do get to see, from which we can infer the rest.
I would like to see your answer to Tora Ziyal's question, by the way:
I've already said I don't appreciate being psychoanalyzed by you, I hope I won't have to say it a third time. And if you mean what I think you mean by "the actual eye itself", I'm sure you're wrong. If you think you can read things directly from someone's eyes without considering their eyelids or anything else affecting the skin, it's a trick of the mind.
I have no patience for someone who's agenda is to be "right" rather than to be "correct". Since we're talking about something subjective, the very fact that not everyone agrees means it's not definitive and can't be said the be a fact.
I also dislike the tone the OP has taken throughout, being both dismissive and insulting to posters on here who've made very rational arguments. As such, my ignore list just got +1ed.
I also dislike the tone the OP has taken throughout, being both dismissive and insulting to posters on here who've made very rational arguments. As such, my ignore list just got +1ed.
Agreed. While there has been some fairly argumentative statements made, pretty much all of the insults have come from a single poster. It's a pity I can't see his eyes or I might understand how he feels about this whole topic.
So, you're trying to convince people of something intangible and unexplainable, and insulting them when they don't agree?
Good luck with that.
Yeah, so would I.
I get that it can be harder to connect with someone whose eyes are not visible. Eyes are important. I had two friends become blind during the years that I knew them, and it was a bit more difficult to communicate and connect with them. Not impossible, just a bit difficult.
But what's more important, the ease of connection or the contribution of the disability to the story?
I don't think it was a mistake. Geordi chose to keep the visor for awhile until he decided to get the ocular implants as he thought it would change who he was. I did not think it was a mistake.
There were many people (mostly non-essentials characters) that chose to not use the latest technology just as people now. I wear glasses, I choose not to get Lasik surgery not because I can't afford it but because I don't trust the technology at this point.
I don't believe that blindness and other genetic problems would be eliminated just because a race is technologically advanced- genetic anomalies would still occur.
There were many people (mostly non-essentials characters) that chose to not use the latest technology just as people now. I wear glasses, I choose not to get Lasik surgery not because I can't afford it but because I don't trust the technology at this point.
I don't believe that blindness and other genetic problems would be eliminated just because a race is technologically advanced- genetic anomalies would still occur.
I got a mod notify on this thread to look at whether some of the posts crossed the line into trolling and/or flaming.
On balance, reading through the 170 posts so far, I think there's a massive amount of frustration building up in both YWF, and those arguing with him. I don't actually think there's any specific intent to troll or flame on either side, but some specific sentences by several people would have crossed the flaming line if they'd been said in isolation.
In context of what is clearly has become an emotive thread - for reasons that frankly escape me - I'm not going hand out any warnings on the basis of the content so far.
Instead, I would suggest everyone step back from the rising emotional content of the argument, and stick to discussing it more calmly by presenting what you see as the facts rather than casting aspersions on the intellect or mental health of the opposition, in order to avoid crossing the flaming line. Given that I've had to post this summary of my feelings on the content of the thread, I'm less inclined to be lenient with future borderline comments.
I'd also suggest that it's abundantly clear that neither side is going to convince the other, and the thread has become more about people wanting to get the last word than actually attempting to reach some kind of truth about the topic. Of course, there's nothing in the rules against continuing arguments in this way, should you feel it's really worth your respective times to do so...
Just make sure it doesn't cross the flaming or trolling line please.
Ok fine...I don't really care, I think its kind of sad when people wave about their ignore list like it matters, especially when ignoring someone is based on one thread.
I don't think most people think that the "eyes" extend beyond the actual..... eyes.
Anyway, I have no problem with people saying that they didn't find the VISOR to be a mistake. What was so clearly frustrating me in this thread is that I expressed the opinion that the eyes are the most important feature of an actor...and people responded like I was crazy or wrong despite the fact that's quite evidently the most commonly held opinion out there in the world of acting. And trying to convince Zar that the eyes express emotion is a bit like trying to convince a child that anything that has 3 sides is a triangle regardless of how different you can make it look, but they just won't get it. Attempting to convince someone of something already so widely and commonly accepted is always going to be a frustrating experience. Zar, maybe you can't understand how the eyes themselves express volumes of emotion but just accept the vast majority of people can and its not much to do with the area AROUND the eyes but with the eyes themselves- dilation, eyeball movement, tearing up, blood vessels in the eye itself. The eye is incredible at betraying our true emotions which is why its seen as so important in giving an authentic emotional performance.
