Is Stargate dead... forever?

[Gary7]

Stargate's original crew is now rather aged. You could definitely see it in Richard Dean Anderson during SG-U. Man, had he gotten so thick in the neck. Amanda Tapping has aged well, but also looks a bit thicker. Michael Shanks looks really good. I haven't seen any of the others as of late. I can't see any of them making much of a comeback. Maybe guest visits from Tapping and Shanks, much as Anderson did.


I'm watching SG-U fully through this time (only saw a few episodes here and there when it aired, because I don't have cable). I have to say, despite all of the noted flaws, it was a GREAT series! I really so like this ancient ship idea, and getting to the root of what the universe is all about. The show had so much potential. But, it clearly looked schizophrenic. The writers and producers couldn't agree upon a solid story formula. They kept shifting back and forth. The acting was good enough, for the most part. But there were so many horrible stretches to plausibility in some episodes that really soured it all.


I really hope Stargate comes back, with a new team and a solid, well thought out story. This time, instead of it being based from an underground bunker, they make it a ship created with human and alien technology, similar to the Destiny design. The premise of course will be dealing with aliens that want to take over their part of the galaxy again. Also, a kind of subspace decay, akin to a plague, that begins to ravage the universe; a long story arc where humans and aliens race against time to fix it... all the while, dealing with the delicate balance of power (opportunistic aliens that want to assert control once things are fixed, thereby getting in the way of fixing things properly). The finale will entail a return of Destiny, with the answers they'd been looking for. And a new generation of crew, due to the incredibly long period of time that lapsed.

 

[TedShatner10]

Stargate's original crew is now rather aged. You could definitely see it in Richard Dean Anderson during SG-U. Man, had he gotten so thick in the neck.

Well he's in his early 60s now and looks OK all things considered - when the original SG-1 series started almost a staggering 15 years ago now, RDA was only in his mid 40s.

 

[JB2005]

You can see the difference though!

 

[TedShatner10]

I haven't seen Universe which was (much like Enterprise) a late spin-off that came after many years of slow but steady decline in the popularity of the franchise (and the increasingly variable scripting quality and story/character repetitiveness that goes with franchise burnout). It tried to do something new with the dated Stargate formula and work with popular recent trends, but didn't quite make it.

Like me, did anybody else prefer the Showtime years of Stargate SG-1 to when it was on SyFy? It wasn't an instant deathblow and SG-1 overall remained enjoyable, but it started to go into a creative rut and I mildly disliked the Prometheus (it properly set into motion the growing absurdity of early 21st century Earthlings becoming a petty intergalactic power within a relatively small period of time).

And somebody here felt the creative rot gradually set in the years following Jonathan Glassner jumping ship.

 

[The Wormhole]

Like me, did anybody else prefer the Showtime years of Stargate SG-1 to when it was on SyFy? It wasn't an instant deathblow and SG-1 overall remained enjoyable, but it started to go into a creative rut and I mildly disliked the Prometheus (it properly set into motion the growing absurdity of early 21st century Earthlings becoming a petty intergalactic power within a relatively small period of time).

In my opinion (and I know I'm in the minority on this one) SG-1 continued to deliver fine product up to the 8th season. While I wouldn't say I hate seasons 9 and 10, they just don't do it for me the way the first eight did.

One of the great and unique things about SG-1 was that it doubled as both sci-fi and a military drama. But seasons 9 and 10 as well as Atlantis and SGU were strictly sci-fi and that didn't quite feel as right. Well, SGU was also trying to be character drama, with mixed results.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

All the Star Trek series formats "worked" for their time and place. They stayed on TV for several years. Even ENT had a healthy run compared with most shows. That's the only definition of "work" that matters in the end. The TOS format was the least successful, as proven by the incontrovertible fact that it had the shortest run.

But all that is water under the bridge now. None of the formats are going to work anymore because the TV environment that allowed them to succeed has now changed too completely. Something new is required, and what that new thing is, will be determined by the channel where the series airs moreso than any other factor.

 

[archeryguy1701]

I actually liked SG1 throughout. Season 8 got to be pretty weak for the most part, but I really liked the rest of it. I know I'm in the minority, but I loved seasons 9 and 10 and the Ori stuff. After a while, the Goa'uld became a bit of a joke and you know that SG1 was going to kick some ass and save the day. The Ori felt new, and they felt dangerous. Even though you knew it wouldn't ultimately happen, it felt like the team could eventually lose to the Ori. SG1, in its entirety, remains my favorite show of the franchise, followed by SGU and then eventually Atlantis.

