open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Why Stargate SG1 and Stargate Atlantis were horrible.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Munchees
Gallente
Posted - 2009.06.22 11:05:00 - [1]
 

The TV series Stargate SG1 and Stargate: Atlantis, are both spin offs/sequels of the movie Stargate, released in 1994.

The original film starred Kurt Russel and James Spader. The film was highly successful and was more related to mythology than science fiction/fantasy. The film was directed by Roland Emmerich, who went on to make Independence Day, that horrible remake Godzilla, and a very good movie called The Patriot.

Roland Emmerich and his writer Dean Devlin (who basically created Stargate), then sold the rights to MGM. Stargate got a cult following and lo' and behold a few years later a spin off series Stargate SG1 is made. This series only relation to the original movie is in name, cast, and concept only. While the film Stargate managed to avoid genre cliches, Stargate SG1 was full of them. The series completely butchered everything Dean Devlin envisioned.

I don't know why anyone could possibly like Stargate SG1 and Star Gate Atlantis. If you are a fan, please explain to me. The influences on the show were painfully obvious, and the whole "lore" behind the universe is pretty boring, and a complaint I've always had is that I could never take the show seriously because the acting was so stale. My main complaint however is that the original idea of Stargate is that travel between planets was only done with Stargates (the huge floating pyramid in the movie used a Stargate). The writers of the TV show decided to throw in genre cliches such as warp drives, spaceships. and many other things that were best left to be done by Star Wars or Star Trek.

Dean Devlin is now trying to retake control of his creation and create two new theatrical films that will ignore every horrible thing the television series did.

Anyway my point is if you are going to try and make a modern sci-fi show for the love of all that is holy make an effort in the special effects department because for the entire run of the series it felt like I was watching something from the 1980's (the reason this is a valid complaint is because MGM gave an estimated $1 million budget for each episode in SG1), which is why Battlestar Galactica Re-Imagined and the new Star Trek movie has given the science fiction genre a new lease on life.

baltec1
Posted - 2009.06.22 11:12:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: baltec1 on 22/06/2009 11:15:22
The only difference between star trek and stargate is the name and props. Generaly its the same old time travel/super weapon/save the crew member/funky illness/end of serise oh no whats next cliffhanger. Neutral

Munchees
Gallente
Posted - 2009.06.22 11:16:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: baltec1
Edited by: baltec1 on 22/06/2009 11:15:22
The only difference between star trek and stargate is the name and props. Generaly its the same old time travel/super weapon/save the crew member/funky illness/end of serise oh no whats next cliffhanger. Neutral


Here this guy has summed up what my wall of text says.

Tallaran Kouros
Cryptonym Sleepers
Posted - 2009.06.22 11:47:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Munchees

My main complaint however is that the original idea of Stargate is that travel between planets was only done with Stargates (the huge floating pyramid in the movie used a Stargate).


Are you sure?

It's always been pretty clear to me that big ships like that were too big to use stargates, so they used hyperdrives to get around.

The big advantage of the gate system was that for moving small ships and troops, it offered near-instantaneous travel.


Rawr Cristina
Caldari
Naqam
Posted - 2009.06.22 11:58:00 - [5]
 

I liked the original movie but I did like a lot of SG-1 episodes too. Yes it's far less serious than the movie and overall a very different take on it but that's no reason to brand it horrible.

My only problem with it is that after a few seasons they ran out of ideas and the whole thing became a bit stale really. Neutral

TimMc
Brutal Deliverance
Gypsy Band
Posted - 2009.06.22 12:03:00 - [6]
 

Don't take it seriously and enjoy the pop culture references like everyone else.

Angelik'a
Gallente
Posted - 2009.06.22 12:16:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Munchees
While the film Stargate managed to avoid genre cliches


Yes... little grey aliens that created the pyramids as landing platforms. No other films/tv shows ever came up with that one.

