Obvious troll is obvious.
Wesley Crusher
- Thread starter Gaius
- Start date
Obvious troll is obvious.
Wow, could you be any more obviously calling people stupid
Your opinions are merely that, opinions. They are not facts, and even if you actually had facts, it's considered poor form to call people stupid for not knowing those facts, calling people stupid for having an opinion different than yours (That also happens to be a proven fact per the poll to be the majority opinion, which you are shooting down) is seriously rude and uncalled for
Last edited:
Oh, please...tell us unwashed masses which shows we should watch due to our poor standards and inability to comprehend what good tv is. I need to know what I should be watching since i'm too dumb to figure it out on my own.
I don't get why you're being so rude and condescending. We're all friends and fellow Trekkies here.
Oh, please...tell us unwashed masses which shows we should watch due to our poor standards and inability to comprehend what good tv is. I need to know what I should be watching since i'm too dumb to figure it out on my own.
I did not imply you or others are "too dumb" to appreciate TNG. It is just that a lot of users here have not learned to pay close attention to drama: what to watch for. They are not necessarily dumb, just uneducated or inexperienced.
As to what shows to watch: it does not matter what you watch, only how you watch them. You have to learn to watch shows closely, looking for nuance. You also have to learn to separate out each component of why a show has a certain effect on you: for each actor, figure out exactly what you liked and exactly what you did not like about each line and each performance, for example. You have to learn not to just say "I liked that actor", but you have to be able to precisely state exactly why.
That said, limiting the answer to TNG, here is a brief list off the top of my head.
A good place to start is Spiner, who communicates a great deal with very little. Check out, for example, the shot just before he returns to build the model in Hero Worship. Notice explicitly each action he is performing: pauses, eye shifting, head tilting (in conjunction with his usual actions in the rest of the scene). Note how much he is communicating, all while being true to android persona: he wants to answer Geordi, he has a duty to the ship, he was told to help Timothy, he has no experience in that. Many other things are going on in that one shot, they are all communicated by Spiner. It's the key shot in the episode.
Of course, the last part of The Most Toys is another good place to study how Spiner is communicating emotion without quite seeming to do so, as for example the almost-shooting scene. But don't just look at the scene and say "I liked it" or "great acting"; rather, explicitly say all the things, exactly, that Spiner did to express his situation.
Picard of course is the classic great actor, and many scenes with him repay study. A great one is the conversation with Data in Measure of a Man, the one that starts with Data coming to quarters and ends with Picard saying "Dismissed." Carefully study exactly how Picard's expression and voice imperceptibly (key word: imperceptibly) alter as his mood alters. Note in particular how after Data makes the "Geordi's eyes" argument, Picard says: NOTHING. But Picard expresses a lot, then finally says "Dismissed." That blank expression, that one word, again is the key to the episode, it is where Picard is won over. How exactly is Picard expressing that?
Inner Light is a great example because it's on blu-ray, and it's much easier to appreciate great acting on blu-ray. Get it on blu-ray, and watch exactly how, with the slightest stoop and hesitation, Picard shows his aging, and how he is showing all the emotions he is feeling at, say, Eline's situation.
For appreciating plot in general, and not acting, well, that is a harder question. Cause and Effect is nicely plotted, but I am not quite sure how to articulate why in concise fashion. So forget plot for now. Cause and Effect is also a great episode for teaching about paying attention.
Anyway, I believe that once you learn to pay attention to and understand how much Spiner and Stewart can communicate with just the slightest change in their timing, or expression, or posture, you will contrast that with performances of say Q and Wesley, who communicate very little despite preposterously unrealistic or over-the-top performances.
You know one of the best ways to appreciate great acting? It's to get hold of the outtakes of cut scenes of films (sometimes in making-of special features). You can compare badly delivered lines, or lines not quite right, to the final cut.
Oh, please...tell us unwashed masses which shows we should watch due to our poor standards and inability to comprehend what good tv is. I need to know what I should be watching since i'm too dumb to figure it out on my own.
