Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Third Stargate TV Series Named

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sun Mar 25, 2007 08:14 AM
from the lot-better-than-just-calling-it-stargate-fetus dept.
Sci-Fi Media Television
GateWorld has a story about the new Stargate series. "The working title of the third 'Stargate' television series is 'Stargate Universe', executive producer Robert C. Cooper told GateWorld. The show currently exists in the form of a one-page treatment of the story and characters. Cooper and executive producer Brad Wright will start writing the pilot after shooting on the two 'Stargate SG-1' movies finishes in June. Meanwhile, new episodes of 'SG-1' and 'Atlantis' start airing April 13 in the U.S., on The SCI FI Channel. "
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Third Stargate TV Series Named 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Moo (Score:5, Funny)

    by Chacham (981) on Sunday March 25 2007, @08:31AM (#18478101) Homepage Journal
    And, in this *completely new* series, SG-1 finds that they can dial yet another number and travel the multi-verse. To power it, they need to turn the Earth into a giant powersource, but Macgyver figures out how to do it with duct tape and chewing gum.

    On arrival they find an empty room where the 42 original member of the Multiversal Council met to populate the universe, but they won't talk to them because they don't know enough yet. They get ticked off and start blowing things up, and are sent back to their home universe which is now set to be destroyed.

    The series focuses on how the erstwhile enemies must get together and fight the coomon enemy, all before Macgyver dies of old age.
    • Actually, the Multiversal Council figures that we owe on the Asgard's bar tab. (Those little guys drink like crazy and it wasn't cloning gone wrong that killed them--it was a million years of time-shifted hangovers sent to the future that were finally catching up with them.)

  • There must be more SG than ST by now..... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ip_freely_2000 (577249) on Sunday March 25 2007, @08:45AM (#18478197)
    ...it seems like SG-SG1 has been on forever. Then there's that Atlantis show that's been on a while.

    For such a successful series SG seems to have very little of the cultural impact or generate the extreme opinion that ST had. It's like SG has always been 'okay', but ST was 'great' but then simply wore out it's welcome.
    • The thing about SG is that it has it's base of hardcore fans like ST, but that group is smaller than the hardcore fans of ST. However, SG has lots of average Joe watchers who like it and will go out of their way to press the button on the remote to watch it when it's on. That's something that ST doesn't have.

      • Re:There must be more SG than ST by now..... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by mrbooze (49713) on Sunday March 25 2007, @02:18PM (#18480537)
        According to my wife, who has at times been involved in some SG-1 fan groups/lists/boards/etc, a seemingly shockingly large contingent of Stargate fans are military folk, either active military themselves or military spouses. I've always been curious about this, and wondered if there is similar military fanbases of other major sci-fi shows, or if SG-1 attracts more of them for some reason. Perhaps the military premise and involvement with the show?

        • Re:There must be more SG than ST by now..... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Pharmboy (216950) on Sunday March 25 2007, @03:27PM (#18480981) Journal
          From my experience, military people are more likely to be SciFi fans in general. I'm ex USAF myself and was raised in a military family (although my father was more into reading and watching tons of western novels and shows). I think the same could be said about reading books. Military people tend to drag books around, because you know you will have to "hurry up and wait" or just have downtime, often in places with nothing else to do. Or perhaps SciFi is just a nice escape from an otherwise stressful job. I'm sure the military aspects of the show help as well, as you point out.
    • Well, that's because it's apparently a "franchise."

      Meanwhile, I lost a bet. My money was on either Stargate:Miami or Stargate:NY.

      • Though all of them can be consolidated under one name: Stargate: Hey, All the Planets We Visit Look Like British Columbia. Same for Battlestar Galactica, too.
        • Even stranger, all those BC planets in various galaxies have the same pseudo-medieval village.
          • Even stranger, all those BC planets in various galaxies have the same pseudo-medieval village.

