New Stargate Movie Trilogy Coming From Original Creators

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

UUmmm thats like saying Empire strikes back and Return of the Jedi did not happen.....good luck with that.........

I liked the movie just fine, But I love the series SG-1 and Atlantis SGU got a lot better in the second season IMO.

So I'm torn between giving Emmerich the finger or thinking it might be worth a watch.

marscentral:
I don't get the hate on here for SGU. It wasn't as good as SG1, but like a lot of scifi shows (including SG1 and Atlantis) it took a while to find it's feet.

Mostly because it felt more like a soap opera rather than a proper Stargate series.

El Luck:
Cool, looking forward to it. I fail to see what the problem is.
The two dudes who created the movie originally didn't agree with the route the TV show went in, and now they get a chance to finish showing us their vision. fair enough, I'm not entirely sure the route they would have taken it in so lets see how they do it with the films them, after all even if it is shit, the TV shows and the original film aren't going anywhere now are they? (by the way the answer your looking for is no)

Also the idea that the film is forgettable is amusing to me, so forgettable they decided to make a spin off TV show. Yup, makes perfect sense. Cynical sods.

Probably because between this and Stargate Universe, the two most recent stabs at the franchise have decided to try and take it away from the very thing that made it so successful in the first place. In the case of SGU, as has been mentioned, it was pretty much straight up Battlestar Galactica with stargates, which would have been fine if they'd at least been as good as Battlestar Galactica at BEING Battlestar Galactica. In this case, the movie in question looks to be distancing itself from all the elements that made the show great, which again is fine if they can bring in something just as good or better to replace it. However, the consensus of many is that the original movie, and it's own style and elements, does not really count as 'as good or better.'

In my case, I'm curious to see what they will do with a movie not based on the television franchise. But frankly, I'm only going to be genuinely interested in it if they also distance themselves (a LOT) from the original movie. :P

As for forgettable, it's all relative. Chances are that of the Stargate Fanbase, a majority of them are going to be fans of the show. Sure, some of those fans might also have be fans of the movie, but you're not as likely to find the same mindset as Emmerich's, i.e. 'All the shows were crap, Stargate movie foreva!' wheras 'Movie was meh, show forever!' seems more common. So the news that a new movie series, which would normally be greeted by excitement since there's been a definite Stargate draught for awhile now, isn't actually going to associate itself with perhaps 95% of the franchise's identity, will be greeted either with mixed interest from those who are fans of both the show and the movie, ("Oh, that could be cool too.") or outright disappointment from those who were simply fans of the show. You're not likely to see much; 'HELL YA! Finally, Stargate as it was meant to be done!'

(The question of why this should irritate people at all when the shows will still be around is that, in all likelihood, I would imagine that many fans of the show would like this funding or effort to be geared towards the perpetuation and expansion of the shows' established universe. Not some New Star Trek splintering which, if it succeeds, might well end up supplanting the shows' style and canon as the mainstream focus, and if it fails, will send off the message to any future investors that 'Yup, Stargate is dead, no need to try another project!')

TiberiusEsuriens:

If you're a fan of Brad Wright's SG-1 ('97-'07) then it would be considered a pseudo reboot. Same source material, but all of SG-1, SGA, and SGU will be considered in the same manner as the Star Wars Expanded Universe (now called Legacy). Its still canon, just alternate universe canon.

You know, I'm OK with that. Not only does the show's lore allow for alternate timelines, but just as Teal'c said, "our universe is the only one that matters"

Bindal:

marscentral:
I don't get the hate on here for SGU. It wasn't as good as SG1, but like a lot of scifi shows (including SG1 and Atlantis) it took a while to find it's feet.

Mostly because it felt more like a soap opera rather than a proper Stargate series.

I certainly get that criticism, I just don't think it justifies the hate.

Signa:

TiberiusEsuriens:

If you're a fan of Brad Wright's SG-1 ('97-'07) then it would be considered a pseudo reboot. Same source material, but all of SG-1, SGA, and SGU will be considered in the same manner as the Star Wars Expanded Universe (now called Legacy). Its still canon, just alternate universe canon.

