Did Brooks' eccentric acting put people off?

[NiteTrek]

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.

Look....I started watching Star Trek when your grandfather was in diapers!

While I (barely) remember TOS when it first came out, I "grew up" on the re-runs in the 70's. From the books of those times as well as the interviews (in print and on screen) with Gene (and his wife) it was EASY to get an idea what his vision for Trek was. Humanity had outgrown it's ugly past (war, disease, greed) and the Star Trek universe showed that there was hope for our future, one where we don't obliterate ourselves over petty issues. We evolved into great explorers, filled with insatiable curiousity, searching for new life and new civilizations, you know the whole bit. While still less than perfect, we had taken a giant leap in evolution, at least in the spiritual sense. That's my take on it.

I don't believe he would ever want to take us in the direction that DS9 went. A Trek series with war as it's overall theme isn't something that Roddenberry would ever have approved.

Don't take my word for it, though. Gene's wife, Majel pretty much said the exact same thing in interviews that I've seen and out of anyone alive today, she would be the one to say what "Gene's vision" actually was.

 

[FalTorPan]

I don't think it's relevant that Brooks is or is not a stage actor. I found his performance in the DS9 television series to be... less than effective. I'd have much preferred Tony Todd in the lead role.

 

[PhoenixIreland]

He was a bit hammy in the early seasons but I think when the business with the dominion started in season 3 and espechally when the war started he found his voice, to paraphrase someone.

 

[Michael]

I don't believe he would ever want to take us in the direction that DS9 went. A Trek series with war as it's overall theme isn't something that Roddenberry would ever have approved.

Don't take my word for it, though. Gene's wife, Majel pretty much said the exact same thing in interviews that I've seen and out of anyone alive today, she would be the one to say what "Gene's vision" actually was.

Oh, that's why she had three appearances on the show. Because she thought it wasn't a real Trek series. Because she thought it was something her husband wouldn't have liked. Makes sense.

Frankly, I don't care what Roddenberry's "Vision of Trek" was. Deep Space Nine is just a damn good television show – just like The Original Series. It's very entertaining and thought-provoking. And FWIW, I think Roddenberry would have liked that.

 

[NiteTrek]

Oh, that's why she had three appearances on the show. Because she thought it wasn't a real Trek series. Because she thought it was something her husband wouldn't have liked. Makes sense.

She was specifically talking about the dominion war arc. Doesn't mean that she was going to boycott the show because Gene didn't agree with it. I know I saw the interview.

I did a quick search and found this interview about DS9 where the following was stated:

"DaAlien asks: Will we be seeing your character more in season three? I missed your character in season two.

MAJEL BARRETT RODDENBERRY: DAALIEN, Yes... I objected to the storyline is season 2 so had myself written out of that year, but I've already been in one episode this year called DEJA VU and there is another one called SUBTERFUGE. I don't know what will happen after that."

Didn't the Dominion arc start to develop in the 2nd season? That's what she objected to but it doesn't explain why she came back.

 

[PhoenixIreland]

With the exception of how they tricked the Romulans into war, I don't see how the dominion war conflicts with a positive vision of humanitys future?

It's not their fault they were attacked! They had to defend themselves

 

[Trekwatcher]

To get back to the original question, Brooks' acting did and does put me off. I am not a niner per se, but really love the show and am rewatching the series again after not having seen it in any cohesive way in several years. Rene A and Nana Visitor both, at least to me, come of better on subsequent watching than I remembered while Brooks just comes off as odd and somewhat unlikeable. He does that clipped speaking voice all the time without much variation and it gets tiresome. I.e. he orders a photon torpedo spread the same way he orders a drink at Quark's bar. You can see that he (Brooks) is not very comfortable with much of the material and is trying to make it work, so I give him credit for that. At least to me, one of the problems of DS9 is that the star was less interesting than some of the other characters, which was a problem they also faced on VOY, and I think that on DS9 Brooks' acting style was partly responsible for this. He was not terrible, but is not really endearing in a way I was looking for.

 

[c5maier]

At least to me, one of the problems of DS9 is that the star was less interesting than some of the other characters, which was a problem they also faced on VOY.

