Well, sure, there will be a bit of an overlap, but for the most part never the twain shall meet. Dark is "mature" and mature is "fluff," so the current wisdom holds, so Stargate will have much of the same stigma that Star Trek has (these days).
is Stargate dead for good?
- Thread starter Temis the Vorta
- Start date
Who the heck is saying that? That makes no sense!
Who the heck is saying that? That makes no sense!
RJ does. Incessantly.
Uh-huh. You have nothing to back that statement up.
SG-1 ended up basically exterminating the go'a'uld, defeated the intergalactic menace of the replicators; gave the Asgard an inferiority complex, and at least one of them came back from the dead. The idea that SG-1 needs to develop plot arcs is insane. The only plot arcs left involve circular time loops making SG-1 responsible for the origin of life on Earth. If not the creation of the universe.
Taking the go'a'uld seriously? Stupid jokes about the crazy costumes got us the boring faux-mediaeval costumes in Atlantis. Taking things seriously can backfire. In any event, taking their god-like power seriously gave us the Ori.
Please, the problem was that the good guys couldn't lose, no matter what. Getting beaten by the go'a'uld was no more going to happen than the Cylons exterminating humanity on BSG. To make sure the good guys won, the go'a'uld never eavesdropped on radio communications; never used security cameras; never put their gates down a hole or by a tank of poison gas or under a river; never ran a tank or a train through a stargate; never fired a missile or drone through a gate; put armor on their soldiers that couldn't stop any bullets but left arms and legs exposed; never used motorcycles or fourwheelers or trucks or cars for mobility; never decided to keep a bunch of spare stargates constantly dialing in. Things they could do, like personal force fields or brainwashing they promptly forgot to do, lest they short circuit the plot by winning. It's a good thing spaceships and weapons grew on trees somewhere or they wouldn't even have been able to keep an army going.
The big action episodes that advanced the story lines, like The Lost City and such were all very entertaining because the characters were charming, the dialogue funny, the bizarro-world plotting was more or less consistent. It made a sort of sense in its own terms at least. The go'a'uld were a bunch of dicks who were too busy ranting to stop being hopeless fools (by and large,) which is the only way to rationalize SG-1 winning. This was okay, because basically the show was an action comedy: We came, we snarked, we conquered. The overwhelming majority of comedies falsify the conflicts they're about, and we could extend the courtesy of accepting it to SG-1.
The really good episodes, that really made you care, were usually stand alones, and all the handful of dramas were. There was only one respect in which SG-1 counted as a drama, which is Daniel Jackson. Having a character with a different viewpoint (which is not the same as a different backstory or a different random personal conflict or enacting a different fantasy scenario.) It's like BattleStar Galactica had written Gaius Baltar as a genuine human being.
The consistent problem with the successors is that the producers and SyFy kept forgetting a a well written action comedy is better than a badly written drama. SGA tried to get serious with the Wraith, while keeping interpersonal comedy and actual stories (aka standalones) instead of plot instalments dragging out a flabby story line. They "corrected" the latter two errors with SGU.
As long as they keep thinking Stargate needs to be a serialized drama to be good, Stargate will fail. In television any more, nothing ever really dies, so it will come back sooner or later.
Taking the go'a'uld seriously? Stupid jokes about the crazy costumes got us the boring faux-mediaeval costumes in Atlantis. Taking things seriously can backfire. In any event, taking their god-like power seriously gave us the Ori.
Please, the problem was that the good guys couldn't lose, no matter what. Getting beaten by the go'a'uld was no more going to happen than the Cylons exterminating humanity on BSG. To make sure the good guys won, the go'a'uld never eavesdropped on radio communications; never used security cameras; never put their gates down a hole or by a tank of poison gas or under a river; never ran a tank or a train through a stargate; never fired a missile or drone through a gate; put armor on their soldiers that couldn't stop any bullets but left arms and legs exposed; never used motorcycles or fourwheelers or trucks or cars for mobility; never decided to keep a bunch of spare stargates constantly dialing in. Things they could do, like personal force fields or brainwashing they promptly forgot to do, lest they short circuit the plot by winning. It's a good thing spaceships and weapons grew on trees somewhere or they wouldn't even have been able to keep an army going.
