is Stargate dead for good?

[AJ86]

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?

There's a pretty big difference between knowing something will happen, and knowing how it will happen, I'd have thought that would be obvious. We knew exactly how the situation was about to be resolved, and being an AU we'd already seen how it would affect the characters. There was nothing else that needed to be shown, which cannot be said for the two examples you provided.

 

[David cgc]

^A better example might be an episode where a character is rescued at the last minute from some dank cave on a planet. We don't see him on crutches for a week because of his broken leg.

 

[Australis]

SevenOfNein, check out the movie subforum here, and the discussion & grading thread. That should answer most question, and keep you occupied for a while.

Here's an idea for you writerly types. Scriptapalooza accepts scripts for an existing TV show or a pilot for anew one. Write your SG pilot for a new series, see how it goes. If it's technically and artistically well written, it'll at least get a read and a mention. Or you can write one for one of the old shows and see if that garners interest.

Money where your mouth is.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

How do you objectively measure whether a fanbase liked the movie?

How do you objectively define a fanbase? Which fanbase? The people who liked TOS and nothing else? The people who like everything Star Trek has ever done? The people who like everything Star Trek has ever done except VOY? Except VOY and ENT? Except VOY, ENT and that stupid movie where they're looking for God? Except VOY, ENT, that stupid movie where they're looking for God, and DS9's Ferengi comedies?

Obviously I could go on forever with this but my point is that how you choose to define "the" fanbase will determine what answer you get. And since nothing matters to the people making Star Trek besides cold hard cash, none of it amounts to spit, and you should consult Neilsen ratings and www.boxofficemojo.com to figure out what's going to happen to Star Trek next and stop trying to define "the" fanbase. There is no fanbase. It changes with every new movie and new TV series.

 

[BlobVanDam]

How do you objectively measure whether a fanbase liked the movie?

How do you objectively define a fanbase? Which fanbase? The people who liked TOS and nothing else? The people who like everything Star Trek has ever done? The people who like everything Star Trek has ever done except VOY? Except VOY and ENT? Except VOY, ENT and that stupid movie where they're looking for God? Except VOY, ENT, that stupid movie where they're looking for God, and DS9's Ferengi comedies?

Obviously I could go on forever with this but my point is that how you choose to define "the" fanbase will determine what answer you get. And since nothing matters to the people making Star Trek besides cold hard cash, none of it amounts to spit, and you should consult Neilsen ratings and www.boxofficemojo.com to figure out what's going to happen to Star Trek next and stop trying to define "the" fanbase. There is no fanbase. It changes with every new movie and new TV series.

My concern isn't about who the people making Star Trek define as the fanbase, because obviously their answer is "as many people as we can get into a cinema". That's fine, because that's their job. I'm talking about ME (and YOU). It's all good and well to expand the fanbase with a movie as popular as Trek XI, but don't you ultimately care more about the quality of the franchise's output more than how popular it is? Obviously you and many others got both with STXI, so it's a moot point in this instance.

Relating this back to Stargate, I don't care about the franchise making money and becoming more popular. I'm not some guy in Hollywood trying to make a buck. I'm a fan. What I care about is the franchise I've come to love. The problem with SGU is that it tried a radical change to be more popular, and because it was so different, it alienated a large portion of the fanbase, instead of growing it. As a fan, I don't want to be one of those people alienated by a reboot that disregards everything I love about the show. I want a continuation of the stories of the past 15 years. I don't see a reboot as a miracle cure.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

There's a really simple answer to that: Yes, I want the output of any franchise I enjoy to be of high quality--with good production values, good storytelling, good acting, and a reasonable level of intelligence. I also understand that it has to be profitable, which means the story needs to be accessible, most characters will be broadly-drawn, and there will be lots of 'splosions and sex appeal. I like to see a balance of those two agendas, and that's certainly ideal, but you don't always get what you want. If the next iteration of the Stargate franchise winds up not appealing to me, then I'll walk away. I know I don't have any "rights" to the franchise, and neither do any of us. If they take it in a direction that doesn't appeal to me, I'll find something else to enjoy. There's a whole lot of stuff out there.

