Why Wasn't Garek In Far Beyond The Stars?
Representative Trantis
Weyoun, etc, out of makeup.
The obvious missing person was Andrew Robinson/Garek.
Why was this?
Gordon aka (The Highlander)
Gordon aka (The Highlander)
Hmm... after a trip to StarTrek.com I know he wasn't in that episode, in
spite of my terrible memory thinking he was. I wonder why he wasn't perhaps
he was unavailable.
Bo Raxo
"Gordon aka (The Highlander)" <Highlan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:blpo9l$eq89i$1...@ID-120397.news.uni-berlin.de...
Or it wouldn't fit the story structure.
Everybody's 1950s character was some kind of comment on their DS9 character
or their role on the show - Weyoun as a prejudiced cop is an easy example.
Or Worf as a big neighborhood star, since his character is exactly that in
the Trek universe and was brought on the show for that reason. Kassidy was
his girlfriend in both worlds. Odo as the practical-minded fellow among a
group of dreamers. Kira and Bashir as a couple, as the actors are in real
life. Etc.
Garak's character is a complicated position, and the idea of the exile you
can't quite trust might have been a bad fit for the storyline.
Or, maybe they had maxed out the guest star budget already!
Peter Griffen
"Representative Trantis" <a...@a.com> wrote in message
news:blp9a5$6lt$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Because he doesn't wear makeup. That is is face. He has bad skin but is
really sensitive about it so shhhhh.
Snake
Can someone remind my little pea brain of what episode you are referring
to?
Thanks.
DevilsPGD
<fluidNOstatesSPAM...@mindpspring.com> did ramble:
>> Because he doesn't wear makeup. That is is face. He has bad skin but is
>> really sensitive about it so shhhhh.
>
>Can someone remind my little pea brain of what episode you are referring
>to?
Far Beyond The Stars?
That's where Sisko dreams up a reality where he's a black scifi writer
being oppressed because his stories contain a black captain.
--
If you've had half as much fun reading this as I've had writing it, I've had twice as much fun as you.
Snake
>
> In message <<3F80D6...@mindpspring.com>> Snake
> <fluidNOstatesSPAM...@mindpspring.com> did ramble:
> >
> >to?
>
> Far Beyond The Stars?
>
> That's where Sisko dreams up a reality where he's a black scifi writer
> being oppressed because his stories contain a black captain.
Thank you.
VernonT
> who can't handle the theme of racial oppression in the story.
> Somehow, "civil rights" is a dirty word to Limbaugh-lovin' dittoheads.
Not sure how this thread degraded into this,, but civil rights belong to all
Americans
not just the liberal ones.
machf
<n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <blp9a5$6lt$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, Representative Trantis
><a...@a.com> wrote:
>
>> During season 6 DS9 featured a story with all of the semi-regulars, Dukat,
>> Weyoun, etc, out of makeup.
>>
>> The obvious missing person was Andrew Robinson/Garak.
>>
>> Why was this?
>
>They probably just couldn't find a role for Robinson to play.
Oh, they could have cast him as a psychotic serial killer, you know...
--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(
remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying
EQ
<n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <facafb63.03100...@posting.google.com>, Salty
>Phlegm <salty...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> "Far Beyond The Stars", which apparently upset some right-wing viewers
>> who can't handle the theme of racial oppression in the story.
>
>Not to this right-winger, it wasn't. It was one of my favorite eps.
>(Although I did wish they'd have found some role for Andrew Robinson to
>play. Maybe if they'd shifted it ahead a few years he could have
>played JFK, like he did in the 80's Twilight Zone once...)
Or he could have reprised his role in the first Dirty Harry... :^)
>
>> Somehow, "civil rights" is a dirty word to Limbaugh-lovin' dittoheads.
>
>Don't confuse all right-wingers with dittoheads. I think Limbaugh is a
>goofball, I never listen to his stuff. :)
Personally, I think Limbaugh should not have resigned from ESPN.
Hell, he was there to give his opinion, no??
EQ
Peter Griffen
"Salty Phlegm" <salty...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:facafb63.03100...@posting.google.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Snake <fluidNOstatesSPAM...@mindpspring.com> wrote in
message news:<3F80D6...@mindpspring.com>...
> > Can someone remind my little pea brain of what episode you are referring
> > to?
> who can't handle the theme of racial oppression in the story.
