PETITION for SEASON 7

[Texane]

Originally posted by webmouse
Sadly, Skoon, you may be right. There was a lot of development put into taking the nerdy professor type that was the original Daniel Jackson and turning him into a brave and selfless man willing to die for something he believed in.

jeez, I think it took awhile to show Daniel how to load a pistol . . . and, yes. It certainly appeared as if alot of time was put into the growth of Daniel Jackson's character.

 

[spookypumpkin]

Originally posted by webmouse
Sam and Jonas -- well, she can tease him and slap him around a bit. Not much of a plot line, but could be fun to watch.

like in nightwalkers! i love the last convo!!

 

[Hatshepsut]

Originally posted by Texane
jeez, I think it took awhile to show Daniel how to load a pistol . . . and, yes. It certainly appeared as if alot of time was put into the growth of Daniel Jackson's character.

I disagree. I think one's character is mostly innate. One's life experiences only enhance what is already there. They don't create it.

I think Daniel was always courageous, both physically and morally. There is much evidence for this, beginning with the film which defined his character. The T.V. series then developed it - not too difficult a job for anyone with vision.

In the first place, he stood up for his, apparently crackpot, theories - his convictions - against the whole of orthodox academia, right up to the bitter end, though it cost him his job, his funding and his home. That takes a heck of a lot of courage, not to say bravado. He put his money where his mouth is - put truth ahead of personal comfort. (N.B. This is not something one can say about Quinn.)

A lesser man would have taken the easy way out, gone with the flow, not made waves. In which case, he would have been tucked away in some nice cosy university with a nice juicy professorship and lots of funding - and low self-esteem for selling out. He would certainly not have become a member of S.G.-1.


Secondly, also in the film, he took the staff weapon blast intended for O'Neil . He put his leader's safety before his own. The leader has to be the most important person on the team - doesn't he? So Daniel is selfless too, then?

Thirdly, although the end appeared to be in sight, with the bomb counting down and Sha'uri dead or dying, he didn't give up and just let it happen. He took advantage of Ra's sending down his head guard to take the bomb to the 'Gate, to carry Sha'uri up to Ra's sarcophagus. This required very quick-thinking, a lot of effort and a great deal of hope - all when he, possibly, only had a few minutes of life left to him. That takes a heck of a lot of guts.

Fourthly, although he is depicted as a 'Peaceful Explorer', in 'Children of the Gods', he is also seen to be a pragmatist, in that he appears to be in charge of Skaara's little army defending the 'Gate. So a bit of alpha male showing through there - and he doesn't appear to have Jack's aversion to letting kids have guns. I'm guessing he had plenty of time to learn how to handle a gun on Abydos, too.

Fifthly, also in 'Children of the Gods', he fervently and selflessly puts himself forward when Apophis's Jaffa is selecting hosts - willing to share Sha'uri's fate and also spare someone else - Skaara as it turned out. Again, lacking in the sense of self-preservation we see manifested in Quinn...

So you see, it was all there, right from the very beginning. Dr. Jackson was already a complete, whole, rounded, three-dimensional, and totally admirable character. Q.E.D.

Best wishes,
Hatshepsut :wave:
--

 

[webmouse]

My favorite scene in the film is when Daniel talks with Ra. Daniel is calm and brave, and later when he fires at the Jaffa, clearly calculating. I didn't intend to suggest that Daniel's character was not brave from the very beginning because clearly he was. He was never the ordinary nerd (or "dweeb" as Jack called him )

But moving him from an Earth-based academic environment to actual danger on alien planets forced a more military shift in his character. He was never afraid to fire a weapon, but it took some training for him to get good at it. I doubt that as an archeologist he was called on to do much hand to hand combat, either. There was a lot of development done in this aspect of his character.

 

[webmouse]

Originally posted by Hatshepsut
I think Daniel was always courageous, both physically and morally. ...
In the first place, he stood up for his, apparently crackpot, theories - his convictions - against the whole of orthodox academia, right up to the bitter end, though it cost him his job, his funding and his home. That takes a heck of a lot of courage, not to say bravado. He put his money where his mouth is - put truth ahead of personal comfort. (N.B. This is not something one can say about Quinn.)

