Gatefan1976
Well Known GateFan
I posted it 2 days ago, and as my first comment in that section, it has already been through moderation and came out exactly as I wrote it.
Ratings II
- Thread starter Mr. A
- Start date
I posted it 2 days ago, and as my first comment in that section, it has already been through moderation and came out exactly as I wrote it.
YoshiKart64
Well Known GateFan
I think the fact that we didn't get to watch them for 5 years goes someway to explaining the lack of talk. As for rooting for the characters, well I don't think a show has to have anyone to root for to be good - Breaking Bad is a prime example of that.
That's not to say the whole cast is great but they messed up characters on Atlantis too. SG1 is the only show in the franchise where they got it right imo.
If its a STARGATE show, its a requirement that there be characters to root for and enemies to battle with. If it lacks that element and calls itself Stargate, it will fail. Simple.
YoshiKart64
Well Known GateFan
Well that's your interpretation of what Stargate is. Mine is that humans go through the Stargate to get somewhere.
Okay, but your interpretation does not match ANY Stargate show or movie, not even SGU, and not even Infinity.
johnsheppard
GateFans Noob
Sorry to tell this but sgu characters are absolutely not reliable.I really don't care of them so doesn't matter what could happen to them.I was hooked by Sg1 early in the show since the first season and worse I was hooked by SGA ones since the first ep.
Nada zip for sgu ones especially for the women.
I don't care of flawed and looser characters want some heroes on screen with sense of humor
YoshiKart64
Well Known GateFan
Okay, but your interpretation does not match ANY Stargate show or movie, not even SGU, and not even Infinity.
It matches all of them. In SG1 they use the Stargate, in Atlantis they use the Stargate and in Universe they use the Stargate.
My opinion is that just because SG1 and Atlantis were pretty much the same thing doesn't mean the others have to be. I think I'd only question the creative license taken with a Stargate show if there was no Stargate or the Stargate hadn't been crucial to where the characters had gone.
Again though I don't think every Stargate show has to have these same types of characters. For me it would just get boring as we've seen it all before.
johnsheppard
GateFans Noob
Thx Briangate for these list.
No needs to say more.That speaks by itself.
No needs to say more.That speaks by itself.
Same here.
Stargate is:
Stargate is:
- About the device called the Stargate which creates wormholes connecting it with other stargates all over the universe.
- A TEAM from earth which travels through those gates. (by being a team, they are inherently heroes)
- Likeable, humorous yet professional individuals hand-chosen as being the best of the best by high ranking Stargate Command brass.
- Enemies, both human and alien who threaten earth or our heroes in some fashion.
- Engaging stories centering around the elements described in 1-4 of this list.
Briangate78
GateFans Noob
I don't think we need to dwell on the fact that SGU was not as successful as the last 2 series. When I see the latest episode only score 930,000 viewers, and after being moved around not once but twice, it ain't the timeslot, there was something "Not appealing" about the show. The people on GW can huff and puff but they are not getting it. The show would of rebounded, had a higher DVR uptick, and etc. None of that happened.
Theres more to Stargate than you are saying.
That is EXACTLY the logic of the showrunners, and that is EXACTLY why Stargate Universe failed. They couldnt see the whole picture of what Stargate is and they thought that just having a stargate on the ship and using it a few times would make it Stargate. They were wrong.
That is EXACTLY the logic of the showrunners, and that is EXACTLY why Stargate Universe failed. They couldnt see the whole picture of what Stargate is and they thought that just having a stargate on the ship and using it a few times would make it Stargate. They were wrong.
SGU was not Stargate. It could have done okay as a completely separate show named something else, but even on its own, it was too derivative of BSG and the characters were not likeable to the general audience. It is the only show named Stargate which had the benefit of trying on three different days of the week, and millions of dollars of promotion. Stargate Universe NEEDED to be more like the two shows before it for success. The fanbase of those two shows is what created the franchise, not Brad.
Once again, you are speaking from the same mentality as the showrunners of SGU were. They got bored with ACTUAL Stargate. They should have moved on instead of trying to take a soap opera and dress it in a space suit.
johnsheppard
GateFans Noob
Sadly for sgu most of the Sg audience thinks it was not SG show only drama soap opera series with no sci-fi aspect.And it's the same result around the world.Everywhere the audience drop down dramatically.