Kappas.
Galaxy Punks
Posted - 2009.06.22 12:19:00 - [8]
 

Stargate the franchise is ****tons better than the original movie.

And yeah, if every sci fi show left things up to Star Trek/wars you'd never have had shows like BSG/Firefly/Andromeda/That one with Ben Browder.

Honestly if you don't like something that's fine, but attacking other people for liking a tv show makes you stupid tbqh

Tallaran Kouros
Cryptonym Sleepers
Posted - 2009.06.22 12:22:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Angelik'a
Originally by: Munchees
While the film Stargate managed to avoid genre cliches


Yes... little grey aliens that created the pyramids as landing platforms. No other films/tv shows ever came up with that one.


I think you are confusing the Go'auld with the Azgard.

Angelik'a
Gallente
Posted - 2009.06.22 12:29:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Tallaran Kouros
Originally by: Angelik'a
Originally by: Munchees
While the film Stargate managed to avoid genre cliches


Yes... little grey aliens that created the pyramids as landing platforms. No other films/tv shows ever came up with that one.


I think you are confusing the Go'auld with the Azgard.


The end explosion on the ship lights Ra up and makes him look a bit like a gray alien think thats what he means

Sanguis Sanies
Amarr
Posted - 2009.06.22 12:36:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Munchees
Roland Emmerich and his writer Dean Devlin (who basically created Stargate), then sold the rights to MGM. [...] The series completely butchered everything Dean Devlin envisioned.


How do you know what these two "envisioned"? that's very presumptive of you. Other writers and production teams are allowed to work on old ideas, every TV show has a multitude of writers, some only write a few episodes, some write for all the shows run. The ideas that writers contribute to the story are no less or more "valid" then the creators ideas. Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin wrote a story and created a universe, when they sold the rights they allowed others to build and expand upon this universe.

Originally by: Munchees
My main complaint however is that the original idea of Stargate is that travel between planets was only done with Stargates (the huge floating pyramid in the movie used a Stargate). The writers of the TV show decided to throw in genre cliches such as warp drives, spaceships. and many other things that were best left to be done by Star Wars or Star Trek.


The "floating ship" didn't use a stargate, the stargate was contained in the pyramid which Ra's ship landed on. Ra's ship is clearly seen taking off and landing, the ship landed on Earth at the very start of the film and kidnapped Ra's new host, then it lands on Abydos after Daniel Jackson and O'Neill arrive, you don't seriously think that Ra spent the intervening millennia travelling at sub-light speeds?

You seem to praise Battlestar Galatica later in your post and yet that also deals with "warp drives" and "spaceships", also why should Star Wars and Star Trek have a monopoly on Sci-Fi space stories? These are simply story telling devices, Gene Roddenberry invented the teleporter to save on production costs so they didn't have to pay to have a shot of the shuttles arriving and leaving the planet every episode.


Originally by: Munchees
Dean Devlin is now trying to retake control of his creation and create two new theatrical films that will ignore every horrible thing the television series did.


Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin had originally envisioned it as a trilogy, they are now getting a chance to complete their ideas after making the other films you mention.

Originally by: Munchees
Anyway my point is if you are going to try and make a modern sci-fi show for the love of all that is holy make an effort in the special effects department because for the entire run of the series it felt like I was watching something from the 1980's (the reason this is a valid complaint is because MGM gave an estimated $1 million budget for each episode in SG1), which is why Battlestar Galactica Re-Imagined and the new Star Trek movie has given the science fiction genre a new lease on life.


US$1,000,000 per episode has to pay for EVERYTHING which includes the producers, writers, cast, crews and consultants salaries, it also covers the cost of building the sets (very very expensive) and the costumes (which can be expensive). also if MGM gave them that same amount of money then inflation would mean that it was actually worth less and less, so US$1,000,000 in 1997 would buy less than it would in 2007. If you watch Star Trek then you will notice that most of the shots have one (maybe two) ships in space not doing much surrounded by blackness, if you have a shot of a spaceship orbiting a planet then you need to create that planet which costs money. In part the reason that shows like Battlestar Galatica and the Star Trek movie can have such good special effects is because of shows like stargate driving down the cost of production and giving CG artists experience.

