Could/Should S9 have been a spinoff?

[Jonzey]

So people say it should be a spin off because RDA is not in it? And without RDA it's not SG1? But it was still Sg1 even when he turned up for 5 mins an episode to make a few jokes and tell the others to go on a mission?

If this had happened earlier, say around season 4/5, I would say yes, it should be a spin off. But RDA's departure has been gradual since season 6, and the show focussed on the other characters more (not that they didn't before) so they still have 3 very developed characters still around, it's still about a team of explorers who go through the Stargate, it's still set in Cheyenne mountain. To me, it's still the Stargate SG1 I've known and loved for 8 years.

I reckon if they were to make it a spin off, they would have changed so much more. They'd probably have to do away with Carter, Teal'c and Daniel and introduce a new, younger team and reinvent the basic principle of the show. And have them operate out of somewhere else.

Hell, people were complaining that we've never seen Mitchell roaming the halls of the SGC before the start of 9, but a whole new flagship team is prefectly fine because the name is different? And it would have to be about the flagship team. Who want to hear about the adventures of SG-nothing?

[uknesvuinng]

For the record, I never thought it should be a spinoff because RDA left.

It's not just the cast changes, but the whole overall story change. If SG-1 was solely people going through the gate exploring, then Atlantis would ultimately just be a clone. SG-1 was about the team going through the gate with the ultimate goal of fighting the Goa'uld and defending the earth from them. Now the Goa'uld are gone and the premise has changed to fighting the Ori. That's where I feel the big line has been drawn. I enjoy the new storyline, even if some elements seem a little cliche. However I think it might have been better told if it was a spinoff and the whole team was new. Ultimately, it's tricky either way because a lot of the setting remains the same even though the premise has changed.

[LtColCarter]

I agree with the general consensus of the thread. SG-1 S9 shouldn't have been a spin-off. Things are going well the way they are. Someone mentioned a debockle about who the leader is. I didn't see any problem with that...to me it was clear that Mitchell was the leader. I dunno why Sam isn't the leader anymore, but I guess some things aren't explained.

[Serebii]

The start of Avalon did feel like a spin off however until Vala arrived

[Tiret]

I dunno why Sam isn't the leader anymore, but I guess some things aren't explained.

I'm assuming she declined the position because she wanted to occupy herself with scientific stuff for a while, you know, at Area 51 or wherever she was, when we didn't see much of her the first few S9 episodes. There's probably no point in her re-assuming command if she's going to keep running off to play with various technologies. It's a matter of practicality and stability of the leadership position.

[Tiret]

SG-1 was about the team going through the gate with the ultimate goal of fighting the Goa'uld and defending the earth from them. Now the Goa'uld are gone and the premise has changed to fighting the Ori. That's where I feel the big line has been drawn.

I see what you mean. But I felt that way, somewhat, when SG1 was so occupied with fighting the replicators. I don't know how long this thing with the Ori will last, but I don't see them writing out the Goa'uld altogether. Hang in there, I think in the mean-time the Ori are going to get a bit more interesting. We're still just learning about the threat at this point.

[NakedJehutyV2]

SGA is a spin off. SG1 still has 98% of the original characters with only 2 replacements (3 for lam).

spin off is taking one character from a show and moving him/her somewhere else and introduce new characters. like SGA.


this thread is just a ***** bout SG1 S9 thread under a different name

[uknesvuinng]

SGA is a spin off. SG1 still has 98% of the original characters with only 2 replacements (3 for lam).

spin off is taking one character from a show and moving him/her somewhere else and introduce new characters. like SGA.


this thread is just a ***** bout SG1 S9 thread under a different name

Perhaps you should have read the multiple times I said the whole team should have been new as well if it were a spinoff.

And the great majority of the show (fighting off the Goa'uld) has been replaced as well. If I were to assign an arbitrary percentage to the changes, I'd put it at about 70-80%.

I'm not asking if S9 should be repackaged with a title that calls it something else, I'm asking if the Ori concept should have been it's own seperate show. If it were still the Goa'uld, I wouldn't be considering "spinoff".

[NakedJehutyV2]

no not a spin off

[Miz_Gatez]

So people say it should be a spin off because RDA is not in it? And without RDA it's not SG1?

