Slashdot Mirror


Trouble at Stargate SG-1

jonerik writes "Salon has this article today about the troubles behind the scenes for Showtime's "Stargate SG-1." Since Michael Shanks left the show in October (a result of his unhappiness with the show's change in focus to "X-Files"-influenced government conspiracy plotlines), women have been abandoning the show in droves. The problems come at a bad time. MGM, which produces the show, is looking to be bought out by a sugar daddy. And the Sci-Fi Channel, which is taking the program over from Showtime for its sixth and final season, can't be happy at the prospect of ending up with a troubled show with plummeting ratings and a fanbase in revolt. " I have yet to see the more recent episodes, but several of the episodes I have seen have been quite excellent (and some others well... weren't) but I know a lot of people who consider SG1 among the best SciFi on TV. Personally I'll take Lexx & Farscape over it, but its not bad.

267 comments

  1. I've observed something... by Scoria · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Sci-Fi Channel's original television programs rarely air for more than one season before being cancelled.

    There has to be a reason why Showtime is selling them ownership of the series, too; my guess is that they had anticipated this.

    I've watched it a few times late at night (reruns); it didn't seem to be "the best of Sci-Fi," but it's certainly watchable and occasionally exhibits signs of intelligence among the writers.

    --
    Do you like German cars?
    1. Re:I've observed something... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2


      > I've watched it a few times late at night (reruns); it didn't seem to be "the best of Sci-Fi," but it's certainly watchable and occasionally exhibits signs of intelligence among the writers.

      \meetoo.

      I usually enjoy it, but no so much that I plan my schedule around it. I haven't noticed the purported xfileisms, but perhaps my rerun station hasn't gotten that far along yet.

      The biggest problem with the series from my POV is Richard Dean Anderson, who is either a really bad actor or else is doing a really good job on a really bad part. (I suspect the former.)

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:I've observed something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, he's one of the BEST parts of the show... apart from the O'Neil-isms, it's just funny in itself to watch the same guy who played MacGuyver, honestly have no clue what's going on with all the alien tech stuff. =]

    3. Re:I've observed something... by coyote-san · · Score: 2

      They've already annouced that the sixth season - the Sci Fi channel one - will be the last one.

      What's suddenly up in the air is the future of the second Stargate movie and the spinoff series Stargate: Atlantis.

      --
      For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    4. Re:I've observed something... by IronChef · · Score: 2

      I saw a couple of episodes and I thought, "eh, this is OK."

      Then I saw the RIGHT 2 episodes and I got hooked. After that, it was allll good. Right now, Stargate has my vote as best SF on TV at the moment, and best SF on TV ever next to Bab 5 -- and it's a darn close second. (YMMV)

      Keep watching. You might get the "click" too.

      For the current fan: Stargate wallpaper at my web site. Scroll down. (yes, I made Stargate wallpaper and I am 30. The show makes me carry on like a little kid again -- I like it that much. Crazy.)

    5. Re:I've observed something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why would anyone ever watch this show anyways?

    6. Re:I've observed something... by hatchet · · Score: 2, Informative

      Stargate SG1 is show that cannot be watched occasionally... the episodes are very connected and if you miss important episode you simply cannot follow the show. Some of such episodes are (the children of the gods, 5th race, Tok'Ra, The Enemy within,... and so on) If you didn't watch those episodes there is no sense in watching SG-1..
      And that is the only reason why people don't seem to like SG-1... I didn't like it at first either, but then I watched from beginning all episodes.. and it hooked me.

    7. Re:I've observed something... by mpe · · Score: 2

      Stargate SG1 is show that cannot be watched occasionally... the episodes are very connected and if you miss important episode you simply cannot follow the show.

      Which is something quite likely to upset US based televsion networks.

    8. Re:I've observed something... by mlong · · Score: 1
      The biggest problem with the series from my POV is Richard Dean Anderson, who is either a really bad actor or else is doing a really good job on a really bad part. (I suspect the former.)

      I somewhat agree. While the other characters have grown throughout the series O'Neil pretty much stays the same. He acts dim-witted and too quick to action. Sometimes his actions don't make sense at all. I would have preferred to see some wisdom in him in the later seasons but he really hasn't changed. Although the character is a heck of a lot better than was in the movie.

      --
      //m
    9. Re:I've observed something... by CTachyon · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The biggest problem with the series from my POV is Richard Dean Anderson, who is either a really bad actor or else is doing a really good job on a really bad part. (I suspect the former.)

      I think it's the latter. The problem, IMHO, is that he's a pretty decent actor but is mediocre in at least some of the creative, behind-the-scenes stuff that he insists on doing. Because of his level of creative control on the show, he's one of few people who gets to write his own character. I think he's shooting for a realistic (in D&D terms) 10 INT 17 WIS character in his scriptwriting, but is too close to the character to spot the flaws in what he does.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    10. Re:I've observed something... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > I think it's the latter. The problem, IMHO, is that he's a pretty decent actor but is mediocre in at least some of the creative, behind-the-scenes stuff that he insists on doing. Because of his level of creative control on the show, he's one of few people who gets to write his own character. I think he's shooting for a realistic (in D&D terms) 10 INT 17 WIS character in his scriptwriting, but is too close to the character to spot the flaws in what he does.

      Thanks. BTW, is there any background story to explain why they would put someone with INT=10 in command of a team with such an important mission?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    11. Re:I've observed something... by CTachyon · · Score: 1
      Thanks. BTW, is there any background story to explain why they would put someone with INT=10 in command of a team with such an important mission?

      My assumption has always been that they had enough very intelligent people (Carter, Daniel) in the team that the most important criteria for choosing a team leader was (a) someone who could think tactically on his/her feet, (b) able to command the people under him/her effectively, and (c) willing (even eager) to listen to the opinions of his teammates. That, combined with the fact that Jack and Daniel had worked together before and had a quirky understanding (in the Stargate movie) pretty much solidifed his place in the team.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
  2. Kill your television by Animats · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's light entertainment, people. Get a grip.

    1. Re:Kill your television by FFFish · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. Donchaknow.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    2. Re:Kill your television by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit, man.

      What episodes, if any, of Lexx does that hot, big-lipped chick kiss other girls? Any .mpeg pointers?

  3. Read Salon.com by dedicke · · Score: 0

    Salon.com was way ahead of you on this, and basically it boils down to MGM f'ing over female fans in the vain search for the young male demo.

    --
    raretshirts.com - cool vintage t-shirts
    1. Re:Read Salon.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yep. And someone might have seen it if they didn't have those interstital ads that drove off most of their intelligent readers.

      ~~~

  4. That sucks... by TechnoLust · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Stargate SG1 was a great series. I can't understand why everytime they get a great thing going, they try to imitate something else and end up a failed ripoff of another show's concept. Seems like everytime I find a show I like, they change it or cancel it. Meanwhile usless garbage like Crossing Over with John Edward is STILL on. I didn't buy it the first season. Who is watching that con man?

    --
    "Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
    1. Re:That sucks... by Sarcazmo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yeah, How the fuck is John Edwards sci-fi?

      I mean the first part of Sci-Fi is Sci, i.e. SCIENCE, not scam artist psychic mumbo jumbo bullshit.

      Shit like that was a primary reason I quit watching Sci-Fi... that and they pushed Exposure into an after-midnight time slot... WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY SMOKING!?!?

    2. Re:That sucks... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

      yeah, and they cancelled MST3K, those philistines!

      ...and what about scarecrow's brain?!

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    3. Re:That sucks... by Coward,+Anonymous · · Score: 1

      Yeah, How the fuck is John Edwards sci-fi?

      I mean the first part of Sci-Fi is Sci, i.e. SCIENCE


      True, but the last part stands for Fiction.

    4. Re:That sucks... by /dev/trash · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Come on! He was touched by a psychic when he was 15!!!!

    5. Re:That sucks... by MindStalker · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Sidenote, an impartial university did a study with him to test his 'skills' and remarkably in a blind reading (where he was sitting back to back with someone who couldn't say a word to him) he got an extremly high percent of things right. Anyways, the researchers also had their brains wired up highly, and found that an unusual high amounts of matching brain activity was going on. Their conclusion was that hes not jsut making stuff up, but that most likly hes midly telepathic, and reading the stuff from the peoples brains.

    6. Re:That sucks... by nomadic · · Score: 2

      It wasn't that great. The little of it that I saw seemed to be fairly generic sunday-afternoon syndicated science fiction, with nothing particularly new or original.

    7. Re:That sucks... by Chuck+Milam · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ...an impartial university did a study with him..."

      Do you have any linkage to this study? I'd like to see more info on this.

    8. Re:That sucks... by nomadic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Head over to the Skeptics Society's web page if you want to read a good debunking of John Edwards.

    9. Re:That sucks... by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      saw it on dateline or something like that, but I'll look.

