Stargate 2

[any_gopher]

You can not retcon the source material, because if you use that explaination for SG1 then the Infinity writers retconned SG1 which must make all of Stargate connected.

the source material for the show, in this case the movie, is something that you aren't supposed to retcon. When it comes to comics you can retcon the story to an alternate reality as those always end up as part of some Earth 2, Earth X, Earth 3.14159265 story, and the writers either use time travel or some sort extra dimensional nonsense to fix their mistakes.

If SG1 is supposed to be a sequel to SG the the movie, what happens when SG2 or SG3 comes out? If they are the same, SG2 and SG3 immediately cancels out everything in SG1 and Atlantis because it's they are true sequels, done by the original creators and then just like comic books, SG1 would be religated to some alternate version of what could have happened.

So you can either accept that when the new movie(s) come out, everything that happened in SG1 becomes an unofficial alternate telling, or you can accept that it wasn't supposed to be a sequel, but it's own unique story based on stargate rather than directly connected to it.

Take Star Wars for example, the expanded universe can not contradict anything that happened in the movies, the movies are written in stone and can't be changed so anything that gets done can either be based on it, or just set in the Star Wars Universe, and SG1 should have been the same. Based on the movie, but not changing anything that happens in the movie.



Well lets see, they redesigned the gate, the facility location and look is different, they changed O'Neil to O'Neill, Jackson's family seemed to have died when he was a lot older than an infant or they also killed his foster parents in the show, Ra was a goa'uld with Jaffa who had tattoos on their head, Sha'uri became Sha're, Skaara and Kasuf seemed fine, and Abydos is no longer in a galaxy far far away. Not exactly sequel material when almost everything has been changed in one way or another.

Hmm... You have some good points, and I do see what you mean now. I guess I think about it like this: as far as the SG-1/Atlantis universe is concerned, the movie does actually happen, minus the things that blatantly contradict. The movie, with said elements in tact, is its own universe, a universe that has room for sequels. Infinity? As much as I'm not interested in it (heh heh), in it's own little universe, the movie and tv series serve as the backstory. So I guess three separate things, bubbles if you will. One, just the movie. Another, the movie, revised to fit the series, and then the series. The next, the foundation provided by movie/series, and then the cartoon. It would seem, however, that the second of these three is the route MGM has chosen to take, and the one that gave this forum a reason to exist, so it's the one I follow. Thanks for those goods points!

It would be so fantastic if Devlin could work within the established continuity and tell his own story without trampling on ours. As much as I understand his plight, I really really don't see both universes coexisting. It would be cool if it could, but that would be marketing Hell.

[Flyboy]

Well Devlin's universe sees Daniel STAYING on Abydos for 12 years.

You know, that's a huge divergence, and one big enough, imo to make it an interesting enough film to survive.

[luthienberen]

I wouldn't be interested in seeing this. THAT'S my point. Now, certainly, others may be very interested in seeing it, but I don't see Spader and Russell in these roles anymore.



Chill out! I'm not taking it as an attack on SG-1. Some may love the idea of a Devlin sequel. I'm not one of them. I can't accept Spader as Daniel Jackson and Russell as Jack O'Neill after watching Rick and Michael in those roles for a decade. THAT'S what I'm saying.

I can see Russell and James Spader in those roles very easily. It'll be great to see them reprise them and bring new, fresh dimension to the characters - Devlin's way.

As for Devlin wanting to see his original work finished, we all wish for things. In my opinion, that ship has long since past. There's too much history wrapped around the series now.

I disagree. I believe that ship is strong and full, and ready to sail once again. I can easily separate the two canons.

Now, if Devlin DOES go ahead and make a sequel, I would probably go see it just out of curiosity. I love James Spader, but I don't see the point of MGM pouring money into making a sequel based on the original movie when you have a whole planet that wants to see an SG-1 movie. Could they do both? Maybe. Why would they?

I'm not part of that whole planet wanting to see an SG-1 movie. I rather see sequels to the original film done by Devlin.

[luthienberen]

Well Devlin's universe sees Daniel STAYING on Abydos for 12 years.

You know, that's a huge divergence, and one big enough, imo to make it an interesting enough film to survive.