You know, I'm OK with that. Not only does the show's lore allow for alternate timelines, but just as Teal'c said, "our universe is the only one that matters"

haha, I was thinking the same thing. Emmerich considered SG1 the fake Stargate, but I'll probably consider his new movies as the fake Stargate. If there's any franchise that has braced their fans to joke about alternate universes/realities the most, it would probably be Stargate.

I enjoyed the movie for what it was - a film about exploration. If they can capture that same tone and spirit, I'll give it a shot. But if they're just going to do a straight reboot, with Daniel Jackson, Jack O'Neill, Abydos, Ra, and the rest, forget it. They did that story already, and pretty competently. There's no need to rehash the same material when there's the potential for so much more. Besides, the show picked up there and did extremely well with it.

I have never been a fan of the shows, but the movie is one of my all time favorites for whatever reason. That being said, I am instinctively weary about any kind of reboots. Chances are, I won't bother with this, because chances are, it is going to suck badly.

Son of a... really? I mean, I suppose they could theoretically turn out to be good, the premise is decent enough, and you can make a good movie out of just about anything - but the original movie wasn't good; the characters were walking stereotypes, and they didn't even do anything particularly interesting with the premise, just an uninspired plot. And the director vocally hates the show, which took that mess of a film, ripped out the uninspired mess and made a long-running fantastic sci-fi action-comedy, and an almost-as-good spinoff? Don't put this guy in charge of the franchise!

The worst part about it is that if the director hates the show so much, he's probably going to make the films with a mind to muddy the waters for future ACTUAL Stargate projects - establishing contradictory universe lore, using a different cast of characters and a wildly different tone. Not something I'm anywhere near being excited for.

marscentral:

Bindal:

marscentral:
I don't get the hate on here for SGU. It wasn't as good as SG1, but like a lot of scifi shows (including SG1 and Atlantis) it took a while to find it's feet.

Mostly because it felt more like a soap opera rather than a proper Stargate series.

I certainly get that criticism, I just don't think it justifies the hate.

It does? How would you react when your favorite show would get a new spin-off-series, advertised as "More of the same idea, but with a new cast, slightly different setting and new stuff" and turned out to be "actually, this is now something completely different and not the reason you were watching the pervious stuff to begin with". Like if the next Star Wars Movie would be a movie about two cowboys in the far east, which just by coincident wear lightswords and got the force. That's about the same how SGU felt compared to the rest of the series (just maybe not as extreme).
Not to mention NONE of the characters were likable in any way.

Unless there are characters that don't seem like they're made to artificially imitate Battlestar Galactica (and by extension of that idea, were created JUST to die dramatically), I'm not gonna pay any attention.

Zontar:
So basically the only reason people even remember the forgettable, not particularly good movie or why it would have any audience at all is the very thing it's trying to distance itself from.

Great.

Hrm... I remember the film quite fondly and I would try to amnesia wipe SG-1& Atlantis if that were at all possible. That would be great

Kudos to them for trying to get away from what railroaded the franchise into the third string atypical Scifi channel sludge it descended into. SGU showed that the "fanbase" is what is killing the franchise.

The execution of this is going to be a bit tricky, won't it? I mean, at least the Star Trek reboot had a time traveling angle to explain the changes, more or less, which was actually more than I expected when I first heard the idea of a reboot. Full props for actually working your reboot into the storyline, rather than just flipping an imaginary switch. Then there are reboots, like the Hulk movies, where they very lightly touch upon changes, and make it clear they don't necessarily hold themselves to the previous movies, but at least don't set themselves in the same time frame as the predecessor, so with heavy squinting you could maybe kind of see all these different things happening to the same guy.

It sounds like this particular approach might be more focused on that OTHER kind of reboot, where they just toss out everything established for no particular reason other than they want to toss out everything established. The Amazing Spiderman, basically, where not only were they rebooting Raimi's version, but they just haaaaad to make their first movie yet another origin telling. Even speaking as someone who doesn't necessarily mind the new movie series, this kind of ham fisted reboot approach is just clumsy. :/

Especially when I consider exactly how much of the Stargate mythology that I so love came from the television show, and not the movie. I might be wrong, but wasn't Ra some creepy alien faced dude underneath the pretty boy exterior, and the whole concept of the Goa'uld being parasitic slugs came from the television show?

