Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Possible reboot?

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

    #16
    I think it's better to be prepared for the next Stargate to be a reboot of the old, much like Battlestar Galactica was -- with characters switching genders and stories changing.
    Heightmeyer's Lemming -- still the coolest Lemming of the forum

    Proper Stargate Rewatch -- season 10 of SG-1

    Comment


      #17
      I agree for the most part. However, one thing I see different with the "soft reboot" of SG-1 is that the original was just one film, which may have happened to be a blockbuster at the time, but rather quickly faded into the background and didn't have a major fanbase by the time SG-1 was created. Now however, Stargate is a major IP in its own right, and has a major fanbase. The same thing could be said of BSG, though it did it have much more time to gain a cult following.

      And I still don't know for sure if Emmerich and Devlin were telling the whole truth about the reboots. I'm not saying they never did, but it just seems too coincidental that after Stargate they immediately started working on Independence Day, and that they only really started telling everyone about the sequel ideas after SG-1 became popular, and even more so when MGM gave them a chance to develop the reboot a few years back. This taking in account how they, or rather Devlin as I barely, if ever, heard Emmerich say anything, felt about the shows.

      Hey, don't get me wrong, I love the movie and acknowledge that it's the origin of Stargate (the true Origins of Stargate ), but I see a major difference between adapting a single movie for television, and completely ignoring twenty years of story. Don't forget, their reboot was meant to reboot Stargate in its entirety, so they planned on ignoring even their own work (probably because of how the characters and plot were adapted for the series).

      I actually supported them making the reboot, because I appreciate what they did to make Stargate in the first place. Without them we wouldn't have gotten the series. After all, it would've been nothing more than three movies, three theatrically-released movies, at most. I like most of what they make purely for entertainment, even ID:Resurgence. On top of that, I'm also an advocate for "alternate realities". What I don't want is a TV series reboot, because that means the focus is entirely on that series and everything around it, which means there is zero chance for other, canon, productions at the same time. And that kind of reboot is what is becoming increasingly popular, even rebooting or reimagining classic and hugely popular movies as TV series. That's all.

      Comment


        #18
        Agreed 100 % on what you just said. Emmerich and Devlin were planning a complete re-boot which would probably work like this:
        1. A completely re-written version of the original movie
        2. Movie 2
        3. Movie 3

        I imagine that the re-written version of the movie would include big changes like a complete change of the characters (example: instead of Daniel or Jack or Catherine, we'd be getting completely new characters), maybe even change of the planet the expedition team goes to and there's a high probablility there'd be a change in the choice of the mythology too, which would probably lead to an entirely new villain. The only thing that it would remain from their original plan was to have Movie 1 and Movie 2 explore stuff which would get a resolution in Movie 3 along with character arcs and whatnot.

        I also wouldn't want a complete re-boot of the TV series, but I think a partial re-boot would work as it would allow for building upon what's already established, but with new characters, plots and storylines involved. It would re-fresh the show and maybe even allow for an AU storyline where the action switches back to the cannon we all know and love from time to time. Plus we'd get to actually see another alrernate reality to develop as opposed to it just being mentioned, seen, expereinced and then just used to advance the story in the main universe before ending the series or even it being totally forgotten about.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Mnikolic View Post
          I also wouldn't want a complete re-boot of the TV series, but I think a partial re-boot would work as it would allow for building upon what's already established, but with new characters, plots and storylines involved. It would re-fresh the show and maybe even allow for an AU storyline where the action switches back to the cannon we all know and love from time to time. Plus we'd get to actually see another alrernate reality to develop as opposed to it just being mentioned, seen, expereinced and then just used to advance the story in the main universe before ending the series or even it being totally forgotten about.
          That's not actually a reboot though, not even a soft reboot, more a spin-off like SGU. Even Star Trek TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT, and even DIS, were not reboots, even though they featured completely new characters and settings, some more "exotic" than others. They were continuations of the universe established with TOS, and DS9 and VOY were essentially spin-offs of TNG.

