Who Owns Stargate?
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Looks like you're missing this, Bob: "
OT: Honestly, I'm just surprised that they think the movie version is what they should be basing things on. The TV show, despite not being super-popular, has plenty of devotees, and I think that Richard Dean Anderson still has a bit of name recognition in him. I mean, Roland Emmerich is best known as "the guy who cranks out a bunch of not-great disaster movies"; is there enough cachet in his name to warrant giving it back to him and Devlin?
Well, since the TV series definitely is not coming back so i suppose we better be glad we are getting something.
Even if it ditches 14 years of continuity for a fresh (or would that be the original?) take on the franchise.
Anyway, all thats left now is to gawk at what actors they can grab for it, gawk at the trailers, and then await the retrospective Certifcaion of Not Shit.
Even if it ditches 14 years of continuity for a fresh (or would that be the original?) take on the franchise.
Anyway, all thats left now is to gawk at what actors they can grab for it, gawk at the trailers, and then await the retrospective Certifcaion of Not Shit.
I imagine Emmerich has enough currency to make this work even if it's bad. Which seems to be his movies i a nutshell.Thunderous Cacophony said:
Honestly? I think I'd prefer it if they let it rest.gigastar said:
I'm not sure the movie is enough of a classic to have a fanbase separate from the TV show. I mean, looking at other movies that came out in 1994 I see Forrest Gump, Shawshank Redemption, Lion King, Speed. I mean Street Fighter came out in 1994 and I would say its had a larger impact. It would be interesting if I'm wrong though.
The TV series has a lot of gold in it. (Gold that gets significantly harder to find after season 7/8 of SG1, but gold nonetheless.) It would be a shame if they wasted it because the director's personal feelings.
The TV series has a lot of gold in it. (Gold that gets significantly harder to find after season 7/8 of SG1, but gold nonetheless.) It would be a shame if they wasted it because the director's personal feelings.
I love the Stargate TV shows, not the cartoon though, and I can see the new film as only a positive thing. Maybe this will generate a new TV show, unburdened from the mass of continuity of the existing TV franchises?
LEXX getting a cinematic reboot? A TV series so sexually charged and weird being given control over by a bunch of Producers... *shudders*... even as a thought experiment that could only go horribly wrong... speaking of which I just remembered Eva Habermann as Zev... I need some alone time now.
On the other hand, as others have said I think Stargate has enough to tell that multiple iterations can exist, certainly more worthy of a reboot than Star Trek (which still had plenty of stories to tell in it's universe).
On the other hand, as others have said I think Stargate has enough to tell that multiple iterations can exist, certainly more worthy of a reboot than Star Trek (which still had plenty of stories to tell in it's universe).
While usually it's a given that I believe "fuck everyone who uses legal franchise control to stop creative works from existence", to answer this particular article's main question, I would expand that by saying, Fuck everyone who claims moral "ownership" over any cultural concepts more abstract than the copyright of a specific work.
I'm sick and tired of this culture that takes it for granted that whole fictional universes "belonging to" someone is the natural state of affairs, or that a work's creativity (or it's lack) can be identified based on the usage (or it's lack) of a handful of trademarked works showing up.
I'm sick and tired of this culture that takes it for granted that whole fictional universes "belonging to" someone is the natural state of affairs, or that a work's creativity (or it's lack) can be identified based on the usage (or it's lack) of a handful of trademarked works showing up.
Interesting to compare this announcement to that of the Star Wars sequels. Here, the majority of Stargate fans are vocally outraged at Devlin and Emmerich's intent to throw out the television continuity.
For Star Wars, people seemed overjoyed that the EU was getting trashed.
Similar situation, different results.
For Star Wars, people seemed overjoyed that the EU was getting trashed.
Similar situation, different results.
Given on how low a note the Star Gate franchise ended (Atlantis's last 3 seasons, the crappy post script SG1 seasons that was canceled abruptly with out a resolution, and the stupid Universe show that was Scifi, or had they renamed themselves syphilis by then, channels inept attempt to recreate the Battlestar Galactica success) a reboot isn't a bad idea.
In light of LEXX, I could see Lexx deserving a decent movie reboot!Matt K said:
But... these days I can only imagine it would get homogenized to look like everything else and lose that "special something" that made me cringe while watching and yet come back week after week despite myself.
