PDA

View Full Version : Ark of Truth & Continuum will be MOVIES



Daniel Jackson
April 2nd, 2007, 08:38 AM
I've seen numerous posts in various threads mention that they're direct to DVD, they're not movies. :confused: I feel this discussion disserves it's own thread. Now, I am going to explain why they are movies. Then you all can explain to me why you feel they are not movies. :)

Format of Release
There are numerous ways to release a movie. You can release it theatrically and later to DVD, air the movie on TV and then release it on DVD, or release it directly to DVD. These three formats of release are the most common. However, the format of release has nothing to do with the type of movie. Weather it's theatrical, TV, or direct to DVD, a movie is a movie. Take the SG-1 movies for example. I know it's popular to call them DVD movies, but I fail to see the point in doing so. I simply call them the SG-1 movies. If someone asks me when they're going to be released at the theater, then I tell them they'll be released on DVD. I would hope the person isn't superficial enough to put the movie down soley because of how it's being released.

Movie vs. TV Episode
In a television series, you have an ongoing series of individual stories that are each an hour long (with commercials). Stargate SG-1, as a television series, has ended with Season 10, Episode 20 "Unending." SG-1 is over. The story, however, will continue in the movie format. Specifically, SG-1 will continue as a film series which would be equal to the Star Trek film series, but on a smaller budget. Once the movies are out, when you go to the video store, you're not going to find them in the TV section with SG-1 and Atlantis season sets. You're going to find them in the movies section under science-fiction along with the original movie.

Stargate as a Trilogy
Technically, Stargate will now feature a film trilogy. Keep in mind that trilogy can mean a three-part story or a series of three independent stories. In this case, we have three Stargate movies: Stargate, The Ark of Truth, and Continuum. The first being the origin of the franchise, the two sequels being based on SG-1 which is in turn based on the original movie.

3 Television Series & 3 Movies
By the end of this year, we will have three television series and three movies.

Television Series
Stargate SG-1
Stargate: Atlantis
Stargate: Infinity

Movies
Stargate
Stargate: The Ark of Truth
Stargate: Continuum

Ripple in Space
April 2nd, 2007, 08:45 AM
You lost me at the end. Stargate: Infinity isn't considered cannon by anyone. And the Stargate: the Movie producers don't consider SG-1, or Atlantis cannon.

Nikki
April 2nd, 2007, 08:53 AM
I agree with Ripple in Space. Everything you (Daniel Jackson) said was correct except the mistakes that Ripple in Space picked up on.

Daniel Jackson
April 2nd, 2007, 09:43 AM
You lost me at the end. Stargate: Infinity isn't considered cannon by anyone.
I said we have three TV series. I never said Infinity is canon.


And the Stargate: the Movie producers don't consider SG-1, or Atlantis cannon.
The opinions of Ronnald Emmerich and Dean Devlin are irelavent. MGM owns the franchise and considers SG-1 a continuation of the movie as intended by the creators of SG-1.

Major Tyler
April 2nd, 2007, 10:06 AM
You lost me at the end. Stargate: Infinity isn't considered cannon by anyone. And the Stargate: the Movie producers don't consider SG-1, or Atlantis cannon.A cannon is a weapon used by pirates on the high seas..."canon" is an authoritative source of information that is accepted to be accurate.

http://www.answers.com/topic/canon

Pharaoh Hamenthotep
April 2nd, 2007, 03:13 PM
The opinions of Ronnald Emmerich and Dean Devlin are irelavent. MGM owns the franchise and considers SG-1 a continuation of the movie as intended by the creators of SG-1.

The opinion of Ronnald Emmerich is especially irrelevant as it was Roland Emmerich who directed the original film! I've also heard that he had planned to make stargate into a trilogy before MGM took the rights from him and gave them to someone else to make SG-1

Admiral Mappalazarou
April 2nd, 2007, 03:18 PM
Television Series
Stargate SG-1
Stargate: Atlantis
Stargate: Infinity



& Stargate: Universe.

