Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anyone concerned about what Amazon might do with SG Franchise? i.e. WoT

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Anyone concerned about what Amazon might do with SG Franchise? i.e. WoT

    In particular, based on the total massacre of the Wheel of Time series, is anyone concerned that Amazon will take the franchise name and create something that is so different that it is unrecognizable? So essentially if they just use the name of the franchise since its well known but create something totally new and unrelated like they did with Wheel of Time. For instance, in SG4 Tealc, now the leader of Oneill might start a blood thirsty war against the Nox to steal their powers for themselves. Meanwhile Sam gets it on with a wraith and creates an all woman planet to fight Oneill. Meanwhile the Goauld are now actually what used to be called the Replicators, but they are now the protectors of the worlds etc. etc. Sounds silly, but I can't think of a single book or franchise that has been rebooted or created for screen recently that has managed to even remotely pay homage to the source material in any meaningful way beyond just using the name.

    #2
    Fans don't want a reboot as we would like to see a continuation of the Brad Wright tv canon. Hopefully he will be involved in the fourth series and his name will be a guarantee that there won't be such weird changes i the established lore.
    "I was hoping for another day. Looks like we just got a whole lot more than that. Let's not waste it."

    "Never underestimate your audience. They're generally sensitive, intelligent people who respond positively to quality entertainment."

    "Individual science fiction stories may seem as trivial as ever to the blinder critics and philosophers of today, but the core of science fiction, its essence, has become crucial to our salvation, if we are to be saved at all."

    Comment


      #3
      I think it's a real possibility that Amazon will go this way.
      Check out the dial the gate episode of last weekend, "state of the gate": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuZRfMiMU7U

      They ask the question if they think Brad Wright will be involved: the answer is fifty-fifty either way. As David also correctly mentions: if the decision to continue Stargate on Amazon/MGM side keeps being delayed, there's a good chance that Brad Wright will already have moved on to another opportunity, and nobody could blame him.
      After all, the guy's self-employed and can't keep hanging around waiting for a go or no-go, he needs to make a living too.

      So who knows, everything is still possible.
      Personally, for me it's simple: either they continue with Brad, which would be great, count me in and I'm looking forward to it.

      Or they reboot: I might, and that's a really big "might" be willing to at least give it the benefit of the doubt and watch the first episode. If I see they go way off track compared to what came before, it's game over for me: I'll always have SG-1, SG-A and SG-U on DVD, so they can go ahead without me.

      Same reason why I'm also not watching the new Star Trek Discovery series: I tried, I really did. But the old Star Trek series, I watched those like someone in the desert who finally gets a sip of water: couldn't wait for the next episode.

      Discovery: I had all the episodes of the first 3 seasons at my disposal, and it took me more than 1,5 year to get through them, it felt to me like getting my teeth pulled.
      Same story: so different from what came before it might as well have been a reboot, and I really really tried, but I can't get through it, completely doesn't interest me anymore.

      So for me, the result there is that, although I was a HUGE Star Trek fan in the past, for me the franchise at the moment has lost all appeal.

      But same there: I still have all the previous series on DVD, so I'm OK with that.

      I'm prepared for it to go either way with any new Stargate. As the song goes, whatever will be, will be
      Last edited by DrMckay; November 23, 2021, 02:18 AM.

      Comment


        #4
        Considering the state of the Amazon/MGM buy at the moment, we have little to worry about what Amazon might do or might not do with the Stargate IP. Afterall, the i's and t's have not yet been dotted or crossed, and from the looks of it won't be for quite a while to come.

        Originally posted by lynnneez View Post
        In particular, based on the total massacre of the Wheel of Time series, is anyone concerned that Amazon will take the franchise name and create something that is so different that it is unrecognizable?
        I was under the impression that Wheel of Time is being received rather well. A friend of mine has read the books and is raving about the series. So much so that I'm now interested in checking it out, both series and books.

        Therefor, it's reasonable to assume that while you might not like what Amazon might do with Stargate, there will be people who will love it. New people who've not seen anything that came before.

        We should remember that our stargate has been off the air and out of the public's eye for so long that one could start a whole new lore and bring in a whole new audience, without having to take into account the oldies who might want to hold on to their old teams and old shows.

