Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sci-Fi Television

Stargate Universe 829

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the just-another-lazy-monday dept.
Last night I finally scraped together the two hours to watch the premiere of Stargate Universe. Since the last two series really ran their course and deserved to end, I was skeptical. At first blush it appears that the show is just Atlantis + Voyager, shot in the documentary style that practically every sci-fi show since Firefly uses. But I enjoyed it, and figured we should have a place to discuss it. The TV landscape needs more real, good sci-fi: there's not a lot of it left, even on the moronically renamed Syfy channel. But maybe this one will have a solid season. I just hope that future episodes don't have so many commercials. I couldn't believe how many ads appeared during this thing.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stargate Universe

Comments Filter:
  • firefly (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:26AM (#29644789)

    Firefly wasn't shot documentary style, the special effects had some panning and zooming that first started in star wars episode II

  • Hulu? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Drahgkar (945536) on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:27AM (#29644809) Homepage
    One way to get rid of many of the advertisements is to watch it on Hulu. Granted you have to wait before episoded become available and the entire season of a given show isn't always available, but in general it's a lot better than sitting through lots of useless advertisements.
    • Re:Hulu? (Score:4, Informative)

      by magsol (1406749) on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:48AM (#29645179) Journal
      Also, if you can put up with iTunes and its idiosyncrasies, the episode is available in HD for download...and it's entirely free. Not sure if that's an iTunes pricing bug, but at least right now it's totally free.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by TheRaven64 (641858)
        Only if you're in the USA, it seems. In the UK, you can buy the (2 minute, 44 second) trailer for £1.89 on iTunes. No thanks...
    • Re:Hulu? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Junior Samples (550792) on Monday October 05, 2009 @11:02AM (#29645443)

      I downloaded the 720p High Definition Bit Torrent version Saturday morning and watched it with commercial free with my friends that evening.

      The SiFy logo and animated banners, however, are still annoying.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Lumpy (12016)

      a better way is to build a mythTV box and simply let it strip out the commercials.

      far better to watch it in HD on my 42" plasma than the tiny 22" monitor on my computer at a less than SDTV resolution from HulU.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by hemp (36945)

      I watched a show on Hulu using Chrome and it threw up a blank screen everyonce in a while apologizing for not being able to load a commercial.

      I forgave it.

    • Better yet... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by artemis67 (93453)

      Wait for someone to re-edit it into chronological sequence and download it off the 'nets.

      Jumping back and forth with the flashbacks was annoying as hell.

  • by eNygma-x (1137037) on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:27AM (#29644813)
    I liked the show... but they they still need some thinking writers. Why not use a "Keno" to close the hatch?!
    • by chasmosis (522680) <chasmosis@@@gmail...com> on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:30AM (#29644857) Homepage
      I thought the same thing. tape a pencil to it and have it press the "button"
    • by Barny (103770) <bakadamage-slashdot@yahoo.com> on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:32AM (#29644897) Homepage Journal

      But, someone would still have to die, who would hold the "shakey cam" while it presses the button?

      Seriously, bad focus + shakey cam can just fucking die imho.

      • by Lumpy (12016) on Monday October 05, 2009 @11:18AM (#29645653) Homepage

        Shakey/bad focus cam was invented to hide really REALLY bad CG or incredibly bad choreographed fight scenes. They did it first on the Borune Supremacy because they did not want to hire real actors or peopel that could actually choreograph a fight. So they shook the hell out of the camera and basicvally did the "I cant use a camera" filming style to hide that the movie actually sucked.

        Now everyone uses it because you can spend 1/3rd on your CGI if you shake the hell out of the camera. Several of my friends that do CG on hollywood movies hate it, because they dont get to do their craft, they just do the half assed cheap version with shakey cam. It saves nearly 1/2 on the cost of CG compared to doing it right and having the guys compost it perfectly.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Which is funny, because I thought the ships looked more impressive in this than in any of the previous series. I thought the Destiny traveling through hyperspace shots from the outside were particularly beautiful. Its like they took the best ideas from Star Trek (stars streaming by and bright colors) and Babylon 5 (mists in hyperspace) to make something that looked awesome.
    • by Shakrai (717556) on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:35AM (#29644945) Journal

      I liked the show... but they they still need some thinking writers.