A common misconception created by liberals to slander the right. Civil
rights aren't a bad word to right wingers, forced racial inequality through
law and PC eliminating ones free speech is another. Right Wingers want
everyone to be equal. Liberals want everyone to be victimized so they
believe they need help so they keep the liberals in power.
Put it this way, the more people are poor and suffering, the more power
Liberals get, and it is in their best interest to get as many people to be
victims, poor and suffering then anyone.
Republicans benefit if everyone is rich and happy....
The liberal democrat agenda is to get more people suffering and victimized,
and to pass legislation which creates more problems so that they can claim
to have solutions and gain power. Like a doctor creating malicious viruses
and diseases, letting them loose, then telling everyone if they give him a
lot of money he'll cure them (nobody realizing he let it out in the first
place).
The problem with republicans is they are too simple and trusting. Trying to
create a level playing field without racism or the things which would
promote it so the country can be more wealthy and its people more happy and
comfortable.
Matt Griffin
Peter Griffen wrote:
Oh, what crap.
You know what this reminds me of? When Republicans compare themselves to the
Kennedys or King. I'd laugh about it if bozos like you didn't buy it. Your
demonizing of "Liberals" is prima facie bogus and you ought to be ashamed of
yourself.
Republicans have their own version of affirmitive action, you know, in the form
of subsidies, tax breaks, and contracts to corporations like Haliburton,
Bechtel, and Worldcom. In what way is that levelling the playing field? I
think it's more like carpet bombing the field.
ATN082268
>From: Matt Griffin deed...@earthlink.net
>Date: 10/7/03 1:24 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3F830518...@earthlink.net>
>Republicans have their own version of affirmitive action, you know, in the
>form
>of subsidies, tax breaks, and contracts to corporations like Haliburton,
>Bechtel, and Worldcom. In what way is that levelling the playing field? I
>think it's more like carpet bombing the field.
>
>Matt Griffin deed...@earthlink.net
I agree subsidies are bad although a number of them, such as that massive
Farm subsidy program that went through the Federal government a little while
back, are supported by Democrats as well as Republicans. And I wouldn't define
keeping more of what you earn (also known as tax breaks) as a form of race and
gender preferences (also known as affirmative action). If you think leveling
the playing field involves taking money from one person and giving it to
another, then the Republicans are certainly guilty of non-compliance and I
happily vote for them because of that.
-ATN
********************
I vote Republican because it is the party which most effectively support the
concepts that people have a right only to money they earn and that people
should be held accountable only for their own actions.
Peter Griffen
"Matt Griffin" <deed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F830518...@earthlink.net...
Look at the facts.
Liberal Democrats want more people to suffer, it helps their evil agenda.
Summit Wind
http://ds9encyclopedia.0catch.com/epguide/farbeyon.htm
Scroll all the way down.
--
~Summit Wind
HAIL to the greatest advance in mass miscommunication that is The Internet!
(To contact me, make a VERY obvious change to my email address)
Matt Griffin
Peter Griffen wrote:
> "
>
> Look at the facts.
>
> Liberal Democrats want more people to suffer, it helps their evil agenda.
Uhhh... Now I get it. Yes, you've convinced me.
As we say in the gourmet food business, your cheese seems to have slipped off
your cracker.
Matt Griffin
ATN082268 wrote:
So if you were to put this in fairy tale terms, you could say that you prefer
Prince Richard's approach to that of Robin Hood.
ATN082268
>Prince Richard's approach to that of Robin Hood.
>
How about we put this in real terms? I don't think that if one person makes
100,000 dollars a year, that any of that money should go to another person
making 25,000 dollars a year because that person makes less, is irresponsible,
etc; The Republicans aren't perfect with respect to this concept but they do a
*far* better job than the Democrats. Just look at which party opposes tax cuts
and supports higher tax rates on higher income. And if you asked 10,000 random
people if it was O.K. if another person had a right to *their* money, how many
would say it was O.K.?
Peter Griffen
No, unlike the democratic party, Robin Hood didn't do things to force people
to become poor and suffering, just so he could hand them less money then he
took and proclaim "I'm here to help, stay on my side."
Peter Griffen
Do democrats want people to stop suffering? Do they actually want to help
people?
If they did they would lose all their power. It doesn't help them to help
others, it helps them to claim to help others while causing more suffering
and strife. I'm sorry if you are unable to handle the sad truth about this
party.
