For those of you who aren't comfortable with SGU's darker, grittier tone, what do you think of the 1994 movie, which was also darker than SG-1 or Atlantis?
Stargate: The Movie & Stargate Universe
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
SG-1 could be very dark at times but it ran away from that after a while.
I thought it was obvious. The movie had its humor, but it felt grander, more serious, more epic, the sets were dingier, parts of the story were more ominous, etc. SG-1 on the other hand, while having its serious moments, was lighter, campier fare. Then there's the two versions of O'Neil(l).
The movie and SG-1 are quite different.
Uh.. O'Neill went on a suicide mission with express orders to nuke another planet on the flimsy basis that it might be a threat to the United States.
sounds pretty dark to me.
And he was acutally 'happy" to die since it was following his son's own death but it's how he was portrayed that made a big impact. The character appeared more relaxed, more zen, even providing comical relief when played by RDA. That made a big difference in the show.
And in "Abyss" O'Neill was repeatedly killed and brought back to life, knowing the whole time that it was slowly corrupting his soul. Plus the rest of his team didn't know how to find him and wasn't getting help, and the one person who theoretically could've helped him refused because of Prime Directive issues. But he stayed to talk anyway.
I'd say that's pretty dark.
I'd say that's pretty dark.
^ "Dark" or "darker" as in not being as light or campy.
I'm not just talking about the stories either. The movie's characters, the cinematography and just the overall tone and feel were quite different from what we got with the TV show. It was a lot closer to BSG than it was to SG-1. It's as clear as day. You couldn't tune into the movie partway through and think it was just another episode. I thought that was a given and I thought I'd revisit the movie, seeing as how SGU looks to be getting back to that and getting some unfavorable comments because of it. I notice that a lot of people are comparing it to BSG, but I haven't seen anyone mention the movie yet.
I'm not just talking about the stories either. The movie's characters, the cinematography and just the overall tone and feel were quite different from what we got with the TV show. It was a lot closer to BSG than it was to SG-1. It's as clear as day. You couldn't tune into the movie partway through and think it was just another episode. I thought that was a given and I thought I'd revisit the movie, seeing as how SGU looks to be getting back to that and getting some unfavorable comments because of it. I notice that a lot of people are comparing it to BSG, but I haven't seen anyone mention the movie yet.
I don't think Stargate is as dark as Battlestar Galactica. To draw up the important examples:
In the beginning of the film, Colonel O'niel wants to kill himself due to the accidental death of his son, but by the end he has adopted Skaara as a surogate son, conquered his (by the movie's point of view) irrational fear of guns (and thus absolved himself from his son's death), and is once again content with his life.
Daniel Jackson, who begins the film a sad loser who is laughed out of the academic establishment for his theories about the Pyramids, ends up having his theories proven and with a woman who throws herself at him even before he gets to heroically save her!
Even the people of Abydos are victorious against their enslaver for hundreds of years, Ra, who sees his forces utterly destroyed and is then killed.
The film doesn't have the campiness nor the cheapness (brought on by the Vancouver locale) of the series, but it still has plenty of humor and a happy ending for everyone involved. I'll agree that it is darker than the series, which rarely dealt with personal demons like O'niel faces nor placed their characters at such a low like it does to Daniel Jackson at the start. But in the end, the good guys still win, there are few casualties, and there is no uncertainty in the ending. Jack is allright. Daniel is allright. And the evil aliens have been defeated and will never be a problem again--until the series ret-cons the hell out of them, of course.
In the beginning of the film, Colonel O'niel wants to kill himself due to the accidental death of his son, but by the end he has adopted Skaara as a surogate son, conquered his (by the movie's point of view) irrational fear of guns (and thus absolved himself from his son's death), and is once again content with his life.
Daniel Jackson, who begins the film a sad loser who is laughed out of the academic establishment for his theories about the Pyramids, ends up having his theories proven and with a woman who throws herself at him even before he gets to heroically save her!
Even the people of Abydos are victorious against their enslaver for hundreds of years, Ra, who sees his forces utterly destroyed and is then killed.
