PDA

View Full Version : Stargate (1994) vs SG-1 : Continuity differences



Col.Jack
October 30th, 2008, 04:09 AM
This has most probably been noticed before, but I was just watching the Stargate movie, and at the start when they first open the gate one of the scientists in the control room states
"It's on the other side of the known universe" (referring to Abydos).
There are two problems with this statement.
1. The stargate only goes to inside this GALAXY without the 8th Chevron
2. It is stated in SG-1 that Abydos is the closest planet to earth with a Stargate.

jelgate
October 30th, 2008, 04:11 AM
Adapting Stargate into SG1 resulted in a few contuniity errors on the part of the movie

wizz_kid_sid
October 30th, 2008, 05:21 AM
that was because scientists thought our galaxy was alot smaller than they've imagined :)

bfldworker
October 30th, 2008, 05:29 AM
There are actually a few continuity errors. With that being the big glaring one.

There is the size of the Stargate in the movie when you compare it to the one in SG-1, there are the Chevrons that move in the movie and not in SG-1. There is the back of the Stargate in the movie compared to SG-1 (There is a cone shape vortex in the back of the gate in the movie, when there isn't one in SG-1.). There is the Gate room it's self, the one in the movie is tiny compared to SG-1. Then there is the whole mountain situation. In the movie it is Creek Mountain and in SG1 it is Cheyenne Mountain. Then there is what the Control Room looks like.

jenks
October 30th, 2008, 05:36 AM
They're not exactly errors, the SG-1 canon is separate, the writers knew exactly what they were doing.

sldghamr
October 30th, 2008, 05:56 AM
TPTB found it easier to manage a galaxy vs managing a universe. that is why they decided to have Abydos in our galaxy vs on the other side of the universe.

Arthurdent
October 30th, 2008, 10:27 AM
There are actually a few continuity errors. With that being the big glaring one.

There is the size of the Stargate in the movie when you compare it to the one in SG-1, there are the Chevrons that move in the movie and not in SG-1. There is the back of the Stargate in the movie compared to SG-1 (There is a cone shape vortex in the back of the gate in the movie, when there isn't one in SG-1.). There is the Gate room it's self, the one in the movie is tiny compared to SG-1. Then there is the whole mountain situation. In the movie it is Creek Mountain and in SG1 it is Cheyenne Mountain. Then there is what the Control Room looks like.

You forgot the biggest change of all: Jack O'Neil became Jack O'Neill. ;):jack:

jadedfirefly
October 30th, 2008, 02:43 PM
In more ways than one! :jack_new_anime07:

Daniel Jackson
October 30th, 2008, 03:37 PM
There are no continuity errors. The movie and SG-1 are not separate. The producers simply made creative changes to the premise so the TV show would be more interesting.

jenks
October 31st, 2008, 03:18 AM
The two canons are separate, neither canon directly affects the other. In the movie canon the events of the series don't apply, and in the series the events of the movie only apply loosely.

Anda
October 31st, 2008, 03:28 AM
It's nice to think that all started from these movie!!!!!

Daniel Jackson
November 5th, 2008, 07:35 PM
The two canons are separate, neither canon directly affects the other. In the movie canon the events of the series don't apply, and in the series the events of the movie only apply loosely.
The main canon consists of...

Stargate (the movie)
SG-1 Seasons 1-7
SG-1 Seasons 8-10 / Atlantis Seasons 1-3
The Ark of Truth
Atlantis Seasons 4-5
Continuum (early SG:A Season 5)

The differences between the movie and TV show do not make them separate. Use your imagination and accept that creative changes were made to make the premise TV friendly. MGM considers the show an official continuation of the movie as does everyone involved. You can call them separate all you want, but they aren't.

jenks
November 6th, 2008, 07:43 AM
The main canon consists of...

Stargate (the movie)
SG-1 Seasons 1-7
SG-1 Seasons 8-10 / Atlantis Seasons 1-3
The Ark of Truth
Atlantis Seasons 4-5
Continuum (early SG:A Season 5)

The differences between the movie and TV show do not make them separate. Use your imagination and accept that creative changes were made to make the premise TV friendly.

What you've described is the Brad/Rob endorsed canon, there is no 'main canon'. The movie was made by Devlin and Emmerich, they don't endorse the series and therefore the two canons are separate. Brad and Rob don't accept the movie as canon, they've changed the events and characters, therefore in relation to the series, the movie is no more than a reference material, only loosely tied to the series. You can call the changed creative decisions all you want, but the fact is Brad and Rob don't control the movie canon so they're in no positions to make those decisions (neither are MGM), SG-1 was a re-imagined version of the movie if anything, the storyline, tone and even characters have been changed massively, apart from the premise the two canons are nothing alike.


MGM considers the show an official continuation of the movie as does everyone involved. You can call them separate all you want, but they aren't.

MGM considers the comics to be a direct continuation of the series, are they canon too?

Daniel Jackson
November 6th, 2008, 08:41 AM
What you've described is the Brad/Rob endorsed canon, there is no 'main canon'.
What I described is what I consider the main canon. ;)


The movie was made by Devlin and Emmerich, they don't endorse the series and therefore the two canons are separate.
Wether they endorse SG-1 or not is irelavent. SG-1 picks up where the movie left off with the same characters, locations, and stories; therefore it is a canon continuation. Should there be sequels made to the original movie, there would be two official continuations. The original movie and it's two sequels would be one canon. The original movie, TV shows, and movies based on those shows would be another canon.


Brad and Rob don't accept the movie as canon, they've changed the events and characters, therefore in relation to the series, the movie is no more than a reference material, only loosely tied to the series.
What? Are you kidding me? "Children of the Gods" plays out as a direct sequel to the movie. Same characters, same locations. O'Neill comes back out of retirement, Daniel is still on Abydos with Sha're, and Ra is revealed to not have been the last of his species as ancient Abydonians had once thought. You're refusal to accept the movie as part of SG-1 is downright hysterical!


You can call the changed creative decisions all you want
Thanks, because that's exactly what they are.


but the fact is Brad and Rob don't control the movie canon so they're in no positions to make those decisions (neither are MGM)
Since when is MGM not in control? Devlin and Emmerich have been trying to make Stargate 2, but MGM has repeatedly denied them, because they consider SG-1 as the official continuation of the movie.