*cringes at terrible name*

Daniel Jackson
April 2nd, 2007, 04:05 PM
The opinion of Ronnald Emmerich is especially irrelevant as it was Roland Emmerich who directed the original film! I've also heard that he had planned to make stargate into a trilogy before MGM took the rights from him and gave them to someone else to make SG-1
I assume you mean relavent, not irelavent? :confused:

Ronald Emmerich may have directed the original film, but MGM owns it. Emmerich and Devlin had two sequels planned, but before they began work on Stargate 2, two TV producers approached MGM and developed SG-1. MGM didn't take the rights from Emmerich as he never had them to begin with! What MGM did is no different than when a film studio wants to do a sequel without the original film's director.


& Stargate: Universe.

*cringes at terrible name*
I said by the end of this year. ;)

Major Tyler
April 2nd, 2007, 04:10 PM
Ark of Truth & Continuum will be MOVIESReally?! I thought they were going to be puppet theater?!

YAY puppet theater!! :D

Goddess
April 2nd, 2007, 04:29 PM
& Stargate: Universe.

*cringes at terrible name*

Well I'm seriously glad I'm not the only one who feels that way about the name.

Jarnin
April 2nd, 2007, 04:48 PM
I've also heard that he had planned to make stargate into a trilogy before MGM took the rights from him and gave them to someone else to make SG-1
MGM never "took" anything. They own the license, and have owned it since Rolland and Dean wrote the movie. Writers and directors almost never own the rights to the movies they create; the studios that fund the movies own them.
It's the same with music. The songwriters and musicians rarely own the rights to their work; the studios that pay for everything own the rights.

Pharaoh Hamenthotep
April 3rd, 2007, 06:47 AM
MGM never "took" anything. They own the license, and have owned it since Rolland and Dean wrote the movie. Writers and directors almost never own the rights to the movies they create; the studios that fund the movies own them.
It's the same with music. The songwriters and musicians rarely own the rights to their work; the studios that pay for everything own the rights.

you're right that the studio owns the copyright to stargate, but the creative rights to the idea always belong to the creator. As Emmerich and Devlin are the writers/producers/director of stargate they own the creative rights to the stargate film, premise and characters and as such have the right to object to the way their ideas are used (as in SG-1, Atlantis etc)

its the same with music, the musician owns the creative rights no matter who owns the copyright and has a say in how their music is used.

Skydiver
April 3rd, 2007, 07:07 AM
guys, haven't we settled this?

ark of truth and continuum will be feature length movies that are direct to dvd releases.

I'm not seeing what else there is to discuss, especially not rights of ownership.

Daniel Jackson
April 3rd, 2007, 09:41 AM
you're right that the studio owns the copyright to stargate, but the creative rights to the idea always belong to the creator. As Emmerich and Devlin are the writers/producers/director of stargate they own the creative rights to the stargate film, premise and characters and as such have the right to object to the way their ideas are used (as in SG-1, Atlantis etc)
Emmerich and Devlin lost their creative rights as soon as they signed a deal with MGM to produce the movie. Generally, when a movie is produced, the studio owns all rights to the production. MGM owns the rights to the movie. Emmerich and Devlin have the right to object, and MGM has the right to ignore them.

FallenAngelII
April 3rd, 2007, 11:44 AM
Of course Direct-to-DVD can mean "movie". In fact, most of the time, when someone says "Direct-to-DVD", they're talking about a movie!

How many Direct-to-DVD episode-based shows do you know of?

When people say Direct-to-DVD, they're saying Direct-to-DVD movie. They just don't include the "movie"-part. We all know they're movies. You make it sound like some people are saying they're not.

Are there people who are running around saying they're not movies? BTW, a movie only has to be 52 or something minutes in order to be considered a feature movie (i.e. not a "short").

Daniel Jackson
April 3rd, 2007, 04:41 PM
You make it sound like some people are saying they're not.
That's because they are.


Are there people who are running around saying they're not movies?
Yes.

Agent_Dark
April 3rd, 2007, 06:07 PM
The opinions of Ronnald Emmerich and Dean Devlin are irelavent. MGM owns the franchise and considers SG-1 a continuation of the movie as intended by the creators of SG-1.
Actually... no. SG-1 is based on the Stargate movie. Not a sequal or a continuation.