            Maybe the Canadians can use pseudo-medieval villages as tourist attractions. If things get really bad South of the border they can even people them with American refugees.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Björn (4836)
            And even stranger, everyone seems to speak English.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by vidarh (309115)
      Star Trek is more than 40 years old. People have grown up with it, either the original run of TOS or reruns, the movies or TNG. It's had time to establish a far wider fan base. It's also much more accessible than SG1.

      Star Trek is essentially morality plays set in space. Its only half-assed departure from the one episode morality play formula was Deep Space 9, and even that was full of short morality plays intermingled with the longer story arks. The advantage of that formula is that you don't need the aud

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by pinkocommie (696223)
        I beg to differ. One of the primary reasons I like SG1 (and dislike Atlantis) is about the strong underlying themes about theology and religious exploitation. About people doing acts of lunacy (The Season 1 ep Politics) based on faith. How blind faith wreaks havoc and how easily people are manipulated. One of my favorite lines from the show

        TEAL'C: I thought it fitting that on this day when we must sacrifice our short lived freedom that we do so here...at the site of the Battle of salsacksor...where you
      • Deep Space 9...was full of short morality plays intermingled with the longer story arks.

        Look, if God tells you to build a longer story ark, you build it.

        -Space Noah

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mdwh2 (535323)
      Star Trek: 5 series, 704 episodes, 10 films, spanning several decades.
      Stargate: 2 series, 274 episodes, 1 film, spanning just over one decade.

      (From Wikipedia)

      So to be fair, they don't anywhere near compare on numbers, or how long they've been around.

      And I think the other posters are right about there being more competition - look how the mainstream/cultural impact of Star Trek seems to be significantly less with later series.
      • Richard Dean Anderson actually said it was a comedy, so, I would have to say you are right. It was in one of those "making of"s. It might have been the 100th episode.

  • 'Our' military? (Score:3, Informative)

    by teh kurisu (701097) on Sunday March 25 2007, @08:50AM (#18478225) Homepage

    "One of the things that we love about Stargate is that is us -- it's our military, it's our scientists, it's our people -- and we're going out into the galaxy and the universe to discover all the wonders that are out there, and dealing with our own limitations versus things that are far more advanced than us." - Robert C. Cooper

    I take it Cooper's talking in relative terms, given that he's Canadian (along with most of the cast and crew) and the US Air Force, well, isn't.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Pyrion (525584)
        They offset that rise in technology by creating enemies wherein they literally were back to square one. Great, so they had battlecruisers. So what? They had battlecruisers arrayed against two new enemies (the Ori and the Wraith) that both had their means of practically negating the advantages the Daedalus-class maintained against the Goa'uld. The Daedalus-class came too late to do much of anything against the Goa'uld and couldn't do much of anything against the Ori or the Wraith, the latter being a case of

  • Learn from Star Trek (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ambitwistor (1041236) on Sunday March 25 2007, @08:58AM (#18478273)
    After the success of ST:TNG, the whole franchise got run into the ground. Arguably the later Star Trek series weren't as good, but I think they just oversaturated the market with spinoff after spinoff. Too much of a good thing and people will just get tired of it, and Stargate on television has been going on in one form or another for 10 years already. Maybe it's better to focus on just one series at a time, and end each series gracefully before it jumps the shark.

    • Re:Learn from Star Trek (Score:4, Interesting)

      by FroBugg (24957) on Sunday March 25 2007, @09:49AM (#18478613) Homepage
      That's kind of a silly statement. Voyager and Enterprise sure took it down the tubes, but DS9, especially the last half of its run, was as good as TNG ever was, if not better.
      • A lot of fans will argue with you about DS9. That aside, the existence of DS9 doesn't really disagree with my point. A series can survive a spinoff, and SG:Atlantis is doing okay. It's when you get greedy and start piling on spinoff after spinoff that people start losing interest. It's like Hollywood and their love of making 5 sequels to a blockbuster. Even when the sequels don't suck, you just get tired of them. The same goes for stretching out a single series for too long. Making a spinoff supposed

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MurphyZero (717692)
        Voyager at times could be alright, but in general I agree with your assessment. DS9 definitely started off slowly, but once they had several plot lines going through all the episodes, it really took off. In fact, I preferred the later episodes of DS9 to most of TNG.