SG-1 was a re-imagined version of the movie if anything
I will agree that a lot was reimagined, but that doesn't mean it's not a continuation.


the storyline, tone and even characters have been changed massively, apart from the premise the two canons are nothing alike.
The storyline, tone, and characters did not change. The only thing of any significance that changed was Ra from being a man-like alien within a Human body to being a snake-like parasite who abandoned an alien host in favor of a Human host. All other changes have been cosmetic such as recasting, different sets, the Stargate chevrons glowing, Sha'uri to Sha're, and so on.


MGM considers the comics to be a direct continuation of the series, are they canon too?
Comics? What comics?

jenks
November 6th, 2008, 09:53 AM
We might as well end this discussion here, as if you don't think the storyline, tone and characters changed then we're obviously living in different realities. Your argument probably should have probably ended after your first sentence: 'What I described is what I consider the main canon.' Because that's true, but that's all it is.

Daniel Jackson
November 6th, 2008, 10:50 AM
We might as well end this discussion here, as if you don't think the storyline, tone and characters changed then we're obviously living in different realities.
I see. You can't argue against my points, so the discussion must end, eh? If you can't argue against them, just admit it instead of pushing forward this we must be living in different realities nonsense.


Your argument probably should have probably ended after your first sentence: 'What I described is what I consider the main canon.' Because that's true, but that's all it is.
As I've stated before, MGM also considers that the main canon. That is why they've denied Devlin and Emmerich from making sequels to the original movie. ;)

jenks
November 6th, 2008, 01:55 PM
I see. You can't argue against my points, so the discussion must end, eh? If you can't argue against them, just admit it instead of pushing forward this we must be living in different realities nonsense.

How can I argue when you refuse to see reason? The series and movie are completely different in tone, the character of O'neill in the show is totally different from the one in the movie, and Devlin and Emmerich's established canon has been changed in the series, these are all facts that you deny.


As I've stated before, MGM also considers that the main canon. That is why they've denied Devlin and Emmerich from making sequels to the original movie. ;)

MGM endorse the comics and even Infinity, Brad and Rob don't. Who is right? Neither. There is no MGM canon, canon is decided by the creative parties that contribute to the franchise. Devlin controls the movie canon, Brad & Rob oversee the series, DVD movies and Stargate: Worlds canon. The canon of the series and movie are different, that's a fact, and Rob and Brad don't have the creative control to retcon anything in the movie canon, all they can do is explain in the show how the basic story of the movie relates to the series canon, that is why they are separate.

Anda
November 7th, 2008, 10:07 AM
I LOVE this movie!!YOU?

any_gopher
November 14th, 2008, 04:51 PM
Daniel Jackson and Jenks... I'd say the answer is between your explanations:


Yes, the tv series is in a separate canon from the movie. HOWEVER, it is possible to view the original movie within the scope of the series canon. All you do is ignore the aspects that contradict, and voila, you are viewing the canon version of the events.

Ilana
November 23rd, 2008, 09:08 AM
I rewatched this movie last night and I have two questions and if these has been asked before then please bear with me as I can't find them.

The first was: from Daniel Jackson explaining that the symbols on the chevrons were constellations to the gateroom where everything was ready was a continuous scene. Did they know that they were constellations but only knew the 6 and were saying nothing to Jackson until he figured out that they were and was able to produce the 7th? I know this sounds confusing, but it was odd to me that they were fully prepared to dial out when he revealed the 7th chevron. I think it might have made more sense if there had been a set up sequence?

Does this make any sense?

Also, what do the creators of the movie dislike about the show (other than they were then barred from making sequels)??

Bytor
November 23rd, 2008, 06:46 PM
How can I argue when you refuse to see reason? The series and movie are completely different in tone,
.

I agree with you overall Jenks but...... tone? the episode "The other guys" has a different tone than "Lost CIty" or "Be All My Sins Remembered" does that make them different Canon?

jenks
November 24th, 2008, 01:50 AM
I was explaining why the discussion with Daniel Jackson was pointless, not why the movie wasn't canon in that particular post ;)

Bytor
November 26th, 2008, 03:19 PM
ahhhh, i get ya now.

Amann
May 19th, 2009, 10:07 AM
well, lets put it this way, whoever owns the show is what makes it canon, not the creator or the writers. Is anything that has been Star Trek in the past 15 years not been canon simply because Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, is dead? No, it means its a continuation. And since MGM owns the rights to StarGate, what they say is canon, is canon. Just like Paramount says that whatever is star trek canon, is star trek canon.

jenks
May 19th, 2009, 10:18 AM
well, lets put it this way, whoever owns the show is what makes it canon, not the creator or the writers. Is anything that has been Star Trek in the past 15 years not been canon simply because Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, is dead? No, it means its a continuation. And since MGM owns the rights to StarGate, what they say is canon, is canon. Just like Paramount says that whatever is star trek canon, is star trek canon.

There's no such thing as canon and non-canon, there are many separate canon's and only the creator of those fictions can decide which others are canon in relation to their own.

The Stig
May 19th, 2009, 11:24 AM
The two canons are separate, neither canon directly affects the other. In the movie canon the events of the series don't apply, and in the series the events of the movie only apply loosely.

i believe that they are one cannon and some changes were made to make better tv. the events in the movie apply more than loosely as it was only minor details that were changed. watch the series again and notice how many references are made to the original movie that aren't jokes. Abydos plays a role in numerous episodes for a start. Jacks kid was still killed they just changed the name. Jack still feels the pain from this which the original o'neil felt, they just gave him more humor and an L. Its all the same.

jenks
May 19th, 2009, 11:33 AM
Devlin and Emmerich created the Stargate movie, they decide what is canon in their 'universe' and what isn't, and for them the series isn't. Likewise the SG-1/Atlantis/Universe etc producers don't consider the novels to be canon but MGM do. It's all just relative and there is no one single canon, there are a few.

Ozman
May 21st, 2009, 09:08 AM
I was watching this recently and that guy who translated the symbols "doorway to heaven'' looks like that Lucious loven from Atlantis!

Andr3az
May 21st, 2009, 09:17 AM
I was watching this recently and that guy who translated the symbols "doorway to heaven'' looks like that Lucious loven from Atlantis!

Yes, it is the same actor.

GuHNDoi
May 22nd, 2009, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Ozman
I was watching this recently and that guy who translated the symbols "doorway to heaven'' looks like that Lucious loven from Atlantis!


Originally posted by Andr3az
Yes, it is the same actor.

Yeah thats Richard Kind.

