|
Fan: a devotee or enthusiastic follower of some sport or hobby or public favourite. Critique: a critical examination of any production; a review.
I owe actor Michael Shanks an apology. I'd love to say that this campaign of ours to empower Mr. Shanks, and by extension his character Daniel Jackson, was new. It isn't. We've been fighting this campaign since Season Four began, since the jarring note struck by 'Small Victories'. I knew something was seriously wrong with Stargate SG-1 when I watched those episodes on squinty vision; a tiny low resolution streaming video image about the same size as a drinks coaster. Until that point, the only fans of Stargate SG-1 I knew were my parents because we watched the show on the videos I bought. I have the other episodes on DVD and courtesy of tapes from Sky broadcasts. I watched 'Small Victories' and knew the team dynamic was off. Daniel was still Daniel, but he no longer seemed to be what he was just two episodes before that to his team. Unease was replaced by dismay after viewing the character assassination of Jack that was 'The Other Side'. Dismay was replaced by outright disgust in 'Divide and Conquer', where the writers expected us to forget three years of shared history, character development and loyalty between the four members of SG-1, accept that Daniel was an at best tolerated outsider and all the energy in the team was focused on Jack and Sam and their thwarted, 'tragic' romance. Unfortunately, Jack and Sam had never shared the personal relationship or intimacy that had made the Jack and Daniel friendship the very heart of what made Stargate SG-1 so magical. Season Four was not an evolution of anything. It was a determined and sustained attempt to re-write the team dynamic to focus on Jack and Sam at the core, not Jack and Daniel. Unfortunately the characters didn't fit. Teal'c was shoved into the background or used as the comedy Jaffa. Daniel was isolated from his team physically and emotionally, his previously central role subsumed into Sam. Jack and Sam were colleagues and beginning to be friends. In 'Nemesis' Jack made his first and only attempt to recognise Sam as an individual. By the time 'Upgrades' was aired, we were supposed to believe they were in love. The history wasn't there and the characters didn't fit...so the characters were changed. We've learned nothing about Sam since the end of Season Three. As for Jack: is it ever a good idea to fill the 'star' with character traits that make it easy for the audience to hate him? Aggressive, loudmouthed - a bully without a moral centre or care for his team. An intensely stupid jerk. A man we didn't know. Thank you to MGM for the directors commentaries on the DVDs of Season Four which confirmed so much of what my friends online had been saying to the writers and producers - who boast of the attention they pay to word of mouse, Brad Wright commenting that they log on to the Internet after episodes are aired to check out fan reaction. When I came into the fandom and checked out the lists, clubs and open forums such as Starguide and Alt.tv.stargate.sg1 also known as the ng, I found the fans at war over Season Four. The frightening thing is that the writers and producers haven't listened. Why was the team dynamic re-engineered? Sam and Jack: "Never.' A, it could never happen because he's her superior officer, and B, we don't want it to kill the show." "When we first started the series, there was talk of starting up something between Jack [Anderson's character] and Sam, or Sam and Daniel [Michael Shanks's character], and we all nixed that," Tapping says. "Richard and I right away said, 'Never.' A, it could never happen because he's her superior officer, and B, we don't want it to kill the show. I think the beauty of the relationship between the four of us on the team is this great friendship that we have, and this wonderful respect and admiration for each other. Adding anything into that mix would be silly, because I think right now it works as a team of really good friends." As to the question of a romance between her character and O'Neill, she's adamant there'll be no bump'n 'grind as far as she's concerned. "No, it's a military thing. He's a Colonel and she's a Captain and that sort of thing just doesn't happen." "As for Carter and O'Neill, the writers constantly scan the Internet and they know the audience has a yearning to see some sexual attraction between these two characters, but at this time we believe that's too obvious a choice," explains Anderson. "It's very easy for an attractive woman like Amanda just to fall into being 'the girl' on the team in a show like this, but Amanda keeps us honest in that respect and won't hesitate to point it out to the writers when we are slipping into writing her that way." Jonathan Glassner departs Stargate SG-1, February 2000 One [episode] he