That's actually pretty insulting. SGU's definitely not perfect, but it hits the right notes for me.
Is Stargate dead... forever?
- Thread starter ReadyAndWilling
- Start date
That's actually pretty insulting. SGU's definitely not perfect, but it hits the right notes for me.
Someone on a Star Trek board has a Trek avatar and an opinion? Imagine that!
I suffered through 21 episodes of Stargate Universe before realizing that I disliked it so thoroughly that I wasn't even worth it to finish it on the basis of being a franchise completest. The series was an unmitigated disaster.
Stargate SG-1 ran into problems in season six, when its above-the-title lead shifted to being full time. It fell apart in season nine, when Anderson left the main cast completely. His departure wasn't the only thing that hurt the show during this period, but it didn't do the show any favors.
Stargate SG-1 ran into problems in season six, when its above-the-title lead shifted to being full time. It fell apart in season nine, when Anderson left the main cast completely. His departure wasn't the only thing that hurt the show during this period, but it didn't do the show any favors.
Pot, kettle, black was the point
Not really, as the two franchises are nowhere near comparable in terms of popularity, longevity or quality; Stargate lags far behind in all three.
Ian Keldon
Fleet Captain
^Trek having had the advantage of being several decades older than Stargate.
Right now we're in the equivalent of the TOS-Movie divide. It's too early to call the franchise dead.
Right now we're in the equivalent of the TOS-Movie divide. It's too early to call the franchise dead.
It really isn't.
Indeed. Star Trek only grew in popularity during the 1970s. Show-specific conventions began, and were attended by more and more people every year. Star Trek became more popular in daily syndication than it had on NBC. Fan fiction, fan vids, and other examples of "active" fandom exploded during this period. An animated spin-off premiered in the fall of 1973, just four years after the end of the live action series, and by May of 1975 Paramount was developing the series as a major motion picture.
The current state of the Stargate franchise is really quite different, and not very promising outside the possibility of a theatrical remake with a new cast.
The current state of the Stargate franchise is really quite different, and not very promising outside the possibility of a theatrical remake with a new cast.
Pot, kettle, black was the point
Not really, as the two franchises are nowhere near comparable in terms of popularity, longevity or quality; Stargate lags far behind in all three.
Popularity and longevity sure, but quality? I wouldn't say so. Bar TNG it was all rather average, and even that show took a couple of seasons to get going. I'd sooner watch early SG-1 and SGU than any of the other shows. I've always found the snobbishnes of Trek fandom somewhat bemusing, especially when it comes to Stargate, BSG, Farscape etc. It's amazing how people forget just how much of the ST franchise is made up of 'meh'.
Bear in mind, when most people refer to a show's quality, all they're really referring to is how much they like it. There's also a widely-held misconception that popularity = quality.
Personally, I think Stargate is dead, but that's probably just pessimism. All I can say for sure is that I'd watch it if they brought it back in one form or another, unless it sucked...but that's a given. I also know I'm not the only one.
It really, really isn't.
Pot, kettle, black was the point
Not really, as the two franchises are nowhere near comparable in terms of popularity, longevity or quality; Stargate lags far behind in all three.
Popularity and longevity sure, but quality? I wouldn't say so.
There are always minority opinions.
That said, there are also good reasons that Paramount continues to invest big money in Star Trek even after the failures of the early part of this century - including, BTW, spending quite a bit to bring TNG up to HD quality right now - while Stargate has no apparent future in its current form at all. Paramount know that the demand is there, and the demand is there because this thing endures because it has the capability of intriguing and moving people in far greater numbers than are required to keep a TV series eking out the relatively modest ratings that justify its renewal on the SyFy channel. Stargate has never gotten anywhere near the story or production quality of Star Trek at its - oh hell, Star Trek at its most middling.
Well MGM is getting back on their feet and Stargate was their second most profitable franchise following James Bond. Maybe we'll see something some day, but I'm not waiting out in the rain for it.
http://www.gateworld.net/news/2012/...-refinancing-deal-new-productions-on-the-way/
http://www.gateworld.net/news/2012/...-refinancing-deal-new-productions-on-the-way/
To be fair though..... How dead did Star Trek look a few years ago? Nemesis got beaten by a Jennifer Lopez movie that didn't exactly do great either, and Enterprise ran out of steam and was canceled well before the 7 years that became the norm. Yes, it's alive and rolling now, but how many people would have bet on that at the end of Enterprise?
I know they're two different creatures, but if we're going to compare them, that's something to think about. Stargate's only been off the air for less than a year- compared to some Trek resurrections, that's still pretty warm in the grave.
I know they're two different creatures, but if we're going to compare them, that's something to think about. Stargate's only been off the air for less than a year- compared to some Trek resurrections, that's still pretty warm in the grave.
Because so many skiffy shows other than Star Trek are resurrected and have enormous amounts of money invested in them after a failure?
Generalizing from Star Trek's example is a really, really poor idea because no other TV/film property has ever been treated like Star Trek. The idea that "oh yeah, now this one will be" is wishful thinking at best.
It was less than a year after Enterprise ended that Abrams first announced his plans for Trek XI. Enterprise ended in May 2005, Abrams declared his intention to do Trek XI April 2006.
No, the reason they invest big money into it is because it's arguably the most recognisable sci-fi brand in history, but it's tainted by recent (not the movie) incarnations. It's a big enough name that even mediocre shows like Voyager or Enterprise can turn them a tidy profit, but that won't last forever. They need to inject some quality (hence JJ) to keep it alive.
If that opinion makes you happy then you're welcome to it, I'm not going to debate the merits of something so ambiguous and subjective as 'story', but production quality? First of all, who cares? And secondly, SGU had comfortably higher production quality than any of the Trek series.
I thought is was dire? At least that's the feeling I get on here.
Personally I though it was boring.
The production quality? The sets, vis effects, special effects (and especially the melding of the two) were all top notch. The only real argument from a Trek point of view would be casting, but even then you're only really talking about TNG, which I've conceded is the one Trek show that's better.
Similar threads