    10. Re:That sucks... by MindStalker · · Score: 2

      http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/92/152/01_2_m.ht ml
      http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/30/01_1_m.h tm l
      This was conducted by the "University of Arizona Human Energy Systems Lab," who seem a bit too eager to find this stuff out, so they might not be entirly "impartial" anyways.
      Btw these links are both from the university news paper, and not the best information, but the only thing I could find that wasn't hugly partial one way or the other.

    11. Re:That sucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Edwards isn't even the best in his own field of sham artistry:
      http://www.csicop.org/genx/edward/index.html

    12. Re:That sucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like Amanda Tapping. She makes my willy hard.

    13. Re:That sucks... by mikeage · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Re: Edwards...
      Didn't some guy sue him for his fraudulant presentation of the show? I.e., this guy was in the audience, and they'd splice clips of him saying something, Edwards responding, and the guy nodding approvingly. The viewer therefore thought he was agreeing: except that the "yesses" were to other statements. IIRC, he (the guy) also wrote about how they sat in the audience for about 2 hours before the show started, so the producers could eavesdrop on people and listen for what people wanted to hear...

      --
      -- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
    14. Re:That sucks... by a+random+streaker · · Score: 1

      Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazines have savaged this study, listing many holes a trickster could use to gain information.

      Also, if I recall, the control group against which he was measured (to show he did much better) was asked incorrect questions. He would make a statement that happened to be correct ("Joe is your brother") and the control would be asked "Who is Joe"? Not guessing the brother was considered wrong for the control group.

      Given the cold reading guessing, that was likened to him being able to shoot an arrow at a target blindly, then the control group would have to Robin Hood his arrow, regardless of where it was stuck.

      --
      "All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
    15. Re:That sucks... by a+random+streaker · · Score: 1

      Look at the honkin' disclaimers on the issues with the text and broadband version links. Good god, no wonder she makes a Slashdotter's willie hard.

      --
      "All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
    16. Re:That sucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Offtopic? Come on. Read the context of the discussion. Seriously.

    17. Re:That sucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent point!!! Managers in the entertainment industry do seem to be more afraid of original thought then a chicken is of a fox. What they are trying for is "Dramatic Tension." The problem is that they learned about Dramatic Tension when they were sophomores in collage and they still approach it on that level. If a story is mature, complex, relevant or interesting and couldn't be produced by the average sophomore at a liberal arts collage they panic.
      Think about all the ways that "Roswell" could be saved. All of them revolve around adding structure to the story lines. But any structure would discipline the urge to introduce irrelevant story lines so they don't do it.
      As for "Crossing Over," it is a very cheap show to make and will have viewers until someone starts the "Jerry Springer Channel to compete for the demographic. Advertisers are happy to pay for viewers of "Crossing Over", Madison Avenue has always preferred gullible viewers.

    18. Re:That sucks... by jmccay · · Score: 2

      I agree with you. I hated the x-files after the first 2 seasons, and to hear that Stargate is taking an X-Files approach, just sickens me! The government conspiracy plot got old really quick. I like the Star Gate plots that have them exploring different worlds and find new Alien cultures. I also like the interaction between the main characters. This is one of the fews shows I had to watch. The writing used to be great, but I have been noticing that the plots have been going down hill. I just haven't felt like watching. I used to watch 6 shows regularly (Angel, Stargate SG-1, First Wave, Andromeda, and Babylon 5 {both series and the movies}). Now, First Wave has finished, and the first B5 series is finished. The second B5 series was canceled. Now Star Gate SG-1 is going down the toilet? What a bumber!!!
      Hopefully Battlestar Galactica will come back soon. All the new shows just suck (incliuding the new Star Trek). Oh well, I might get some house work down! I got two shows left before I stop watching any series on a regular basis. Maybe they will introduce a new B5 show based of the latest movie around the "Hand of God" mentioned in it. It suck to be a sci-fi fan and watch tv these days because Lexx and Farscape just don't cut it. Lexx could have been great but the went for the teen male audience with all the sexual references.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
  5. Hehehe. by Mister+Snee · · Score: 1

    "No copyright infringement intended." -- quote from http://www.savedanieljackson.com/ .

    I really like that. We should probably all be putting that on anything we do, so the next person to be sued over the DMCA can at least say "but, look at my site, y'r'honour -- it was clearly unintentional, and I'm real sorry about the whole deal."

    Hehe.

    1. Re:Hehehe. by a+random+streaker · · Score: 1

      "By clicking here, you acknowledge this website is not responsible for any heart attacks or strokes you may receive as a result of the physical activity of clicking on things on this web site, nor will you hold this web site responsible for deep vein thrombosis caused by extended periods sitting and viewing this web site. We recommend you get up and stretch and walk around for at least 10 minutes every hour."

      --
      "All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
  6. $$$ problems -- Should start a themed ISP by tupps · · Score: 2, Funny

    StarTrek has done it, Stargate should give it a go as well.

    I am sure that people will find there is a lot of money in this sort of thing. I am sure you could have Stargate-AOL or something else. The possibilities are endless - Stargate Credit Card, Bank. You could even have a special log on for your favourite online services eg amazon, ebay, google?

    --
    Go out and get sailing!
    1. Re:$$$ problems -- Should start a themed ISP by Scoria · · Score: 1

      Or better yet, Stargate houses! Imagine a two story pyramid with a projector broadcasting 2001-esque images on the side of it!

      --
      Do you like German cars?
  7. a true alpha geek. by re-Verse · · Score: 5, Funny

    Taco proposes marriage on valentines day, 12 hours later, hes posting stories on slashdot, rather than out spening a romantic evening with his new fiancee.

    This, my frineds, is the alpha geek. Aspire to this, and learn from the master.

    1. Re:a true alpha geek. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, I'm not your frined...

    2. Re:a true alpha geek. by dunham · · Score: 1

      maybe they're posting stories together...

    3. Re:a true alpha geek. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking moron. Stories are queued up during the day and posted once every hour or two. All in all, the Slashdot admins do about an hour of "work" each day, and they aren't even writing the stories. What a joke.

    4. Re:a true alpha geek. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us would call this a true loser...

    5. Re:a true alpha geek. by MeepMeep · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, any lonely single saps who actually have the free time to read this on the night of Valentine's is probably well on their way to true geekdom.

      Wait. That would be me.

      This sucks!

    6. Re:a true alpha geek. by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 2
      without trolls like me, do you really think /. would be worth visiting?

      YES. Your post was ugly & mean-spirited. Slashdot would improve without you.

    7. Re:a true alpha geek. by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

      Fucking hell, it's the 10th time this comment gets posted. Hel-lo! It's not funny! It's gotten old!

    8. Re:a true alpha geek. by fat_mike · · Score: 1

      My God, get a dictionary. That is the worst grammar I have ever seen.

    9. Re:a true alpha geek. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I love you man, you're the coolest!

      The signal to noise ratio would skyrocket if trolls like you would just grow some pubes already. Yeah, the world is better off with your crap dripping down our screens.

    10. Re:a true alpha geek. by Kris_J · · Score: 2

      Hmm, I've never heard it called that before...

  8. Evol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1



    Hey Malda-

    I can't believe you're submitting. It's Valentine's Day. Go stuff the porkster.

  9. Lexx? by djberg96 · · Score: 1

    I tried. I *really* tried to watch this show. It's creative, I'll give it that. Unfortunately, it's simply too bizarre and, quite frankly, too stupid for words.

    IMO, that show is simply yet more proof that all it takes to keep a show alive is a little T & A.

    Farscape is cool, but it grates on me at times. SG1 has been good, at least the little I saw. For now, I'll take Enterprise over all of them (excluding the theme song).

    --
    In the immortal words of Socrates, "I drank what?"
    1. Re:Lexx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The newer episodes aren't so hot, but the original miniseries that started it was fantastic.

    2. Re:Lexx? by Sarcazmo · · Score: 1

      Lexx has a lot of subtle jokes... you may not catch them all if you just casually watch it, but they are all pretty hilarious.

    3. Re:Lexx? by a+random+streaker · · Score: 1

      More of Lips and less of the mentally challenged, moody space vampire.

      --
      "All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
    4. Re:Lexx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's the best show ever. specialy the bizarre and stupid things in it! Like the episode when the all of the crew had some bizarre sort of sex-change (thats so stupid that you cant turn it of :-).

    5. Re:Lexx? by cryptochrome · · Score: 2

      Lexx doesn't make any sense until you know that it's a Canadian-German coproduction. That pretty much says it all.

      As for sci-fi on TV these days... thank god for Farscape and Enterprise. Otherwise, it's in a pretty sad state.

      --

      ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

    6. Re:Lexx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lexx is trash. It's one of the most depraved shows in the history of television. Every guest character dies in every episode, after first having demonstrated how much they deserve it. It's in that small group of shows, along with, e.g., "Fear Factor" or the televised version of Howard Stern's radio program, that I can only call an offense to human dignity.

