I've been seeing him in a lot of stuff recently.
I think he's reaching that age where solid character actors get a lot of work, judges, neighbors, police chiefs, that kind of thing.
Did DS9 "pound for pound" have the best acting cast?
- Thread starter indolover
- Start date
I've been seeing him in a lot of stuff recently.
I think he's reaching that age where solid character actors get a lot of work, judges, neighbors, police chiefs, that kind of thing.
At the time I disliked Kira and Quark. Now, I like the way Kira was at the beginning. I wouldn't call it 'Over the top', she seemed just like the situation she came from. I liked her in later seasons too but I do think she moved a bit too far toward the center. At the end she was basically a human who aside from the nose you couldn't tell apart from the Starfleet crew.
With Quark, I think it took the writers a little while to realize he was an intelligent businessman capable of defending his position instead of the cartoon character the TNG Ferengi were. But even at the start he was a crucial ingredient.
Dax, eh, how much can you really change after living 300 years? Along with Quark she was one of the better comical elements in a show with dark enough storylines to absolutely need them.
With Quark, I think it took the writers a little while to realize he was an intelligent businessman capable of defending his position instead of the cartoon character the TNG Ferengi were. But even at the start he was a crucial ingredient.
Dax, eh, how much can you really change after living 300 years? Along with Quark she was one of the better comical elements in a show with dark enough storylines to absolutely need them.
And the guy has been in movies directed by Stephen Frears and Alan Parker.
Obviously, some actors are stronger than others, but I don't have any problems with the various series regulars other than Crosby, Farrell and Montgomery - and even then - outside of a few weak performances they were adequate.
I'd say those two episodes are of outstanding quality despite Brooks' acting. He very rarely managed to convince me in situations where he had to convey intense emotions, (self-) doubt, etc. I thought Brooks was better in 'calmer' scenes, as in day-to-day-affairs on the station, interacting with his son, or, for example, as the ice-cold and imperturbable warrior leading the federation fleet to retake DS9.
You mean you weren't moved to tears by his "It's RRREEEEALLL!!" speech??
How can anyone not be? It was a wonderful piece of acting.
On stage it would have been fantastic. On camera, it was ridiculously over the top, in my opinion.
Mental collapses tend to be over the top. They're funny like that.
Yeah. What I meant was that I didn't buy it, it wasn't a convincing or naturalistic performance. It wasn't moving, it was silly.
Yeah, I tend to agree with Mirrorball Man on this one. Stage acting is very different from acting in front of a camera. Actors who are used to performing on stage are in danger of appearing too dramatic on camera, if they're not careful. Even Patrick Stewart, one of my favorite actors ever, was guilty of hamming it up a few times on TNG. He's fantastic in his Shakespearean roles. But not every role requires that kind of acting.
"Far Beyond the Stars" is criminally over-rated, and is a good example of Brooks' terrible "over-acting".
I think DS9 actually had as many 'weaker links' in its regular cast (and it's not fair to bundle in all the recurring guest stars, as it gives DS9 an unfair advantage!) as TNG. But for me, it's about the leading man, and Brooks is no Patrick Stewart.
That's always been my feeling about Brooks, which makes sense seeing that he got his start as a stage actor. Stewart did as well, but Brooks didn't make the transition as smoothly IMO.
Then again, he did all that shouting so consistently with Sisko that maybe Sisko was supposed to be that dramatic and Brooks just nailed it.
Well, I think, at least, what you're describing is why opinions on Brooks' acting tend to vary a lot. For some people, it feels overdone on camera, as he does tend to retain a bit of the exaggerated style that you need for stage acting.
I also think, that, in the early seasons, he is just bored a lot of the time. The writing for Sisko isn't very good, for the most part, early on.
Once the writers start to really get a grasp on Sisko's character in season 3, and then especially starting in season 4, Brooks really starts to become a strong point of the show imo, partially because his stage-acting style and powerful voice grant him a slightly "larger-than-life" quality that is good for a Trek Captain to have.
Stewart as Picard is a hard act to follow, but, I think, especially in the final 4 seasons, Brooks' work compares favorably to that of his predecessor. If you compare Brooks in In the Pale Moonlight to Stewart in The Inner Light, for example, I would say that the performances are of at least comparable quality.
On the whole, I do think DS9 had the best cast, as far as the talent of the actors. The TNG characters are all likable, but they're also relatively bland for the most part, and the roles are less demanding. The actors also tend to do less with what they are given. Stewart and Spiner are the standouts on TNG and, while what Spiner was able to do with Data is certainly wonderful, as far as how charismatic and charming he is while playing a robot, it doesn't really vary or evolve very much.
Nobody on TNG does anything that even remotely resembles what Nana Visitor was able to do with Kira over seven seasons, for example, as far as creating a fully fleshed out character (she does benefit from a lot of very good writing, also, though).
Last edited:
No it isn't.
Patrick Stewart is no "Patrick Stewart" either.
He doesn't do emotion. At all. And that should be a prerequisite for anyone who is lauded as much as he is.
Frankly, I'd take Brooks's overacting in what is meant to be an incredibly uncomfortable situation over Stewart supposedly "crying" over the loss of his family any day.
I guess it's a matter of personal taste. I'm not an overly emotional person; in fact, I can be rational almost to a fault, and outbursts of emotion make me a bit uncomfortable. For that reason, I've always preferred characters who are more cool-headed and reserved. Sherlock Holmes has been a favorite fictional character of mine, for as long as I can remember. That's why I love Picard, too -- because he has an analytical mind.
Personally, though, I can't understand why you say Patrick Stewart "doesn't do emotion." He's one of the best Shakespearean actors I've ever seen. Have you seen him play Claudius in "Hamlet"? He was brilliant.
Personally, though, I can't understand why you say Patrick Stewart "doesn't do emotion." He's one of the best Shakespearean actors I've ever seen. Have you seen him play Claudius in "Hamlet"? He was brilliant.
i think 'pound-for-pound' tng, ds9 and voy all had a similar mix of the talented and the not so talented, but voy lost out on the writing department.
tos had a cast that worked, spock, bones and the shat were good, but the sulu-uhura level supporting posse weren't amazing.
and as much as i like ent, i'm pretty sure only billingsley was consistently good.
tos had a cast that worked, spock, bones and the shat were good, but the sulu-uhura level supporting posse weren't amazing.
and as much as i like ent, i'm pretty sure only billingsley was consistently good.
Well, personally, I think he does do emotion well, and does so occasionally on TNG. On the other hand, a case can be made, I think, that a lot of what he does as Picard is just voice and presence, which he has a lot of.
There's not a whole heck of a lot to the character, really, when you boil it down. That's not really a criticism. It works, and it works well.
Similar threads