      They don't need writers. What they need is more lens flares [nymag.com]. You can't have a Sci-Fi show without them, ya know?

    • by tmosley (996283) on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:43AM (#29645091)
      Stargate always had problems thinking imaginatively. For example, once they developed the cloaking device, I would have used it as a proxy teleporter to make nukes appear in the center of Ori ships. When they had the ship with all the Asgard technology, they could have frozen time, reconfigured the ship so that it had a hole in it through which the beam weapon could pass and thus destroy both of the pursuing Ori vessels without issue. That is, rather than waiting until they started dying of old age. Sure, it would have taken a few months, or maybe even years to get through that battle, but they would have made it without a problem. Etc.

      Similar lack of thought has plagued a lot of other shows. For example, why didn't anyone in the Star Trek universe ever come up with the idea of using warp drives as weapons in a systematic way? A runabout crashing into a borg cube at warp seven would do quite a bit more damage than a photon torpedo, I would imagine. I guess kinetic energy just isn't "futuristic" enough. Hell, Picard tried to use ramming speed with the Enterprise on at least one occasion that I remember, one would think they would have realized that would be a hell of a weapon, and that they could store hundreds or even thousands of them on a ship like the enterprise (assuming they removed the crew compartments).
      • by Lumpy (12016) on Monday October 05, 2009 @11:21AM (#29645705) Homepage

        Picard tried to use ramming speed with the Enterprise on at least one occasion that I remember, one would think they would have realized that would be a hell of a weapon,

        I remember captian kirk trying to ram everything he could with the ship....

        KIRK:"Scotty! There's a giant hole there, let's RAM The ship in it!"

        McCOY:"Dammit Jim you can to around screwing the entire universe!"

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Magic5Ball (188725)

        In Startrek physics, Ek would be close to 0 at warp since space-time moves rather than the ship. However, causing a warp field to transect a vessel rather than form around it would likely cause the wholesale destruction you seek.

        Back to SG:U - The opening shots documented the ship turning parts of itself on to receive the people coming through the wormhole. Engineers who could design an intergalactic vessel would not design the CO2 scrubbers to be always on for tens of thousands of years (much less maintain

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nine-times (778537)

        A runabout crashing into a borg cube at warp seven would do quite a bit more damage than a photon torpedo, I would imagine. I guess kinetic energy just isn't "futuristic" enough

        There's at least a plausible defense here in that warp drives might not generate much in the way of kinetic energy. It seems like maybe if you could warp space-time you could make weird pockets of gravity or whatever to tear a ship apart, but then maybe it'd be hard to project a warp field very far, and another ship with warp engines might be able to counter the effect easily....

        Um.... erm.... I mean.... god, did I really just write that? Sorry.

  • Stargate: Why simply beat a dead horse where it lay, when you can transport it anywhere in the universe?

  • babylon 5 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shakrai (717556) on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:29AM (#29644843) Journal

    I'd still like to see a B5 feature film. Too bad that JMS hasn't been up to it since the passing of Andreas Katsulas and Richard Biggs. I still think that B5 is rather underrated/unknown in the general population (although it has a large following here on /.) and suspect that it could do very well at the box office with the right storyline.

    I've watched a lot of Sci-Fi but I always wind up coming back to B5. It's the only series that I care enough about to invest the money to buy up all the DVDs. I can still pick up new things when I re-watch the series. How do you go wrong with characters like Londo, G'Kar and Garibaldi?

    • B5 WAS an excellent show.

      I borrowed a co-workers VHS tapes to watch the show because at the time, I missed the first 2 seasons or so.

      I was extremely hooked on the show. It's characters, the writing, the time arc - it was very well done. Some day I will own the whole show and rewatch it.

      I wonder if it would be possibly to do a new show post B5, maybe set 100 years later or something.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        I wonder if it would be possibly to do a new show post B5, maybe set 100 years later or something.

        They tried at two spin-offs.

        One was Crusade which took place either a couple of years after the final season or concurrently with the final season. It was alright but got messed around by the network and was cancelled after 1-2 seasons.

        The other was Legend of the Rangers. I believe this took place further down the line after Crusade, as GKar was done with his walk-about from the series finale and his telepath companion had left him. However this attempt only made it so far as a pilot TV movie. It wasn't

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sockatume (732728)

      This whole thread is off-topic, but I'll bite. B5 has had several straight-to-DVD feature films, trying to tie events in the mythology together into an entertaining story. The trouble is that they have to be moments away from the main mythology, or which were overlooked in the main story for presumably very good reasons, and are generally not as satisfying as the series itself was. You could re-do the main plot as a film, but it wouldn't be an epic any more.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gedrin (1423917)
      I'm a huge B5 fan, but we just can't keep looking for it to come back. The show, I'd even argue the entire setting, was built to run its story, and it did that job very well. Given the quality of what's come after, I'd be very wary of a B5 feature. That said, don't let your love of B5 blind you to something good that might come along. Before B5, nearly every sci-fi out there lived in the shadow of StarTrek, and B5 suffered for that shadow. I think it's fair to compare SGU to SGA and SG-1. It's probabl
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      >>>I still think that B5 is rather underrated/unknown in the general population

      Actually B5's Nielsen Ratings (viewership) were only 1% below that of Star Trek DS9, and equal to Hercules and Xena, so it's about as well known as those shows in terms of how many people saw them.

    • by B5_geek (638928) on Monday October 05, 2009 @11:21AM (#29645699)

      There are many things that make B5 awesome, but the single most compelling reason for its awesomeness is the cohesive storyline. It is the only video (tv/movie) that feels like you are watching a book. Great arc episodes, fantastic writing of dialog, and growth of characters that you have never seen before make it unique and memorable in TV history.

      The StarGate Universe however has always felt like a high-school writing class in comparison. SG:U could develop into a good show, and as my TV sci-fi choices are limited I will watch it.

  • I loved it! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ionix5891 (1228718)

    I have to say it kept me on edge of seat grinning, the detail and visuals were stunning, the music was very very well done!

    As for the characters, the acting was quite good, i can see some of them growin

    Im delighted to have a new Stargate to watch, and this new direction
    lets be honest SG1 last seasons and SGA got very tired and boring

    Thats what i love about this, I dont feel like im watchin yet another McGuiver episode or can predict the ending by watching the first few minutes

    Stargate Universe has what was

  • by k0ldsh4d0wz (1608239) on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:32AM (#29644905)
    Who still wastes their time watching commercials?
  • Evil Doctor (Score:3, Insightful)

    by StarWreck (695075) on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:33AM (#29644923) Homepage Journal
    Dr. Nicholas Rush seems to just be playing the part of D. Zachary Smith from Lost in Space.
    • But it's been so long since Lost in Space came out that most people either don't remember Dr. Smith, or don't even know who you're talking about. :)

  • by TypoNAM (695420) on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:34AM (#29644941)

    I couldn't believe how many ads appeared during this thing.

    Yeah really, luckily I watched it via DVR after it had started recording for at least 40 minutes before I began watching it. I haven't seen so many badly (and annoying) placed commercial breaks in a pilot airing since the Star Trek: Enterprise premier. After getting a 720p torrent of the show and then watching it again, it is far more enjoyable (Thanks SiTV!).

  • Potential (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Canazza (1428553) on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:35AM (#29644953)

    It's taken alot of stuff from Battlestar Galactica and Lost - not nescesarilly a bad thing - The previous series rather relaxed attitude to Sci-fi is still there, albeit reigned back slightly in favour of what seems to be a more character-oriented series. Notably the lack of any 'big bad' in the first episode bodes well for the focus being on internal struggle rather than on any kind of external threat.
    One of my biggest gripes with the final series of SG-1 (and most of Atlantis) was the reliance on Deus Ex Machina to save the day (Especially in the closing episode of Atlantis) and the constant ressurection of characters through various means, Dr Beckett's clone, Dr Wier's seemingly endless robot clones and Daniel Jackson's repeated Ascensions/Falls.
    Stargate's been one of my favourite series since I was a teenager (I've been watching SG-1 since series 3, and having watched Series 1 and 2 on repeats) - The audience has grown up, but the show really hasn't. SGU will hopefully fulfil that role, without alienating any newcomers

    • Re:Potential (Score:4, Interesting)

      by dargon (105684) on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:43AM (#29645083) Homepage

      Blame fan support for Danial Jacksons repeated reincarnations, if I remember correctly they originally didn't plan to bring him back after his first "death" but a large percentage of fans kinda freaked out.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      One of my biggest gripes with the final series of SG-1 (and most of Atlantis) was the reliance on Deus Ex Machina to save the day (Especially in the closing episode of Atlantis) and the constant ressurection of characters through various means, Dr Beckett's clone, Dr Wier's seemingly endless robot clones and Daniel Jackson's repeated Ascensions/Falls.

      One of my favorites lines from SG-1 was in Season 7.

      Scientist: Dr Jackson is going to die when he sees this.
      Soldier: What!? Again?

      Counting the movie, and not c

  • Firefly (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Tablizer (95088)

    ...style that practically every sci-fi show since Firefly uses.

    I don't get why Firefly was canceled. It was popular among geeks and trend-setting. It even had the potential to be the next Star Trek-like franchise. I suppose bean-counting overrode "buzz". They didn't give it time. Shame
         

    • by Shakrai (717556)

      It even had the potential to be the next Star Trek-like franchise.

      Star Trek stopped having potential somewhere around 1995 [wikipedia.org]. Now it's all about recycled plots, recycled characters, reset buttons and lens flares.

    • Re:Firefly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mrdoogee (1179081) on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:48AM (#29645175)

      It was on Fox.

      I wish it was more complicated, but there it is. US network TV has no patience for a new show, especially Sci-Fi or Fantasy. If it doesn't get good ratings (top 3 in time slot) within its first month, its more or less dead in the water.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LatencyKills (1213908)
        I'd agree with you, and yet struggle with the fact that the incredibly mediocre Dollhouse managed to get a second season and is also on Fox. I can't help but recall the story of Gilligan's Island and how it was cancelled as a top rated show to make room for Gunsmoke which was a favorite of someone in the programming head's family. I think more than any diabolical plot or general statement about shows that will or won't survive on TV, it comes down to literally one or two keys guys at a network liking a sh
    • by Canazza (1428553) on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:48AM (#29645185)

      If Firefly had been called Starfly it'd have suceeded

      Look at the 3 biggest Sci-fi franchises.
      Star Trek (5 TV Spin-offs, 11 Movies, countless books, 40 years old)
      Star Wars (7 Movies, 1 TV series, countless books too, 30 years old)
      StarGate (1 Movie, 2 DVD Movies, 3 TV Spin-offs, lots of books too, 15 years old)

      Then you have BattleSTAR Galactica, 2 Spin-offs and one in the works, also 30 years old.

      Next time you're pitching a script, put STAR in the title name somewhere, it'll go far!

    • Re:Firefly (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Monday October 05, 2009 @11:10AM (#29645539)
      From what I have read, I am pretty sure that someone at the network didn't want Firefly to succeed. I don't know why, but showing the episodes out of sequence and pre-empting it for special events are a pretty dependable way to ensure that a show will be a failure. I don't have any idea if the show would have been a success if they had broadcast it in order and with a regular schedule, but I am sure that someone at Fox wanted it to fail. I loved the show, but I never even heard of it until after it was canceled. The first I heard of it was when the movie was released, but then the only network shows I watch are sports.
  • by Gotung (571984)
    Just started watching SG-1 for the first time on Hulu. About mid-way through season 5.

    Is there any reason I should I finish out SG-1 before watching this?
    • by Dyinobal (1427207)
      ehh not really, you'll get to see some new tech that humans developed/cobbled together, but it won't give you any super huge massive spoilers. At least none that you'll recognize as spoilers.
    • this makes a clean cut with most of the later mythos of SG-1, save for some ancient tech stuff.

      SG-1's ending was still interesting to watch so you might as well.

    • by GundamFan (848341)
      Other than SG-1 being a really fun take on Sci-Fi no not really. SGU is very newbie friendly.
    • by Canazza (1428553)

      Once you get the whole Ascension thing and have watched "Prometheus" (So end of Series 6) you're pretty much up to speed on what's needed for SGU tech-wise. Maybe watch the first Series of Atlantis to get some Ancient tech ideas, but it's not really that worth it.

    • You could start watching without finishing. In time, there will likely be references made to "tip the hat" to the orginal SG-1 and Atlantis fans. If you like SG-1 and have the time, keep watching. I felt things got better in seasons 6-8 again, but the series ending was a bit too much of a hurry for me. I really enjoyed Atlantis and was disappointed that it was axed so early. I felt it could have gone another four seasons without resorting to yet another new enemy-there were many threads that could have
  • I think the new series started very well, though I don't know how long they will last with the good plots.

    The Keno is cool, but if this is really Ancient ancient technology, why haven't they showed up in some other ancient places , like atlantis.

  • by FlyingBishop (1293238) on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:40AM (#29645051)

    All the contrived, pointless tropes of Stargate with none of the cheeky self-deprecating humor.

    Also, Gaius Baltar has no place in the Stargate Universe. Honestly, practically every sentence that came out of Robert Carlyle's mouth it felt like he was being fed his lines by an invisible woman in a red dress. Only he wasn't. His character just has zero definition, and there's no way to sympathize with him.

    Sadly, it's all we have.

    • by imgod2u (812837) on Monday October 05, 2009 @11:23AM (#29645727) Homepage

      Exactly. I wish I had mod points atm for you. What made SG1 and Atlantis good shows was entirely in its "oh wow...another sci-fi cliche huh, ya well let's get it over with" style of meta-humor. Let's face it, the stories, plots, acting, etc. weren't ground-breaking. They were cliche, guilty-pleasure sci-fi elements.

      The "big bad guy" each season; the unfaltering hero; the strong-but-secretly-vulnerable female lead who had constant, unspoken sexual tension with the unfaltering hero; the comic relief side genius guy who would develop a spine throughout the series. Atlantis and SG1 was pretty much just this over and over. But it was fun, it was still compelling and most importantly, it didn't take itself too seriously.

      McGuiver was classic. Towards the end, you could almost see that he wasn't in character at all. It was like he was reading his lines in this "God, this again? Really?" voice. Even the unfaltering hero had a goofy, self-deprecating wit about him. This is what made Mal of Firefly so endearing and it's something that so many writers these days don't seem to understand. The days of the Rambo-like tough guy hero are over.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jpmorgan (517966)
      Eh, it feels to me like you're stretching to fit characters into pre-alloted roles/tropes. I don't get that sense from him, personally.

      And to be honest, if you can't sympathize with a smart guy running around trying to put out fires while everybody else is running around like a chicken with their heads cut off because they don't know what to do... you probably don't belong on /. :D
  • My thoughts (Score:3, Informative)

    by Dyinobal (1427207) on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:44AM (#29645117)
    I thought the visuals were good, I liked the 'ancient' star ship and the way it was rendered. It's nice to see something the ancients made that isn't 'pretty'. I didn't really care for the actors but I may grow to like them, the shaky camera stuff was really annoying though and irked me. The sex scene was just randomly thrown in and made me roll my eyes, it was a pointless grab for the crotch thinking audience. A few concerns is how they are going to butcher ancient tech. There is a lot of opportunity to expand on the story of the ancients, but with that huge opportunity is a massive chance they are going to kill it. I'm hopeful it will be a good addition to the Stargate series.
  • Nothing new, just a couple old plot devices shaken together. Still might be worth the watch; we'll just have to wait and see.
  • It was typical for a spin off series. Lay down the ground work for the viewers new to the series, throw in some background on the individuals, add cameos for the stars from the previous series and hint at whats to come. Most importantly don't mess with the formula.