is most proud of is 'Point of View', a compelling third season episode that revisits the mirror universe first seen in the first-season story 'There But for the Grace of God'. "There's a scene between Sam Carter and O'Neill, except it's not our Major Carter but Doctor Carter from the alternate universe. I wanted to write this episode just for that scene, which is a love scene between Carter and our O'Neill. In his reality they weren't lovers and they never married but in hers they had and he'd just died. I really love that scene." One of my favorite scenes in this episode 'Solitudes' is when Sam falls on top of O'Neill and says, 'Ah, Colonel...,' and he comes back with, 'It's my sidearm I swear.' This is the first time we get the tiniest hint of a connection between the two characters. It really caught people's attention and there was a great deal of buzz about it on the Internet. Since then I've tried to make sure that there's a moment like that in all of my episodes... For instance there's an amusing scene in 'Out of Mind' when Jack wakes up Sam, who's supposedly lying naked on a table. She sits up and he stares at her back for a few seconds before tossing her some clothes and walking away. So this has been a marvelous running joke that, I'm proud to say, has its origins in one of my episodes." “We’re really, really excited about the show this year,” he beams. “We’ve had a little bit of a shift around, introduced some new members to the creative team, welcomed Robert aboard in a different role as co-executive producer and confidence is high. We feel Season Four is going to be our best season yet. Part of the appeal of the show is that we strive for realism, particularly with regard to our military pursuits. In accordance with current regulations, it would be highly irregular for two serving officers such as O'Neill and Major Sam Carter [Amanda Tapping] to have an on-going personal relationship. So in the context of SG-1 it's unlikely to happen." "You know what... it... that would be the most obvious thing for us to do, just let them jump in the sack and have at it, and make everybody happy. Not that we're not out to make people happy, we just don't want to make some obvious choices and hence mistakes. Also, there's an element involved in the dynamic that people tend to want to overlook and that is that we are military... portraying military people. And to show the respect that I think is warranted, just in male-female relationships in general, let alone in the military, we have to be cautious about allowing an officer to, uh, and, uh <chuckles> and a gentlemen to get together in any sexual way. The innuendo is there, we've been quiet and respectful about it. We want to be, you know, maybe one of us will have to retire - I'll volunteer, by the way - retire before we can consummate any relationship situation, but it's a lot of fun to know the audience is kinda pulling for it, so we'll show little signs of the attraction and that... dynamic. But right now, yeah, we'll keep it behind closed doors. <looks off-camera at Amanda Tapping> Pretty good answer, huh?" "Since then [Season One's 'The First Commandment'] she and Jack O'Neill have admitted they love each other but can't do anything about it..." "This story [Beneath the Surface] was originally designed to get our people into a situation where they didn't know who they were," explains the director. "This way, they'd be free to act true to their nature as opposed to being weighed down by the established norms of the show. As such, Colonel O'Neill and Major Carter would become a couple and, of course, end up kissing." And the lone voice of dissent: "Daniel is a bit of a loner and an outsider and, to top it off, he’s not a soldier. So when the fighting starts what do we do with him? We have him crouch behind a rock and leave him out of the action or we don’t have him in the scene at all." “I found this happened more and more this year, especially since the creation of this red-herring relationship between Jack O’Neill and Sam Carter [Amanda Tapping]. The series has gone in a direction that I did not expect, and, believe me I'm not saying that’s a bad thing at all. I'm just saying I think Daniel has been slightly limited this year in his actual interaction with the team. Again, stories where he has been the focus have been wonderful, but they sort of wind up excluding the rest of SG-1. So, if anything, my wish for next season would be for my character to be worked a little more into the group dynamic." It appears that once Jonathan Glassner left Stargate SG-1, there was a sea-change regarding the romance between Sam and Jack. The fans and the audience react So how does the audience actually feel about Sam and Jack and the creative change everyone was talking up except for Michael Shanks? Hmm. A brief scan of Yahoogroups, home to