A lot of people said that here. To me, it's not because RDA's not in it, it's how poorly they went about the changes. To fill this gap RDA and AT created when they left (although temprarily for AT) Daniel was acting a lil too MUCH like Jack, and let's face it, the character Vala is no substitute for Sam Carter; trying to replace Carter with her would be disastrous in my opinion, but that's something for a different thread...

[the fifth man]

So people say it should be a spin off because RDA is not in it? And without RDA it's not SG1? But it was still Sg1 even when he turned up for 5 mins an episode to make a few jokes and tell the others to go on a mission?

If this had happened earlier, say around season 4/5, I would say yes, it should be a spin off. But RDA's departure has been gradual since season 6, and the show focussed on the other characters more (not that they didn't before) so they still have 3 very developed characters still around, it's still about a team of explorers who go through the Stargate, it's still set in Cheyenne mountain. To me, it's still the Stargate SG1 I've known and loved for 8 years.

I reckon if they were to make it a spin off, they would have changed so much more. They'd probably have to do away with Carter, Teal'c and Daniel and introduce a new, younger team and reinvent the basic principle of the show. And have them operate out of somewhere else.

Hell, people were complaining that we've never seen Mitchell roaming the halls of the SGC before the start of 9, but a whole new flagship team is prefectly fine because the name is different? And it would have to be about the flagship team. Who want to hear about the adventures of SG-nothing?

I totally agree with you, Jonzey. This show, especially the last few eps before the break, is really starting to feel like the Sg-1 I remember. I can't wait for the second half to start up.

[Taonas]

I was watching "Hypaspace Weekly" this morning (it's a show on the SPACE channel, basically a news report of all things sci-fi and fantasy) and they were showing interviews they did a few weeks before the shows finished production this season.

Anyway, to get to the point, in Micheal Shanks' interview he said (I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember exactly):
"This season was actually originally planed as a spin-off. In Avalon part one, right at the end of the teaser we have Gary Jones say [welcome to Stargate Command] and that was going to be the name of it."

As I said this is paraphrasing, but the point comes across.

[MediaSavant]

Law & Order has changed characters multiple times in its lifetime. Point: merely changing characters while the rest of the premise of the series is basically the same, does not make a new show or a "spin-off". It makes it a cast change. The other Law & Orders have different premises.

While, Star Trek TNG and TOS had the same basic premise, there were almost two decades between the two shows. Other Star Trek shows did different premises--DS9 was on a space station, Voyager was lost in space.

CSI:Miami and CSI:NY can be said to be "spin-offs", I suppose, but they are in different locations and the original hasn't gone away. But, if they changed cast in CSI (Vegas), I wouldn't call it a "spin-off" of CSI, I'd call it the original show with a cast change.

[Tiret]

You know, as I think about it, I think the thing that would have to make it a spin-off for me would be if they got rid of Daniel on top of everything else. As long as he's still around, (plus much of the premise being intact) it's still got a lot of continuity for me. My reason I guess being that the movie was pretty much centered on Daniel, and although the series used Jack more for its main character...I don't know, as long as the guy who got the gate working is still around I have to consider it still the "first generation" of the show. (I realize there was a whole period of time after Daniel 'ascended' that nobody knew if he'd permanently return to the show, but as I didn't really start watching the series until he'd already come back I guess I'll always take it for granted that he was going to return.) I don't know, this just occurred to me today. So while S9 feels a little like a new era of the show, it still has strong ties to its roots. Just some more thoughts.

[STARGATE7777]

If you think about the original characters I would say Jack, Sam, Daniel, Teal'c, General Hammond and Janet. Right now, we don't have Jack, General Hammond or Janet so really that 50% of the original cast that is gone. I know that Janet and General Hammond left in other seasons but consider the fact that when we lost Jack we also lost Thor, Maybourne, references to the Simpsons and the Wizard of Oz. The replicators, most of the Gould, the Asgard, the Tokra and all the other races that were allies are also gone. To me it FEELS like a new show despite the fact that 3 characters are left. It's as though they are in an alternate universe or have all had their memories erased. We, the fans, however, have not been as lucky and are left feeling that something is just not right. That's how I feel anyways.