Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stargate (1994) vs SG-1 : Continuity differences

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

  • kenngaub
    replied
    Originally posted by jsonitsac View Post
    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:



    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ariel_neomatrix
    replied
    For Me the series SG-1 is not canot because the movie have other stories created for dean devlin

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. D.
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • rushy
    replied
    That's absolutely right. But well, english ain't my first language anyway so it's understandable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowman37
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • LtColCarter
    replied
    Originally posted by rushy View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • rushy
    replied
    Originally posted by SF_and_Coffee View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SF_and_Coffee
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowman37 View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • LtColCarter
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowman37 View Post
    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'....

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowman37
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SF_and_Coffee
    replied
    Originally posted by rushy View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jelgate
    replied
    Feelings are not the same as facts

    Leave a comment:


  • rushy
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowman37
    replied
    Originally posted by rushy View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by rushy View Post
    The word I meant was movie. It just feels like a movie not a TV spinoff.
    That's because the movie came first.

    Leave a comment:


  • SF_and_Coffee
    replied
    The original film isn't a TV spinoff. It came before the TV series, and the TV series is the spinoff.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X