many of the Stargate discussion lists, reveals that the portion of the audience TPTB chose to empower was in fact a minority even of the online fandom. A small, vocal minority. I find the decision to pursue a character arc the cast and crew had long agreed was both obvious and a mistake incomprehensible. Who with a product to sell would base business decisions on the vocal demands of a minority of their online audience, itself a fraction of the whole, to the extent they abruptly disenfranchised the majority and lost one quarter of their audience in so doing? A thousand or so list members were made very happy indeed. Close to one million viewers had walked before Season Four was one third of the way through. The creative changes were apparently designed to appeal to what writer, director and creative consultant Peter DeLuise referred to as 'the Seven of Nine demographic'. The changes worked exceedingly well. Among male viewers, Stargate SG-1 was ranked first. Among women, it slumped from first ranked to sixth. Question: As a member of the young male demographic that advertisers like to target, do you feel your writing is geared to that audience, or do you write for a wider audience that includes women and other age groups? If so, how? JOSEPH MALLOZZI: Our writing is not geared toward a specific demographic. The fact is, while, for instance, Star Trek’s core audience is males 14-35, our core audience appears to be women 30-45. What were the 'core audience' saying to TPTB about these creative changes? It's worth noting here that the core audience for Stargate SG-1 online appears by and large to consist of professional women, highly educated and discriminating. We're biologists, doctors, paramedics, librarians, graphic artists, computer programmers, serving members of the military, college professors, physicists, nurses, teachers, publishers, editors, journalists, archaeologists, anthropologists, writers, college students, high school students, historians, linguists, stock brokers, psychologists, retailers, geologists, business owners, accountants, lawyers... There was such furore over the airing of 'Divide and Conquer', the episode which made Jack and Carter's alleged romantic feelings canon, that Executive Producer and Co-Creator of SG-1 Brad Wright had to post to the NG to calm the situation. Subject: Re: Disappointed with Season 4 (or Divide and Conquer)? Read this... Folks, Normally I wouldn't do this, but... I've been amazed at the fan response of "Divide and Conquer". I feel I should reassure those of you who fear O'Neill and Carter will soon be holding hands as they enter the gate. Their mutual affection has been developing since season one, and it was time to let it become a genuine obstacle in an episode. Their feelings would never have come out were it not for the extraordinary circumstances of the story. Sure they care about each other, and yes, that may occasionally complicate things, but: Carter and O'Neill will not become romantically involved. They are Air Force professionals. (Your response to "Beneath the Surface" will be interesting...) Also, if you're interested... Anise was a guest star for a three episode arc we planned at the end of last year. She will not return. Martouf's death served the story. His death was heroic, and, obviously, a surprise. (I'm still getting flak for killing Kawalsky in episode one of season one, and he's been back on the show twice since.) Rest assured, we read your posts and care about what you think of the show. As I write this, we're just finishing off the last six episodes of season four, so, much of the season is already completed. I don't think you'll be disappointed. Either way, I'm sure I'll read about it here, and enjoy the debate. Brad Wright, The fan campaign started the moment Divide and Conquer aired. The NG exploded into anti-D&C threads. You can still find them on the web and they make very interesting reading. Everything that could be done within the fandom was done to tell TPTB that we disliked the romance (aka the 'ship), the lack of Jack and Daniel interaction, the sidelining of Daniel and Teal'c, the way Sam was reinvented as Jack's girl. NG regulars and a whole lot of other people hit the NG the day after D&C aired in the US, battling it out with the small vocal minority suddenly empowered by 'Divide and Conquer'. A lot of people posted there and everywhere else on the net unrelentingly from when D&C aired about why the ship in the context of the USAF was inappropriate, how this was supposed to be a team show, how this came from a buddy-buddy movie, how pivotal the Jack and Daniel friendship was, how important Daniel was and how he was being sidelined to promote the pointless and to many distasteful romance. I have to comment well after the fact that all these posts were right there on the NG where we know Brad Wright