Is the Stargate movie required viewing before seeing SG-1?

[Dream]

Just wondering if I can understand the SG-1 well enough, if I haven't seen the movie.

I think would prefer to see SG-1 first and have the tv actors as the characters in my head, and maybe see the movie after I'm done with the show. Seeing the movie actors first then moving to the show might be too jarring for me.

 

[Harvey]

Two of the (supporting) actors are carried over from the movie, but the rest of the characters are either recast or changed. The series is certainly self-explanatory; it references the movie and is a vague sequel to it, but there isn't any information you'll need to know that it won't bring up.

 

[Christopher]

It kinda helps to see the movie first just to know the backstory, but I suppose it's not essential. Certainly the movie is one of the weakest parts of the franchise (though honestly the first couple of seasons of the show weren't much better), so maybe it's best to get it out of the way first and avoid the anticlimax.

 

[DWF]

There are references in the pilot that came from the movie, so just to be safe it's better to see the movie first.

 

[USS Firefly]

Indeed watch the movie with a beer and chips and its enjoyable enough

 

[auntiehill]

It kinda helps to see the movie first just to know the backstory, but I suppose it's not essential. Certainly the movie is one of the weakest parts of the franchise (though honestly the first couple of seasons of the show weren't much better), so maybe it's best to get it out of the way first and avoid the anticlimax.

^This. It definitely enhances one's appreciation of the series and will help you understand the pilot a bit better but it's not strictly necessary.

 

[Relayer1]

They dropped the ball by not carrying Ferretti and Kawalski on right through the run of the show.

 

[The Wormhole]

Overall, the series itself is easy to follow without seeing the movie. The movie does help understanding the pilot, which is in many ways a sequel to the movie.

 

[Vendikarr]

Just wondering if I can understand the SG-1 well enough, if I haven't seen the movie.

I think would prefer to see SG-1 first and have the tv actors as the characters in my head, and maybe see the movie after I'm done with the show. Seeing the movie actors first then moving to the show might be too jarring for me.

Think of the movie as an alternate universe. The same general events happened, but there are differences, especially related to Ra.

You can watch the series without having seen the movie. But there are a few differences.

 

[Captain Craig]

It's a good Primer.
As mentioned a few movie actors carry over in minor support roles, one more than another, and a few roles are recast.

It's two hours of fun and worth watching.

 

[Dream]

I just watched the movie. I thought it was really cool. So of like a high tech version of The Mummy.

I thought James Spader was the standout as the lead character, Daniel Jackson.

Kurt Russell played it well as the tortured badass, Jack O'Neil.

 

[Christopher]

^Michael Shanks initially does a pretty dead-on James Spader impression in SG-1, but over time Daniel becomes less Spadery and more Shanksy. As for Richard Dean Anderson, he doesn't even particularly try to emulate Kurt Russell, although his Col. O'Neill does start out more somber than he later becomes.

 

[MacLeod]

Well as O'Neill would say. "That's O'Neill with two l's, there is another O'Neil but he has no sense of humour."

 

[Dream]

Well as O'Neill would say. "That's O'Neill with two l's, there is another O'Neil but he has no sense of humour."

Movie O'Neil was depressed and suicidal after his son had accidentally killed himself with O'Neil's own gun. I never expected him to cracking be jokes every minute.

 

[Christopher]

And the series starts out with O'Neill still not fully past that tragedy, but as time passes he moves on more and more.

Although I didn't like how much RDA took it to the point of caricature in later seasons, taking Jack from someone who had little patience for intellectuals to someone who played dumb sometimes but was an amateur astronomer to someone who really was pretty dense and had no astronomical knowledge to speak of.

 

[Harvey]

That was partly his performance, but it was also the writers. A lot of the character's nuance was lost as the series went along, for better or worse.

 

[Galileo7]

See the Stargate movie because it will just add to your enjoyment of SG-1.

 

[bigdaddy]

And the series starts out with O'Neill still not fully past that tragedy, but as time passes he moves on more and more.

Although I didn't like how much RDA took it to the point of caricature in later seasons, taking Jack from someone who had little patience for intellectuals to someone who played dumb sometimes but was an amateur astronomer to someone who really was pretty dense and had no astronomical knowledge to speak of.

This is why we ignore those seasons.

 

[Sephiroth]

They dropped the ball by not carrying Ferretti and Kawalski on right through the run of the show.

I'm pretty sure they could have gotten French Stewart, too

 

[MacLeod]

I seem to remember reading that they they did get the original mvie actors for the likes of Kawalski but didn't think they could afford them for a weekly TV show hence why they killed him. But he dropped out for some reason and the role was recast but by then it was too late to change the scripts etc.