        I wouldn't mind a breath of fresh air. I could even live with a reboot (even though I have no interest in the 4400 reboot at the moment, and I loved the original). If the stories are worth it, and the characters interesting enough, Amazon can do whatever they like with it.

        Originally posted by DrMckay View Post
        But the old Star Trek series, I watched those like someone in the desert who finally gets a sip of water...


        I'm the opposite, I think Discovery is amazing and made me go back to the originals (which made me cringe to no end -- especially TOS). I'm now in season 6 of TNG, then moving onto DS-9 which I watched a few episodes of but never really liked when it aired.

        Originally posted by DrMckay View Post
        I'm prepared for it to go either way with any new Stargate. As the song goes, whatever will be, will be
        Que sera, sera... *stuck with the song now*
        Heightmeyer's Lemming -- still the coolest Lemming of the forum

        Proper Stargate Rewatch -- season 10 of SG-1

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Falcon Horus View Post

          I'm the opposite, I think Discovery is amazing and made me go back to the originals (which made me cringe to no end -- especially TOS). I'm now in season 6 of TNG, then moving onto DS-9 which I watched a few episodes of but never really liked when it aired.
          I have to admit, my taste changed over time.
          In the past, I loved Voyager and TNG, didn't really like DS9.

          I never watched TOS and don't have the intention to watch it either, I prefer my scifi without cardboard backgrounds and bad make-up

          Now, for all I care, there is only one Star Trek: DS9.
          Every time I rewatch TNG or Voyager today, I'm thinking to myself "oh wow, did I ever like this?".
          But DS9... that's for me the absolute summit of Star Trek, the one and only. You have to struggle to get through the first 2-3 seasons, but once the Dominion War kicks off... damn, what a show

          Stargate on the other hand, every time I rewatch that, it seems to be getting better and better
          Even to such a degree that in the past, I never even gave SG-U a chance, based on online criticism.

          I watched it for the first time about 5 years ago, and now it's actually my favorite show of the 3

          Originally posted by Falcon Horus View Post

          Que sera, sera... *stuck with the song now*
          You're welcome

          Anyways, I hope Stargate will come back and will be something I can enjoy.
          Because on the scifi-front, I'm still stuck in the past.

          It's probably just me, but none of those present-day scifi shows can interest me one bit.
          The Orville: nope.
          The Expanse: nope (started reading the books too, but only got through the first 5 or so, then I got bored of those too).
          Any current Star Trek series: nope.
          I'm also one of those rare people who only watched a few episodes of Game of Thrones and hated it.

          It just seems to me that those present-day shows are all just so... bland and dull...

          The last 10 years, every time I want to see something good, I go back to the past.
          Stargate on DVD, or recently even Macgyver on DVD (yes the original one with Richard D. Anderson, not the reboot which also didn't interest me).
          Macgyver has been a topic of nostalgia for me, having been born in '83 and growing up with it

          Last edited by DrMckay; November 23, 2021, 02:39 AM.

          Comment


            #6
            If the stories are worth it, and the characters interesting enough, Amazon can do whatever they like with it.
            See that would never work for me. They can make any scifi show and create interesting stories/characters, but if they want to slap the Stargate name on it, they need to first understand what about the franchise made it so loved and bring that back. Sure slap on some modern niceties, but it needs to have at the core the formula that made it popular in the first place to some degree - you cannot completely change it yet name it a reboot or continuation. You can't take a comedy and then retell it as a drama and then wonder why fans are upset or vice versa. Otherwise, just please, PLEASE do not call it Stargate. Be typical of modern movie and tv runners and you can uncreatively call it Gate of Stars and wreck it all you want. Remaking SG into any sort of show as long as characters and stories are interesting would be akin to HBO having made GoT into a musical comedy and than acting surprised that the fans hate it.