reads and as we saw above, posted to in response to the strength of fan feeling. The posts were everywhere there was a public forum, the campaign was huge, noisy and protracted, but it stayed within the fandom. TPTB are very internet aware. They cannot claim they didn't see or fail to understand the overwhelming will of the Stargate SG-1 fans. What they apparently did was ignore it. I am not alone in wanting to know WHY. Peter DeLuise occasionally posted to SG1Fans. Brad Wright and the cast check out the Internet. Writer and Supervising Producer Joseph Mallozzi has been very visible on the web, lurking and posting at SG1Fans Yahoo Club (posting as Moorsyum) and Starguide Forums. He participates in chats, some public, some exclusive. Check out the transcripts at Starguide, along with the Jackdaniels transcripts, the SamJack Horsewomen transcripts, and he also returned a Q&A from members of the SG1HC list. Mr. Mallozzi has granted three exclusive chats to the SamJackHorsewomen. Though I respect and uphold their right to express their opinion, as a fan of Daniel and the team, I do question the professionalism of a writer and Supervising Producer who held chats with a group openly hostile to a cast member and who didn't insist that his participation in their chats was conditional on their removing all the offensive 'humorous' material denigrating the character of Daniel Jackson and his fans both at and linked from their website. 'Find a cure for Anti-Damny Syndrome', a page which parallels 'battling' love of this character to battling AIDS, is particularly upsetting. Fan power? Were the online fans right to fight what they perceived to be a threat to the creative direction and financial viability of the show? MGM President Hank Cohen believed we were right to fight for Season Six: Stargate SG-1 Season Sixth Notice There has been a considerable amount of speculation and rumor regarding the return of Stargate SG-1 for a sixth season. It is important to let you, the fans, know that though we are hopeful, no decision has been made. All of us at MGM are extremely grateful for your outpouring of support. While we are closer, the job is not yet done. But, please know that your cards and letters have definitely gone a long way toward making Season Six a possibility. "We hear you!" Hank Cohen The plot lines and character arcs developed in Season Four were continuations of those elements introduced to the show at the end of Season Three: the first overt hints of the Sam and Jack 'romance', the first canon aggression directed from Jack to Daniel, Daniel sidelined, glib humour from Jack in place of the caring C.O. we'd always known and loved. The primary audience for Stargate SG-1 [identified by Showtime] - a whopping 60% of its viewers - are adults aged 19 to 49, evenly split between males and females, which is unusual for a sci-fi show. The Nielsen sweeps for that period in syndication show a 15% drop in the audience figures. You could argue that was a minor blip, except that all these new elements in the show characterized Season Four and the creative drive (acknowledged in the directors' commentaries on the UK DVD releases) to capture the young male demographic and the Showtime ratings report showed that Stargate did indeed gain an impressive 25% of male viewers. We can only congratulate the brave new world of Stargate SG-1 at the beginning of Season Four. Anise in her rubber miniskirts, Sam and Jack romance, Jack the Jerk alternating with Jack the Joke, Daniel isolated emotionally and physically from his team, Sam and Jack the focus of the team and Daniel sidelined. The team stopped being friends. If Season Four was the Season of Separation, Season Five has been the Season of Sam. I've checked into the ratings for Season Four thanks to the news archive at Starguide and interestingly enough, despite the brave new world of the Seven Of Nine demographic, the highest rated episode so far has been 'The First Ones'. That's the episode in which Daniel is kidnapped by an aboriginal Unas and strives throughout to be compassionate and communicative, to the extent he and the Unas bond and Daniel saves himself, though his team are in not so much hot as lukewarm pursuit. The story focused on Daniel and was written and directed by Peter DeLuise. So, even with that gain of 25% of young male viewers, the most-watched episode is a Daniel episode. It looks like a lot of older male viewers switched off along with the female viewers of all ages. It's worth reiterating that overall Stargate SG-1 LOST 26% of viewers in the first third of Season Four. The episodes? Small Victories, The Other Side, Upgrades, Crossroads, Divide and Conquer, Window of Opportunity, Watergate. The online fans registered the strongest possible protests by word of mouse, in forums where their comments and critiques were seen by the