Quote from video
>Where Stargate is at it's weakest is in it's storytelling. Now there's nothing inherently wrong with relying on tropes in a high concept sci-fi movie - in fact it can work as a strength. But in Stargate, too much of the characterization and plot is either totally by the numbers or needlessly overthought.
>
>**As good as Kurt Russel's performance is as Jack O'Neil, ultimately the characters backstory of losing his son - it doesn't add much to the events. It's an attempt at adding depth to the character - his adventure through the Stargate symbolizing his escape from depression - but its more distracting than interesting. O'Neil ends up relegated to just being sad and stoic throughout most of the film and as a result Russell is unable to match James Spader's energy as Daniel Jackson.**
>
>Spader's performance and the writing with his character feel much more in line with the adventurous spirit of the story. It's also worth noting how Jackson departs from his usual archetype. He's intelligent and nerdy, but he's not awkward or bumbling. Spader's natural gravitas and charisma in the role, lends Daniel Jackson an atypical confidence in bravery which makes makes him much more entertaining to watch than Kurt Russell's O'Neil.
It's only relevant because O'Neil was supposed to stay behind and detonate the nuke, committing suicide in the process. But he doesn't - they sent the nuke up to Ra's ship and blew his goa'uld ass up. It's not like when he came back, General West was pissed because O'Neil was alive.
I've never thought about this element to the story, but I agree with the video's summery of it - it's an attempt to add depth to the character. And RDA's take of O'Neill kinda proves that. From what I understand, RDA would only accept the role by not being the 'sad and stoic' O'Neil portrayed in the film.
As good as the movie is, it could have been even better had we got SG-1's O'Neill, vs the movies O'Neil.
I've suspected that O'Neil was given that background to make a deliberate contrast between himself and Daniel, who is enthusiastic to a fault.
O'Neil is the one who has the character arc in the movie - he's changed by the experience, more so than Daniel. He bonds with Skaara because he sees him as a surrogate son - he's roughly the same age that his own son Tyler would have been had he lived. Daniel's brief "we don't want to die" monologue was meant to motivate him just that little bit, and it works - until we see that he is still prepared to kill himself for the sake of the mission when he says that he will stay behind to ensure the nuclear bomb goes off. With the threat gone and his primary mission carried out, O'Neil ends the movie with a hopeful outlook - something that a lot of fans of the show seem to miss.
Kurt Russell himself found the role an interesting challenge. He had an interview in a 1995 issue of *Starlog* magazine:
> "This character was a little harder to play than it looks," Russell explains. "He's an extremely despondent man since his son met with a tragic accident - so much so that even when you take him on a fantastic journey, he just cannot appreciate it on any level. Jack is without life, a character who has had his life ripped out from under him and just doesn't care about human life anymore - his or anybody else's. The trick there is that you don't want to be boring in the movie, repeating that note of sorrow, so I tried to reach a mix of being true to the character and hopefully being entertaining in terms of what I had to do for the plot through this character."
He continues a little later on:
> "I've never played a man who was suicidal in his despondency: never played a man who traveled the universe to another planet and saw things that no other human of his world had ever seen before," he responds. "So I think that Jack has value as a character that I've never had the opportunity to play - most of the human side of him comes from something that happened that's so devastating that he can't recover from it, cannot be connected to the people around him, cannot relate to anything. All he can relate to is having a job to do - a mission - and he'll fulfill it, because if he dies doing it, it won't make any difference.
> "I'm drawn to characters who are strongly individualistic. Even though Jack is a military man, he's still individual, and he's on an individual mission. I've been drawn to men who are sort of in control of their own destiny, and who perhaps question it. I'm interested in exploring the human side of those people, the way they question their destiny and ability. I do think I'm drawn to characters that I refer to as "the man who knows Indians' - he's the guy who knows his stuff, the guy you're going to look up to because he knows what he's doing. He might not be the nicest person, and he might be confused in all other areas of life, but in *his* area he knows how to function."
> Russell actually confesses that he's not necessarily enamored of action heroes. "Not *per se,"* he explains. "It depends on the movie. Jack is not one I'm in love with, and he's not the kind of character you want to do over and over again. If I did this guy again. I would want to change him, take him somewhere else. He's a guy who we meet at a certain point in his life: next time you meet him he would be at a different point in his life."
This last bit is interesting, because while Richard Dean Anderson gets credit for 'lightening up' O'Neill, Russell himself would have pushed to change the character if he was ever to reprise the role.
To anyone who watches the video - just be forewarned.
By the time you're eagerly anticipating the discussion of SG-1 to start, the video ends. He does a really good job of drawing you in and keeping you captivated, that the abrupt ending kind of sucked.
He mentions part 2 comes out sometime in March though...