Hotep Ka Heru'ur
May 23rd, 2009, 04:14 AM
That was so lame. When I heard that Richard Kind was to appear on Atlantis, I thought: How awesome, they're bringing back a character from the original movie! But then they did something that I despise to the bottom of my fan heart... they used a familiar face for a totally new character. I hate it when they do that, like when the guy who played Narim played Weir's husband or that little girl from "Bane" turned into Cassandra in s7. I know they realize most fans will recognize them, but still it sort of insults my intelligence or at the very least tears a hole in my suspension of disbelief because it makes it über obvious that I'm really only watching a TV show. So lame. But I ended up actually enjoying "Irresistable" ("Irresponsible" not so much)... I thought Lucius was hilarious, don't kill me, please :)

Yeah, Richard Kind. Played Dr. Gary Meyers in the first movie. Back to topic, whew.

Btw, from an Egyptologist's point of view, that translation scene with the chalkboard is rather impossible. The text inscribed on the coverstones is so easy in grammar and vocabulary that there is no way a Dr. of Egyptology (and I assume that's what Meyers was, or why would he be the man for the job) could get it anywhere near as wrong as they had it before Daniel came along.

Ilana
May 23rd, 2009, 08:58 AM
I am just curious, on the "canon" argument... why don't Devlin and Emmerich consider the series canon. Are there some glaring things they don't like about it??

WishIwasJoes
May 23rd, 2009, 09:15 AM
Well for one there is no Jaffa that hold snakes in their bellies. And Ra looked more like an asguard than a snake. Its just small stuff, Frankly its all so small that it does not bother me one bit. Although I agree with Hotep. I dislike the same use of actors unless alot of make up is used. They used Chirstopher H is an Sg-1 episode and then in Atlantis as Jintos father.

jenks
May 23rd, 2009, 09:16 AM
It just doesn't follow their story, they had a full trilogy planned out but MGM didn't go with it. Unfortunately Devlin and Emmerich have some rights to the theatrical franchise, so a big budget movie can't be made without them, not unless the situation is resolved anyway.

Ilana
May 23rd, 2009, 09:26 AM
Okay, thanks for the info. Though I'd have to say that I didn't think that Jaye Davidson looked like an asgard... but I guess that's just me.

I think the TV guys have done an incredible job of expanding on the SG thing... I can't help but wonder what Devlin and Emmerich planned for the trilogy... hmmmm.

jenks
May 23rd, 2009, 03:40 PM
Many have speculated that Independence Day is pretty much what the Stargate sequel would have been if they'd gotten the go ahead...

Ilana
May 23rd, 2009, 04:24 PM
Hmmm, okay, I can see that.... Thanks

P.S. Just came home from seeing Star Trek... LOVED IT.
I know, I know, probably loads of threads elsewhere!!

hawkmajor
June 30th, 2009, 03:47 AM
Did the stargate program find a ZPM with the gate to fit in with the statement that Abydos is in another galaxy even though its th MW in SG-1??

Flyboy
June 30th, 2009, 06:08 AM
Did the stargate program find a ZPM with the gate to fit in with the statement that Abydos is in another galaxy even though its th MW in SG-1??
No.

In the movie, regular gate power and seven chevrons was all that was required to dial (the only) gate that was in another galaxy.

hawkmajor
July 1st, 2009, 12:26 AM
just 1 of the many differences between SG and sg-1

Phenom
July 3rd, 2009, 06:50 PM
Canon is probably a bit of a confusing term to describe the differences between the movie and SG1/SGA. Continuity is a better term, with the movie continuity and series continuity. In some respects they compliment each other, but they are different in a lot of respects. Doesn't make either better or worse than each other, just different.

the fifth man
July 4th, 2009, 08:17 PM
Canon is probably a bit of a confusing term to describe the differences between the movie and SG1/SGA. Continuity is a better term, with the movie continuity and series continuity. In some respects they compliment each other, but they are different in a lot of respects. Doesn't make either better or worse than each other, just different.

I couldn't agree more with that statement.:)

hawkmajor
July 5th, 2009, 01:50 AM
I couldn't agree more with that statement.:)

same here...

Elite Anubis Guard
July 5th, 2009, 01:53 AM
A series of books where released which followed on solely from the movie and not the series. The author, Bill McCay, had chance to get some notes off Devlin and Emmerich about where they wanted the story to go and to that end, one of the novels is kinda similar to ID4, even down to green energy shields.

Phenom
July 5th, 2009, 03:53 AM
So Roland/Emerich (spelling?) planned to take the Stargate movies in a direction similar to they ended up doing with ID4 instead. So if they ever did finish of their trilogy, what direction they would take? They certainly wouldn't just make it ID4 with Stargates so they would need new ideas etc. Would be interesting what they would do, if they have even thought about it.

hawkmajor
July 5th, 2009, 04:15 AM
Id4???

Phenom
July 5th, 2009, 04:31 AM
Id4???

That was the tagline for the movie Independance Day.

hawkmajor
July 5th, 2009, 04:41 AM
That was the tagline for the movie Independance Day.

ok cheers

pkprd869
July 5th, 2009, 07:41 AM
I woulda gotta a kick out Kurt Russel slugging an alien and saying "Welcome to Earth b****"

hawkmajor
July 5th, 2009, 07:42 AM
very nice
very...jack

Major_Griff
July 6th, 2009, 02:09 AM
When I watch Stargate (1994), I usually try to not even think about SG-1. I fail, but I find the more I think about that stuff the less I enjoy watching the movie, and It really is a great movie. For some reason I always forget that and am surprised at how much I like it each time I watch it.

hawkmajor
July 6th, 2009, 02:48 AM
When I watch Stargate (1994), I usually try to not even think about SG-1. I fail, but I find the more I think about that stuff the less I enjoy watching the movie, and It really is a great movie. For some reason I always forget that and am surprised at how much I like it each time I watch it.

same here

Steelbox
July 14th, 2009, 09:35 AM
I consider SG as canon. Just some diferents names in the movie will not matter to me. I would even stand by a re-shoot or re-editing of the SG movie. Just some cut here and there some lines addiction here and there.

hawkmajor
August 26th, 2009, 05:47 AM
I consider SG as canon. Just some diferents names in the movie will not matter to me. I would even stand by a re-shoot or re-editing of the SG movie. Just some cut here and there some lines addiction here and there.

same here, but in a way, cotg is a slightly changed version of the aforemention film, imo

jsonitsac
August 26th, 2009, 06:28 PM
Truth is, I never really thought the movie was that great. It was a fun watch, but the dialogue was kind of wooden, and several of the characters were stereotyped (especially Kurt Russel's performance as Jack). Although James Spader did a very good job was Daniel Jackson. SG-1 got me into Stargate more so than the original movie (although I saw the film before the series). Quite frankly, I think the premise worked far better as a TV show than a movie (or trilogy of movies as was apparently intended).