The difference is the fans follow the beloved and well fleshed out characters. They don't mind all of the convoluted EU being dumped because after hundreds of thousands of pages of it there are really only 2-4 characters in it that the fans could even identify. The primary draw is the original characters from the movies. Heck a huge percentage of Star Wars fans abandoned the EU en mass when it was felt that one of those original characters had been treated badly by the later authors.Soviet Heavy said:
Whereas Stargate has the exact opposite issue. The original movie was a neat story and a cool concept. It was a fun watch, but honestly Kurt Russel and James Spader in it while good, weren't exactly endearing. At least not in a franchise building beloved character sort of way. They were cold distant and troubled. It made for some interesting short term drama and conflict. But they weren't anybody that viewers really wanted to come back and spend more time with, or learn more about.
Contrast that with Stargate SG1. Say what you will about whether or not it overstayed it's welcome, or the quality of it in the end, it had the best on screen chemistry amongst its cast since the original Star Trek. Michael Shanks and Richard Dean Anderson took Russel and Spader's original roles and made them much warmer and more identifiable. O'Neill was no longer a stressed out suicidal PTSD sufferer mourning his son. There was more depth. There was more of an arc. And heaven forbid what the fans will do at this point to a version of Stargate that lacks Carter, or /shudder Teal'c. Imagine if JJ Abrahm's rebooted Star Trek and just said "I don't like this Spock character, who needs him. I don't want to go in that direction!" Granted Roland and Emmerich are the original creators. They can attempt to sell fans on their vision. But fighting against fans core expectations is not typically a winning formula. Granted Battlestar Galactica did it, but the small screen is a different sort of space for this kind of thing. You can grow a new branding and ease people into it over some time via word of mouth. Big budget movies are "bet it all on the first weekend". And when the first people comming out of the initial screening are going "It sucked, none of my favorite characters were in it" and you have Lone Ranger all over again. Or as a better comparrison, Roland and Emmerich's 1994 Godzilla. If WB is serriously considering making this, they need to go back and look at everything involving that, and realize that is what would be going on here.
The biggest difference is that with Star Wars, a lot of the EU was just bad, or made no sense. People also didn't have to really care about it, it being completely non-integral to the movies, so it was a non issue really. With Stargate, the real heart of the franchise(is that even the right word?) was the TV shows, with one movie that kicked it off. So saying, "We're rebooting the whole series, and the TV shows are not part of the story now" is really just saying: "The TV means nothing to us, so we are going to break anything you may or may not like".Soviet Heavy said:
Now, this could be awesome, and might respark interest in the series. Heck, there might even be a new series. But this could also be a total failure because the people they want to get into the theater, the fans who kept the series on the air for 14 years, are being alienated away from it by being told "We hate the thing you liked, so we're doing away with it".
Do you not see how this same thing could be said about Star Wars? The EU revived Star Wars in the 90s. Sure, it might not be "the heart of the franchise", as you put it, but it was a major point in sparking new interest in the franchise.Bill Nye the Zombie said:
"We're continuing the whole series, and the books and games are not part of the story now." "The EU means nothing to us, so we are going to break anything you may or may not like."
A lot of the EU was bad, the last few series have been awful. Stargate also had a lot of bad in it, to the point of Universe feeling like an entirely different show, and Atlantis dragging its heels.
While I took umbrage with the last few stories the EU has done, I'm still unhappy to see it go. There are new books being made, but none of them will reference the old material. If they had allowed the old EU to continue parallel to the new stuff, operating under the Legends Title, I'd have no problem. I'd consider Stargate TV Canon continuing without feeling the need to adhere to the new films to be a similar compromise that would satisfy everyone.
I have always considered myself a fan of both the original movie and the show. I have to agree though that by and large it didn't have that much impact beyond on the larger cultural zeitgheist. That said, part of the reason SG-1 slumped a bit after season 7 was specifically because Richard Dean Anderson said he was "too old for this s***" he tried to stay on and do some guest episodes for continuity, but the show had to bring in John Crichton and Erin Sung to help fill things out. I don't think now, a decade even later, Anderson is going to want to reprise his version of O'Neill, at least not to carry a movie.castlewise said:
Any movie is going to be starting in part from scratch. I'd hate to see the show's continuity thrown out completely, but I think picking up from the end of SG-1/Atlantis/Universe is just not possible.
I completly agree however as much as I love Sg1 (but not S9/10) and Atlantis I am still willing to give it a chance. It might not be the Stargate I know and love but neither was Stargate Universe so we don't really have anything to loose.faefrost said:
And Devlin and Emmerich could still win some of the fanbase over. They would have a better shot than Brad Wright and Robert C. Cooper would at this point considering some of the decisions and comments they made at the start and end of SGU.
