Daniel Jackson's character arc - let's talk it over.

[Captain Crimson]

Yeah, I find Daniel Jackson to be one of the more interesting Stargate characters. I think, and this is just my own personal theory, that he'd always struggled with a sense of self-worth since his parents died before his eyes, he couldn't stop it, and the only blood relative he had left had his own demons. I think meeting and befriending Jack, who became a lifelong friend, gave him a bit of self-confidence, so that he could actually crack jokes and be sarcastic when it would deflate the tension. Like his trolling of the documentary film crew. I don't see this as a character change, though, but a character evolution. The core of him remains the same, but those close bonds... well, I think he put it best in Orpheus, that even with his parents, even with Sha're, despite the deep love he had for them, he's finally found his place.

But I want to hear what you guys think? Do you agree with my character assessment of Daniel Jackson? Do you think there's something I missed that you want to add? Or do you think I'm completely wrong? Let me know what you think in the replies, smash out a comment, and I'll talk to you again soon!

[Mecha82]

As corny as it might seem I see Daniel Jackson as heart of SG1. He was compassionate and forgiving member of the team. He never really lost that dispite being universe's punching bag and even when it would had been justified. He might be fictional character but that makes him far better person than any of us.

[Captain Crimson]

I think he had only a few WTF moments that the series quickly moved on from. He's got that classic ST optimism tempered by contemporary realism, so he's definitely the most badass archaeologist this side of Indiana Jones or Rick O'Connell.

[FaxModem1]

As corny as it might seem I see Daniel Jackson as heart of SG1. He was compassionate and forgiving member of the team. He never really lost that dispite being universe's punching bag and even when it would had been justified. He might be fictional character but that makes him far better person than any of us.

You're literally correct. In every alternate universe of SG1 they looked at, any Stargate Program without Daniel Jackson inevitably led to Goa'uld invasion. Probably because he looked at things differently than they did.

So, how did Daniel Jackson look at things? Well, he never stopped looking at people as, well, people. Goa'uld slaves, the Jaffa, the countless different cultures he met, even artificial life capable of talking, he looked at them as fellow people, and that seemed to make a lot of difference in how they interacted with the world. Without him, the Nox, the Tollan, the Tok'ra, all would have received very different ambassadors from the Tau'ri.

He kept them on the straight and narrow, as without that, they would have made disastrous decisions that would have led to short term gains for long term losses. He fought for those who needed help, and he grew as a person, embracing the ideas of more peaceful cultures, such as the Nox and the Ancients.

Then, when he found fault, he criticized the Ascended for not doing enough when they could.


youtu.be/y7xNDJsFGzU

I think that's Daniel's best quality, he spoke truth to power when he saw it.

[Captain Crimson]

As corny as it might seem I see Daniel Jackson as heart of SG1. He was compassionate and forgiving member of the team. He never really lost that dispite being universe's punching bag and even when it would had been justified. He might be fictional character but that makes him far better person than any of us.

You're literally correct. In every alternate universe of SG1 they looked at, any Stargate Program without Daniel Jackson inevitably led to Goa'uld invasion. Probably because he looked at things differently than they did.

So, how did Daniel Jackson look at things? Well, he never stopped looking at people as, well, people. Goa'uld slaves, the Jaffa, the countless different cultures he met, even artificial life capable of talking, he looked at them as fellow people, and that seemed to make a lot of difference in how they interacted with the world. Without him, the Nox, the Tollan, the Tok'ra, all would have received very different ambassadors from the Tau'ri.

He kept them on the straight and narrow, as without that, they would have made disastrous decisions that would have led to short term gains for long term losses. He fought for those who needed help, and he grew as a person, embracing the ideas of more peaceful cultures, such as the Nox and the Ancients.

Then, when he found fault, he criticized the Ascended for not doing enough when they could.


youtu.be/y7xNDJsFGzU

I think that's Daniel's best quality, he spoke truth to power when he saw it.

Don't forget he was kicked out when he finally HAD to intervene to stop the destruction of Abydos, though it did wind up with him Oma Ascending them all anyway. And it led to them helping Bra'tac and Rya'c later.

[Darth Wedgius]

Daniel vs Jack was one of the more interesting elements of the show. Both were idealistic but willing to kill people, but Jack was far more practical and Daniel more idealistic. A terraforming ship going to wipe out a colony of refugees and apparently unwilling to stop? Jack wants to blow it up, but Daniel will go talk to them even when it looks hopeless.

