Michael Shanks not yet signed for season 10

[smurf]

One thing I never will understand is why anyone leaving a tv show should be "taught a lesson." And, does that only apply if people think the reason for leaving isn't noble? I mean, nobody will say that RDA needs to be taught a lesson, because his reason is a "good" one. (the quotes aren't to suggest some doubt that his reason was good, but to suggest that there is no "bad" reason to leave a show) I don't think anyone needs to be "taught a lesson" regardless of why they leave a show.

Actually I was referring to the way he handled himself once he left. Not the actual leaving of the show.
Bad mouthing your former work colleagues of the only major job you've had, in a business which relies on word of mouth and personality, may not have been the smartest of moves.

No MS isn't the leading man, BB is. By the simple fact that BB was hired for his name amongst sci-fi fans.
A thought on why CN wasn't hired instead of BB when RDA stepped down. CN would automatically become, in top level PTB eyes, the lead. No matter that he wasn't in season 6. By taking into account his pay, his previous filmography, and the fact they intended to make him the lead in SGA, I think the industry would regard him as the show's lead. That would've rattled a few cages...

[ShardsofGlass]

Actually, I think the problem with BB, MS, etc. is not so much that they are typecast but that they are still unknowns to the rest of the industry. Small scifi shows on a small cable channel just don't make it onto the radar of a lot of casting agents, imo. So people who work on other scifi shows know these actors, but not the mainstream people.

As far as being a lead goes -- I do think it has to do with looks, though I don't know much about it. The best looking people all seem to be the leads, don't they?

[Dani347]

On the other hand it can be argued that Michael is already typecast because in quite a few fans eyes Michael Shanks is Daniel Jackson is Michael Shanks (probably not helped by him returning to the role). There isn't a differentiation between actor and character. Like the way William Shatner is Captain Kirk, or Leonard Nemoy is Spock.

Except WS has managed a successful career post Star Trek. Two(?) Emmys for Boston Legal, and movies where I think the public thought of him first as "William Shatner" rather than Kirk. So, even if an actor does become typecast (and I'd argue that RDA was typecast as Macgyver, and to some people maybe still is) it's no gurantee that they'll suffer a permanent setback. Of course, the road to varied parts is harder when you're so identified with one character, but not necessarily impossible.

I think the person in the best position to not be typecast out of MS, AT and CJ, is going to be Amanda. The same thing which stops her becoming the lead in Stargate is also the thing which will provide her with a longer career. In a setup of (male) lead + supporting, she is the female lead. Taken outside of Stargate she can be cast as either the lead or be placed back into the position she has now of first female actor in a male lead show.
If SG1 was less male dominated with more female support characters she would probably be in the same position as MS and CJ.

Is it because AT's position as female lead is one of default? By default, I mean she's the lead female because there's no other female for her to be supporting to. If the situation was different and MS was a supporting actor in a largely female cast, he could be considered the lead male, but it would be by default. So, people view her in a more flexible light? And, why should that matter? MS can't be cast in any other position except one equivalent to the one he holds now?

[Dani347]

As far as being a lead goes -- I do think it has to do with looks, though I don't know much about it. The best looking people all seem to be the leads, don't they?

Well, I think good looks is a requirement for leading man status, but a good looking man can be a character actor. There's the "character actor trapped in a leading man's body" saying. But, I think it takes more than one role (and although MS has had other parts, the only significant one has been Stargate) to tell.

[smurf]

Except WS has managed a successful career post Star Trek. Two(?) Emmys for Boston Legal, and movies where I think the public thought of him first as "William Shatner" rather than Kirk. So, even if an actor does become typecast (and I'd argue that RDA was typecast as Macgyver, and to some people maybe still is) it's no gurantee that they'll suffer a permanent setback. Of course, the road to varied parts is harder when you're so identified with one character, but not necessarily impossible.

Very true, but as you say it is harder. It's taken him 20+ years to shake it.

Is it because AT's position as female lead is one of default? By default, I mean she's the lead female because there's no other female for her to be supporting to. If the situation was different and MS was a supporting actor in a largely female cast, he could be considered the lead male, but it would be by default. So, people view her in a more flexible light? And, why should that matter? MS can't be cast in any other position except one equivalent to the one he holds now?

It's a sad indictment of how parts of the industry still works that there are fewer interesting female characters about, and by being well known, and by being placed forward because she is, pretty much, the only female character, AT is probably protected a little more from being an unknown quality (in terms of show carrying) to the wider audience/industry.
In the case of MS and CJ, there are more roles for men and therefore more competition for the larger roles. No-one says MS can't be cast in anything, just by being in scifi and not being the lead he is at more of a disadvantage in terms of recognition with the wider audience/industry.
All said, I'm not saying AT is going to suddenly get lead status on a major American production, but be more likely to be offered the lead/2nd in non-scifi shows and so avoid being typecast.

And yes, if the world worked the other way around, MS would be the one in the better position not to be typecast.

