Looking back at Avery Brooks' acting over the past seven years has made me wonder if he is a good or bad actor. I shy toward the bad side. What do you think?

Crumby - does that mean he likes cookies???

I was never happy with his over-emphasis on diction, especially when, for example, one word ended with an 's' and the next one started with an 's' - he'd separate the words in a very unnatural way. Other than that he was OK but not exactly Emmy/Oscar material.

It still amazes how many people have overlooked his poor acting in "In the Pale Moonlight":

"Starfleet officers are dying and I ....am debating.... the fine points.... of morality?"

Or how about "Rules of Engagement?"

"Tell me .... Is it..... possible?"

I did like his speech at the end of "Way the Warrior" and the one at the end of "Call to Arms." They were perfect.

A couple of other scenes also stick out with me. "The Search, pt. II."

"I want to know what the hell is going on. I want to know why my science officer has been reassigned without my consent. I want to why my Chief of operations is lying in the infirmary, while the Jem'Hadar who beat him is free to walk around the station. And I want to why we are willing to sign a treaty with a group we barely know or barely even trust."

Or "Paradise Lost."

"You want to talk to me about loyalty? After you betrayed your oath, lied to the people of earth, and ordered one of our own ships to fire on another!"

Overall I think he is still a good actor.

Perhaps it should be spelled "crummy"? Not that I agree with this topic whatsoever.

I think the question should be: is he stage acting too much for a TV show? Sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't. Whatever it is though, the guy has PRESENCE, a great rumbling voice, and can really project menace when he wants to. So even when something does not (or should not) really work, it's still OK (even if not great) most of the time.

E.g. I felt he overdid Benny Russell's tears, hysteria and lines towards the end of Far Beyond the Stars (when he comes back from hospital and his story is not published), and I even felt like giggling a bit. Yet, I was still kind of moved by the whole over-the-top scene, and felt for Benny even as he was crying and curled up on the floor. Don't ask me how both can be possible simultaneously.

I really don't think he is a bad actor. He just has a very dramatic presence!!! He can do it, with hysterics and he can do it subtlely.(In my opinion) I also think he does a good job using his eyes, to express his feelings while speaking his lines. Maybe I too, feel it was a bit dramatic in "Far Beyond The Stars" but then, maybe the feeling of that particular moment should be acted just in that way!

As Hawk on Spencer for Hire, all those verbal ticks and manerisms were part of the character's charm. On DS9 they just seemed odd.

Yes, those sudden pauses in speeches are somewhat irritating- although he has managed to get rid of them once or twice. As Phil once pointed out, he yells at Worf and Dax in the early on in "Sons of Mogh". He does the same (and really makes the episodes worthwhile so doing) in his battle with Eddington in "For the Uniform" and to Jake and Nog in "In the Cards".

I too have wavered in my opinion of his acting. There is one scene that sticks with me, though. Sisko and Quark are captives of the Jem Hadar, and are talking in a cave. Quark is listing all the horrible things that hu-mahns have done -- war, slavery, etc. At the mention of "slavery" there was a fire in Sisko's eyes that said so much more than any words could have.

There's no denying that Avery Brooks has PRESENCE. I believe that he speaks with over-emphasis in real life- I have on tape a 1994 Larry King show featuring Berman, Dorn, Sirtis, Nana Visitor, Rene and Avery. King kept on commenting on Avery's quirky speech patterns, particulary how he kept on asking himself questions (and answering them!).

I think Brooks is a fine actor, especially in the more family-oriented scenes, but as a commander, either 1) he is getting bad direction or 2) he's not suited for the part.

I have tried to figure out why I like Kirk better than Sisko, because they both rant and rave a lot and they both have that weird enunciation thing going. I think it's that a lot of Sisko's anger seems misplaced or badly timed, whereas Kirk's is somehow more believable.

