I say it's Brent Spiner as Data, narrowly edging out Wesley Crusher.
I say he wins because he's a much bigger ham than the modest Will Wheaton, I mean, Wheaton never sunk his teeth into a case of possession by multiple personalities and made it into something out of a community college acting class! Plus, he could never actually play Data as having no emotions, he was always saying he had no feelings and then emoting and trying to look cute. Feh.
Interesting, considering most would say Data and Worf were likely the most popular characters on the show. A lot of the episodes were Data episodes and he rarely wasn't a major factor in the resolution of the problem.
So, no, Data was certainly not the weak link; he was the strongest link in the chain, with Worf and Picard close behind.
I would say Wesley (though I actually like the character) because he was badly written as well as Troi who, while a very logical character to have on such a ship, was rarely used wisely.
Another reason I put that ham Brent Spiner over Will Wheaton is that the writers take more of the blame for the issues with Wesley Crusher than with Data.
Sure, Data is popular, and even that bitch Spiner has devoted female Trekkie fans! Some people have no taste, why, some people even like an amateurish ham like Spiner more than they like a genuinely damn good actor like Patrick Stewart! Because Stewart is good, oh, he's so damn good, and THE BEST actor ever associated with Star Trek.
I think your obvious prejudice shows here. You don't like Brent Spiner. You think anyone who does lacks taste. We understand and know we can largely ignore your opinion.
I don't insist anyone think like I do. We all have different tastes and different opinions. That's healthy and reasonable discussions on those differences can be fruitful and enjoyable.
But, at least from your posts here, indicate you don't want to discuss anything. You want to pontificate and receive approval of your opinion. If you don't get it you will attempt to "shame" others. That is not a characteristic of a good debate. It is a sign of someone who is, as you say, amateurish.
Oh, I was hoping to provoke discussion! Go on, say who you think was the worst actor in the cast!
But that doesn't mean that any discussion ever held could convince me that Spiner is a good actor, or that Stewart is a bad one.
I never said Stewart was a bad actor. I think he was easily the best. Spiner is 2nd. Worst was, in my opinion, is Marina Sirtis, followed by Wil Weaton (though he improved considerably throughout the series.). For the whole main cast? Top to Bottom:
Stewart
Spiner
Dorn
Frakes/McFadden
Burton (shifting with Frakes/McFadden)
Weaton
Sirtis
I think Troi was a thankless role. My sister used to call her “Queen of Obvious.” She would say that she “sensed” something that everyone could tell already. They should have made her sensory abilities a bit more like a super power. But they never did that.
I think that Marina Sirtis is just lovely. I like her and would have like to have seen her in other roles. I will say that Conventions she is just so funny and interesting.
While I think Sirtis is at the bottom for acting, a lot of it was because of how she was written. You're right, she was often there just to speak the obvious. A lot of what she would "sense" was little different than what an astute observer could deduce from body language and tone. (which shouldn't really have been easy since each species should have had different "tells" which is where her powers could have come in.)
I think a lot of it was she shouldn't have been the counselor and the captain's advisor. With a crew (and family) of over 1000 she simply wouldn't have had the time.
They never really went into this. But I imagine for a ship that size, you would have to have a LOT of counselors. She was probably the chief counselor, which made her the captains advisor.
I really like her a lot— but perhaps that is because there were only 4 women to speak of: Her, Crusher, Pitkowsky, and Yar. The last two fell off after a single season. Crusher was a completely undeveloped character. So of the female characters, she is an obvious favorite.
Actually, I think that Troi was the only counselor, and that one counselor was adequate for a ship the size of the enterprise.
The Enterprise was staffed by people who were healthy and in the prime of life, and who were necessarily high-functioning and goal-directed (except Barclay), or they wouldn't get the jobs they have. Plus, they were elite Starfleet crew and officers, and that means that if they're anything like modern military or first responders or anyone else who gets involved in life-or-death situations, the majority are probably the sort of people who'd rather tough out personal problems than seek counseling (Barclay accepted). So yes, in a crew of 1000-odd adults there would be enough marriage counseling and PTSD and mediation of work conflicts to justify her presence, but not so much that she couldn't spend much of her time advising Picard.