I did not imply you, or anyone else here, was "too dumb" to appreciate TNG. It is just that a lot of users here have not learned to pay close attention to drama: what to watch for. They are not necessarily dumb, just uneducated.
As to what shows to watch: it does not matter what you watch, only how you watch them. You have to learn to watch shows closely, looking for nuance. You also have to learn to separate out each component of why a show has a certain effect on you: for each actor, figure out exactly what you liked and exactly what you did not like about each line and each performance, for example. You have to learn not to just say "I liked that actor", but you have to be able to precisely state exactly why.
That said, limiting the answer to TNG, here is a brief list off the top of my head.
A good place to start is Spiner, who communicates a great deal with very little. Check out, for example, the shot just before he returns to build the model in Hero Worship. Notice explicitly each action he is performing: pauses, eye shifting, head tilting (in conjunction with his usual actions in the rest of the scene). Note how much he is communicating, all while being true to android persona: he wants to answer Geordi, he has a duty to the ship, he was told to help Timothy, he has no experience in that. Many other things are going on in that one shot, they are all communicated by Spiner. It's the key shot in the episode.
Of course, the last part of The Most Toys is another good place to study how Spiner is communicating emotion without quite seeming to do so, as for example the almost-shooting scene. But don't just look at the scene and say "I liked it" or "great acting"; rather, explicitly say all the things, exactly, that Spiner did to express his situation.
Picard of course is the classic great actor, and many scenes with him repay study. A great one is the conversation with Data in Measure of a Man, the one that starts with Data coming to quarters and ends with Picard saying "Dismissed." Carefully study exactly how Picard's expression and voice imperceptibly (key word: imperceptibly) alter as his mood alters. Note in particular how after Data makes the "Geordi's eyes" argument, Picard says: NOTHING. But Picard expresses a lot, then finally says "Dismissed." That blank expression, that one word, again is the key to the episode, it is where Picard is won over. How exactly is Picard expressing that.
Inner Light is a great example because it's on blu-ray, and it's much easier to appreciate great acting on blu-ray. Get it on blu-ray, and watch exactly how, with the slightest stoop and hesitation, Picard shows his aging, and how he is showing all the emotions he is feeling at, say, Eline's situation.
For appreciating plot in general, an not acting, well, that is a harder question. Cause and Effect is nicely plotted, but I am not quite sure how to articulate why in concise fashion. So forget plot for now. Cause and Effect is also a great episode for teaching about paying attention.
Anyway, I believe that once you learn to pay attention to and understand how much Spiner and Stewart can communicate with just the slightest change in their timing, or expression, or posture, you will contrast that with performances of say Q and Wesley, who communicate very little despite preposterously unrealistic or over-the-top performances.
You know one of the best ways to appreciate great acting? It's to get hold of the outtakes of cut scenes. You can compare badly delivered lines, or lines not quite right, to the final cut. But you know, I can't think of where to get those right now.
Next he'll be telling us the proper way to wipe our asses!
nnnnnnn, you said this...
...after you said this:
...and then this:
So no, you didn't imply anyone here, you just outright said that in a broad generalization of the board's population.
Oh, please...tell us unwashed masses which shows we should watch due to our poor standards and inability to comprehend what good tv is. I need to know what I should be watching since i'm too dumb to figure it out on my own.
I did not imply you, or anyone else here, was "too dumb" to appreciate TNG.
...after you said this:
...and then this:
So no, you didn't imply anyone here, you just outright said that in a broad generalization of the board's population.
I got some mod notifications to review this thread, and especially your posts within it, with regards to whether they crossed the line into Trolling.
Trolling is an interesting concept for moderators to assess. Unlike Flaming or Spamming, which are relatively clearcut, trolling requires a certain degree of judgement in deciding whether controversially phrased or otherwise inflammatory remarks are being posted with the intent of having an honest discussion or with the intent of trolling.
My assessment is that you have a uniquely didactic posting style. As the responses of others indicate, whether intended to be so or not, it comes across as obnoxiously condescending to others, not to mention as having a massive chip on your shoulder about what is correct and what is not.