Look at over GW forum or SyFy.The traffic keep being good for SGA characters thread when the show is cancelled for 2 years and half.For sgu after 3 months the traffic down too.
They kept the name of Stargate in the title only to keep SG "old" audience.
YoshiKart64
Well Known GateFan
If Stargate keeps iterating the same stuff over and over it's no better than CSI and NCIS. SG1 and Atlantis did a similar thing - it was good and I enjoyed it. I don't think that every Stargate show has to be exactly the same thing and follow those strict rules - there are plenty of ways to use the Stargate concept and not all of them conform to what is "expected".
If Stargate hadn't broken out of some of the concepts created by the movie we wouldn't have got half the awesome stuff we saw in SG1/Atlantis.
There's a lot of people on here hoping there's new showrunners for Stargate in the future - if that doesn't cause some shakeups of the core "values" of Stargate then I'll be extremely surprised. People want to put their own stamp on things and without that there's no real purpose to the show other than to keep viewers simply content, but never wow'd.
If Stargate hadn't broken out of some of the concepts created by the movie we wouldn't have got half the awesome stuff we saw in SG1/Atlantis.
There's a lot of people on here hoping there's new showrunners for Stargate in the future - if that doesn't cause some shakeups of the core "values" of Stargate then I'll be extremely surprised. People want to put their own stamp on things and without that there's no real purpose to the show other than to keep viewers simply content, but never wow'd.
CSI and NCIS are successful shows.
CSI and NCIS are successful shows. Its all about WHAT you change in the show. You cant take out the Team or the stargate, and you cant refocus the stories to the characters instead of the stargate and where it takes the Team. You can change the locale of the stargate, the team members, the enemies and the destinations the gate takes them to. But the CORE of the show must be Stargate. That means those things in the list I posted above.
CSI and NCIS are successful shows. Its all about WHAT you change in the show. You cant take out the Team or the stargate, and you cant refocus the stories to the characters instead of the stargate and where it takes the Team. You can change the locale of the stargate, the team members, the enemies and the destinations the gate takes them to. But the CORE of the show must be Stargate. That means those things in the list I posted above.
Im hoping that the original creators will take it up again. Brad has blocked them for 15 years and now he is unable to do that.
Briangate78
GateFans Noob
YoshiKart,
Don't drag out that SG-1 and SGA were the same and a change needed to be made. Atlantis was rebounding in viewers, and averaged 600,000 more viewers than SGU in it's final season.
I truly hate when people say "A change was needed"......... **** that! Look at SGU's numbers, Look at what SGA did..... Case F'ING CLOSED! SGA was on the path of changing, and I personally think it was working, until the last half of S5, when the producers likely got SGU on the mind.
Sorry for my assertiveness but I am in a pissy mood, in a lot of pain, and need to vent.
Don't drag out that SG-1 and SGA were the same and a change needed to be made. Atlantis was rebounding in viewers, and averaged 600,000 more viewers than SGU in it's final season.
I truly hate when people say "A change was needed"......... **** that! Look at SGU's numbers, Look at what SGA did..... Case F'ING CLOSED! SGA was on the path of changing, and I personally think it was working, until the last half of S5, when the producers likely got SGU on the mind.
Sorry for my assertiveness but I am in a pissy mood, in a lot of pain, and need to vent.
LOL!
My tongue is bleeding too! But SGU fans are a tenacious lot. Yoshi is one of the more intelligent ones, but there is definitely an element of blind devotion going on with him on this thread.
SGU failed. PERIOD. It seems to be more relevant to discuss WHY it failed, instead of saying that Stargate "needed a change" without saying why. SGU changed the Stargate franchise from a successful one to a failure in only a year and a half.
My tongue is bleeding too!