As for the different continuities, I like to have some fun in my mind about reconciling them, nothing serious, just fun. Like maybe Jack's son was named Taylor Charlie O'Neill, that they thought they were going to another galaxy because of a bad map of the stars, or those scenes showing Ra as a grey were really memories of his previous host who happened to be an Asgard. I'm claiming that I can or will reconcile the two, I just find it kind of fun to fit things together.

Metonic
August 26th, 2009, 11:25 PM
There are actually a few continuity errors. With that being the big glaring one.

There is the size of the Stargate in the movie when you compare it to the one in SG-1, there are the Chevrons that move in the movie and not in SG-1. There is the back of the Stargate in the movie compared to SG-1 (There is a cone shape vortex in the back of the gate in the movie, when there isn't one in SG-1.). There is the Gate room it's self, the one in the movie is tiny compared to SG-1. Then there is the whole mountain situation. In the movie it is Creek Mountain and in SG1 it is Cheyenne Mountain. Then there is what the Control Room looks like.

..Well in CotG, they mention that... The Gate was moved to a more secure location AFTER the movie's events. I believe they tell jack when they exit the elevator.

The Gate room is different.. because.. see above..

The stargate is different... Because the creators of the original movie said "F this" and left the gate outside to be wrecked...

As far as the "other side of the known universe" it could be explained that, At the time of the movie, abydos was as far as we knew, and after going there they discover more.

hawkmajor
August 27th, 2009, 11:18 AM
..Well in CotG, they mention that... The Gate was moved to a more secure location AFTER the movie's events. I believe they tell jack when they exit the elevator.

The Gate room is different.. because.. see above..

The stargate is different... Because the creators of the original movie said "F this" and left the gate outside to be wrecked...

As far as the "other side of the known universe" it could be explained that, At the time of the movie, abydos was as far as we knew, and after going there they discover more.
the other side of the known universe changes with the distance of the furthist planet that we have visited

Ray_Rogers
October 30th, 2009, 06:31 PM
To me the FILM is its own thing with Emmerich and Devlin at the helm with the following media sequels for it afterwards to fit into their canon. The Goa'uld, Asgard, Ori, or ANY SGC stuff aren't in their canon. The sequels, in the forms of books and comics, for the Emmerich/Devlin canon should in no way compliment the SGC one.
For the Wright/Glassner SGC Canon, I figure their canon already had the events featured from the Emmerich/Devlin film canon but "morphed" entirely to suit SGC canon. Meaning it was RDAs variant O'Neill, Michael Shanks Jackson, the military variants of the John Diehl and French Stewart characters in their version of the events. Of course it would've played out entirely different concerning the SGC canon versions of the characters. Ra would've had his own Jaffa with complimentary symbols on their foreheads in comparison to the Emmerich/Devlin FILM canon. It probably would've been an entire set of different characters brought through the gate excluding who carried over from canon to canon.
For Alexis Cruz/Skaara and Kasuf/Erick Avari carrying over to the SGC canon? I just look at it as exact duplicate alternate universe/canon trope. Pertaining to the fact both, from what I've read, are still alive in the Emmerich/Devlin FILM canon. I wouldn't be surprised if Skaara in the FILM canon joins with Kurt Russell/Jack O'Neil, James Spader/Daniel Jackson, John Diehl and French Stewart for their version of the main Stargate team. Mili Avatal/Sha'uri and SGC Canon Sha're are different but of course the same regarding canon.
So, Emmerich/Devlin FILM canon is exclusive to them and Wright/Glassner SGC canon, albiet with their variant of the 1994 films events, are their own.
If Emmerich/Devlin ever make a feature film sequel(s) as they intended, I'd rather Lionsgate/StudioCanal release it to theaters instead of MGM. Yes, so Lionsgate/StudioCanal can have a boxset.

BIG dilemma regarding SGC canon though! For those of us who consider both creators canons to be seperate of course, pertaining to the SGC pilot Children of the Gods. Do we consider the original R rated, for nudity c'mon, Showtime broadcast or the released DVD of it to be canon? Myself, I'd take whichever scenes were extended and beefed up for the effects, put it into the original Showtime version and just have a really damn long version of it.:cool:

badwolfSG
October 30th, 2009, 09:21 PM
When I watch Stargate (1994), I usually try to not even think about SG-1. I fail, but I find the more I think about that stuff the less I enjoy watching the movie, and It really is a great movie. For some reason I always forget that and am surprised at how much I like it each time I watch it.

Glad to know I wasn' the only person doing this.

Eestlanna
November 1st, 2009, 12:29 PM
I consider SG-1 as the sequel of the Stargate movie. For me is like just some of the actors are replaced and a year has passed by. The movie is the prequel of the whole SG storyline that follows.

Hotep Ka Heru'ur
November 6th, 2009, 02:03 PM
..Well in CotG, they mention that... The Gate was moved to a more secure location AFTER the movie's events.

They do not.

Jeff-B
November 20th, 2009, 01:50 AM
I caught the movie on amc yesterday. I've seen it a few times before because I have the DVD but this time I watched with this controversy in mind. Really, even looking for the differences, it didn't detract from me liking the movie. There were even things in the movie that made more sense than the TV shows, like taking a while to bridge the language barrier. I realize something like that would have slowed down the series, but it made sense for the movie.

Badhron
November 22nd, 2009, 11:11 AM
Most of the inconsistencies can be passed off due to the fact that the series probably wasn't planned at the time of the movie. A lot of potential discrepancies such as the Jaffa, are implied, but there is nothing in the movie that rules out the possibility of the Jaffa with symbiotes. Other differences that cannot be explained are mainly so minor that they hardly have any impact.
On the subject of differences, in the movie the ring transporter has eight or nine rings, but in the series it has five.

jsonitsac
December 1st, 2009, 03:44 PM
A lot of potential discrepancies such as the Jaffa, are implied, but there is nothing in the movie that rules out the possibility of the Jaffa with symbiotes.