I tend to have a fairly optimistic view of people's nature, and think most people come here to discuss rather than to troll. In that light, I prefer to believe that you're not trying to troll and genuinely didn't anticipate how your comments were likely to be taken.
If that's the case, it's also the case that you would take on board some constructive feedback on your posts. My feedback is that if you want to continue posting in such a didactic manner, you need take exceptional care with your language in order to not inadvertantly insult other users while you expound your point of view.
Your opening sentences in an earlier post discussing viewers "ignorance & sloppy thinking" is a clear example where any reasonable person with a different opinion would feel very insulted indeed on reading them. A different phrasing of that paragraph would have allowed you to make exactly the same absolutist statements without risking that direct implication about board users.
As I said, I'm willing to see whether your future posts show a difference now that you've had this lengthy explanation of why your posts sail very close to the Trolling wind. As a mod, I'd emphasise that I don't care what your posting style is, or whether you agree/disagree with others... I only care that it doesn't become Trolling. Your posting style makes it much more likely that people will take offence, so if you want to continue that style, you should take great care with language to avoid that outcome.
If you don't, I will only be able conclude that you don't actually care if your statements cause widespread offence. That makes them deliberately inflammatory, and therefore Trolling by this board's rule.
As I've taken great care to spell these implications out in such explicit detail, I hope you realise that my degree of leeway in granting benefit of doubt to future borderline cases of Trolling is now well & truly exhausted.
First of all, the "ignorance and sloppy thinking" phrase is misleading and out of context. As I clearly have articulated in several posts, by "ignorance" I was not using the colloquial form of "ignorant" as an epithet for "stupid" (in fact, I eschew colloquialisms) rather, in context it was clear that what was meant was only that the the posters under discussion were not knowledgable about nuances of drama. That is they are "ignorant" of the nuances and subtleties of Stewart's and Spiner's acting, which is why (under that theory) they naturally prefer less subtle, less skilled roles like Q and Wesley. This view is articulated further in my post here, http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=6001261&postcount=84 , where I specifically spell out ways to help viewers who have been missing so many nuances of TNG how to learn to appreciate those nuances. Similarly, "sloppy thinking" is a term directed against viewers who casually watch episodes in a careless manner, without due attention to nuances of acting, plot, and form (see the post above). As an example of sloppy thinking, one user claimed that "Pen Pals" was a great Picard episode, despite my explaining that the scene where Picard allows Pulaski to call Worf a "coward" only because Worf does not want to violate the Prime Directive is inconsistent with this being a great Picard episode. (See http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=5983759&postcount=14 ) . The poster is evincing "sloppy thinking" in ignoring (literally ignoring, never even responded to my post) that key scene in the episode and its ramifications.
It is also perhaps misleading context that your original post was prefaced by quoting my denial that I had called users "dumb," as that quote could suggest there is some argument to be made that I had. There is not. I had done nothing of the kind: to say a user is not knowledgeable about a particular area, or is thinking sloppily about it, is not similar to calling that user "dumb." For example, I am ignorant about gymnastics, but that does not imply or suggest or connote I am dumb. If I were to say I disliked some gymnast, and if someone knowledgeable about gymnastics told me that the gymnast was actually superb and I was ignorant of nuances in her performance but that if I learned to understand those nuances, I would appreciate her performance, it would be illogical for me to be offended. To say a person is "ignorant" about judging acting is no more like saying he is "dumb" than to say he is "ignorant" about judging gymnastics.
Suppose it were true that users who like Wesley, dislike Inner Light, and think Pen Pals is a great Picard episode are, in fact, simply not watching episodes carefully as they could be and are not knowledgeable about the nuances and subtleties of drama. Let's call that hypothesis "A".
Now, if "A" were true, then stating "A" could not in itself be improper. So your only objection to stating "A" in that case would be the form in which it is stated, which you suggest could be incendiary. It is possibly arguable that if the only support for "A" given were that users with a particular viewpoint were "ignorant" then that would be trolling. But in fact, throughout all my posts I was careful to support my claims. I carefully articulated why episodes like Pen Pals were inconsistent with Picard generally; why Wesley was not a good character, and why Stewart (and Spiner) were great, subtle actors utterly unlike those portraying Q and Wes. I also gave, in the post cited, specific exercises that viewers can do to improve their ability to recognize acting nuances. Finally, looking at all my posts together, I have demonstrated the advantages in watching episodes closely by making specific, interesting observations about characters - for example, noting the key eye movements in the model building scene, or the stoop in Inner Light, or the quietness in Measure of a Man, or the Harrison reference, or the Owl Creek reference, among many others.
Thus, if hypothesis A is correct, there is nothing wrong with my posts.
Now, if A were in fact not correct, then you would have a point, since I would be spending so much time defending an incorrect position. But surely it is clear, just looking at the posts, the difference in the level of analytical depth and understanding of TNG that my posts evince compared to the detractors'. I specifically state exactly what is good or not about each performance I am talking about, exactly how something does fit or does not fit into the episode and the series. The detractors almost invariably begin and end their analysis with semi-articulate comments about what they "like" or "don't like". If asked to articulate why, nearly always all they can say is that "I have a right to my opinion." Look, if my detractors really had an argument, they would have actually raised, and not just made their conclusory, information-free, comments repeatedly. So that alone should tell you that the probability that hypothesis A is incorrect is very small.
Here, this is supposed to be a Wesley thread. I've stated exactly and precisely why Wesley was a bad character. Now where, in all this huge thread, can you find ONE POST where someone says specifically why Wesley was a GOOD character? The people who think he is a good character just don't analyze drama in depth or rationally, they only react emotionally - and that's a touchstone of superficial viewing. So even without proving hypothesis A, you can get a very clear sense of its likely correctness just by looking at the way its detractors argue their case.
The surrealism here comes from the fact that most people know when they are not experts something. But not here!
In my gymnastics example, if I posted on a gymnastics message board, and my whole gymnastics analysis was that I liked some performances and not others, and someone said "watch this video to learn more about gymnastics because you are ignorant about gymnastics" I would say (if I were interested in gymnastics) "well, thanks for the advice" or maybe "sorry, no time to watch that video." I would not insult the poster's maturity, accuse him of being a troll, and try to get him banned. By contrast, for some reason a vocal portion of posters here seem utterly convinced that their opinions are based on sophisticated analyses of acting, plot and form, (even though they never actually post any such analyses) - but when someone says: "here is how to spot nuances you are overlooking" - they get deeply offended.
I will concede that I do not treat people ignorant about drama as dispassionately as I might. But it's people ignorant about drama, people who demand overacting and logic-free plots, who basically control most of television and have insured the cancellation of TNG and the almost complete lack of decent TV shows on the air for the last few decades. I actually don't particularly enjoy being reduced to watching twenty-year-old TNG episodes for the 50th time - but there is literally nothing else on. And the reason there is nothing else is because of these unsophisticated viewers, these "Q was a great actor" and "Inner Light was dull" viewers. So understandably I'm rather peeved, and I have a right to be - they're a big part of the reason TV is such a wasteland.
Last edited:
It's great some people are just so much better at watching tv than other people.
There's actually not much about Star Trek that doesn't "strain credulity" if one is good at watching anything else - especially the world as we actually experience it. Trek's charm at this late date has very little to do with with its plausibility in any other than the most narrowly delineated of terms - we suspend our disbelief because the show entertains us.
During the first year of the series, BTW, Wheaton received more fan mail than all of the other actors combined. He appealed very strongly to the youngsters who formed the spine of the viewership. An important way in which TNG was remarkable and was able to succeed in embedding Star Trek more deeply in the popular psyche than before was that for whatever reason it caught on as a family show - parents would watch with the kids. Over the run of the series most of the characters developed followings. That had not been quite so true with TOS and appears to have been less the case with the succeeding Trek shows.
Rest assured, I read all that through. Thank you for the extensive response, which is very internally consistent/coherent.
I would ask you to consider 2 things in return:
1) your post here is a good example of how to avoid being insulting to others while still sticking to both your principles & your posting style.
