Skip to main content

What's the full story behind Michael Shanks and Season 6 of Stargate: SG-1?



I've been re-watching Stargate SG-1 and I was a little bit surprised to see that despite Michael Shanks leaving the show, he actually appears in seven episodes in Season 6 (as Daniel Jackson and as the voice of Thor) so it's not like he was completely absent.


I can find plenty of discussion about Michael Shanks' absence during season 6 but there doesn't seems to be a definitive accounting of everything.


Now that it's long past, the truth must be out there. So, what's the full story behind Michael Shanks and Season 6?



Answer



The official line is that he wanted to take "a break" from the show.


Michael Shanks was asked this question at San Diego Comic-Con International 2004.



When Michael was asked why he left the series in season 6 he joked, "Because I hate Rob Cooper." After the laughter died down he followed with the more serious response of, "I needed to take a break from the show. I had a really good year off and then we decided to work together again, it was as simple as that. Nobody expected the show to go on so long and we had options in season 7 and now season 8, and who knows after that."



There was also the suggestion that he was unsatisfied with his character's writing in the prior season.




Shanks also believes that what he says and what gets into the media for his fans to read are two different things. "I read something that claimed I said I hated writers and denigrated their talents. That wasn't it at all! It was never my intention to insult them. I thought the writing staff was just great and did a marvelous job. In a way, maybe I wanted to stay on the show, but I just expressed that the character (of Daniel) wasn't being made use of as well or as creatively as he could have been. I had begun to think the show would work just as well without me and that's when I felt that I had to go. I also felt it was time to expand my horizons and look to other things as an actor."


"The writers disagreed with my point of view. I thought they didn't see what I was talking about. I realize now that I should have left it at that. We had artistic differences, which is what a lot of actors say, but I hated the public speculation that would create. I wanted to be more specific, and it just seemed to cause more hurt feelings. So now I wish I could go back and say we had artistic differences and that's why I left. There is no right answer, given that situation." Shanks pauses. "But," he says pensively. "I am learning to curb what I say."



There's a hint that there were "financial reasons" for his return (e.g. he was offered a chunky pay increase by MGM, possibly coupled with the fact that hadn't been able to find much work over the course of the previous year)



SFN: What led to you want to come back?


MS: Without going into too much detail in terms of the business and creative side of it, I'll just say that the reasons that I left are not the reasons why I'm coming back. They're two separate situations, and I'm walking back into a different situation that's much more acceptable than the one which I left. The bottom line is, I don't think there was any bad blood between myself and the production people, except in theory. And, once we actually sat down in a room and talked over some things, those things were resolved instantaneously. So, the situation I'm coming back to is a bit of a unique circumstance from the one [in which I left], and that's the main point. Nobody bent over backwards; MGM wasn't over a barrel, nor was I coming back with a cap in hand. It was more like the situation changed and they said, 'hey, what do you think about this?' And I said, 'well, that's better.' And it's as simple as that. For me, on a more personal level, I would say the acceptance of the character and the expression of sentiment towards the character was a factor in me deciding to come back.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

languages - Do we ever see written English in the Star Wars films?

In Empire Strikes Back , we see a transcription of what R2's beeps and bloops mean, but it's not English (sorry for the low quality, it's from the 2004 DVDs): I'd assume it's what Basic looks like when written, but is there some point in the the Star Wars films we see written English instead? (This sort of spun off from a discussion in How do people understand astromech droids? .) Answer At one point there was English but it has been phased out in subsequent versions of the films. Chris Gould at DVD Active did a comparison of all versions of each of the Star Wars films, and in his comparison of Episode 4 , there are a couple of screenshots showing how the power gauge for the Death Star tractor beam was changed. I imagine there are probably more to be found in his other comparisons but I haven't got around to reading those yet.
Post a Comment
Read more

Was the "pure soul" of Harry's what had really hurt Voldemort?

In the Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort possesses Harry, and it hurts. Greatly. I think that Dumbledore explained that it was because Voldemort's rotten soul was incapable of assimilating Harry's pure soul, that Voldemort didn't understand the love and friendship etc that Harry has in his heart. But, I think it was a lie. Remember that in Deathly Hallows, while looking for information regarding Horcruxes, it is discovered that it is in fact possible to merge a soul fragment back, but that the process was extremely painful. Now then, if Voldemort tried to possess Harry, and Harry had a fragment of Voldemort's soul, I think that it could have been the true cause of Voldemort's pain: the fact of having his soul so close of another fragment. I think that Dumbledore knew that fact, but had to lie to Harry because it was inappropriate to let him know that he had one of Voldemort's soul fragments at the moment. Is that right? Or was it truly the pure soul of Harry's...
Post a Comment
Read more

star wars - What "exactly" happens when someone turns to the Dark Side?

When I saw the original Star Wars saga as a kid, the concept of the Dark Side imprinted in me was quite simple. You did a bad thing, so you're a bad person so you go to the Dark Side and keep doing bad things. Now, obviously this doesn't hold true in reality. In my mind it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to kill the Emperor and Vader and then just flee the Death Star and rejoin the Alliance. After all they are at war, those are enemy officers that have captured him and are taunting him by threatening with death of all loved ones and the whole operation was intended to kill the Emperor anyway. The same would hold true for Anakin. He could have killed Mace Windu to save the Chancellor and Padme but that doesn't mean he's going to then go mad and kill all Jedis including children. It doesn't add up from a merely psychological point of view. He had a set of objectives and that made him want to keep the Chancellor alive (quite valid by the way, Mace Windu is quite clums...
Post a Comment
Read more

star trek - Warning regarding forward saucer section in Nemesis?

In Star Trek: Nemesis , just before the Enterprise rams into the Scimitar, Picard sends a text message from his captain's chair arm pad to Troi — who is manning the helm in lieu of the crewman who was just blown out through what was once the view screen — indicating that she should put full impulse on standby. (Literally, if you watch the scene closely, Troi's console prefaces the order with "TXT MSG" !) My question is: Did Picard also somehow warn crew members in the forward saucer section about what was about to happen? The ramming of the Scimitar was a heat of the moment decision. Considering that he also resorted to calling the auto-destruct sequence shortly after (which ended up being offline), he probably was of the mindset that any losses would be acceptable in order to hault Shinzon's march to Earth. Still, I'm curious. Answer The original script indicates that he called for the crew to " brace for impact ". Whether that call (or the comma...
Post a Comment
Read more