Formspring Question #390--Professional Antagonism Edition

Most fans agree that from the 2nd to the end of the 5th season, Jack and Daniel go from best-friends to a more adversarial, antagonistic relationship. I would like your view on if that is intentional or result of episode structure as the season continues.

I am skeptical Jack and Daniel were ever best friends. They have had an antagonistic relationship since the original film. They develop a professional respect for one another. Even during their dust ups, such as in “One False Step’ when Daniel blasts Jack for his annoying combination of arrogance and ignorance and jack retorts by calling Daniel flaky, their apologies later consists of jack admitting respect for Daniel’s intelligence and Daniel admiring Jack’s leadership skills--an exchange of professional courtesy grunted at one another like men.

Jack appears to be the type of guy who could only connect with other military types. Hence, I would say Teal’c is his best friend after Kowalski died. Jack is lotal ro everyone under his command, but that is not exactly friendship. Jack had never even been to Daniel’s apartment before his first ‘death” in the inaugural season. Daniel never accepted Jack’s invitation to go fishing. Jack even expressed some surprise Daniel visited him after he was forced into retirement for ’stealing” the Tollan device. Their relationship strikes me as professional, but positive.

But is jack and daniel’s antagonistic relationship from the second through fifth seasons is a product of story necessity or intentionally done, it is a little of both.

There has not been much for Daniel to do since the first season. He was once the brains of SG-1, but sam has evolved into being the problem solver. There is only so many ways daniel’s language skills can play an exciting part in an episode. The writers have stumbled around with the character looking for his role. Generally speaking, Daniel spends his time reeling from his loved ones becoming Goa’uld, dying, and taking part in dream sequences. None of that qualifies as character development. Making him the conscience of SG-1 is about the only option.

I have often enjoyed the moral debate that arises between Jack and Daniel over certain circumstances, but I will be the first to admit the conflict goes overboard at times, probably because there is not much else for Daniel to do but be Jack’s counterpoint. I can see why Michael Shanks wanted to leave. Various opportunities to broaden the character--romances with sam and Frasier have been hinted at, but not pursued--could have been utilized, but never were. All shanks had to work with was Daniel’s philosophical differences with Jack.

Weighing the two arguments, I would say the animosity between Jack and daniel was more the intentional way of finding something for daniel to do. I will not know personally if I am right until I see some episodes after shank’s return from hiatus. It will be the only way to know if Daniel is utilized better in the future than he is now.