  • Long path from treatment to series. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dock (89815) on Sunday March 25 2007, @08:59AM (#18478287) Homepage
    A treatment is akin to an inventor writing down an idea on a cocktail napkin. Before they even get to the pilot script, it'll have to be expanded by another nine pages or so, and if it exists as part a development deal rather than something done on spec, it'll most likely go back and forth between the exec and the studio a half dozen times before just that ten page treatment is given the OK.

    The pilot script will probably go through at least that amount of haggling, and would need to be followed up with or maybe even proceeded by an entire series treatment which will probably take weeks if not months to do, before the studio would even consider shooting the pilot.

    Not trying to rain on the parade or anything, I just want to put into perspective what this means, which isn't a whole lot right now. This is step one out of tens of dozens. Long way to go here.

  • "Third"? (Score:4, Informative)

    by HTH NE1 (675604) on Sunday March 25 2007, @09:26AM (#18478449)

    The working title of the third 'Stargate' television series is 'Stargate Universe'
    Actually, that would be the fourth series:
    1. Stargate SG-1 (1997) [imdb.com]
    2. Stargate Infinity (2002) [imdb.com]
    3. Stargate Atlantis (2004) [imdb.com]
    4. Stargate Universe
    They always forget/suppress the animated series, just like Star Trek (1973) [imdb.com].
    • Stargate Infinity (2002) is not part of the sg1 / sga story line.
    • They always forget/suppress the animated series, just like Star Trek (1973) [imdb.com].

      ST:TAS is still in my Netflix queue, but as I understand it, it's considered canon, and a continuation of TOS after its cancellation. Stargate Infinity (Wormhole Extreme: TAS) is considered something to run from screaming by fans of the live action series.

      I only saw one episode, but quickly surmised the above truism based on that viewing.

      Of course, I now brace for the replies about I missed the deeper philosophical meani

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by bill_mcgonigle (4333) *
          Not to say I wouldn't get Infinity on DVD myself just to rip and remix for ridicule.

          Hey, you're not giving them very good incentive to make good videos - if they're great you'll buy them, if they're steaming crap you'll buy them. :)
      • I don't know if anything was so bad it never got taped and dumped online, but it was REALLY really REALLY bad. Do yourself a favor and don't even try to track any down. Seriously.
        If you MUST know anything about it, check out the summaries at gateworld.net under Episodes.
  • Why do they always insist on beating shows into the ground rather than coming up with something new? Stargate's been old and tired for years...since O'Neil left. Stargate:Atlantis has never been anything more than mediocre. It's like Star Trek all over, the show gets lamer and lamer, but they just keep propping up the corpse for "the fans".

    It wouldn't bother me so much if it use cash and airtime that could be used for something more original.
    • Why do they always insist on beating shows into the ground rather than coming up with something new? Stargate's been old and tired for years...since O'Neil left. Stargate:Atlantis has never been anything more than mediocre. It's like Star Trek all over, the show gets lamer and lamer, but they just keep propping up the corpse for "the fans".

      Do you really expect much in the way of imagination from TV execs?
      How many of these understand sci-fi let along sci-fi fandom.

  • SG-1's already available online (Score:5, Informative)

    by Asmor (775910) on Sunday March 25 2007, @11:09AM (#18479225) Homepage
    SkyOne aired the second part of season 10 of Stargate SG-1 several months before Sci-Fi did. In fact, they showed the last episode a few weeks ago. They're all available online.

    Not that I'm advocating piracy (hell, I own the first 9 seasons on DVD and will get the 10th whenever it comes out), but it's Sci-Fi's fault for dragging their ass and waiting so long to show it. In a globalized world, you don't get to screw people over just so you can get an extra half of a rating point.

    I leave it as an exercise for the reader to discover where to get them.

  • Wrong series (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kabdib (81955) on Sunday March 25 2007, @11:50AM (#18479591) Homepage
    Enough wasting money already. Bring back Firefly.

