Uh what are you talking about?
I'm saying that, while you might be right, you weren't very diplomatic about it.
Uh what are you talking about?
That is fairly presumptuous. None of the quotes you posted exactly mirror what you are saying, you are just assuming that they would agree with you. I have yet to hear Peter Jackson's opinion of whether Geordi's existence was a mistake. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with what's being said in your quotations. I already addressed this earlier:
Your quotes from directors and so forth about "the eyes", again, are not just in reference to eyeballs themselves, but to that area of the face. Only some of the parts we associate with eyes are blocked by Geordi's visor. It's very rare that an emotion would be expressed exclusively within that area, so by seeing the unobstructed areas we can infer what is happening beneath the visor as well.
Uh what are you talking about?
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.
Emotion comes directly from the actor's eyes. You can control the intensity of that emotion by placing the camera close or far away from those eyes. A close-up will fill the screen with emotion, and pulling away to a wide angle shot will dissipate that emotion.
So, You Will Fail, are you suggesting that blind people should never be portrayed on the screen? That would seem to be the direction you're heading in.
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.
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.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.
So, you're trying to convince people of something intangible and unexplainable, and insulting them when they don't agree?He fails to grasp that the eyes do actually express emotion and there's something intangible about them that can't be explained by isolating individual muscles and how they move.
I would like to see your answer to Tora Ziyal's question, by the way:
So, You Will Fail, are you suggesting that blind people should never be portrayed on the screen? That would seem to be the direction you're heading in.
As such, my ignore list just got +1ed.
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:
I don't think most people think that the "eyes" extend beyond the actual..... eyes.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:
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.
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 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.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.