MGM/Warner Bros teaming up with Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin Stargate Reboot

[Traianus Augustus]

I love Vala and I love Aeryn. Vala really made me love SG1 again.

DD & RE are indeed no match for George Lucas - however, if I'm not mistaken than a lot of the hardcore Star Wars fans are none too pleased with the newer films. It isn't all Jar-Jar's fault. So I think it's probably reasonable to think that Stargate will bring this sort of divide as well. And while Star Wars gets an episode VII next year... I don't know whether Stargate can spawn that much revenue in comparison to the SW franchise, that it will be given extra films (even though it was envisioned as a trilogy) or new series.

I agree. Whether or not the whole trilogy will be made will depend on what kind of revenue the first film brings in. And Stargate doesn't have the same broad public exposure that Star Wars and Star Trek has; meaning that while Wars and Trek have become household names, Stargate is more obscure. Even among many of my friends who are scifi fans some haven't even heard of Stargate or are only vaguely aware of it.

If Emmerich and Devlin play their cards right and the reboot turns into a hit with the general movie-going public then it will greatly strengthen the possibility of them completing their trilogy. If I remember right the original 1994 film performed very well at the box office, grossing $125 million worldwide, but was derided by several prominent movie critics. This reboot would give Emmerich and Devlin the opportunity to fix whatever problems they had with the original film and improve it. And with today's special effects, the reboot could be pretty frigin' awesome.

If they do stick with the original storyline of the 1994 film I wonder who they'll get to play Ra. I thought Jaye Davidson did a great job as the false god. He didn't look physically intimidating, but he was scary in his cold demeanor and utter lack of remorse.

[thekillman]

I don't know whether Stargate can spawn that much revenue in comparison to the SW franchise, that it will be given extra films (even though it was envisioned as a trilogy) or new series.

I think there's an important aspect of SG1 too easily forgotten: stargate has been a reliable source of income for MGM. A good portion of that was apparently DVD sales, however if the Stargate movies can make good, reliable money there's no reason to not make a sequel (or second trilogy or whatever). Stargate has precedence that it is possible, and though it probably won't rake in SW levels of money (note: SW is pretty much the exception, not the rule) it can still rake in neat amounts of reliable money. It doesn't have to be exceptional, it simply has to be good enough.

[Niddle]

The only problem with all of this is the simple fact that Stargate made a lot of money for MGM, but THAT WAS ON THE TV SIDE.

To discount all those years of continuity and move on with something related to the original film... It's not the same thing. If they'd decided to do something with the TV universe and characters, THAT would be a ready-made audience.

To do a series of films that ignore the beloved TV shows and just go on, possibly in the universe of the original movie...no.

Not as much of a money-maker as some might think.

[Niddle]

No it won't Online petitions never work

Just like the Star Trek didn't get saved on TV in the sixties by a write-in campaign.

Just like the tabasco sauce campaign didn't extend the life of the show Roswell.

Just like the "Save Farscape" campaign didn't result in the mini-series that wrapped up the storyline of the TV show.

Right. Petitions never work.

[majorsal]

Just like the Star Trek didn't get saved on TV in the sixties by a write-in campaign.

Just like the tabasco sauce campaign didn't extend the life of the show Roswell.

Just like the "Save Farscape" campaign didn't result in the mini-series that wrapped up the storyline of the TV show.

Right. Petitions never work.

[jelgate]

Just like the Star Trek didn't get saved on TV in the sixties by a write-in campaign.

Just like the tabasco sauce campaign didn't extend the life of the show Roswell.

Just like the "Save Farscape" campaign didn't result in the mini-series that wrapped up the storyline of the TV show.

Right. Petitions never work.

Nice try. I said online petitions. In this day where it's simple to make petitions. The difference is that in Star Treks day it was harder to organize petitions which is it worked more successfully. Its an apple to oranges cimparasion.

[Falcon Horus]

What Jelgate said.

If the viewing numbers are not there, money is not being made and shows get cancelled.