Ra's troops don't have symbiote pouches

http://www.gateworld.net/gallery/albums/movies/stargate_movie/screencaps/normal_movie01_1815.JPG

Replicator Todd
December 1st, 2009, 05:32 PM
Honestly, I thought the original Stargate was a terrible film. So dull throughout, which is odd coming form the same director of movies such as Independence Day and 2012. I was hoping for much more action and more than just a desert town and a pyramid.

Flyboy
December 3rd, 2009, 07:50 AM
Honestly, I thought the original Stargate was a terrible film. So dull throughout, which is odd coming form the same director of movies such as Independence Day and 2012. I was hoping for much more action and more than just a desert town and a pyramid.
I precisely like it because of the lack of action. It felt epic on a different scale.

LtColCarter
December 30th, 2009, 11:23 AM
I rewatched this movie last night and I have two questions and if these has been asked before then please bear with me as I can't find them.

The first was: from Daniel Jackson explaining that the symbols on the chevrons were constellations to the gateroom where everything was ready was a continuous scene. Did they know that they were constellations but only knew the 6 and were saying nothing to Jackson until he figured out that they were and was able to produce the 7th? I know this sounds confusing, but it was odd to me that they were fully prepared to dial out when he revealed the 7th chevron. I think it might have made more sense if there had been a set up sequence?

Does this make any sense?

Also, what do the creators of the movie dislike about the show (other than they were then barred from making sequels)??

I think they knew the symbols were constellations...and were withholding the information until Daniel figured out the 7th symbol. At least that's the way I understood it.

jsonitsac
January 5th, 2010, 06:52 PM
I think they knew the symbols were constellations...and were withholding the information until Daniel figured out the 7th symbol. At least that's the way I understood it.

I don't think that they knew that they needed 7 symbols, which is why they hired him. That said, they seemed to know a lot about how the gate worked before he got hired. If you look carefully the dialing computer's program shows the standard 7 boxes.

LtColCarter
January 6th, 2010, 07:34 AM
I don't think that they knew that they needed 7 symbols, which is why they hired him. That said, they seemed to know a lot about how the gate worked before he got hired. If you look carefully the dialing computer's program shows the standard 7 boxes.

Hmmm...if they didn't know they needed 7 symbols...then why would the dialing computer have the 7 boxes?

Dr. Michael Benjamin
January 6th, 2010, 10:45 AM
In CotG it is explained that Carter was working on the stargate two years before Daniel figured it out. I am still not comletely comfortable with this liberty but there is something I tell myself to ease the pain. My view is that Carter was working on the gate and hypothesized what the device was. She probably came to the same conclusion Daniel did about the six points in three dimensional space needed to triangulate a position and a seventh point as a point of origin. Carter might have created the software used to interface with the gate to make the inner ring rotate and most likely the computer interface where the symbols could be entered (the seven boxes that appear on the monitor during the dialing sequence).
Her downfall was her ignorace of the symbology side of things that would allow the program to have its successful "recon mission" as stated by General West. It wasn't that Carter was incapable it just isn't her area of expertise. This is where Daniel comes in.
Catherine recruited Daniel because she knew he had some interesting theories and thought he could help out and get the ball rolling again since the two Egyptologists on staff were stuck in a rut for two years. A curious aside here, I always found it interesting that the two Egyptologists on staff were working on the stargate for about the same amount of time that Carter was supposedly working on the gate.
I know theres a good deal of supposition in my little idea but it seems to fit nicely into the continuity between the film and SG-1. Besides, it's the only way I can live with Carter's comments about working on the gate before Daniel was brought in.
One last side comment, and this has nothing to do with this topic, but if the ancients built the stargates what kind of timeframe exists for their creation? The reason I ask is if the Giza gate was placed on earth by the ancients tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago then how can a pyramid be the point of origin symbol for earth? If the gate was put here before the pyramids were built then how can a pyramid appear on the gate? Wouldn't the builders have chosen some other symbol instead? Maybe some type of naturally occurring symbol such as the triple suns used as the point of origin symbol for planet x in the film. Anyway that's just me thinking out loud. :)

jsonitsac
January 6th, 2010, 07:38 PM
In CotG it is explained that Carter was working on the stargate two years before Daniel figured it out. I am still not comletely comfortable with this liberty but there is something I tell myself to ease the pain. My view is that Carter was working on the gate and hypothesized what the device was. She probably came to the same conclusion Daniel did about the six points in three dimensional space needed to triangulate a position and a seventh point as a point of origin. Carter might have created the software used to interface with the gate to make the inner ring rotate and most likely the computer interface where the symbols could be entered (the seven boxes that appear on the monitor during the dialing sequence).
Her downfall was her ignorace of the symbology side of things that would allow the program to have its successful "recon mission" as stated by General West. It wasn't that Carter was incapable it just isn't her area of expertise. This is where Daniel comes in.
Catherine recruited Daniel because she knew he had some interesting theories and thought he could help out and get the ball rolling again since the two Egyptologists on staff were stuck in a rut for two years. A curious aside here, I always found it interesting that the two Egyptologists on staff were working on the stargate for about the same amount of time that Carter was supposedly working on the gate.
I know theres a good deal of supposition in my little idea but it seems to fit nicely into the continuity between the film and SG-1. Besides, it's the only way I can live with Carter's comments about working on the gate before Daniel was brought in.
One last side comment, and this has nothing to do with this topic, but if the ancients built the stargates what kind of timeframe exists for their creation? The reason I ask is if the Giza gate was placed on earth by the ancients tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago then how can a pyramid be the point of origin symbol for earth? If the gate was put here before the pyramids were built then how can a pyramid appear on the gate? Wouldn't the builders have chosen some other symbol instead? Maybe some type of naturally occurring symbol such as the triple suns used as the point of origin symbol for planet x in the film. Anyway that's just me thinking out loud. :)

The "alpha" gate isn't Earth's first gate, the Ancients built the one in Antarctica, Ra brought his Chappa'ai with him, and he found one with the familiar pyramid and brought it to Earth.

Dr. Michael Benjamin
January 6th, 2010, 09:09 PM
The "alpha" gate isn't Earth's first gate, the Ancients built the one in Antarctica, Ra brought his Chappa'ai with him, and he found one with the familiar pyramid and brought it to Earth.


Thanks for the info I really appreciate it. So since the antarctic gate was the first one on earth does that mean it has a different point of origin symbol than the Giza gate? If so what is it?

