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

[Christopher]

Then explain Sword of Truth? Only thing missing was Renee Dawson and a quarterstaff.

The Sword of Truth is a 21-novel epic fantasy series by Terry Goodkind that Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert developed for television under the name Legend of the Seeker. Its sword-and-sorcery fantasy elements come from the book series, which debuted in 1994, not from Xena, which debuted in 1995. It's one series out of Raimi's total body of work, so it hardly supports a claim that "everything" Raimi does is identical. See The Quick and the Dead, A Simple Plan, The Gift, etc. For that matter, while Raimi and Tapert developed and executive-produced LotS, Kenneth Biller was its showrunner.

Also, I assume you're referring to Renee O'Connor, who played Gabrielle. Were you thinking of Roxann Dawson or Rosario Dawson?

 

[Michael Two Wolves]

Yeah that was it. I always get those two names mixed for some dumb reason lmao

The books came out in 95. Sam Raimi immediately strayed from them in his production, the fans all bitched and left, and the show was eventually cancelled. Hercules? Xena clone. And then there was the whole “I’m going to remake Star Trek!” thing that turned into a mess of multiple alternate timelines and a Star Wars-sequel breaking of canon through crappy retconning.

I don’t care for any of his movies or tv shows, and the only reason he had anyone watching them is because the fanboys were all waiting to see Xena or Gabrielle in the buff. They sure weren’t watching it out of a love of the sparkling dialogue between Lucy Lawless and Kevin Sorbo.

Someone hurry up and perfect a Time Machine so we can go kidnap Irv Kirshner and force him to write for Star Trek.

 

[David cgc]

Hercules? Xena clone.

Hercules was a clone... of its own spin-off.

And then there was the whole “I’m going to remake Star Trek!” thing that turned into a mess of multiple alternate timelines and a Star Wars-sequel breaking of canon through crappy retconning.

Raimi being suggested as a possible director for ST09 was of so little consequence it's difficult to even confirm it ever happened at all today. I know you said "everything he touches," but that's approaching levels of suggesting everything created since 1959 is affected by the pernicious, corrupting butterfly effect of being on the same planet as Sam Raimi.

 

[Christopher]

The books came out in 95. Sam Raimi immediately strayed from them in his production

It's weird how people who want to attack a specific creator always end up insulting their collaborators instead by ignoring their contributions. Robert Tapert co-created Xena with John Schulian and was the showrunner of Xena Warrior Princess (and of Hercules: The Legendary Journeys) under Sam Raimi's executive producership. Raimi and Tapert both developed Legend of the Seeker and picked Ken Biller to showrun it. Terry Goodkind was consulted on the show's development and approved the decision to do a loose adaptation, which has always been the norm for TV adaptations; indeed, it was Goodkind's suggestion to rename the series to acknowledge that it wasn't exclusively based on the first book.

And then there was the whole “I’m going to remake Star Trek!” thing that turned into a mess of multiple alternate timelines and a Star Wars-sequel breaking of canon through crappy retconning.

Numerous creators over the years have proposed concepts for Star Trek reboots that were never put into production.

I don’t care for any of his movies or tv shows, and the only reason he had anyone watching them is because the fanboys were all waiting to see Xena or Gabrielle in the buff.

This is such a nonsensical comment that it's impossible to take your posts seriously. Goodbye.

 

[Michael Two Wolves]

The point is I don’t like Sam Raimi or his body of work. Nothing I’ve seen from him is anything I’d watch twice. I’d trade Sam Raimi for Irv Kirshner, Ralph McQuarrie or Tom Johnson any day.

The Legend of the Seeker was the final straw. I’m not interested in colorful “reboots” or “remakes” or anything you want to call it. When I read a book like The Dark Elf trilogy, for instance, I don’t want an adaptation, I want to see Drizzt kicking some illithid’s backside as it was described in the book.

this is exactly why they were so excruciatingly careful with the LoTR movies because they knew that deviations would invite disaster. Tom Bombadil’s scene being massaged was even enough to raise the specter of fan wrath (though I didn’t think they did too bad). Recklessly rearranging timelines and characters or miscasting them and other shenanigans are a sure way to never get another penny (or moment of viewing) from me.

 

[bdub76]

Gotta disagree there. BSG TOS is greater.

I prefer the original as well. At the time the reboot came out, it was special because it was dark scifi. After lots of conflict free Star Trek, it was a nice change. But I have no desire to watch it now.

 

[Michael Two Wolves]

This is such a nonsensical comment that it's impossible to take your posts seriously. Goodbye.

