 |
Thought of the Day for TPTB
Not All About Daniel...? I don't know where to start. I have been with the Stargate franchise ever since Roland Emmerich met up with Dean Devlin just out of film school and Stargate was just a dream held by two young men that one day they'd make their "pet" project into a Hollywood film. I wasn't going to watch Stargate SG-1. Not because I wasn't interested in the continuing saga but out of loyalty to Devlin and Emmerich, who didn't like the idea of the story being developed without their input. I didn't have Showtime, so I passed. That was until I discovered that an actor I liked, Cary Tagawa, was doing episode #3, "Emancipation." So I borrowed the first six episodes on tape to watch. I was intrigued, but a few things still bothered me; I didn't like the "in-your-face" Sam--women don't really act like that--and it was very different from the film, Richard Dean Anderson was playing Jack much differently, and there was the Jaffa, the Goa'uld, etc. Even though I thought Cary Tagawa's performance was way over the top (directors sometimes have to hold him back), and "Emancipation" was an old hackneyed storyline, I was so completely impressed by Michael Shanks' portrayal of James Spader's Daniel, that I borrowed more episodes and soon the "new" Daniel had completely won me over that I couldn't even remember what James Spader looked like. I've worked with enough actors, writers, and producers, etc. in my time and I have to say I'm not easily impressed, but I was very impressed by Michael Shanks. He (and the writers) added dimension to what was a fairly stereotypical, but sympathetic, character in the film. The Daniel we see is strong, stubborn, and so curious that he forgets himself in his scientific zeal but never forgets his humanity. To me this made him a three-deminational character, someone who can face and survive what would break weaker men. It made him real. And soon, because of the interaction between Richard Dean Anderson's, Jack and Michael's Shanks', Daniel, Rick's portrayal of Jack began to grow on me. For the record I like to make it clear that I'm old enough to remember being told by one of the original writer/producers of "MacGuyver," Terry Nation, when they hired him that, "Rick is such a nice boy." I thought the onscreen dynamic between all the actors was tremendous--Jack and Daniel scenes in particular. What also caught my interest was the strong attempt at historical accuracy mixed with myth, and creativity not to mention some of the best cinemaphotography I've ever seen on television. (Those wonderful "team" shots, reaction shots and group shots from Season 1-3). Stargate SG-1 had some of the best writing, best acting, best producing on television, and I liked the way every one of the characters was portrayed. I was hooked. My husband wired the house with cable and ordered Showtime for my birthday. At the end of Season 3, with the departure of Jonathan Glassner and possessing knowledge regarding the episode outlines for the scripts that were being written for Season 4, both things prompted me to write my first and only fan letter. I know what happens to show when there is a major change in the production staff and I was afraid of what could happen to this show. I basically wrote, "don't change a thing, you have a winning formula here!" But aware they were thinking of adding Anise to the regular cast, I tried to explain how this attempt at adding conflict to the team could only fail. I don't know about any of you but, as a women, and having tried many times to explain to the male-chauvinistic-dominated TV and film business the reasons why, I don't like a female character, or actress--who also happens to be a sexy woman--is impossible. They just think you're jealous because you want to sleep with the lead male character/s (or the actors). Seriously that's what they think, and I knew no matter what I said about this, they weren't going to believe I what I was trying to tell them even if it was in best interest of the series. I also knew they were planning the Sam/Jack thing; I said they were mistaken in thinking that the majority of their viewers wanted to see this happen (talk about a vocal minority!) but there was no way this could work in the context of the show. I have no problem with having Sam and Jack together in other dimensions in other circumstances, but this storyline has nowhere it could go. And of course I told them how much I loved the tag endings, and the wonderful reaction shots done by their two fabulous Directors of Photography (who switched off every other episode and complemented each other so well that you couldn't choose between the two for the better style. I think I was in love with them.) Not surprisingly they didn't take my opinion to heart, and guess what happened? Every single thing I mentioned and asked them not to change, they changed; every single thing I admired about the series was suddenly twisted as to be almost unrecognizable--Jack as a dope? I don't think so! Season 4. What can I say? What I predicted would happen, did. There were some good