          I think the Star Trek "reboot" films are the least troublesome, and essentially how I would've treated the Stargate trilogy. The Trek films "reboot" TOS, but exist as an alternate reality and don't erase the continuity of the original series because of it. And now we have DIS and Picard, which are set in the Prime reality. And I'm not talking about the quality or continuity here, that's beside the point. It's the structure behind it that is the least destructive. And I will keep advocating that kind of structure for Stargate, especially if a there's going to be a new installment outside of the existing continuity (reboot or not, with or without the original writers/actors).

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by NickEast View Post
            And I still don't know for sure if Emmerich and Devlin were telling the whole truth about the reboots. I'm not saying they never did, but it just seems too coincidental that after Stargate they immediately started working on Independence Day, and that they only really started telling everyone about the sequel ideas after SG-1 became popular, and even more so when MGM gave them a chance to develop the reboot a few years back. This taking in account how they, or rather Devlin as I barely, if ever, heard Emmerich say anything, felt about the shows.
            They didn't start talking about their sequels then. I think that's just when you first became aware of their plans. In 2006, they made headlines by talking about a sequel to the original with the original actors. It was their way of using the press to try to stir up public support that they could point to when pitching MGM, but Stargate shows were on the air at the time, so of course MGM wasn't going to confuse audiences with movies that ignored the show's continuity (the Brad Wright quote is a response to this 2006 chatter). They started up again at the tail end of SGU and switched it to a reboot since more time had passed. After SGU was canceled and the prospect for new TV shows looked dim, MGM was briefly interested in working with them before the Independence Day sequel bombed.

            Before 2006 they seemed more resigned to the idea that their sequel plans were dead, but they very much did talk about them. There are books that picked up after the events of the movie and although the author did his own thing, it was reported at the time that he referenced Emmerich and Devlin's notes for their planned sequel. They also periodically dropped little tidbits in interviews, going all the way back to 1994 when they first mentioned that it was originally planned as a trilogy.


            What about a sequel? "If the movie is successful, there would be two other parts," said Devlin.

            Source: https://www.mcall.com/news/mc-xpm-19...800-story.html

            If you had time for a deep dive (it's hard to do these days since most entertainment sites from the era are defunct, which is why we really need a proper Way Back Machine search engine already), you'd find a lot more 1990s and early 2000s chatter on the subject.

            I actually supported them making the reboot, because I appreciate what they did to make Stargate in the first place. Without them we wouldn't have gotten the series. After all, it would've been nothing more than three movies, three theatrically-released movies, at most. I like most of what they make purely for entertainment, even ID:Resurgence. On top of that, I'm also an advocate for "alternate realities". What I don't want is a TV series reboot, because that means the focus is entirely on that series and everything around it, which means there is zero chance for other, canon, productions at the same time. And that kind of reboot is what is becoming increasingly popular, even rebooting or reimagining classic and hugely popular movies as TV series. That's all.
            I would've also been interested to see what they had planned, but if MGM went ahead with that reboot trilogy and it was successful there would be next to no chance that the TV show continuity would continue. To re-introduce general audiences to Emmerich's view of the Stargate universe and then try to get them to go back and follow the mechanics and history of the old TV franchise with a follow-up series is a really hard sell. A new in-continuity TV show is iffy as is, but studios want to be able to build on the good will of whatever they most recently profited off of.

            Star Trek pulled off a return after its soft movie reboot because it only had modest box office returns and the movie/TV rights were divided, so if CBS wanted to try to profit off the title, they couldn't make TV shows set in the Kevlin timeline. If those movies topped $700 million and one studio owned both the TV and movie rights from the beginning, though, I guarantee you that instead of Discovery and Picard right now, the only way there'd be a Star Trek TV show right now was if it was set in the Kevlin timeline or if it was a third reboot.

            Originally posted by Mnikolic View Post
            I imagine that the re-written version of the movie would include big changes like a complete change of the characters (example: instead of Daniel or Jack or Catherine, we'd be getting completely new characters), maybe even change of the planet the expedition team goes to and there's a high probablility there'd be a change in the choice of the mythology too,
            That doesn't jive with what they've said...