 

[Christopher]

I do find the original Galactica more entertaining and fun, but I absolutely would not say it's better-written or better-made. It's junk food with fitful aspirations to something more. The remake may have been too bleak and grim to be enjoyable to revisit, but it was absolutely smarter, more sophisticated, and higher in quality. And it was objectively more successful, a hit that ran for multiple seasons where the original flopped quickly in the ratings after its strong start and was cancelled after a season.

Anyway, the point is that you can't generalize about all reboots, because they're as different from one another as the entries in any other category. One's like or dislike for a single reboot, or a certain number of reboots, does not justify declaring the entire category universally bad, since of course some will be better than others. Everything deserves to be judged on its individual merits, not stereotyped by category.

 

[bdub76]

I do find the original Galactica more entertaining and fun, but I absolutely would not say it's better-written or better-made. It's junk food with fitful aspirations to something more. The remake may have been too bleak and grim to be enjoyable to revisit, but it was absolutely smarter, more sophisticated, and higher in quality. And it was objectively more successful, a hit that ran for multiple seasons where the original flopped quickly in the ratings after its strong start and was cancelled after a season.

Anyway, the point is that you can't generalize about all reboots, because they're as different from one another as the entries in any other category. One's like or dislike for a single reboot, or a certain number of reboots, does not justify declaring the entire category universally bad, since of course some will be better than others. Everything deserves to be judged on its individual merits, not stereotyped by category.

Doing a reboot is hard because there are expectations with what came before hand. For Stargate to work for me as a reboot, I really want the humor. That’s what really distinguishes the series for me. I struggle with a serious Stargate. It’s why SGU didn’t work for me. It’s like if Eureka came back without the humor.

What I don’t know is how it would work. We have so much of it. I don’t know what it would add. It’s like the X-Files. There are so many seasons that it’s really questionable if we needed anymore.

 

[Michael Two Wolves]

That’s why you don’t bother with a reboot.

what’s the point of world building an entire series specifically for plot mining later on if you’re just going to throw it away and start over?

This is why picking all those cool planets and alien species we wanted to know more about but couldn’t fit into a 45 minute time slot would easily flesh out a whole new show. What happened to all the data brought back by SGU? What about focusing more on the interplay of the MIC with the rest of earth like they always hinted at? That was what made the “Wormhole Xtreme!” episode so surreal:

a fictional show about the government hiding ridiculous technology from its citizens permits a fictional tv show disclosing said secrets because it’s a tv show and no one would suspect that it’s really just a sly vehicle for soft exposure of state secrets to acclimate people to the actual reality of the situation. Why does this sound so familiar, especially in the last two years with all the UAP stuff?

Uh huh. “Fictional.” Sure. That episode went right off the conspiracy charts.

 

[Christopher]

Doing a reboot is hard because there are expectations with what came before hand.

Fans always assume they're the sole target audience for a reboot, but they're wrong. The existing fanbase for an older work is never large enough on its own to make something successful. The primary target audience for any reboot (or even an in-continuity revival, like the new Trek shows) are newcomers, people who weren't fans of the original. Yes, ideally one wants to balance appeal to newcomers with appeal to the existing fanbase, but it's a mistake to prioritize the latter, because then it becomes too insular, excluding the uninitiated rather than welcoming them.

Besides, anything comes with expectations of various sorts. One should never be afraid of an audience's expectations. One should, indeed, try to shatter them. Giving an audience only what it already expects is boring.

What I don’t know is how it would work. We have so much of it. I don’t know what it would add. It’s like the X-Files. There are so many seasons that it’s really questionable if we needed anymore.

The difference is that The X-Files was just one show (okay, plus a failed spinoff). Stargate is a universe encompassing three different series (four if you count Origins), so there's room to add further series, as has been done with Trek and Wars. The key is to find a fresh angle, a new kind of story set in the same reality and drawing on its continuity.

 

[fireproof78]

Indeed. I lean towards reboot because I want to approach the property with fresh eyes and take the concept in a different direction. Heck, even the original series banked heavily away from some concepts in the film (i.e. Ra "dying," being in a distant galaxy). So, you can easily rework the original idea with a new take.

The other reason I lean towards a reboot is because continuity is not always great if you want to draw in new viewers. The burden of massive backstory is that new viewers don't always jump in because there is much to catch up on.

Either way can work for me and I have as much interest in a reboot as a continuation. I just like new takes on other ideas.

 

[Michael Two Wolves]

Ah, but that's what makes the universe more realistic, and rather than one massive backstory, break it into smaller chunks while simultaneously fleshing it out in a new direction. Use flashbacks to inform--I mean, there is some commitment required from the viewer. So, it's not really a reboot, just building on what came before. It's supposed to be inspirational to hook people into being curious enough to dig deeper. For me, the hook was the technical details and background characters who have their own lives apart from what we see going on.