episodes and some awful dreck but not every episode in TV will be a gem, (every series has their embarrassingly awful episodes that everyone wants to forget they ever did) so I hung in there. I waded through the uproar over the Sam/Jack thing because I knew it couldn't last out in the open (why they ever wrote "Divide and Conquer" I'll never know. They had to know they couldn't do anything with that subplot after that episode.) So when I heard they were going to drop that storyline, I breathed a sigh of relief. What bothered me the most in this season was the tendency to separate the team. I didn't really mind a little conflict between Jack and Daniel, and it was nice to see a few episodes featuring each of characters, but it seemed they never went anywhere together anymore. This trend was disturbing and not only to me and a number of other viewers, but also to some of the actors. This trend was carried over into Season 5. While in this season, I expected the writers to resolve some of the conflicts they created between Jack and Daniel in Season 4, but they never did. Instead they ignored the obvious next steps to take to progress the characters. HummmŠ now they had me wondering what was going on, so I read some of Joseph Mallozzi's interviews and posts. So now I knew what their agenda, or at least Joseph Mallozzi's agenda was, and by default the production itself--as they were letting him speak for the whole group. I'm trying really hard not be insulting here, truly I am, but I'm afraid that this man doesn't have the best interests of the show in mind. It appears to me he is after notoriety--don't we all know his name now? He should know better, a lot of what he's been saying is meant to inflame and cause controversy. Why would he do this? For attention, and unfortunately he's getting all the strokes and flames he can handle. Enough said. As we now know, Michael Shanks was unhappy. I know some of what he was unhappy about. When he mentioned that he thought Daniel wasn't being used enough, they patted him on the head and told him he would be getting "his episodes." Now I have no way to know if Michael Shanks didn't make his points clear, or if Brad Wright and company didn't understand where his dissatisfaction was coming from, but what Michael Shanks was referring to was the lack of "team" episodes, and episodes where Daniel had something to do other than shoot a gun. Another thing that was happening at the same time was certain writers were trying to revert Daniel back to that bumbling academic from the film. Michael Shanks was fighting the writers over dialogue and comedy "bits" they wanted Daniel to do. For some reason they decided Daniel was going to be the comedy relief because he was the geek, and because they couldn't give the slapstick stuff to Richard Dean Anderson as he was the hero. Michael Shanks had to fight this quite a bit, line by line, and most of the time he won--sometimes with Rick's help--but it was hardly ever without a fight. Which all boils down to dissatisfaction with the quality of the writing. I can't disagree with Michael Shanks there. An occasional lacking episode can be overlooked, but when the number of episodes that you were unhappy with outnumbers the ones you are proud to tell other people they must see, there is something very definitely wrong. In Season 4, I really liked about 10-12 episodes (two more were just good fun), which leaves just less than half the season with poor to really bad quality episodes. (I could go through each episode for fourth and fifth season, but that would take up even more space.) Also, since I started to notice how many episodes the team was spending apart I counted--it's about 14, depending on your opinion of a team episode. What about how many episodes were based on Earth? 10--give or take 4 more where the majority of the episode is spent on our planet instead of another. This was a disturbing trend, less team episodes, less time exploring other worlds, less care taken with scripts. But still I kept watching; I wasn't real happy but "Exodus" was well done and it seemed like a very promising start for Season 5. Now this is where I go into a bit of a rant (instead of just editorial comments). In the TV and film business, actors are like cattle. (Not my quote, blame Alfred Hitchcock.) Actors are a commodity just like any other piece of the production, not the most important part, and not the least. But they are what the public sees first and even though it is sometimes difficult for the "suits" to understand the actors are the "frontmen" for the show, they should know better. People welcome them into their homes and get to know these characters. (Look at the amount of money they are paying the cast of Friends.) And once they become interested audiences want to know what's going to happen to their favorite characters. After all that's what it's all about. But it is hard for the "suits" and the production staff to believe this because actors can be replaced, and it's only a job and it isn't the end of the world. Instead, they just want to do the best they can to keep