Bindal:

marscentral:

Bindal:

Mostly because it felt more like a soap opera rather than a proper Stargate series.

I certainly get that criticism, I just don't think it justifies the hate.

It does? How would you react when your favorite show would get a new spin-off-series, advertised as "More of the same idea, but with a new cast, slightly different setting and new stuff" and turned out to be "actually, this is now something completely different and not the reason you were watching the pervious stuff to begin with". Like if the next Star Wars Movie would be a movie about two cowboys in the far east, which just by coincident wear lightswords and got the force. That's about the same how SGU felt compared to the rest of the series (just maybe not as extreme).
Not to mention NONE of the characters were likable in any way.

You're assuming Stargate isn't my favourite show (it isn't, Star Trek: The Next Generation is, but SG1 is a close second). Maybe I've just gotten philosophical about it as I've gotten older and that's why I just can't hate SGU for not being enough like SG1. I'd been through all that with Voyager.

I honestly don't expect much from the movies - I personally didn't like the original movie that the TV series was based off. It wasn't the creator's original idea; tough shit. But yeah, make your own, np.

MovieBob:
It is not expected to tie-in with or make reference to the television series Stargate SG-1 or its myriad spin-offs, which Devlin and Emmerich have long been vocal about wanting no association with as they were produced without their input.

Good job guys, the TV show was way better than the movie.

P.S. Thanks

Huh. Well, I'm a big fan of SG1, Atlantis, and Universe, and I definitely enjoyed the first movie. Still, I preferred the shows over the movie. Hopefully this reboot is pretty decent.

*sigh* It's just gonna suck, what more needs to be said?

viranimus:

Zontar:
So basically the only reason people even remember the forgettable, not particularly good movie or why it would have any audience at all is the very thing it's trying to distance itself from.

Great.

Hrm... I remember the film quite fondly and I would try to amnesia wipe SG-1& Atlantis if that were at all possible. That would be great

Kudos to them for trying to get away from what railroaded the franchise into the third string atypical Scifi channel sludge it descended into. SGU showed that the "fanbase" is what is killing the franchise.

What's wrong with the show (apart from being better then the movie in every measure)? It defined what Stargate was. When you ask someone about Stargate, they think of SG-1, Richard Dead Anderson, Michael Shanks, Amanda Tapping and Christopher Judge. When you ask the tone they think somewhat serious at times, but overall lighthearted with comedy, references, genre savyness and self-awareness most sci-fi doesn't dare do.

They don't think boring 90s action movie which takes itself way to seriously and is horribly dated.

And what exactly did Universe show about the fanbase (apart from the fact that when a network screws over a series, people complain about it, especially when it's in as disgusting a way as Sy Fy did so)?

Zontar:
So basically the only reason people even remember the forgettable, not particularly good movie or why it would have any audience at all is the very thing it's trying to distance itself from.

Great.

Unless this ends up getting the series back on the air to continue the only story people actually care about (which was only canned because of a whole controversy with Sy Fy and wrestling which saw the one show they had on the air placed in a timeslot to intentionally cancel it despite the promised 3 seasons ending up being only 2), there's nothing to look forward to. No one gave a shit about the movie, the only reason the name is remembered is because of SG-1. Distance yourself from that too much, it stops being Stargate.

Even while entertaining the thought of it being set in its own universe, without the sci-fi references, self-awareness, humour and genre savvyness that made the series, it just won't be Stargate. And Emmerich is not known for going any of those things well, or wanting to.

I couldn't have said it better. Seriously, this movie kinda sucked the first time and there's no reason to do it again, besides appealing to SG-1 fans (which they don't even want to do). Are there really hardcore Stargate movie fans out there who disliked the show? It seems impossible.

Zontar:

What's wrong with the show (apart from being better then the movie in every measure)? It defined what Stargate was. When you ask someone about Stargate, they think of SG-1, Richard Dead Anderson, Michael Shanks, Amanda Tapping and Christopher Judge. When you ask the tone they think somewhat serious at times, but overall lighthearted with comedy, references, genre savyness and self-awareness most sci-fi doesn't dare do.

They don't think boring 90s action movie which takes itself way to seriously and is horribly dated.

And what exactly did Universe show about the fanbase (apart from the fact that when a network screws over a series, people complain about it, especially when it's in as disgusting a way as Sy Fy did so)?

