Copyright for Stargate SG-1 and all its characters and related images as well as long meetings are held by Metro Goldwyn Meyer Studios Inc., Gekko Film Corporation, Double Secret Productions, Stargate SG-1 Productions plus a lot of other people who we'll happily list here if they drop us a line. This is an aficionado publication, for entertainment purposes only, no copyright infringment is intended, no money is made with it, and overall we'd rather be in Kansas.
Copyright for all articles and original artwork on Pink Khaki is held by Pink Khaki. Please don't use anything here without our prior written consent. The artwork of Mäkka is absolutely, completely and totally exclusive to Pink Khaki, and MAY NOT be used anywhere else.
Articles always represent the opinion of the author, not of the publication as a whole.
PINK KHAKI and all its original characters are PARODY. If you're a lawyer and don't know what this means, you might consider becoming a plumber.
We are not responsible for the content of any site we link to, or to the content of any site the linked-to site links to, or any other site on the whole WWW.
We are in no way associated, afiliated, married or divorced to anybody working on, about, for, with or in connection with Stargate SG-1.
Special thanks go out to the ACLSF.
Very special thanks to Dorothy and Sulky.
FUNDOM, FANDOOM, FANDEMONIUM
A look at "Dannygate"
by The Doc
"I'm quite content with the decision, because I think that, if anything makes you unhappy, or any situation that you find unacceptable, you have to use your best principles and put them in a place where you feel you belong.
And that's what I chose to do. I chose to follow my heart in this particular case. It hasn't let me down so far, so I don't think it will now."
Michael Shanks, BOBW Con, Australia, September 2001
"If I changed my mind, the door wasn't going to be open, anyway, so it was almost as if the moment I said I was going to go, then that was the way it was going to be and live with it."
Michael Shanks, Xposé Magazine, March 2002
I appreciate Michael Shanks, I love Daniel Jackson, and these two statements are about as popular as confessing to own the complete Britney Spears CD collection.
Who's to blame - The Powers That Be? MGM? The Save Daniel Jackson campaigners? The TPTB-supporters? Michael Shanks himself?
All of them. Yes, all of them.
No party involved can be proud on what we had to witness within the last months in this so-called "fandom". Its frightening to see how little it takes to make people loose all common sense and manners; attacking each other verbally in a way they normally never would in their "real life". (Well, at least I hope they wont. Or they will spend even more time online, for I cant imagine there can be too many real life friends left.)
How can one expect to be treated with respect without being willing to pay respect oneself? Or to be taken serious?
Arguing is an art - unfortunately one that seems to go lost. If two people have a different point of view, it's normal they try to convince each other of their own. But once all facts are on the table, all arguments are presented and the other one still feels his own point of view is the best and most suitable to him - hey, so be it. All that's left to do is to tolerate the differing position. Not like, but accept. Alas - the words "tolerance" and "acceptance" don't figure in your next-door extremists vocabulary. Neither in real life, nor in cyberworld.
So many people hurt, so many bitter words spoken - and all because of a TV SHOW. An excellent one, no arguments about this, but still. A handful of people - on both sides of the fence - have lost perspective - and now we're all thrown in the same drawer with 12 year old N'SYNC fans. And yes, I AM miffed!
I know that not every fan, no matter of whom or in support of what, has added to this debacle. But it's so damned difficult to keep out of it. People feel pressurized into justify why they watch a TV program or not, or why they like one character better than the other. This is not acceptable - a TV show is entertainment. Escape from reality. FUN. When I read people actually cry because of what's happening on a message board - then something is seriously wrong.
Talking to somebody personally you think twice before you insult her/him. The anonymity can not be a carte blanche for bad behaviour. So often the fact that behind every nickname there's a person, a human being with feelings is pushed aside. This does not mean we should walk around on eggshells and keep quiet just to avoid to step on anybody's toes. But we have to get back hold discussions in a civilized manner. No matter if it's "Dannygate", politics or religion. Don't forget that intolerance doesn't stop once you've switched off your computer.
The fanatism and the inability to tolerate even the slightest criticizm on their respective heroes showing in the "Dannygate" debacle is frightening. I support neither the SDJ campaign nor the "What TPTB do is well done" activists - if Michael Shanks or Brad Wright would want admiration without criticizm and blind worship they'd start a cult!
THE POWERS THAT BE (TPTB)
For some, Stargate SG-1 is good entertainment. For others, its a necessity of life. But first and before all its business. Its about ratings, commercials, percentages - money.
Even the best scripts and most outstanding actors will not change a thing about the fact that every TV show is, at the end of the day, a money-making-machine.