their jobs. Now here is the part I fail to comprehend: When there is an outcry about some incident with an actor most franchises/production companies try to find out what the actor wants and give it to him. They are usually used to indulging the actors, to get them to quite complaining if nothing else. I just can't find a reason why Brad Wright and company would let Michael Shanks walk without trying to make some sort of a concession. Yes, Michael had a short job lined up that he wanted to do, but they could have worked around it, (at the most it would have taken him away from the set for 3 to 5 weeks; they filmed around things like this before and will be doing so for Rick in Season 6) and when that fell through, why in the world didn't Brad Wright attempt to get him to reconsider? Why didn't he do more than tell Michael Shanks that Daniel episodes were being written for Season 6? Did he think Michael Shanks didn't know that? They gave him some good episodes in the past, so of course they would write a few for him in Season 6; so, news flash! This was not the problem. After reading the transcript of Brad Wright's Lycos interview, I can only come to the conclusion that Brad Wright doesn't have a clue why people are unhappy about the direction the show has taken, or the reason Michael Shanks left, nor does he have any idea who is watching the show and why; he doesn't have a clue as to the reason a lot of the online fans are complaining. Not one single clue. That is what has prompted me to write this down. He most definitely hasn't read any of the posts in the "To the Powers That Be" page that is connected to this site, because if he had, he might discover a few common threads running through the posts. And the reason people are disturbed, isn't just all about Daniel. I wasn't going to write this. I was going to wait and see what "Meridian" was like--to see for myself how things were handled. I felt I couldn't comment on the way this season was being conducted without having seen all of it. I was trying very hard to be fair, but again Brad Wright's clueless comments regarding the fact that "only the Daniel fans" were the only ones who didn't like the character of Jonas Quinn, finally got the better of me. He is just plain wrong in this assumption. On this site I've read and heard from military men, families, and Richard Dean Anderson fans that just can't accept this character. And even if they all were Daniel fans, isn't their opinion just as valid? Why isn't he trying to get people who like Daniel to watch Season 6 instead of driving them away? I would like to ask Brad Wright what he thinks the general viewing audience's opinions will be when they finally see this episode. I'm guessing they are going to react in much the same way as these people have, and most likely in the same percentages, but since they aren't online now, and they don't write TV shows letters they will make their opinion known by turning the channel. Who does he think makes up the balance of the viewers? Unfortunately, for us, and for the show, it will be too late for anyone to do anything about it. I really pity those poor people who are watching only in syndication, when a year from now they finally reach "Meridian" and the point we are at, and there will be no recourse open to them, no show left, no production company to write. If Brad Wright thinks that the letters will stop now because he is getting Michael Shanks to do an episode, he should think again. There will be some feedback from the general public when "Meridian" is aired on Showtime in May. That will prompt some viewers to write their first letter to a TV show, to a magazine or maybe even to seek out a site on the Internet to vent. It happened in England, Ireland and other countries where "Meridian" aired and the unsuspecting public was thrown a curve when they turned into one of their favorite shows; and it will happen here in May. And maybe it will happen again next year. I know people who watch in syndication and they don't want to be spoiled. Well for someone who didn't know where to start this turned out to be quite long. So for my final comment I'll leave you with this thought: Yes, it is true that Michael Shanks wanted to leave the show, (wouldn't you quit a job you loved if it was frustrating the hell out of you?) But in my mind it will always be the production teams and ultimately Brad Wright, who let him walk away without a struggle. S. M. P. (c) 2002, S.M. P All right recognised. No copyright infringement intended. |
Stargate SG-1 and its characters are the property of Stargate (II) Productions, SCI FI Channel, Showtime/Viacom, MGM/UA, Double Secret Productions, and Gekko Productions. All blog entries represent the opinion of the poster. All editorials represent the opinion of the author. All linked content represents the opinion of the linked site's webmaster. Copyright on all articles/editorials/blog entries belongs to the original author. Offer void where prohibited. Please remain seated while the aircraft is in motion. Warning: Coffee will be hot. A moose once bit my sister.