            For instance STD -- what were they thinking. Im sorry, I know you said you like it, but honestly, it is not Star Trek in any sense of the word for me. It is literally just using the name. Its insulting to fans for them to have literally broken every rule and vision of Gene Roddenberry. If you want to tell a story that different, fine, but don't call it ST. Orville did an excellent job in comparison in creating a show that pays homage to the Star Trek series while being a slapstick comedy at that - now that is innovative, modern, risky, but well done in this case! Ironically, for all the high brow crap that STD claims to be doing that original ST fans supposedly cant deal with, Orville actually explores much more complex modern issues than STD and in more effective ways. Its also obvious it was made by a true fan, unlike STD. They should have honored the creator and tried to come up with a way to keep his formula in a modern structure. I would rather they went with the utopian modern vision of the world that Roddenberry imagined and was at the core of every ST series instead of the dark apocalyptic vision that is now in literally every show on tv today. ST was never about that and in a future world in ST, there is no way things could every be that abysmal. If anything, things shoud be even more utopian. The movies managed to retell the story in a modern way so its really hard to grasp how the TV show deviated so much from the original and failed so hard. STD is literally an ST show in the same way as if they had made GoT into a musical comedy. So shocking that people who grew up on STNG or Voyager don't like it. The studio had a responsibility to take into account the fans that popularized it enough to enable them to create the reboot in the first place. Also, why go to the trouble of casting more women and minorities just to make their characters so incompetent and idiotic. Half the time I watched STD, I was embarrassed to be a woman.

            I do watch new scifi though - so Expanse, Dark Matter, Altered Carbon, Foundation, among others so I am not against good current scifi or dark gritty scifi, but I am tired of studios completely going off the rails when remaking or rebooting beloved old shows to make them wildly different or unnecessarily dark and edgy in failed attempts to appeal to some sort of "new" audience while completely ignoring the core fan base. And they do it to a point that the new show has none of the spirit, quality or any sort of element that you could recognize as having any tie ever to the original.

            And Wheel of Time is so far removed from the books. Main characters are completely opposite of what they were in the books and its jarring and the story is really removed from the books. I realize stories change when made into movies, but I had expected at least a 40-50% adherence to the story. While I will give it several more episodes, I am hoping they don't go the full GoT dark reality route. WoT was not a children's story, but it was not dark like that nor does it need to be a GoT2 just so that Amazon can ride that wave and pander to that audience.

            Likewise, SG is a positive show - its more of a space adventure with some comedy. Characters are likeable, not deeply flawed and struggling to do the right thing yet repeating mistakes again an again (STD). Neither a reboot nor a continuation should deviate much from the lighthearted, positive approach of the originals, which were more like Indiana Jones in space imo. So hopefully we don't end up with ugly, amoral characters, struggling with personal issues constantly, swearing like sailors (cus that's super realistic - im sure its how all Nasa and gov employees operate...). It should not become a drama or some dark edgy scifi show, which apparently what studios seem to think is "modern" and appeals to "new" audiences these days. In SG I expect adventure, humor, likeable characters and when dealing with modern issues, if we must drag them into a fun show like SG, it should be done with a more hopeful spin instead of the usual this is another thing wrong in the world that will never be fixed approach. If its done far different from that, it is not SG so call it something else (Dark Gate lol). For instance, they remade MacGyver, which as far as I know, while being a modern retelling, it still is about a guy who is good with gadgets saving the world one person at a time - more or less and it did well without having to reinvent the wheel. Its not like they made him into a chain smoking sex addict thinking about a sex change hell bent on world domination yet still called it Macgyver.


            Anyhoo, apologies for the rambles and fingers crossed that maybe in 2024 we see something from Amazon that can bring in new fans, but also provides enough spirit of the originals that they don't alienate the fans that got SG to the popularity to have it rebooted in the first place. Take note STD show runners...

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by lynnneez View Post
              You can't take a comedy and then retell it as a drama and then wonder why fans are upset or vice versa. Otherwise, just please, PLEASE do not call it Stargate.
              But taking a drama and turning it into something that oscillates between comedy and drama is okay? While there was some humor in Stargate's feature film, I wouldn't say that the TV adaptation entirely "honored the creator and tried to come up with a way to keep his formula." It used much of the film's storyline as a jumping off point, but it created more of an action adventure romp that dialed up the comedy and made some notable changes, including to O'Neill's character. The soldier who wanted to kill himself because his son died while playing with his gun in the movie became a wise-cracking smartass who tends not to dwell on any one thought for very long in the TV series. References to his dead son were, for the most part, limited to early episodes and then largely ignored.