Daniel Jackson
April 3rd, 2007, 07:46 PM
"Children of the Gods" is literally a direct sequel to the movie. Sure, there are some changes, but these were done to make the concept TV friendly.

Explain to us how SG-1 is not a continuation of the movie.

Agent_Dark
April 3rd, 2007, 07:54 PM
"Children of the Gods" is literally a direct sequel to the movie. Sure, there are some changes, but these were done to make the concept TV friendly.

Explain to us how SG-1 is not a continuation of the movie.

Because there's a whole heap of changes. Names, places even concepts. If it was a direct sequal it'd be the same... The only sequals would come from the original creators, like they were supposedly planning to do.

the fifth man
April 3rd, 2007, 08:03 PM
guys, haven't we settled this?

ark of truth and continuum will be feature length movies that are direct to dvd releases.

I'm not seeing what else there is to discuss, especially not rights of ownership.

Yep, Ark of Truth and Continuum are definitely movies. No doubt about it in my mind. And personally, I can't wait for them to come out.:D

Daniel Jackson
April 3rd, 2007, 08:07 PM
Because there's a whole heap of changes.
They're all superficial and have no impact on the story.


Names, places even concepts.
Names are superficial and have no impact on the story. The only places that were changed are the mountain the Stargate is under and the location of the planet seen in the movie. The mountain is virtually the same, but with a different name. This has no impact on the story. Abydos being the closest Stargate to Earth instead of in a distant galaxy, again, has no impact on the story.

The only concept that was change was Ra and his alien race. This was done to make the concept TV friendly, otherwise they'd have to create a new villain from scratch. Personally, I liked the reimagining of Ra and his people.


If it was a direct sequal it'd be the same...
Agreed.


The only sequals would come from the original creators, like they were supposedly planning to do.
Unfortunately, those sequels will never be made due to the existance of SG-1.

Agent_Dark
April 3rd, 2007, 08:31 PM
Names are superficial and have no impact on the story. The only places that were changed are the mountain the Stargate is under and the location of the planet seen in the movie. The mountain is virtually the same, but with a different name. This has no impact on the story. Abydos being the closest Stargate to Earth instead of in a distant galaxy, again, has no impact on the story.

The only concept that was change was Ra and his alien race. This was done to make the concept TV friendly, otherwise they'd have to create a new villain from scratch. Personally, I liked the reimagining of Ra and his people.
You said it yourself - it's been reimagined. Therefore, it's not in the same canon. SG1 is based off the Stargate movie. According to SG1 canon, a similiar series of events occured as to what happened in the Movie. But the Movie itself isn't part of the SG-1/Atlantis canon.


Unfortunately, those sequels will never be made due to the existance of SG-1.
Which implies that SG1 is not a sequel of the movie, because otherwise how could Emmerich's sequal's even exist as a concept?

Daniel Jackson
April 3rd, 2007, 09:28 PM
You said it yourself - it's been reimagined.
I said the villain was reimagined, not the story.


Therefore, it's not in the same canon.
The U.S.S. Enterprise was reimagined for the movies in the form of an upgrade, but it's obviously a different model. I guess the movies aren't in the same canon as the TV show? Worf's cranial ridges were changed after TNG's first season to look "less busy." I guess TNG Seasons 2-7 aren't in the same canon as Season 1? Batman is recast from Michael Keaton to Val Kilmer to George Clooney. I guess Forever and & Robin aren't in the same continuity as Batman and Returns, eh? I could go on and on, but I've made my point. Reimagining a concept within the story does not mean the story has been set in a new continuity.


SG1 is based off the Stargate movie.
Agreed.


According to SG1 canon, a similiar series of events occured as to what happened in the Movie. But the Movie itself isn't part of the SG-1/Atlantis canon.
We've already been over this: aspects of the movie were changed to make the concept TV friendly. They weren't starting over. The first episode makes several direct references to the movie.