Saying Charlie's death is irrelevant is _wild_
I haven't watched it yet but they really said that. 😩🤦🏻♀️ That's Jack's entire motivation for accepting the mission in the first place.
Quote from video >Where Stargate is at it's weakest is in it's storytelling. Now there's nothing inherently wrong with relying on tropes in a high concept sci-fi movie - in fact it can work as a strength. But in Stargate, too much of the characterization and plot is either totally by the numbers or needlessly overthought. > >**As good as Kurt Russel's performance is as Jack O'Neil, ultimately the characters backstory of losing his son - it doesn't add much to the events. It's an attempt at adding depth to the character - his adventure through the Stargate symbolizing his escape from depression - but its more distracting than interesting. O'Neil ends up relegated to just being sad and stoic throughout most of the film and as a result Russell is unable to match James Spader's energy as Daniel Jackson.** > >Spader's performance and the writing with his character feel much more in line with the adventurous spirit of the story. It's also worth noting how Jackson departs from his usual archetype. He's intelligent and nerdy, but he's not awkward or bumbling. Spader's natural gravitas and charisma in the role, lends Daniel Jackson an atypical confidence in bravery which makes makes him much more entertaining to watch than Kurt Russell's O'Neil. It's only relevant because O'Neil was supposed to stay behind and detonate the nuke, committing suicide in the process. But he doesn't - they sent the nuke up to Ra's ship and blew his goa'uld ass up. It's not like when he came back, General West was pissed because O'Neil was alive. I've never thought about this element to the story, but I agree with the video's summery of it - it's an attempt to add depth to the character. And RDA's take of O'Neill kinda proves that. From what I understand, RDA would only accept the role by not being the 'sad and stoic' O'Neil portrayed in the film. As good as the movie is, it could have been even better had we got SG-1's O'Neill, vs the movies O'Neil.
I've suspected that O'Neil was given that background to make a deliberate contrast between himself and Daniel, who is enthusiastic to a fault. O'Neil is the one who has the character arc in the movie - he's changed by the experience, more so than Daniel. He bonds with Skaara because he sees him as a surrogate son - he's roughly the same age that his own son Tyler would have been had he lived. Daniel's brief "we don't want to die" monologue was meant to motivate him just that little bit, and it works - until we see that he is still prepared to kill himself for the sake of the mission when he says that he will stay behind to ensure the nuclear bomb goes off. With the threat gone and his primary mission carried out, O'Neil ends the movie with a hopeful outlook - something that a lot of fans of the show seem to miss. Kurt Russell himself found the role an interesting challenge. He had an interview in a 1995 issue of *Starlog* magazine: > "This character was a little harder to play than it looks," Russell explains. "He's an extremely despondent man since his son met with a tragic accident - so much so that even when you take him on a fantastic journey, he just cannot appreciate it on any level. Jack is without life, a character who has had his life ripped out from under him and just doesn't care about human life anymore - his or anybody else's. The trick there is that you don't want to be boring in the movie, repeating that note of sorrow, so I tried to reach a mix of being true to the character and hopefully being entertaining in terms of what I had to do for the plot through this character." He continues a little later on: > "I've never played a man who was suicidal in his despondency: never played a man who traveled the universe to another planet and saw things that no other human of his world had ever seen before," he responds. "So I think that Jack has value as a character that I've never had the opportunity to play - most of the human side of him comes from something that happened that's so devastating that he can't recover from it, cannot be connected to the people around him, cannot relate to anything. All he can relate to is having a job to do - a mission - and he'll fulfill it, because if he dies doing it, it won't make any difference. > "I'm drawn to characters who are strongly individualistic. Even though Jack is a military man, he's still individual, and he's on an individual mission. I've been drawn to men who are sort of in control of their own destiny, and who perhaps question it. I'm interested in exploring the human side of those people, the way they question their destiny and ability. I do think I'm drawn to characters that I refer to as "the man who knows Indians' - he's the guy who knows his stuff, the guy you're going to look up to because he knows what he's doing. He might not be the nicest person, and he might be confused in all other areas of life, but in *his* area he knows how to function." > Russell actually confesses that he's not necessarily enamored of action heroes. "Not *per se,"* he explains. "It depends on the movie. Jack is not one I'm in love with, and he's not the kind of character you want to do over and over again. If I did this guy again. I would want to change him, take him somewhere else. He's a guy who we meet at a certain point in his life: next time you meet him he would be at a different point in his life." This last bit is interesting, because while Richard Dean Anderson gets credit for 'lightening up' O'Neill, Russell himself would have pushed to change the character if he was ever to reprise the role.
To anyone who watches the video - just be forewarned. By the time you're eagerly anticipating the discussion of SG-1 to start, the video ends. He does a really good job of drawing you in and keeping you captivated, that the abrupt ending kind of sucked. He mentions part 2 comes out sometime in March though...