Though it's hard to tell because he was always very anti-Goa'uld, even killing a bunch of Goa'uld babies when Carter wouldn't have (they were evil babies but they were non-combatants). Probably getting his wife hijacked by a Goa'uld didn't help. But Daniel never got as cold about it as Jack did. Jack shoots up an android in "Menace" and Jackson says, "You stupid son of a bitch." And it's never clear who was right.

I think Jackson did become more comfortable as a combatant over time, even mocking an ex-officer who questioned his abilities (holding up his knife and asking aloud which end the bullets went in).

Of course it might be expected that you're more confident after you've died a few times and gotten better.

[clearspira]

Daniel vs Jack was one of the more interesting elements of the show. Both were idealistic but willing to kill people, but Jack was far more practical and Daniel more idealistic. A terraforming ship going to wipe out a colony of refugees and apparently unwilling to stop? Jack wants to blow it up, but Daniel will go talk to them even when it looks hopeless.

Though it's hard to tell because he was always very anti-Goa'uld, even killing a bunch of Goa'uld babies when Carter wouldn't have (they were evil babies but they were non-combatants). Probably getting his wife hijacked by a Goa'uld didn't help. But Daniel never got as cold about it as Jack did. Jack shoots up an android in "Menace" and Jackson says, "You stupid son of a bitch." And it's never clear who was right.

I think Jackson did become more comfortable as a combatant over time, even mocking an ex-officer who questioned his abilities (holding up his knife and asking aloud which end the bullets went in).

Of course it might be expected that you're more confident after you've died a few times and gotten better.

Technically there are no Goa'uld non-combatants due to their genetic memory. Fighting a Goa'uld is like fighting the Borg in many ways. That is one of the reasons why the Harcesis child was so feared as he had all of their knowledge but none of their personality.

As for ''Menace'' that is certainly an interesting moral dilemma. On the one hand, the Asgard later admit that she was the key to defeating the Replicators and thanks to the damage she sustained they were not able to learn much from her. On the other hand, she was about to escape and become the Replicator queen, which we see from later in the series and on Atlantis just what a catastrophe that could have been. Only unlike latter seasons Carter and McKay who had the tech and knowledge to fight back, this was season 5. No Atlantis, no Prometheus, even the F-302 was in the prototype stage. Earth would have been f-ked.

Personally, I think Jack made the right call as far as the Earth is concerned, but not as far as the galaxy is concerned.

[GreyICE]

Something I really enjoyed was that the writers usually took pains to make sure that Jack and Daniel's disagreements were organic and they'd have good points. Actually something the writers usually did was to give everyone decent points when they argued for a position. It's very tempting to pick one character who is right and one character who is wrong (a trap Star Trek fell into on many occasions) and have the narrative reflect that.

Stargate loved the conference room as much as Voyager did, but the meeting room was very much not "magic". Arguments in there might turn out critically wrong, or it might turn out everyone was operating under incomplete information, or even that the person whose viewpoint the team followed wasn't necessarily be one every viewer would agree with - but you'd see why they went that way.

In what was often a pretty awful show from many standpoints (plots, set design, themes, villains, how much sense anything made) the dialogue and personalities frequently elevated it past other trashy shows and into something that was enjoyable to downright good. And I gotta feel the Jack-Daniel dynamic was what really got the ball rolling there.

As for Daniel's arc... it's slightly ridiculous. Stargate never mastered the transition between campy humor and serious drama, and Daniel's arc is full of camp we're supposed to take entirely seriously. His wife is possessed in some of the campiest scenes ever. She briefly comes back to herself while pregnant, in a moment full of narm. Then they're reunited... oh who are we kidding, she dies. And it's actually tragic, and played as such, and you sympathize for Daniel, but the method of her death and the entire scene is just slightly ridiculous. Then he ascends and some stuff happens that's so 90s it hurts and he's back! (actually the actor just left the show for a while).

Michael Shanks is a joy to have on a screen, a pleasure to watch, and constantly provided some of the best acting in the show. Did the writers treat him excellently? Eh, not really, but such was life on Stargate. Really the writing between SG-1 and Atlantis stayed the exact same in quality, what changed was the actors. And boy, we noticed.