Had the introduction of Anise/Freya brought higher ratings and more viewers, wed still have the doubtful pleasure of her weekly presence, no matter if we liked it or not. Consequently, if TPTB had thought that more "Daniel Jackson" would drag more people in front of the TV, Michael Shanks would have gotten what he wanted, may the authors have liked it or not. TPTB have decided that, with moving to SciFi channel, they can try to interest a new target group for their show, also in regard of the spin-off, "Atlantis".
However, it must be allowed to doubt if the character of Jonas Quinn will deliver the "fresh breeze" and the more in viewers they expect. From the target group aspect, theyd most probably had more chances on success with bringing Anise back ...
While I might not agree with this point of view, I can understand it. I can even understand MGMs "no information of the masses" policy, though I think a lot of the brouhaha now could have been prevented if MGM at least had officially acknowledged the popular character of Daniel Jackson was going to leave the show before they tried to sell the - mainly female audience - his replacement. What I cant understand or accept is Brad Wrights statement that "only Michael Shanks devoted fans dont like Jonas Quinn". As a woman, I feel degraded by this comment, and this even more as its coming from a man I always considered as a nice guy and "a man of honor", if I may use this somewhat antiquated expression here.
Im not "devoted" to Michael Shanks, and unlike the popular (male) belief that women choose TV programs by the drool factor of the male cast, I dont like the character of Daniel Jackson for his looks - I like him for the values he represents.
I always felt it was courageous and important to have at least in one TV show a "geek" as a positive role model. There was so much about him that I could identify with, and it was good to have a counterpoint to the militarys way to look at things. The voice of humanity. A character who was "cool" without mowing down dozens of people with an MP. We live in times where, so often, the biggest and strongest becomes a hero, not the one with the brains and the morals. Daniel was no warrior, and the exception, and thats why I like him so much. (This doesn't mean I'd wanted him to stay the cover boy of "Geek Monthly" for the rest of the season.)
Jonas Quinn, on the other hand, would have to face court-martial if he was a member of the US military, wouldn't he? Handing over strategically highly important and top secret material to complete strangers - aliens, even! - and then not staying to face the music and explain his actions, but changing sides ... in other words: as long as a crime serves "our" purpose, its no crime at all. Well, you dont need to like Michael Shanks to dislike this attitude. I don't like it coming from George W. Bush - why should I like it coming from the desk of the authors of Stargate SG-1?
Introducing a new character in the last season is a great challenge and can be just the push a show needs to prevent it to fall in the "routine" trap. But Brad Wright has certainly not helped Corin Nemec or increased the acceptance of the new character with his statement. Nemec will have a tough job, anyway, joining a cast so close knitted as this in the last season, replacing one of the "family" - thats no fun. While I dont agree with Michael Shanks on most of his critic on "Meridian" - I think it was an excellent episode - I agree that it was a mistake to introduce the new character in the same episode Daniel died. His appearance will always be linked to Daniels death - can you ask for a more negative start?
I will watch season 6 as long as Im entertained by the show - because thats what it is for me: entertainment. Welcome escape from daily life. And if the product "Stargate" fails to fulfill my need for escapism, I will move to a product which does. This decision is all mine.
THE SAVE DANIEL JACKSON CAMPAIGNERS AND THE TPTB-SUPPORTERS
"One word from him, and we stop." This must be about the most used phrase I was confronted with when talking to people involved with the SDJ campaign. "Him" being Michael Shanks, of course. I never expected him to say "stop the campaign". Why should he? Maybe the campaign is not as powerful an instrument as the initiators think, but its not insignificant, either. But as for the add campaign, and collecting money for it, hes said a word - hes said more than one, in fact, on him feeling uncomfortable with it. So - was the money-collection for further adds stopped? Nope. "Hey, its my money, I worked for it, so I can do with it whatever I want." Hell, sure. But then this has stopped being about getting Daniel Jackson back on the show - the campaign itself has become its main purpose. SDJ has risen quite a few heads, and Michael Shanks has taken notice. Its a good feeling to know that one has moved something, got attention for a cause - so it takes even the more strength to be able to let go and stop when the moment has come. I hope the ladies over at SDJ will have this strength.