I view the Stargate movie and the Stargate series as two separate stories, to be enjoyed separately. I have the Stargate movie on my DVD shelf followed by all ten seasons of Stargate SG-1 (and two movies) and 4 seasons of Atlantis (Season 5 is yet to be released.) I will also be watching Stargate Universe.

Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's
Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
Posted - 2009.06.22 13:10:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Munchees

Anyway my point is if you are going to try and make a modern sci-fi show for the love of all that is holy make an effort in the special effects department because for the entire run of the series it felt like I was watching something from the 1980's (the reason this is a valid complaint is because MGM gave an estimated $1 million budget for each episode in SG1), which is why Battlestar Galactica Re-Imagined and the new Star Trek movie has given the science fiction genre a new lease on life.


The SFX in the earlier years of SG1 where pretty bad but they got a lot better and some of the space battle scenes in later episodes of SG1 and Atlantis where as spectacular as anything from BSG.

Munchees
Gallente
Posted - 2009.06.22 13:14:00 - [13]
 

The reason I mentioned BGS is because BGS from the beginning had jump drives.

Anyway in the film it isn't made exactly clear how that pyramid traveled, I assumed it was a Stargate of sorts.

Pello Mei
Posted - 2009.06.22 13:44:00 - [14]
 

Stargate was entertaining, and still is to watch. Yeah it has plenty of old clichés but so does a lot of sci-fi shows and non sci-fi shows to be honest. Just like everything though, it's not for everyone.

Jacob Mei
Gallente
Posted - 2009.06.22 15:28:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Jacob Mei on 22/06/2009 15:44:29
Atlantis was crap. For four years they essentially just sat around and delt with the villian of the week. It never progressed, never even thought of an ultimate defeat or anything along those line, not to mention the writers started to recycle material from the last show.

SG-1: for the most part it was a good show. The show for me was the modern military thrust into an "extreme" situation. They werent on a "heros" mission to rid the galaxy of the villian, hell their primary goal was just to defend themselves. It started to get shakey when earth started to get its own space vessels (I think it was a mistake) even if most of the tech was ripped off (it was kinda pushing it with the whole higher plane of existance thing but I looked the other way for that). I could have done without the Ori arc completely.

Im not sure about SG:U to be honest. From what ive read on gateworld most of the cast is going to be in their mid twenties which tells me they are targeting a younger demograph, that and the whole cut off from earth on a ship feels like a blatant rip off of ST: Voyager.

Luna Sistere
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2009.06.22 15:41:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Munchees
The reason I mentioned BGS is because BGS from the beginning had jump drives.

Anyway in the film it isn't made exactly clear how that pyramid traveled, I assumed it was a Stargate of sorts.


Even if the ships used a supergate, as in the last season of SG-1, you still need a way of getting the gate there in the first place right? I mean they just don't pop up out of no where.

Even so in the movie when Daniel is reading the story on the other planet it stated that the gates were a means of transporting slaves quickly between planets linking to why there were even humans on the planet in the first place. Its just that the humans on Earth rebelled and buried the stargate stopping any military advance.
Of course the ship could still get there but it wasn't an instantaneous jump like stargates were, and frankly I don't RA even bothered trying.

Vak'ran
TUIG Inc.
Posted - 2009.06.22 15:47:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Munchees
Originally by: baltec1
Edited by: baltec1 on 22/06/2009 11:15:22
The only difference between star trek and stargate is the name and props. Generaly its the same old time travel/super weapon/save the crew member/funky illness/end of serise oh no whats next cliffhanger. Neutral


Here this guy has summed up what my wall of text says.


Without going into this discussion in depths I would later regret, baltec and yourself failed to address what made large parts of the stargate series (especially earlier SG1) most appealing to a lot of ppl.

