(no subject)
Aug. 29th, 2006 02:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I would like to point out that yes, I WAS RIGHT about TPTB on Stargate creating a "UST" relationship between Daniel and Adria, Vala's evil little sprog. I said then that I thought that's how it would go (look it up on the speculation thread on OS), and many agreed with me how squicky and disgusting that would be.
And oh, look! MS himself confirms it!
So glad I'm not watching it anymore. Now I just have to get it out of my system. When do all those new shows start up?
And oh, look! MS himself confirms it!
So glad I'm not watching it anymore. Now I just have to get it out of my system. When do all those new shows start up?
Re: Uhm, what?
Date: 2006-08-30 05:14 am (UTC)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.
Re: Uhm, what?
Date: 2006-08-30 03:02 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Uhm, what?
Date: 2006-08-30 06:20 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Uhm, what?
Date: 2006-08-30 11:25 pm (UTC)Perhaps they can get the rights again, or find something else suitable for the two of them.
Re: Uhm, what?
Date: 2006-08-31 04:53 am (UTC)And DSD, I just adore.
Re: Uhm, what?
Date: 2006-08-30 06:36 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Uhm, what?
Date: 2006-08-30 07:47 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Uhm, what?
Date: 2006-08-30 08:13 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Uhm, what?
Date: 2006-08-30 09:07 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Uhm, what?
Date: 2006-08-31 12:35 am (UTC)Re: Uhm, what?
Date: 2006-08-30 11:32 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Uhm, what?
Date: 2006-08-31 05:08 am (UTC)A body really can't say what she'd do if she's never been in their position. I walked away before I got a career going in screenwriting, so I'd never have to find out if I could be a sellout or not. Which, you know, totally disqualifies me from criticizing how these folks handle their career issues. :D