The film doesn't have the campiness nor the cheapness (brought on by the Vancouver locale) of the series, but it still has plenty of humor and a happy ending for everyone involved. I'll agree that it is darker than the series, which rarely dealt with personal demons like O'niel faces nor placed their characters at such a low like it does to Daniel Jackson at the start. But in the end, the good guys still win, there are few casualties, and there is no uncertainty in the ending. Jack is allright. Daniel is allright. And the evil aliens have been defeated and will never be a problem again--until the series ret-cons the hell out of them, of course.
There's a big difference about talking about something and actually showing it. That's non-dark vs dark. Several concepts were extremely dark in SG1 (especially towards the end) but how they were protrayed on screen was not. The show was made to have a light approach on tough subject and left the "juicy" part to the viewers imagination. And throughout every ordeal there was always comical relief from all characters and reassurance like "we've seen worst before" and the never-ending "excelent timing" response upon rescue.
This is different. The action is much more faster pace, actually physically darker lighting (that's an effect that helps keep the thrilling part for the viewer) and much more intense reaction to anything that occurs. Also, comical relief is limited to a single character specifically made for that (Eli), not everybody else.
This is different. The action is much more faster pace, actually physically darker lighting (that's an effect that helps keep the thrilling part for the viewer) and much more intense reaction to anything that occurs. Also, comical relief is limited to a single character specifically made for that (Eli), not everybody else.
The Stargate movie had a "happy" ending. The BSG series had a "happy" ending.
The BSG series is not the first to touch on dark subjects, nor is it the first to show 'sex on screen'.
I mean, if you're going to compare SG:Universe to BSG because of writing or 'darkness', you might as well compare it to ... The Brady Bunch because it was the first television series that showed an adult couple in the same bed.
The BSG series is not the first to touch on dark subjects, nor is it the first to show 'sex on screen'.
I mean, if you're going to compare SG:Universe to BSG because of writing or 'darkness', you might as well compare it to ... The Brady Bunch because it was the first television series that showed an adult couple in the same bed.
Mike Brady was gay and Carol Brady was a beautiful cross-dresser.
I also think the movie was more of an action/scifi drama, than specifically dark. I would never discribe the Stargate movie as dark.
Overall I think it is hard to compare a tv show to a movie. Movies have big bugets, with a small amount of time for storytelling. A tv show has a much smaller budget, but had time to let things develop and grow.
"Dark" is a very slippery term, and means different things to different demos in the audience. Dark can mean "graphically violent", "adult themed", "realistic", "nihilistic", or a host of other things.
Personally, I ted to think of "dark" as a generalization of Film Noir. Not the physical trappings of that genre, but the psychological outlook of it: human weakness, deception, obsession (often, but not always, sexual), and an overall more tragic, bleak, and/or cynical view of the world. By that yardstick, SG:U dips it's little toe in "Dark", in a fairly safe American sort of way. The situation is grim, sometimes the characters will do nasty or evil things to each other, but there is still a light at the end of the tunnel, most people are still decent folks deep down. I know a lot of people who would describe that as gritty* - not that it's any more specific.
* I think the term "gritty" probably recalls old westerns and WW II films, specifically those that were perceived to be more realistic, but that's just an educated guess. Man, I think about this stuff too much.
Personally, I ted to think of "dark" as a generalization of Film Noir. Not the physical trappings of that genre, but the psychological outlook of it: human weakness, deception, obsession (often, but not always, sexual), and an overall more tragic, bleak, and/or cynical view of the world. By that yardstick, SG:U dips it's little toe in "Dark", in a fairly safe American sort of way. The situation is grim, sometimes the characters will do nasty or evil things to each other, but there is still a light at the end of the tunnel, most people are still decent folks deep down. I know a lot of people who would describe that as gritty* - not that it's any more specific.
* I think the term "gritty" probably recalls old westerns and WW II films, specifically those that were perceived to be more realistic, but that's just an educated guess. Man, I think about this stuff too much.
Similar threads
