[personal profile] gategrrl
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?

Re: Uhm, what?

Date: 2006-08-30 05:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] betacandy.livejournal.com
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.

Re: Uhm, what?

Date: 2006-08-30 03:02 pm (UTC)
nialla: (Sam and the Writers)
From: [personal profile] 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.

Re: Uhm, what?

Date: 2006-08-30 06:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] betacandy.livejournal.com
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.

Re: Uhm, what?

Date: 2006-08-30 11:25 pm (UTC)
nialla: (Tied Up)
From: [personal profile] 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.

Re: Uhm, what?

Date: 2006-08-31 04:53 am (UTC)
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.

Re: Uhm, what?

Date: 2006-08-30 06:36 pm (UTC)
superbadgirl: (danieldoublejeop)
From: [personal profile] superbadgirl
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.

Re: Uhm, what?

Date: 2006-08-30 07:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gategrrl.livejournal.com
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.

Re: Uhm, what?

Date: 2006-08-30 08:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] betacandy.livejournal.com
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.

Re: Uhm, what?

Date: 2006-08-30 09:07 pm (UTC)
superbadgirl: (danieldoublejeop)
From: [personal profile] superbadgirl
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.

Re: Uhm, what?

Date: 2006-08-31 12:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] betacandy.livejournal.com
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.

Re: Uhm, what?

Date: 2006-08-30 11:32 pm (UTC)
nialla: (Sam and the Writers)
From: [personal profile] 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.

Re: Uhm, what?

Date: 2006-08-31 05:08 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] betacandy.livejournal.com
I find her inconsistency annoying, too - I just don't get people who assumed they knew what her motives were and had a right to judge her (which you never did). She strikes me as a people pleaser who - like many actors - may feel she has to tell her fans what they want to hear, even when she's got a split crowd wanting to hear different things. Not my preference, but it's also not like she's blowing up buildings, or supporting radical right wing politics. :D

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

Profile

gategrrl

March 2017

S M T W T F S
   1234
5 67891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 21st, 2025 11:38 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios