Do actors ever provide in-depth insights about characters or stories at conventions?
- Thread starter Navaros
- Start date
I respectfully disagree...it's even worse.
Masks? A great episode. 
Masks? A great episode.
I enjoyed this episode because we got to see Brent Spiner play completely different characters, but I can understand why others did not like it.
Navigator NCC-2120, USS Entente
/\
Last edited:
This is pretty much why I didn't like it. I discovered long ago that I am really not a fan of Spiner's acting outside of his role as Data.
If I were to pay to go to a convention, I'd want to hear the actors give insights about things such as:
- Upon whom or what did they model how they played their characters?
- What do they believe were some of the most important stories that their characters' were involved with?...and why do they find those stories to be important?
- If they had creative control, would they have modified any of the stories that their characters were involved with, and if so, why and how?
- Do they think that the writers ever made bad decisions which sometimes mischaracterized their characters?
- If they had creative control, what stories would they have told about their characters that the writers did not?
- What scenes do they believe show off examples of great acting, and why? (they could reference other actors in their answers to this, if they don't want to blow their own horns).
- Are they satisfied with the quality of their characters? Why or why not?
- What are some examples of Trek writing that impressed them, and what about it did they find special?
- ...or any other commentary that is thoughtful and at least semi-informed. Side note: the videos in the OP have lots of examples of fans asking questions that require a thoughtful and at least semi-informed answer, yet the actors' responses fail to deliver those things. Their responses do not actually respond to what they were asked.
Yes, I take your point that sometimes, some of such information does exist elsewhere. But even when it does, perhaps the actors could elaborate on that information in greater depth than do the other sources which talk about it.
I also take the point that the actors might not remember the episodes from long ago, but that is why, as I've said, perhaps they should watch the shows in order to refresh their memories and therefore become prepared to discuss them, especially since they are being paid to discuss them.
I suppose I find the concept of Trek fans paying good money for Trek actors to give speeches at Trek conventions very strange in light of the facts that one, many of said actors (and the convention organizers) put on a pretense that they will discuss Trek in a thoughtful way despite them being utterly unprepared actually to do so; and two, that some of those actors barely even bother put on a pretense and blatantly ignore the subject of Trek.
Should not a paid public speaker be required to have some expertise on the subject(s) about which he or she is speaking? And should not public speakers actually talk about the subjects that the customers thought that they were paying to hear about at the time when they spent their money? In most other venues, public speakers would be held to those standards - but somehow Trek actors need not. Some posters have made the point that if the fans don't care, then the actors shouldn't either. I guess that's true.
But maybe some fans do care and would like better insights? I know I'd feel ripped off if I paid someone to talk about something that he or she was unqualified to talk about, and/or if he or she did not actually talk about that subject at all, or only barely.
Overall, perhaps the fans are being too nice by expecting too little from the Trek actors to whom they pay some of their hard-earned money?
Some posters have said that the actors shouldn't have to be experts on Trek, and I agree with that.
On the other hand, a huge spectrum exists between the extreme poles of "being a total expert" and "being utterly unprepared to talk about Trek."
Maybe the actors could reasonably be expected to move a lot further away from that second pole, near which most of them seem to be comfortably resting yet still raking in lots of cash from convention appearances anyway.
Last edited:
Geez... Don't ask those questions. The odds are they were asked questions like that a long time ago, more than once. Just don't. Ask questions about something more current.
Also, I'm betting most of them couldn't really answer many of the questions...because they probably didn't really think about those things....
Also, I'm betting most of them couldn't really answer many of the questions...because they probably didn't really think about those things....
Honestly, conventions aren't meant to be some avenue of deep discussion and reflection. They're mostly social affairs. Keep in mind, the actors are just a small portion of the convention experience. True, they are the most heavily promoted part, but they are still one part. People go to conventions to hang out with friends, befriend like-minded fans, peruse the merchandise on sale, take part in games and competitions, show-off their cosplay skills, admire the cosplay skills of others and so on. When it does come time to see the actors, it is still an atmosphere of casual frivolities, and why shouldn't the actors add to that experience. Joking around with the audience will help make the experience enjoyed by all and discussions of what they're up to at the moment, even if it isn't Trek related kind of creates a sense of catching up with old friends.
In the end, I'm sure more people walk out of conventions thinking "what a blast! William Shatner on stage sure was fun! Especially that story where he talked about that incident where his horse slobbered all over Miley Cyrus" then the ones who leave thinking "what a rip-off! Patrick Stewart was a disappointment. He didn't even address what he believed were alternate Picard's motivations for agreeing to let Tasha transfer over to the Enterprise C. Now I can't watch Yesterday's Enterprise because the episode is tainted by these negative memories."
In the end, I'm sure more people walk out of conventions thinking "what a blast! William Shatner on stage sure was fun! Especially that story where he talked about that incident where his horse slobbered all over Miley Cyrus" then the ones who leave thinking "what a rip-off! Patrick Stewart was a disappointment. He didn't even address what he believed were alternate Picard's motivations for agreeing to let Tasha transfer over to the Enterprise C. Now I can't watch Yesterday's Enterprise because the episode is tainted by these negative memories."
You beat me to the punch. We're not talking seminars or symposiums here. We're talking celebrations and social gatherings, complete with masquerade contests, filk-singing, gaming, shopping, dances, and other diversions. Mind you, this doesn't preclude any deep or insightful reflections--I've taken part in some fascinating panel discussions over the years--but there's also something of a party atmosphere. People are there to have fun, hang out with like-minded fans, show off their Klingon cosplay, browse the dealer's room, and, yes, see their favorite TREK stars in person.
It's not meant to be an academic conference, although some sessions can get more serious than others, depending on the performer, the occasion, and the mood of the crowd. People aren't there to attend a lecture by a noted authority on the topic at hand. It's not supposed to be an "educational" event, although many conventions do schedule science panels as well.
Think of it more as the Trekkie version of a county fair.
Last edited:
There should be shows for tribbles (best of breed, class, etc). Same goes for Targs and Selhats. Bring your kiddies to the stalls where you can see their handlers grooming, feeding, petting or even sleeping with them. With the ribbons they won pinned to a board by each stall.
And a Gagh eating contest
The OP's list of questions might work if a series was currently in production, and the actors were then actively protraying their character. Getting them to bitch about the quality of the show's writers could lead to them being the next Chakotay thought,
"Hey did you see Sammy on youtube at that convention?"
"Yeah, might be time to sideline his character."
"Hey did you see Sammy on youtube at that convention?"
"Yeah, might be time to sideline his character."
At least they didn't have him walk into an empty turbolift shaft...though the audience might have considered that a mercy killing.
Allow me:
They were given a script, a character description, and notes from the director.
The ones where they had the most to do were the most important.
They would have made their character more prominent, explored some of their backstory, and avoided the more embarrassing storylines.
Yes.
TBH I don't understand these guest panels. I've been to a couple just to see the person in the flesh, but I never thought I'd get some sort of intimate insight into their lives or their craft. The whole event is too much of a circus for that.
One related thing that does bug me is audio commentaries where the speakers haven't done their prep. I don't expect people to memorise the details of hundreds of episodes of television, but for a specific commentary you should make sure your memory is fairly fresh.
For a textbook example, check out the audio commentary on the first UNDERWORLD movie. Scott Speedman barely seems to remember starring in the movie, or anything about it, to the extent that co-star Kate Beckinsale starts teasing him about it.
"There was this movie, UNDERWORLD, Scott. You and I were in it . . . ."
A commentary can be enjoyable for other reasons though. I recall the group commentaries by the actors in the LOTR EE's as being relatively lightweight but fun. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Roger Moore was the only Bond actor to do new commentaries for all of his films in the 2006-ish DVD set...they were very dry, often off-topic, and he tended to repeat the same anecdotes from film to film...but I thought they had a great atmosphere because I felt like Moore had invited me to his home to watch the film with him over a stiff drink.
Roger & Scotch, a winning combination.
I didn't remember that, although I do like that movie. If you've heard the commentary for the sequel, you'll remember they had to insert an extra scene after the sex scene, to avoid an unfortunate juxtaposition...
Similar threads
- Poll