[LaCroix]

Actually I was referring to the way he handled himself once he left. Not the actual leaving of the show.
Bad mouthing your former work colleagues of the only major job you've had, in a business which relies on word of mouth and personality, may not have been the smartest of moves.

No MS isn't the leading man, BB is. By the simple fact that BB was hired for his name amongst sci-fi fans.
A thought on why CN wasn't hired instead of BB when RDA stepped down. CN would automatically become, in top level PTB eyes, the lead. No matter that he wasn't in season 6. By taking into account his pay, his previous filmography, and the fact they intended to make him the lead in SGA, I think the industry would regard him as the show's lead. That would've rattled a few cages...

I have to agree with smuf. If you look at it this way, LA is one large city, but Hollywood is a small town in LA. And in Hollywood word does have a habit of getting around.

The interviews that MS did after he decided not to reprise his role of Daniel Jackson could have been the reason(s) why he didn't get the role of Apollo on the current BSG. IMO.

I know that with RDA gone, he may have given MS, AT, and CJ a little advice
about when to look for other options when they felt it was no longer "fun" for
them, to get out as soon as their able. I think in another big way CN's fanbase was also used, just like BB's and CB's are right now. But their"re being asked back. If anything maybe MS's is looking at CN's movie, James Spader's two awards and the fact that as long as he works on this show nothing's going to change for him.


JMHO

[Skydiver]

what i see as more of a leading actor isn't quite his looks, but his attitude. he needs to be, well paternal is too strong a word, but almost like that. he's mentorin, leading but also knows when to step back and let the younger actors under his wing step forth and grow into their own. (that's where the paternal comes in, kinda of parent like)

s/he can't be fussed about number of lines or number of scenes. to me a good leading man is there to hold the show together but doesnt' think that it all has to be about him.

i compare william peterson, who seems to be like this (as was rda) to david Caruso....who seems to let his ego do the walking far too much. i dont' consider caruso a good leading man because he's too wrapped up in "ME" to play well with the rest of the kids.

a good leading actor knows how to share, and has the confidence not to be threatened by someone else getting more lines than he has, or coming into his/her own as a supporting actor

I think that amanda has this ability to mentor and lead. and rda has it.

but that, to me, is what makes a good leading actor/actress

[GateAngel]

One thing that could be hampering is that so many of his vocal fans seem to only want him to be daniel. Notice that i said SOME.

Yeah, it is possible that had his fans not campaigned so hard he could have gotten more movie roles and possibly some guesting shots on US tv, which often lead to recurring roles....but they wanted him back as daniel so that's what happened.

The entertainment industry was in a huge slump during that time right after 9/11. Many well established actors were struggling to find work, let alone someone relatively unknown like Michael Shanks who was striking out on his own. He actually worked quite abit more than most actors did around that time. And, from what I understand from talking to various contacts in the industry (especially a friend of mine who is a British actor), in a strange somewhat patriotic backlash to the terrorist attacks, there was more of a tendency around that time for studios and producers to hire American actors rather than actors from other countries and Michael Shanks is Canadian. For Michael, it wasn't about how his fans were acting or what they were doing, but more about him being caught in the hardship of the times.

whether it was good or bad for his career (actors in scifi especially have to worry about being typecast and then never getting other roles because they're always seen as their scifi role.....for example, how many of the trek actors have had non-scifi roles over teh years?????) unless we really have a time machine, no one will know for sure

Producers and casting directors in Hollywood most likely don't even know that there was a fan campaign. Unless something like that effects their own projects directly, they don't even show up on the producer or casting director's radar. So what the fans had to say or not about Michael Shanks being Daniel Jackson was in all probability irelevant to them.

If they did know about it, then what they saw was an actor that can create publicity for a project. Whether anyone likes it or not, the SDJ was pure publicity for the show. It meant that there were viewers and viewers mean revenue for the advertisers and that meant that the studios can charge more money for the advertising space.

however it is just as likely that, in getting what they want, MS' fans haven't exactly promoted good things for his career. the longer he's linked to being 'daniel jackson' the harder it'll be for him to ever be seen as anything else

Again, fandom for an actor has very little affect on him/her getting jobs or being typecast. It's the ratings for a series that they are in that can have more of an effect. Stargate: SG-1 is a successful scifi show and so the actors are going to be offered parts in other scifi related projects that want that same kind of success for themselves.

An actor's 'look' or trademark can also play a role in leading to typcasting way more than what kind of fanbase they have or what fans say about them or what roles the fans want them in.

The reality is, the SDJ may have played some part in Michael Shanks return to Stargate: SG-1, but it most likely barely registered on the radar of casting directors and producers many of whom most likely don't even know what Stargate SG-1 and Michael's role on it is about. What matters to them is can he as an actor auditioning for them be what they need for the role.

[prion]

Leading men are usually characterized by heroic guys, good looking, over 6' if at all possible as Hollywood is obssesed with that, where as character actors are usually anything but that. They're not Tom Cruise handsome, and usually are like the guy next door, or comedic, or something like that. It's the way Hollywood has always done it.

