Stargate: The Original Movie

[SylvreWolfe]

In the movie Kawalski was wearing LTC rank. It couldn't be either/or

And they did ignore and screw up a lot from the movie when they made the series.

And I have no clue what you mean with your first comment.
In the series he was ordered to blow up the gate, regardless.
In the movie he was ordered to blow up the gate if there was an existing threat, as a contingency plan.

A lot of inconsistencies from the movie to the series and a lot of screw ups.

[jenks]

And I have no clue what you mean with your first comment.
In the series he was ordered to blow up the gate, regardless.
In the movie he was ordered to blow up the gate if there was an existing threat, as a contingency plan.

A lot of inconsistencies from the movie to the series and a lot of screw ups.

Hammond: According to the mission brief, your orders were to go through the Stargate to detect any possible threat to Earth and if found, to detonate a nuclear device and destroy the Gate on the other side.

O'Neill: Yes.

[Mitchell82]

In the movie Kawalski was wearing LTC rank. It couldn't be either/or

LtCol rank and Major are both an oak leaf one gold the other silver. In the movie he is in green fatigues and it is a black rank like with BDUs so it cold be either and I never remember anyone calling him Col. Here is a pic if you don't believe me.

Spoiler:

[IMG][/IMG]

And they did ignore and screw up a lot from the movie when they made the series.

And I have no clue what you mean with your first comment.
In the series he was ordered to blow up the gate, regardless.
In the movie he was ordered to blow up the gate if there was an existing threat, as a contingency plan.

A lot of inconsistencies from the movie to the series and a lot of screw ups.[/COLOR][/B]

I disagree. They changed a few things but didn't screw anything up they made it better IMO.

[Mitchell82]

Hammond: According to the mission brief, your orders were to go through the Stargate to detect any possible threat to Earth and if found, to detonate a nuclear device and destroy the Gate on the other side.

O'Neill: Yes.

There you go so what's your problem again SylvreWolfe?

[DavidTheGaul]

There is no explanation in the film of exactly how the stargate coordinates are entered. The film demonstrates the coordinates apparently entered through electronic means (as illustrated further in SG-1) but provides no indication beyond that. Furthermore no information is provided about the method used to enter Earth coordinates at the end of the film (though many assume there is a DHD). To my knowledge no DHD was ever shown on screen or even mentioned in the film. This is something I have often wondered--how exactly did they "dial" the gate in the film? To me it seems the DHD was a concoction conjured up by writers to provide a basic primer on the stargate for the casual viewer of the TV series. I suppose it could be argued that the DHD was a logical asumption to answer the very simple question of how you actually use the stargate. . Thanks

I repost here:

About the way they dialed home in the movie, the novelization unveils the secret: kawalsky manualy engaged the stargate, following Daniel's instructions

In addition, there is no such computer/gate technology merging in the movie than in SG1, the computers of Creek mountain only control the mechanical parts added to the gate to make it rotates and engaged the chevrons, it's just a kind of improved manual way to dial it.
In comparison Computers of Cheyenne Mountain seem to be directly plugged to the stargate acting has a DHD, with access to gate status and stuff.

[Dr. Michael Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Dr. Michael Benjamin
There is no explanation in the film of exactly how the stargate coordinates are entered. The film demonstrates the coordinates apparently entered through electronic means (as illustrated further in SG-1) but provides no indication beyond that. Furthermore no information is provided about the method used to enter Earth coordinates at the end of the film (though many assume there is a DHD). To my knowledge no DHD was ever shown on screen or even mentioned in the film. This is something I have often wondered--how exactly did they "dial" the gate in the film? To me it seems the DHD was a concoction conjured up by writers to provide a basic primer on the stargate for the casual viewer of the TV series. I suppose it could be argued that the DHD was a logical asumption to answer the very simple question of how you actually use the stargate. . Thanks

I repost here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me on another thread
About the way they dialed home in the movie, the novelization unveils the secret: kawalsky manualy engaged the stargate, following Daniel's instructions

In addition, there is no such computer/gate technology merging in the movie than in SG1, the computers of Creek mountain only control the mechanical parts added to the gate to make it rotates and engaged the chevrons, it's just a kind of improved manual way to dial it.
In comparison Computers of Cheyenne Mountain seem to be directly plugged to the stargate acting has a DHD, with access to gate status and stuff.

DavidThe Gaul,

Thank you in your interest in my post. I would like to clarify something however. It is my opinion that when discussing the film there should be no reference to the novelization. Since the novelization is not the film it is my belief that what the viewer sees on the screen is the only actual information that can be discussed and referenced. Novelizations tend to expand beyond what appears in the film. Furthermore, despite the notion that much of Mr. Devlin's production concepts and story components that did not make it to the final cut were presented in the novelization, I don't believe it can be used as it is outside material. I have seen other posters source the novelization when I mentioned the issue of the planet never referred to as Abydos in the film. I have read the novelizations from other films and found them to be much different from what appears on screen. Maybe I'm a purist but I cannot take this information and apply it to the film any more than I could apply what appears in a piece of fan fiction to the film (no insult to anyone who writes fan fiction). As far as the computers at Creek Mountain are concerned since there was no information presented IN THE FILM to the contrary I (and most likely many others) assumed the coordinates were entered via electronic methods. I'm also a bit unsure as to what mechanical parts were added to the stargate by the personnel at the facility. There appear to be some sort of capacitors or perhaps current regulators wired to the gate for some purpose so I will default and concede this point to you. Either way the film does not show any personnel standing in front of the gate entering coordinates (in fact the room was evacuated during the dialing sequence). Because of this, going purely by what is presented in the film alone, one is left to surmise that since the gate symbols appear on the computer monitors one at a time as the chevrons are entered that somehow the computer mainframe was linked to the components of the stargate responsible for entering the symbols. If you can provide me any evidence presented in the film (initial release or director's cut) that refutes my argument I will happily and gladly admit I was mistaken. Were the scenes that you speak of from the novelization cut from the final product? Perhaps. If so it's unfortunate since they would have given the viewer a better understanding of the mechanics of the stargate (I for one would have enjoyed seeing Kawalsky do all the work while O'Neil, Jackson, and company stand by and "supervise"). I may be in the minority on this issue but the novelization is not the film and the film is not the TV series. Though all three reference the same issues and characters I still hold to my opinion that the DHD was used in SG-1 as a way of easily explaining to a larger audience how the stargate is operated. Also I will admit I have never read the novelization of the film so I will ask-does the novelization refer to any sort of DHD device used to operate the gate? If so then I can understand its use in the series. If not then it still leaves me to ponder exactly how the gate was dialed. I'm sure operating it manually is fine for the backwards race from earth but it would be interesting to see if Ra did it the same way. Anyway thanks for the post.