              If, like a lot of us, you were introduced to Stargate through the TV series and didn't go into it knowing that Dean Devlin used to view it as a bastardization of his original vision, you probably view the TV series as what Stargate "should" be. It helps that Devlin's plans for a trilogy were denied and MGM refused to let him work on the TV series. Otherwise people would have had more time to get attached to his vision of Stargate and then you'd have a lot more people coming around to complain if, after all that, a Wright and Cooper Stargate series was made. Those people already exist, by the way. I've had a handful of conversations with online commentators who hate the TV series for diverging from the movie and they seemed to particularly hate what was done with O'neill's character, which is why I focused on him in the previous paragraph.

              That's the thing, though; people tend to develop an attachment to the first version of something that they connected with. You say that your issue with new Star Trek shows is that they don't conform to Roddenberry's vision, but it's probably more that it doesn't conform to what you think Star Trek should be, which is based on how it was when you were first exposed to it. Just as you likely went into Stargate unaware of Devlin's dislike for the franchise's direction after MGM cut him off, people are going to become Star Trek fans from these new series and they're going to be equally resistant if future shows go in new directions to try to replicate the tone of earlier shows.

              And Stargate is only one example. I bet if you explored your fictional interests you'd find that you're attached to even more ideas, concepts, and tones that diverged from those found in the source material. Do you know if every movie you like that's based on a book is true to its source material? You might not even be aware that some of your favorite movies were books to begin with. What about mythology? Is that one of your interests? For thousands of years writers have been updating stories from mythology and folklore to match their own sensibilities and those of different cultures/time periods.

              For example, have you ever watched a modern King Arthur tale and thought it was all wrong? The earliest surviving written versions of some legendary tales are not even necessarily the originals. Sometimes an author rewrote a story so powerfully that it was the only version people bothered persevering, so we can't see how a particular story was changed or we just have a partial idea because only fragments of an original text survived. And we have no real idea how stories that originated in oral tradition evolved before someone finally wrote one of them down.

              This is true of everything from Greek mythology to vampires and werewolves, but many different versions of Arthurian stories from medieval literature survived because this was a favorite topic for authors from different time periods and cultures. In the 11th century, Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote Arthur as a powerful hero king who went around slaying giants and fighting the Roman Empire because he was writing at a time when the real-life king of England was a powerful Norman and for political reasons I won't get into at the moment. Later writers modeled Arthur more on the weaker, feckless kings of their time, and a lot of the elements that people associate with Arthurian legend today, like Camelot and Lancelot, weren't even written by British authors; they were introduced in French courtly romances. However, those became so popular that people today will get angry if modern writers base their stories on earlier sources that they're unfamiliar with or if authors insert modern influences into a King Arthur story even though there's a long tradition of doing just that.

              Superheroes are a modern example of this problem. Do you think that any particular superhero should act, look, or be a certain way? A lot of people do even though they're constantly being revised by writers, and not just over time. Some popular superheroes have different titles that run concurrently and use the framing of different universes to radically alter a particular character. There are a fair number of particularly vocal fans who seem to think that movie makers not only should be unable to follow in this tradition by introducing ideas of their own, but they accuse movie adaptations of inventing ideas if they don't exclusively borrow from the particular title and issue numbers that they grew up reading.

              Superman is "supposed" to fly because he always has during their lifetimes, but he originally could only leap tall bounds in a single bound, so is it really so bad if an adaptation honors that original aspect of the character by depicting a young Clark Kent who can only run and jump? Some seem to think so.

              What about Batman? He doesn't ever kill anybody, right? That's become a defining aspect of his character, so all hell breaks loose at the slightest hint that a new movie might make him a killer. However, he originally killed people in the comics and had to switch to using nonviolent methods because of parental and government backlash. As a consequence, writers spent so much time justifying the change that people now associate it as a defining character trait even though it's not the original intent of Batman's creator. The people who want to maintain Batman's non-killing rule may say it has to stay because it's wrong to diverge from the source material, but they're defending a change that was forced on writers because of censorship.

              As these are older examples, many of the fans of the original versions are dead, but superheroes are reinvented so often that there are 70s, 80s, and 90s comic book fans who get upset at movies for drawing from earlier or later comics. There are also those who grew up on the cartoons and get upset if a movie doesn't follow something that the cartoon changed from the comic. These different fans often fight with each other over which of these is the "true" version.