I have only recently seen "Meridian." The setting for JQ's home world

Spoiler

,specifically that his country was in a 1940s style cold war situation,

makes more of JQ's actions understandable when one considers how people acted during a similar period in our history. I grew up in a town whose major industry was making tritium for nuclear weapons. I learned all about life at ground zero, paranoia and blind loyalty from an early age (gave me something to rebel against in the late 1960s ).

JQ's actions in his first appearance are still dishonourable, but where there is a constant threat of war people will do the wrong things for what they believe to be the right reasons. In US history we have suspended free speech (1790s & WW1), held suspects without charge (Civil War), put innocent civilians in concentration camps (Japanese in WW2), censored the mails, spied on our neighbors, and accepted gross government intrusion into the affairs of private citizens working for "unpopular causes" like civil rights.

If one considers Jonas from the POV of our own history, he does seem more like us, but not in the way we like to remember ourselves. It isn't so important now what Jonas was. What is important is what he will become.

Of course, if the writers don't get on with something becoming for JQ to do, then the lad is doomed.

 

[Hatshepsut]

Originally posted by webmouse
JQ's actions in his first appearance are still dishonourable, but where there is a constant threat of war people will do the wrong things for what they believe to be the right reasons.

This is true, but it's not really an argument in his favour, I think.
While many people will act that way, there will always be the outstanding ones who act with integrity and nobility. Arguably Quinn is not one of those, while Daniel is.

In US history we have suspended free speech (1790s & WW1), held suspects without charge (Civil War), put innocent civilians in concentration camps (Japanese in WW2), censored the mails, spied on our neighbors, and accepted gross government intrusion into the affairs of private citizens working for "unpopular causes" like civil rights.

And, considering his actions in 'Beast of Burden' for example, I can easily see Daniel Jackson going out on a limb and opposing all those things. Quinn, I cannot. I think he would be more likely to look away, to avoid getting involved. To do otherwise would be out of character for him. That or T.P.T.B. had scrapped the original model of Quinn as not viable, and produced a Mark II clone - probably with a little of Daniel's D.N.A. built in, courtesy of Hathor

If one considers Jonas from the POV of our own history, he does seem more like us, but not in the way we like to remember ourselves. It isn't so important now what Jonas was. What is important is what he will become.

What he is is the foundation of his character. If that foundation is lacking in integrity and moral fibre, then all the rest - what the scriptwriters force him to become - is effectively built on sand, doesn't hold water, is unbelievable.

Supposing the characters of Jackson and Quinn were reversed in 'Meridian' - that Quinn was Tau'ri and Jackson was Colonan - then based on what we know of the two characters, I think it would still have been Daniel who leapt into the breach to prevent the explosion, and Quinn who dithered.

Best wishes,
Hatshepsut :wave:
--

 

[webmouse]

I have to admit it feels weird being a great Daniel fan trying to find words to defend Jonas.

If the writers are heading in the direction I hope (no promises though ), then they have left Jonas with a lot to overcome and therefore room to grow. Jonas is young enough and bright enough to be changed by Daniel's actions.

Sam says being around Daniel changes people. Jonas says that the arrival of SG1 and Daniel's sacrifice opened his eyes to what the Calonnans were doing, that it was wrong and he wanted to make up for the mistake he had made, that he wasn't expecting exoneration, but only a chance to make a difference.

The tough part for actor Corin Nemec is that it isn't up to him, the SGC or even the audience to give Jonas that chance. It is up to the writers and right now they are a very iffy bunch at best. My lack of faith in them is evidenced by the fact that they had written a series of episodes that marginalized a very bankable actor and he decided not to sign on for S6.

The stories now have to incorporate Jonas as a viable member of the team, but can't have him save the day repeatedly (Wesley Crusher Syndrome ) nor will we be interested in watching him read reports and comment on the obvious.