KEK
January 7th, 2010, 03:46 AM
Thanks for the info I really appreciate it. So since the antarctic gate was the first one on earth does that mean it has a different point of origin symbol than the Giza gate? If so what is it?

I can't find the cap, but I'm pretty sure you see it in Solitudes.

LtColCarter
January 7th, 2010, 05:31 AM
Thanks for the info I really appreciate it. So since the antarctic gate was the first one on earth does that mean it has a different point of origin symbol than the Giza gate? If so what is it?

I tried finding it in the screencaps on gateworld...but there are a ton of caps to go through. If I remember correctly, it looks similar to the symbol for libra. At least that's what I'm remembering...

*EDIT* I found the glyph

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m231/NrthTxsGuy/glyph41.gif

Dr. Michael Benjamin
January 11th, 2010, 06:40 PM
I tried finding it in the screencaps on gateworld...but there are a ton of caps to go through. If I remember correctly, it looks similar to the symbol for libra. At least that's what I'm remembering...

*EDIT* I found the glyph




Thanks for the information. I definitely learned something on this topic.

jsonitsac
January 11th, 2010, 07:01 PM
Does it strike anybody else as odd that the people in Creek Mountain seemed to know a lot about the gate even before they managed to dial out for the first time? After we see Daniel Jackson giving the personnel there a brief on what the Stargate does (as if he's the one to have discovered all of this), then when they dial the gate for the first time they have equipment to track the wormhole as it connects to Abydos, and some kind of MALP like probe standing by. Likewise, Jack seems to know what it does ("I'm here in case you succeed.").

I guess my point is that if the Air Force knew that the Stargate was used for interstellar travel why not bother to tell Daniel about that when he got hired? Wouldn't that have made his job a lot easier, than just saying we have this weird artifact and nobody has any clue how it works?

Dr. Michael Benjamin
January 11th, 2010, 07:24 PM
Please see my theory above about Carter and her involvement with the stargate program before Daniel was recruited. I suppose however that it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for the military to provide civilians with information only on a "need to know" basis. Unlike Carter, Daniel couldn't be held sway by military regulations and orders though I'm sure he was required to enter into a nondisclosure agreement of some kind when he agreed to take the job.
Keep in mind Daniel was only brought in for translations-nothing more. Catherine recruited him specifically for that purpose. His main motivation was to get paid (no suprise considering he had recently been evicted from his apartment and carried his entire life in a few pieces of luggage!). Frankly I am impressed that Daniel was allowed to study the coverstones themselves. I thought they might just provide pictures of the stones and have him work from there. General West only reluctantly allowed Daniel to see "the device" after a bit of visual encouragement from Jack O'Neil. Also, when Daniel identified the seventh symbol, they began to dial the gate. During this dialing process Catherine mentioned to Daniel that they were only able to get as far as the sixth symbol so it seems they had a fairly strong notion of the object's purpose.
The way I see it Carter came up with the general idea of what the gate was and what it could potentially do, but Daniel provided the linguistical/symbological component missing from Carter's considerable intellectual arsenal in order for everything to fall into place.
Incidentally, speaking of Catherine, I found an interesting tidbit a while back. The actress who portrayed Catherine in the film is the mother of the actor who portrayed Chronos in SG-1.

jsonitsac
January 12th, 2010, 04:59 AM
So if they were only able to dial 6 chevrons before Daniel showed up why couldn't they light up 7, after all they had this:

http://www.gateworld.net/gallery/albums/movies/stargate_movie/screencaps/normal_movie01_0318.JPG

The Tau'ri POO was right on the cover stone.

Dr. Michael Benjamin
January 12th, 2010, 06:14 PM
So if they were only able to dial 6 chevrons before Daniel showed up why couldn't they light up 7, after all they had this:


As I'm sure you remember the other Egyptologists spent two years facing that very problem. Why no one figured it out is a little baffling but it was a convenient problem that could be solved by introducing a new "good guy" to the film. I thought it played out well. Daniel provided a great bit of balance to the military characters of O'Neil, Kawalsky, Feretti, etc. It might seem a bit of a stretch to believe that all those eyes on the gate and the stones and not one correct assumption. But then again maybe it was better that a fresh pair of eyes was brought in to take another look. Maybe, as they say, everyone was too close to the problem. After all, if we are supposed to believe Carter was working on the project and figured everything out, it would be a bit difficult to believe something so simple could be such a mystery for her (and the team working under her). Then again we should just take certain things on faith, like how exactly an Air Force theoretical astrophysicist, one of the leading minds in the world, would be logging hours in Iraqi airspace (presumably during the Gulf War) running the risk of getting killed instead of working in a lab somewhere. It's just how things were meant to be.

LtColCarter
January 14th, 2010, 06:42 AM
So if they were only able to dial 6 chevrons before Daniel showed up why couldn't they light up 7, after all they had this:

http://www.gateworld.net/gallery/albums/movies/stargate_movie/screencaps/normal_movie01_0318.JPG

The Tau'ri POO was right on the cover stone.

Yes...they did have that...however...the 6 symbols needed were grouped together. The symbol for the PoO was outside of the grouping.

SaberBlade
January 16th, 2010, 10:30 AM
Yes...they did have that...however...the 6 symbols needed were grouped together. The symbol for the PoO was outside of the grouping.

Plus the actual symbol that Jackson said was the seventh symbol was different from the one on the gate compared to the cover stone. The proper 7th symbol according to Jackson was the normal PoO plus two figures praying, which Richard Kind's character said wasn't even on the gate (because those two figures were missing). Jackson even drew the figures once he recognised it.

Here you see a diagram of the cover stone, plus the figures on it: http://www.gateworld.net/gallery/albums/movies/stargate_movie/screencaps/movie01_0363.JPG

Drawing figures: http://www.gateworld.net/gallery/albums/movies/stargate_movie/screencaps/movie01_0405.JPG

Yes for some reason, the figures aren't on the actual cover stone in that previous screenshot. Ultimately, I think someone in the production staff screwed up as they printed diagrams with the symbols, the figures were supposed to be on the cover stone which is why they had problems identifying the symbols but the cover stone had the plain 7th.

LtColCarter
January 16th, 2010, 11:25 AM
Plus the actual symbol that Jackson said was the seventh symbol was different from the one on the gate compared to the cover stone. The proper 7th symbol according to Jackson was the normal PoO plus two figures praying, which Richard Kind's character said wasn't even on the gate (because those two figures were missing). Jackson even drew the figures once he recognised it.