But to me, the particular charme of DS9 is that there was never meant to be an individual "star". I like TOS a lot, but it was very much conceived as a show with one star and many support characters (just look at how much Shatner got payed in contrast to Nimoy during the first season). Due to public perception they had to gradually change the format to two or two-and-a-half stars, but it remained the role of Kirk to save the day (with few exceptions). And in my opinion, TOS suffered for this rather unrealistic and staged dramaturgy.
On DS9, on the other hand, we get shown a very troubled "lead" character who is not at all happy with many things within, as well as around him and who has limited means to change the situation for the better. So Sisko is more like Pike or Kirk in STII and very competently depicted by Brooks in that way. And for me at least, that connects much better with (my) real life experience. The marvel of Brooks' acting abilities IMHO is that, while portraying such vulnerability as mentioned, he can still make difficult decisions and deliver them in the forceful manner necessary to make them stick. When he has a conflict with Gul Dukat, Kira or others, he is certainly no whimp.
So, to answer the original question: I have no idea about public opinion but for me Brooks has always been one (of several) great assets to the show.

 

[Navaros]

It's a shame Majel didn't have herself written out of every episode of DS9. Her 'character' is by far the most annoying and useless one ever in Trek, and dragged down every episode of DS9 that she was in right into the gutter. She didn't really have any reason to be on DS9 in this first place. The first time I saw "Fascination" I was shocked at how extremely horrible of an episode it was, and why it was even made. I put that question to other Trek fans and the best answer I got from them was something like: "When you were married to the boss, you get what you want."

As for Brooks' acting, I agree with the sentiment that his acting got really bad every time he had to flip out. However, that's only like 2% of his screen-time. He was phenomenal for all the rest of the time.

As for "Gene's vision": TOS had plenty of interal and external conflict and war stories in it. Which is precisely way it's the best Trek show along with DS9 which followed very closely in TOS' footsteps. TOS and DS9 go hand in hand together in tone and content. I agree that if anything, Gene betrayed his own vision with TNG, which was nothing like the standard set by TOS.

But moreso than that, I agree with those who have made comments in other threads on this site that Roddenberry never really had much of a vision in the first place. He made Star Trek to make money, period. Not to promote a vision. And many/most of the good things in Star Trek were made by other people like Gene Coon as opposed to Roddenberry himself. Star Trek was always at it's best when Roddenberry was reigned-in from making too much of it by himself, and everything he made mostly by himself was no good IMO.

In any case, Roddenberry's vision is irrelevant IMO. DS9 is a great show, and if 'sticking to Roddenberry's vision' would have meant they had to change anything about how DS9 was presented, it's way better for the quality of the show to discard Roddenberry's vision and leave DS9 as is.

 

[NiteTrek]

It's a shame Majel didn't have herself written out of every episode of DS9. Her 'character' is by far the most annoying and useless one ever in Trek,

I never cared for the Lwaxana Troi character at all. She was annoying most of the time although I did laugh at some of her scenes - the ones where she tries to embarrass Picard in front of everyone by saying "Jean-Luc, what dirty thoughts" or something like that.

I would've loved to see her Number One character return at some point, as a ship's Captain perhaps. Not sure if the TNG time line would have worked for her (unless she wasn't human and came from a race that had a longer lifespan.) It would have been nice to see a "Return to Talos IV" episode.

 

[Michael]

I did a quick search and found this interview about DS9 where the following was stated:

"DaAlien asks: Will we be seeing your character more in season three? I missed your character in season two.

MAJEL BARRETT RODDENBERRY: DAALIEN, Yes... I objected to the storyline is season 2 so had myself written out of that year, but I've already been in one episode this year called DEJA VU and there is another one called SUBTERFUGE. I don't know what will happen after that."

Didn't the Dominion arc start to develop in the 2nd season? That's what she objected to but it doesn't explain why she came back.

They are actually NOT talking about Deep Space Nine at all.

 

[NiteTrek]

They are actually NOT talking about Deep Space Nine at all.