So - is the SDJ campaign to blame for the petty bickering on message boards and lists all over the place? Ah, it takes two to tango - this campaign would have never, ever caused such a stir if those opposing it hadnt fought it so demonstratively. Every action causes a re-action - and of course it's less trouble to agree with something than opposing it. So no reason for a smug grin - no side knows when to stop. "A fanatic is somebody who can't stop and won't change the subject", to quote Sir Winston Churchill here. People are completely overseeing that all involved are human beings with mistakes and weaknesses, not superior beings. So if the hard core of the TPTB worshippers calls the hard core of the SDJ campaigners "obessed", its like the pot calling the kettle black. Yes, its true, Joe Mallozzi, Michael Shanks and Brad Wright have more than once made statements which will not bring them on the cover of "Diplomacy Today". I shook my head over Joes comparison of Daniel Jacksons departure with the death of the pet monkey in "Friends" just as much as about Michael Shanks' comment on the "red herring relationship between Jack and Sam". And if they stick out their neck in public, they must accept critic. But nobody has the right to personally insult them or anybody else.
Specially Joe Mallozzi got the big end of the beating stick, mainly because hes the only one showing his face on the internet. True, I do find some of his statements off-tone, and some of the places he posts I would never post personally, because I dislike the general attitude, but thats none of my business. Interacting with fans is kewl, arguing with them is a lost cause, something Michael Shanks has had the doubtful pleasure to experience in the past. Thats what publicists are for. But also if I understand how upset some people are - some messages to Joe Mallozzi were totally unacceptable. Some rules in social interaction also apply to the www, and if this is too complicated, heres the short version: common sense. He's not the scapegoat for all things disliked on Stargate. One can't hold it against the man he's shooting back - also if he might be better off if he would simply ignore the bruhaha.
By the way - the first one who got hate mail was Michael Shanks - as early as Monday morning after Gatecon. This only started to change after his first public statements on his reasons for leaving. Now Brad Wright and Joe Mallozzi get the lion's share of abuse. So I really don't think any side has much reason to point with fingers.
List mums, forum managers and club terminators have done their best to calm the situation "up" - with either nipping every bit of critic on TPTB in the bud, brandishing everybody who admitted to look forward to season 6 as "traitor" and "not a real fan", or by ridiculing those who expressed their grief over the lost of Daniel Jackson. Again - no side has won the flower pot here. The fear to step on an unspecified important "somebody's" toes is ever-present - but what impact would Michael Shanks' or Brad Wright's agreement or disagreement with my own point of view have on my life? None. And not every critic qualifies automatically as a flame. This aside - is there such a thing as a "real fan"? Or "right reasons" to watch a TV show? Hell, no! I'm really tired of this "Either youre with me, or you against me" attitude.
Labels, parties, categories - what an irony: here we are, watching week after week a TV show where the protagonists try to establish friendships with other species, across the galaxy, no matter how strange their culture might look to us, and how big the cultural differences, and we admire them for it - and are not even able to tolerate an opinion which differs from ours over a TV show!
The majority of the audience does not sit in front of the screen and follows the battle on message boards and lists. They are blissfully ignorant on whats going on, and just watch the show as it happens. I wish I was one of them - this debate sure has ruined a lot of the fun for me, its impossible to escape spoilers, and personally, I would have wished the character of Daniel Jackson and the actor Michael Shanks a more dignified farewell.
AMANDA TAPPING, CHRISTOPHER JUDGE, DON S. DAVIS AND THE REST OF THE FAMILY
A difficult start for Jonas Quinn
(Corin Nemec):
"Houston, we have a Jonas!"
The team which shall be saved consists of 4 people, but nobody seems to talk much about these two - Amanda Tapping and Christopher Judge. And also Don S. Davis was deeply affected by Michael Shanks departure.
I doubt they have the times of their lifes right now. Not only did they lose a close friend, they are also expected to choose sides.
Christopher Judge found the best way to put it: he doesnt care for the reasons Shanks left, and he doesnt want to comment on it, he only knows hes gone and hes hurt.
And Amanda Tapping, who's very close to Michael Shanks and refers to Shanks as her "brother" and stated that shed "kill" for him, has now to face critic because she stated in a recent interview for "Starlog" magazine:
"Certainly there are times when you reach a level of frustration where you know there's so much more potential for your character, but it's not happening," she admits. "But, you have to remember that it is an ensemble show; there are four main characters, so you can't always expect to be the 'A' story line." However, the actress sympathises with Shanks' worries about being sidelined: she sometimes feels the same way herself.
How can it be that people who never talked with Michael Shanks, know nothing about him, never worked with him or even saw him in the flesh claim to know him better than somebody who has spent a great deal of the last five years with him, and call one of his closest friends "disloyal"? What on earth makes them think theyre entitled to judge?
I can well imagine what it must be like for Michael Shanks, not getting up in the morning anymore and driving down to the set.