              If you only want to see a character one way, you can invest your time in properties owned exclusively by individual creators who refuse to license them to other people, either at all or without maintaining a large degree of creative control. Sometimes their estates are equally protective after their deaths. Salinger refused to sell the movie rights to "Catcher and the Rye" and his children have done the same, so if their position holds, you won't see another writer's take on Holden Caulfield until that book enters the public domain.

              If a creator doesn't want their properties to become sandboxes that different writers are invited to play in, they shouldn't give up the rights to their work. It's not always that simple. Devlin was pressured to give up the rights to Stargate to get the film distributed, but because that happened MGM was free to bypass him and hire Wright and Cooper to create the version that you love. Why should they (or Amazon) suddenly be unable to do the same to create a version that connects with another generation/group of people or to simultaneously put out different versions that appeal to different people? And if, for whatever reason, creators do make their work available for others to play with, why is it okay for fans to act like they have ownership over the property by trying to dictate what creative choices can or cannot be made?

              Certainly, verbalizing preferences is totally reasonable. I would prefer a new Stargate show that's set in the same universe as the Sg-1. If instead we get a reboot in a style that I don't like, I'd have to accept that because not everything is about me and what I like. That doesn't mean fans of old can't criticize a hypothetical reboot, or express interest in also getting a show that is more to their liking. However, it's one thing to criticize creative choices because they don't work within the framework of a new story and another to criticize changes just because they're different from what came before. Further, to go back to an earlier example, if someone lets Batman kill people in new stories, it doesn't invalidate all the stories where he was refused to kill. Those still exist and can still be enjoyed. And it doesn't necessarily mean that new stories where he refuses to kill people won't ever be made again or can't be created simultaneously.
              Last edited by Xaeden; November 23, 2021, 07:25 PM.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by lynnneez View Post

                See that would never work for me. They can make any scifi show and create interesting stories/characters, but if they want to slap the Stargate name on it, they need to first understand what about the franchise made it so loved and bring that back. Sure slap on some modern niceties, but it needs to have at the core the formula that made it popular in the first place to some degree - you cannot completely change it yet name it a reboot or continuation. You can't take a comedy and then retell it as a drama and then wonder why fans are upset or vice versa. Otherwise, just please, PLEASE do not call it Stargate. Be typical of modern movie and tv runners and you can uncreatively call it Gate of Stars and wreck it all you want. Remaking SG into any sort of show as long as characters and stories are interesting would be akin to HBO having made GoT into a musical comedy and than acting surprised that the fans hate it.

                For instance STD -- what were they thinking. Im sorry, I know you said you like it, but honestly, it is not Star Trek in any sense of the word for me. It is literally just using the name. Its insulting to fans for them to have literally broken every rule and vision of Gene Roddenberry. If you want to tell a story that different, fine, but don't call it ST. Orville did an excellent job in comparison in creating a show that pays homage to the Star Trek series while being a slapstick comedy at that - now that is innovative, modern, risky, but well done in this case! Ironically, for all the high brow crap that STD claims to be doing that original ST fans supposedly cant deal with, Orville actually explores much more complex modern issues than STD and in more effective ways. Its also obvious it was made by a true fan, unlike STD. They should have honored the creator and tried to come up with a way to keep his formula in a modern structure. I would rather they went with the utopian modern vision of the world that Roddenberry imagined and was at the core of every ST series instead of the dark apocalyptic vision that is now in literally every show on tv today. ST was never about that and in a future world in ST, there is no way things could every be that abysmal. If anything, things shoud be even more utopian. The movies managed to retell the story in a modern way so its really hard to grasp how the TV show deviated so much from the original and failed so hard. STD is literally an ST show in the same way as if they had made GoT into a musical comedy. So shocking that people who grew up on STNG or Voyager don't like it. The studio had a responsibility to take into account the fans that popularized it enough to enable them to create the reboot in the first place. Also, why go to the trouble of casting more women and minorities just to make their characters so incompetent and idiotic. Half the time I watched STD, I was embarrassed to be a woman.