And he can't be constantly pleading for acceptance. He'll have to earn it and that will take some skillful plotting. The writers are capable of it -- certainly did a fine job in the earlier seasons -- but they have to realize that no one is required to like Jonas.

 

[Hatshepsut]

Originally posted by webmouse
I have to admit it feels weird being a great Daniel fan trying to find words to defend Jonas.

LOL!

The tough part for actor Corin Nemec is that it isn't up to him, the SGC or even the audience to give Jonas that chance. It is up to the writers and right now they are a very iffy bunch at best. My lack of faith in them is evidenced by the fact that they had written a series of episodes that marginalized a very bankable actor and he decided not to sign on for S6.

Well, you've sure hit the nail on the head good and hard there, Webmouse! <G> Several nails in fact.

My disgruntlement stems from their creating a character which is impossible to defend - though you're doing a great job there! <G>
Yes, they needed a flawed character, not a two-dimensional super-hero. BUT, the flaws should have been ones that could be incorporated plausibly into the given situation, and Quinn's manifestly aren't. Having apparently realized that the character as originally presented is neither viable nor believable, they've now launched themselves to the other end of the scale and seem to be turning him into the other undesirable - the two-dimensional super-hero.

The stories now have to incorporate Jonas as a viable member of the team, but can't have him save the day repeatedly (Wesley Crusher Syndrome) nor will we be interested in watching him read reports and comment on the obvious.

From what I hear, they seem to be following both those approaches! LOL! <yawn> I agree, it is most unfair to pitch a new and unknown actor into the final series of a show with little or no chance of establishing the character before the show ends, especially when he's standing in the immense shadow of the popular Dr. Jackson, and when he has little or nothing of any value to contribute and is handicapped by having about as much knowledge and experience of his new home as a pre-school child.
And puffing him off as 'a hunk', and telling us all that we will like him did him no favours whatsoever. I hate being told what to like. Can you tell? <G>
On the plus side, starting off at rock bottom means that any change, however limited, has to be an improvment... ;-)

And he can't be constantly pleading for acceptance. He'll have to earn it and that will take some skillful plotting.

Oh well, he's had it then, poor li'l b*gger! LOL!

It certainly appears that certain members of T.P.T.B. are forcefully targetting the young male demographic - you know, the group whose requirements from the sci-fi label are:

clearly identified Bad Guys with absolutely no redeeming features whatsoever.

super-kewl Good Guys with no faults whatsoever - or ones that are easily ignored.

lots of explosions

lots of fights

lots of kewl special effects

a very simple, easy-to-follow 'plot' (Good Guys beat the cr*p out of the Bad Guys kind of thing)

It's so much easier than aiming at a more demanding adult audience, even if they are the ones with most disposable income.

The writers are capable of it -- certainly did a fine job in the earlier seasons -- but they have to realize that no one is required to like Jonas.

I think I'd modify that by saying some of the writers are capable of it... <G> And I think that for some of them, liking Quinn is a requirement.

I have to say, it makes a very pleasant change to have a rational discussion on this subject Makes a very nice change to have a reasoned argument (in the philosophical sense as opposed to the more usual knock-down-drag-out one in which the principal case put forward by the 'pro' camp is that 'Jonas is cute' )
Thank you very much for this, Webmouse. It really is appreciated.

Love,
Hatshepsut :wave:
--

 

[webmouse]

Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you, Hatshepsut. I'm so glad we can talk about this.

<at this point the post has been taken over by my teenage son>

Yeah <says Rakath> I like all that stuff you listed, but I also like characters who are unpredictable like Lex Luther (Smallville) and Tyr (Andromeda). And I like bad guys who have some redeeming qualities (like in Gundam Wing). And good guys should have faults, because it gives them something to overcome. I like strange eccentric characters like Stark (Farscape) and Harper (Andromeda).