But at the same time, we should not forget those who still do drive down to the set every day, and who are hurt because somebody they worked with for five years and got very close to is not there anymore. They would have loved to go this way to the end together with the Shanks, because they had started it with him. They are the ones who head on auto pilot to his trailer - but there's no Michael anymore.
To quote Michael Shanks: "Its difficult to keep up friendships over a long distance, specially in this profession, but I think these are well worth it."
Indeed.
Sam (Amanda Tapping) cries at Daniel's death bed.
Teal'c (Christopher Judge) mourns.
picture by Téléstar Magazine
picture by Robert Vogel
He has put a lot of himself into the character if Daniel Jackson, has spent five years of his life on the set of Stargate SG-1, and the people he worked with have become family to him. A lot of things happened in these five years, and hes certainly not the same man he was five years ago.
One day killing a pizza on the beach with your friends, the next standing in front of the Stargate, having your picture in magazines, a dedicated fan base and a handful of websites to your credit. Thats a big thing. It's nothing you give up easily and without thinking.
Michael Shanks knows Daniel Jackson. He knows him better than anybody else does. But Daniel isnt his. We can only guess what it must have been like for him to read script after script and being disappointed again and again. No surprise he was getting frustrated.
What did he do about it? Same as you and me when we are unhappy in our job: he talked to the bosses and tried to change things. This didnt work, so he took the consequences and left.
But thats the point - he didnt leave as a consequence: he quit his job as the ultimate mean to try and make them change their minds. He hoped they were so shocked theyd listen to him, see the problem and do something about it.
Alas, they didn't.
After all these years in this business he must have known this could backfire the way it did, that they would take him by the word if he said "I'm leaving". Now hes hurt, angry and hes feeling cheated: they didnt try to talk him into coming back.
They didn't take him as serious as he thought they would, didn't give the character the credit he felt he deserved - they just let him go, and Daniel Jackson with him. He gambled, he lost.
I am really, really sorry about this, agree with many of his concerns and I feel with him, but he will have to accept it. We all have to carry the consequences of our decisions, pleasant or not, ourselves, and Michael Shanks makes no exception.
Shanks will be back as a guest for season 6 - how shall we imagine the work on the set, the dialogue with TPTB, the authors, after the statements made by both sides? So far, we have spoilers up to episode 10, and theres only one "Daniel" episode among them, "Abyss". Rumours go a second episode is in work. Even before "Abyss" was shot, it's been torn apart within the fandom - but Michael Shanks accepted it, and he would ridicule his decision to leave if he'd accept a mediocre script (his words. Not mine.) He is the actor, and he decided to do it. So who are we to know his business better than he does.
However - I can't help but feel that we're taken for a little ride here. While I'm definitely willing to give season 6 a chance, I can't help but wonder, when reading the spoilers for the episode "Frozen", where, exactly, the difference between the character of Jonas Quinn and Daniel Jackson is, the much talked-about "fresh breeze". Which makes me wonder if it's possible Corin Nemec wasn't somebody hastily casted to replace Michael Shanks, but Shanks' threat to leave actually came in handy and didn't put any pressure on the production as his replacement was already at hand? So much more is going on behind the scenes, and we'll never really know what this "more" is. It's all gossip, rumours, assumptions.
Shanks is no saint, and he has his weak sites as well. He's not Daniel Jackson. And no, the cast on the set wasn't always smiling at each other; like in every family, there were times when things were not all wine and roses, and Peter de Luise is not called the "Peacekeeper" without reason. But hey, that's normal. It's human. You never argued with your friends or family? No reason to put the blame on anybody. When some media now try to construct a "war of the egos" between some cast members, all I can say is that it takes more to be a journalist than to know where to switch on the computer.
And as for those within this fandom who feel obliged to pick these rumours up and spread them around, selling them as truth: it takes a low mind to think low.
Shanks got a good head on his shoulders, and he's a man with a pretty healthy ego. He's determined, persistent (make that "stubborn" at times), who knows what he wants and how to get it. When he talks about his school days, he refers to himself as an "overachiever". He still is, in a way. Hes never happy with his performance, always feels he could do better, its 100 % or nothing. I absolutely don't agree with those who say that he's whining now. I'd rather say he's sulking, and I hope he'll get over this soon, coz he's got a world to conquer out there. Stargate was step one on his way. There's still a long road ahead of him.
The appreciation I have for the man didn't change, so if you tell me you want to support Michael Shanks - hey, go ahead! Do so! But support him for the man he is, not the one you want him to be.
A real friend is not the one who tells you how wonderful you are, and never criticizes any of your actions. Its the one who knows when to kick your butt and tell you that youre running up the wrong street.
© The Doc, Pink Khaki 2002