Settle down Beavis...
shareCalling Brent Spiner essentially a bad actor is really putting your critic in its place.
share[deleted]
The character of Worf is so one dimensional. He never gets to relax and make an amusing comment and always must speak so formally. I really didn't like the eps where he was the featured character, really hard for me to warm up to the guy.
shareI think Dorn's performance was excellent, subtle and nuanced. First season, he wasn't so good. But from 2nd on, and especially in the episodes involving Klingon politics, he was delightful. Some of the episodes with Alexander were not as good, but I lay a lot of that on the writers and that Bonsall didn't interact well with Dorn. I find it interesting that Bonsall was much better with the other characters.
shareFair enough. I certainly don't have an agenda, just with time I'm more aware how, imo, the character was ham-strung by such a strict code of behavior. And as pointed out above, there seemed to be a formula of Worf standing on the bridge, delivering his advice and Picard disagreeing. He seemed to serve a function more than having an engaging character. But I'm glad he has his fans.
shareSometimes being restricted in one's artistic performance enhances creativity. I compete in certain artistic venues. Occasionally, the entry must conform to particular requirements: medium, color, subject, etc. The purpose of such restrictions is to focus the mind and talent and see what can be achieved.
Worf is restricted. He is written as the consummate Klingon; adhering to every ideal of the Klingon culture. None of the other Klingons in the series, either TNG or DS9, lives up to all those ideals; even Martok falls short, as do Kor, Kang, and Koloth; all because they actually live in those cultures and have had to make the inevitable compromises we all make. But Worf lives outside; he understands the ideals and can practice them, since he lives among others and can contrast his ideals to those around him and easily see the contrast.
IMHO Dorn and Sirtis are both decent actors, and if some fans don't like everything about the character, it's more the fault of the writers. It wasn't Sirtis's idea to start every other line with "I sense [stating the obvious]" and Dorn didn't write all those interminable speeches about honor or Klingon politics. So while neither is my favorite actor or a favorite character, I think the actors did a decent job with what they were given.
Now I did always have the feeling that McFadden could have done more with Dr. Crusher, she was never *bad*. Others were genuinely *bad*, but it wouldn't be Trek without at least a little bad acting!
See, I like Worf's speeches. I wish we got a bit more from Troi about Betazed.
I don't disagree that Sirtis is generally a good actor. But I don't think she showed that in TNG with a few exceptions.
Writing is always an issue and even a good actor is only going to be to mitigate bad writing. Troi and Wesley both suffered from bad writing. So did LaForge in a lot of episodes, though not all.
It's nice that someone appreciated all Worf's speeches about Klingon politics and warrior's honor, after Dorn and the writers put all that effort into writing and filming them! But hoo boy they are not my thing, but I do understand that liking them or not is purely a matter of personal taste.
But yeah, an actor can only do so much with bad or inconsistent writing and there were plenty of both on TNG, and none of the cast except maybe Stewart were good enough to make bad scripts seem better than they are. (That's something only the best actors can do, Helen Mirren does it all the time.) The bulk of the TNG cast were moderately talented and had to muddle along with scripts that were good and mediocre and bad, and with writing for their characters that could be very dull or very inconsistent. Dorn and Frakes managed to rise above the writing on occasion, but I don't think Sirtis or McFadden ever did, and Levar Burton never really got the chance.
Spiner, of course, could take a bad script like "Masks", and sink it to undreamed-of depths of hammery!
Wesley Crusher. He did a lot of nothing.
shareTroi, because she was always nosing her way into everything, and because she always wore that stupid leotard instead of a regular uniform like everybody else.
sharetroi was the worst, she could read all the emotions yet in the poker scenes she never wins
she should know immediately that someone is bluffing and call them
Spiner's ability to put over subtextual intent while using so little emotion puts him as one of the stronger cast members, in my opinion. The character needing to emote from time to time is as much a problem of writing and directing as it is with Spiner, who was more than likely asked to perform the role that way. There are several moments in the series, though, where he doesn't affect any emotions where the typical move as an actor would be to go that route.
As to the character clearly having some emotional ties, I think it's partly the programming of mimicking human behaviour, partly Data's attempts to mimic human behaviour, and partly because the character evolves. I mean his positronic brain probably was "evolving" or, perhaps upgrading is a better term here. It was doing it on its own.
There might also be a fine distinction between recognising the importance of things like music or personal interaction without connection to glands and endorphins and such things.
Furthermore, Data is clearly programmed to prioritize or value things - he has "wants", even though those are not necessarily "emotions". Perhaps some of this is the way that Data himself categorizes emotions or thinks of them. Maybe he kinda has them all along.
Which brings me to my last point: we clearly have a Tin Man situation here. He kinda has the heart all along, he just doesn't think he does.