Where's Daniel?

By: Epi

In a thread on the Our Stargate forum the topic of how Daniel Jackson is downplayed on Stargate SG-1 came up in conversation. From what was said on the thread many people do feel Daniel is being downplayed. Despite all the discussion the main question still seems to be "Why"? Why is Daniel Jackson—the central hero of the film upon which the show is based and who was returned to the show after a fan outcry (before my time) made it clear that many fans considered the character an integral part of Stargate and were interested in his journey and his continued role on the SG-1 team—still having his role downplayed? He is given "stuff" to do, but of late it has rarely been anything of true consequence—negotiations that go nowhere or which have no effect on the overall storyline, storylines with little connection to the major arcs of the show, etc.

Daniel's part in plotlines tied to the main arcs of the show have been virtually ignored. His connection with the Ancients and Ascendeds, including the "big bad villain" of last season, Anubis, who is both semi-ascended and Goa'uld, were transferred to other characters, such as Jack O'Neill. Lines which clearly fit his character were put into other characters’ mouths (usually Sam Carter). His reaction to the destruction of an entire planet, Abydos, Earth's first allies from the film, allies that had a deep connection to both Daniel and Jack but especially to Daniel, was totally ignored, supposedly happening "off-screen" as has much of his development.

The repercussions of his return from Ascension to human form because of his involvement in the events that preceded that destruction, including amnesia that left him with no memory of who he had been before, were glossed over. The Kelownans, whose planet Daniel died saving from a catastrophic nuclear explosion and who tried to frame him for it, appeared in two episodes in season 7. One episode had Daniel deeply involved in negotiations to again save their people from possible destruction, with the Kelownans being anything but helpful in trying to save themselves. However, the history between them was completely ignored as though it had never happened. There are other examples from Season 7 as well as previous seasons but this is a taste.

There have been suggestions that somehow it is a "business" decision, but even taking that into account, the downplaying of the character's role in the Stargate universe makes little sense. In fact, in some ways it makes even less sense when looking at it from a business point of view. The push for young characters is made much of in the media and yet with Daniel Jackson we have a relatively young character that, for years now, has been pushed into the background.

Dr. Daniel Jackson is in his 30's and highly accomplished with a brilliant mind, a bona fide visionary (and we won't get into the way the writers have downplayed that mind and vision here). Daniel’s actor, Michael Shanks, is younger than the character and looks it so the character is often assumed to be younger than his "official age"(mentioned only once in an early episode). He's an anthro/archaeologist as well as a prodigiously gifted linguist, a polymath with a deep love of learning and knowledge who had earned two PhD’s before he was 30 years old. Put most plainly, he is a genius with the spirit of a true explorer.

When many people hear archaeologist, the first thing that comes to mind is "Indiana Jones", so it would not be widely expected for him to be held in some stereotype of the inept "geek" nor found unbelievable if he was shown to be otherwise.

This, in fact, was one of the strongest messages of the original film. The first impressions of Jack and Daniel's characters are as almost walking clichés of their "types"(strict military/geeky academic) only to reveal over the course of the film there is much more to them; that those stereotypes are far too limiting for these characters.

This was especially true of Daniel. Yes, in many ways Daniel was a "geek" but he was also very courageous, both intellectually AND physically. Let me rephrase that: what it showed was that being a "geek" did not preclude someone from being as brave as any "soldier", so perhaps its smart to look past the obvious surface. Unfortunately the current crew of the TV series have been determined to do just the opposite of what the film was trying to achieve with regards to not judging a book by it's cover.

This is a theme I think many young people can identify with (though is in no way limited to just young people) because so many of them are trying to find themselves. Trying to find their place in the universe. This has been Daniel's journey as well, not just for knowledge but for his place.

Daniel's areas of interest are both intellectual, particularly his complex linguistics work essentially decoding languages, AND tactile. Archaeology and anthropology can be very tactile vocations including activities that involve digging, climbing, squeezing into very small places, interaction with many types and classes of people in various terrains and climates. Archaeologists get their hands dirty; they are strong as well as scientific.

Besides teaching, Daniel had likely lead digs, including financing and choosing employees, prior to being brought into the organization that would later be known as the Stargate Program (which Daniel named when he corrected a translation of a phrase previously thought to be "doorway to heaven"). It would be quite easy to develop this aspect of his character, of which we have gotten very, very brief glimpses from time to time including a very quick look in Evolution Part 1.

There is nothing that would preclude Dr. Daniel Jackson from playing an active role in an action/adventure show, even given his relatively peaceful nature. Yet if anything, this aspect of his character has been often been pushed to the wayside and in turn used as an excuse for the difficulty of integrating his character into an action/adventure show. This despite the fact that in many ways Daniel is the truest adventurer among them, someone who seems to thrive on the new and unfamiliar (which has interesting psychological implications given his unstable upbringing—could it be he's at ease with change and difference because it is what he's used to? Another question destined to be completely ignored by the writers).

A young, good-looking, athletic man is someone producers and TV execs would want to play up, don't you think? Now if that young, good-looking, athletic man couldn't act his way out of a paper bag, one might understand saying "Okay, now stand over here, look pretty and whatever you do, don't say anything" but as became apparent quite early on, Michael Shanks, Daniel Jackson's actor, could probably act his way out of Fort Knox.

If that young, good-looking athletic man who also happens to be a talented and versatile actor didn't have chemistry with his co-stars because chemistry is a freaky thing and sometimes it just isn't there, again, I could understand somewhat downplaying him. However, as has been shown time and again, this young, good-looking athletic man who happens to be very talented and versatile, ALSO happens to have terrific chemistry with all his co-stars and with pretty much anyone else they throw in a scene with him.

However the makers of Stargate SG-1, which includes the producers, the writers and the marketers, have downplayed this fascinating, well-rounded, complex character and his very talented, good-looking, athletic young actor in their storylines and advertising at every turn and they are still downplaying him, even after a fan outcry proved the popularity of both character and actor despite the best efforts to belittle his contribution to the Stargate universe.

There is no way, shape or form how in any universe that this makes a lick of sense, business or otherwise.

Posted by Dana Jeanne at May 24, 2004 06:46 PM