    (I loved the first few years of SG1, but then it got pretty random and bad, reminding me more and more of the "Forehead of the Week" clubhouse show: STtNG).
    • No you may not.

    • Indeed (Score:5, Funny)

      by Asztal_ (914605) on Sunday March 25 2007, @08:21AM (#18478045) Homepage
      Hallowed are our new intergalactic overlords.

    • SG-1 movie -vs- Farscape movie (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mosel-saar-ruwer (732341) on Sunday March 25 2007, @09:24AM (#18478425)

      shooting on the two 'Stargate SG-1' movies finishes in June

      Given the constraints of the budget, I thought the SciFi channel did a darned good job with the movie that ended the Farscape series - they took the concept about as far as it could be taken [I mean, seriously, it's hard to top an out-of-control wormhole that threatens to swallow up the entirety of space-time as we know it], and tied up most of the loose ends [boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy regains girl plus newborn baby].

      I hope they take these Stargate movies at least as seriously - the SG-1 franchise deserves to go out with a bang.

      I'd like to see all the species in our galaxy [The Asgard, the Nox [gateworld.net], the Oannes [gateworld.net], Ba'al & his gang, etc etc etc], teaming up a la Justice League of America, or Avengers/Defenders, and going head to head with the Origin armies, in a four-hour epic maelstrom of a battle, with blood and guts and iron and ash and fire and brimstone, and finally wiping those rat bastard Ori off the map forever.

      And speaking of going out with a bang, after they've dealt with the Ori once and for all, the male leads could then turn to fighting over who gets to bang Inara Serra [imdb.com].

      And it would be really neat if they could convince Kurt Russell & James Spader to come back and play some roles - maybe president & vice president of the USA?

      Or perhaps they could be in the cast of "Wormhole X-Treme!".

      [And if you wanna get really cynical, it could be revealed that the entire Stargate franchise was merely the fantasy of a writer for "Wormhole X-Treme!" - kinda like how Bobby Ewing just reappeared in the shower one morning [wikipedia.org].]

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The Asgard as dead fool. The Tau'ri are the Fifth Race now! Humans have phasers not puny railguns and missiles now. Where have you been?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Viper Daimao (911947)

        I'd like to see all the species in our galaxy [The Asgard, the Nox, the Oannes...
        Don't forget the furlings [wikipedia.org]!

      • Re:SG-1 movie -vs- Farscape movie (Score:5, Informative)

        by TheWanderingHermit (513872) on Sunday March 25 2007, @09:52AM (#18478635)
        I thought the SciFi channel did a darned good job with the movie that ended the Farscape series

        SciFi had nothing to do with shooting the Farscape movie. I wish people would stop giving this channel credit for things like this. The show was canceled with no indication that anything would follow. Then the producers decided they wanted to tie it up and started shooting the mini-series. When they started shooting, they had no idea who would buy it or where it would be shown. SciFi picked it up.

        SciFi has hardly any responsibility for the quality, or more often the lack of quality, in their shows. They are produced by other corporations and the shows are sold to SciFi. For instance, remember Stargate: SG1 was on Showtime for the first 5 years of the show. There's even one line in the last episode of the first season that referenced Showtime. When they see the transmitter and Teal'c tells them what it is, O'Neil said, "Does it get Showtime?" Later, in reruns on SciFi, the line was redubbed to remove a reference to Showtime. While SciFi claims the show as an original, it was created elsewhere.

        Galactica is a slightly different story, since it involves the parent company of SciFi. Still, it is NOT SciFi that produces these shows.

        • Re:SG-1 movie -vs- Farscape movie (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Geno Z Heinlein (659438) on Sunday March 25 2007, @12:30PM (#18479869)
          SciFi had nothing to do with shooting the Farscape movie. I wish people would stop giving this channel credit for things like this. The show was canceled with no indication that anything would follow.