Which implies that SG1 is not a sequel of the movie, because otherwise how could Emmerich's sequal's even exist as a concept?
It's called someone else came along and continued the story. It happens all the time.

Agent_Dark
April 3rd, 2007, 10:26 PM
It's called someone else came along and continued the story. It happens all the time.
Someone else came along and 'continued the story' with Stargate Infinity. Someone else came along and 'continued the story' with Battlestar Galactica 1980. They aren't considered canon to the respective original shows. Stargate the movie was produced, written, directed and acted by completely differently people to SG1. Atlantis and Universe will be produced and written by the same people as SG1. They're written to completely tie in with SG1.

FallenAngelII
April 4th, 2007, 02:11 AM
I'm sorry... when did MGM say "Stargate SG-1 is a direct sequel to Stargate: The Movie" instead of "Stargate SG-1 is a new TV-show based on Stargate: The Movie"? Yeah, never.

And a lot of things changed. The eye-glowing effect is slightly different, Abydos is the planet closest to Earth in the Milky Way galaxy instead of being located on the other side of the Universe, Katherine no longer has an accent, the gate's chevrons light up, the facility no longer shakes violently when the gate is used, Jack's entire personality changed, etc...

Tell me, how are any of those changes, besides the Abydos one (and possibly the chevron thing), "TV-friendlier"? They were changed because the show producers wanted them changed, because they liked it better that way. In no way are they automatically TV-friendlier than how they were in the movie.

And fact still remains: MGM never called it a direct sequel. You calling it that doesn't really change anything.

jenks
April 4th, 2007, 04:53 AM
I've always considered SG-1 to be a seperate canon to the movie, not a continuation. I'd have to disagree that the changes are all superficial, the fact that Abydoss is in another galaxy in the movie makes one hell of a difference for a start, not to mention the fact that O'neill is a totally different character in the movie.

Daniel Jackson
April 4th, 2007, 09:03 AM
Someone else came along and 'continued the story' with Stargate Infinity.
Indeed they did. However, it was such a bad cartoon, it got dropped from cannon. lol To be fair, Star Trek's cartoon isn't cannon either. ;)


Someone else came along and 'continued the story' with Battlestar Galactica 1980.
Never saw the show.


Stargate the movie was produced, written, directed and acted by completely differently people to SG1.
I understand that.


Atlantis and Universe will be produced and written by the same people as SG1. They're written to completely tie in with SG1.
I understand that. However, you forget that SG-1 "Children of the Gods" was written to pick up one year after the events of the movie. We see O'Neill, Jackson, the desert planet now named Abydos, Jackson's wife, I could go on and on. To say it's not a continuation of the movie is ludicrus! :S


I'm sorry... when did MGM say "Stargate SG-1 is a direct sequel to Stargate: The Movie" instead of "Stargate SG-1 is a new TV-show based on Stargate: The Movie"? Yeah, never.
I can't reference any qoutes, but it's a bit obvious when watching the first episode and the Season 1 DVD special features where the SG-1 creators talk about continuing the movie.


And a lot of things changed. The eye-glowing effect is slightly different, Abydos is the planet closest to Earth in the Milky Way galaxy instead of being located on the other side of the Universe, Katherine no longer has an accent, the gate's chevrons light up, the facility no longer shakes violently when the gate is used, Jack's entire personality changed, etc...
The eye-glowing effect is slightly different? LOL The location of Abydos was changed for SG-1. Abydos could have been anywhere in the movie, and it would not have changed the story at all. Katherine no longer has an accent because the movie actress died (I think) and had to be recast. Recasting happens all the time in television, typically when they want it's a character we haven't seen for a few years. The gate's chevrons light up, because they had to rebuild the Stargate. They decided to improve the design. Personally, I prefer the glowing chevrons. The facility shook in the first few episodes. Later episodes suggest that this was because the Stargate was barely recieving enough power. Jack's entire personality changed? Duh. He got over the death of his son thanks to his trip through the Stargate and friendship with Skaara. All of these things you bring up can be explained if you think about it instead of declaring the movie noncannon, just because it's slightly different. :rolleyes:

Hey, Season 9 of SG-1 uses a new wormhole effect. Seasons 9 & 10 aren't cannon. :)


Tell me, how are any of those changes, besides the Abydos one (and possibly the chevron thing), "TV-friendlier"?
I already explained.