Here you see a diagram of the cover stone, plus the figures on it: http://www.gateworld.net/gallery/albums/movies/stargate_movie/screencaps/movie01_0363.JPG

Drawing figures: http://www.gateworld.net/gallery/albums/movies/stargate_movie/screencaps/movie01_0405.JPG

Yes for some reason, the figures aren't on the actual cover stone in that previous screenshot. Ultimately, I think someone in the production staff screwed up as they printed diagrams with the symbols, the figures were supposed to be on the cover stone which is why they had problems identifying the symbols but the cover stone had the plain 7th.

Very true :)

maneth
January 23rd, 2010, 11:33 AM
Watched Stargate the movie tonight. Must say it's my favorite Emmerich movie by far, even if I've given the most recent disaster movies a miss.

Frostfox
January 23rd, 2010, 12:05 PM
Watched Stargate the movie tonight. Must say it's my favorite Emmerich movie by far, even if I've given the most recent disaster movies a miss.

I clearly remember going to the cinema to see it, I went to see Jay Davidson, he'd been made famous in the UK in the wonderful 'Crying Game' and I enjoyed the film a lot. It was nice to see a different culture being used for the alien designs (too much badly done, Californian psudo Celtic/Medieval/Arthurian in fantasy films).

FF :nox:

Hotep Ka Heru'ur
January 23rd, 2010, 02:44 PM
Plus the actual symbol that Jackson said was the seventh symbol was different from the one on the gate compared to the cover stone. The proper 7th symbol according to Jackson was the normal PoO plus two figures praying, which Richard Kind's character said wasn't even on the gate (because those two figures were missing). Jackson even drew the figures once he recognised it.

Here you see a diagram of the cover stone, plus the figures on it: http://www.gateworld.net/gallery/albums/movies/stargate_movie/screencaps/movie01_0363.JPG

Drawing figures: http://www.gateworld.net/gallery/albums/movies/stargate_movie/screencaps/movie01_0405.JPG

Yes for some reason, the figures aren't on the actual cover stone in that previous screenshot. Ultimately, I think someone in the production staff screwed up as they printed diagrams with the symbols, the figures were supposed to be on the cover stone which is why they had problems identifying the symbols but the cover stone had the plain 7th.

That's a screenshot of the Stargate, not the coverstones. If you look at the scenes where Daniel is in front of the coverstones, you can clearly see the PoO with the figures beside it. They're not on the gate (as in the screenshot you posted) because obviously, they aren't part of the symbol, they're only praying besides it. Daniel paints them on the screen when he realizes that it is in fact the symbol he was looking for (and had been talking about with the figures and all). Figures or no, it's the same symbol.

SaberBlade
January 23rd, 2010, 04:25 PM
The coverstones had no praying figures.

They are visible on the diagram behind jackson in this image http://www.gateworld.net/gallery/albums/movies/stargate_movie/screencaps/movie01_0363.JPG

You can clearly see the address, the 7th symbol and the praying figures, but on the actual coverstone it's not there. http://www.gateworld.net/gallery/albums/movies/stargate_movie/screencaps/movie01_0363.JPG

Just seems like someone in production screwed up as the 7th symbol in it's usable form is right there for all to see.

Hotep Ka Heru'ur
January 24th, 2010, 12:50 PM
http://sovereignreplicas.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/cover_stone_021.jpg

Not?

SaberBlade
January 26th, 2010, 11:06 AM
http://sovereignreplicas.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/cover_stone_021.jpg

Not?

Play spot the difference between that image, and the actual screenshot.

http://www.gateworld.net/gallery/albums/movies/stargate_movie/screencaps/movie01_0318.JPG

Hotep Ka Heru'ur
January 26th, 2010, 01:37 PM
They're pretty worn out, but they're there, as visible in this screenshot:

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/9577/vlcsnap2010012623h31m15.png

jsonitsac
January 26th, 2010, 02:09 PM
Was that from the movie? If it is does that mean they built two cover stones, one with the weird square on top with the two figure, and the other with the more typical Tau'ri POO?

Hotep Ka Heru'ur
January 26th, 2010, 03:11 PM
It's from the movie and it's the same prop, in the first screenshot you just can't see them because it's too far away and from the side. As you can see in the second, it's hard to make them out even from up close.

rushy
July 11th, 2012, 03:41 AM
The one thing noticeable is that unlike the SG-1 movies, this movie was actually made to be a movie. Not a TV show movie. A real movie. I like to think that instead of the movie, SG-1 is filled with continuity errors(Abydos is in the Kaliem Galaxy).

jelgate
July 11th, 2012, 05:26 AM
You would be wrong. MGM owns the material and decides what canon.

rushy
July 11th, 2012, 05:51 AM
You would be wrong. MGM owns the material and decides what canon.

That maybe so, but what really decides what is canon is common sense.

LtColCarter
July 11th, 2012, 07:12 AM
The one thing noticeable is that unlike the SG-1 movies, this movie was actually made to be a movie. Not a TV show movie. A real movie. I like to think that instead of the movie, SG-1 is filled with continuity errors(Abydos is in the Kaliem Galaxy).

I think 17 years of SG would say otherwise.

SF_and_Coffee
July 11th, 2012, 07:20 AM
The one thing noticeable is that unlike the SG-1 movies, this movie was actually made to be a movie. Not a TV show movie. A real movie. I like to think that instead of the movie, SG-1 is filled with continuity errors(Abydos is in the Kaliem Galaxy).
No, the word you're thinking of is 'retcon'. The show is canon, and built from the movie, but it retcons a few things from the movie to fit better in a TV series. Abydos is the closest planet to Earth in the gate system (else the whole business with stellar drift wouldn't make sense, and much of the series would fall apart). It really is a better story that way than it would be otherwise, especially given that we later see Goa'uld with ships coming to Earth and quite quickly... which really wouldn't make much sense if the Goa'uld were operating in another galaxy rather than this one.

rushy
July 11th, 2012, 09:34 AM
No, the word you're thinking of is 'retcon'. The show is canon, and built from the movie, but it retcons a few things from the movie to fit better in a TV series. Abydos is the closest planet to Earth in the gate system (else the whole business with stellar drift wouldn't make sense, and much of the series would fall apart). It really is a better story that way than it would be otherwise, especially given that we later see Goa'uld with ships coming to Earth and quite quickly... which really wouldn't make much sense if the Goa'uld were operating in another galaxy rather than this one.
The word I meant was movie. It just feels like a movie not a TV spinoff.

