gategrrl

If the show were to go on for another season or two, I think you'd see TPTB writing Daniel "raising a bride" - as Heinlein did in a few of his books, most notably "The Doorway Into Summer" and a few other books.

From:

seanchaidh.livejournal.com

I really don't think I want to know...

From:

nialla

Like anyone expected them to deviate from the standard cliche involving infants suddenly turned adult?

I turned off The 4400 because of Isabelle. I've never seen this sort of storyline done well, and I don't want to be subjected to it again.

From:

I don't think anything has squicked me quite so much as a character who'd been a baby only a short while earlier ended up in the sack with another character.

Sorry, but...ew.

From:

Well, if I remember that thread correctly (and I may not), for some reason it was thought, overall, that there was NO WAY tptb for Stargate would go that skeevy route, and wow, why did I even bring it up????

So yes, there were quite a few people who were in denial about how low these writers would go. But it's not like introducing Vala's Evil Sprog was such a great concept in the first place. I'd like to have seen Vala's Evil Sprog be a BOY, and then have him make the moves on Sam Carter -- let's see how the opinions [about the presence of a sexually aware man-child] sway then, eh?

From:

nialla

I'm pretty sure you're right about that thread. A lot of people were in the "why borrow trouble?" camp, as in it didn't have to happen so there was no reason it had to happen, so why even consider it. I just accepted it as a given in this storyline, knowing the lack of creativity in the writer's room.

As far as the Ori Tater Tot being a boy, you only have to look at Orlin for how that would have gone. IIRC, quite a few people said "ick" over that storyline.

From:

And here I didn't think anything could be worse than Daniel/Vala. Silly me.

From:

ndmzero.livejournal.com

Hi there,

I know we haven't communicated in a while, but -- say what?

Other than having two beautiful people occupy the same soundstage -- what exactly are you referring to as "UST" Seriously -- I really didn't see what you saw, apparently.

If for no other reason than a being being alive for no more than nine months (who wasn't a fruitfly) having sexual feeling about anything -- which is just, ewww -- I, at least, would appreciate you being more specific.

What exactly are you accusing tptb of doing?

At the most extreme interpretation, Adria may be jealous of Daniel for taking Vala's attention away from Adria -- but would she accept that there weren't overriding strategic reasons -- like Daniel is a willfully descended ancient and apparently the source of the Ori's knowledge of the Milkyway galaxy - since I still can't figure out how else they'd know all these gate addresses.
ndm

From:

It hasn't happened yet, according to the interview with Shanks about the upcoming episodes.

And yes, I think I was being very plain. What part is difficult to understand?

From: (Anonymous)

But didn't that interview say that Daniel doesn't respond back in the same way that Adria does? (As in Adria hits on Daniel but Daniel doesn't respond positively towards it.)

From:

nialla

Doesn't really matter if Daniel responds to it or not. You're essentially having a child only a few months old hitting on an adult male. Ew.

From:

ndmzero.livejournal.com

Ah, apologies -- I was just going by what I had seen on the screen. I hadn't read the interview.

ndm

From:

nialla

I hope you don't mine my answering...

It's not onscreen yet, but it's mentioned in this interview with Michael. The relevant quote:

"It’s funny because we have two things that happen. There is the ongoing storyline that started in season nine with Vala, about her sort of being interested in him and Daniel not being interested in her. Then this year we have another sort of pseudo love interest in the part of her daughter, Adria, played by Morena Baccarin.

At this point, Shanks lapses into moment of laughter over what he is about to say in regards to Daniel Jackson. Composing himself, he continues. "There is a bit of some sort of romantic entanglement that happens there and Daniel kind of pushes that aside as well."

He goes on to comment about Daniel's ambiguous sexuality (since women are hitting on him and he's not going for it), and how it annoys him as an actor to not know for sure whether Daniel's "light in the loafers."

Granted, it may be a one-way attraction from Adria, or simply a way to try to subvert Daniel to the Ori side, but still... ew.

From:

aizjanika.livejournal.com

Oh, yeah. I read that. I thought "ew" too. lol I don't care if it's one-sided or not. That's icky.

From:

So my instincts for when to leave a show are smokin' hot.

I wonder if anyone still thinks Shanks is there because he thinks the show is good. I seem to remember that argument being tossed around a lot at OS in response to why I should shut the fuck up already about how I didn't think S9 was leading to good things. I absolutely don't judge them for sticking around for the money or the job security - I mean, sadly, how many shows are really all that better? But it sure doesn't sound like he sounded at the start of S9.

From:

nialla

I think maybe Michael felt a "responsibility" to stay, even if he wasn't completely comfortable with what was happening. Partly a responsibility to fans after the efforts on his behalf, but also because he's a father of three and college doesn't pay for itself. ;)

A job's a job these days, especially with so much competition for roles and the limitation of the number of dramatic shows with so much reality tv. It's also lot easier to stand up for your beliefs and your craft when you don't have a family to support.