[Dr. Michael Benjamin]

My point was not to show your imagined or perceived ignorance of Scifi, it was to show that an opinion of an actor based on one piece of work is not a good way to go.
For Example, I severely dislike Rush as a character, I thought he was flat and uninteresting, yet still the most enjoyable character to watch in SGU. I would NOT however make the same claim for Robert Carlyle as I very much enjoy his work in Once Upon A Time.

I'm sure no one wants to beat the SGU dead horse anymore. But I will say that I thought one of the positives of that show was the acting. While no one will confuse it for classic television, the cast - especially Robert Carlyle-did a credible job with what the powers that be gave them to work with.

Actors can only work with what they are given, and you can find MANY threads and people who would agree with you on Cam and Vala *as characters* being equally flat and pointless.
What you may not find is threads saying Ben Browder or Claudia Black are "Ham Fisted Actors".

I agree with your sentiment about the actors. But please reread what I posted. I claimed Browder's acting was ham fisted-not Black. Comparing the two actors I believe Black did a much better job than Browder. This is even more commendable considering the Vala character was very poor.

You may as well have had badly cooked Pasta and come to the conclusion that "all pasta is garbage" without trying different types and different chefs. Your viewpoint is narrow, and limited; which would be fine if you contained your commentary to Cam and Vala. You chose not to and opened it up to the actors in question. As a result, your knowledge of them as actors becomes fair game as you yourself have shifted the topic from the characters of SG-1 to the actors who played their parts, and you are self admittedly ignorant of the actors.

I understand what you're saying and you make a good point. However, I stand by my assertion. Browder appeared in forty episodes of SG-1 and Black appeared in twenty-nine. In addition to Continuum and Ark of truth, I believe that their body of work on SG-1 lends a sufficient amount of evidence with which to make a determination of their acting abilities.

Browder's body of work in SG-1 approximates half of the body of work he produced on Farscape. Black's body of work on SG-1 approximates roughly one third of the body of work she produced on the same series. As professional actors they should be able to be appraised based on a handful of episodes and not the series in general. Interestingly enough, Carlyle appeared in exactly the same number of episodes of SGU as Browder did in SG-1 (forty) yet the final product from Carlyle was substantially better than that of Browder.

To then claim "the topic is SG-1" on a thread that nothing to do with SG-1, but a reboot of the original movie..............
Well, I will let others decide on how they feel about that.

Again I agree with your logic. But in my original post I used the topic we are now discussing as a minor one to provide support for my main thesis about the reboot of the original movie. For whatever reason several have found this secondary topic more interesting than the main topic. But this side discussion was not by my choosing.

I'll conclude here by once again stating that this is a completely subjective issue. It is clear that many feel Browder and Black are talented actors. I do not share that opinion but I do respect the views of others.

[Dr. Michael Benjamin]

The only problem with all of this is the simple fact that Stargate made a lot of money for MGM, but THAT WAS ON THE TV SIDE.

To discount all those years of continuity and move on with something related to the original film... It's not the same thing. If they'd decided to do something with the TV universe and characters, THAT would be a ready-made audience.

To do a series of films that ignore the beloved TV shows and just go on, possibly in the universe of the original movie...no.

Not as much of a money-maker as some might think.

I don't know if that's an apt comparison. You are comparing one 120 minute feature film to hundreds of hours of three television series and several feature length films from those same series. Also, while I don't have any numbers to base it on, I don't think the Stargate television franchise was that much of a money maker. At least not as much of a money maker when compared to the potential profitability of a new film trilogy. It could be that with the reboot the television canon will no longer be considered canon (much the same way the upcoming Episode VII will relegate the EU to irrelevance). But I've said all along that a reboot could also open the door to one or more Stargate television series.

[majorsal]

I don't know if that's an apt comparison. You are comparing one 120 minute feature film to hundreds of hours of three television series and several feature length films from those same series. Also, while I don't have any numbers to base it on, I don't think the Stargate television franchise was that much of a money maker. At least not as much of a money maker when compared to the potential profitability of a new film trilogy. It could be that with the reboot the television canon will no longer be considered canon (much the same way the upcoming Episode VII will relegate the EU to irrelevance). But I've said all along that a reboot could also open the door to one or more Stargate television series.

not sure if that's going to be the case, but THAT is what a lot of fans are bothered about.


why can't mgm just split the two franchises once and for all? let the em/dev project go ahead ( x 10 ), but let someone else take hold of the tv franchise and bring it back to life. it doesn't even have to be the same powers that be doing the writing, but someone that actually loves and respects the tv franchise mythology.

just pick it up with new characters and a new agenda, and happy/happy for the tv franchise fans.