                I do watch new scifi though - so Expanse, Dark Matter, Altered Carbon, Foundation, among others so I am not against good current scifi or dark gritty scifi, but I am tired of studios completely going off the rails when remaking or rebooting beloved old shows to make them wildly different or unnecessarily dark and edgy in failed attempts to appeal to some sort of "new" audience while completely ignoring the core fan base. And they do it to a point that the new show has none of the spirit, quality or any sort of element that you could recognize as having any tie ever to the original.

                And Wheel of Time is so far removed from the books. Main characters are completely opposite of what they were in the books and its jarring and the story is really removed from the books. I realize stories change when made into movies, but I had expected at least a 40-50% adherence to the story. While I will give it several more episodes, I am hoping they don't go the full GoT dark reality route. WoT was not a children's story, but it was not dark like that nor does it need to be a GoT2 just so that Amazon can ride that wave and pander to that audience.

                Likewise, SG is a positive show - its more of a space adventure with some comedy. Characters are likeable, not deeply flawed and struggling to do the right thing yet repeating mistakes again an again (STD). Neither a reboot nor a continuation should deviate much from the lighthearted, positive approach of the originals, which were more like Indiana Jones in space imo. So hopefully we don't end up with ugly, amoral characters, struggling with personal issues constantly, swearing like sailors (cus that's super realistic - im sure its how all Nasa and gov employees operate...). It should not become a drama or some dark edgy scifi show, which apparently what studios seem to think is "modern" and appeals to "new" audiences these days. In SG I expect adventure, humor, likeable characters and when dealing with modern issues, if we must drag them into a fun show like SG, it should be done with a more hopeful spin instead of the usual this is another thing wrong in the world that will never be fixed approach. If its done far different from that, it is not SG so call it something else (Dark Gate lol). For instance, they remade MacGyver, which as far as I know, while being a modern retelling, it still is about a guy who is good with gadgets saving the world one person at a time - more or less and it did well without having to reinvent the wheel. Its not like they made him into a chain smoking sex addict thinking about a sex change hell bent on world domination yet still called it Macgyver.


                Anyhoo, apologies for the rambles and fingers crossed that maybe in 2024 we see something from Amazon that can bring in new fans, but also provides enough spirit of the originals that they don't alienate the fans that got SG to the popularity to have it rebooted in the first place. Take note STD show runners...
                That's not true. I have read Wheel of Time more than everyone. They have been following Eye of the World pretty close with some small exceptions. Most are small because of media changes. The only character not close to the books is Mat.

                PM me if you decide to read the books FH.

                As for Stargate I think the fans are going to be disappointed. It seems like as fandom age they tend to live in the past. Star Trek fans for example who want to still live in the past and are put off by the new shows. That is not economically possible as the general public won't watch outdated shows. I see a similar trend if a new Stargate show comes

                Originally posted by aretood2
                Jelgate is right

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by jelgate View Post

                  As for Stargate I think the fans are going to be disappointed. It seems like as fandom age they tend to live in the past. Star Trek fans for example who want to still live in the past and are put off by the new shows. That is not economically possible as the general public won't watch outdated shows. I see a similar trend if a new Stargate show comes
                  Fair remark. However, I don't think that older fans should just accept whatever is served up today as great, just because of "economically possible".

                  What some people call outdated, I call more depth, better storytelling and higher level of quality.

                  For me personally, I find most shows made today not appealing at all. Maybe I'm getting old, who knows. Maybe I'm one of those whom the millenials start calling boomers, might well be

                  But I can't rid myself of the impression that a lot of shows made today are dull, bland, boring, ... and lack the depth and quality of older shows. In the past, a lot of shows made you think about something.
                  Today, I find that lacking in a lot of shows: I have the impression that shows represent our society today. And indeed, in that aspect they are "modern and not outdated". But as a lot of goods today in society are low-quality and throw-away, I have the impression our television shows have followed this trend: they seem to be made to give the audience a quick-fix shot of satisfaction, maybe linked to the binge-trend, without a lot of depth.

                  Come to think of it, they give me the same feeling as fastfood
                  Sure, they make the hunger go away, for a while. But in the end, it's industrial garbage within, low quality, not a lot of nutritional value and content within, and after a while, it leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth and might even give you issues with your intestines

                  If I look at shows that today have apparently a lot of success and are long-running, such as NCIS, I have no idea where they get that success. If you've seen one episode, you've seen them all.