 

[Sindatur]

I actually liked SG1 throughout. Season 8 got to be pretty weak for the most part, but I really liked the rest of it. I know I'm in the minority, but I loved seasons 9 and 10 and the Ori stuff. After a while, the Goa'uld became a bit of a joke and you know that SG1 was going to kick some ass and save the day. The Ori felt new, and they felt dangerous. Even though you knew it wouldn't ultimately happen, it felt like the team could eventually lose to the Ori. SG1, in its entirety, remains my favorite show of the franchise, followed by SGU and then eventually Atlantis.

Ditto, I too enjoyed it all the way through, and I am another rarity that thoroughly enjoyed S9 and 10 and the enemy being changed to the Orii

 

[TedShatner10]

The original movie, Stargate, was not an amazingly good movie and it was soundly panned by Ebert, however it had a brilliant soundtrack by David Arnold and had a story concept (go through wormhole, fight galactic supervillains based on ancient gods, etc) that clearly had legs if it spawned a decade long TV spin-off. Also at least Stargate was better than Independence Day, Godzilla, and The Patriot.

 

[MacLeod]

All the Star Trek series formats "worked" for their time and place. They stayed on TV for several years. Even ENT had a healthy run compared with most shows. That's the only definition of "work" that matters in the end. The TOS format was the least successful, as proven by the incontrovertible fact that it had the shortest run.

But all that is water under the bridge now. None of the formats are going to work anymore because the TV environment that allowed them to succeed has now changed too completely. Something new is required, and what that new thing is, will be determined by the channel where the series airs moreso than any other factor.

As you say the TV enviroment has changed, and it will change again to one that is maybe more eviromentally friendly toa ST show.

 

[AJ86]

I think Star Trek could do well even now if it got a handle on the cheese, and off-set it with humour, something the franchise as historically been pretty poor at in my view. Without a big budget JJ treatment though, I really don't see it ever being mainstream again. Not on TV, anyway.

 

[MacLeod]

Humour can be tricky to get right.

 

[Gary7]

The original movie, Stargate, was not an amazingly good movie and it was soundly panned by Ebert, however it had a brilliant soundtrack by David Arnold and had a story concept (go through wormhole, fight galactic supervillains based on ancient gods, etc) that clearly had legs if it spawned a decade long TV spin-off. Also at least Stargate was better than Independence Day, Godzilla, and The Patriot.

I agree... not the best sci-fi movie I'd seen, but very enjoyable, certainly better than the ones you listed. Part of what made the TV series so good was the casting. Richard Dean Anderson replacing Kurt Russell was brilliant.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

All the Star Trek series formats "worked" for their time and place. They stayed on TV for several years. Even ENT had a healthy run compared with most shows. That's the only definition of "work" that matters in the end. The TOS format was the least successful, as proven by the incontrovertible fact that it had the shortest run.

But all that is water under the bridge now. None of the formats are going to work anymore because the TV environment that allowed them to succeed has now changed too completely. Something new is required, and what that new thing is, will be determined by the channel where the series airs moreso than any other factor.

As you say the TV enviroment has changed, and it will change again to one that is maybe more eviromentally friendly toa ST show.

Taking the longer-term view, yeah maybe...what with Amazon and Yahoo and Netflix and YouTube all getting into producing original content, that's pointing towards an intensified focus on niche tastes, and that's good for space opera as one of the most prominent niche tastes around.

Right now the obstacles are still budget (YouTube's proposed pro channels are heavily celebrity chat, comedy, reality TV - all cheap) and inertia (Netflix has stumbled with Lillihammer, which may be a good series but looks like it should be on HBO, and doesn't have the cult-following potential that a made-for-internet series really needs).

To break through these obstacles, new shows need to serve their niches better than anything on TV, to prompt fans of those niches to kick loose more money than they're used to; a smaller audience but normal audience = more money needed per person. Or, the smaller audience can be magnified by a global strategy, with a global audience far more easy to reach than is true for TV.

Or, there needs to be some change in the financial basis for TV - which is still advertising - possibly with the advertising and content more tightly bound together. This may be hard to reconcile with a futuristic space opera, but not entirely impossible.