            “We went to MGM, who has the rights, and we proposed to them to do a sequel — but as a reboot, and reboot it as a movie and then do three parts,” Emmerich told Digital Spy. “And that’s what we’re doing right now. [We’ll] pretty soon have to look for a writer and start.”

            Emmerich added that original film stars Kurt Russell and James Spader would not work for their plans to reboot the movies. “The actors look totally different,” he said. “It would not work.”

            The proposed trilogy also would not have anything to do with SG-1 and the television continuity.


            https://www.gateworld.net/news/2013/...-movie-reboot/

            “It was taken away from us, and it’s tough to have your children raised by other parents, even if they do a very good job. … For us, it’s not putting down what has been done. It’s to let us finish telling our story.”


            ...


            As for how their plans have changed over the past 22 years, Devlin says the only difference is the scope. “Today, studios tend to not think of movies as trilogies or sequels (but) as cinematic universes,” he points out. “So as we’ve been developing it, we found all these avenues that allow it to expand. The foundation is exactly the same as what we wanted to do, but now the possibilities are much wider.”


            https://variety.com/2016/film/spotli...in-1201795494/

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Methus View Post
              Hi all
              Hello there and welcome

              If there might be a reboot indeed other then the one you pointed out to there, I'd wish it to be something that feels like Stargate too and not only wears the name and takes place at the settings/features elements of the shows

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Xaeden View Post


                That doesn't jive with what they've said...

                “We went to MGM, who has the rights, and we proposed to them to do a sequel — but as a reboot, and reboot it as a movie and then do three parts,” Emmerich told Digital Spy. “And that’s what we’re doing right now. [We’ll] pretty soon have to look for a writer and start.”

                Emmerich added that original film stars Kurt Russell and James Spader would not work for their plans to reboot the movies. “The actors look totally different,” he said. “It would not work.”


                The proposed trilogy also would not have anything to do with SG-1 and the television continuity.


                https://www.gateworld.net/news/2013/...-movie-reboot/

                “It was taken away from us, and it’s tough to have your children raised by other parents, even if they do a very good job. … For us, it’s not putting down what has been done. It’s to let us finish telling our story.”


                ...


                As for how their plans have changed over the past 22 years, Devlin says the only difference is the scope. “Today, studios tend to not think of movies as trilogies or sequels (but) as cinematic universes,” he points out. “So as we’ve been developing it, we found all these avenues that allow it to expand. The foundation is exactly the same as what we wanted to do, but now the possibilities are much wider.”


                https://variety.com/2016/film/spotli...in-1201795494/
                I've bolded and underlined the part that kind of confirms what I just said. If the actors from the original movie look totally different now, of course the sequel wouldn't work with them. Since the original movie is what started it all for SG and if they were planning a re-boot, doesn't that mean re-imagining and re-writing everything? I mean it would have made little sense to use a completely new cast potraying the same characters more than two decades later.

                Not to mention the possibility of the characters not looking and feeling the same. Putting the writing/directing/acting style and logic of the ninetees and combining it with a fresh, new cast acting according to movie scripts that were supposed to be produced at the end of the previous century just doesn't click well if any of the new cast wouldn't show any interest in doing so. So unless they were going to use a new cast to potray new, original characters, we could end up seeing either with another version of the original movie's characters or the new actors trying to copy/paste the work of the original cast (a certain SGA episode comes to mind here).

                For the latter, Russel and Spader would have to be involved at least behind the scenes if Deviln and Emmerich would want to re-create their own characters from the original movie, which would probably have costed a fortune to accomplish. Which would have lead to a gamble for the success for the entire project. For the former, using new characters would be a great start because the movies would still stay true to the source material while enabling Devlin and Emmerich to still tell their story like they originally imagined it (with some details changed of course) for a new audience with at least a portion of the existing one. Thus, further expanding the fanabse. Which is exactly what Stargate as a franchise needs. Then the production (either MGM or some other company) could still go for a TV series (if enough interest would be present) or whatever is more profitable.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by Mnikolic View Post
                  I've bolded and underlined the part that kind of confirms what I just said. If the actors from the original movie look totally different now, of course the sequel wouldn't work with them. Since the original movie is what started it all for SG and if they were planning a re-boot, doesn't that mean re-imagining and re-writing everything?
                  To understand that quote you have to go back to 2006...
                  “[Russell and Spader have] always said they wanted to do it,” Devlin said. “… The irony is actually because it was 12 years ago that we made ‘Stargate,’ [and] part two was actually supposed to take place about 12 years later. We were just going to kind of age them up as actors. So it actually works out really nicely.”