They most certainly are. I guess you didn't read the whole interview. Let me post the whole DS9 portion:

Deacon asks: Thank you for your time, Mrs. Roddenberry. Are there any plans to do a film with Deep Space Nine. I really enjoyed the series.

MAJEL BARRETT RODDENBERRY: Deacon, Not that I know of.... and it's too bad because the series is or was extremely well written and produced. But I believe Paramount feels it has run it's course.

DaAlien asks: Will we be seeing your character more in season three? I missed your character in season two.

MAJEL BARRETT RODDENBERRY: DAALIEN, Yes... I objected to the storyline is season 2 so had myself written out of that year, but I've already been in one episode this year called DEJA VU and there is another one called SUBTERFUGE. I don't know what will happen after that.

Now granted, she wasn't totally against it because she did say some good things about it but the interview I saw she was speaking on Gene's behalf saying he would not have approved of the whole dominion war thing.

 

[Kegek]

...and Majel Barrett's last appearance on the show (not counting her role as the computer voice) was in season four.

 

[Michael]

They are actually NOT talking about Deep Space Nine at all.

They most certainly are. I guess you didn't read the whole interview.

No. You should reread it. They are talking about Earth: Final Conflict in that segment.

 

[NiteTrek]

No. You should reread it. They are talking about Earth: Final Conflict in that segment.

Ok....looks like I'm wrong. It's a chat transcript and they keep jumping around between subjects. Since the previous question was about DS9, I assumed that's what they were talking about. My bad.

 

[Michael]

No. You should reread it. They are talking about Earth: Final Conflict in that segment.

Ok....looks like I'm wrong. It's a chat transcript and they keep jumping around between subjects. Since the previous question was about DS9, I assumed that's what they were talking about. My bad.

You're okay. Sorry if I sounded harsh. I hate these kind of fights.

Anyway, what she actually says about Deep Space Nine ("The series is or was extremely well written and produced") is interesting. So FWIW, she seems to have liked the series.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

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.

Look....I started watching Star Trek when your grandfather was in diapers!

While I (barely) remember TOS when it first came out, I "grew up" on the re-runs in the 70's. From the books of those times as well as the interviews (in print and on screen) with Gene (and his wife) it was EASY to get an idea what his vision for Trek was. Humanity had outgrown it's ugly past (war, disease, greed) and the Star Trek universe showed that there was hope for our future, one where we don't obliterate ourselves over petty issues. We evolved into great explorers, filled with insatiable curiousity, searching for new life and new civilizations, you know the whole bit. While still less than perfect, we had taken a giant leap in evolution, at least in the spiritual sense. That's my take on it.

I don't believe he would ever want to take us in the direction that DS9 went. A Trek series with war as it's overall theme isn't something that Roddenberry would ever have approved.

Don't take my word for it, though. Gene's wife, Majel pretty much said the exact same thing in interviews that I've seen and out of anyone alive today, she would be the one to say what "Gene's vision" actually was.

"Obliterate ourselves over petty issues"? So what you are saying is that at no time in the rest of the Trek shows was there ANY fighting or conflict? No one defending what what right, but just a bunch of pacifists? No 'bad guys' who needed to be defeated? No one at all, in the entire universe, who wasn't willing to buy into the TNG-esque PC 'program'? No one at all, in the entire Trek Universe, who didn't willingly drink the I-Want-To-Teach-The-World-To-Sing Kool-aid?

Not what I remember.

I remember ALOT of bad guys getting into conflicts...and even getting killed by Starfleet personnel in the other shows.

And yes - there WERE bad guys - plenty of them. Starting in TOS and going forward. The Romulans, the Klingons, the Cardassians, the Borg, the Ferengi - all of them were 'unenlightened' and often-times violent bad guys, long before DS9 aired it's first episode. Did you think the conflict with the Borg was a 'petty issue'? Did you think Wolf 359 was 'petty'? I mean, it didn't happen on DS9, but it was most certainly a huge conflict - a life or death conflict, in fact.

If you don't think Wolf 359 was petty, why was it that that was not 'petty', but the issues that were at stake in the Dominion War WERE 'petty'? After all, there were the SAME issues at stake in both cases - another race wanting to conquer the AQ and enslave the people, right? I'd love for you to list all the reasons why you think the Borg were a legitimate enemy to fight, and the Dominion were not.