Alas, once a woman hits 40 it's like she vanishes off the face of the earth unless he plays 'mom' roles. THe fact that AT is still on the show (well, we hope<G>) is great. SHe's never been foisted on the audience as a sex symbol (they get guest stars for that). However, if you look at any scifi shows on, most women, if they are the leads, are all under 30 and pretty much in the gorgeous category. No 'plain janes', so to speak. And the trouble is they all start looking alike!

There are some shows like Numb3rs where the heroes are more intellectual than anything, so they can be more 'geeky' as intelligence can be a draw (after all, McKay on SGA has tons of fans <G>).

Daniel on SG1 is sorta half-half. Heroic, can shoot guns, etc, but also has a brain, which Jack doesn't always display. However, you rarely have seen RDA play the bad guy, whereas MS has, and it's always good to be able to play both villian and bad guy.

[Lida]

I highly doubt that MS will leave SG1, but that's just MO and I'll try and reserve judgement for now...

As I recall, MS left once before.....and as he probably has a much more inflated self image of himself now, the only thing that will probably keep him on board for another season is more air time and MONEY.

Would I care if MS left.....the way "stars", both actors and sports players have been acting lately, I really don't care anymore. I love the character of Daniel Jackson, but we lost Jack and Gen. Hammond, and the show continued. Maybe it's time for all the actors to move on to new things.....10 seasons is a long time for any series. But that's just my opinion.......and I'm not in the best of moods right now. Sorry, don't mean to step on MS fan's toes.

[prion]

As I recall, MS left once before.....and as he probably has a much more inflated self image of himself now, the only thing that will probably keep him on board for another season is more air time and MONEY.

Would I care if MS left.....the way "stars", both actors and sports players have been acting lately, I really don't care anymore. I love the character of Daniel Jackson, but we lost Jack and Gen. Hammond, and the show continued. Maybe it's time for all the actors to move on to new things.....10 seasons is a long time for any series. But that's just my opinion.......and I'm not in the best of moods right now. Sorry, don't mean to step on MS fan's toes.

WEll, everybody's got an ego. Fact of life. Inflated? I wouldn't know. Any actor worth their salt will negotiate for the best deal possible, and it can't be denied that yes, viewers do like him (and not just fans) as the ratings are maintained on the show. However, I sure woudln't compare an actor to a sports star. Some sports are INCREDIBLY overpaid to just kick balls around. You see some behavior and you wonder, WHY would anybody tolerate it, but the managers and teams and even fans tolerate it because they want their team to win. It's the stupid sports mentality. I'm sure there are plenty of actors who are jerks, idiots, etc., but as long as they don't across that way on the finished product and they're not off doing bad things they tossed in jail for (unless you're a star like Hugh Grant, then it doesn't matter if you're caught with a hooker in a car, ahem, cough cough).

[Lida]

WEll, everybody's got an ego. Fact of life. Inflated? I wouldn't know. Any actor worth their salt will negotiate for the best deal possible, and it can't be denied that yes, viewers do like him (and not just fans) as the ratings are maintained on the show. However, I sure woudln't compare an actor to a sports star. Some sports are INCREDIBLY overpaid to just kick balls around. You see some behavior and you wonder, WHY would anybody tolerate it, but the managers and teams and even fans tolerate it because they want their team to win. It's the stupid sports mentality. I'm sure there are plenty of actors who are jerks, idiots, etc., but as long as they don't across that way on the finished product and they're not off doing bad things they tossed in jail for (unless you're a star like Hugh Grant, then it doesn't matter if you're caught with a hooker in a car, ahem, cough cough).

Sorry, but actors (not all, but MANY), are over paid prima donnas, just as many so called sports "stars" are. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[prion]

Sorry, but actors (not all, but MANY), are over paid prima donnas, just as many so called sports "stars" are. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Well most actors don't make a lot of money, but folks like Tom Cruise? Definitely overpaid! But still think sports folks are worse.

[Dani347]

Leading men are usually characterized by heroic guys, good looking, over 6' if at all possible as Hollywood is obssesed with that, where as character actors are usually anything but that. They're not Tom Cruise handsome, and usually are like the guy next door, or comedic, or something like that. It's the way Hollywood has always done it.

I think there are two definitions. An talented actor who doesn't get lead roles, because they don't conform to Hollywood standards of beauty, or (in the case of actors who are labeled "a character actor trapped in a leading man's body") actors who are able to play various roles, including off beat ones. Sometimes character parts are the lead parts in movies. (See: Almost any Johnny Depp part). And, of course, some leading men manages to segue into character roles later on.

So, to at least mention MS in this post, I have no idea what kind of career he'll have post Stargate. Haven't seen him in enough roles.

[Skydiver]

So, to at least mention MS in this post, I have no idea what kind of career he'll have post Stargate. Haven't seen him in enough roles.

that will probably be his hardest handicap to overcome.

yes, he's had some guest roles and a b movie....but not much else. and in many of his other roles, he plays a version of daniel. just like dylan hunt was just another version of hercules....IMHO, he needs to really break out and seek different roles, but hey, it's his career, not mine. his choice