Michael Alvarez
"Salty Phlegm" <salty...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:facafb63.03100...@posting.google.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Snake <fluidNOstatesSPAM...@mindpspring.com> wrote in
message news:<3F80D6...@mindpspring.com>...
> > to?
> who can't handle the theme of racial oppression in the story.
> Somehow, "civil rights" is a dirty word to Limbaugh-lovin' dittoheads.
[...And so on, and so forth going back and forth between viewpoints]
So...uh, guys and gals. How ABOUT that DS9? And why wasn't Andrew Robinson
in "Far Beyond The Stars"?
Did anybody other than me find Sisko's breakdown scene to be completely over
the top in the grand tradition of overacting Star Trek captains everywhere?
: )
Mike (Odo's the dog--ARF!!)
Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr.
Limbaugh resigned for safety reasons. His fellow commentators were
ready to attack him physically.
Greg Heilers
Thank God, someone else on this group can see the obvious, and realize
what is the truth....
--
Greg Heilers
SlackWare Linux user
Registered Linux User #328317
.....
"The way I see it, I figure the YANKEES had
something to do with it."
- Maj. Gen. George Pickett, when asked
where the fault lie for the Confederacy's
loss at Gettysburg
Matt Griffin
My last answer to any of these posts.
My previous post in this sub thread was flippant. Also, I meant Prince John, but
confused him with Richard the Lion Hearted (had to mention that, it was bugging
me).
You're being awfully judgmental in assuming that just because somebody makes more
money, they're more responsible. In fact, the ideas I'm hearing from you are
somewhat sweeping and simplistic, and don't seem to have much to do with people's
"real" lives at all. Leaving that aside, I don't feel the Republican "solution"
to our various social woes make much sense. They really aren't about solutions,
in any sense. The Republicans are all about shoring up the saggy status quo by
definition. What else do you think "conservative" means?
But they don't even do a good job of that. They reduce the taxes of the wealthy,
make huge presents of taxpayers' money to huge corporations, and in the process
mortgage our country's future in the name of short term profit. Every Republican
administration since the sixties has grown the national debt to previously
unimagined heights. Both Bush administrations have had recessions, huge
corporate scandals, and wars in the Persian gulf where all the oil is. Most of
the world can see that these guys are a pack of robber barons out for what they
can rape and pillage. But the angry white male in this country only looks at his
pay stub and sees conspiracies against him in the "tax withheld" column. He
listens to talk radio and hears the voice of "reason" in the paranoia and racism
of folks like Rush Limbaugh, who tell him that every one else in the world is out
to get him and his money -- never once wondering if it's really true or why that
might be even if it is. The Republican powers that be are really good at
twisting suburban middle management's concerns about making the house payment and
the car payment and sending the kids to college into rationalizations for
screwing over the poor in our country, exploiting developing nations, destroying
the environment and incarcerating more of our own citizenry than any other
developed nation. It's the triumph of the powerful and conscienceless and in the
end it all comes down to greed and fear as it always has.
Their greed and your fear of losing a little piece of the pie -- the crumbs from
their table.
Sorry to have done this, I'm finished with the quotidian on this list...
Jon King
them an excuse to use the military. No terrorist attacks = no need to
increase the military budget, and no Patriot Act, etc. Bush's strongestest
support is in his handling of the terrorist threat. Someone cynical could
say that he wants people to be scared so that they'll re-elect him.
"Peter Griffen" <do...@spam.me.com> wrote in message
news:0s%gb.2497$ZH4....@twister.socal.rr.com...
EQ
A strong military is needed, not because of the threat of terrorist
attacks, but of the continuous threat to peace. As long there are
those who feel they have the right to take what they have not earned,
the right to inflict pain on those that they do not like, the right to
create dissent and discord where peace and prosperity prevail, as long
as there are people like that, a strong military is needed.
"True peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of
justice."
A strong military insures that justice will prevail.
In other words....
"Peace... Thru superior firepower."
EQ
Peter Griffen
they claim they will fix.
The Democratic party is the most evil party because they claim to be the
good guys.
"Jon King" <jdkin...@prodigy.net-nospam> wrote in message
news:1Pnhb.10369$bg3...@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
Peter Griffen
"EQ" <e...@eqadh.com> wrote in message
news:464covco318fjbfmj...@4ax.com...
> Sorry, but that argument just doesn't hold water.
>
> A strong military is needed, not because of the threat of terrorist
> attacks, but of the continuous threat to peace. As long there are
> those who feel they have the right to take what they have not earned,
> the right to inflict pain on those that they do not like, the right to
> create dissent and discord where peace and prosperity prevail, as long
> as there are people like that, a strong military is needed.
>
> "True peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of
> justice."
>
> A strong military insures that justice will prevail.
>
> In other words....
>
> "Peace... Thru superior firepower."
>
Don't try to use logic! We take away the guns from all the legal people,
and leave the criminals as the only ones who have them, then we can finally
have peace.
The Merry Piper
>Sorry, but that argument just doesn't hold water.
>
>A strong military is needed, not because of the threat of terrorist
>attacks, but of the continuous threat to peace. As long there are
>those who feel they have the right to take what they have not earned,
>the right to inflict pain on those that they do not like, the right to
>create dissent and discord where peace and prosperity prevail, as long
>as there are people like that, a strong military is needed.
>
>"True peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of
>justice."
>
>A strong military insures that justice will prevail.
>
>In other words....
>
>"Peace... Thru superior firepower."
Doesn't having "superior" firepower merely insure that everyone else
will strive to obtain that firepower also? Similar to our cold war
with Russia or the Kirk's dilemma in "A Private Little War"? Wouldn't
a better solution be to work toward obtaining peace? It would seem to
me that a peace obtained by having the biggest guns on the block would
last only as long as you have the biggest guns on the block.
Nothing wrong, btw, with preparing for war. It is my opinion that a
peace that evolved from understanding would be more enduring than one
that evolved from fear.
Respectfully submitted,
--
Piper
http://www.livejournal.com/users/tmpiper/
(Take your coat off to send an e-mail)
EQ
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 06:16:27 GMT, "Peter Griffen" <do...@spam.me.com>
wrote:
>
>"EQ" <e...@eqadh.com> wrote in message
>news:464covco318fjbfmj...@4ax.com...
>> Sorry, but that argument just doesn't hold water.
>>
>> A strong military is needed, not because of the threat of terrorist
>> attacks, but of the continuous threat to peace. As long there are
>> those who feel they have the right to take what they have not earned,
>> the right to inflict pain on those that they do not like, the right to
>> create dissent and discord where peace and prosperity prevail, as long
>> as there are people like that, a strong military is needed.
>>
>> "True peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of
>> justice."
>>
>> A strong military insures that justice will prevail.
>>
>> In other words....
>>
>> "Peace... Thru superior firepower."
>>
>
>Don't try to use logic! We take away the guns from all the legal people,
>and leave the criminals as the only ones who have them, then we can finally
>have peace.
>
>
Ever read the Stephen Coonts novel UNDER SEIGE??
A unique but effective answer for criminal justice...
EQ
EQ
You are absolutely correct.
Peace should be obtained thru understanding. The understanding that
one better be peaceful or said one is gonna get their asses kicked.
:^)
Seriously, I hear what you are saying and you are correct.
However, in the imperfect world we live in understanding comes from
respect. And no one respects a wimp who is not prepared to defend his
own freedom.
In another group that I frequent, there is a guy who is always
professing, "Peace always follows war." and "The longer the war, the
longer the peace."
I can't fault those statements, as history has proven them true time
and time again..
EQ
The Merry Piper
LOL!
>Seriously, I hear what you are saying and you are correct.
>
>However, in the imperfect world we live in understanding comes from
>respect. And no one respects a wimp who is not prepared to defend his
>own freedom.
>
>In another group that I frequent, there is a guy who is always
>professing, "Peace always follows war." and "The longer the war, the
>longer the peace."
>
>I can't fault those statements, as history has proven them true time
>and time again..
You know, I never really thought about it that way. I'm curious as to
what a sociologist would make of that. Fear of the victor? Economic
depletion from fighting the war? Horror at the first hand knowledge
of what war is? Interesting point.
EQ
<merry_p...@COATyahoo.com> wrote:
My guess is that people are tired of the horror you mention. Tired of
the fighting, tired of the day to day existence.
WWII is a perfect example. In the years after WWII Stalin killed twice
as many people as Hitler did. But the world was weary of war and
Stalin was given carte blanche. For a time..
EQ
Everyone
>
> [...And so on, and so forth going back and forth between viewpoints]
>
> Did anybody other than me find Sisko's breakdown scene to be completely over
> the top in the grand tradition of overacting Star Trek captains everywhere?
>
> : )
>
> Mike (Odo's the dog--ARF!!)