There is something that separates good acting from excellent acting. Generally speaking, when the audience is aware that an actor is acting, it is not excellent acting.
I state this because although I enjoy the Trek shows (yes, even Voyager) there are some actors that do a better job than others. Avery Brooks and Kate Mulgrew are good actors, but they are not excellent. There are many scenes in which the two act (seprately, not together) that I stop and say, s/he did a good job with that. In other words, when they stopped "being" the captain, and were "acting" like the captain, the audience also fails to see the captain and becomes aware of the actor.
Oddly, this can be seen for Mulgrew during the scene with 7o9 when 7 is first separated from the Borg. Seven is racked with the pain of fear and isolation, and the viewer (at least myself) feels deep sympathy for the character. Then when Janeway tries to comfort the lost creature, I found myself aware that Mulgrew was playing a part and "acting" through the scene. Avery Brooks falls into a similar trap with his acting on DS9. This tends to be especially true whenever he is required to give a speech.

Speaking Avery Brooks/Sisko's defense, I think he pulled the part off quite well. At the show's beginning, here was a man who had lost his beloved wife (and nearly his son) in events more traumatic than any of us can imagine. He didn't even get to bury her. Events like this tend to make a person suppress their emotions, often for many years. He clearly expressed his displeasure at being assigned to DS9, and was considering retiring from Starfleet. For the first three seasons he came across as an emotionally repressed man who was not comfortable with his job, and that's exactly what the role was meant to be. Even while giving, speeches, he didn't quite know what to do with his feelings. I think this only added strength to his emotionally troubled character. Towards the end of season three, he began to become more comfortable in his job, and apparantly came to terms with his wife's death. I think meeting Kassidy had a lot to do with that. As the series progressed, he became a much more confident, and comfortable with his emotions. Whether all this was intended, or if Brooks just became more comfortable with the character, I can't say. But I enjoyed every minute of it.

Why is Avery Brooks, an actor who has excellent diction, spouting that pointless twaddle for IBM?(When you post your first message with the Nitpickers' Guild, that is an epiphany.)

When you realize that Avery Brooks gets paid for spouting that pointless twaddle for IBM, that is an epiphany.

I think the real question here is why isn't he advertising for Cisco systems?

I'm OK with Brooks' acting, about the same as Kirk's (which was also over the top). Kate Mulgrew seems better, and Patrick Stewart just plain kicks ass. I tend to blame the writing though. They're bad during speeches because they overemphasize them. Picard gets off easy because he's a more reserved character who doesn't show much emotion. Nevertheless, when he does, he does it WELL.

Does someone at IBM read this site? I don't see the pointless twaddle anymore. Now, I see that guy from "Blossom" comparing the size of computers.

Brooks is aweful. He talks like a robot.

"These...shapes.....I know...what they....mean."

I think you're confusing him with William Shatner! ;^)

That is an epiphany!

Brooks has that hilarious, "speak through your teeth and over-EMPHASIZE-every-OTHER word" kinda speak. His big speech in the episode when he's a '50s Sci-fi writer is one of the best example of this, and had me rolling in the aisles when I saw it.

Thats right Spornan. Again, it was all meaningless twaddle. "You cannot kill . . . an idEEEAAA. You cannot . . . . KILL . . an idea. I CREEAAAATED it . . . and it is REEEEAL."

Even worse was the bit where he thought he was going mad. I cannot believe the director allowed Brooks to hit the piano a few times for dramatic effect before falling down. That must be the most pathetic moment in the whole of Star Trek. Can you imagine anyone taking Macbeth seriously if that were included as he went insane?

I thought the episode was partly saved by the first mention of the Bible in Star Trek as far as I am aware. The impression was always given that they had burned every copy by the time Picard was born.

Peter.

Wasn't Brooks the director of that episode as well?

It wouldn't surprise me. Other directors might demand higher standards, but Sisko would not and allowed himself to perform terribly.

Peter.

I think that Brooks is a good actor but his style of acting is better suited to the stage than the screen. Stage actors have to express more emotion with their voices than screen actors because when you are on a stage everyone in the crowd can not see all of the subtle neuonces (sp) of your face and gestures. On the screen that is what the close-ups are for, and acting like a stage actor comes off as over acting

Me and my family watch DS9 a lot and we have decided that we don't think Brooks is a particularly good actor. As you've all mentioned above, he pauses a great deal and it doesn't seem natural. We refer to this as "the Sisko School of Acting" and we look out for other characters who seem to have attended this school. The first we got was Calvin Hudson, of "The Maquis" two parter. Anyone think of any more?