      And yet, I've obviously watched it enough to be able to say that. I'm so ashamed.

      Well, it's had a few moments where it nearly redeemed itself. But every time, in the end, it's let me down again.

  10. Thanks for spoiling the surprise, damn yanks! :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    :) :)
    Means that when we finally see the episodes in two years time down under, I'll be waiting for the episode where Daniel Jackson departs the scene.

    If only it was the doctor whose character got killed!

  11. No!!! by ekrout · · Score: 5, Funny

    No!!!

    CmdrTaco: I have yet to see the more recent episodes, but several of the episodes I have seen have been quite excellent...

    She's gotten to you already! And you just officially became non-single at, like, 9:45am this morning!

    First, it's "No, honey, instead of watching Stargate or X-Files or whatever TV show that is, let's go to the new arts & crafts show at the mall".

    Next, it'll be "Oh, Robby, could you be a doll and clean up the entire house? I'm not feeling too good this week. Don't forget the toilet and the shower."

    Then, she'll be saying "Hey sweetie, don't go with Hemos to that Linux show again. You go every single year and I grow so lonely when you're away. Abandon your friends and let's go rent another movie from Blockbuster!

    Finally, it may come to "Rob, quit it with that damn Slashdot crap already. And why haven't you changed your vulgar and perverted username yet?!"

    ;-)

    My Slashdot Research

    --

    If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
    1. Re:No!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jerk. You made me spit cola out my nose. ;)

    2. Re:No!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OH, you sir are Shirley, teh wittay QUEEN!!!

  12. Re:Sweet's drummer Mick Tucker dies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this offtopic? I thought we were talking about Stargate SG-1 (Is everyone too young to remember the real Stargate and Sweets?) Damn... This is the most ontopic msg here I've seen, cause this guy just passed away today, I jsut read it on yahoo too and who says he's not related to Stargate?!!

  13. In Hollywood, Wearing Glasses=Smart and Sensitive by Badam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was amused that the Salon article makes such a big deal about women liking Michael Shanks's character (the archeologist) because of his intelligence and sensitivity.

    Really, this is just an example of the old stick-glasses-on-a-really-good-looking-guy routine, and then tell the audience that the guy is unpopular/sensitive/etc. When Michelle Pfeiffer plays dowdy characters, they stick glasses on her too, and the audience is supposed to believe that no one in the movie notices how beautiful she is.

    So, Salon spends pages concocting a complicated explanation for why women find an attractive man attractive. Nice.

    --

    Check out my blog: My Galaxy is Milky Way Adjacent
  14. This still isn't as bad as the X-Files situation.. by IronTek · · Score: 0

    Personally, I don't think the show'll be the same w/o Shanks...but, at the same time, IMO, even SG-1's worst episodes still aren't as bad as, say, the best of the current season of the X-Files...While the comparison can be made that Shanks leaving SG-1 is as bad as Duchovny leaving X-Files...

    ...on the X-Files there was only a main cast of two...on SG-1, there's still at least 3 other well-developed, very respectable characters to root for...

  15. Not a fan by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    Not a fan, could barely sit through it. I'm not surprised actors and actresses are abandoning it like a sinking ship. Michael Shanks shows uncommon sense and courage in saving his career before it's irreparably damaged by typecasting in shallow conspiracy theory shows. The theme is overdone and Hollywood's stable of young, unimaginative writers is as much to blame as the moronic producers who favor formula over substance. I bailed on X-Files when it turned into a conspiracy show, because, let's face it, real-life government is full of much more interesting genuine intrigue and scandal if that's what you want. It's there, and you don't even have to look very hard. Why watch TV that can't even get your heart going with suspense, let along a plot from lame writing.

    A thought just struck me (ouch), I grew up about the time TV was getting over the fascination of the new medium and starting to put together some decent shows. So I've been exposed to pretty much all of it, but it's still a young medium (compared to print and radio) and I get the feeling my indifference isn't so much in having seen 'it' all before or that the writing isn't so fresh, but that TV is really in a big decline. Profit margins, commoditizing, and some other things really have replaced the talented people that got TV started in the first place. As campy as some older shows are, they demonstrated some serious imagination and cooperative atmosphere to make them happen that seems missing in shows like SG-1, which seem utterly pointless.

    It would be very interesting to see a live show where actors are handed a script and actually try to do something, rather than shows loaded up with male and female models as vacuous and passionless as the writing.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Not a fan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the X-Files versions of SG1 have not hit Oz and probably will not for a few seasons. After the void that was post B5 I looked at SG1 and although I was a fan of the film I had reservations about the series. Now I am a fan. A 30 something geek who wears glasses and parties as well as performs music. Not the stereo type. I like the intertwined plot lines and the dynamics of the groups relationships with each other. Shure O'Neil is the comic relief element of the show but I think it works and some episodes have been a treat with the writers playing the comic elements of his character up. Sure as hell is better than the suicidal character of the original film.

      To have the writers resort to stupid government conspiricies alla X-Files is moronic. Persoanlly I want to watch something where there is exploration, human development and escape from reality. Not have my head burried in the crap that I see in real life (any queries as that comment just look at what the Australian Government has been upto over the last half year, you'll get my drift and unfortunately I didn't vote for these repressive morons).

      Anyway, if it gets too much I'll just have to pull the plug on my viewing of this show but for now I am very much enjoying what I see. Now if only Channel Seven would bring back Dark Angel I would be happy. Oh BTW did Voyager ever find their way home (-:

  16. Huh? by craw · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hello? Earth to CmdrTaco? You just proposed today. She said yes. WTF are you doing posting a story tonight?

    Woops, sorry I've to go. My g.f. wants to know WTF I'm doing on the computer right now. (Actually, she asked me this 20 minutes ago; just answering e-mail, dear).

    Oh shit, this is too weird. Now I really have to go. She just asked me again just before I could hit the submit button. Sheesh, they *do* have a sixth sense.

  17. funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    I hadn't watched any of Stargate until a year ago. Then, as you may infer from the Salon article, I noticed during one episode* something common to those shows who want young boys to watch - boobs. Big boobs, many boobs; an alien chick with nice boobs propositioning MacGyver for sex. I've liked the majority of episodes I've seen but since seeing the boobalicious episode it's become harder to ignore the many bad aspects of the show. Hell, last week they had an episode devoted to recreating the not-so-classic film "Enemy Mine" though of course it wasn't credited as such. I hate to admit it but Mr.Shank did make the episode enjoyable despite its tremendous layer of greasy cheese on the script. I think the show could become a classic but for the marketing decisions of the owners. Somehow corporations never learn to back the fuck off (poor "Tick" could have been great, too).


    *It was where Daniel and some chick were locked up for fear of being embedded with some kind of assassination-inducing parasite.

    1. Re:funny... by coyote-san · · Score: 2

      That "big boobed chick" has a name - Vanessa Angel. She was the genie in the Weird Science series.

      Her character is human, but has a Goa'uld symbiot. Except they call themselves Tok'ra and are good guys. O'Neill was tempted, but he has strong reasons to distrust the Goa'uld and doesn't fully trust the Tok'ra.

      It's no crime to "knock off" Enemy Mine because that story predated that movie by a long time. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the story dates to the ancient Greeks.

      Finally, it was Col. O'Neill and Major Carter who were locked up. Daniel and Teal'c were 'clean.'

      --
      For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    2. Re:funny... by a+random+streaker · · Score: 1

      Enemy Mine?

      Umm, anyone ever hear of the brilliant Robinson Crusoe On Mars, fools?

      Sheesh, some people have no concept of history and original sources.

      --
      "All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
  18. Re:Thanks for spoiling the surprise, damn yanks! : by Sabaki · · Score: 1

    Well, I'm a Yank, and they spoiled the (disappointing) surprise for me too. Since I don't have Showtime (I pay enough for cable, thanks), I have to get my SG-1 fix via late night showings on our local Fox affiliate. Thank god for TiVo, they can't hide it from me, no matter how late they show it at night and how many times they change the schedule.

    Anyway -- I have to cast my vote for SG-1 being the best Science Fiction show. It's got great characters and they interact wonderfully. Pity Shanks is leaving over an attempt to make SG-1 more X-Files-y as X-Files is going down the tubes quality-wise.

    Alas.

  19. SG1 online DIVX archive by jroysdon · · Score: 1

    Catch all the episodes you've missed:
    http://www.sg1archive.com/

    (of course, now I've slashdotted the site, but I've already downloaded all the episodes...)