[DavidTheGaul]

does the novelization refer to any sort of DHD device used to operate the gate? If so then I can understand its use in the series. If not then it still leaves me to ponder exactly how the gate was dialed. I'm sure operating it manually is fine for the backwards race from earth but it would be interesting to see if Ra did it the same way. Anyway thanks for the post.

As I can remember it there's no reference to DHD or some sort in the book.
In addition to the way you see it, I can say that there somme little differences between it and the movie, like some names for example, but theres also other details, wich could explain where some SG1's concepts came from.
The book reveals that Râ is not the last one of his kind, and also strongly suggests that the stargate could lead to other planets...

I think i should read it again to check if there is no dhd hidden somewhere

[Coco Pops]

I think its important to remember this dicussion is about the film not SG-1. Perhaps to try and explain away plot holes in the storyline of the movie some of you are projecting SG-1 technology onto the film. I don't think this can be done since the film obviously came first. There is no explanation in the film of exactly how the stargate coordinates are entered. The film demonstrates the coordinates apparently entered through electronic means (as illustrated further in SG-1) but provides no indication beyond that. Furthermore no information is provided about the method used to enter Earth coordinates at the end of the film (though many assume there is a DHD). To my knowledge no DHD was ever shown on screen or even mentioned in the film. This is something I have often wondered--how exactly did they "dial" the gate in the film? To me it seems the DHD was a concoction conjured up by writers to provide a basic primer on the stargate for the casual viewer of the TV series. I suppose it could be argued that the DHD was a logical asumption to answer the very simple question of how you actually use the stargate. However, I would be very apprehensive to delve deeper into this DHD business as it has its basis in the TV series not the movie.
Also, to address the original question posed, I do believe Daniel was neccessary to the story. Everyone who has posted thus far is only looking at the initial contribution Daniel made to the expedition. The film provided a very unique and logical problem with intergalactic exploration. How do you communicate with a people who have been living independent of any known modern ethnic group on earth? While Daniel initially believed the language to be somehow related to Berber he had to work at it. The inhabitants of the planet they traveled to (in the film the planet was not referred to as Abydos) spoke a literally unheard-of language. This language barrier would have to be overcome in order to have the story move forward. Daniel was absolutely neccessary to the story in order to explain to the people their true heritage and ultimately give them the sense of empowerment needed to rebel against Ra. Please note that while this argument does explain the neccessity of Daniel to the story line it does not explain his neccessity to the plot. If the original mission objective was to locate any threat to earth and blow up the stargate then there was no need to have an expedition at all--merely send the bomb through using a probe and end it all right there. However I don't think if it were done that way it would have made for much of a film! But to get back to my original point, SG-1 removed the very intruiging element of extraterrestrial linguistics and condensed nearly all of the galaxy down to English speaking Midieval peasants (strange how most of these peoples don't use contractions). Also, I always thought that the introduction of Carter in the series was an attempt to marginalize Daniel's character especially after it was said that she was working on the project two years before Daniel was successful. It came across to me as the writers saying in essence that Daniel got lucky and Carter was the more important of the two. Anyway, I love the film and SG-1 (not a fan of Atlantis) and I watch the movie often. Incidentally this is my first post here so I look forward to talking with all of you in the future. Thanks

Plus Ra was a wuss in the movie as I have said elsewhere.

He runs away when all those people start charging up the sand hills.

[Konrad9]

I really hope that this isn't what they were thinking about when they said a third movie was in the works.

[leeman15251]

i never liked this movie. Just watched it after i started watching stargate sg1.

[jenks]

I really hope that this isn't what they were thinking about when they said a third movie was in the works.

It's not.

[Mitchell82]

i never liked this movie. Just watched it after i started watching stargate sg1.

For me it's the exact opposite. I loved the movie hence why I watched SG-1. Now I hate it compared to Sg-1.

[matta]

Whats the old saying? if it aint broken, dont fix it? I dont see the point in trying to re-do this movie, its brilliant as it is. It was the starting point of a legendary tv show and it would be an insult if they changed it... they even had a rememberable closing line... "i'll see you around... Dr Jackson" how good is that lol.

matt

[Coco Pops]

Whats the old saying? if it aint broken, dont fix it? I dont see the point in trying to re-do this movie, its brilliant as it is. It was the starting point of a legendary tv show and it would be an insult if they changed it... they even had a rememberable closing line... "i'll see you around... Dr Jackson" how good is that lol.

matt

I love the original movie too..... Especially the director's cut which makes a lot more sense then the theatrical version.

[matta]

I love the original movie too..... Especially the director's cut which makes a lot more sense then the theatrical version.

Yeah i agree, i brought the special edition that had the original and the extended version and after watching them both you get a better understanding from the extended version.

matt