Here's why I'm troubled by this discussion not at all.
I've been here before.
Last season, in the first handful of episodes we aired, some folks
were screaming that they hated Sinclair, O'Hare was a terrible actor, on
and on and on (many of them now the ones yelling about how he was the
great thespic center of the story, and is irreplaceable). Same thing now
You get to know a character OVER TIME. I made a conscious decision
at the top not to go for broad-strokes characterization, but rather peel
back layers over time. Lots of folks hated Londo at first. Then they
got to know him *over time*, and turned around to the favorite character
for many people.
This was made clearest to me after "Infection" aired, number four to
be broadcast, when lots of people said that they felt O'Hare was finally
settling into his role and had improved. Only later they discovered that
"Infection" was actually the FIRST episode we shot, it just aired later
than it was produced (4 rather than 1). It wasn't that O'Hare had settled
into Sinclair, it was that the AUDIENCE was settling into Sinclair.
One of the things I've seen most often on the nets is a certain lack
of patience...if the actor doesn't grab one right off with some folks,
it's "he's a bad actor!" No, you don't work as much, and as successfuly,
as Bruce and be a bad actor. He's not. It's just taking time -- as with
ALL our characters -- to get to know the audience, and vice-versa.
I've been here before...heard some yelling that they hated Ivanova,
Claudia was a rotten actor, space her (now one of the most popular
characters on the show), same for Garibaldi and others at varying times.
But by season's end, once we got to KNOW who these people WERE, then that
changed. As it'll change here.