    1. Re:SG1 online DIVX archive by theCoder · · Score: 1

      *sigh* they're all gone now (at least a pseudo-random sample that I tried). I'll have to look elsewhere I guess (anyone with a nice fast Internet2 connection want to offer them? :)

      But after reading through the episode descriptions, I've found that my local TV station is a season and a half behind... they were just showing episode 15 from season 4 last week (they show them on Saturdays). And somehow I missed episode 14 :( I had no idea that there were so many already made episodes that I was missing... of course, that means I have a whole new season with Daniel Jackson to look forward to :P

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
    2. Re:SG1 online DIVX archive by jroysdon · · Score: 1

      I've all of them burned to 5 CDs (about 430mb per season). Plus, you can find folks on IRC/P2P- sharing stuff with them (and at higher quality than 20mb versions). I'd offer to host them anonymous ftp, but I can't support the traffic these would require, plus it's semi-questionable as to the legality of them (I don't think they really qualify as "fair use" even if they're "thumbnail" sized and low quality).

      Oh, and the show dates are Showtime original air dates, I believe (whereas broadcast TV comes out a bit later, maybe half a season later or something, I'm not sure). Not sure how all of Season 5 is up there though, as most of the dates listed haven't occured yet (so maybe those are TV broadcast dates?).

  20. Michael by NetGyver · · Score: 1

    Michael Shanks was really the first star of StarGate. He played a major role in the movie and went for nearly 5 whole seasons in the TV spinoff SG1. So of course when he goes, he's going to be missed, and it's not just the women who will miss him either.

    Teal'c and O'Neall are gung-ho militant, Carter is an astrophysicist, and Daniel Jackson was the expert on cultures and various languages. Always peaceful and good natured. He helped blanace the feel of the show, and kept it in a star-trek explorer's perspective.

    I hope the show stays alive when Michael leaves, as long as his replacement does a decent job I don't think i'm going to stop watching anytime soon.

    But I have to agree, SG-1 IS one of the best Scifi shows ever to hit tv. It's innovative, inspiring, and it tells a very deep story. I noticed alot of shows build on one another, the best way to watch SG-1 (IMHO) is from the first season to the 5th stright through. It's like a long chaptered story and keeps you waiting for the next episode.

    I have the season 1 box set. I just hope that MGM still plans to release the rest of them, or i'm going to be
    P-I-S-S-E-D.

    --
    A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
    1. Re:Michael by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you moron. Michael Shanks was NOT in the stargate movie. James Spader plays daniel jackson in the movie.

    2. Re:Michael by osu-neko · · Score: 2, Informative
      Michael Shanks was really the first star of StarGate. He played a major role in the movie

      He did? What role did he play in the movie? I don't remember seeing him in it. Perhaps you're thinking of James Spader...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  21. Are women really that shallow?? by Berserker76 · · Score: 1

    ...so an attractive guy quits the show, so you stop watching. I thought only men did that. It is a good show, but who has time to watch TV anymore anyway.

    1. Re:Are women really that shallow?? by coyote-san · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not just women who are pissed at the change in the series, and it's not just because a character was killed off.

      The conspiracy angle has seriously polluted most of the recent shows. As an exercise on another board we've been reframing some of the recent "non-conspiracy" stories without the adolescent confrontation that's become so common recently. Without exception, everyone agreed that these modified story lines were better drama and closer to the original feel of the episode.

      To be blunt, the series was interesting to adults. But now, dude, you diss'd my man and I gotta cut you! There's nothing wrong with shows directed at teenage males who want to see a righteous ass-kicking, but that's not what Stargate SG-1 has been. This change is as unwanted as if ER became a horror story with at least one vampire victim every week, or the Friends storyline suddenly focused on Monica beating the crap out of Chandler every week and all of his friends abandoned him because they couldn't deal with the spousal abuse.

      --
      For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    2. Re:Are women really that shallow?? by TexNex · · Score: 2, Funny
      ...if ER became a horror story with at least one vampire victim every week, or the Friends storyline suddenly focused on Monica beating the crap out of Chandler every week...

      What are you talking about!? I'd pay good money to see that happen.

  22. Are they nuts? This was Stargate's MAIN CHARACTER! by osu-neko · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I just watched the original movie again recently (the DVD version with the extra 9 minutes), and it reminded me what a great idea for a story this was, and a great idea for a series, too. Unfortunately, execution hasn't always been up to the potential, but when it's been good, it's been real good.

    But, rewatching the original movie, I was reminded again as to who the real central character of this story used to be. And what it used to be about.

    It's very disappointing to see how far this series has strayed from the things that made it great. Dr. Daniel Jackson was the embodiment of everything that was great about Stargate. The rest of the characters were expendable. Granted, it wouldn't have been the same without them, especially Teal'c, but it could have stayed true to Stargate. Stargate without Daniel Jackson just isn't Stargate...

    I'm very sorry to see this series go...

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  23. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this show sucks and so do its fans. you people have no lief and are unedukated.

  24. Legolam by the+phantom · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I am glad to see that someone else has read Bored of the Rings.

    -1 Offtopic

  25. This is exactly why I love 24. by orichter · · Score: 1

    Apart from the fantastic initial writing, I know that the fundamental story is of a limited length (I assume 24 episodes :), the plotline is probably reasonably thought out to a dramatic end, and if they are smart, they will have another seperate self contained story line next season. If not, however, at least I've gotten a complete and interesting story out of it.

  26. Hear! Hear! by ArcSecond · · Score: 1
    Complaining about the politics of popular fiction? Tsk! Tsk!

    What are geeks doing watching television, anyway? Aren't they supposed to be too busy doing things that require the full attention of their mighty intellects, like whoring for karma and ranting about Microsoft?

    I mean, I have a passable A/V rig, and I get my cable for free, but my remote has a thick layer of dust over the "Power" button...

    --

    I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.

  27. I liked it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The big screen original version, that is.

    Clearly a light film, not much food for thought, but tied interesting "Leitmotifs" - aliens and sci-fi, Egypt and archeology, a different world with different people, lots of action and a little romance.

    My kind of film.

    The TV series blew it, but is still somewhat interesting - main problems, IMHO, are the worms (please!) and the vikings (PLEASE!!!).

    Richard D. Anderson is ok. No Lawrence Olivier, but a good actor, I suppose.

    This series could be a major hit, too bad such a marvellous idea got wasted without creative scripts.

    Babylon 5, e.g., did much better with a lousy idea and first-class writer like its creator.

  28. Old. by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Jokes about CT being married became old at exactly 09:29AM.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  29. Heh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's funny.

    I quit watching stargate SG-1 about 3 weeks into the season since it quickly turned into a chicks show that chicks don't want to watch with guys. I really don't care if they change it back, it's still got the stigma attached.

    I guess this proves that once you alienate an audience you don't get it back.

  30. Ughhh, Lexx? by Bluetick · · Score: 0, Troll

    Personally I'll take Lexx & Farscape over it, but its not bad.

    Personally, I'll take Botulism & Dysentery over Lexx.

    1. Re:Ughhh, Lexx? by Bremen24601 · · Score: 1

      There's only one reason I can think of to watch Lexx... and someone who's just gotten engaged shouldn't need that. Or is there actually artistic merit in that show?

      --
      Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt. --Herbert Hoover
  31. Not just female fans who like Jackson on SG-1 by klevin · · Score: 1

    The Salon piece focused mainly on how much female fans liked the Daniel Jackson character, but I've got to say he's one of my favorites as well. It's a tie between him and "Sam"; must be my identifying w/ geeks. I'm watching the syndicated broadcasts and am just now getting the switch to consiracy-theory type stories. They're ok every now and then, but definately not why I watch the show. This sucks.

    1. Re:Not just female fans who like Jackson on SG-1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right: we hadn't considered the homosexual male portion of the fanbase. Sorry.

    2. Re:Not just female fans who like Jackson on SG-1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right! You may have just discovered a valid, scientific partitioning method to seperate them out from nerds.

  32. So glad I don't have Showtime... by KFury · · Score: 2

    'cause I watch (and love) SG-1 on Fox (or is it CBS? I dunno, but god I love that my TiVo does) instead of Cinemax, and therefore am running a year or two behind the production episodes, I still have a year or two of good episodes left! Nyah, nyah!

    And since none of my friends have Cinemax either (at least not ones who are SG-1 fans) I don't have to hear spoilers two years in advance...

    1. Re:So glad I don't have Showtime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's syndicated, so network affiliation will vary by market; it's not a network show.

      Why do you have Showtime in your title, and Cinemax in your text? Anyway, Showtime is the correct one.

  33. John Edwards by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    He's either telepathic or contacting spirits, both of which are highly unconventional ideas in science, and both would require high amounts of brain activity. Personally, I think the guy's just telling the truth when he can say that he can contact spirits in the netherworld.

    More studies should be conducted on him and other psychics who have been proven to be real. Why doesn't science have more of an interest in this stuff if there's at least some proof that it could exist?

  34. Re:BOBDIYA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I ask what that means?
    I'm laughing my ass off here!!!
    w00t w00t!!

    It's so fucking funny!!

    w00t w00t!!

    Just one of those things: cracks me up!