I've been feeling like I've been in the twilight zone for the past 10 pages to be quite honest, hence the frustration/
They may not consciously think of it that way, nevertheless that is what they mean. For example, "eyes widen" means eyelids. Perhaps you should read my whole point rather than taking the first sentence out of context.
No, that isn't what happened. Let's review. No one had said anything about whether "the eyes are the most important feature of an actor" before you flew off the handle saying "what an utterly STUPID reply" to the first person who disagreed with your sentiment. You then went on about your "need" to see an actor's eyes in order to connect with them "on any kind of emotional level", and people responded that they don't have such a need. Then you started insulting our emotional intelligence. It wasn't until around page 10 that anyone actually did start to discuss the eyes' status as "most important", and when they did no one responded like you were "crazy or wrong", they just said they don't share your opinion. And no one denied that it was a common opinion. You're the only one here acting like the whole world is crazy for not being entirely populated by people who feel exactly the same as you do.
This is becoming absurd. You've gone from "the eyes are important" to "EYEBALLS! It's EYEBALLS!" The vast majority of people aren't detecting emotion through blood vessels, for goodness sake. What you're mostly seeing by far is changes in the surrounding skin. A naked skull with eyeballs sitting in its sockets is not going to be able to express much. This eyeball obsession is getting a little disturbing.
I think if having a character wear a visor had been a mistake we'd have a different recollection of Geordi/LeVar than we do. I don't recall hearing anyone complain about his acting or the way he conveyed emotion.
In fact, I don't recall seeing really anything where people are going 'Oh, that Geordi guy? I never really connected with him, he didn't have eyes.' or 'LeVar is clearly a bad actor because you never believed him when he was attempting to emote.'
Acting-wise he is a highlight of the series (Maybe not when compared to Sir Stewart, but compare his acting ability to Frakes, Sirtis, McFadden, Crosby or Wheaton). You knew what he was feeling even without dialogue or seeing his eyes.
Wearing a band in front of your eyes is hardly ideal for an actor, but if you have the chops, you can make it work. I'd hardly call it a mistake.
In fact, I don't recall seeing really anything where people are going 'Oh, that Geordi guy? I never really connected with him, he didn't have eyes.' or 'LeVar is clearly a bad actor because you never believed him when he was attempting to emote.'
Acting-wise he is a highlight of the series (Maybe not when compared to Sir Stewart, but compare his acting ability to Frakes, Sirtis, McFadden, Crosby or Wheaton). You knew what he was feeling even without dialogue or seeing his eyes.
Wearing a band in front of your eyes is hardly ideal for an actor, but if you have the chops, you can make it work. I'd hardly call it a mistake.
I'd argue that it would be more harder for an actor playing a Vulcan to get their personality across effectively, than Geordi.
Some fans felt T'pol's character was too stiff.
Geordi would raise a brow, use his voice. and gesture just like anybody else, and it worked.
Hell, when after all those years you can't imagine him being the character without the VISOR, then you know his performance was great.
Even in those scenes where he lost his VISOR, Geordi could easily get his emotions and thoughts across.
Some fans felt T'pol's character was too stiff.
Geordi would raise a brow, use his voice. and gesture just like anybody else, and it worked.
Hell, when after all those years you can't imagine him being the character without the VISOR, then you know his performance was great.
Even in those scenes where he lost his VISOR, Geordi could easily get his emotions and thoughts across.
God, it's so hard to feel bad for that chick in "Charlie X" who gets her face erased by Charlie. I mean, how can anyone connect with her when you can't see the terror in her eyes?
So what other characters don't have visible besides V for Vendetta guy?
DARTH VADER!!
I can't think of anyone else, I'm sure there other examples.
DARTH VADER!!
I can't think of anyone else, I'm sure there other examples.