Envision a show that is actually built around a real-world corporation, but in the future. It would have to be an unusually cool and visionary company, say Apple, that wouldn't mind the stories implying that all is not perfect at 25th C Apple, what with the recent iPerson uprising at the Ganymede factory complex...but the upside is, what other company would dare take that approach? Think Different, indeed.

The imagination and daring to create a Stargate series' content pales in comparison with what it might take to make a series like that a viable business proposition. But I still have a strong hunch that space opera is one of the most likely areas to really cause that breakthrough. Vampires and horror/thriller genres are also fruitful possibilities. Anything that really gets people going.

 

[TedShatner10]

Here's an interesting (though somewhat histrionic) essay on the decline of the Stargate franchise:

Why Stargate SG-1 Jumped the Shark

I broadly agree with the author that on hindsight things slowly started to go downhill for Stargate SG-1 (or peaked) when Dr. Daniel Jackson ascended, though I don't give two poops about Dr. Bob Somebody-or-Other getting bumped off by a feral Goa'uld, and he seems too harsh on Quinn (who was just doing his job as a near last minute place holder). And although Universe came around far too late in the day and started off on the wrong foot, it still doesn't sound like a terrible TV show on principle.

However, even before reading this essay, I have come to the conclusion that the Stargate television franchise lost something when the underrated Jonathan Glassner retired after the third season of SG-1 (after the building blocks for the Stargate television franchise were made).

 

[DWF]

Here's an interesting
However, even before reading this essay, I have come to the conclusion that the Stargate television franchise lost something when the underrated Jonathan Glassner retired after the third season of SG-1 (after the building blocks for the Stargate television franchise were made).

I don't think that was the case at all, it was Robert C. Cooper who in the end made the three series work and the lack of his presence was felt each time he left of one the shows. Jonathan Glassner's career after leaving SG1 is alittle spotty, the Invisible Man was a far show but it seemed to fall apart after the first season and his work on CSI seemed to help that series.

 

[archeryguy1701]

Interesting article, though I'm leaning towards thinking that she's getting bent out of shape over pretty minor things. The Jack/ Sam relationship wasn't anywhere near as big of a subject in the show as she makes it out to be, and it certainly didn't start taking the show over. I don't really see where she's coming from on the killing of "major" characters either, especially during the timeframe she focused on. Rothman and Elliot were both pretty minor, especially with Elliot showing up all of once prior to his death. With that said, I'd take Rothman or Elliot over some of the people they've never killed off (the Dr. Felger or Dr Lee types)

To be honest, the only season where I saw any major drop off was season 8. I enjoyed the rest of it pretty consistently and I'd say there's an equal number of episodes in each season that I really, really like or would sometimes randomly want to watch.

 

[AJ86]

I agree. The entire cast, bar perhaps Christopher Judge really phoned it in in season 8. I think they all probably thought that it would be the last. The switch to to those horrible looking digital cameras didn't help either.

 

[TedShatner10]

. Rothman and Elliot were both pretty minor, especially with Elliot showing up all of once prior to his death. With that said, I'd take Rothman or Elliot over some of the people they've never killed off (the Dr. Felger or Dr Lee types)

But I agree that while Elliot was a supporting character, he was killed off too soon, when he was built up in preceeding episodes and had potential (much like Sokar as well).

To be honest, the only season where I saw any major drop off was season 8.

To me around Seasons Seven-Eight the story arcs had become decidedly repetitive and things seemed to be going round in circles, with the by then stale main villains (the Goa'uld and Replicators) getting abrubtly bumped off (with the seasons dragged down by many weak filler episodes like "Grace" and "Citizen Joe").

The switch to to those horrible looking digital cameras didn't help either.

I didn't really notice or dislike that - I noticed more how fuzzy the cinematography sometimes looked in the much earlier seasons (though that contributes to the 1990s charm when SG-1 was brand new).

 

[Temis the Vorta]

She lost me when she said:

"Stargate gave us one of the most fascinating sci-fi heroes ever, in the form of Dr. Daniel Jackson."

[reclinerofrage]I'm sure she meant "annoying."[/reclinerofrage]

But then she won me back:

I have now watched the first two episodes of Stargate Universe, which I have seen described as "Stargate Clusterfuck," and with good reason.

Stargate survived for a very long time, considering that it was mired at the same level of mediocrity for years on end. They milked that cow to death, and couldn't figure out how to make a new cow. They ended up with a leprous armadillo that got run over by a semi, getting more rotted and stinky as time went on, until only the fans with no sense of smell whatsoever could tolerate it.