The big action episodes that advanced the story lines, like The Lost City and such were all very entertaining because the characters were charming, the dialogue funny, the bizarro-world plotting was more or less consistent. It made a sort of sense in its own terms at least. The go'a'uld were a bunch of dicks who were too busy ranting to stop being hopeless fools (by and large,) which is the only way to rationalize SG-1 winning. This was okay, because basically the show was an action comedy: We came, we snarked, we conquered. The overwhelming majority of comedies falsify the conflicts they're about, and we could extend the courtesy of accepting it to SG-1.
The really good episodes, that really made you care, were usually stand alones, and all the handful of dramas were. There was only one respect in which SG-1 counted as a drama, which is Daniel Jackson. Having a character with a different viewpoint (which is not the same as a different backstory or a different random personal conflict or enacting a different fantasy scenario.) It's like BattleStar Galactica had written Gaius Baltar as a genuine human being.
The consistent problem with the successors is that the producers and SyFy kept forgetting a a well written action comedy is better than a badly written drama. SGA tried to get serious with the Wraith, while keeping interpersonal comedy and actual stories (aka standalones) instead of plot instalments dragging out a flabby story line. They "corrected" the latter two errors with SGU.
As long as they keep thinking Stargate needs to be a serialized drama to be good, Stargate will fail. In television any more, nothing ever really dies, so it will come back sooner or later.
Not "sick of" - bored with.
Real skiffy fans tend to be dedicated cultists - there's a tiny group of 'em trying to start what they call a "grassroots campaign" to save SG:U - but those folks are always a small core group. Most people watch any TV series for a little novelty and light entertainment, and shows that go on for seventeen or twenty-odd seasons lose their appeal to any significant number of people like that. It's impossible to get them back.
There's no "lesson to be learned" here that would make Stargate successful enough again to be worth the studio's effort. If Stargate had ever had as extensive a following as Trek they might bother - but really, all that makes sense for MGM now is to shovel dirt over this thing and spend their money on new programs. Pandering to the self-images of hardcore fans is not worthwhile.
Jacob did visit his son Mark in the episode Seth and occasionally asked Sam how Mark and his kids were. You'd think if Jack Carter were part of this family, he'd ask at some point.
And yes, as has already been mentioned Jacob Carter died in the episode Threads.
I'd be perfectly happy if they'd take all the stuff I wrote and use it as a basis of a series not called Stargate. All the military stuff was kind of an albatross. Just start from scratch with the Goa'uld, Tok'ra and Jaffa concepts - they weren't original to Stargate anyway, brain invaders being a staple of sci fi. I don't see much value in the Stargate brand per se (but I know that's not how the TV people think).
Or come up with something entirely different and create a serious space opera. Just no more Eureka style shows. I think we're full up with the fluff. I don't begrudge others who like that style, but I want something for me.
Or come up with something entirely different and create a serious space opera. Just no more Eureka style shows. I think we're full up with the fluff. I don't begrudge others who like that style, but I want something for me.
Oh, god, no. Those were the most boring elements of all. Stargate was only truly good when it was about how humans reacted discovering all this stuff for the first time. So as far that goes, they can be up against brain parasites, metal Lego spiders* or a hurricane for all I care, as long as it stays focused on that experience.
*One reason I hated the humnaiform replicators is that's the point when the writers started to treat them as characters and not forces of nature like they'd been before. Stargate has only ever seemed to do the latter at all well, though I suppose a total turnover in the creative staff could change that.
Have you ever visited TrekBBS?Who the heck is saying that? That makes no sense!
RJ does because it's true. You know that as well as I do, because you've provided links that back me up.Who the heck is saying that? That makes no sense!
RJ does. Incessantly.
Except, of course, for all those posts on TrekBBS (to say nothing of the rest of the Internet).
Did anybody already bring up the "franchise fatigue" argument? 
Realistically:
Stargate has never been a powerhouse franchise - it's done very well in a niche market. The most viewers who've watched an episode of Stargate: Whichever appears to be fewer than five million people.
That's peanuts. Those are the kinds of ratings that set off panic at Paramount when their Trek franchise dipped so low.
Now come the cries of "apples and oranges..." yep, fewer people watch cable than used to watch first-run syndication or even (gasp) UPN. Doesn't matter - a few million people is a few million people where the question of whether it's worth MGM's money to try to rekindle this thing. Given that at these levels there is precisely one viable outlet for SG in the current TV marketplace - SyFy - and SyFy is showing no interest in SG now, the TV franchise is...well, in the spirit of the season, how dead is a doornail?