Essentially... your latter part functionally answers the former.

How do you think fans of the film felt to see an interesting premise get Macgyvererd into endless unpronouncabilism and cheap reused narrative spackle? Just as you point out it took something that was intended to be in a more serious and dark tone, and basically bleached all the color out of it till it was just another bland carbon copy of so much that came before.

As for SGU and the fanbase... Functionally the fanbase killed what was (certainly not great by anyones measure) at least an attempt to revitalize a stagnated series (remember how there was a Stargate SG1 centric MMO in the works that also got abandoned about that same time because support for it and the franchise had dwindled so low). SGU could have been something had it been named ANYTHING else and removed the proprietary SG1 tripe because the show was not bad at all. Just suffered ridiculously negative press thanks to the adamacy of SG1 fans who felt betrayed because the tired formula that was not really selling any more had been altered.

viranimus:

Zontar:

What's wrong with the show (apart from being better then the movie in every measure)? It defined what Stargate was. When you ask someone about Stargate, they think of SG-1, Richard Dead Anderson, Michael Shanks, Amanda Tapping and Christopher Judge. When you ask the tone they think somewhat serious at times, but overall lighthearted with comedy, references, genre savyness and self-awareness most sci-fi doesn't dare do.

They don't think boring 90s action movie which takes itself way to seriously and is horribly dated.

And what exactly did Universe show about the fanbase (apart from the fact that when a network screws over a series, people complain about it, especially when it's in as disgusting a way as Sy Fy did so)?

Essentially... your latter part functionally answers the former.

How do you think fans of the film felt to see an interesting premise get Macgyvererd into endless unpronouncabilism and cheap reused narrative spackle? Just as you point out it took something that was intended to be in a more serious and dark tone, and basically bleached all the color out of it till it was just another bland carbon copy of so much that came before.

As for SGU and the fanbase... Functionally the fanbase killed what was (certainly not great by anyones measure) at least an attempt to revitalize a stagnated series (remember how there was a Stargate SG1 centric MMO in the works that also got abandoned about that same time because support for it and the franchise had dwindled so low). SGU could have been something had it been named ANYTHING else and removed the proprietary SG1 tripe because the show was not bad at all. Just suffered ridiculously negative press thanks to the adamacy of SG1 fans who felt betrayed because the tired formula that was not really selling any more had been altered.

The movie was as generic as it gets, it was only threw the show that the potential of the premise was reached. They could have had the McGuffin be a time machine and it would have had the exact same plot. They had a machine which could teleport someone to another world, and where did they go? Ancient Egypt in space with aliens who use human slaves. At least the show had truly otherworldly locations they visited, and had the sense to distinguish itself in the genre by having a tone and attitude no other sci-fi show had.

As for Stargate Universe, I fail to how the show being moved to a timeslot with the intent of driving viewership down to a level which justifies cancelling it is somehow a statement about the fanbase, when all it tells you is that Sy Fy's execs went back on their claim the show would get 3 seasons, and when out of their way to make it so.

I'm sorry but the original Stargate movie is not canon. If they are going to ignore the entire Stargate franchise and come up with some 'original' bullshit continuation of the bad movie that spawned the actual canon universe then no one needs to watch it, really.

This is just fake. I mean, hell, there won't even be Goa'ulds. It's not Stargate without Goa'ulds.

Same, I don't understand it, nerds love mash ups, I don't understand how stargate/galactica didn't succeed. I loved the attempt at a darker more harshly realistic idea for stargate. Almost all of the characters were well developed and I really cared about them and was crushed when I found out how it ended. :( :(

On topic if the guys that made godzilla are making these new movies I have zero interest. To shun what made stargate a household name shows the utter childishness and contempt they have for fans who made them what they are today.

viranimus:

As for SGU and the fanbase... Functionally the fanbase killed what was (certainly not great by anyones measure) at least an attempt to revitalize a stagnated series (remember how there was a Stargate SG1 centric MMO in the works that also got abandoned about that same time because support for it and the franchise had dwindled so low).

No, it got "abandoned" because of legal and financial issues of the company behind it. Not to mention Stargate had previous games announced which were abandoned well before this "dwindling" of popularity.