[Falcon Horus]

For whatever reason several have found this secondary topic more interesting than the main topic. But this side discussion was not by my choosing.

Dude, if you want people on GW to be on topic all the time, then this place would be like a ghost town...

[Dr. Michael Benjamin]

I agree. Whether or not the whole trilogy will be made will depend on what kind of revenue the first film brings in. And Stargate doesn't have the same broad public exposure that Star Wars and Star Trek has; meaning that while Wars and Trek have become household names, Stargate is more obscure. Even among many of my friends who are scifi fans some haven't even heard of Stargate or are only vaguely aware of it.

I think the entire trilogy is pretty much a done deal. Look at what was done with the Lord of the Rings, Marvel films and Star Wars. There seems to be a built-in format for doing a block of films for a franchise. Stargate is a wonderfuly imaginative concept. It provides a great story telling generator once the wormhole is engaged. One thing Stargate also has is a kernel of believability that many other sci-fi franchises don't. There is a great deal of scientific interest in wormholes nowadays and it wouldn't be THAT far fetched to many to think there could be a secret military installation where some type of interstellar travel is taking place.

To compare Stargate to the sci-fi big boys of Star Trek and Star Wars isn't very fair. In its initial run Star Trek was a forgettable sci-fi series that lasted three seasons in the late 60s. It wasn't until a decade later that Star Trek came back into mainstream with a bad film. But it was able to build popularity from a series of films and spinoff series. The popularity of Star Trek in recent memory was due in large part to the decades of building a fan base from a saturation of silver and TV screens with their product. Star Wars is a bit different. George Lucas created a strange sci-fi film that (at the time) no studio executive understood. It was considered so bad Lucas was able to keep merchandising rights to the film. Of course after it was released it skyrocketed to blockbuster status. It was a case of the right movie released at the right time. Most of the movies made in the 70s (other than what Speilberg was doing) were serious, hard hitting, close to the vest films like the Godfather or the French Connection. Moviegoers were ripe for an escape and that's exactly what Star Wars provided. It gave the audience a rich and well-worn galaxy to visit and it was just plain fun to watch! The establishment of Star Wars as a sci-fi gold standard came with the acclaimed success of its sequel (or was it a true sequel?). The Empire Strikes Back proved that sci-fi could be a mountain of spaceships and laser blasts and aliens but also have a truly gripping story. The prequel trilogy, while not very good, just added tonnage to an already obese George Lucas bank account. Now that Star Wars is under Disney's wing things are only going to get more profitable for the franchise.

The upcoming Stargate trilogy, while not likely to grow a vast rabid fanbase like Star Trek or find instant moneymaking icon status like Star Wars, should be able to grow the franchise to an extent that it will find its deserved place among heavy hitters of the genre.

[Dr. Michael Benjamin]

Dude, if you want people on GW to be on topic all the time, then this place would be like a ghost town...

Ha ha. I'm not bothered how the discussions take on a life of their own. I do my best to make myself clear and will always discuss with the utmost respect and civility for fellow Stargate fans..even if we may not see eye to eye.

[majorsal]

i wish mgm hadn't have given up on the tv franchise.

but maybe they gave up on brad/rob really...

[The Shrike]

Dean Devlin

This is mostly about the Independence Day sequel, which is now one movie, but the article touches on the Stargate film at the end:

"And by the way, it looks like ID4 Part 2 (or Independence Day Forever or whatever it winds up being called) will impact Devlin and Emmerich’s planned Stargate revival. That film will now have to wait for the ID4 sequel to be completed, according to the producer, since Emmerich wants to direct the new Stargate as well."

So, 2016 will be the earliest they start filming Stargate, and Emmerich will be directing.

At the earliest, this movie will be released in 2018.