Frankly, if you want good sci-fi you're best off reading books because that's where all the good stuff is.

 

[BlobVanDam]

Unfortunately I'm not much for reading books. Reading an explosion just isn't quite the same (although I did just read The Sorrows of Empire, and it wasn't too bad)

But you're right on all counts. I have no issue with a balance of those elements either, in fact I prefer it if it's done right. I'm just thinking entirely selfishly here. I'd rather them continue Stargate that I like, in a style that is more marketable/profitable, rather than rebooting it and it not appealing to me personally. I don't see it as the likely or best option for them making money, but that's what I would like.
Stargate has always been about asplosions and sexy aliens and shooting guns anyway, so these things have always been there.

 

[DWF]

If explosions, gun battles and space battles were all people wanted SG1 and Atlantis would still be on the air and their rating wold not have fallen. Stargate Universe was a try at something different, a finite character based story it might've failed but I do think it was worth effort to try.

 

[Skywalker]

I agree that it was a good idea, on paper. The idea of SGU wasn't what doomed the show; it was the execution of it that did it in.

 

[TemporalFlux]

It's difficult to think of an unexplored direction for Stargate, but I think that the obvious one is making the gate public knowledge. The idea would be one of building modern mythology instead of just studying old mythology; and it could allow for some modern social issues through a different lens.

Of course, one could argue that was already done with Alien Nation, District 9, and Earth: Final Conflict season one, but I think that there is still some fertile ground to explore in the concept.

 

[Harvey]

It would certainly be interesting ground for exploration, but I wouldn't want the concept taken half seriously in the mode of Stargate SG-1. And, if Stargate Universe is indicative of how these writers would tackle serious storytelling, I don't want to see them involved, period.

 

[DWF]

I'm sure SG1 would've been a far more serious show had RDA not gone off the script every so often like he did, the more his role was reduced the heavier the show got IMO. Eps. like 200 were the except since they were meant as comedic eps.

 

[Gepard]

Ithe more his role was reduced the heavier the show got IMO.

The hell? The writing get increasingly glib and outlandish by the end of its run. By season 8, the writers somehow got it into their heads that Daniel was a replacement wisecracker and had him mouthing off all the damn time, then they brought Col. Mitchell and Vala onboard and had them snark it up left and right – by the time of the sereis finale, the only character who wasn't a total wiseass was Teal'c, and that's only because reducing his seriousness took him from "deadpan alien warrior" to "fairly normal Earthling."

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

My concern isn't about who the people making Star Trek define as the fanbase, because obviously their answer is "as many people as we can get into a cinema". That's fine, because that's their job. I'm talking about ME (and YOU). It's all good and well to expand the fanbase with a movie as popular as Trek XI, but don't you ultimately care more about the quality of the franchise's output more than how popular it is?

There is no ME and YOU - the quality of entertainment is entirely subjective, and what I enjoy may be entirely different from what you enjoy.

As far as I'm concerned, Abrams's Trek movie is of higher quality than most of what's been produced for quite a while under the Star Trek label, so I'm more than satisfied with it.

And the useful definition of fan, BTW, is someone who likes and supports something - if one ceases liking and supporting it, one ceases being a fan of it in any meaningful sense. Nor does being a "fan" of some hypothetical notion of what Star Trek ought to be like or was, in one's opinion, once like equate to being a fan. So "Paramount's definition" of the fanbase is in fact the useful and accurate one.

 

[DWF]

Ithe more his role was reduced the heavier the show got IMO.

The hell? The writing get increasingly glib and outlandish by the end of its run. By season 8, the writers somehow got it into their heads that Daniel was a replacement wisecracker and had him mouthing off all the damn time, then they brought Col. Mitchell and Vala onboard and had them snark it up left and right – by the time of the sereis finale, the only character who wasn't a total wiseass was Teal'c, and that's only because reducing his seriousness took him from "deadpan alien warrior" to "fairly normal Earthling."