Oh, and you left hot babes off the list. Gotta have hot babes -- like the ones on Farscape in the tight clothes

<at this point webmouse regains control of the post>

you see what I have to contend with

 

[skoon]

oh poor you, I feel for you, I really do

 

[webmouse]

Well, on the bright side my son and I share the same opinions about a lot of what we watch. Lex Luther and Tyr are two of my favorite characters on their respective shows, and my only complaint about "Farscape" is that there should be more good looking men in tight leather pants careening around the galaxy with all those hot babes on Moya.

And now my son has me watching anime and I'm actually beginning to like it. Hard to tell now who is the corrupting influence

 

[Texane]

with regard to Daniel's innate goodness: horsehockey.

I was discussing the writers, not fishing for another "oh what a great, cute guy Daniel was" thread. :ticking:

 

[Rowan]

Comments

Daniel has a core of pure nasty: see 'Absolute Power' for an example. Or when he blasts the Goa'uld larva on Chu'lak. I agree that the 'St. Daniel' myth is not the real character.

Now, to douse incomming flames, I say this only to get back to what Tex mentioned. I agree: the problem has been with the writing. How can you honestly develope a character without good writing - giving that character a chance to grow and eveolve on their own. If you try to shove them into an already made mold and say "Hey, here he/she is ... ya gotta love them!", it won't fly. You haven't had the time to get to know them or invest any of yourself in them.

JMHO.

Rowan

 

[Texane]

Originally posted by webmouse
my only complaint about "Farscape" is that there should be more good looking men in tight leather pants careening around the galaxy with all those hot babes on Moya.

WEBMOUSE FOR PRESIDENT! WEBMOUSE FOR PRESIDENT! VOTE NOW!

 

[Rowan]

LOL!

Originally posted by Texane
WEBMOUSE FOR PRESIDENT! WEBMOUSE FOR PRESIDENT! VOTE NOW!

VOTE EARLY! VOTE OFTEN!

Rowan

 

[Hatshepsut]

Originally posted by webmouse
Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you, Hatshepsut. I'm so glad we can talk about this.

Yay, me too! It's nice to be taken seriously, but not too seriously.

<at this point the post has been taken over by my teenage son>

Hi Rakath :wave:

Yeah <says Rakath> I like all that stuff you listed, but I also like characters who are unpredictable like Lex Luther (Smallville) and Tyr (Andromeda).

Sounds like you're a little more discriminating than the audience that certain members of T.P.T.B. are aiming at It seems to me that they tend to underestimate the intelligence of their audience rather more than somewhat.

And I like bad guys who have some redeeming qualities (like in Gundam Wing). And good guys should have faults, because it gives them something to overcome. I like strange eccentric characters like Stark (Farscape) and Harper (Andromeda).

My thoughts exactly. Are you sure you're a teenager? You're obviously wise beyond your years - like my own son.

Oh, and you left hot babes off the list. Gotta have hot babes -- like the ones on Farscape in the tight clothes

Yup, you're a teenager! Silly me, fancy leaving off hot babes in tight clothes. I'm obviously losing me touch here

<at this point webmouse regains control of the post>

you see what I have to contend with

Spoil sport. 'Twere just gettin' int'eresting! :evil:
Enjoy him, Webmouse. even the terrible teenage years are soon gone. My son's now pushing 24! Aaarrgh! Actually, I have a new fic. in the pipeline which introduces a new character called Finn Pennyfeather as S.G. -1's fourth member. He's in his late twenties, but he's based on said son. Don't know when it'll get finished though as my latest fic. has taken on a life of its own, thanks to Gemsong!

Best wishes,
Hatshepsut :wave:
--

 

[webmouse]

Thank you for the nomination and for your votes. The slush funds can be sent to my private address. I'll need a big warchest to beat that Texas dude, although his campaign message is hampered by his lack of inclusion of good-looking men in black leather pants.

As for the comments of "Daniel's innate goodness" -- nope, it all comes back to the writers and the ancient law of the theatre:

If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage.