Yup, it was pretty over the top, but he wasn't really a "Star Trek captain" at
the time, was he? It was a very strange episode that way. I wasn't really sure
if he had full recollection all his memories at that time, and he certainly had
a rather different personality.
It was fun to see the cast without their normal makeup and uniforms. It's too
bad that usenet (as usual) devolves into a boring political flamewar because of
the subject matter.
Bo Raxo
"Michael Alvarez" <mik...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Cz1hb.3527$dn6....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
> So...uh, guys and gals. How ABOUT that DS9? And why wasn't Andrew
Robinson
> in "Far Beyond The Stars"?
>
> Did anybody other than me find Sisko's breakdown scene to be completely
over
> the top in the grand tradition of overacting Star Trek captains
everywhere?
>
> : )
No, I didn't think it was over the top at all. Hawk was always very
intense. I just kept expecting Spencer to show up and bust him out o' that
joint.
Snake
But my personal problem with Brooks' acting is that Hawk was /too/ much
like Sisko. Yes, in answer to M. Alvarez' post there were many scenes
in DS9 where I felt Brooks went _way_ over the top in. From the
overdramatic pauses to the gestures and body language his acting style
got my goat sometimes. And then to remember back to Hawk, the
comparision was just too close - sometimes I wondered if I was watching
Deep Space Nine or Spencer for Hire: In the 24th (and 1/2) century. I
was waiting for Creighton to pop out of a corner and raise his neck in
disgust.
Or maybe Porky coming up a turbolift (the Command deck's turbolift does
have overtones of that)...
Bo Raxo
"Snake" <fluidNOstatesSPAM...@mindpspring.com> wrote in
message news:3F8754...@mindpspring.com...
You put it very well. Sisko was my favorite character on DS9, but Brooks'
acting seemed to vary a lot from episode to episode. Sometimes he really
seemed to have the right touch, and sometimes it looked like a bad acting
class exercise. Maybe it was different directors, I dunno.
For a contrast, look at his job in the two-parter where they travel back in
time to 21st century San Francisco and end up in a homeless camp. He was
outstanding throughout.
Brooks' biggest problem was doing humorous scenes. Everyone else in the
cast was good at the comic stuff, and he just came across as stiff and
awkward.
Snake
> Brooks' biggest problem was doing humorous scenes. Everyone else in the
> cast was good at the comic stuff, and he just came across as stiff and
> awkward.
Hmmm. Then it was the director's fault for not working with that as
best he could. Just letting an actor sit in a scene that he felt
uncomfortable in, and not performing well as his part was written, is a
directing error. Something should have been changed to accomodate the
issue.
Peter Griffen
"Snake" <fluidNOstatesSPAM...@mindpspring.com> wrote in
message news:3F875A...@mindpspring.com...
The directors were taking crap from the producers that they had to pump the
episode out quick. Time is money, get the shot and get it in the can.
Greg Heilers
>
> Brooks' biggest problem was doing humorous scenes. Everyone else in the
> cast was good at the comic stuff, and he just came across as stiff and
> awkward.
Just one of many reasons why comedy has NEVER really worked in Trek. It
almost always seems "forced". Just look at ST-IV "Bore Us With The
Whales"; and ST-V "See How Bad I Can Direct". These were downright
embarrassing in the "humor" scenes.
I think Brooks was actually UNDERSTATED in his performance in the first
couple of seasons. Like Frakes, growing the beard seemed to help the
character grow, and also improved the performance.
--
Greg Heilers
SlackWare Linux user
Registered Linux User #328317
.....
"The way I see it, I figure the YANKEES had
something to do with it."
- Maj. Gen. George Pickett, when asked
where the fault lie for the Confederacy's
loss at Gettysburg
The Merry Piper
<gNOSPAM...@earthNOSPAMlink.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 01:02:34 +0000, Bo Raxo wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Brooks' biggest problem was doing humorous scenes. Everyone else in the
>> cast was good at the comic stuff, and he just came across as stiff and
>> awkward.
>
>
>Just one of many reasons why comedy has NEVER really worked in Trek. It
>almost always seems "forced". Just look at ST-IV "Bore Us With The
>Whales"; and ST-V "See How Bad I Can Direct". These were downright
>embarrassing in the "humor" scenes.
Did you like TOS:The Trouble with Tribbles?
Greg Heilers
>>
>
> Don't try to use logic! We take away the guns from all the legal people,
> and leave the criminals as the only ones who have them, then we can finally
> have peace.
