What level of quallity do you expect?

[Daniel Jackson]

What level of quallity do you expect from the movies? When I first heard about the movies being direct-to-video, I was expecting something comparable to SG-1 "Lost City" or SG:A "Rising," but filmed as a movie instead of a long episode. However, from a lot of images release for SG:TAOT, I'm now inclined to think that these could be the most cinematic adventures of the franchise, second only to the original movie since that was on a feature film budget.

[kirmit]

What level of quallity do you expect from the movies? When I first heard about the movies being direct-to-video, I was expecting something comparable to SG-1 "Lost City" or SG:A "Rising," but filmed as a movie instead of a long episode. However, from a lot of images release for SG:TAOT, I'm now inclined to think that these could be the most cinematic adventures of the franchise, second only to the original movie since that was on a feature film budget.

I think it could exceed the original movie aswell in terms of quality. Think about it CGI is cheaper than it was then, the original movie itself didn't feature a whole lot of cgi, they already have standing sets to work with, the actors with have are imo just as good or better than those in the original movie. To sum it up, I think it'll be an entirely new stargate experience, we'll be blown away by seeing stargate like we've never seen it before.

[Daniel Jackson]

There's no way these movies could outdo the original movie in quallity. The original movie is too recent, and the SG-1 movies are on a tiny budget in comparison. They could come close, though.

CGI is overrated. I think it looks cheap compared to practical effects happening on the set itself. Now all CGI looks cheap, though. It depends on the context. My concern is that they'll use CGI to avoid the expense of the real thing. For example, a CGI boat on the ocean instead of actually filming a real boat on the ocean. To me, that is cheap. The standing sets are indeed a plus, but any indoor sets representing an outdoor location will feel like TV, not a movie. The actors are all TV actors, not movie actors. Neither is supperior to the other, but they are different. TV actors can't give the same feel that a movie actor would give you and vice versa.

Did you watch Star Trek: The Next Generation? Remember how cinematic those movies were compared to the TV show? Imagine if First Contact was no more cinematic than "The Best of Both Worlds." Would it still have been as good?

Keep in mind I'm talking about production quallity, not the story.

[maylet]

I hope we get the best level of quallity

[Daniel Jackson]

I am sure we will get the best quallity they can afford to give us.

[kirmit]

There's no way these movies could outdo the original movie in quallity. The original movie is too recent, and the SG-1 movies are on a tiny budget in comparison. They could come close, though.

Can I ask when you last watched the movie? look at the visual effects, look at the sets, look at the action. None of it was really that great, it was great for it's time and I do love it but these upcoming movies could easily outdo it even on a much smaller budget. The movies budget had to deal with CGI which took up a big chunk because it was so expensive back then, it also had a couple of big movie stars in it, which would add to the budget, sets had to built from scratch. Really if the movie was done the exact same way nowadays, you could likely get away with doing it for a few million dollars, the only thing eating up the budget would be the big movie stars. The upcoming movies have the advantage of much much cheaper CGI, lots of sets already standing, an experienced set building team who can build sets alot cheaper but to an equal or surpassing standard and great actors who are alot cheaper. Really the only thing the movies have to worry about is the story, the original had a fresh and new story which captured alot of peoples imaginations. If the story for these movies can do the same then they could surpass the original and I'm saying this as someone who really loves the original.

[Wraith_Boy]

As long as they keep the writing of decent quality , then all should be fine!!!

[Daniel Jackson]

I haven't seen it recently, but I remember it very well. The only special effect that aged poorly is the helmets retracting into nothing shots. The rest still looks fantastic. The sets and action are fantastic. As much as I like SG-1, it's sets have a TV feel that just can't replicate that cinematic feel of the original movie. Watch the movie, then "Children of the Gods," and you'll see what I mean. I'm guessing your expecation for the SG-1 movies to outdo the original movie in quallity comes from a dislike of the original movie rather than comparing the production quallity? There really wasn't that much CGI in Stargate. The Stargate event horizon, the trip through the Stargate, the death gliders, and the morphing helmets were CGI. Just about everything else was either on set or done with models. A movie doesn't necessarily have to have movie stars The ST:TNG movies got by just fine by using the TV cast with a movie star in a supporting role to attract the movie crowd. In the SG-1 movies, Beau Bridges will serve that in the first movie, and then RDA and Bridges will serve that in the second movie.

