Did Brooks' eccentric acting put people off?

I know quite a few people who watch one or more Trek shows (usually TNG or Voyager) but don't watch DS9. When I've asked them why sometimes they give the lame "it's a space station so they don't go anywhere!" answer. But some of them, who actually gave the show a chance, say it's because Avery Brooks is a terrible actor and they can't stand to watch them.

I DISAGREE THAT BROOKS IS A TERRIBLE ACTOR, however, I can see why others could think that. The man's acting is like nothing else on Trek. He talks so weird! He voice goes up and down in every sentence. His laugh is completely crazy sounding. To be honest I remember that when I first started watch I didn't like him either. I got used to his style, of course, as all Niners have. But do you think Avery Brooks is responsible for a lot of people turning off DS9? Sadly, I'd have to say YES.

 

I prefer it to Mr Earl Grey, hot.......borrring

 

I always thought his acting sucked on DS9. Just the way he spoke and some of his facial gestures, I can't really put my finger on it.

I quit watching when the Dominion War crap started, didn't care for that storyline at all. I did hear Sisko was killed off at the end of the series, so there was a bright side.

 

I did find Brooks' acting to be exceptionally hammy and odd at times. Of course I also didn't like Stewart either for different reasons.

 

I love Avery Brooks. I loved him off the bat, and Sisko is one of my favorite characters in all of Star Trek.

 

Well, if you think the Dominion war is 'crap', then I'd venture to say that Avery Brooks is the least of your complaints with DS9. Pity you missed the Dominion War though. Especially since you see fit to criticize something you admit you didn't see very much of...and it was over 2 seasons long.

And I wouldn't exactly say that Sisko was killed off at the end of DS9 either. He's still very much alive - just with the Prophets. Some say he is only 'with' the Prophets...others say that he became one of them. In which case, he became a god...at least as far as the Bajorans are concerned.

As for me, I quite like Avery Brooks acting. He is certainly makes Sisko a far more interesting captain than stuffy and dull Picard....or boring Archer.

I especially like Brooks after TPTB gave him more leeway to make Sisko into the character he wanted him to be. It was then that Brooks was really able to give Sisko the 'edge' that made him awesome.

 

His acting was good up until he got angry and went on speech tantrums. Then it was just okay.

 

Goin' out on a limb here, but I'll bet you never watched DS9 through, eh? Just a guess you might want to try it again w/an open mind-it might change it. Otherwise, your post is stupid which doesn't say much about the one who keyed it in.

 

I liked Sisko from the start, Brooks is a great actor in my book.

 

In short ... yes.

I think Brooks' performance as Sisko was very uneven. While I for the most part dislike his work on DS9 (and find it astonishing that some rate him a superior actor to Stewart), he had some absolutely brilliant moments in the role. "The Visitor" jumps out at me as an example. While he rarely convinced me he was a starbase commander, I always believed him as a great father.

Frankly, I think he was better as Hawk.

 

I think he could occasionally go overboard on these. Aside from his noted quality in his role as a father, I think Brooks generally played the quieter, more introspective moments of Sisko a lot better - pretty much all of "In the Pale Moonlight" is a good example. While not at the calibre of Patrick Stewart, I think Brooks' performance was good overall and the above-par writing (as in "Moonlight") kept him a consistent character. The writing is particularly important here, at least IMHO. Scott Bakula was decidedly rudderless as Archer, but the writers were often just as clueless as he was.

 

I have heard that complaint from a few people, including my ex-wife. They felt his halting manner of speech was over the top. I myself liked his odd delivery at times, such as when he points in a stiff way in The Search, Pt. 1, to Mornithar, Quark's Karemma contact, when he wants to use Defiant's computer to link up with his.

I rather enjoyed Sisko even when he was on a hammy rant, like when he yells, "It's REEEAAALLLL!" in Far Beyond the Stars. Of all the ST actors, he's the most like William Shatner, IMO!

Red Ranger

 

To clarify, while I enjoy a good space battle, I wasn't really into a Trek series that was based on war (even if only for a few seasons.) It just doesn't seem like that would fit into Roddenberry's vision of what Trek should be. I was always more into the "exploration" side of things.

But, I can understand why they did it. They needed a different "darker" Trek to keep things from getting stale.

 

I thought he was uneven but the character was well-written which helped compensate for this. The big problem is that he was at his worst during season 1 when people were first giving the show a chance but it wasn't his fault entirely. I felt like the writers were trying to make him to much into your standard boring starfleet type instead of letting Brooks personality gave any influence on the character. Season 1 Sisko might as well have been Riker with a kid due the fact they didn't really allow Sisko to push the envelope of what we expect from a Starfleet officer.

Jason

 

A good deal of the time, yeah.

 

For me a Trek series has to have a great actor as Captain for it to be worthwhile. DS9 is my favorite Trek series and Avery Brooks is a big reason for this. If you want to look for weak actors in Captain roles, go no further than VOY/ENT.

 

From another post I criticized Avery's acting during his breakdown scenes and, I forget who enlightened me that Avery was a stage actor. Its definitely an aquired taste, and although I can see where Avery gets his shakes from its still kinda weird.

Anyway KA'PLA

 

I know. It always astounds me as to how many people are just POSITIVE they know exactly what 'Roddenberry's vision of what Trek should be' actually is.

Of course, these same apparently psychic folks somehow miss completely the fact that of all the Trek captains, the one closest to Kirk in temperament and style was, in fact, Sisko.

And the fact that TOS, unlike TNG, is chock full of flawed heroes, as opposed to 'evolved' perfect people who fly around the universe telling everyone else how to live.

But whatever.

If TOS illustrated Roddenberry's original 'vision'...then the one who betrayed it most was in fact Roddenberry himself, when he made every character on TNG squeaky clean and perfect.