                  https://www.gateworld.net/news/2006/...rgate-sequels/

                  They originally wanted to make a direct sequel to the the first movie using Kurt Russel and James Spader. When too much time had passed to make that viable, they started talking about rebooting the first movie with a new cast before proceeding with their original sequel plans because Russel and Spader were then too old ("look totally different") to continue playing the roles.

                  Mind you, this was a long saga that played out across dozens of articles/interviews for over a decade. Here's some more:

                  “It’s not a story that can take place 20 years later. So the only way to really tell that trilogy is to go back from the beginning and start the story all over again,” Devlin says.

                  ...

                  "For us, it’s not putting down what has been done. It’s to let us finish telling our story."


                  https://variety.com/2016/film/spotli...in-1201795494/

                  They also planned to make the reboot more of an ensemble, but Jack and Daniel still would have been an important part of the story:
                  “The amount of characters, for instance. It’s not a two-hander like the first one with James Spader and Kurt Russell, this time it’s a bigger group.”

                  ...

                  Yes, there’s still the James Spader character and the Kurt Russell character, but other people are equally important,”



                  https://www.gateworld.net/news/2016/...ments-of-sg-1/

                  I mean it would have made little sense to use a completely new cast potraying the same characters more than two decades later.
                  It very much seems like the plan was to do a partial retelling of the original movie with the same characters, plus newcomers.

                  Not to mention the possibility of the characters not looking and feeling the same. Putting the writing/directing/acting style and logic of the ninetees and combining it with a fresh, new cast acting according to movie scripts that were supposed to be produced at the end of the previous century just doesn't click well if any of the new cast wouldn't show any interest in doing so.
                  They weren't the same scripts. They were writing new ones based on the original movie and their original plans for the sequels. Consequently, Jack and Daniel would have existed in a modern world, encountered new characters who carried some of the weight, and Emmerich would have made use of higher budgets and advances in CGI to do things he couldn't have done the first time.

                  For the latter, Russel and Spader would have to be involved at least behind the scenes if Deviln and Emmerich would want to re-create their own characters from the original movie, which would probably have costed a fortune to accomplish.
                  In the last source I linked to above, Emmerich said that there might be an opportunity to have Russel and Spader come in for cameos, but they would be recasting the roles with younger actors.

                  Which would have lead to a gamble for the success for the entire project. For the former, using new characters would be a great start because the movies would still stay true to the source material while enabling Devlin and Emmerich to still tell their story like they originally imagined it (with some details changed of course) for a new audience with at least a portion of the existing one.
                  You're now arguing how they should have scripted the reboot as opposed to what they said they would do. Frankly, I would have been surprised if the movie wasn't a disaster. Emmerich hasn't made a good movie in years, so if you want to take issue with his and Devlin's creative decisions, you won't get any argument from me. I'm just relaying to you what I've read in the decade plus that I've been reading their public comments on the matter.

                  Thus, further expanding the fanabse. Which is exactly what Stargate as a franchise needs. Then the production (either MGM or some other company) could still go for a TV series (if enough interest would be present) or whatever is more profitable.
                  Remember, this is personal for Emmerich. He had a story he planned to tell and because of MGM and Sg-1, that was taken away from him, so he spent years pitching MGM his plan to go back and tell his story the way he wanted to. When too much time had passed to use Russel and Spader, he simply shifted gears and pitched a remake of the original so he could use that as a jumping off point to finish his original story. He would've updated it for modern audiences and made it more expansive because "studios tend to not think of movies as trilogies sequels (but) as cinematic universes." Meaning, he would have left room for the story to grow beyond the confines that he originally established in his head when imagining a trilogy.
                  Last edited by Xaeden; 10 April 2020, 07:48 PM.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X