Cheap CGI isn't necessarilly a good thing. I want CGI that's convincing, but I also don't want to see it if they can use something real just as easilly. Why have a CGI boat when you can have a real boat? That sort of thing bugs me, because it looks fake. Where CGI doesn't look fake is when you use it for something that can't be done in reality, because then the audience doesn't have something real to compare it to. The sets will need a redress and shot differently if they are to appear cinematic. From the promotional pictures I've seen, they look exactly as they did on the TV show.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing the movies nor anyone involved. I am simply saying that I feel like we might get a 97 minute episode rather than a movie. However, this concern is based on promotional images where people and sets look exactly as they did on the TV show.

[Jeff O'Connor]

Yeah, but you're telling us to compare the feature film to the series premiere. The feature film was a blockbuster with a fairly big budget in 1994 and the series premiere was a 1997 production with an iffy OK from the bigwigs, wasn't it?

SG-1's budget increased over time and so too did the technology employed in making it what it would eventually become known for in the visual effects field. (Just like most sci-fi out there, really.)

We can compare Stargate to 'Children of the Gods' and I'd be inclined to agree with you fully, presuming COTG was what SG-1 looked like for the next ten years. But comparing the film to, say, 'Lost City', that's a different story, isn't it?

While to an extent I agree that not all CGI is auto-win, at the same time, I think a lot of what both shows has done doesn't look too shoddy. Not at all. I still have fond memories of being excessively riveted when watching 'The Siege' trilogy on SGA, and all sorts of moments thereafter. Same with SG-1.

I know where you're coming from, but maybe so long as TPTB offer some sweeping overviews and breathtaking scenery, if it's all infused well into the relatively big budget they've got going on for the upcoming chapters, I think you might be pleasantly surprised.

[kirmit]

I actually think the helmets is the one thing that even to this day surpasses SG-1, that cgi imo was amazing. There wasn't actually that many visual effects, we have the event horizon which still is better, we have Ra's ship landing, easily replicated for a fraction of the cost, the gliders flying and firing, agains easily replicated and infact done better (The Lost City). The Jaffa firing, yep done in the series and looks just as good. Also the city on Abydos but SG-1 can do this easily aswell.

Now sets, really in the movie there were only 3 real important sets, the gateroom, Ra's main room and the inside of the pyramid. SG-1's gateroom looks great, for it to look like the movie one all they'd need to do is darken the lights and add a blue hue to it. Ra's main room, now I'll admit this has never been replicated in SG-1, the grandness of it. However considering the Atlantis gateroom looks so good and grand and was done for a fraction of the cost of these movies, it could be easily replicated. The inside of the pyramid wasn't really a great set and could easily be re done, to just as good quality for a fraction of the cost.

Movies done 10 odd years ago could easily be redone nowadays for a fraction of the cost because of progression and how much easier things have been made. Like I've said many many times I love the original movie, all I'm saying it with as good as story these movies could surpass it.

[Jumper_One]

I think both movies will be awesome. characters, CGI, stories are all great. though I do expect much more from Continuum what with O'Neill in it and the whole Arctic sequence. can't wait to see that

[Daniel Jackson]

What I'm trying to say is that CGI does not make a movie cinematic. The difference between a big budget movie and a low budget movie is lighting, directing, acting, props, the way the camerman films a scene, and so forth. So far, from what I've seen in promotional photos, The Ark of Truth does not look any different from a regular SG-1 episode from Season 9 or 10.

[jenks]

I know they're filming with 35mm film, which is always a plus.

[enfinitee]

Haha, to be honest, the trailer on the season 10 dvd made me have low expectations (PAPYRUS! THEY USED PAPYRUS! It's even on the poster on wikipedia)

[jenks]

Because a font can either make or break a movie...