More Info On Stargate Universe

[DWF]

http://stargate.mgm.com/news_detail.php?id=114

Casting notes leaked online several weeks ago, revealing that the producers are looking for a core cast of six - four actors and two actresses - to launch the series. Though the team is lead by Colonel Everett Young, who is described as being in his forties, the rest of the characters - Tamara Jon, a field medic; Chloe Carpenter, daughter of a US senator; Eli Hitchcock, mathematical genius; Jared Nash, a lieutenant at the SGC and Ron Stasiak, a US marine, are listed as being in their twenties. Some fans have queried the wisdom of having such young characters, but Cooper points to the youth of Stargate SG-1's cast when it launched.

"The SG-1 cast were quite young when they started," he argues. "Michael Shanks and Amanda Tapping were both in their early twenties when they first started the show – it just was on for ten years! So I don’t think we’re doing anything different than what we’ve done before when we’ve started a new show."

The writer confesses to being particularly excited about the series concept, and thinks it has a lot of potential to return to the early style of the Stargate franchise.

"One of the things I'm really excited about is that we’re looking for people who are a little more identifiable and contemporary," he explains. "I always thought one of the things that was attractive about the original series was the 'everyman on the street' point of view that O’Neill had to science fiction. It made the characters identifiable. They were more like we would be in a science fiction situation, and how we would react. And that’s what we’re trying to do with the new show – create characters that are going to be challenged by the situation. The team that ends up on the ship is not really who was supposed to go, and in some cases they’re very unprepared and unqualified to be in that situation. So they don’t have all the answers as quickly, and the challenges are greater than they would be for people who have seen it all and don’t have as far to go as characters when they encounter an incredible situation."

Though casting is still in its early stages, Cooper rules out the permanent inclusion of any well-known characters from the two previous Stargate series.

"It’s an all new cast," he confirms. "There will certainly be plenty of opportunity for cross over, and there certainly might be some familiar faces in the premiere and in subsequent episodes. But the core of the show is all new."

Though it's too early to reveal any of the names that the producers are considering for Stargate Universe, Cooper hints, "We’re certainly looking at some [well-known] names, for one of the lead roles in particular. But for the most part many of the cast will be either new faces, or people you’ve seen in other stuff but maybe aren’t as aware of."

So, until everything is finalized, fans eager to know will just have to sit tight. Cooper, however, promises it'll be worth the wait.

"It says Stargate in the title, but it’s also going to be something that is very different in tone," he says. "It will certainly have a Stargate in it, but is going to be unlike anything Stargate we’ve ever done before."

I don't expect them to cast the show before Christmas but you never know.

 

[Brent]

See, he is contradicting himself:

"The writer confesses to being particularly excited about the series concept, and thinks it has a lot of potential to return to the early style of the Stargate franchise. "

and then says

"It says Stargate in the title, but it’s also going to be something that is very different in tone," he says. "It will certainly have a Stargate in it, but is going to be unlike anything Stargate we’ve ever done before."

So which is it, heh

 

[DWF]

See, he is contradicting himself:

"The writer confesses to being particularly excited about the series concept, and thinks it has a lot of potential to return to the early style of the Stargate franchise. "

and then says

"It says Stargate in the title, but it’s also going to be something that is very different in tone," he says. "It will certainly have a Stargate in it, but is going to be unlike anything Stargate we’ve ever done before."

So which is it, heh

Cooper said the later and the arthur of the article said the former.

 

[Samurai8472]

"The SG-1 cast were quite young when they started," he argues. "Michael Shanks and Amanda Tapping were both in their early twenties when they first started the show – it just was on for ten years! So I don’t think we’re doing anything different than what we’ve done before when we’ve started a new show."

Amanda Tapping was born in 1965 and Sg-1 premiered in 1997 so she was roughly 33

Shanks was born in 1970 and he was 27

so Shank was in the late 20's

 

[Broccoli]

See, he is contradicting himself:

"The writer confesses to being particularly excited about the series concept, and thinks it has a lot of potential to return to the early style of the Stargate franchise. "

and then says

"It says Stargate in the title, but it’s also going to be something that is very different in tone," he says. "It will certainly have a Stargate in it, but is going to be unlike anything Stargate we’ve ever done before."

So which is it, heh

Eh...not really. The article expands on the "early days" comment in which he is referencing how the characters are identifiable in terms of how real life people would react to the sci-fi stuff in the show. This, I would presume, versus how the characters later acted when they adjusted to the stuff and how the Atlantis characters acted since they had all the stuff at their fingertips and didn't really have the "wow" factor.

However, as the "unlike Stargate" comment suggests, the tone of the series would be different. Perhaps darker (as suggested in other articles) and maybe characters have to do some bad/tough things that our SG-1 heroes would never have done. That last sentence is speculation on my part. For all I know, a different tone could be that all the characters dress like circus clowns when they visit planets.