It's not all that different from RDA sticking around for years when he really wanted to leave. At the time, it was thought the show couldn't survive without him, so he had the responsibility for everyone's job on his shoulders.

I do wonder if the SDJ backfired in a sense. We got Daniel back, but at what price? Did it make TPTB complacent that they could just stick him on the screen and Daniel fans would watch without complaint? That they could change him to fit the new agenda without fans noticing? Did it make Michael feel a certain amount of responsibility to "stick around" even if his heart's not in it as much as it should be?

Michael's one that even though he'd talk about all the fun they have onset would always talk about some of the more serious story aspects. I'm not really hearing that sort of stuff from him recently, and I think it's simply because it's not there.

From:

I agree with everything you've said. I think at some point, too, Michael realized that, to some extent, a job's a job. Artistic integrity questions aside, it sounds like Bridge is a tremendously comfortable, family-ish (and family-friendly) environment for the cast to work in. I can't blame anyone for wanting to stay on that ride 'til it's over.

No matter how an actor tries, there's only so much s/he can do about the final product - you'd drive yourself bonkers if you didn't let it go at some point and just play the role as best you can. I wish he and Don Davis would produce some stuff together, like they'd talked about doing at one point.

From:

nialla

I wish MS and DSD would do some projects together too. I do know they let the rights go to the "Mary Rose" project they wanted to do, because it needed to be filmed during the warmer months (location shooting on the water) and Michael was filming SG-1 during that time.

Perhaps they can get the rights again, or find something else suitable for the two of them.

From: (Anonymous)

I think MS would enjoy being behind the camera some. And I'd love to see how he does with it.

And DSD, I just adore.

From:

People tend to be...very overprotective of MS and probably assumed your valid points were somehow slagging on him. Which is silly, IMO, because a paycheck is a paycheck - how many of us out here in various industries stay at a job way longer than we should? We're not altogether pleased with the place, it's not satisfying, whatever. It's still a paycheck.

The difference is, it's probably easier to get a regular job than another cushy acting gig. Who wouldn't stick around?

The battle for Daniel's integrity as a character was a losing one. I don't think MS stood a chance of winning. (And I'm not saying he's without integrity - I'm saying the changes made were enough to rework him quite drastically in many peoples' eyes.)

OT: They should boot off Ziva Sue from NCIS and add a fourth male to the cast. Oh, imagine the pretty of MS and MW together on screen. AND MH.

From:

The battle for Daniel's integrity as a character was a losing one. I don't think MS stood a chance of winning. (And I'm not saying he's without integrity - I'm saying the changes made were enough to rework him quite drastically in many peoples' eyes.)

I wrote another post on this topic upstream - but anyway. As for the *character's* integrity, I think that had SG NOT been cancelled, we would have seen many more drastic changes to Daniel, based on what MS *wanted* for the character, which is to be going after the girls in an "oversexed archeological" way, to show that yes, the character is hetero. In much the same way the writers were desperate to show that RDA's Jack was hetero by pairing him up with Carter/Tapping constantly.

It's been ten years that he's played Daniel Jackson. I think (Claudia Black aside) he's getting bored stiff playing him, and that's why the Daniel in the past season or two veered so far off the mark, and IMO, STILL veers off the characterization mark - and that were it not for the writers and the actor being *smart enough* to realize that an openly sexual relationship between Daniel and Vala, would kill it for Daniel. As for Adria, well, like mother like daughter, but that's such an incredibly unhealty template of mother-daughter relationships. A very soap-operaish one. Yuk.

From:

And I took offense at how some of them put AT down for not fighting harder for Sam. I don't think any action she took would have satisfied them, unless she did exactly what MS did. I think she did fight for Sam, but being a woman past 30 in an industry where that's a strike against, she never had as good a bluffing hand, and the producers knew it. Had she left, they would have found a 20+ with D-implants who was a civilian who could simper after Jack to her heart's content.

Don't get me wrong - I admire MS's talent and good taste. But I never believed the only reason he left in S5 was artistic integrity. That doesn't mean I think he's lacking integrity, either.

From:

So did I. Actually, I was offended by a LOT of the bashing (my term for what is otherwise known as constructive criticism, don't you know) of not only Sam but AT as well.

AT said she had to beg and plead to get a shot at directing, that there was such a huge barrier to that. Fighting for smaller things likely wasn't any easier, and she stood to lose a lot.

From:

Plus, you know, just because two people don't fight something the same way doesn't mean they're not both trying. I don't mind people admiring someone without knowing all the facts, but to criticize without knowing all the facts? That's both ignorant and mean.

From:

nialla

I know AT tried more than once to correct things in the script that came to bother fans when it aired. Such as the how and when of accepting Pete's proposal. She asked for it to be changed a bit, but it would have cost too much to essentially add a new scene.

I know she's between a rock and a hard place, but it got very annoying how in one interview she'd say she didn't want Sam to be nothing but "Jack's girl" and in the next, she acted like ship was the greatest thing since sliced bread. At least with MS, he's been pretty consistent in his comments, but then he doesn't have the same issues (i.e. gender) that AT does.

From: