|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Even something like an inch of water in the gateroom and the lights not turning on when they arrived would have made it much better, imo. Stargate: Bioshock would have been amazing.
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2011 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
So, logically, Jack is simultaneously Cam's father and son, then.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2011 21:32
|
|
|
Symbiotes also have genetic memories, so dickishness is reinforced by the dickishness of previous generations. The Tok'ra queen, for instance, was the individual who rebelled and then instilled in all successive young born from her that the Goa'uld are immoral, and the one documented attempt to recruit a non-Tok'ra symbiote to the cause was a resounding failure. When the young are born with all knowledge of their lineage, nature and nurture are one and the same. EDIT: Also the Tok'ra were still total dicks, just not in that one, specific way. MjolnirMan fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Aug 19, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2011 05:44
|
|
|
Well, Tolkien and Star Trek (...well...) are both examples of fictional works with their languages being important enough to spend time on with linguist consultants. One possible way to mitigate this in SG1 would've been to serialize it somewhat - instead of each week being on <insert historical ethnicity> planet, you could have arcs that involve the in-depth exploration of a single planet and their culture. So the first few episodes in the arc may involve a communication barrier with the inhabitants, but there's no reason that B-team couldn't sit around a camp and draw pictographs while Jack and the A-team go for walks in the space-woods. A lot of SG lore don't necessarily have to take place on different planets - look at the environmental and biological diversity on Earth alone. Abydos was effectively a barren desert planet with one bad guy and one city, and maybe a pillar of Naquadah in between, and that carried the setting for a movie. Planets are big places (especially in science fiction), so there's no reason the show NECESSARILY had to visit a new planet as often as they did. The complaints about all of the dense Canadian woodland planets looking the same could've been resolved by consolidating those to the same planet or two.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Those are great ideas to make Stargate boring and lovely. Then I've got a good chance at being hired as a writer for Universe? Yeah, it would change the nature show a lot, you couldn't change writers every episode, settings and events would have more persistence, etc. It would also be a show I would watch, and Battlestar's success (especially in the mainstream) says something about serialized plots without switching locations every 3 seconds. SG1 and TNG are similar in that they're very episodic and almost nothing has any real consequence in the plot. Fun to watch, not exactly high art. I was constantly frustrated by the Immortal Status Quo of SG1, especially later in the series, and don't think that trading some "WHAT. FATE. AMAROKA!!!!" episodes for a drawn-out plot would be THAT "boring and lovely".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2011 22:09
|
|
|
Perhaps I explained poorly. Obviously an entire restructuring of the show would be necessary, like the difference between '78 BSG and '04 BSG. In the former, the presence of the Battlestar Pegasus is in a two-parter in the middle of a season, as an "oh poo poo we need an event for a two-parter" plot. In the new series, it's around for 15 or so episodes across two seasons, radically alters the show's dynamic and status quo, and has lasting effects after its destruction (and a terrible spinoff movie). The latter is a highly-regarded and well-rated modern scifi series, while the last Trek and Stargate series were cancelled due to shittiness, ending the franchise on TV (for now). Writing plot arcs where you think ahead longer than 46 minutes isn't "dragging poo poo out", it's "halfway-decent plot planning". I love SG1, ST:TNG, and BSG '78, but the reason that non-nerds view them as altogether unwatchable may be related to to way the shows are structured. Constantly jumping from planet to identical planet with different stereotypes of ancient cultures who all speak English isn't any less stupid than having 5 or 6 episodes exploring the same place before moving on. A vast number of the episodic plots could be in the same place - why couldn't the white mushroom people be on the same planet as the Nox? Still two episodes basically the same, but that Planet X is less disposable. Adding significance to things generally makes people care about them more. AND you could occasionally have people learning/teaching a language, so arguments about suspension of disbelief or realism, like is going on right now, don't happen. TL;DR: My suggestion wasn't "make it lovely", it's "do it well so people care".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:What are you talking about SG1 and TNG are very popular with non nerds? Anecdotally, I knew people that loved LOST and new-BSG and tuned in every episode, but wouldn't touch SG1 or any Treks. Critically, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Battlestar_Galactica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Stargate_SG-1
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
Look, I'm not really "against" what you're saying; I like these shows too. But critical acclaim can be indicative of one element of a work, while number of viewers can be indicative of another. An episodic show is inherently easier to tune in to spontaneously than a serial one - look at all the people in this thread rewatching through Stargate "correctly" after catching random episodes across a decade. Nobody could do that with the new Battlestar due to its long-term plot. Its critical reception comes from how well it was constructed as a work. Also, according to what I can find for ratings, they don't appear to be radically different. Depending on the season, they're both around 1.5-2.3 with Stargate doing slightly better overall. In 2006, BSG had a 1.51 average and SG1 had a 1.54 average. I find SG1 is really easy to have on in the background while I'm doing other things, while even on a rewatch, I'd need to actually sit and focus on BSG.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
Goa'uld are really just super-invasive Babel Fish anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2011 15:52
|
|
|
Specifically, I think it was that the drug replaced your immune system. Not a big deal for Jaffa, since they already had that happen to them with the Goa'uld, but more of a big deal for anyone else.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
Stargate is slightly better at making their ad-libbed new plot elements work than some other shows, but the Ancients aren't perfectly shoehorned in. The original movie established one race of aliens (Ra's), and obviously all the Giger-ee alien stuff was made by him/them. There are at least two fixed gates - because hyperdrive is REALLY slow and the universe is REALLY big to move human slaves across. Since Ra made the gates and pyramids, that's why the DHD has a pyramid. Occam's Razor. SG-1 starts off strong from a "realistic biology" level by retconning the Goa'uld to be nonhumanoid and the Jaffa to be genetically-engineered humans, and the new tech they introduce (Zats, DHD, memory database) all match the original style really well, but then introduces more Trek-like forehead aliens really early and goes on to do absolutely ridiculous stuff like how Ancients evolved first in a different galaxy and then humans derived from apes millions of years later (?) and look identical (??) and then interbred with the Ancients (???) to get some of their genes. And they couldn't decide if the Ancients were the kind of aliens to make the hosed-up creepy stuff like the facehugger computer, or if they were just "future humans" who liked potted plants and sleek glass towers, so they made them both. Point is, I like the show a lot, but it's just not possible to reconcile some of this stuff "in canon" without jumping through a lot of hoops. Like most sci-fi, there were a lot of cooks in the kitchen with different ideas, and the dish they serve reflects that. A lot of stuff ended up in ways it obviously wasn't initially intended, and makes about as much sense as you'd expect. MjolnirMan fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Aug 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
The Tok'ra were generally written pretty well in situations like that, in that they're not really substantively different from the Goa'uld in personality - they're not nice people trying to make up for anything, they just oppose the System Lords. Humans may be worth keeping around for conversation, but, let's be honest, they're just HUMANS, am I right?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
Operating in the framework of only what we're told and can infer from the original movie, this appears to be about it: - The gate only going from Earth to Abydos is fine. In that, the coordinates are less of a phone number, and more of a "point wormhole to this spatial location, there's a conduit for it there". This doesn't close off the possibility of other gates, but there doesn't need to be any because... - The point of the gate was to transport a large number of slaves from Earth to the mines. That's it. Ra can dick around in his tiny sublight yacht for thousands of years because he's immortal with the sarcophagus, but he wants to get a ton of slaves from point A to point B in the fastest way possible, not reviving a bunch of smelly peasants every 10 years one at a time. EDIT: Oh, also: - Ra's technology wasn't, ah, very good. He had [apparently sublight] slow ships, the gate, the rings, the gliders, the sarcophagus, the hand device, and the staff weapon (and associated power sources, apparently all derived from the Abydos mineral). That's totally enough to subdue a culture like the ancient Egyptians (unless they, like, all rebel at once) but it clearly never advanced from thousands of years prior and would be pretty much useless against contemporary human military things. Heck, he didn't even have windows on his ship! They went right from closed in flight to totally open to the outside air. This is a pretty conventional and fun sci-fi plot. I agree with those who said the movie had grandeur that the show lacked. I love SG-1, but it's a smaller-scale camp homage to the movie. vv: "GIVE MY REGARDS TO KING TUT, rear end in a top hat" MjolnirMan fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Sep 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:In one of the deleted scenes and Colonel and Jack discuss the remains of an Anubis guard that was uncovered with the gate and kept secret, so that's how they knew about the aliens. It was one that tried to come through the buried gate and rematerialized fuzed into the rock, so that definitely plays a role in explaining how they knew anything about what the Stargate did. That Egyptian translation was pretty spot-on too if you had evidence of alien stuff: "a million years into the sky is Ra". I also got the impression that a lot of stuff was less "Daniel figuring it out for the first time" but more "the military keeping him extremely in the dark about what they knew already", and had an idea about most of what he was figuring out [to help the audience catch up]. MjolnirMan fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Sep 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:But but but what happens if you shoot a gate with a Zat three times? It is sent back in time 38 minutes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Considering how much work they did in Trek 09 to tie the JJ timeline into the TNG+ timeline with Old Spock and his time fish being a fairly large part of one movie and a major expository cameo in the second, you could set a Stargate movie "in the same timeline as the show" x-many years after the end, and as long as you just don't go through the trouble of bringing up past stuff every 10 seconds, it could seem even MORE like a "reboot/fresh start" than Trek 09. Continuity/shared universe stuff is almost always mismanaged - it's usually an excuse to cram a reference in to continuity at the expense of plot (like IMHO Iron Man 2, but not Iron Man 3). They COULD just easily pick up with a different group (either SG team or SG ops or whatever) and not always be blathering about O'Neil or Atlantis or McKay and just focus on writing a good story with the material available. Heck, you could do it Pacific Rim style and have a 25-second recap of "found an old ring thing, aliens came out, we went in, and now here's some dudes".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:This is the sort of bullshit the threads for SG:U were filled with when it was airing. These two things have a superficial similarity, therefore one is copying the other. To be perfectly serious, that was the entire point of SGU - to be a superficial emulation of BSG to hopefully ape its success. They Cargo Culted it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 06:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Back when Tribes 2 was an active, thriving game, I was following a guy who was making a Stargate mod (maybe even a TC?) single-handed. He got to the point of having a good looking serpent guard, staff weapon, death glider, and I think a working gate, before he got a cease and desist from MGM due to his mod conflicting with a pending official Stargate FPS about to be released. I spent the next twenty years being a bit annoyed at that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 04:24
|
|