writers and productions staff, and quarter of the audience at home switched off. The overwhelming majority of fans want the team working together. We want logical, consistent character development and evolution. We want Jack and Daniel at the heart of the team, and for all of the team members to be written equally and fairly. We want our four team members to interact with each other, not with the 'Mary Sue' original characters of the week. We want good writing, and in seasons one to three, we largely got it. There are some stand-out episodes in Seasons Four and Five, but the majority of episodes are dull, lifeless and emotionally barren compared to the rich, subtle and complex characterisation and interactions we were used to. Some more word of mouse, in the form of the most cursory demographic hunt on the web at the lovely SG1Fans. Favourite SG-1 actor: Michael Shanks, 8379 votes, 38.4% Number of fans in pro-Daniel, pro-Jack and Daniel, pro-team Yahoogroups lists: 75% Because one of my strongest reasons for watching the show was the poignant and loving friendship between Sam and Daniel and because I so admired Sam's positive portrayal in seasons one to three - I used to believe she had the strongest role of any woman character in SciFi - and I adore the lovely actress Amanda Tapping, I really hate to keep banging on about the contrast in Sam's popularity in Season Four and Five. As much as I want to, I can't ignore the facts or fail to present the full picture, and I am sorrowful Sam is part of that. In Season Five I felt we regained some of those small friendship moments between Jack and Daniel, and Sam and Daniel, that made all the difference to me as a viewer, but that didn't detract my attention from poor writing, the fact that Daniel and Teal'c have been wallpaper for most of the season so far, and for the second season in a row, Sam is right there, centre stage, and now has as much if not more of the action than Jack. The season as a whole has been lacklustre, with many of the plots from Season Four revisited. Richard Dean Anderson's popularity is second only to Michael Shanks which means that between them as actors they account for 16,216 votes or 74.3% of popularity. Amanda Tapping as an actress is much more popular than her character Sam, something I'm glad to see, scoring 17.9% of votes. In terms of characters, Jack is second only in popularity to Daniel, which means between them as characters they account for 70.6% of votes. Sam is the least popular Stargate character, scoring only 9.2% of votes compared to Daniel's 38.7% and Jack's 31.9%. In the go crazy, vote as many times as you like poll, Jack streaks ahead to take the lions' share of all votes with 51.7% of unlimited repeat voting, but Sam's votes are lower, with only 4.9%. The starkest contrast here is the difference in the poll for favourite relationship on SG-1: One fan one vote: Jack and Daniel, 5693 votes, 51.3%; Jack and Sam, 1309 votes, 11.2% I don't think the latter poll would get a President into the White House somehow. It's not exactly democratic. Can you wear out the refresh button on a web browser? A word from writer and Supervising Producer Joseph Mallozzi in chat with the SamJack Horsewomen, 26 May 2001: "The fans who disliked D&C were very vocal - but that doesn't mean they're in the majority." I beg to differ. Taking another cursory trot through the lovely fan polls at SG1Fans we see a one fan one vote poll for favourite episode of Season Four. How does 'Divide and Conquer' fare? It scores a 'princely' 612 votes down at the bottom of the poll. That pretty much sums up the popularity of the Sam and Jack romance. Q but unfortunately no A I'd quite like to ask MGM's Hank Cohen, Kawoosh Productions' Brad Wright and Sci-Fi Channel's Bonnie Hammer some questions. Was it worth making 612 fans very happy when 26% of Stargate's audience switched off within seven episodes of Season Four premiering? Take a look at these popularity ratings for the Stargate SG-1 team. Which character would you choose to focus on in a bid to win back high ratings? Daniel Jackson: 42.7%; Jack O'Neill: 29.2%; Teal'c: 15.5%; Sam Carter: 12.4% The answer of course should be Daniel Jackson, with a whopping 42.7% of the vote. He's just a tad shy of being as popular as the rest of the team put together, including the character played by star Richard Dean Anderson. The answer was in fact Sam Carter, our least popular character on every poll I could find on SG1Fans and in the informal Season Four fandom poll conducted on the discussion lists. If MGM or SciFi Channel ran a focus group on Stargate at the studio, how big would their sample be? The size of this particular internet focus group was 5929. I'm trying to refrain from pointing out here that losing nearly a million viewers in seven episodes would have been more than a heads up to me, let