is Stargate dead for good?

[BlobVanDam]

Time would still be my favourite episode. Sure, they've done time travel with the gate plenty of times, but I felt that they took a classic SG element (as well as classic scifi staple) and put a different spin on it to what SG-1 and SGA ever did.

Actually, it's pretty much by the numbers and exactly the same as any and every other time travel episode done previously in Stargate and even Star Trek. The only thing that makes it different is that they didn't actually show everything reset. It just ends with everyone dead or nearly dead, and then in the next episode there all alive. Which I find annoying. That sort of thing might work for a cartoon comedy like South Park, but this is live action "gritty harsh reality." Or rather, it's pretending to be.

I don't see it that way. It was done from a different perspective where they are fully aware of what had happened in the previous loop, and have to deal with that knowledge. You have to take a pretty loose definition of a time travel episode to lump it in with every other Gate and Trek time travel episode. Usually there's either direct interaction with the time doubles, or the crew is completely unaware of any loop at all (at least until the solution). I guess Moebius has similarities in that video was sent from one timeline to another for direct observation, but it was only a minor plot point to cover ground, whereas in Time it was the framing device of most of the episode.
I don't know, I'm not saying it was completely innovative or original, but they definitely managed to make it feel fresh again to me.

I did find it annoying that the plot wasn't finished off within the episode and the rest was assumed off screen, but I don't think it detracted from the usual level of grittiness SGU goes for.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The Stargate is the Stargate - if they make a movie reboot they'll jazz it up some, but the story will most certainly center on the Stargate.

Please don't someone start some "Stargate should go forward, not backward." Stargate should go in whatever direction the producers think will grab the audience - the 2009 Star Trek movie proved that, as well as demonstrating the fact that the most likely answer is to go back to the core story that launched interest in the thing rather than pursuing yet another variation on the theme.

 

[BlobVanDam]

Star Trek XI also proved that what's popular isn't necessarily what's good, or what the fans want.
If all they care about is milking money out of a name with no other connection, then sure a "reboot" would probably achieve that. All Hollywood cares about these days is the uninspired safe bet of a "reboot". But personally I care about Stargate remaining about the characters and storylines I actually give a shit about, and not just a ring that travels to other planets. I think the Stargate franchise's main problem has been a poor choice of direction for the current series. It's a shame the producers are so adamant on sticking to it, because I think that they need to ditch it for any hope of saving the franchise, but a reboot doesn't solve anything.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Hollywood cares about making money. They don't care how they do just that they do it. That'll never change.

 

[The Wormhole]

They assumed a degree of intelligence in the audience. What they did next was obvious, it didn't need showing.

I am sick of that line being used to defend the episode. You don't move onto the next storyline without resolving the previous storyline. You don't leave things set up so that the audience can take a guess about what happens, you finish the storyline. This is the one cardinal rule of storytelling in any form, be it TV, movies, books, newspaper comics, caveman drawings, whatever.

but I don't think it detracted from the usual level of grittiness SGU goes for.

"Usual level of grittiness?" The point I was trying to make is that SGU is never as gritty as it claims to be.

 

[BlobVanDam]

but I don't think it detracted from the usual level of grittiness SGU goes for.

"Usual level of grittiness?" The point I was trying to make is that SGU is never as gritty as it claims to be.

I know. I guess I worded my response poorly. You said that the ending doesn't work for a more serious (trying to be) gritty show, so what I was trying to say is that for the level of grittiness they actually achieve, I don't feel the ending let it down that much.

Mind you, I would have much preferred that they ended it properly (as I fully expected that the next week's episode was going to), but I think the cut to static worked quite nicely regardless.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Star Trek XI also proved that what's popular isn't necessarily what's good, or what the fans want.

You're not going to find any objective measure for quality when it comes to something like a movie or TV show. And "what the fans want" doesn't really matter. It matters if your show or movie is making money, which Star Trek did and SGU didn't.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Star Trek XI also proved that what's popular isn't necessarily what's good, or what the fans want.