>
That's funny. It reminds me of a public debate I partook in a few years
ago, along the same issue. My "liberal" adversary accused me of
"distorting the issue by introducing the FACTS"!
Greg Heilers
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:56:33 GMT, "Greg Heilers"
> <gNOSPAM...@earthNOSPAMlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 01:02:34 +0000, Bo Raxo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Brooks' biggest problem was doing humorous scenes. Everyone else in the
>>> cast was good at the comic stuff, and he just came across as stiff and
>>> awkward.
>>
>>
>>Just one of many reasons why comedy has NEVER really worked in Trek. It
>>almost always seems "forced". Just look at ST-IV "Bore Us With The
>>Whales"; and ST-V "See How Bad I Can Direct". These were downright
>>embarrassing in the "humor" scenes.
>
> Did you like TOS:The Trouble with Tribbles?
It was simply "okay" to me. Some of the "humor" was nice and subtle,
other parts were forced, in my opinion. I have always found the
McCoy/Spock "humorous bantering" quite forced. Chekov's humor scenes
are ALWAYS forced. Scotty was usually "over the top".
The episode "I Mudd" was a prime example of "forced".
My main complaint is epitomized in the way the humor was handles in ST-IV.
The gang was racing against the clock, to save the universe as they know
it. I find it implausible that they would do so much "joking around"
in such a circumstance.
Then again, I have never been a fan of "actors" or "acting" in general.
To me, the "actor" is no more important than the gaffer, the "best boy",
the caterer, etc. It is the writing, directing, cinematography, etc.,
which I look at.
Greg Heilers
>
> WWII is a perfect example. In the years after WWII Stalin killed twice
> as many people as Hitler did. But the world was weary of war and
> Stalin was given carte blanche. For a time..
>
>
> EQ
Careful...careful.....
I made the same simple, and historically correct, observation
several weeks ago. It seems to have really offended some
people whom I shall not name (* Mr. "P P" *)...lol.
Geez...I hope this does not start another tired thread...lol
The Merry Piper
<gNOSPAM...@earthNOSPAMlink.net> wrote:
>Geez...I hope this does not start another tired thread...lol
An 'energetic' thread, OTOH ... :-D
Michael Alvarez
"Everyone" <for...@it.com> wrote in message news:3F86BD73...@it.com...
> Michael Alvarez wrote:
>
> >
> > [...And so on, and so forth going back and forth between viewpoints]
> >
> > Did anybody other than me find Sisko's breakdown scene to be completely
over
> > the top in the grand tradition of overacting Star Trek captains
everywhere?
> >
> > : )
> >
> > Mike (Odo's the dog--ARF!!)
>
> Yup, it was pretty over the top, but he wasn't really a "Star Trek
captain" at
> the time, was he?
My bad. I misspoke. Should have said "actors portraying Star Trek
captains".
I've got a friend who really has a problem with Avery Brooks' acting.
Personally, I think he did fine. A few rough spots here and there, but even
Patrick "Shakespearean Ac-TOR" Stewart had his bad days.
machf
wrote:
>
>"Everyone" <for...@it.com> wrote in message news:3F86BD73...@it.com...
>> Michael Alvarez wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > [...And so on, and so forth going back and forth between viewpoints]
>> >
>> > Did anybody other than me find Sisko's breakdown scene to be completely
>over
>> > the top in the grand tradition of overacting Star Trek captains
>everywhere?
>> >
>> > : )
>> >
>> > Mike (Odo's the dog--ARF!!)
>>
>> Yup, it was pretty over the top, but he wasn't really a "Star Trek
>captain" at
>> the time, was he?
>
>
>My bad. I misspoke. Should have said "actors portraying Star Trek
>captains".
>
No, he means he actually was an actor portraying a 1950s SF writer...
--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(
remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying
Bo Raxo
"Greg Heilers" <gNOSPAM...@earthNOSPAMlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.11....@earthNOSPAMlink.net...
>
> Then again, I have never been a fan of "actors" or "acting" in general.
> To me, the "actor" is no more important than the gaffer, the "best boy",
> the caterer, etc. It is the writing, directing, cinematography, etc.,
> which I look at.
>
> --
>
> Greg Heilers
> SlackWare Linux user
> Registered Linux User #328317
> .....
No wonder you like Linux so much. No interest in the beautiful face, it's
the robustness of the internal workings that matters to you.