Humor's subjective and Teal'c was always deadpan in my mind. But let's face it Cameron Mitchell didn't really affect people like Jack did. And you should check out who was doing the writing for the various eps. Robert C. Cooper's humor worked well on the show, but that's not true of all of the other writers.

 

[BlobVanDam]

It's difficult to think of an unexplored direction for Stargate, but I think that the obvious one is making the gate public knowledge. The idea would be one of building modern mythology instead of just studying old mythology; and it could allow for some modern social issues through a different lens.

Of course, one could argue that was already done with Alien Nation, District 9, and Earth: Final Conflict season one, but I think that there is still some fertile ground to explore in the concept.

While there would be some ground for exploration of that idea, I'm against it. To me one of the things that appeals most to me about Stargate is that it is essentially our world apart from the divergence of the Stargate program. I think that keeps the show relateable. And as unrealistic and silly as it got sometimes, I liked the ways they'd try to cover up anything that got to Earth, and the vague rumours that went around the general population. And I don't think the writers of Stargate are suited to writing about social issues etc. It could end up being another SGU of no exploration, and a lot of talking.
I don't have any clue what else they could do, but I think they need to get back to exploration. Atlantis could do it because they were in another galaxy, and SGU could do it too, but instead they sit on a ship.

 

[AJ86]

It's difficult to think of an unexplored direction for Stargate, but I think that the obvious one is making the gate public knowledge. The idea would be one of building modern mythology instead of just studying old mythology; and it could allow for some modern social issues through a different lens.

Of course, one could argue that was already done with Alien Nation, District 9, and Earth: Final Conflict season one, but I think that there is still some fertile ground to explore in the concept.

Really? I think the gate itself provides for pretty much infinite storytelling potential, much like the Tardis in Dr Who or a space ship going from planet to planet in a myriad of other series.

I personally would hate to see the Stargate program revealed, because as soon as you do that you start to lose your contemporary characters, and it becomes just another futuristic sci-fi-by-numbers. I mean even if a series does well, you've still done irreparable damage to something which made the franchise what it was. Well, unless you used the Ark of Truth as a giant resent button I suppose.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

It's difficult to think of an unexplored direction for Stargate, but I think that the obvious one is making the gate public knowledge. The idea would be one of building modern mythology instead of just studying old mythology; and it could allow for some modern social issues through a different lens.

Of course, one could argue that was already done with Alien Nation, District 9, and Earth: Final Conflict season one, but I think that there is still some fertile ground to explore in the concept.

While there would be some ground for exploration of that idea, I'm against it. To me one of the things that appeals most to me about Stargate is that it is essentially our world apart from the divergence of the Stargate program. I think that keeps the show relateable. And as unrealistic and silly as it got sometimes, I liked the ways they'd try to cover up anything that got to Earth, and the vague rumours that went around the general population. And I don't think the writers of Stargate are suited to writing about social issues etc. It could end up being another SGU of no exploration, and a lot of talking.
I don't have any clue what else they could do, but I think they need to get back to exploration. Atlantis could do it because they were in another galaxy, and SGU could do it too, but instead they sit on a ship.

People bring up the "public revelation" angle like it's somehow novel. It isn't. Plus, a show based around that wouldn't really be Stargate, would it? But this concept would never get past the idea phase because it only appeals to a small group of fans who are invested enough in the current franchise to want to see something like that. I don't see how it would appeal to anyone else, honestly. Revealing the Stargate program to the public is a premise, it's not a story.

Granted, I don't know what Stargate should be. I'll watch any show with "Stargate" in the name as long as it's a decent show on its own terms. If they really did do a public revelation series, I'd at least give a chance but I really have no confidence in the writers' ability to pull that off, and I strongly suspect the show would get canceled by the end of the first season. On the balance, I say "no thanks" to that idea.

 

[The Wormhole]

By season 8, the writers somehow got it into their heads that Daniel was a replacement wisecracker and had him mouthing off all the damn time,

To be fair, Daniel had been becoming a wiseass as far back as season 4.

 

[AJ86]

Indeed. Over the 8 years Daniel and Jack gradually became more alike. Rubbing off on each other I suppose (no slash pun intended).