"Rapture" was another great Sisko showcase. I honestly thought Avery Brooks was going to choke himself to death when he burst into the climactic wardroom scene and spluttered his words out...

"It's TOO SOOOOON!"

*sigh* Great, now I feel like an outcast (which I partially am, among many of my peers[I hate teenagers] for reasons I will not go into). Only a few others like Avery Brooks.

Well, I think BWH pretty much covered it.

Sisko was a great character, and Avery Brooks made him real. Just brought him to life.

I like Avery, Cynical Chick. He's not my *very* favorite, but I do enjoy him, particularly the interaction with Cirroc.

I kinda agree with Spornan and Brian. Sometimes his attempts to be emotional come off badly. The bit where he speaks into the camera and says, "People were DYING!..." in In the Pale Moonlight comes to mind, as does his weird reaction to Jake making a mild joke while packing his bag in the first scene of The Ascent. In other ways, however, Brooks is okay. His anger at the end of the teaser of A Time to Stand, when he puts his fist through the top of the one of the consoles was a cool shot. I also like understated, restrained way he sometimes presents otherwise important lines, like when the Intendant vowed to hunt him down at the end of Through the Looking Glass, and he replied that she was welcome to try.

And by the way, it is "Crummy," not "crumby."

A much more important question is "Avery Brooks, with hair or without?"

Hard to decide. I personally prefer the combinations of:
1) Brooks with hair and in the original DS9 uniform, or
2) Brooks without hair and in the newer (First Contact) uniform.

"I thought the episode was partly saved by the first mention of the Bible in Star Trek as far as I am aware. The impression was always given that they had burned every copy by the time Picard was born."

I believe the bible was also mentioned in Star Trek II...though McCoy referred to part of it as "myth". Grr.

Ok, meanwhile back on topic..... I thought Avery Brooks was a great choose *for that part.* He wouldn't have worked as say Doctor Bashir, or O'Brien. Especially in the beginning the part called for a character that was, for lack of a better word, sullen. He pulled that off very well. Some would say he wasn't as dynamic and optimistic as Kirk or Picard. Guess what "I'm not Picard"

I haven't seen a whole lot of DS9, but what I did see (plus a few eps of Spenser: For Hire) has convinced me that Avery Brooks has a whole lot of presence, and carries off the quietly menacing thing remarkably well. Both Sisko's and Hawk's great strengths was their ability to convey power under control.
But when Brooks actually decides to express those powerful emotions, his characters become less interesting - and much less convincing. Suddenly he's ACTING! so hard that you stop thinking about the character and just sit patiently while Avery Brooks has his big Emmy-clip moment.

I think a lot of people would have been very confused if he had gotten the O'Brien part.

I think Samuel Quigly mentions the Bible in 'Court martial' (TOS), along with other significant Human law documents.

Cogley.

What about "Bread and Circuses"(TOS) for the question on the Bible.

Also, one of his lines should some up Avery Brooks and his acting. (at least compared to Patrick Stewart)

"I'M NOT PICARD!!!" as he punches Peter for making foolish comparisons.

Oh wow seeing people discuss this 12 years later is crazy! If anyone else sees this add a comment. I think he's out there now seems retarded. If you watch "The Captains" he can't even carry on a conversation.

All these years later I finally find a place I can grouse. Avery was GREAT as Hawk--He was stiff, lifeless, and awkward as Sisko. From every interview I've seen and every painful scene he appeared in on DS9, I get the impression that man did NOT want to be there other than to be a role-model. Science Fiction was a joke to him and he found his job beneath him, so he wasn't even going to try. In many ways, DS9 was better than Next Generation, and I believe the only reason you don't see it on TV today is because Avery couldn't be--or wasn't even trying to be--the strong, engaging presence that held the show together.

Did you ever see "In the Pale Moonlight"?

Hey Scott. Yep, Sisko enlists Garak to help bring the Romulans to their side and winds up having to justify the destruction of a ship to do it. Great show--Don't remember Avery Brooks' role in it. What I DO remember is endless awkward line readings and weird hand motions and sighing with relief whenever I realized that that week's episode would be "Sisko-Lite." Was he in great episodes? Sure! Was he great in them? Not that I remember. Was he distractingly bad in others? Yep!