I got to wondering about this when I ran accross the article linked below and was curious what you guys thought.

http://www.filmjerk.com/nuke/article764.html

Though no examples come to mind at the moment I'm sure there are a few cases where spin-offs like this have worked in the past but this one seems like a REALLY bad idea. This is the type of thing that is hammering the last nails into star trek's coffin (I'm a bigtime trekkie but short of a total, top to bottom house cleaning they'll be dead in a couple of years ... maybe sooner). 'ST:TNG', 'CSI', 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' and esecially 'Law and order' have all succeeded to a degree but at a heavy cost to the originals by sanding off much of their edge and impact (IMHO anyway).

For me Richard Dean Anderson's character is a huge part of what separates this series from many others in the genre. Don't get me wrong I think the cast, writing and directing are all good but Anderson puts them in front (I've never been able to figure out exactly how but he does). So, they can either copy his character for the new series or go in the opposite direction and both options seem like bad choices. Obviously we need to wait and see but considering the history of spin-offs and the difficulties the creators face reproducing the chemistry in the original I don't see how they could possibly pull it off. Worst case, they might even dilute SG1.

I know it's not fair to bash it before I even see the first episode but I just don't see how they can possibly pull it off. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

For the past two episodes (of the new season) everyone has been rather glum. Anderson has stopped making jokes- and has a distant look on his face. And all the close-up shots are irritating.

I forgot all about this. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=31909)

I am really excited to see the Ancients storyline developed. I always find the episodes dealing with them, directly or indirectly, much more fascinating.

im sorry but i have to say that i thought the original Stargate was pretty poor. this new version (after reading the review above) seems to just be a load of stereotypes and i hope it fails miserably immediatley, because if they get just a tiny bit of success then we are gonna be up to the eyeballs in Stargate derivatives (a la Star Trek).

For me the appeal of Stargate is in the writing. A good balance of episodic series plotting in which a universe is slowly described for us and events occur that are results or repercussions of prior events, with weekly entertainment in which most episodes can be enjoyed on their own. Drama and melodrama, in other words.

Sure the cast has really become a well oiled team and the actors have merged with their characters, but that happens in any well produced and directed long-running series. Soap operas run so long that both actors and characters die or leave for other reasons, yet they often do quite well with both the recasting and the disappearance of characters. It's what TV is all about. Either you do it well or you don't.

I have faith that the Stargate team can surmount a change of venue. They'll use it as fresh grist to breathe new life into it and they'll find new actors who will earn our love like the old ones. They did just fine with Jonas, Maybourne, and Sam's father, and I'd like to see a lot more of some of the other people they've run into.

How old is Richard Dean Anderson and how much longer are we going to believe his stunt double leaping through the galaxy like a 30-year-old Navy S.E.A.L.? Are all of these highly likeable people going to die without ever experiencing enduring love and marriage or passing their unparalleld wisdom on to children of their own? At some point the milieu just becomes annoyingly unbelievable.

I personally thought that Star Trek TNG was infinitely better than the original series, which I honestly couldn't even stand to watch. DS-9 was also great. As I posted elsewhere, my biggest gripe is that in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator and get ratings, all sci fi shows must eventually devolve into non-stop space wars. Americans love to see stuff exploding (and hear it too, in a bloody vacuum). Andromeda started out that way and has been getting worse with every episode.

Stargate is miraculous because despite its fundamental story line, the eternal battle between humanity and the Goa'uld, most episodes do not revolve around battle scenes.

If they can keep it up in the sequel, I'll be delighted to watch it.

For some reason I think its going to suck. Stargate SG-1 is so good because of the cast. I mean, who could possibley replace Ricard Dean Anderson and that classic sarcasm that I think gives the show an edge over any other sci-fi show.

Those viewers who grew up with Richard Dean in Macgyver, enjoy his presence in any series. That is the major part of the success of Stargate series. Rest is filler material. We will miss him a lot.

May be they should bring a few cast members from Babylon 5 universe who have done great jobs there - for a new series.

Sci-Fi channel is having difficulty getting good stories for its Saturday night movies in the hope of spinning to a new series. Too many crappy stories. We should suggest some good and powerful stories to the scifi management.

Anyone for a challenge?

Haha, ive been saying that for a long time... I mean, I realize that they are low budget films... but most of them realllllly suck... Even on a low budget, you can be creative enough to have an awesome movie...

I would suggest great story lines, but they most likely A.) wont listen or B.) steal the idea and give no credit to us. It would be nice if we could get a job there haha.

Later
T

May be we could atleast point them to the direction of some already published works. So, let us see what our members think and propose a few that are more entertainment and thought provoking rather than dark apocalyptic type....