But SGU fans are a tenacious lot. Yoshi is one of the more intelligent ones, but there is definitely an element of blind devotion going on with him on this thread. SGU failed. PERIOD. It seems to be more relevant to discuss WHY it failed, instead of saying that Stargate "needed a change" without saying why. SGU changed the Stargate franchise from a successful one to a failure in only a year and a half.
shavedape
Well Known GateFan
Just a few points to consider:
The sci-fi aspect of the stargate (meaning the effect of that technologically advanced device on humans who use it) is the main theme of SG-1 and SGA. It can be argued that the stargate is used as something of an after thought in SGU though. That's the difference. Plus most people tuned-in to SGU with the expectation that it would resemble the two shows that came before it. I won't argue the point too vociferously today but just want to remind you that you can't blame people for expecting a show with "Stargate" in the title to resemble the other two shows with that same name. "Stargate" is a label. It's a definition. Like it or not the word "Stargate" was defined (in regards to TV shows) by SG-1 and SGA. To suddenly change that definition is guaranteed to confuse people and turn them off. New Coke/old Coke, blah blah blah.
Yes, SG-1 and SGA were in many ways the same thing. (Incidentally this isn't a bad thing.) I find it funny that you, Yoshi, are so reticent to have someone other than Brad Wright make more Stargate because you fear a deviation from the Stargate you know and love. Well, here you are defending that very action because BW already has changed Stargate. What you feared has already come to pass.
Different characters are fine but there's also nothing wrong with holding onto the familiar archetypes. People like Spock from Star Trek. That character has spawned many clones because people like those character traits. That archetype appeals to viewers. Same with "square-jawed heroes". Most people like heroes, they always have. Granted, there has been an anti-hero movement in evidence for awhile now, but those stories don't generally get the reception that square-jawed hero stories get. Hero-based stories are reliable that's why they're successful.
(There's also the "flawed, everyman-hero" story out there which has seemingly bad guys in the fore that turn out to simply be trying to live their lives as best they can, blah blah blah. It's the new twist on the old "hooker with a heart of gold" story that's been worked to death. I don't know if "Breaking Bad" fits this mold as I haven't watched it yet. I hear it's good and I do like Brian Cranston a lot so I intend to get it on DVD in the future.)
Okay, now back to my dinner!
The sci-fi aspect of the stargate (meaning the effect of that technologically advanced device on humans who use it) is the main theme of SG-1 and SGA. It can be argued that the stargate is used as something of an after thought in SGU though. That's the difference. Plus most people tuned-in to SGU with the expectation that it would resemble the two shows that came before it. I won't argue the point too vociferously today but just want to remind you that you can't blame people for expecting a show with "Stargate" in the title to resemble the other two shows with that same name. "Stargate" is a label. It's a definition. Like it or not the word "Stargate" was defined (in regards to TV shows) by SG-1 and SGA. To suddenly change that definition is guaranteed to confuse people and turn them off. New Coke/old Coke, blah blah blah.
Yes, SG-1 and SGA were in many ways the same thing. (Incidentally this isn't a bad thing.) I find it funny that you, Yoshi, are so reticent to have someone other than Brad Wright make more Stargate because you fear a deviation from the Stargate you know and love. Well, here you are defending that very action because BW already has changed Stargate. What you feared has already come to pass.
Different characters are fine but there's also nothing wrong with holding onto the familiar archetypes. People like Spock from Star Trek. That character has spawned many clones because people like those character traits. That archetype appeals to viewers. Same with "square-jawed heroes". Most people like heroes, they always have. Granted, there has been an anti-hero movement in evidence for awhile now, but those stories don't generally get the reception that square-jawed hero stories get. Hero-based stories are reliable that's why they're successful.
(There's also the "flawed, everyman-hero" story out there which has seemingly bad guys in the fore that turn out to simply be trying to live their lives as best they can, blah blah blah. It's the new twist on the old "hooker with a heart of gold" story that's been worked to death. I don't know if "Breaking Bad" fits this mold as I haven't watched it yet. I hear it's good and I do like Brian Cranston a lot so I intend to get it on DVD in the future.)
Okay, now back to my dinner!
Tropicana
Council Member
It's like the Law & Order Franchise.
5 series under the Law & Order belt, 4 of which uses similar format - premise: officers, police investigations, a specialised field of criminology, etc - going strong. Though the original one has ended after 20 seasons.