Not to mention all the other differences. Another galaxy anyone? Sha'uri alive.

[Maxum]

I can see Russell and James Spader in those roles very easily. It'll be great to see them reprise them and bring new, fresh dimension to the characters - Devlin's way.

That's fine. You act like our opinions HAVE to be similar. If you're looking forward to a Devlin movie and seeing it made his way, that's great. I don't really care if it ever gets made, and that's okay too.

I disagree. I believe that ship is strong and full, and ready to sail once again. I can easily separate the two canons.

Again, that's fine if you think the ship is sea worthy. For me, when I see James Spader, I think Alan Shore. I don't see Daniel Jackson. Again, it's all fine. We don't have to agree - and we don't.

I'm not part of that whole planet wanting to see an SG-1 movie. I rather see sequels to the original film done by Devlin.

Really? I would never have guessed that.

[senordingdong]

Well Devlin can keep hoping but I don't believe we'll ever see this idea come into fruition.

[RepliHawk]

Well Devlin can keep hoping but I don't believe we'll ever see this idea come into fruition.

I dont believe it eather

[rich8511]

No to any continuation of Devlin's ideas.. No to Russell or Spader coming back (RDA and MS ftw).

Yes, to a SG-1 movie. Have it focus on a storyline with the Ori and maybe Sam/Jack, and then have a big batle, but instead of it being the finale of the Ori, have a new spinoff series after to deal with that.

[Flyboy]

Well there's a new and challenging contribution...

[Daniel Jackson]

You can not retcon the source material...

Sure you can. Star Trek retconned itself within it's own series, the movies (1-6) retconned the TV show, and TNG retconned it further. The Borg were retconned for First Contact and further for VOY. The Trill from one TNG episode were retconned for DS9. All 5 Star Trek shows and all 10 movies are set in the same creative world. If Star Trek can do this, why can SG-1 not make some minor changes to the movie, hmm?

because if you use that explaination for SG1 then the Infinity writers retconned SG1 which must make all of Stargate connected.

Stargate: Infinity is a children's cartoon that was not intended to be taken seriously. Like Star Trek: The Animated Series, it is not canon.

the source material for the show, in this case the movie, is something that you aren't supposed to retcon.

It's something Dean Devlin and Ronnald Emmerich don't want retconned. Clearly, MGM and the producers of SG-1 don't mind retconning.

When it comes to comics you can retcon the story to an alternate reality as those always end up as part of some Earth 2, Earth X, Earth 3.14159265 story, and the writers either use time travel or some sort extra dimensional nonsense to fix their mistakes.

I don't read comic books, so I don't know whut you're talking about. An example of a retcon would be a character in a TV show saying his dad is dead in an early episode. A few years into the show, the dad shows up. His death is ignored since that was a throw away line with no consequence to the overal series. You can stick to nitpicky detail, or you can ignore it in favor of telling a good story.

If SG1 is supposed to be a sequel to SG the the movie, what happens when SG2 or SG3 comes out?

I don't know. People who dislike the show will be thrilled they got a continuation. People who love SG-1 and dislike the movie will be angry that they're not SG-1 movies. Fans of both the movie and the TV show will be split. Some will see the movies out of curiosity, others simply don't care.

If they are the same, SG2 and SG3 immediately cancels out everything in SG1 and Atlantis because it's they are true sequels, done by the original creators and then just like comic books, SG1 would be religated to some alternate version of what could have happened.

SG2 & SG3 will not cancel out SG-1 and Atlantis, because SG-1 will be made into movies and Atlantis may still be on the air. SG2 & SG3 will be an alternate continuation.

We will have two Stargate realities, effectively.

Stargate, Stargate 2, & Stargate 3
Stargate, SG-1, the upcoming SG-1 movies, & Atlantis

So you can either accept that when the new movie(s) come out, everything that happened in SG1 becomes an unofficial alternate telling, or you can accept that it wasn't supposed to be a sequel, but it's own unique story based on stargate rather than directly connected to it.

...or I can ignore the movies all together and enjoy the first one and SG-1.

Take Star Wars for example, the expanded universe can not contradict anything that happened in the movies, the movies are written in stone and can't be changed so anything that gets done can either be based on it, or just set in the Star Wars Universe, and SG1 should have been the same.