                  Another show I recently started watching together with my wife: Castle.
                  The first season it was ok, but we're at season 6 now and we have been wondering for a while how that show also got this far.

                  That's my personal opinion of course, but I firmly believe that as a society, in the last 20 years, we've come to accept a lower level of quality, not only regarding our tv-shows.

                  So yes, you're right, the fans might very well be disappointed, as I probably will be myself. Because in my opinion, the bar was raised in the past with the previous shows.

                  And sure, if you look at the previous shows, especially those first seasons of SG-1, you might say: wow, those visuals are so outdated. Yep, totally agree. It was a child of its time plus they obviously had a lower budget then. However, there was attention to the story-telling.

                  Today, I have the impression the balance has tipped when it comes to TV-shows: less attention on the story-telling, but just trying to impress the audience with visuals and CGI.
                  I believe Star Trek Discovery is a perfect example of this.

                  And THAT, that is something I'm going to pass on: that's basically fast-food as I mentioned above.

                  Delivering something with a lowered bar because "that's what is today economically feasible and is what society wants today", well... There's a reason why I'm looking at society with an ever increasing level of astonishment these last 20 years

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Was going to write a length reply, then I saw Xaeden's reply and I'm just going to say, what he said.
                    Couldn't have said it any better.

                    Originally posted by DrMckay View Post
                    If I look at shows that today have apparently a lot of success and are long-running, such as NCIS, I have no idea where they get that success. If you've seen one episode, you've seen them all.
                    They rely on interesting characters and the stories they tell. I've been watchting NCIS since the start and I can solve their crimes before they are even halfway the episode these days but it's all about them characters.

                    Also cardboard, malfunctioning backgrounds in TOS made me snort... a lot.
                    Heightmeyer's Lemming -- still the coolest Lemming of the forum

                    Proper Stargate Rewatch -- season 10 of SG-1

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Falcon Horus View Post
                      Was going to write a length reply, then I saw Xaeden's reply and I'm just going to say, what he said.
                      Couldn't have said it any better.
                      I agree that some changes in a new series are very likely and should be made too.
                      Obviously I'm not expecting any of the old guard taking up their previous roles, or it should be in some cameo of 2 minutes.
                      A whole new crew/team is what I would also prefer for a new series, exactly like what they did with SG-U.

                      But not pretending as if the previous 3 series did not happen at all and basically starting all over again from scratch. That would be way too much for me, it needs to be in the same universe as the TV-series.

                      For all we know, they do a completely different story such as what Dean Devlin was originally planning.
                      Did you see that interview with him on Dial The Gate?

                      If I remember correctly, he had the idea for 3 movies.
                      - the first movie was the one we got, with the Egyptian context.
                      - the second movie would have been linked to the Mayan culture or something like that, so same kind of pyramids/ziggurats, but different context.
                      - the third movie they were going to bring it all together and even link it to phenomenon like Bigfoot and whatever.

                      I am sooooooooooo glad he never got the go-ahead for this crazy idea. This sounds to me like the perfect way to kill off everything which was created in SG-1, SG-A and SG-U.

                      If what Amazon would do would be something this far removed from the series like Dean Devlin had in mind, then I'm definitely all the way for the full 500% going to pass on that

                      As Xaeden already referred to the original movie of Dean Devlin and then the change in e.g. the character of O'Neill: as far as I am concerned, that movie of Dean Devlin never happened.

                      It's like that animated Stargate series: the series one never mentions or talks about
                      I have the exact same feeling with the movie: for me Stargate is SG-1, SG-A and SG-U, period, full stop, new line. Everything else (the Devlin movie, the animated series, Stargate Origins), my point of view is: it never happened

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by DrMckay View Post

                        Fair remark. However, I don't think that older fans should just accept whatever is served up today as great, just because of "economically possible".

                        What some people call outdated, I call more depth, better storytelling and higher level of quality.

                        For me personally, I find most shows made today not appealing at all. Maybe I'm getting old, who knows. Maybe I'm one of those whom the millenials start calling boomers, might well be

                        But I can't rid myself of the impression that a lot of shows made today are dull, bland, boring, ... and lack the depth and quality of older shows. In the past, a lot of shows made you think about something.
                        Today, I find that lacking in a lot of shows: I have the impression that shows represent our society today. And indeed, in that aspect they are "modern and not outdated". But as a lot of goods today in society are low-quality and throw-away, I have the impression our television shows have followed this trend: they seem to be made to give the audience a quick-fix shot of satisfaction, maybe linked to the binge-trend, without a lot of depth.