The other aspect I think is borne of fear since so many "reboots" are derivative and fail spectacularly. No one wants to see a beloved franchise mishandled by directors or by pressure from the BoE. The fans tell you what they want to see; listen to them, not study groups made of overpaid yes men.

 

[fireproof78]

Fans have said they want a lot of things. I don't trust them.

So, if reboot is the path forward I'm going to give it a try. If it's a continuation I'll try it. The success is in the show itself, not reboot or continuation.

 

[bdub76]

Ah, but that's what makes the universe more realistic, and rather than one massive backstory, break it into smaller chunks while simultaneously fleshing it out in a new direction. Use flashbacks to inform--I mean, there is some commitment required from the viewer. So, it's not really a reboot, just building on what came before. It's supposed to be inspirational to hook people into being curious enough to dig deeper. For me, the hook was the technical details and background characters who have their own lives apart from what we see going on.

The other aspect I think is borne of fear since so many "reboots" are derivative and fail spectacularly. No one wants to see a beloved franchise mishandled by directors or by pressure from the BoE. The fans tell you what they want to see; listen to them, not study groups made of overpaid yes men.

Some can be potentially modernized. What would 21 Jump Street by like in a world of social media that didn’t exist in the 80s.

But a show like A-Team couldn’t be rebooted. The writing wasn’t particularly good on that show. It was driven by the cast. The concept can be duplicated. But it wouldn’t be the same.

The other problem with reboots is that they end up run by fans. This is the problem with the new run of Doctor Who. It’s become so referential to past episodes.

 

[Michael Two Wolves]

But a show like A-Team couldn’t be rebooted. The writing wasn’t particularly good on that show. It was driven by the cast. The concept can be duplicated. But it wouldn’t be the same.

The other problem with reboots is that they end up run by fans. This is the problem with the new run of Doctor Who. It’s become so referential to past episodes.

Fan-curated is a lot different than fan-directed. Curation is fine, just pick a point and flesh it out fully and don't Disney-fy it. For instance, take Stargate and build a series around the break down of a planet's society as the planet gets slowly drawn into a black hole and are using stargates to evacuate, in a 24 sort of format. Or have a Breaking Bad show about more private companies organizing to profit off off-planet technology. I mean, the sky is the limit here. There were a lot of story hooks that weren't fully developed in Stargate.

 

[Christopher]

But a show like A-Team couldn’t be rebooted. The writing wasn’t particularly good on that show. It was driven by the cast. The concept can be duplicated. But it wouldn’t be the same.

I thought the 2010 A-Team feature film reboot was actually very good. I’ve rarely seen a film revival of an old show that did a better job of adaptation — capturing the essence of the original while also making it new, bigger, and better. The characters were recognizably themselves, only more fully developed and nuanced. The action was much bigger, the humor edgier, the zaniness and absurdity elevated to an art.

And really, why would you want a reboot to be the same? The whole point of doing a new version of something is to find a fresh variation on the theme. Repeating the way it was done before is redundant.

The other problem with reboots is that they end up run by fans. This is the problem with the new run of Doctor Who. It’s become so referential to past episodes.

I agree it's a problem when that happens -- see my previous comment about the balance of appeal to new and old audiences. I don't agree with generalizing the statement to all reboots. A lot of reboots and remakes are from people who had no particular affinity for the original, or even who disliked the original and wanted to do it very differently.

(Plus, of course, Doctor Who is not a reboot in the usual vernacular sense of the term, but a revival of the original continuity, allowing for timey-wimey revisions.)

 

[fireproof78]

I mean, the sky is the limit here. There were a lot of story hooks that weren't fully developed in Stargate.

Ok.

High School drama featuring Jack O'Neill's clone as he finishes his senior year and decides to join the Space Force instead of the Air Force.

 

[Michael Two Wolves]

Ok.

High School drama featuring Jack O'Neill's clone as he finishes his senior year and decides to join the Space Force instead of the Air Force.

Surely we can find something of interest in his many decades of service to make a show out of. Or what about Carter? Nothing interesting happened to her until she joined SG-1? I mean, we could cover Daniel--surely he had more adventures than just SG-1 before he joined?

This is to say nothing of the oddball worlds and other locations. But that's just window dressing. We need a more unifying theme, like Antarctica. Pretty sure there's plenty there to be hashed out that isn't Atlantis.

 

[fireproof78]

Surely we can find something of interest in his many decades of service to make a show out of.

That wasn't interesting?

Surely we can find something of interest in his many decades of service to make a show out of. Or what about Carter? Nothing interesting happened to her until she joined SG-1? I mean, we could cover Daniel--surely he had more adventures than just SG-1 before he joined?

So we follow a poor archeologist with theories not supported by broader academia until after he joins the program?