The movies came first, so they can't be contradicted? SG-1 came first, so SG2 & SG3 can't contradict it, right?

Based on the movie, but not changing anything that happens in the movie.

That may be whut you want, but that's not whut happened.

Well lets see, they redesigned the gate, the facility location and look is different, they changed O'Neil to O'Neill, Jackson's family seemed to have died when he was a lot older than an infant or they also killed his foster parents in the show, Ra was a goa'uld with Jaffa who had tattoos on their head, Sha'uri became Sha're, Skaara and Kasuf seemed fine, and Abydos is no longer in a galaxy far far away. Not exactly sequel material when almost everything has been changed in one way or another.

1. They redesigned the gate, because the original was not preserved. They figured they might as well make some changes since they're building a new prop from scratch. Ultimately, the only noticable changes are glowing chevrons and that only the top one opens and closes.
2. The facility location's change is a creative change. For whutever reason, the SG-1 producers thought Cheyenne Mountain would be more interesting than Cold Creek Mountain. Personally, I am glad they made this change.
3. The look of the facility is different, because they had to rebuilt the set from scratch.
4. O'Neil to O'Neill is a joke for crying out loud.
5. Maybe they forgot Daniel was a baby when his parents died. Did that ever occur to you? It's also possible that whoever wrote the episode only knew that Daniel was young when his parents died. For crying out loud, it doesn't matter if he was a baby or seven years old!
6. They changed Ra, because rather than introduce a new villainous race, they wanted to capitalise on Ra from the movie. The only changes to Ra are asthetic (whut his true body looks like). In the movie, he needs a new body. In the show, maybe all Unas (in space) are dieing. Who cares, this doesn't change the story at all. In the first episode, everyone thought Ra was the last of his race. That episode introduced they were wrong. This is not a retcon, it's called a revelation. It's possible Ra lied to the people of Earth about being the last of his kind. Do you really trust an alien posing as a God? I don't.
7. Sha're is easier to pronounce than Sha'uri.
8. Skaara and Kasuf are fine, because the actors from the movie were available to reprise the role.
9. Whut does Abydos's location have to do with the plot in the movie? Nothing beyond, "Wow, they're far away!" It was changed in SG-1 to explain why they could not lock on to other Stargates.

Not exactly sequel material when almost everything has been changed in one way or another.

That's why I said it's a sequel with creative changes. You really need to keep up.

[Flyboy]

I don't know. People who dislike the show will be thrilled they got a continuation. People who love SG-1 and dislike the movie will be angry that they're not SG-1 movies. Fans of both the movie and the TV show will be split. Some will see the movies out of curiosity, others simply don't care.

How about those of us who absolutely adore SG1 AND the movie, and frankly would be thriller to see a continuation of either on the big screen? Stargate is stargate.

[senordingdong]

I thought the original reason it was made into a t.v. show was because the film made loads in the box-office, showing it had potential, but everyone who went to see it said it was very boring.
If this is the case, then I doubht the movie has much a fan-base, seperate from Sg-1 fans.

[Daniel Jackson]

How about those of us who absolutely adore SG1 AND the movie, and frankly would be thriller to see a continuation of either on the big screen?

Oops, I figured I forgot a group.

Stargate is stargate.

True, but I won't watch every single production. It has to be good and interesting.

I thought the original reason it was made into a t.v. show was because the film made loads in the box-office, showing it had potential...

This is why the TV show was made. Brad Wright and Jonathan Glassner beat Dean Devlin and Ronnald Emmerich fair and square.

[Flyboy]

True, but I won't watch every single production. It has to be good and interesting.

.

If you don't see it, you won't know if it is good. I have no problem if you see it and don't like it. But people who just wont see it because it betrays SG1, are, in my opinion, daft.

[senordingdong]

I wouldn't say they 'beat-him'...it was after all, his idea originally.
I mean, no-one was interested in his sequels after the first movie and we wouldn't even be having this debate if it wasn't for the success Sg-1 achieved.

I do feel sorry for him that his work and ideas were comandeered(sp?) and his dreams shot but it was clearly the best way to keep it going.