alone some supposedly savvy Hollywood executive. I still think 5929 committed fans is a pretty damned good sample. Why was the most popular character effectively written out while the show focused on the least popular? You can read Michael Shanks' interviews and a lot of critiques at Solutions which will tell you straight out that Daniel Jackson was effectively written out of Stargate SG-1 beginning in Season Four and continuing to the point where Daniel was in scenes just to be there in Season Five. This quote summarises nicely: "I thought that what I was doing on the show was becoming seemingly more confined. And having broached the subject with the powers that control these things, it became clear that the character wasn’t important enough to the overall process to warrant an upgrade.” The 42.7% of fans whose favourite character is Daniel Jackson beg to differ, as do the 51.7% whose favourite friendship on the show is that of Daniel and Jack. Michael Shanks has been politely saying this since December 2000. Yet his commitment to Stargate and his loyalty to the cast and crew are, remarkably, undiminished. Our respect and support for Michael Shanks continues to grow. Please compare and contrast the above quote with the importance the audience invests in this character and this actor: Put Jack and Daniel together and you get: 71.9% popularity. What will Stargate SG-1 be without Daniel just among online fans? Favourite SG-1 actor: Michael Shanks, DOWN 38.4% What about losing the core Jack and Daniel friendship favoured by Mr. Mallozzi's alleged 'vocal minority'? Favourite SG-1 actors: Michael Shanks and Richard Dean Anderson, DOWN 74.3% Pro-Jack and Daniel Yahoogroups: 75% and going down in actuality every single day, right now, before we even lose Daniel. These figures are from a simple open fandom poll. It's just remarkable how consistent the popularity of Michael Shanks and Daniel Jackson are, along with the popularity of the core Jack and Daniel friendship. The 15% drop in audience figures is from the Nielsen syndication ratings sweeps for the end of Season Three when the writers began to tinker with the formula of Stargate SG-1. The 25% rise in male viewers is from Showtime's Season Four ratings report. The audience still watched the Daniel Jackson episode 'The First Ones' in higher numbers. The 26% drop in overall audience is from Showtime's Season Four ratings report. This drop tallied with the introduction of creative changes. Sidelining Daniel, distancing Jack and Daniel, romancing Sam and setting her centre stage cost Stargate SG-1 one quarter of its audience. A million viewers give or take a few. May I ask MGM and the SciFi Channel how many viewers they think they'll hold onto when Daniel actually leaves? Losing Michael Shanks as Daniel Jackson costs them around 40% of viewers for him alone. It disenfranchises around 70% of the audience who'll lose the core friendship and the team dynamic that keeps them watching. May I ask how it makes sense creatively or in terms of the financial viability of the series, the franchise and the movie to attack the heart and soul of your show? To allow new writers to marginalize your most popular character and actor? To disenfranchise 70% of your audience in so doing? May I ask how and why, with the loss of one quarter of your audience, those creative changes were pursued and indeed strengthened in Season Five? Why give us so much more of what we told you online and as an audience showed you we didn't want? Fallout We're left mourning Daniel and the magic this show used to have when it was faithful to the simple formula of equality laid down in seasons one to three by Executive Producer Jonathan Glassner: "Stargate is a tough show to write for," continues Glassner. "One of the reasons for this is that we want to give something to all of our leads to do in every episode and occasionally that's a challenge if the plot centres on just one of them." New writers were appointed in Season Four who simply aren't up to the task. Yet they were given even more episodes in Season Five and viewer satisfaction, even without the dreadful pall of Michael Shanks' departure, is at an all time low. We got Season Four again, re-packaged. We fear the show can't survive without Michael Shanks and Daniel Jackson and we want it to so very much. We've loved these characters, excused the way they were twisted to fit the new creative agenda, hung in from sheer loyalty to what Stargate SG-1 was and could so easily be again, and faith that the producers just could not ignore the facts even if they could ignore us. I'm apologising to Michael Shanks. We believe that MGM and the production staff ignored the critiques and opinions of the majority of online fans. We know they ignored the audience figures. We know they ignored Michael Shanks. Michael Shanks Daniel Jackson