TV shows rarely translate into good movies. The problem is that TV shows, over time, tend to know their audience. Viewers learn who the characters are, their back story and information about the world around them. At 20-26 episodes a season, you generally get ALOT of information over a long period of time. With sci-fi in particular, TV helps to build the universe.
Translating that to movies is VERY difficult (especially given how much deeper the storytelling tends to be in modern dramas of any kind). Film writers have to assume that the audience is ignorant of anything that happend on however many years the show was on TV, while at the same time appealing to people that liked the show.
That formula almost never works the first time around. Star Trek is actually pretty unusual in a number of respects. First of all, the initial movies were based on a tv series where "continunity" was largely irrelevant. IE, the series was made to be shown in any order and there was very little character development. Thus at the start of the Trek film franchise all they had to do was kind of establish "the Federation" as an entity and the crew of the Enterprise as the focus. If you think about it, most of what we know about 23rd century star trek and the GTOS characters we learned from the movies. Star Trek was fleshed out on the big screen in a way that it was never done on TV up until that point. (and the movies introduced serialized storytelling to Trek). The TNG movies had an even easier job becuase thier universe was widely established. It just needed updating (thus Generations gets the 78 years later title card). The problems for the TNG films past First contact was that they seemed to abandon the things that made TNG interesting while simultaneously creating villans that were not particularly interesting.
I suspect that an SG-1 feature film would have been pretty lackluster as well. Stargate has the dubious challenge of starting as a film and then moving to TV...trying to make it a film franchise again would be problematic at best. The problem is that most of the people who would go to see the film would know nothing about the 10 year history of SG-1 but may be familliar with the original film. Thus time would have to be wasted explaining who the characters are, what is the whole SG business and how does this fit with the original Kurt Russell film. Then they'd have to decide who the villan would be. Using a Goa'uld (who are atleast related to the vilian in the original film) would require additional exposition (because you then need to e-plain Teal'c and the Jaffa). Too much has happened for a real feature to work.
Translating that to movies is VERY difficult (especially given how much deeper the storytelling tends to be in modern dramas of any kind). Film writers have to assume that the audience is ignorant of anything that happend on however many years the show was on TV, while at the same time appealing to people that liked the show.
That formula almost never works the first time around. Star Trek is actually pretty unusual in a number of respects. First of all, the initial movies were based on a tv series where "continunity" was largely irrelevant. IE, the series was made to be shown in any order and there was very little character development. Thus at the start of the Trek film franchise all they had to do was kind of establish "the Federation" as an entity and the crew of the Enterprise as the focus. If you think about it, most of what we know about 23rd century star trek and the GTOS characters we learned from the movies. Star Trek was fleshed out on the big screen in a way that it was never done on TV up until that point. (and the movies introduced serialized storytelling to Trek). The TNG movies had an even easier job becuase thier universe was widely established. It just needed updating (thus Generations gets the 78 years later title card). The problems for the TNG films past First contact was that they seemed to abandon the things that made TNG interesting while simultaneously creating villans that were not particularly interesting.
I suspect that an SG-1 feature film would have been pretty lackluster as well. Stargate has the dubious challenge of starting as a film and then moving to TV...trying to make it a film franchise again would be problematic at best. The problem is that most of the people who would go to see the film would know nothing about the 10 year history of SG-1 but may be familliar with the original film. Thus time would have to be wasted explaining who the characters are, what is the whole SG business and how does this fit with the original Kurt Russell film. Then they'd have to decide who the villan would be. Using a Goa'uld (who are atleast related to the vilian in the original film) would require additional exposition (because you then need to e-plain Teal'c and the Jaffa). Too much has happened for a real feature to work.