Yes while most plots are variations on a theme - stargate did what modern day star trek et al never managed: not taking itself too seriously.
The OP mentions cliches, every series has those, what not many do is go out of their way to ridicule a lot of their own cliches.
Where star trek and such are stiff with either thick layers of do-goodery and utopia or "omg here be bad ppl", stargate never seized to amaze me in its ability to take a jab at itself, even in the dreariest stories they'd find a way like have someone die in a funny way in the background.

I for one liked most of it, and comparing it with some of the tripe that is star trek doest do it justice.

Jacob Mei
Gallente
Posted - 2009.06.22 15:48:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Luna Sistere

Even so in the movie when Daniel is reading the story on the other planet it stated that the gates were a means of transporting slaves quickly between planets linking to why there were even humans on the planet in the first place. Its just that the humans on Earth rebelled and buried the stargate stopping any military advance.
Of course the ship could still get there but it wasn't an instantaneous jump like stargates were, and frankly I don't RA even bothered trying.


Ra: I didnt want that planet anyway...

Seriously though in the context of the lore Ra likely would have sooner said he wiped out earth then even hint at the idea that the humans there rebelled. If he was the top dog he would have appeared weak for having let a rebellion get as far as it did if word ever got out.

Drunk Driver
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2009.06.22 15:54:00 - [19]
 


SG1 and Atlantis were both good shows.

I bought ALL the seasons of both on DVD.

OP is being STOOPID.


I mean, come on. They came up with all kinds of reasons to spray bullets all over two galaxies. What's not to love?


Awesome Possum
Original Sin.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
Posted - 2009.06.22 15:57:00 - [20]
 

Quote:
and the new Star Trek movie has given the science fiction genre a new lease on life


You actually had me until this point, then I realized you were trolling.

Munchees
Gallente
Posted - 2009.06.22 16:05:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Awesome Possum
Quote:
and the new Star Trek movie has given the science fiction genre a new lease on life


You actually had me until this point, then I realized you were trolling.


Ah, I was waiting for somebody to attack that. What I meant by that is that the new Star Trek movie has gotten more people interested into science fiction again.

Of course there are going to be the hardcore Star Trek fans who think the new Star Trek is a destruction of everything they hold dear, but it had to be done or the franchise would have died.

Istvaan Shogaatsu
Caldari
Guiding Hand Social Club
Posted - 2009.06.22 16:25:00 - [22]
 

My reasons for enjoying Stargate SG-1 and SG:A are:

- Claudia Black
- Amanda Tapping
- Lexa Doig
- Torri Higginson
- Leonor Varela

Highest concentration of space hotties on any sci-fi show!

Nigel Sheldon
Caldari
Skaro Mining Reborn
Posted - 2009.06.22 16:51:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu
My reasons for enjoying Stargate SG-1 and SG:A are:

- Claudia Black
- Amanda Tapping
- Lexa Doig
- Torri Higginson
- Leonor Varela

Highest concentration of space hotties on any sci-fi show!


you are also forgetting

Morena Baccarin & Jewel Straite both from firefly to become regulars on sg1/atlantis.

but seriously, not all sci-fi has to be serious, sometimes you just want a bad guy shooting a big gun and watching as the heros overcome the odds. It's been the staple for sci-fi since dawn began, flash gordon dealt with these issues, it didn't stop it becoming a classic show.
The OP needs to understand that not everyone wants the same thing from science fiction. I love BSG, I love Stargate, I love firefly and pretty much any other sci-fi show out there...hell I even love seaquest.
Just cause you don't like it, doesn't mean you have the right to decide what the original creators think. Getting back to the whole Dean Delvin/Roland Emmerich thing, they haven't made a film together since independence day have they...I thought they went their seprate ways....roland to become the disaster king and dean to become bitter.