  35. I can see the board meeting... by marko123 · · Score: 1

    There is one woman on the board who tries to explain to the rest that it is not worth changing the plot just to pick up the disaffected X-files watchers looking for the next big conspiracy show.

    --
    http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
  36. Plot of every SG-1 show... by Navius+Eurisko · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    1. Main characters get into threatening situation
    2. Use StarGate to go to X world
    3. Battle inhabitants with aid of native rebels
    4. Return to base with solution to problem
    5. Repeat

    Maybe the show got better after I stopped watching it, but that's how every episode I watched played out.

    1. Re:Plot of every SG-1 show... by cowboy+junkie · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey,that's not true. There are the ones where:

      1. Main characters use Stargate to go to strange world.
      2. Something bad comes back with them (person/device/unexpected change/etc.) that wreaks havoc in the base.
      3. Just before something bad becomes something worse (that destroys the world/takes over the base/makes MacGyver's eyes permanently glow/etc.) they come up witha solution.
      4. Something bad is destroyed or sent back through the gate.

    2. Re:Plot of every SG-1 show... by Bremen24601 · · Score: 1

      It would help if you'd have watched more than one episode... mind you, I can't remember the 1st season very well. But the number of shows with a plot like that I could count on one hand. I can think of 1 so far this season (4th).

      --
      Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt. --Herbert Hoover
    3. Re:Plot of every SG-1 show... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, like the plot lines are any different from every Star Trek episode ever made. Or any Sci-Fi (except B5) series ever made. I think the writing in SG-1 is much better then Star Trek.

      And Lexx? Let's not even go there... I can't believe it lasted as long as it has. IMO that is some really bad writing, with really bad acting.

    4. Re:Plot of every SG-1 show... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey don't forget that one with the time loop

      1. Go to strange planet and get stuck in time loop
      2 goto 1

  37. anime ripoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously I think someone is taking production tips from Anime OVAs. They started a show and they knew exactly where and how it would end from the get-go. I'd like to see more shows written in this mini-series-esque way. It make for interesting plotlines.

  38. want a tragic hero? by f00zbll · · Score: 2
    Go and read the epic of gilgamesh, since the article quoted:

    "We had Gilgamesh, Ulysses, Beowulf, Don Quixote, David Copperfield and now Daniel Jackson,"

    I liked the show, but if you want to experience fully developed characters that are complex, go read a book. Having read the books quoted, I don't consider the character "Danial Jackson" on the same level. How about read the Upanisad, baghavadghita, Ramayana, the Iliad, the Odyssey, the old testament, No exit, Faerie Queen, Cantebury tales, Don Juan, Hildebrant and Hadubrant (old german epic) or Frankenstein? I love TV, but people should read the "classics" and know where TV draws from.

    1. Re:want a tragic hero? by Magnusite · · Score: 1

      Aha, a Sartre fan. Seriously though, I don't think any of the characters in 'No Exit' could be considered heroes, tragic or otherwise. One killed her lover, one was a deserter, and one killed an infant. These were not heroic actions, which landed them in their situation during the play. Remember, Sartre was an existentialist of the most severe kind -- he was arguing constantly that people had the right to self-terminate (I can't remember what he called it).
      Anyway, not a criticism of your post, just a clarification

  39. Great show by sunhou · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think Stargate is great, if usually somewhat light, entertainment. They hit many of the standard SF stories, but put good twists on them. E.g. in the typical episode where some of the characters are caught in a time loop, eventually they just get tired of living the same day over and over, and start having some fun -- hitting golf balls through the stargate, punching people, kissing people, etc. Or when about halfway through the episode they finally revealed that at the beginning of each time loop, Teal'c was getting hit in the face by a door, and was getting seriously sick of that. Ok, getting hit in the face by a door isn't the funniest thing in the world, but they stuck it into an episode that "should have" been very serious, but which started turning quite silly.

    That's also what I like about Farscape. Often when I'm watching it, I think I know where the episode is going (having seen it on Star Trek, or Outer Limits, etc.), but then they end up turning in a direction I didn't expect. Sometimes funny, sometimes not.

  40. Macgyver by Tom7 · · Score: 2

    Macgyver will always be better in Macgyver.

  41. He's full of fecal matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He doesn't predict anything. He says things like 'I'm thinking of a relative that starts with "E" or has "E" in it, or something with "E"'. Vanna White could do that. And if someone says he's wrong, he persists until they back down. CmdrTaco has more respectability than this guy.

  42. What ?! by Gord.ca · · Score: 3, Informative

    Some points on this article...

    There've been something like 10-20 conspiracy themed episodes out of the 109 they've shown. (I know, I have them ALL on DivX. Seriously, I'm an addict.) And conspiracy-heavy eps tend to have other themes mixed in with them, so its not just a complete X-Files rip-off. (Though I will admit the show became more 'political' than 'exploratory'.)

    The latex-clad babe (I think they're referring to Anise) showed up in all of three episodes back in the middle of the 4th season. In general I've been happy with their limited use of sex symbols. At least Anise had some realistic premise for being sexy, unlike, say, Seven of Nine.

    They killed off the Daniel Jackson character on the 2nd last ep of the 5th season. That's the season that just finished. So there's been all of one episode without Michael Shanks in it. Not quite a lot of time for anyone to abandon the show.

    The character they're planning on replacing him with (Jonas Quinn, played by Corin Nemic) is almost like Jackson. Not the 'hunk' that the Wired article suggests. He's intelligent, moral, with sense of wonder... They may have some trouble making him different from Daniel.

    Yes, Daniel has been under-used as of late. Though he has had episodes where he's focused, in the others he tends to be sidelined. And him leaving will be a hard hit. Jonas/Corin has big shoes to fill. But I think the article's exagerating the situation just a little.

    In conclusion... I think they're mostly banging on about nothing.

    --
    The opinons expressed are those of the voices in the author's head and are not necessarily those of the author.
    1. Re:What ?! by coyote-san · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now try that again counting how many conspiracy episodes occured in each season. I know that some of these characters first appeared in the first season, but what was once a rare appearance is now fairly common.

      A more subtle point, count the number of episodes that involved cooperation and finding "positive sum" solutions. Now count the number of episodes that involved conspiracy subplots where humans can't trust their allies. The former were common in the first few years, but now the latter are common. During the first half of the fifth season you have the lying Tollan (Between Two Fires), the lying Russians (The Tomb), the lying Achen (2001), etc. Hell, even Jake had to dress down Jack for his attitude in the season opener.

      When you put it all together, it's hard to find a recent episode that doesn't seem like it there was an angry teenager on the writing staff.

      --
      For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    2. Re:What ?! by Bremen24601 · · Score: 1

      If they can replace him with a believable character all well and good. However, ratings have been dropping steadily. It is possible to replace a character, but it makes it that much harder to bring back the viewers that left. So that puts all the more pressure on. A miracle is what they need.

      That said, execs aren't idiots (well not total idiots). Even they should be able to figure out their meddling is hurting the show. So its entirely possible Daniel will be reincarnated using some mysterious alien artifact at the beginning of the season. Of course thats assuming the suits want it saved...

      --
      Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt. --Herbert Hoover
    3. Re:What ?! by TexNex · · Score: 1

      Yup, next thing ya know they'll be getting Seth Green to replace Michael Shanks character. I can see it now...After a few episodes the team will discover that Seth is a were-wolf and that Carter is the new Slayer.....

    4. Re:What ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no more pressure -- The show is dead. They're putting it out to pasture on the SciFi channel for a season either because the epsoides are already shot or for contractual reasons, but there's no way it's coming back, so all they need to do is go through the motions.

    5. Re:What ?! by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      So, let get this straight, some people are upset because the "conspiracy" plots are becoming more prevalent. Well, if you watch the show for its entertainmet value, who cares, as long as it's entertaining? On the otherhand, if you watch the show because you are really *into* it, then this is just like real life I'm afraid (that thing you might keep hearing that you should get one of) - conspiracies breed further conspiracies once they start to leak, so it's only natural that there should be more such episodes.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    6. Re:What ?! by mpe · · Score: 2

      Yup, next thing ya know they'll be getting Seth Green to replace Michael Shanks character. I can see it now...After a few episodes the team will discover that Seth is a were-wolf

      Or even one almight big conspiracy theory involving his dad, played by Mike Myers.

      and that Carter is the new Slayer.....

      Even though NORAD is a great place for vampire to hang out she's far too old.

    7. Re:What ?! by innit · · Score: 1

      So, let get this straight, some people are upset because the "conspiracy" plots are becoming more prevalent. Well, if you watch the show for its entertainmet value, who cares, as long as it's entertaining?

      The point is that if we want to watch dramas about government conspiracies, we can go and watch the X-Files. I personally don't like the X-files any more for that very reason, and so to see the same sort of banal shit creep into Stargate is a tiny bit irritating, and makes me think "for fcsk's sake I might aswell switch over to the X-files". Stargate has many of its own quite remarkable merits, it does not need to borrow stuff from other shows.