          And Farscape was cancelled after SFC had already renewed it for two seasons, both 4 and 5. SFC pulled the rug from under Farscape after the cliffhanger ending of season 4 was completed. The same thing happened to Forever Knight on USA: USA funded one-third of FK's third and final season, and then pulled the funding at the last minute, leading to the bottle episodes at the end of that show.

          As near as I can figure, the common element is someone named Bonnie Hammer, who ran the channels in question at the right times and seems not to like genre shows, based on the Scare Tactics and John Edwards garbage that was the staple of SFC's line-up the last time I subscribed to it.

    • Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by linguizic (806996) on Sunday March 25 2007, @08:39AM (#18478157)
      I agree completely. One of the things that made the show so good was that it was almost like watching an RPG, the characters would collect different bits of technology and information helping to move the overall plot of the series. Part of the reason for watching the show was to find out what kind of new technology or factoid about the SG-1 universe would get revealed, or who would be the next system lord to get blown up or blasted by robot Teal'c. Since season 8, there haven't been any new major revelations, no new technology (they seem to be bringing techs from older episodes to fill in that place), no system lords to kill (the writers don't want to kill off Baal b/c they like to use him as the occasional Goa'uld bad guy when they don't want to bother advancing the Ori plot). Speaking of the Ori, they aren't a new interesting bad guy like the replicators, just a slightly modified form of the Goa'uld. For example: the Goa'ulds are parasites who pretend to be gods, the Ori are ascendant beings that pretend to be gods through memetic parasitism. Cameron Mitchel sucks, they should have just added Vala to the team and not worried about replacing O'Neall. They developed O'Neall's character so well, and made all of the personalities of SG-1 fit together so well that just sticking Ben Browder (who is an awful actor) in there messes up the dynamics. And with the exception of one episode in the last two seasons, the show has taken itself way to seriously.

      That being said, I'm looking forward to the movies.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Belial6 (794905)
            My primary theory is that SG-1 is getting canceled because of the Christian theme. SG-1 had a few poor seasons. The new bad guys and cast changes have dramatically improved the show. Yes, you will always have people who complain when you have major changes, as they won't like the direction that was chosen, but over all, SG-1 has been much better than it has been in a long time.

            The problem that causes it to get canceled? They picked the wrong religion to pick on. SG-1 has always made a mockery of rel
            • It's getting cancelled because it's gone on for 10 seasons and is getting stale. I have yet to see anyone complain about the morality of the show.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by The MAZZTer (911996)
      4) Whoever did the summary doesn't realize SG-1 has been canceled as a TV series.
      • It hasn't been cancelled yet. The final episodes air this spring/summer.
        • Whoops, I read "August" instead of "April". At any rate the final episode of SG-1 has been available online for over a week now, needless to say I've seen all of them as well as Atlantis'.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by malsdavis (542216)
          It depends where he lives.

          Here in the U.K. Season 10 has already completely run and finished (although episode 20 left many doors open so to speak) and there are indeed no new episodes planned to be aired. The Stargate SG-1 show is for all intents and purposes "cancelled". I sure hope they change their minds but I do think the grand-poster is correct in stating that the show has been "cancelled", even if the showbiz lingo is to claim a new series just "hasn't been commissioned" which is really saying the ex

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Gryle (933382)
      The series has already finished in Canada and the UK. For some incredibly stupid reason the US broadcaster, Sci-Fi, decided to take a 6 month break half-way into the season and the last 10 episodes won't be aired until sometime in April.
    • I completely agree with you!
      SG-1 should have ended after season 8.

      And what's up with this? :

      new episodes of 'SG-1' and 'Atlantis' start airing April 13 in the U.S., on The SCI FI Channel.

      SG-1 has ended after season 10. There won't be any new episodes on April.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mpe (36238)
      Let it go. You've milked this cow long enough. Let Stargate die in peace. Atlantis too. And BSG too [if it doesn't stop sucking ass with filler episodes].

      SG-1 has run for 10 years. This is a long time for any series, especially one where you can't easily change the location and/or cast.
      Maybe they'd do better to try something new instead of more Stargate. e.g. give Joss Whedon a call and then give his ideas full backing.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.