Sniper Wolf18
Gallente
A Pretty Pony Princess
General Tso's Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.22 17:08:00 - [24]
 

I think im going to start watching stargate sg1 series 1 thorugh to 10 today Very HappyVery HappyVery HappyVery HappyVery HappyVery Happy

Xen Gin
Silurian Operations
Posted - 2009.06.22 18:50:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Xen Gin on 22/06/2009 18:52:08
Originally by: Munchees
Dean Devlin is now trying to retake control of his creation and create two new theatrical films that will ignore every horrible thing the television series did.



Actually I read that the two remaining films will be based in the SG-1 universe. They had said some things in SG-1 they didn't like but overall it was great.

The two new films will be canon to the SG-1 universe, and no doubt that Brad Wright and a DeLuise family member will be involved.


Also Independence Day was almost Stargate 2, but rewrote it.

Stargate Universe is great, better than the ST universe. SG never took itself seriously, and the pop culture references were well done to reflect modern times.

Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's
Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
Posted - 2009.06.22 19:19:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Jacob Mei
Originally by: Luna Sistere

Even so in the movie when Daniel is reading the story on the other planet it stated that the gates were a means of transporting slaves quickly between planets linking to why there were even humans on the planet in the first place. Its just that the humans on Earth rebelled and buried the stargate stopping any military advance.
Of course the ship could still get there but it wasn't an instantaneous jump like stargates were, and frankly I don't RA even bothered trying.


Ra: I didnt want that planet anyway...

Seriously though in the context of the lore Ra likely would have sooner said he wiped out earth then even hint at the idea that the humans there rebelled. If he was the top dog he would have appeared weak for having let a rebellion get as far as it did if word ever got out.


RA was pretty low down the food chain as Goa'uld go irrc he probably couldn't commit the resources to carry a campaign out because earth was a fairly lengthy travel time to Goa'uld hyper drive tech even at time setting of SG-1 so millennia before it was probably really difficult for him to send ships when he needed to keep an eye on his fellow head snake rivals.

EnslaverOfMinmatar
Amarr
Posted - 2009.06.22 19:27:00 - [27]
 

Yep, the series suck

Cpt Placeholder
Posted - 2009.06.22 19:36:00 - [28]
 

I've watched all movies/series of the franchise and I've been pretty much content with what I've seen, sure I've scrolled through an episode or two but all in all I can't really complain.
Then again I'm not a "real fan", I never take my entertainment seriously.

By the way, while we're at it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRkexJ-MBCQ

Sakura Nihil
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2009.06.22 20:00:00 - [29]
 

Simple reason why the series was generally interesting for me.

We start from the present day. Not "in a galaxy far far away" or "three centuries in the future", but with the resources we have available to us today.

Don't get me wrong, the series isn't perfect (none are), but on the whole I find it rather enjoyable, especially Asgard arcs or episodes they take the **** out of something like sci-fi cliches - in short, they know their place, and don't take themselves too seriously. Cast is also rather good, especially O'Neil and Hammond (of Texas).

Karma
Vortex Incorporated
Posted - 2009.06.22 20:44:00 - [30]
 

I really liked SG-1... with some restrictions.

the pilot and the first season was pretty horrible.
season 2-8 were awesome.... 9 and 10 were just a bad dream, they don't exist in reality.


as for why?
it's a story. a real story. with character-development.
I haven't seen a real Sci-fi story since Babylon 5.
obviously there were bad episodes, but the majority of them were rather nice, if you ask me.
and it had actual witty humour... oh, and Baal (which belongs in a category of humour all his own).

as for Atlantis... I'm not really a fan.
too dark... and after a while you could see a really pessimistic pattern.
anytime they meet a new people, and they're faced with a problem (wraith)... if the people they meet are faced with a decision between:
1: sure-fire way to save themselves and atlantis.
2: possibility of saving only themselves.
they always choose option 2. always.

... but anyway, doesn't really matter.
the new Stargate series will fail completely... the MMO might be win, though... might.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only