If it makes a lot of money, by definition it's "what fans want" - new fans, if not the old ones.
People who call themselves fans but don't support a show or movie in sufficient numbers for the studio and network to profit by it mean nothing to the people who make decisions on this stuff. Nothing, nada, zilch.

In any event, nine out of ten Trek fans liked and supported Abrams's Star Trek - what that movie also proved is that new producers and writers can bring a fresh outlook to a worn-out property and get people excited about it again. In the case of Stargate, we're likely talking about the folks who created Stargate and made it a success but have had no influence on its TV incarnations.

 

[BlobVanDam]

Star Trek XI also proved that what's popular isn't necessarily what's good, or what the fans want.

If it makes a lot of money, by definition it's "what fans want" - new fans, if not the old ones.
People who call themselves fans but don't support a show or movie in sufficient numbers for the studio and network to profit by it mean nothing to the people who make decisions on this stuff. Nothing, nada, zilch.

In any event, nine out of ten Trek fans liked and supported Abrams's Star Trek - what that movie also proved is that new producers and writers can bring a fresh outlook to a worn-out property and get people excited about it again. In the case of Stargate, we're likely talking about the folks who created Stargate and made it a success but have had no influence on its TV incarnations.

I'm aware of the rise in popularity it will create with Joe Blow, and that it will make money, but as an existing fan I cannot think of anything worse than a reboot. I'm only talking as a fan here, and not as a Hollywood producer. Because personally my interest in Stargate is about ME enjoying it, not about how much money some other guys make from it. Obviously if I was in the biz, I'd be viewing the situation differently. If they piss away the past 15 years of development of the story for a reboot, my interest in the franchise is over. Doesn't matter to them, but it matters to me.
And if they do remake it, would they involve the original guys? While the original movie was fairly successful, it's not regarded all that highly by anyone. I'd expect it would be a completely new team.

And was it really 9/10 Trek fans who liked the new movie? I admit I haven't been around here long, but I'd expect that figure would be much more even. I'm not saying everyone hated it by any stretch, but anything that different is going to polarize the core fanbase. All of the Trek fans I know personally were none too happy about it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And was it really 9/10 Trek fans who liked the new movie? I admit I haven't been around here long, but I'd expect that figure would be much more even.

Every attempt at polling or measuring audience sentiment in any numeric way, even here, puts the movie at about a 90% approval with people who call themselves trek fans. A small number of folks who dislike it post critically and often, but that's meaningless in terms of counting. The figure is nowhere near even.

 

[BlobVanDam]

And was it really 9/10 Trek fans who liked the new movie? I admit I haven't been around here long, but I'd expect that figure would be much more even.

Every attempt at polling or measuring audience sentiment in any numeric way, even here, puts the movie at about a 90% approval with people who call themselves trek fans. A small number of folks who dislike it post critically and often, but that's meaningless in terms of counting. The figure is nowhere near even.

Well I must say that really surprises me. Not to stir up trouble, but what section were these polls posted in? I'd expect slightly skewed numbers if this was in the Trek XI section. It might be a faulty assumption, but since I'm not a fan of it, I tend to just avoid that section rather than waste my time voicing negative opinions.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Not just on this site. Go ahead and "stir up trouble" if you like - this is an old argument and people will believe whatever they decide to believe...it's just that the folks who dislike the movie can't marshall any quantitative evidence (not "my friends don't like it") to support their contentions.

 

[Gepard]

marshall

Hey, you leave my name out of this.

 

[AJ86]

They assumed a degree of intelligence in the audience. What they did next was obvious, it didn't need showing.

I am sick of that line being used to defend the episode. You don't move onto the next storyline without resolving the previous storyline. You don't leave things set up so that the audience can take a guess about what happens, you finish the storyline. This is the one cardinal rule of storytelling in any form, be it TV, movies, books, newspaper comics, caveman drawings, whatever.

But for all intents and purposes it was resolved. Everyone knew what happened next. The real conclusion was Matt realising what needed to be done to restore things, given that we'd seen them come through the gate after a message twice already, we didn't need the tedium of watching them do what we already knew they were going to do.