SGU could have been something had it been named ANYTHING else and removed the proprietary SG1 tripe because the show was not bad at all. Just suffered ridiculously negative press thanks to the adamacy of SG1 fans who felt betrayed because the tired formula that was not really selling any more had been altered.

I honestly doubt this would have got more than a second look without a franchise name attached to it.

SeventhSigil:
The execution of this is going to be a bit tricky, won't it? I mean, at least the Star Trek reboot had a time traveling angle to explain the changes, more or less, which was actually more than I expected when I first heard the idea of a reboot.

It's likely going to be the "other kind" you mentioned, but I wanted to point out that time travel isn't impossible. They've used the Stargate to travel in time both accidentally and intentionally, even to rewrite history. And then there's the special gateship that was used in one of the later seasons.

If they wanted to do that, they ultimately could. But as mentioned in the thread, Emmerich hates the show and has already talked about his planned trilogy in the past. It's gonna be an "ignore twenty years of continuity" reboot.

I doubt it will be as good as Stargate SG1 was.. I can't imagine anyone but Richard Dean Anderson playing General Jack O'Neill.. any of the character being played by people other then the actors/actress from SG1. it won't be the same... anyways I find it funny that the creators of the film don't want to associate the new films with the amazing, Emmy award nominated tv series.. maybe they don't want the films to be as successful as the tv series?.. long live the dry humor of Richard Dean Anderson!

I wasn't disappointed in Universe because it wasn't enough like SG-1. I was disappointed in it because the premise was they were stranded on an ancient ship on the other side of the known universe, but they failed to really capture the right tone. They had the Ancient communication stones to constantly talk to Earth and all their loved ones, so it never felt like they were all that far away. The first few episodes I actually really liked, but the more I realized they were going to keep using the stones, the less interested I became. It's hard to generate drama around things like never seeing your family again, or not knowing how to work the ship you're on, when you can just pop over to Earth in someone else's body and see everyone you want to see, and maybe switch places with an engineer to fix the ship for you.

SG-1 is my all-time favorite show, but I would have loved to see a Stargate series in a different, more alien setting. Instead of exploring new ground with a new show however, they kept tying everything back to the SGC and all the political threads left over from SG-1 and Atlantis. Universe, in my opinion, might have succeeded if they just cut all the ties with Earth and just made it Lost in Space with Stargates.

Zachary Amaranth:

viranimus:

As for SGU and the fanbase... Functionally the fanbase killed what was (certainly not great by anyones measure) at least an attempt to revitalize a stagnated series (remember how there was a Stargate SG1 centric MMO in the works that also got abandoned about that same time because support for it and the franchise had dwindled so low).

No, it got "abandoned" because of legal and financial issues of the company behind it. Not to mention Stargate had previous games announced which were abandoned well before this "dwindling" of popularity.

SGU could have been something had it been named ANYTHING else and removed the proprietary SG1 tripe because the show was not bad at all. Just suffered ridiculously negative press thanks to the adamacy of SG1 fans who felt betrayed because the tired formula that was not really selling any more had been altered.

I honestly doubt this would have got more than a second look without a franchise name attached to it.

SeventhSigil:
The execution of this is going to be a bit tricky, won't it? I mean, at least the Star Trek reboot had a time traveling angle to explain the changes, more or less, which was actually more than I expected when I first heard the idea of a reboot.

It's likely going to be the "other kind" you mentioned, but I wanted to point out that time travel isn't impossible. They've used the Stargate to travel in time both accidentally and intentionally, even to rewrite history. And then there's the special gateship that was used in one of the later seasons.

If they wanted to do that, they ultimately could. But as mentioned in the thread, Emmerich hates the show and has already talked about his planned trilogy in the past. It's gonna be an "ignore twenty years of continuity" reboot.

I just looked up Emmerich's past works. I can't even begin to describe with words how much I want this guy to stay away from Stargate.

Seriously. Words NOT sufficient.

This is great news. Fantastic, in fact.

Why? Because the more involved Roland "I swear I'm not related to Michael Bay!" Emmerich is involved with rebooting or reviving his old films the less likely he is to attempt bringing Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" series to film or television.

Emmerich's already had his shot at doing science fiction. He fucked it up every time. So anything that can keep him away from ruining Asimov's masterpiece is okay in my book.