    As for the episode. It still amazes me how the writers handle "The Ancients". Come on. Someone sends out a robot spaceship for a indefinitely long journey and it doesn't have a way to repair itself? "The Ancients" are so omnipotent that they

  • by hal2814 (725639) on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:48AM (#29645191)
    "The TV Landscape needs more real, good sci-fi: there's not a lot of it left, even on the moronically renamed Syfy channel." You can argue "real" and "good" if you want, but there's more new sci-fi television coming out now than there probably ever has been. I'd call both Lost and Heroes sci-fi. And they're both major shows on network television. Also, on the other side of the pond Doctor Who has had a revival in a very big way. It's on hiatus for now but will be back on or near December. But the two spin-offs are both airing new shows. There's a BSG spin-off. Dollhouse survived another year. The V revival is coming. The aforementioned Stargate... The biggest dearth of Sci-Fi television right now comes from the channel that used to be devoted to it.
  • I enjoyed the show and have hopes for a quality series, though it does seem like a mash-up of other Sci-Fi shows, so my hopes are measured. I will say that I'm getting a little tired of the flashback format that's being used more and more (Lost, Defying Gravity, SG*U) to fill in recent history.

    Using a flashback for things further in the past, sure, but stuff that happened two days ago? Give me a break. I'm sure the writers (or network) want to get on with the action, but is a linear story so bad, espec

  • Stargate B-Team (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gedrin (1423917) on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:54AM (#29645305)
    I didn't like it. Seemed as if they rounded up the disfunctional people; from military personnel with discipline issues to an MMO geek who's living with his mom (who seems like a Wesley Crusher stand in for the show), and decided they'd be an exciting group of people to sail across the universe on a ship that's about as functional as its crew. I find the makeup of the "crew" absurd, and expect they'll spend the time SG-1 would have used to explore the galaxy, make friends, and fight bad guys to backstab each other and generally angst their way across the universe. Say what you will, but with Jack, Sam, Teal'c and Daniel doing their job, I felt like the people of their universe could at least know they had quality people on the line. Even the Atlantis group seemed to be made of folks with extraoridinary levels of competency in their fields. These guys...well...these guys open sealed doors with flashing red lights on busted up spaceships.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by HikingStick (878216)
      The bizzare mixture of people that are on the ship did seem contrive, yet it also seemed plausible. After all, the base came under attack during a political visit, and the survivors are only those who made it to the gate room (though, from the sound of the reports on Earth, very few were lost and only 80 were MIA--about as many as made it through the gate). Such visits often bring an enterage of extra people along for the ride (I'm surprised we didn't have any chroniclers or archivists along). For those
  • My thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)

    by moniker127 (1290002) on Monday October 05, 2009 @10:57AM (#29645345)
    Personally I look forward to every episode in the stargate series. I was a big fan of SG1 for a while, and while I didn't like atlantis at first, I eventually did- realizing that it was its own thing.
    At first I was kind of scared with the direction they were taking it with stargate universe. I don't like watching drama shows. I thought back to the new battlestar galactica- which was okay- but honestly not my favorite series.
    I just hope they don't try too hard to copy what battlestar galactica did. I kind of have the feeling that they want to- given the similarities of characters- Nicholas Rush is a over emotional long haired scientist guy who is possibly evil possibly insane- just like gaius baltar. I have a feeling that they're trying to adama-fy Col. Everett Young- but that wont work. Edward James Olmos defined that character. They cant duplicate him.