      Stuii!

    8. Re:What ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corin Nemec.. isn't that the guy that played Parker Lewis ?

  43. Re:CmdrTaco must have skipped grammar class... by empesey · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now that he's getting married, I believe he'll be hearing more about periods than he wants to.

  44. Very dissappointing by proxima · · Score: 2

    I am dissappointed with the direction SG-1 apparently has taken. I see mostly the syndicated version on the local UPN, which apparently was the first several seasons. I liked many of the planetary expedition episodes. They had a slight star-trek feel without always the crappy technical solution.

    I could never get into the X-Files. Frankly, the constant plot of a government conspiracy became tiresome. Occasionally (maybe once per season), it works ok, but I'm not surprised they too it too far.

    Yes, Daniel Jackson was the best character on the show. Definately not for the "sensistive" reasons given, but that he was the most intelligenct and logical character. Anyone who liked the Spock/Data/Tuvok character sees that Jackson is the Stargate equivalent. And, of course, being a geek I can relate to how the character is portrayed. It is weird that shows are portrayeing the geeks as the sex symbols now (just look at the Vulcan on Enterprise).

    --
    "The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
  45. MacGyver by bman · · Score: 1

    When did Macgyver join the Air Force? Missed that episode.

  46. TV Show is way better than the movie by WakieMakie · · Score: 1

    I went to see Stargate the movie opening day. At the end of the movie there was a brief applause, then most of the audience laughed and booed. The theatre was packed at one in the afternoon, we were starved for a Sci-fi film. The smoking slow-mo helmet. Terrible dialogue, inexcusable for a movie. All it had was a good concept, poor execution (Emeric & Devilen (sp?) have yet too make a decent movie).

    The TV Show is infinitely better. Great cast chemistry. The stories are good and sometimes excellent. It's positive and has a good message and Amanda Tapping is a real hottie.

    1. Re:TV Show is way better than the movie by Burnon · · Score: 1

      To each his own - but my take is the complete opposite. Loved the movie, as did the theater. I remember hearing about plans for a trilogy, and was mildly disappointed when I heard about the TV series instead. I gave a few early episodes a shot, but could never really get into it.

      Sure, the movie had some flaws, but I thought that the scenery and camerawork was great. Watching the TV series, I get claustrophobic. No scope. No grand vision. And the "revolving bad guy of the week" never did it for me.

    2. Re:TV Show is way better than the movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife watched SG-1 regularly whereas I tended to putter around doing other things while it was on. I wanted to check out the episode with Marina Sirtis in it and I was suprised at how inventive the story was in a science-fiction sense. I still don't watch it regularly, but I applaud what they've done with it.

      I liked it when they had Tealc (sp?) jumping out of an airplane. One of the funniest things you can do with an idiosyncratic character is put that character in situations where their idiosyncracies make them react in ways you and I wouldn't (Spock and the "colorful metaphors").

  47. Picture this: by G-funk · · Score: 2

    Scene: Patty and Selma's loungeroom. In the corner sits a robot Pierce Brosnan with a coat over the top and a sign reading "out of order". The television is on.

    Patty: MacGyver is quitting stargate! He's abandoning us!

    Selma: I'll never watch this program again!

    Patty: Thank god for our collectors edition of MacGyver on DVD (fetches a disk and slaps it in).

    Patty and Selma (lighting up): Aaaaaaaaah

    --
    Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  48. Re:Go to bed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's a one minute man, that's why he's posting on Slashdot!

  49. Re:The Solution--Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoever modded me down:

    Kill /your/ TV. Ever notice how people dress like their favorite television characters? I remember when 90210 was popular. People walking around wearing sideburns and other artifacts of the program. Now it's Friends, and all that crap. I saw 5 Courtney Cox's at the gas station today.

    Television is kind of like a hamster wheel. Keep the inmates occupied so they don't look around and think of ways to escape. Ever watch a cat mindlessly chase a laser beam? Seems to awakens some primitive and nonthinking part of their brains. Amazing how they can be so engrossed with such a simple trick.

    Ah, well. You're probably one of those people so far gone, that you consider skipping commercials as stealing from god.

  50. Jackpot by quantaman · · Score: 4, Funny
    Dr. Daniel Jackson speaks 23 languages, wears glasses, suffers from allergies, and occasionally launches into tedious Spock-like discourses on obscure academic subjects. But women have decided that the quirky character, and the actor who plays him, are all the more appealing for it.

    more than 1,000 protests had been phoned into Cohen's office.

    I knew these women were out there! CmdrTaco won't be the only one!!!

    I wonder if Cohen kept any phone numbers...

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:Jackpot by a+random+streaker · · Score: 1

      Well, at least they could give James Spader his job back now. He isn't doing much of note lately.

      --
      "All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
  51. Rumored Changes to Show by Rayonic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Showtime may change one or two things about the show before passing it on to the Sci-Fi Channel, as evidenced by this recently leaked image.

    ---
    "Sic 'em up, little buddy."

    1. Re:Rumored Changes to Show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      should be BJ-1

  52. OT: Red Hat has been sold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This doesn't look good. Full story is here.

  53. Some of the best SciFi on TV? I don't think so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think Taco is still intoxicated from this
    morning. SG1 is one of the worst scifi shows
    that has ever been produced.

    I mean it has it all, annoying characters, poor
    unplausable plots, failed attempts at comic
    relief and unoriginal story ideas. Oh wait, did
    I mention _bad_ acting?

    I was not able to watch more then 15 minutes
    of this show at a time (and even that under
    duress) without wanting to vomit.

    The fact that this show has stayed on TV
    and stayed popular for so long is only
    a credit to the American public's _good_
    taste in TV shows and their awareness of
    quality SF.

    I just hope this show dies as soon as possible
    and frees up some air time, even if it's just
    to play more of Martha Stewart's show.

  54. Stargate Blows - Duct Tape Please by quakeroatz · · Score: 1

    They should have locked that time/warp gate thingy at the end of the Stargate movie. Now it seems MacGyver, who was hopelessly trapped in ancient egypt after the final season of "MacGyver", used a typical duct-tape-and-ball-point-pen-wormhole-trick to reappear in 2002 in a half baked sci-fi series.

    Patty and Selma must be freaking.

    1. Re:Stargate Blows - Duct Tape Please by Have+Blue · · Score: 3, Funny

      Obviously he found the Stargate that had been buried in ancient Egypt, repurposed it into a tim emachine using duct tape and a ballpoint pen, and teleported himself into the series.

  55. WTF is *LEFT* ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to steal a line from a great character
    on another great show
    "Weep for the future, Na'Toth. Weep for us all"
    --G'kar


    sigh.. gotta agree, Stargate:SG-1 has really
    been going downhill since they dumped the
    other-worlds , 'gotta fight the Goa'uld' stuff..
    i mean one or 2 episodes of conspiracy stuff isn't bad
    like the one where O'Neill gets the help
    of Maybourne to save the General's job and gc isn't bad .. but how many times can you redo that shit? .. jejus..

    and besides, if Stargate:SG-1 is tanking, wtf is LEFT?...
    um.. Farscape (which i can't see here, crappy cable company :( )
    Lexx (can't stand it)
    and Enterprise (eh.. SSDD)

    gah.. i don't know about the rest of u, but personally, after hearing this news after the cancellation of Futurama (and probable cancellation of Family Guy) .. i'm downright bummed and pissed..
    god, i don't get it.. these fucking stations dump ferpectly good shows like ST:SG-1 , futuruma, and family guy, but KEEP that jon edwards pos, king of the hill (which isn't BAD, per se, but doesn't compare to Futuruma or Family Guy) , and downright lame shit like Grounded for Life or UnDeclared...
    sigh.. why do i keep having a modicum of faith in the tastes of tv company executives?
    /me never learns, sigh..

    --vat
    machinshin@onebox.com

    1. Re:WTF is *LEFT* ? by Bremen24601 · · Score: 1

      I suggest you give Andromeda a try. (Kevin Sorbo is actually a decent actor!) Anyway, it has everything that made me love SG:SG1, of course I've heard that one of the producers left because the suits wanted more gun fights and whatnot, but I haven't seen it yet (at least the plot and character devel, are still there). So, I'm holding out hope.

      Sucks you can't see Farscape, that is a good show (although sci-fi has this habit of cancelling shows I like, I'm sorry but I-MAN just ruled) and maybe I'm in a minority, but I actually like Enterprise. Yes, it does have some blatantly obvious sexual suggestions, but it dosn't dictate the show.

      --
      Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt. --Herbert Hoover
    2. Re:WTF is *LEFT* ? by llamalicious · · Score: 2

      You are mostly correct. Except, Sorbo himself also wanted more guns and fight scenes.

      Here's the /. article from last month
      and the slipstream article.