Red Panda:
Same, I don't understand it, nerds love mash ups, I don't understand how stargate/galactica didn't succeed. I loved the attempt at a darker more harshly realistic idea for stargate. Almost all of the characters were well developed and I really cared about them and was crushed when I found out how it ended. :( :(

Actually, for the first season and a half it did. Sure, it wasn't total crossover in fanbase, but most was made up for in BSG fans who had never had an interest in the series.

What killed it was Sy Fy (I hate typing that in) moving it from Friday night to late on Tuesday (which, on a specialty channel, is only for reruns and low budget things since Tuesday is the day the main channels get the most viewership) because of a broadcasting deal with the WWE of all things (and the worst part of the deal is that it worked, so Sy Fy's biggest show is fucking wrestling. I have nothing against it, and even liked it for a few years of my life, but that is just wrong).

So anyway once the show was moved to that death slot (nickname for a timeslot only shows which are being cancelled are put in, like 10PM on a Wednesday on Comedy channel) the inevitable happened and viewership went down to below renewal levels. Had it not been for the time slot shift, though we can't say with absolute certainty the show would have been kept, we do know that before the move viewership was at renewal levels, and that they would only be expected to go up as quality was improving dramatically in the second season.

TiberiusEsuriens:

canadamus_prime:
Also why does yet another thing have to be bloody rebooted?

I don't know how picky this is, but everyone (news story included) is referring to these movies as a straight up reboot.

Roland Emmerich, the '94 movie creator, considers the upcoming movies as canon sequels, continuing directly from where he left off.

If you're a fan of Brad Wright's SG-1 ('97-'07) then it would be considered a pseudo reboot. Same source material, but all of SG-1, SGA, and SGU will be considered in the same manner as the Star Wars Expanded Universe (now called Legacy). Its still canon, just alternate universe canon.

That's not much better. The original movie came out 20 years ago, at this stage they'd be better off rebooting it. ...or, since there was only the one movie and he doesn't want to acknowledge the TV series(s), remaking it.

ew. That's a choice I don't like, throwing out all that was good about stargate so you can go remake an average movie? Gotta say, I doubt you could do a better job of alienating the fanbase.

People, let me put their sin in one simple sentence.

They said no to Mcguyver.

viranimus:

As for SGU and the fanbase... Functionally the fanbase killed what was (certainly not great by anyones measure) at least an attempt to revitalize a stagnated series (remember how there was a Stargate SG1 centric MMO in the works that also got abandoned about that same time because support for it and the franchise had dwindled so low). SGU could have been something had it been named ANYTHING else and removed the proprietary SG1 tripe because the show was not bad at all. Just suffered ridiculously negative press thanks to the adamacy of SG1 fans who felt betrayed because the tired formula that was not really selling any more had been altered.

SGU was not a bad series because of what it was named. SGU was a bad series because of what it was. A discount Battlestar Galactica knockoff. Indeed it was very easy to ignore that it was a Stargate series, the communication stones that so much of the plot revolved around were hardly used in the main series and the Lucian Alliance showed up like twice.
But everything from the lighting to the camera work to the constant bickering point to an aping of BSG.
Except while BSG had complex characters who's motivations drove the shifting drama, SGUs characters were just assholes and idiots who fight alot with each other, that or they were just boring. Take Camile Wray, she acts like a completely different person on earth than on the ship.... but her actions on earth do not in any way inform her actions on the ship and vice versa. Shes just a nice lover on earth and a total bitch in space. She isn't acting out because of a desire to return, nor is her lover pulling her back from the edge of paranoia. Shes just inconsistently characterized.

And Dr Rush... obviously they were going for a Baltar. They took his untrustworthy bits, tried to make rush Machiavellian, but failed utterly. Baltar was manipulative, but he was good at it. He always did things that were self serving, but made an effort to pass them off as serving the greater good. And there was enough ambiguity to make you question if he really was actually good all along. Rush is just a jerk, his attempts at manipulation are so transparent that I'm surprised people haven't hit him more often than they have. He just a whiny spoiled brat.

OT I think people have wised up to Roland Emmerich, if he doesn't care for SG-1, why should SG-1 fans care for him.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.