And how, exactly, is it petty to want to fight back? To defend the AQ from being taken over by oppressive races?

Please explain to me how that is petty.

My guess? You simply don't like DS9 and are willing to overlook the exact same things in other shows that you claim to dislike in DS9 - a show, not at all incidentally, which you yourself admit freely that you didn't even watch. Or at least you admit you didn't watch the parts that you claim to hate most.

You stopped watching when the Dominion War started - you said that yourself. And yet you profess to hate the Dominion War and call it a 'petty' conflict.

I'm sorry...but I really don't take very seriously the complaints of someone who, by his own admission, didn't even WATCH the very thing he is complaining about.

As for Majel...if she was that positive that Gene would have hated DS9, then why the HELL did she participate in the show herself? And not once, but on a few separate occasions over more than one season?

Or did Roddenberry's so-called 'vision' mean so little to his own widow, that she would sell it out for a few dollars made from guest spots on DS9?

I mean, I know every man has his price...but my, my, my, Majel's price must have been pretty damn low.

Could it be, perhaps that she herself knew that Roddenberry had long ago sold out his own vision (if he ever had one, aside of making a crapload of money), when he created TNG and infused it with some of the most absurd PC preaching ever slapped up on a screen, when TOS wasn't like that at all?

Oh...and by the way, you have no idea whatever how old I am and when I started watching Star Trek. And you know what they say about making assumptions, don't you?

 

[NiteTrek]

"Obliterate ourselves over petty issues"?

I'm talking about US as in earth humanity, not the bad guys out in space. Today we kill each other over trivial things. I want your new sneakers so I'll pop you to get them. THAT type of mentality is what Earth Humans have overcome.

Sure, there is still evil in outer space and we have to deal with it but Star Trek wasn't called Star Police, that's not why we went out there in the first place and that's what I meant about "Gene's vision" - it was one of exploration, not battle.

My guess? You simply don't like DS9 and are willing to overlook the exact same things in other shows that you claim to dislike in DS9 - a show, not at all incidentally, which you yourself admit freely that you didn't even watch. Or at least you admit you didn't watch the parts that you claim to hate most.

I watched the first few seasons of DS9 because it was Star Trek. I didn't care for Sisko right off the bat. Something about the Dominion war arc just didn't sit well with me, I didn't care for it so I lost interest.

I'm sorry...but I really don't take very seriously the complaints of someone who, by his own admission, didn't even WATCH the very thing he is complaining about.

I think you need to lighten up and take some valium. All this passion over a few comments about a TV series? You don't like my opinion or thoughts so you have a cow over it?

As for Majel...if she was that positive that Gene would have hated DS9, then why the HELL did she participate in the show herself?

I don't know, but I'll be sure to ask her the next time I run into her.

Oh...and by the way, you have no idea whatever how old I am and when I started watching Star Trek. And you know what they say about making assumptions, don't you?

Well, I'm just going by your posts and you seem like a very immature individual to me, that's why I assumed you are young. Won't be the first time that I've been wrong (which has already happened in this thread.)

 

[Kegek]

"Obliterate ourselves over petty issues"?

I'm talking about US as in earth humanity, not the bad guys out in space. Today we kill each other over trivial things. I want your new sneakers so I'll pop you to get them. THAT type of mentality is what Earth Humans have overcome.

If someone's going to define Gene's utopian vision of man as 'someone who has serious regard for the value of sentient life', then DS9 did not violate this. Starfleet officers are fairly consistently shown as having a dim view of taking life; in the cases where they do take life or tacitly approve of the taking of life, there are larger moral issues involved like life or death struggles or even the survival of their entire societies... which, as motivations go, is a few steps up merely desiring a brand of shoes. Yes, it's acknowledged in one episode that stripped to their basics mankind can be ruthless killers... which, ahem, was also a point candidly brought up in TOS about the need to control these urges with a pacifist philosophy.

 

[indranee]

eccentric or not, I loved him as the Sisko.