The Atlantis gate didn't spin, though it had lights that circled around it during the dialing sequence, so it still gave the impression of a spinning gate all the same.
Should a new Stargate show be a reboot or a revival?
- Thread starter Wingcommanderdarkwolf01
- Start date
The point is that one can vary elements of the design while still retaining the general essence.
Anyway, why would an incredibly advanced piece of technology like that need moving parts? Unless the intent was to make the Stargates manually operable in the absence of power or a control device. Still, they kind of feel like old-style rotary phones, which is where the "dialing" terminology comes from in the first place.
It was. The idea in the movie was the stargate was supposed to be operated by turning the inner ring by hand. The proto-SGC was using a motor with rubber wheels clamped against the inner ring to automatically push the inner ring back and forth. The stargate rotating by itself using an intrinsic internal mechanism was an invention (or interpretation) of the show.
That must have been what I was thinking of.
Remember when Stargate came back last time and it was part of the established continuity (
) and turned out to be Stargate Origins?
It's £3.99 on Amazon and I kinda want to see if it's as bad as I remember. What I remember is fan film vibes and gay Jaffa.
) and turned out to be Stargate Origins?It's £3.99 on Amazon and I kinda want to see if it's as bad as I remember. What I remember is fan film vibes and gay Jaffa.
Remember when Stargate came back last time and it was part of the established continuity (
It's £3.99 on Amazon and I kinda want to see if it's as bad as I remember. What I remember is fan film vibes and gay Jaffa.
It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad. And it's a reasonably good fit to the continuity. There are a few glitches, but no more than there were across the previous franchise (like how the Oannes were established early on as playing a key role in liberating the Goa'uld's slaves on Earth but were then completely ignored in the "Moebius" story depicting the slave revolt).
I say make it a continuation of Universe. The ship was analayzed and all the data recorded was being gone through so that they could literally build Stargate SG-1 into part 2.
I also love how they wrapped some of the fringe theories about the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology's implications into the series finale. lmao
I also love how they wrapped some of the fringe theories about the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology's implications into the series finale. lmao
Because it's cool.
Just, please, no "Wormhole Xtreme!" sequel episodes.
Whatever form a new SG show takes, I hope they work this old gem into it. With very little rewriting it could become an excellent Stargate location.
As well as that it needs to communicate something to the audience. The same reason why holograms in Star Wars have scan lines. Initially it looks too strange if it's just a photoreal image, so scan lines are added to communicate "this is video recorded."
Obviously, less so now, but things are designed with the audience in mind to communicate "this is how it works."
...damned obsessives and their incessant need for "details" and "greebles."
The kid from 21 Jump Street had a lot to do with Stargate shows. Will he be coming back to do any work on a future or series, or is he done?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_DeLuise
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_DeLuise
A reboot to me always screams, "We can't match the original in quality or cinematic experience for a sequel, so we're just going remake the original worse so all subsequent production looks like gold by comparison."
This applies to everything.
Category doesn't determine quality. Some reboots greatly surpass the quality of the original, e.g. the Heisei Gamera movies, the Ron Moore Battlestar Galactica, or She-Ra and the Princesses of Power. The most famous versions of The Maltese Falcon and Ben-Hur are remakes of inferior earlier versions.
Of course plenty of reboots are worse than the originals, but that's just Sturgeon's Law -- 90 percent of everything is garbage. The successful examples of a category are always the minority. Which is why it's so nonsensical to blame the entire category.
Of course plenty of reboots are worse than the originals, but that's just Sturgeon's Law -- 90 percent of everything is garbage. The successful examples of a category are always the minority. Which is why it's so nonsensical to blame the entire category.
Until they start turning out directors and conceptual artists of Irv Kirshner and Ralph McQuarrie quality again, I’m dubious. Sam Raimi, for instance, has a penchant for ruining everything he touches by trying to make it into a Xena clone.
Okay, that's a bizarre characterization of his body of work. I don't see anything Xena-like about his Spider-Man or Doctor Strange movies. And of course he'd already established his characteristic directorial style well before Xena existed, with films like the Evil Dead trilogy and Darkman. And Xena was more Rob Tapert's baby anyway.
Then explain Sword of Truth? Only thing missing was Renee Dawson and a quarterstaff.
Sam Raimi’s work on Evil Dead was tempered by Bruce Campbell the way Lars Ulrich’s ego was kept in check by Cliff Burton.
Gotta disagree there. BSG TOS is greater.
Similar threads