It probably took you longer to write than your previous shorter posts, but it certainly doesn't cross any Trolling lines because it explicitly clarifies your intent and logically explains it. Stick to being clear like this, and you can hold whatever opinion you like, have whatever posting style you like, and argue extensively whatever position you choose.
I'm not here to stifle debate, or to determine how people discuss things. I'm just here to correct matters if the rules are breached (and occasionally head things off at the pass).
I can't guarantee other people will actually read such long posts, but you wouldn't risk accumulating warnings, provided you clarify your intent/meaning adequately like this. Some people might still find your opinions overly rigid & concrete, but they wouldn't be able to suggest you're trolling.
As I said my leeway is limited here; you're clearly not an idiot and in fact, your extensive explanatory post proves that you can understand how your posts can sometimes come across. So you're perfectly able to take appropriate precautions to ensure they don't cross the trolling line of being knowingly excessively inflammatory. EDIT TO ADD/CLARIFY: You can't rely on having a sequence of temporally-separate posts later making your intent clear, because your posting style is so relentlessly strident that it has a high risk of riling people up. You need to be sure each post in isolation is also within the rules, or the chances are it will end up getting warnings.
That's all I'm saying.
2) More an observation, this one: you could express the same points in far fewer sentences and with no risk of trolling if you let yourself relax about the topic, showed some tolerance to fellow man, and expressed things less vehemently & more diplomatically. More Picard, less Worf, perhaps.
It's just a message board, after all, and not a significant enough one for our discussions here to really ever change much. But as I say, that's not for me to insist upon; I'm just observing what would make life easier for you and for other readers (and for me!
)
Last edited:
Two points I thought I would respond to.
Earlier I stated I voted "generally like" when it came to Wesley Crusher primarily because of what his character would become as opposed to what it started out to be. It took awhile, but I thought his character did develop over time into an asset for the show. It is my opinion that to truly appreciate any of the characters from TNG, one has to consider them in total, rather than on the presentations of a single episode or season. My implication was clear, then, that overall I thought him a "good" character.
Here you make some good points, and in essence I agree. The majority of what is being broadcast on television today is crap, and unfortunately this has been true for some years. Part of that is due to the nature of the viewer, people who actually watch shows such as "The Real Housewives of Jerkwater" or "Repo-Men" or any number of other absolute trash TV programs. If that is what sells, that is what the producers are going to put on.
Where I disagree is with you characterization of Trek fans. True, it does make me cringe when someone on here makes a comment such as "Q was a good actor", or a comment along those lines, but I get what they are saying. I am not going to belittle them for it, because they have vested some of their time and attention and loyalty to a television show which has proven itself worthy.
Earlier I stated I voted "generally like" when it came to Wesley Crusher primarily because of what his character would become as opposed to what it started out to be. It took awhile, but I thought his character did develop over time into an asset for the show. It is my opinion that to truly appreciate any of the characters from TNG, one has to consider them in total, rather than on the presentations of a single episode or season. My implication was clear, then, that overall I thought him a "good" character.
Here you make some good points, and in essence I agree. The majority of what is being broadcast on television today is crap, and unfortunately this has been true for some years. Part of that is due to the nature of the viewer, people who actually watch shows such as "The Real Housewives of Jerkwater" or "Repo-Men" or any number of other absolute trash TV programs. If that is what sells, that is what the producers are going to put on.
Where I disagree is with you characterization of Trek fans. True, it does make me cringe when someone on here makes a comment such as "Q was a good actor", or a comment along those lines, but I get what they are saying. I am not going to belittle them for it, because they have vested some of their time and attention and loyalty to a television show which has proven itself worthy.
So de Lancie is, empirically, not a good actor?
de Lancie also upstaged some of the regular cast. 
I was so bored watching Breaking Bad and then de Lancie appeared! Oh happy day, but didn't last long enough.
de Lancie is a very good actor. Q is a character on Star Trek. Thus why I would cringe if someone posted "Q is a good actor".
eh, my universal translator works fine and I know what they mean.
And de Lancie IS a good actor
And de Lancie IS a good actor
Nice to know that being told one is ignorant at watching and appreciating good acting on TV isn't considered trolling.
Similar threads