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: Comments

Originally posted by Rowan
Daniel has a core of pure nasty: see 'Absolute Power' for an example. Or when he blasts the Goa'uld larva on Chu'lak. I agree that the 'St. Daniel' myth is not the real character.

Hey, I wasn't suggesting that Daniel's perfect. He'd be too boring for words if that were the case, and he certainly isn't boring - or cute. Feisty, yes. Cute, no.

Everyone has his dark side, though I'd say Daniel has a nasty streak, rather than a nasty core. His 'id' tends to surface when he's not in full possession of his faculties, as when he was under the influence of the sarcophagus in 'Need' and when Shifu released his dark side in the dream sequence. Normally, his 'super-ego' (or intellect?) keeps that dark side under control.

Going back to 'Absolute Power', you could argue that in 'alpha mode', he's a control freak, which is quite a hefty character flaw. However, as Jack is a higher alpha male, he doesn't normally get the opportunity.

With regard to the goa'uld larvae on Chu'lak, we had intellect and emotion and control freakery all warring against each other as he and Sam walked away until, finally, it all came together:-

Intellect: We're superior beings - we don't harm defenceless infants.
Emotion: But it was that race of creatures that stole away Sha're - your wife - and Skaara, who were pretty well defenceless too...
Control freakery: Oh, go on, do it. You know it makes sense.
Intellect: Yes, but we want to descend to their level?
Emotion: But if they live, hundreds more innocent humans will be taken as hosts and have to watch powerlessly as they commit atrocities...
Control freakery: Ah, what the hell - they deserve it! Open fire!
Brilliant scene!

I suspect that people who have problems with it do so because it wasn't done in hot blood while they were beside the tank. The time lag suggested a more cold-blooded killing. I do like evil Danny, though. He's a gift for a writer.

Now, to douse incomming flames,

Hey, we don't flame friends. And I never intend to flame anyone. If it ever comes across that way, then I apologize. It's never intended.

I say this only to get back to what Tex mentioned. I agree: the problem has been with the writing.

I think we're all agreed on that one.

How can you honestly develope a character without good writing - giving that character a chance to grow and eveolve on their own. If you try to shove them into an already made mold and say "Hey, here he/she is ... ya gotta love them!", it won't fly. You haven't had the time to get to know them or invest any of yourself in them.

Hear, hear!

Best wishes,
Hatshepsut :wave:
--

 

[Hatshepsut]

Originally posted by webmouse
If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage.

What about improv.? :evil:

Best wishes,
Hatshepsut :wave:

Post Scriptum
Thinking further, that expression completely denies the input of the actor in his/her interpretation of the written word. Having seen different productions of e.g. Shakespeare's plays, it is possible to put an entirely different slant on the words each time.

And then, of course, the settings can change the thrust of a play - or opera. Didn't care for the Nazi stormtrooper version of 'Das Rhaeingold', I have to say.

SPOILER WARNING:

I have read quite a lot in posts about 'Abyss' that

Spoiler

a discarnate Daniel leaves Jack in order to visit Teal'c and Sam at S.G.C., and give them hints about means of rescuing Jack.
.
I've also read that Joe Mallozzi denies this and says that it is entirely in the mind of the viewer.

--

 

[webmouse]

Improv is a different form of theatre and usually is not suggested to sustain a long plot line or story arc. And yes, the actor does bring an interpretation to the written word -- as do the director, set designer, costume designer, lighting and sound team, etc.

But at the basis of most (not all) theatre someone wrote a story with lines to be spoken and actions to be performed. And even the best cast and crew can't save a bad script. On occasion, some actors have forced changes in the script based on their knowledge of their character (Leonard Nimoy was constantly telling the writers what Spock would or would not do).

But ultimately the cast and crew are dependent on a script. If its great writing, then they have the opportunity to make it even better. If its a woofer, then there may not be much they can do to save it unless the writers/producers allow changes.

As the Irish would say:
Cuir guna ar ghabhar, ach is gabhar i gconai e.
(You can put a dress on a goat, but its still a goat )