Should a new Stargate show be a reboot or a revival?

Okay then, whoever they were, keep them the hell away from the next incarnation of Stargate.

 

I voted revival. There's a lot of legacy actors out there and there's still a fanbase for them. They can always do a reboot in the future but do the revival while they still can.

 

I'd say that's the best way to handle either a reboot or an in-continuity revival. Either way, what matters is finding something new to do with the concept, otherwise there's no point in bringing it back.

I was unaware of that. I only learned of the existence of a reboot just yesterday, as it happened, but I only glimpsed a mention of it in passing, so I didn't realize it was a drama.

 

This is... not correct. The Lord of the Rings movies are masterful adaptations that are still incredible 20+ years later... but there are massive changes in tone, theme, chronology, events, and especially characters.

For a few examples: aside from Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire, just about everything before leaving the Shire in the first place is different from the novels. The characters of Aragon, Faramir, and Denethor are basically completely the opposite of who they are in the novels. Elrond, Gandalf, and Gimli also have significant changes.

To name just a few deviations.

 

It has been 10+ years since the last time I read the books, so perhaps I didn't notice them as much? But I do recall there being a whole doings about ensuring it was close enough to the novels for fans to enjoy. It's pretty much the Ben-Hur of our time.

 

It is a huge epic film and isn't perfectly faithful to the books. Both are true. There are many fans who don't enjoy it and reject it due to the deviations, especially with Aragorn and the omission of several characters. In my opinion Glorfindel, the prince of Dol Amroth, and Elrond's sons are significant omissions to my mind.

Which is why I welcome a reboot. Why not? The purpose of story is not to perpetuate the same thing over and over but to explore a wide variety of ideas. Stargate and LOTR are no exceptions just because there are versions that are grand.

 

There was other stuff going on contemporaneously, though, is what I'm saying. There were other Stargate teams and colonies established whose stories could be told in the same universe while simultaneously exploring new ideas and building upon what came before. Star Trek and Star Wars (EU) are examples of how this can sometimes yield great results.

 

Both have their advantages and disadvantages, which my overall point. The other side of continuity is the tendency to repeat successful or memorable moments from the past. Both Star Trek and Star Wars have examples of this as well.

One is not automatically superior to the other but rely upon the creativity in the new story in the writing. If people think there is value in finding a story to carry on in the SG-1 vein that's fine. I just tend to see the repeating of elements and then a revival no longer feels additive.

 

Gotcha. There's no right answer. Beauty (or in this case, reboot value) is really in the eye of the beholder. I mean, if they were going to remake them episode by episode and do them in a more serialized format, maybe. I mean, I would love to see the gritty side of Star Wars down in the depths of the city planets like Denon where who rules up top makes no difference. So I get where you're coming from.

 

I remember Brad Wright got really pissed off over Origins, to the point that when MGM approached him about doing the (now aborted) revival, he demanded an apology before agreeing to discuss anything further. And he got it.

 

Sure, but those would work a lot better if as a spin-off rather than a reboot. There's going to be a lot more appeal to seeing those things in the universe we're already familiar with than there would in a universe we've never seen before.

OK, but I still don't see the appeal.

Could be interesting.

Yeah, I just rewatched the extended editions and I'm now reading Fellowship for the first time since right before the movies came out, and I was a little shocked at just how different the beginning of the book is from the beginning of the movie.

 

Of course they're different. A novel is going to be paced differently than a movie. A movie is all about economy of storytelling. Set up the stakes, call to action and the obstacles. A novel can meander in a different way, especially Tolkien and his style. Or even "Moby Dick." Things can be set up and described while a film will show and move forward quickly.

 

Of course their different, but some movies still manage to pretty closely adapt the elements they do take from source material. I guess I should say I was surprised how different they were, I was thinking that most of the scenes like that were taken pretty much word for word from the books.