      Apparently, that's also how he strong-armed such great ratings for Hercules. (pun intended *ducks*)

      Note the following from SS:
      One large difference between the changes for the two shows is that all of Andromeda's main characters seem to be staying on board. In fact, it seems that main star Kevin Sorbo will be very influential in the creative tone of the series from now on. Sorbo has always said he had a major hand in the creative success of his former series Hercules, and hopefully that experience will enable him to let Andromeda continue to be a successful show as well.

    3. Re:WTF is *LEFT* ? by Aexia · · Score: 2

      Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel are both excellent shows.

      Oh, and Survivor, though YMMV.

  56. Impossible by Cynical_Dude · · Score: 1

    ...women have been abandoning the show in droves.

    But they've got Richard Dean Anderson .!!!

    What would Patty and Selma say?

  57. RE: SG-1 Better than Lexx by dethtungue · · Score: 1

    Farscape better than SG-1: Sometimes

    Lexx Better than SG-1: Not in this lifetime

    Lexx Better than watching paint dry: A Toss-up

  58. Stargate questions by chfleming · · Score: 1

    Each stargate is seperated by many lightyears and hasn't been used in quite a while. Right?

    Howcome 97% of every one on the other side is white and speaks american english?

    What gives man? They don't even have accents and they have like american black people (european african mix) that have never existed en masse until the past few centuries.

    Was there an episode that I missed that explained all of this?

    1. Re:Stargate questions by schon · · Score: 1

      Howcome 97% of every one on the other side is white and speaks american english?

      For the same reason that all the Star Trek aliens speak american english. (Seriously - this "universal translator" is BS - how come it conveniently stops working when Worf speaks Klingon? Does it know that he doesn't want others to understand what he's saying?)

      The answer is this: Because it would be REALLY boring to watch if everybody had a different language!

      Think about it: The SG-1 Team goes to gate FUC-1 and meets the inhabitants, only to be killed by the alien "rebel faction" because it took them too long to figure out that "Ghjnak Bhhgegr" is FUC-1ian for "look out, he's got a gun!"

    2. Re:Stargate questions by osu-neko · · Score: 1
      I think I saw this explained on one of this websites at one time (it's been through several regenerations). Dr. Jackson actually translates for them everywhere they go. But for TV purposes, it would get really annoying watching all dialog relayed through Dr. Jackson...

      Of course, in several episodes people talk to the natives while Dr. Jackson isn't around... so much for the official explanation...

      I suspect all the planets with recent Goa'uld(sp?) presence speak the same dialect the people on Abydos spoke, and everyone on the SG teams have been trained to speak it...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  59. Ever read Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's what a televised version of that series would be like. It's absolutely BRILLIANT. The jokes are so offkey and and dug in, that you just explode with laughter .. Douglas Adams wasn't the only one who did great scifi comedy. Recent seasons have been a bit lacking however, but Season 2 is by far the best, IMO. Perhaps you're paying too much attention to Xev, instead of listening to the rest of the crew..

    1. Re:Ever read Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe? by RatFink100 · · Score: 2

      There *is* a televised version of H2G2 and it wasn't too great. Although I have a soft spot for it because it introduced me to H2G2.

      I've never seen Lexx so I've no idea how good it is.

    2. Re:Ever read Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      you've never seen lex so you don't know how good it isn't.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  60. Lame. Lame and shallow. by Bnonn · · Score: 1
    To be honest, what this reads to me is not so much a significant blunder on the part of the Stargate writers, but simply shallowness on the part of its female (and male) audience.

    I think it's truly sad that so many women apparently watched Stargate simply because they were attracted to Daniel Jackson. It also makes me angry that these people are so petty that when their loverboy inconveniently disappears, they start raising hell and spoiling it for the rest of the SG-1 audience who are still enjoying the show and want it to continue in the progression its writers envisaged by moving into films after the end of the sixth season, despite the disappointment of losing the character of Daniel Jackson.

    Please realise that I'm not saying that there aren't other problems. I don't know Shanks, and I don't know much about him, so he may well have had good reasons for leaving; reasons that I'd agree with. I haven't seen the most recent episodes so I can't be sure. But as a writer myself, I am very aware that sometimes compromises must be made if you have a long-term plan for your work. I have occasionally changed my writing to reflect an issue I felt was particularly important, and of course some people don't like that.

    I am reasonably familiar with the SG-1 writers/creators (Brad Wright, Jon Glassner etc), and they are smart people. It is definitely a very big deal that Shanks has left, because as the Salon article mentions, the interaction of the four main characters was truly spectacular from a writing and acting standpoint. With Shanks gone it will never be as good again. Daniel Jackson was actually my favourite character too, because I could most identify with him (as a geek). However (and this is a very big "however"), what really pisses me off is that the Salon article indicates that huge numbers of people were interested in Daniel because he was "three-dimensional" (and I can accept that audiences can become attached (even obsessively) to a character for romantic reasons, however shallow I think that audience may be), and yet none of them are interested in the show. The show is 3D too! All the characters have a lot of depth. Daniel just appeals to more people.

    The government conspiracy story thread has been slowly worked in from early on, as mentioned, and I can see a very obvious reason for that; if I were writing SG-1 I'd have done the same thing, both for the feature film (if they're going in the direction for the feature film that I think they are), and for the development of the SG-1 universe in general. It's hopeless to have a wonderful, diverse tapestry of alien cultures when the events on Earth itself are completely dead and flat. This show isn't just about exploring other planets. It's not Star Trek. It's about people too, and about how worthy goals can be threatened by those too selfish or petty to see them (unsurprisingly, this fact is obviously lost on the members of the audience too petty to see the long-term goals of Stargate). It's unfortunate that people seem to care so little for the long-term story arcs, and don't want to give Stargate a chance despite it proving many times that its writers know what they're doing when it comes to far-reaching developments in the SG-1 universe.

    Without seeing the episodes myself, I can't really make any further comments, but I would like to mention that I have written things that, when I went back to them, bore a close and completely unintentional similarity to another piece of writing already published. Usually it's a thread of my novel, and it looks almost like plagiarism of an idea, but as long as I know I'm doing the right thing for my long-term plans, I don't worry too much. If people want to criticise things they really aren't qualified to criticise, they can do that while I get on with writing again. The Stargate writers have demonstrated that they know what they're doing for the last five years. Why do people have to shaft them so quickly for a thread they don't even know the outcome or purpose of? I have my doubts that its even inspired by the X-Files. I just hope my audience is a bit more trusting. All I can conclude from the Salon article is that the "core" audience they speak of was not actually very interested in Stargate at all, and were focusing on Daniel Jackson.

    For those interested, get an idea of the atmosphere surrounding BabeMagnet Jackson on forums like Gaters.net or any one of a million Yahoo groups, where, as was mentioned in the Salon article, women cry foul if anything is said about Jackson that doesn't comply with their romantically-motivated ideas. Also check the SG-1 Archive where you could (last I checked) download up to season 5 of SG-1.

  61. Fsck it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care. I've still got my Dark Angel, baby!

  62. Re:Kathleen !worth good spelling or grammar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Embarrassing. Double 'r', double 's'.

    I also disagree with your use of then. Than is used to be comparative. Then is indicative of expressions of time or timing and consequence.

    It's wiser being good than bad; It's safer being meek than fierce; It's fitter being sane than mad. --R. Browning.

    Might I suggest a more heartfelt and serious way of proposal? [bit late now, don't you think?] What was the diamond on the ring? A penguin shaped [compound adjective. Hyphenate: penguin-shaped] imperfect piece of shit bought at the mall last minute? Zales? I doubt Mr. JUBEI [cmdrtaco.net] machine knows an SI-J from a VVS1-E. You are very heavily 'included,' Malda. Can you think of s shittier and more cliché [the adjective is cliched. Consider losing the accent on the e. It looks a bit pretentious] day to propose, or is Valentine's Day king shit of that Tird Island. She must be a lobotomized retard, otherwise you should have spat upon by [this makes no sense] your would be [would-be] spouse.

    Hey, loserboi, don't forget to invite Larry Wall to the wedding and write your vows in a Perl Script. Then you can "chomp" down on your cake.

    You don't have to be a Kreskin to see the end of this loser elopement ending [one of these ends is redundant] in the very near future.

    This is crap, Malda. If I was [were. subjunctive mood] an English teacher [*snort*], and this was [were again] a 5 [adjective is fifth] grader's half assed [half-assed] attempt at writing a romantic short story, I'd throw the script back in the kid's face [use a pronoun: his] and wonder who dropped him as a kid [but he already is a kid]. This is pathetic. I feel bad for your wife. [fuck you]

  63. MGM is just a shadow by leandrod · · Score: 2

    For those of you who can read Portuguese (or its sibling language Spanish), a short overview of MGM's decadence by Ruy Castro.