Me, I'm shallow. I'll take a high-maintenance pretty face any day.
Send in the blondes! There should be blondes!
Don't bother - they're here.
Bo Raxo
Was perfectly happy with an Apple II.
Michael Alvarez
"machf" <no_me_...@terra.com.pe> wrote in message
news:9n3iov0lc5ebsbcb4...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:40:57 GMT, "Michael Alvarez"
<mik...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Everyone" <for...@it.com> wrote in message
news:3F86BD73...@it.com...
> >> Michael Alvarez wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > [...And so on, and so forth going back and forth between viewpoints]
> >> >
> >> > Did anybody other than me find Sisko's breakdown scene to be
completely
> >over
> >> > the top in the grand tradition of overacting Star Trek captains
> >everywhere?
> >> >
> >> > : )
> >> >
> >> > Mike (Odo's the dog--ARF!!)
> >>
> >> Yup, it was pretty over the top, but he wasn't really a "Star Trek
> >captain" at
> >> the time, was he?
> >
> >
> >My bad. I misspoke. Should have said "actors portraying Star Trek
> >captains".
> >
> No, he means he actually was an actor portraying a 1950s SF writer...
>
comment, I was referring to the fact that overacting is an honored Star Trek
tradition that started with the esteemed Mr. Shatner. My apologies for any
mixups.
Mike
machf
wrote:
Yes, I know... but I think the nitpick was that Avery Brooks was playing
Benny Russell in that scene, rather than Benjamin Sisko.
Zombie Elvis
and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness: machf
<no_me_...@terra.com.pe> wrote in
<ne2novsg1s9g8r56n...@4ax.com>:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 04:33:33 GMT, "Michael Alvarez" <mik...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"machf" <no_me_...@terra.com.pe> wrote in message
> >news:9n3iov0lc5ebsbcb4...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:40:57 GMT, "Michael Alvarez"
> ><mik...@mindspring.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Everyone" <for...@it.com> wrote in message
> >news:3F86BD73...@it.com...
> >> >> Yup, it was pretty over the top, but he wasn't really a "Star Trek
> >> >captain" at
> >> >> the time, was he?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >My bad. I misspoke. Should have said "actors portraying Star Trek
> >> >captains".
> >> >
> >> No, he means he actually was an actor portraying a 1950s SF writer...
> >>
> >I'm not sure I'm following you Marco. At any rate, when I made my original
> >comment, I was referring to the fact that overacting is an honored Star Trek
> >tradition that started with the esteemed Mr. Shatner. My apologies for any
> >mixups.
> >
> Yes, I know... but I think the nitpick was that Avery Brooks was playing
> Benny Russell in that scene, rather than Benjamin Sisko.
So in "The Paradise Syndrome" William Shatner was actually playing
"Kirok" the medicine chief?
--
"I am First Omet'iklan, and I am dead. As of this moment, we are all
dead. We go into battle to reclaim our lives. This we do gladly, for
we are Jem'Hadar. Remember, victory is life."
-- Omet'iklan
"I am Chief Miles Edward O'Brien. I'm very much alive, and I intend
to *stay* that way."
-- O'Brien
Roberto Castillo
roberto...@ameritech.net
http://www.freewebs.com/robertocastillo/
machf
There's a difference: while Kirok was just an amnesic Kirk, it never becomes
clear whether Benny Russell was a figment of Sisko's imagination, or the other
way around, or maybe even two different persons living in different places at
different times but somehow linked together...
BeliB
is not only a far comparison to your "the Democrats want to keep people poor
and suffering to be heroes" statement, it is also the truth. The Republicans do
want to keep Americans in a state of constant fear so they can justify any
expenditure that will benefit their corporate friends.
The current Democratic party on the other hand did not create the inherent
social injustices of this country, and they don't have any solutions, only stop
gap measures to make sure that this nation doesn't blow itself apart before we
can find solutions. For example, racial equality is a solution, affirmative
action is a measure to bridge the gap from a openly racist society that
devalues minorities to a equal society that values, acknowledges and pays an
equal compensation for the contribution of all races.
Republicans succeed in doing one thing right--they manage to pit the poor
against the poorer while the richest 2% continue to live happily without the
threat of a real "class struggle." If the bottom 98% of us would stick together
to make the top 2% pay their fair share, and demand a decent minimum wage
without the threat of losing our jobs to a child worker in the third world,
then we would see a great deal of economic and social progress in the USA.
bb