 

[CommanderTrip]

However, as the "unlike Stargate" comment suggests, the tone of the series would be different. Perhaps darker (as suggested in other articles) and maybe characters have to do some bad/tough things that our SG-1 heroes would never have done. That last sentence is speculation on my part. For all I know, a different tone could be that all the characters dress like circus clowns when they visit planets.

Circus Clowns?

I like it.

You could have them fly around in Puddle Jumpers that look like clown cars.

And the M.A.L.P. could be replaced by a monkey in a spacesuit that is launched from a cannon into the gate.

To compensate for stellar drift and all that.

In closing, I would like to say;

Hmm.... I don't think it's that big of a deal.

 

[highlander]

I've got nothin'

 

[Kpnuts]

Wow, talk about the most pointless article that tells us nothing.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

"The writer confesses to being particularly excited about the series concept, and thinks it has a lot of potential to return to the early style of the Stargate franchise. "

and then says

"It says Stargate in the title, but it’s also going to be something that is very different in tone," he says. "It will certainly have a Stargate in it, but is going to be unlike anything Stargate we’ve ever done before."

One beelion quatloos says, SG:U will be just as much a departure from formula as SG:A.

Wow, talk about the most pointless article that tells us nothing.

Those of us keeping up with Trek XI news are used to this sort of thing.

 

[InvisibleGT]

Wow, talk about the most pointless article that tells us nothing.

Especially considering all this was known almost two months ago...

http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=67184&highlight=stargate+universe

 

[Corran Horn]

"I'm pregnant."

 

[cylkoth]

^ Who's the daddy?

 

[cultcross]

"The SG-1 cast were quite young when they started," he argues. "Michael Shanks and Amanda Tapping were both in their early twenties when they first started the show – it just was on for ten years! So I don’t think we’re doing anything different than what we’ve done before when we’ve started a new show."

Amanda Tapping was born in 1965 and Sg-1 premiered in 1997 so she was roughly 33

Shanks was born in 1970 and he was 27

so Shank was in the late 20's

Thanks for checking that, my BS alarm went off when I read that. Maybe he meant to say 'early 30s'.

 

[Broccoli]

Wow, talk about the most pointless article that tells us nothing.

Clearly, you have not been keeping up with the Trek XI articles then, have you?

 

[bigdaddy]

"The SG-1 cast were quite young when they started," he argues. "Michael Shanks and Amanda Tapping were both in their early twenties when they first started the show – it just was on for ten years! So I don’t think we’re doing anything different than what we’ve done before when we’ve started a new show."

Amanda Tapping was born in 1965 and Sg-1 premiered in 1997 so she was roughly 33

Shanks was born in 1970 and he was 27

so Shank was in the late 20's

Thank you! I ws just bout to say that!

Stupid writers don't know how old cst members were!

 

[Kpnuts]

Wow, talk about the most pointless article that tells us nothing.

Clearly, you have not been keeping up with the Trek XI articles then, have you?

I have indeed. But that's a big budget, summer blockbuster penned by J J Abrams.

SGU is a fairly low budget, tired, rehashed sci fi series run by the idiot brothers, Wright and Cooper.

 

[Broccoli]

"The SG-1 cast were quite young when they started," he argues. "Michael Shanks and Amanda Tapping were both in their early twenties when they first started the show – it just was on for ten years! So I don’t think we’re doing anything different than what we’ve done before when we’ve started a new show."

Amanda Tapping was born in 1965 and Sg-1 premiered in 1997 so she was roughly 33

Shanks was born in 1970 and he was 27

so Shank was in the late 20's

Thank you! I ws just bout to say that!

Stupid writers don't know how old cst members were!

Oh nos! They made a mistake! Kill them! Kill them with fire!

Wow, talk about the most pointless article that tells us nothing.

Clearly, you have not been keeping up with the Trek XI articles then, have you?

I have indeed. But that's a big budget, summer blockbuster penned by J J Abrams.

Indeed, but that doesn't escape the fact that anytime there is an news article that interviews a cast/crew member, they say the same damn thing.

SGU is a fairly low budget, tired, rehashed sci fi series run by the idiot brothers, Wright and Cooper.

Is it really fair to compare a tentpole movie with a Sci-Fi channel TV series? Honestly?

 

[Kpnuts]

Is it really fair to compare a tentpole movie with a Sci-Fi channel TV series? Honestly?

Not at all. That's exactly my point and why I responded to you saying this:

Wow, talk about the most pointless article that tells us nothing.

Clearly, you have not been keeping up with the Trek XI articles then, have you?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Is it really fair to compare a tentpole movie with a Sci-Fi channel TV series?

It's fair to compare a big budget blockbuster with a TV show in terms of intelligence and originality. There are several shows on TV that I have more respect for than I do for big-budget Holywood movies.

Now skiffy has a bad track record, but that doesn't impunge TV in general.

 

[Kirby]

And the M.A.L.P. could be replaced by a monkey in a spacesuit that is launched from a cannon into the gate.

Please don't give Jayson any ideas.