                        Come to think of it, they give me the same feeling as fastfood
                        Sure, they make the hunger go away, for a while. But in the end, it's industrial garbage within, low quality, not a lot of nutritional value and content within, and after a while, it leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth and might even give you issues with your intestines

                        If I look at shows that today have apparently a lot of success and are long-running, such as NCIS, I have no idea where they get that success. If you've seen one episode, you've seen them all.

                        Another show I recently started watching together with my wife: Castle.
                        The first season it was ok, but we're at season 6 now and we have been wondering for a while how that show also got this far.

                        That's my personal opinion of course, but I firmly believe that as a society, in the last 20 years, we've come to accept a lower level of quality, not only regarding our tv-shows.

                        So yes, you're right, the fans might very well be disappointed, as I probably will be myself. Because in my opinion, the bar was raised in the past with the previous shows.

                        And sure, if you look at the previous shows, especially those first seasons of SG-1, you might say: wow, those visuals are so outdated. Yep, totally agree. It was a child of its time plus they obviously had a lower budget then. However, there was attention to the story-telling.

                        Today, I have the impression the balance has tipped when it comes to TV-shows: less attention on the story-telling, but just trying to impress the audience with visuals and CGI.
                        I believe Star Trek Discovery is a perfect example of this.

                        And THAT, that is something I'm going to pass on: that's basically fast-food as I mentioned above.

                        Delivering something with a lowered bar because "that's what is today economically feasible and is what society wants today", well... There's a reason why I'm looking at society with an ever increasing level of astonishment these last 20 years
                        I don't mean to offend (which probably means I will) but that kind of thought is common and is not actually new. Each generation as they age thinks that culture has declined. In the TV area, they all think TV was better when they were younger. Back in the 90s for example the old Trek fans would complain how inferior TNG was to TOS (Sorry FH).
                        Last edited by jelgate; November 24, 2021, 06:26 PM.
                        Originally posted by aretood2
                        Jelgate is right

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by jelgate View Post

                          I don't mean to offend (which probably means I will) but that kind of thought is common and is not actually new. Each generation as they age thinks that culture has declined. In the TV area, they all think TV was better when they were younger. Back in the 90s for example the old Trek fans would complain how inferior TNG was to TOS (Sorry FH).
                          Oh no offence taken what so ever
                          Like I said, maybe I'm becoming a boomer, who knows, but if I am becoming an old windbag, I'm wearing it like a badge of honor, trust me

                          But on a serious note: no offence taken what so ever.
                          I agree, what you're saying is correct. That's also why I think, if Amazon does a reboot, that they will lose a lot of the old fans, probably including me depending on how much of a change they make.

                          But well, let's be serious, in the grand scheme of things, it's only a TV-show
                          More important things in life could go wrong than this. And as I said, I'll always have the old series on DVD.

                          Which is also something I'm wondering about: I noticed that a lot of those made-for-streaming series don't get a DVD- or bluray-release, because yeah, obviously that goes against the business model of streaming.
                          So I'm wondering, if Amazon does a new series on Prime, if we'll ever get an offline version of that or not. My guess is never.
                          Last edited by DrMckay; November 24, 2021, 11:38 PM.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by jelgate View Post
                            Back in the 90s for example the old Trek fans would complain how inferior TNG was to TOS (Sorry FH).
                            Oddly enough, I can totally see that.

                            Originally posted by DrMckay View Post
                            Which is also something I'm wondering about: I noticed that a lot of those made-for-streaming series don't get a DVD- or bluray-release, because yeah, obviously that goes against the business model of streaming.
                            So I'm wondering, if Amazon does a new series on Prime, if we'll ever get an offline version of that or not. My guess is never.
                            There's no physical DVD/BR copy of Stargate Origins either so it wouldn't be a stretch.

                            Heightmeyer's Lemming -- still the coolest Lemming of the forum

                            Proper Stargate Rewatch -- season 10 of SG-1

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X