There's always talk about them doing a sequel to the original movie. That, at least, makes some sense as the movie was a bona fide hit - in 1994. OTOH, that may as well be sometime in the late Mesozoic as far as the group understood to be the core audience for this stuff is concerned.
No, if Stargate has a future at all, the current logic of the business would be to remake the original film in an attempt to launch a new summer film franchise. The only question MGM has to answer here is whether the property has sufficient name recognition or other value to justify the amounts of money that would be required in order to make this kind of movie - an expensive, effects-laden adventure film - viable theatrically. All kinds of TV shows get resurrected as movies, but there's a difference in budgets and promotional costs for a big screen comedy - say, remaking My Mother The Car with Steve Carell - and an actioner like this.
Stargate has never been a powerhouse franchise - it's done very well in a niche market. The most viewers who've watched an episode of Stargate: Whichever appears to be fewer than five million people.
That's peanuts. Those are the kinds of ratings that set off panic at Paramount when their Trek franchise dipped so low.
Now come the cries of "apples and oranges..." yep, fewer people watch cable than used to watch first-run syndication or even (gasp) UPN. Doesn't matter - a few million people is a few million people where the question of whether it's worth MGM's money to try to rekindle this thing. Given that at these levels there is precisely one viable outlet for SG in the current TV marketplace - SyFy - and SyFy is showing no interest in SG now, the TV franchise is...well, in the spirit of the season, how dead is a doornail?
There's always talk about them doing a sequel to the original movie. That, at least, makes some sense as the movie was a bona fide hit - in 1994. OTOH, that may as well be sometime in the late Mesozoic as far as the group understood to be the core audience for this stuff is concerned.
No, if Stargate has a future at all, the current logic of the business would be to remake the original film in an attempt to launch a new summer film franchise. The only question MGM has to answer here is whether the property has sufficient name recognition or other value to justify the amounts of money that would be required in order to make this kind of movie - an expensive, effects-laden adventure film - viable theatrically. All kinds of TV shows get resurrected as movies, but there's a difference in budgets and promotional costs for a big screen comedy - say, remaking My Mother The Car with Steve Carell - and an actioner like this.
Last edited:
There are generic summer sci fi action movies every summer. Assuming MGM owns all the rights to the original and doesn't need to pay Emmerich anything, then the movie would cost no more than a generic sci fi movie, and have the added name recognition(even if only minimal) to raise profits. Not to say that a Stargate movie will definitely make money, but it has a better chance then a generic movie. So I'm sure MGM will try it at some point...
If they're going to compete effectively in the marketplace they cost a lot of money.
I think the Stargate concept still has potential. A rebooted franchise in the form of a movie could stand a chance of being successful.
I agree with most of what Temis said about SG-1 never really exploiting the plot threads it set up and often lacking credible villains.
And I think a reboot should really go nuts with changing things around. Keep the basic notion of the Stargate, maybe the Goa'uld, but be ready to dispense with just about everything else. A reboot that just does the exact same thing as the original wouldn't be worth the trouble.
I agree with most of what Temis said about SG-1 never really exploiting the plot threads it set up and often lacking credible villains.
And I think a reboot should really go nuts with changing things around. Keep the basic notion of the Stargate, maybe the Goa'uld, but be ready to dispense with just about everything else. A reboot that just does the exact same thing as the original wouldn't be worth the trouble.
It could be very successful. Of course, they'd want to keep the ending more explicitly open than the original film did, and build in various threads for a sequel. It certainly wouldn't hurt to borrow the essential way in which the premise of the TV series varied from the film, which was that they were facing more than a single adversary on the other side of the Gate.
Definitely. There should be a villain for them to beat in the first movie, but make it explicit that there are others humanity will have to contend with. Leaves it wide open for sequels, TV shows, whatever.
The only question, then, is which of the two leads is female this time around - Jackson or O'Neil? If it's O'Neil, they want Jolie. Jackson...maybe Cameron Diaz? 
The only question, then, is which of the two leads is female this time around - Jackson or O'Neil? If it's O'Neil, they want Jolie. Jackson...maybe Cameron Diaz?
Hay, make it an all female cast; and call it Stargate: Womanverse. Then sell it to Lifetime or the new Oprah Channel
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
I'd like them to wrap up the current storylines (Lucian Alliance, Wraith, CMBGR) before they reboot it, and if they ever reboot it I pray it is like nuTrek. IE keeping the original universe canonically intact. Maybe something to do with the Quantum Mirror or a Reality Drive.