They were changed because the show producers wanted them changed, because they liked it better that way.
Duh.


In no way are they automatically TV-friendlier than how they were in the movie.
Some were, some weren't. It depends on what was changed. The change to Ra and his people was one that was changed for the sake of being TV-friendlier. Having the Stargate light up was a change just for the sake of showing us something new.


And fact still remains: MGM never called it a direct sequel.
Maybe so, but the cast and crew made it clear that they consider "Children of the Gods" as much. Watch the Season 1 DVD bonus features if you don't believe me.

FallenAngelII
April 4th, 2007, 11:44 AM
They said continuing the movie, but they never said that it's meant as a direct sequel. Whenever the PTB or Roland and Emmerich speak of the movie and the show, they talk about them in terms of different continuities.

It's not an unheard of things to have TV-shows based on movies be vastly different. Or for several TV-shows to exist in the same continuum (same world) and be different and have different continuities.

It's the case with SG-1 and SGtM

Daniel Jackson
April 4th, 2007, 12:10 PM
They said continuing the movie, but they never said that it's meant as a direct sequel.
Continuation, sequel, same thing.


Whenever the PTB or Roland and Emmerich speak of the movie and the show, they talk about them in terms of different continuities.
Whenever I've heard them speak of the show, they childishly put it down, because they didn't get to make Stargate 2 & 3 as a result. Of coarse Emmerich and Devlin want to think of the show as a separate continuity, they have nothing to do with it!


It's not an unheard of things to have TV-shows based on movies be vastly different.
I'm aware of this.


Or for several TV-shows to exist in the same continuum (same world) and be different and have different continuities.
If the shows have different continuities, they're not in the same creative world unless you're thinking of something like Superman in which case I'd argue that each TV show is it's own creative world.


It's the case with SG-1 and SGtM
SGtM? Stargate the movie?

The way I see it, if Emmerich and Devlin got to make their two sequels, there would be two Stargate continuities.

Stargate
Stargate 2
Stargate 3

Stargate
Stargate SG-1
Stargate: The Ark of Truth
Stargate: Continuum
Stargate: Atlantis
Stargate: Continuum (Coming out in 2008.)

In any event, Stargate 2 & 3 is a moot point, because the average movie goer doesn't care about alternate continuities. They're well aware of SG-1 (thanks to syndication) and would consider a movie that ignores SG-1 pointless.

jenks
April 4th, 2007, 04:01 PM
Most people I know like the movie but have never seen the series. I'm sure if Devlin made his movies it would confuse alot of casual viewers of the series, they aren't going to know that it's a seperate canon.

Ganthet Jr.
April 4th, 2007, 04:46 PM
To be honest, it makes a whole lot more sense to me that SG-1 continues the film. Imagine explaining it to someone.

As a continuation of the film...
Jim: So what's SG-1?
Bob: SG-1 picks up one year after the movie.
Jim: But wait, what about all the differences.
Bob: Eh, just ignore that. They had to change stuff around to make it fit their story.
Jim: Oooh. Okay.


As a separate universe...
Jim: So what's SG-1?
Bob: It's a show that kind of takes place after the end of the movie, but not really because it's a different continuity.
Jim: So how did it take place one year after anything?
Bob: Welllllll imagine that the events of the movie happened, but they looked like the people from the show, and all the things different from the film weren't in there.
Jim: Oh, okay. Well... wouldn't it be easier to look at the film and ignore the inconsistencies?
Bob: Yeah, I guess.


Here's my point: The events from the film took place in both it's own canon and in SG-1's. The film as a whole is part of it's own canon, true. BUT.... when you eliminate the "errors", you've got yourself the SG-1 version of the events. The two versions, to me, are so similar that they might as well be the same thing, so I look at is as such. There is such a thing as overcomplicating things.