    What i'm hoping is that they will realize they're going to fail if they copy another series, and they warp the characters a bit so that they're not the same. I'm hoping that once they do that- i'll lose the sour taste in my mouth.
    Anyway- I do like the gamer dude- Eli Wallace- but I feel like it was kind of an obvious ploy of them to put him in- they know most of the people who watch the show are fat male gamers who went to college (like myself). Regardless- that should inject some humor into the series- and that is the main reason I loved the series- because of the witty comic relief- like when Jack O'neal made some wise crack at the big scary aliens- or when Rodney Mckay yelled at the other characters for forgetting something that was blatently obvious to the viewer- but would've been left in the background in any "first generation" sci fi series - like startrek and such.

    Anyway- I feel like i've geeked out enough for one blurb, I may as well be the fat comic book guy at this point- so i'll cut my blurb short.
  • That about sums it up.

    I'll keep watching for now.

    In case you missed the final reference ... compare SG:U ship [clubphoenixrising.com] to Not of This World album cover [blogspot.com].

    Oh, also, with all the kids in SG:U, I keep wanting to call it "Stargate University."

  • by Mad Quacker (3327) on Monday October 05, 2009 @11:05AM (#29645475) Homepage

    1. Scientists are evil scheming power hungry liars that screw everything up.
    2. Politicians are selfless and caring human beings who will gladly give up their lives for you.
    3. Thirty year old gamers living with their mom are solving for the Grand Unified Theory by playing Warcraft 18 hours a day.

    Well, at least they didn't leave out the patronization.

    *sigh* to me it feels like the era of good science fiction is over.

  • by Lemming Mark (849014) on Monday October 05, 2009 @11:20AM (#29645693) Homepage

    The Wikipedia article on SG:U seems to imply that, whilst they're stuck on a starship they can't actually drive the thing where they want to go and are restricted to hopping on and off via its onboard stargate when they get near interesting things. So it's a bit like Voyager but somebody stole their steering wheel.

    Space: 1999, a British sci-fi (60s or 70s, I'd guess) had a similar setup but it was based on the slightly more bonkers-sounding premise that the crew were stuck on a moonbase and that the entire moon had been catapulted across the galaxy. When the moon went through an interesting neighbourhood they'd sometimes hop off and take a look around, then they'd jump back on again before it left. Surreal stuff! Despite the dodgy science and costumes they actually had some quite good episodes with interesting plot ideas.

    As an SG1 fan, I'd just like to say "Please let it be good! Please let it be good!". That is all.

  • by guidryp (702488) on Monday October 05, 2009 @01:28PM (#29647689)

    I watched it without reading a single review or press release. I had no expectations of what was to come. Warning some vague spoilers may be below.

    Within 5 minutes it is clear that this is an attempt to graft BSG onto SG and in an attempt to milk both fan bases for the combined monetary gain. No doubt this idea seems brilliant in the board room.

    But the execution is the worse of both worlds. It sucks all the fun, and chemistry among lovable characters out of Stargate and replaces it with a superficial BSG veneer of angry distrust and melodrama. Nothing is left of Stargate, but the gate mechanism and some tired cameos.

    The have nothing of BSG world that made it great. Instead they assume dark, dire, angry, whiny = deep. It doesn't. It just equals annoying.

    This seems like what you would get if your made your writers watch a few episodes of BSG and make a list of BSG items. Then crib the ones you can get away with (IE nothing to do with Cylons).

    So we get dark dingy sets, angry distrusting characters, angry mob scenes, obligatory pointless sex scene, heavy flashback, heavy melodrama. None of the the heart and soul from either show.

    After seeing this appear to be a cheap BSG knockoff a quick bit of googling revealed that they at least admit this is what they were trying to do.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/08/tca-press-tour-stargate-universe-producers-aiming-for-battlestar-galacticalevel-quality.html [latimes.com]

    "creators of "Stargate Universe," the upcoming spinoff of the long-running "Stargate SG-1," took the stage today, panelists promised a fresh, more "Battlestar"-like take on the space opera."

    I am annoyed by the cynicism and lack of originality in trying to give Stargate a BSG makeover and by the end result which felt like punishment to watch.

    YMMV of course. Some people apparently loved it.

Ever notice that even the busiest people are never too busy to tell you just how busy they are?

Working...