• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Is Universe a Reboot of Atlantis?

and lord please no reset buttons. If anything B5 and nuBSG showed you do not need to do that and still can have a successful show.
Agreed. They've set a course and they need to see it through IMO. I really hope the writers/producers have a plan mapped out over the course of the next couple years that will be different than previous shows.
 
No. I have a real problem with the cinimaphotography of SGU. It simply does not feel like a Stargate series. If FEELS more like the BSG reboot. And the is WAY too much handcam being used. Handcame was cool for the first couple of movies but now it is used mostly to hide cheep special effects. Use the damn steady cam and go back to the stargate feel. Leave BSG to be BSG.

I sumation: I watched about half the first episode and turned it off. I will not watch again.
 
No. I have a real problem with the cinimaphotography of SGU. It simply does not feel like a Stargate series. If FEELS more like the BSG reboot. And the is WAY too much handcam being used. Handcame was cool for the first couple of movies but now it is used mostly to hide cheep special effects. Use the damn steady cam and go back to the stargate feel. Leave BSG to be BSG.

I sumation: I watched about half the first episode and turned it off. I will not watch again.

The Stargate series have been using hand held cameras since the start of SG1, Galactica didn't corner the market on the use of that kind of camera work.
 
I didn't realise that Battlestar Galactica made such an impact on cinematography, myself. It seems everything it did is now the unique and patented signature of that show and that show alone.

BSG is not bullet time and The Matrix. As much as I loved BSG, it didn't do much that was particularly earth-moving, it responded to a growing climate of 'dark' tv shows with a sci-fi take on dark-and-gritty with characters who fall out and are sometimes assholes. The same way 24 took that angle on a cop show/adventure series. Or House did on the medical drama.
SGU is merely a continuation of a theme that's been running for over 5 years in US TV, both thematically and in cinematography.
 
I don't have a problem with the cinematography. I DO have a problem with people criticizing it who have no idea what they are talking about. It's a safe bet that Steadicams are being used throughout. The camerawork is far too fluid to be handheld without some sort of stabilization. "Handcam" doesn't mean a damn thing, and it's a fair bet that there aren't any Handycams being used on such a highly budgeted series.

Stargate SG-1, like much of television in 1997, was shot and edited very conservatively. With a few rare exceptions, the closest it came to being visually adventurous was the use of the walk and talk, no doubt feeling the influence of The West Wing, which popularized this shooting style. Stargate Atlantis followed in the same style, and between the two series, the look quickly became becoming dreadfully boring.

Battlestar Galactica might be to blame for introducing so-called "dark and gritty" cinematography to a science fiction context, but it's worth remembering that shows like The X-Files and Millennium were pushing the envelope, visually, of television within the genre fifteen years ago. And when you expand your horizons to outside the genre, Homicide: Life on the Street and NYPD Blue were pushing the envelope long before Ronald D. Moore was approached to write and produce Battlestar Galactica. And if consider the world of feature films, even solely in an American context, this kind of photography has been regularly in use since the 1970s. Would anyone honestly have the chutzpah to tell Martin Scorsese to hold down the camera and obey the laws of classical continuity editing in Mean Streets? Good Gods, I hope not.
 
My first thoughts upon hearing about SGU was that it was just going to be SG:Voyager. Now that I have seen a few episodes, I think it is more a mix of Atlantis and BSG. One of the main things I do like is I don't see an O'Neill type character in the mix. I liked John Sheppard, but I always felt that his character was just an O'Neill clone.
 
My first thoughts upon hearing about SGU was that it was just going to be SG:Voyager. Now that I have seen a few episodes, I think it is more a mix of Atlantis and BSG. One of the main things I do like is I don't see an O'Neill type character in the mix. I liked John Sheppard, but I always felt that his character was just an O'Neill clone.

Very much agreed, I'm pleased the characters have avoided (largely) the Stargate archetypes. No O'Neill, no wisecracking Mary Sue scientist (although Eli's a worry in that department), no hand-holdy Weir/Daniel Jackson, no Warrior Alien. I like thi development, and I hope it stays.
 
It does seem like this is the show that they originally wanted to do. Atlantis was good in parts but just didn't work as an interesting premise especially once they came in contact with Earth.
The BSG similarities however I just don't see it apart from the shaky cam, this to me still seems like a Stargate show if a little grittier than with the past series.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top