Michael Shanks has had plenty to keep him busy as Daniel Jackson. After four years as a member of the SG-1 team, Daniel has lost some of his wide-eyed innocence, but he remains as passionate as ever about exploring. According to Shanks, this season was a little disappointing in terms of how his character was, or was not, used. “Our writers dream up some great ideas when it comes to writing Daniel stories, and I’ve had some excellent ones this year. I relish those episodes as they allow me to spread my wings as an actor,” says Shanks. “Unfortunately, in group situations they’re still not quite sure what to do with my character. I think that’s been a common theme since the series began. Daniel is a bit of a loner and an outsider and, to top it off, he’s not a soldier. So when the fighting starts what do we do with him? We have him crouch behind a rock and leave him out of the action or we don’t have him in the scene at all." “I found this happened more and more this year, especially since the creation of this red-herring relationship between Jack O’Neill and Sam Carter [Amanda Tapping]. The series has gone in a direction that I did not expect, and, believe me I'm not saying that’s a bad thing at all. I'm just saying I think Daniel has been slightly limited this year in his actual interaction with the team. Again, stories where he has been the focus have been wonderful, but they sort of wind up excluding the rest of SG-1. So, if anything, my wish for next season would be for my character to be worked a little more into the group dynamic." When asked to choose a favourite from Season Four, Shanks is quick to respond with 'The First Ones'. That's a terrific one just in terms of the sense of humour and irony that Brad Wright and Peter DeLuise brought out in my character. Daniel was in his element. He spent the entire episode trying to be compassionate and communicative towards this Unas (Dion Johnstone), which, I feel, is where my character’s strengths truly lie." Re the episode Watergate, guest starring Marina Sirtis from Star Trek: The Next Generation: "As for Daniel's role in the story, this is one of those times where he's just along for the ride." MGM, Brad Wright and the writers have been hearing this since the first episode of Season Four. Apparently, they're not listening. I really hate to read this interview in retrospect now that I know the writing of his character is what drove Michael Shanks away. The only thing he asked for was to be included in the group dynamic that revolved successfully around him for three hit seasons. Having seen Season Five, we know that he was given less to do than ever, to the point he was effectively wallpaper, in a scene just to be there. I do not and cannot comprehend why. What Michael Shanks wants for his character Daniel Jackson, for the team and the creative premise of the show is what we the audience want. He's said so. We've said so. The evidence is on the web for everyone to see. In discarding Michael Shanks, you discard us with him. At the very least computation, 40% of us. I apologise again to Michael Shanks for trusting the powers not only to do what was right and fair for him as an actor who shaped this show to himself and to Richard Dean Anderson and guaranteed them the ratings that had them riding high, but for us as fans. I apologise for believing that the majority of fans online telling the powers loud and long what worked for us as the majority of fans would make a difference. I apologise further for believing that even when creative vision faltered, sound business sense would be enough to ensure MGM and the production staff would pragmatically do what is best financially for the show. Apparently I was wrong. The majority of online fans were wrong. 71.9% of us who loved Jack and Daniel were wrong. Those 612 fans who loved 'Divide and Conquer' are still empowered by the production staff. If only the Daniel fans leave when Michael Shanks does, you're looking at a potential loss of 1,280,000 viewers. Michael Shanks on Vicky Gabereau's talk show. "The first thing...I sat down to a meeting with the president of MGM and he said, 'So you're gonna grow the hair back, right?...They want me to be the freaky hippiesh kind of doctor scientist geek kind of nerdy guy." The audience just wants him to be Daniel. Recommendations Michael Shanks knows exactly what the audience needs and wants. What drove him away is what is driving us away. You need to urgently address his concerns and ours about the role of his character, the premise of Stargate SG-1 and the quality of writing. I urge the powers to come to terms with Michael Shanks, and if a contract can be negotiated, return him to the show and the heart of the team ASAP.
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. |
Audience: the act of hearing; an assembly of hearers or spectators. 