SF_and_Coffee
July 11th, 2012, 09:35 AM
No, my point is that the TV series retconned elements from the movie.

LtColCarter
July 11th, 2012, 10:45 AM
The word I meant was movie. It just feels like a movie not a TV spinoff.

Are you saying the TV show felt like a movie? :confused:

SF_and_Coffee
July 11th, 2012, 10:53 AM
The original film isn't a TV spinoff. It came before the TV series, and the TV series is the spinoff.

Snowman37
July 11th, 2012, 11:31 AM
The one thing noticeable is that unlike the SG-1 movies, this movie was actually made to be a movie. Not a TV show movie. A real movie. I like to think that instead of the movie, SG-1 is filled with continuity errors(Abydos is in the Kaliem Galaxy).
They're not continuity errors. They are called retcons. As for the SG-1 films are no less movies than the original. Being based on a TV show is irrelevant. The two X Files films and the first 10 Star Trek movies (discounting the reboot) were based on TV shows, but they were just as cinematic as the original Stargate movie. The only thing that brings the SG-1 movies down is that they are TV movies rather than theatrical productions.


The word I meant was movie. It just feels like a movie not a TV spinoff.
That's because the movie came first. ;)

rushy
July 11th, 2012, 12:25 PM
As Snowman37 so kindly said(as he always does), I meant that the original movie felt more like a movie rather than Ark of Truth or Continuum which felt like TV spinoffs.

jelgate
July 11th, 2012, 12:28 PM
Feelings are not the same as facts

SF_and_Coffee
July 11th, 2012, 12:33 PM
As Snowman37 so kindly said(as he always does), I meant that the original movie felt more like a movie rather than Ark of Truth or Continuum which felt like TV spinoffs.
Well, that's because the original movie wasn't a TV spinoff, whereas "Ark of Truth" and "Continuum" were TV spinoffs. The original film was made for theatrical release, with no thought of a television series. The other two were made-for-TV movies, based on and in continuity with an existing television series franchise.

Snowman37
July 11th, 2012, 12:45 PM
You all are simply not understanding Rushy. He is saying that the SG-1 movies were not as good as the original due to their "TV movie" budget and production style.

LtColCarter
July 11th, 2012, 02:12 PM
You all are simply not understanding Rushy. He is saying that the SG-1 movies were not as good as the original due to their "TV movie" budget and production style.

Clarity...is all I'm sayin'....

SF_and_Coffee
July 11th, 2012, 02:27 PM
You all are simply not understanding Rushy. He is saying that the SG-1 movies were not as good as the original due to their "TV movie" budget and production style.

Y'know, English is my first language. I'm simply pointing out to him WHY they have that particular quality or lack thereof.

rushy
July 12th, 2012, 01:00 AM
Y'know, English is my first language. I'm simply pointing out to him WHY they have that particular quality or lack thereof.

But the thing is, I've watched all of SG-1 and I know why it is the way it is.

LtColCarter
July 12th, 2012, 11:11 AM
But the thing is, I've watched all of SG-1 and I know why it is the way it is.

Honestly, based on your posts...that is not the impression that I got.

Snowman37
July 13th, 2012, 07:03 AM
Perhaps you misinterpreted his posts? I admit, they were structured in such a way that suggested confusion on why the original movie was different. Upon reading further posts, I realized he was trying to convey that the original film is a superior piece of cinema due to the later movies being TV-grade productions.

rushy
July 13th, 2012, 10:04 AM
That's absolutely right. But well, english ain't my first language anyway so it's understandable.

Dr. D.
August 19th, 2012, 12:40 PM
There's a lot of back-and-forth about terminology going on in this thread while, at the root of all of it, it looks like everybody is basically on the same page. Or close to it. This is interesting. The different terms have different interpretations, in some cases based on the contexts within which they are used, and in other cases given the general differences in their connotations and denotations.

Canon, for example, can be perceived as the original - where it all began - and that there can be only one true canon. On the other hand, it is commonly used as a synonym to the word official. Yet, then again, it is also used in multiples, in reference to different continuities.

Sometimes there are different ideas on the term franchise. One individual might see the original movie and the television series as two separate franchises, while someone else might see all of those productions combined as being part of one, single franchise that owns both, i.e., MGM.

Perhaps the least confusing term is continuity, or at least until other similar terms are thrown into the mix, like retcon and continuity errors.

One individual might see the television series as a conglomerate retcon of the original movie, while another might see it as not a retcon at all, saying that it would have to hold on to the facts from the original, or preserve the original continuity, while otherwise changing the interpretation of that information.

An example of how retcon might differ would be the location of Abydos. One person could say that there's no misinterpreting the planet being in another galaxy versus the Milky Way, yet another person might have a completely different understanding of the term retcon.

Continuity errors almost always refer to errors that occur within one branch of the franchise, such as errors that occur exclusive to the television series.

Then we finally move on to the subject of what makes a movie a movie - or what type of movie - and how different people interpret those differences, be they budgets, durations, big or small screen presentations, or the syntax of each production and how they compare to one another. Then we get into the pilot or premiere episodes of the different series and how they are later altered and edited to fit within movie contexts.

I opened up this thread when I saw the subject title "Stargate (1994)" - while I was looking for a forum dedicated to Stargate, the original movie, though unfortunately there is not one - and I ended up finding this discussion. Very interesting, indeed.

ariel_neomatrix
September 1st, 2014, 07:28 AM
For Me the series SG-1 is not canot because the movie have other stories created for dean devlin

kenngaub
June 26th, 2018, 03:48 PM
So if they were only able to dial 6 chevrons before Daniel showed up why couldn't they light up 7, after all they had this:

http://www.gateworld.net/gallery/albums/movies/stargate_movie/screencaps/normal_movie01_0318.JPG

The Tau'ri POO was right on the cover stone.

My theory on this was that the dialing computer was programmed to allow for Snyder number of chevrons in an address. Remember, there are 9 in total, and they had no way of knowing that only 7 were needed for basic functionality.

They probably started off attempting 9 chevron addresses and it wouldn't work. Then they noticed the 6 symbols in the cartouche and tried a 6 chevron setup.

I like to think that offscreen someone clicked on the "7 chevrons" button to open the dialing software symbol entering screen that we saw.