 

[AJ86]

The Stargate is the Stargate - if they make a movie reboot they'll jazz it up some, but the story will most certainly center on the Stargate.

Please don't someone start some "Stargate should go forward, not backward." Stargate should go in whatever direction the producers think will grab the audience - the 2009 Star Trek movie proved that, as well as demonstrating the fact that the most likely answer is to go back to the core story that launched interest in the thing rather than pursuing yet another variation on the theme.

Did it? I don't think we've seen the repercussions of that yet, unless you're just a cheerleader of the franchise, and numbers are all that matter. I'm personally so invested in Stargate because of the storyline that I've followed for so long and the mythology that's been built up, not because of the brand name, or even the concept. I mean I do love the concept, but it's nothing that other shows haven't done in one form or another, even more so for Star Trek, which has been copied no end. I'd rather be content with DVD movies or even novels than a big budget theatrical movie that's just going to throw everything that's been built so far out of the window.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

They assumed a degree of intelligence in the audience. What they did next was obvious, it didn't need showing.

I am sick of that line being used to defend the episode. You don't move onto the next storyline without resolving the previous storyline. You don't leave things set up so that the audience can take a guess about what happens, you finish the storyline. This is the one cardinal rule of storytelling in any form, be it TV, movies, books, newspaper comics, caveman drawings, whatever.

But for all intents and purposes it was resolved. Everyone knew what happened next. The real conclusion was Matt realising what needed to be done to restore things, given that we'd seen them come through the gate after a message twice already, we didn't need the tedium of watching them do what we already knew they were going to do.

Exactly. Showing yet another iteration would've been perfunctory at that point because you could predict exactly how it would go down. It was unnecessary to show it again.

 

[BlobVanDam]

Not just on this site. Go ahead and "stir up trouble" if you like - this is an old argument and people will believe whatever they decide to believe...it's just that the folks who dislike the movie can't marshall any quantitative evidence (not "my friends don't like it") to support their contentions.

How do you objectively measure whether a fanbase liked the movie? A poll on a fan forum? A rating by the general public? Every measure is going to be skewed in some way, so I don't trust them whether they support my opinion or not.
I'm not a diehard Trekkie seeing what I want to see. I had hardly seen any trek when I saw the new movie. I'm not doubting your figures, I was just genuinely surprised that such a diehard forum approves so highly of the new movie. That is not a statement on my own opinion of the movie so much as the general nature of fan forums. I've been to plenty, so I suppose I generalized incorrectly here. For the record, I'm not a hater on the new movie, even if I did have several issues with it.

 

[AJ86]

I was surprised by the reaction here too. Not so much that people liked the movie, it was a decent movie, but the fact that no one seems to be bothered that it's a reboot. I think if the same thing had happened to Stargate then Gateworld would have exploded.

 

[Harvey]

Let Gateworld go without any new Stargate for a few years and then see if it will explode when a reboot is announced.

 

[The Wormhole]

They assumed a degree of intelligence in the audience. What they did next was obvious, it didn't need showing.

I am sick of that line being used to defend the episode. You don't move onto the next storyline without resolving the previous storyline. You don't leave things set up so that the audience can take a guess about what happens, you finish the storyline. This is the one cardinal rule of storytelling in any form, be it TV, movies, books, newspaper comics, caveman drawings, whatever.

But for all intents and purposes it was resolved. Everyone knew what happened next. The real conclusion was Matt realising what needed to be done to restore things, given that we'd seen them come through the gate after a message twice already, we didn't need the tedium of watching them do what we already knew they were going to do.

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer my stories to be wrapped up all properly. By your logic, it would have been okay if The Best of Both Worlds Part 1 ended the same way it did (Picard assmilated and Riker ordering Worf to fire), but then the next episode having Picard normal and in command of the Enterprise and nothing is mentioned about his assimilation. After all, we knew Picard was going to be rescued by the Borg, did we really need to see it happen?

Hell, SGU's mid season cliffhanger has Destiny being teared apart by aliens and nearly destroyed. Maybe the next episode should just have life back to normal. We know they're going to make it out okay, do we really need to see it happen?