The 1 series that tried to be different, called "Law & Order: Trial By Jury" which follows court room drama, it got cancelled and pulled off air after 12 episodes.
shavedape
Well Known GateFan
Just curious
Are you including the British version of L&A also? The one with Jamie Bamber and Freeman "Martha" from Dr. Who. It's actually the same format as the American versions, same soundtrack and everything.
Are you including the British version of L&A also? The one with Jamie Bamber and Freeman "Martha" from Dr. Who. It's actually the same format as the American versions, same soundtrack and everything.
YoshiKart64
Well Known GateFan
Ok long reply time.
I'm not saying Stargate needed to change or even that Atlantis needed to end. I just don't think these restrictive rules should be the only thing Stargate can be in the future. If someone comes along with a cool idea regarding the Stargate, and it doesnt have a "team" in it, then why say no?
That means those things to you, not to whoever wants to make a new Stargate show. Think for a second about a show that centers on one man traveling through the Stargate. There's no team there but that could be one amazing show if done right.
I'm conernced a new showrunner will reboot Stargate and have a different world to the one i've been watching for the last decade or so. As Atlantis and Universe fans will attest - theres so much more story yet to be told.
As for Breaking Bad - its really really good. I won't spoil anything but it proves you can have entertaining drama without having a "good" character.
I don't think there's anything wrong with doing the same thing if it works for the show, i just don't think there should be restrictions stopping producers from telling cool stories.
I'm not saying Stargate needed to change or even that Atlantis needed to end. I just don't think these restrictive rules should be the only thing Stargate can be in the future. If someone comes along with a cool idea regarding the Stargate, and it doesnt have a "team" in it, then why say no?
That means those things to you, not to whoever wants to make a new Stargate show. Think for a second about a show that centers on one man traveling through the Stargate. There's no team there but that could be one amazing show if done right.
Just a few points to consider:
The sci-fi aspect of the stargate (meaning the effect of that technologically advanced device on humans who use it) is the main theme of SG-1 and SGA. It can be argued that the stargate is used as something of an after thought in SGU though. That's the difference. Plus most people tuned-in to SGU with the expectation that it would resemble the two shows that came before it. I won't argue the point too vociferously today but just want to remind you that you can't blame people for expecting a show with "Stargate" in the title to resemble the other two shows with that same name. "Stargate" is a label. It's a definition. Like it or not the word "Stargate" was defined (in regards to TV shows) by SG-1 and SGA. To suddenly change that definition is guaranteed to confuse people and turn them off. New Coke/old Coke, blah blah blah.
Yes, SG-1 and SGA were in many ways the same thing. (Incidentally this isn't a bad thing.) I find it funny that you, Yoshi, are so reticent to have someone other than Brad Wright make more Stargate because you fear a deviation from the Stargate you know and love. Well, here you are defending that very action because BW already has changed Stargate. What you feared has already come to pass.
Different characters are fine but there's also nothing wrong with holding onto the familiar archetypes. People like Spock from Star Trek. That character has spawned many clones because people like those character traits. That archetype appeals to viewers. Same with "square-jawed heroes". Most people like heroes, they always have. Granted, there has been an anti-hero movement in evidence for awhile now, but those stories don't generally get the reception that square-jawed hero stories get. Hero-based stories are reliable that's why they're successful.
(There's also the "flawed, everyman-hero" story out there which has seemingly bad guys in the fore that turn out to simply be trying to live their lives as best they can, blah blah blah. It's the new twist on the old "hooker with a heart of gold" story that's been worked to death. I don't know if "Breaking Bad" fits this mold as I haven't watched it yet. I hear it's good and I do like Brian Cranston a lot so I intend to get it on DVD in the future.)
Okay, now back to my dinner!
I'm conernced a new showrunner will reboot Stargate and have a different world to the one i've been watching for the last decade or so. As Atlantis and Universe fans will attest - theres so much more story yet to be told.
As for Breaking Bad - its really really good. I won't spoil anything but it proves you can have entertaining drama without having a "good" character.
I don't think there's anything wrong with doing the same thing if it works for the show, i just don't think there should be restrictions stopping producers from telling cool stories.
It's also a damn good show.