    --
    Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
    DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
    GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
  64. Attn: Those in Vancouver area by kreyg · · Score: 2

    When is this show on anyway? I used to watch it every week, but I've reset my VCR 4 times based on the TV listings and it's never on when it's supposed to be.

    This was only one of two shows that I ever watched regularly, but I didn't even know Shanks had left the cast - I think I got half of that episode on tape, but they must have screwed with the schedule then too because it got cut off just after the opening credits...

    Anyway, the meandering point I was coming to is: for a show that is (was?) produced in Vancouver, it's impossible to find it here even if you're looking for it. I don't doubt that ratings have dropped with that sort of thing going on.

    One more excellent show swirling in the bowl because somebody had to make changes for the sake of change, rather than to make things better... the need to "put one's mark" on something to justify their position/existence will be the end of us all.

    --
    sig fault
  65. Lexx! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right on! :)
    Good Canadian entertainment at its finest. It's the only Canadian show I watch for more than a few minutes.

  66. Daniel Jackson not dead in Britain! by boltar · · Score: 1

    At least he was still very much alive at the end of the episode that aired here last sunday so
    I'm not sure where salon.com are getting their info from but their source is a bit suspect.

    1. Re:Daniel Jackson not dead in Britain! by pixelix · · Score: 1

      Erm, one can only assume you're watching the repeats on Channel 4, and not the current series which just finished on Sky One. Daniel Jackson is indeed 'dead' (or at least 'ascended to a higher plane').

      --
      -- js.
    2. Re:Daniel Jackson not dead in Britain! by boltar · · Score: 1

      Course I mean C4. Sky is still only watched by two men and a dog. Besides which strictly speaking
      its a european station , not a UK one.

    3. Re:Daniel Jackson not dead in Britain! by simong · · Score: 2

      Jeez man! Get digital! You just missed Buffy the Musical as well.

    4. Re:Daniel Jackson not dead in Britain! by boltar · · Score: 1

      Watching Sarah Geller trying to act is painful enough, not sure I could handle listening to her
      attempting to sing too!

    5. Re:Daniel Jackson not dead in Britain! by Aexia · · Score: 2

      SMG actually acquits herself nicely. I was surprised. Amber Benson, Anthony Stewart Head, and Hinton Battle kick ass. Nicholas Brendon and Emma Caulsen are okay. James Marsters is about the same but gets the best song of the show. Michelle Trachtenberg and Allyson Hannigan can't sing worth a damn but they don't get more than a handful of lines.

      And there's Willow/Tara sex!

  67. Season 2 DVDs by The+Rizz · · Score: 1
    I have the season 1 box set. I just hope that MGM still plans to release the rest of them, or i'm going to be P-I-S-S-E-D.

    I saw on a film news site (I forget which one) that season 2 DVDs will be coming out in the US around October, along with a new release of the movie.

    --The Rizz

    "Money is just something to make bookkeeping convenient." --H.L. Hunt

  68. That little ring at the top of the A... by Rovaani · · Score: 1

    For us used to scandinavian alphabets the shows name is hilarious as STARGÅTE sounds something like a swedish version of StarGoth...

    --
    Karma: Good! Napster: Baad!
    1. Re:That little ring at the top of the A... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought it said 'stargoat', but then again, I'm a canadian.

    2. Re:That little ring at the top of the A... by NiPNi · · Score: 1

      As a Norwegian, I can confirm that STARGÅTE sounds a bit silly. Actually, the Norwegian word 'GÅTE' means 'RIDDLE'. STARRIDDLE... I don't know... Even Wormhole Xtreme is better than that.

    3. Re:That little ring at the top of the A... by Bremen24601 · · Score: 1

      So thats why the Å is there! If you watched the movie Starriddle would be a very apt name for the gate.

      --
      Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt. --Herbert Hoover
  69. Re:In Hollywood, Wearing Glasses=Smart and Sensiti by Sentry21 · · Score: 2

    Read the article a little more closely. Women find him emotionally and intellectually attractive, not just physically attractive.

    He's not just good looking, he has personality traits that make him attractive, and last time I checked, looks != everything.

    --Dan

  70. Re:In Hollywood, Wearing Glasses=Smart and Sensiti by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

    Really, this is just an example of the old stick-glasses-on-a-really-good-looking-guy routine, and then tell the audience that the guy is unpopular/sensitive/etc. When Michelle Pfeiffer plays dowdy characters, they stick glasses on her too, and the audience is supposed to believe that no one in the movie notices how beautiful she is.

    It's true. For example, I wear glasses, but I'm really a hairy-bellied, testosterone-fuelled Neanderthal sadist.

    Anyway, back on topic. I use to love SG1, but I knew it was all going downhill the moment they brought in the actor who plays Q to play some Pentagon conspirator. It was a real Fonz-jumping-the-shark moment. I just hope they don't go all Babylonn-5, spend half a series building up to a huge climax, then it's over in a single episode, the two major forces in the galaxy make up and go off together and Sheridan becomes President of the Universe. That would have been a natural close to the story, where do you go after that? But they had to keep milking the franchise. It's getting worse than Police Academy.

  71. Re:Attn: Those in Vancouver area by Sentry21 · · Score: 2

    Welcome to Global incompetance.

    Stargate plays, or played, on Global. I don't know if it still does because I've got fed up with this conspiracy crap mixed in with repeats, but it used to be on Monday at 8 or 9 PM on Global TV here in BC.

    The problem that I've always had is that the shows are never in the right order. Picture this: Show A, with preview for Show B next week. Show B, with preview for C. E with preview for F. F with preview for G. C for D, D for E, G for H, and so on. My guess is, Global gets the unlabelled tapes in boxes of 6 at a time and doesn't have time to watch them first.

    Oh well. I'll buy the DVD box-sets, and that'll be that. I've been watching since the second half of the first episode (I've never seen the first hour, but I've tuned in an hour late for it five times), and lately, it's just not worth the hassle. Either MGM is screwing up (well, they are for sure now), or Global is screwing up (which I can easily see happening), or everyone's screwing up and no one knows wtf is going on.

    Either way, DVDs are nice. Mmm, director commentary.

    --Dan

  72. Rebutting the SG-1 Naysayers by The+Rizz · · Score: 1
    Many people on here are commenting on how they watched a few episodes and decided that the show is crap. To all of you who haven't made up your minds, and those who made their decisions based on one or two episodes, the rest of this post is for you:

    First of all, season 1 of SG-1 was a shaky start. Several of the episodes were, for lack of a better word, crap. I've been a fan of the show for years, but of the 22 episodes in season one, I'd only really consider 8 of them good, and most of those came at the very end of the season. The first few were OK, but the vast majority of the middle of the season was mediocre at best.
    This reminds me much of Babylon 5, which many scifi fans consider the best scifi series ever. Season one of B5 is primarially composed of weak episodes with weak plotlines. Season one of B5 simply was never good enough to get me hooked until the few episodes at the very end - which is almost exactly what the first season of SG-1 is like.

    If you want to give the series a fair chance, go buy/borrow/rent the DVDs/videos (or hit your favorite IRC #TV-seriez channel) and watch in the following order:

    • Stargate: the movie (not as good as the series, but the series continues directly from the events of the movie)
    • DVD Vol. 1 - episodes Children of the Gods and The Enemy Within (this sets up the main workings of the series and introduces most of the major characters)
    • DVD Vol. 3 - episodes Torment of Tantalus and Bloodlines
    • DVD Vol. 5 - episodes There But For the Grace of God, Politics, and Within The Serpent's Grasp (first 3 parts of a 4-parter; Politics is mostly a flashback episode and could be skipped)
    These episodes are a good indication of the feel of the rest of the series. If you like it, you should go back and watch the rest of the episodes before continuing on with the series, as the events in most episodes of season one become very important in the later seasons (although you may want to skip Broca Divide, Brief Candle, Cold Lazarus, Fire and Water, and Cor-ai if you've got a low tolerance for cheezy episodes).

    --The Rizz

    "Now, this all happened many years ago, yet I am certain that if they haven't since died, they are all still alive to this day." --Steven Brust

  73. Fiction and Faith by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2


    Meanwhile usless garbage like Crossing Over with John Edward is STILL on. I didn't buy it the first season. Who is watching that con man?


    I have to agree. I prefer my science fiction to be portrayed as such - not masquarade as fact (War of the Worlds aside).


    I suppose John Edwards is simply the latest testimate to mankinds desperation to believe in something (be it the desire to witness the supernatural, or the need to deal with grief). Its the same desire that blinds the masses to the constant abuse of organized religion (be it cults or more established faiths).


    Of course - one might be able to argue that this same desire is the subject of the movie Trekkers. ;)

  74. Lexx Rulz! Lexx Rokz! by dreamsinter · · Score: 1
    And that is my entire postingf(), for what it's worth. Nothing matches it. Nothing beats it.

    --
    "I his bow, and spun and wove, likes you." Vere de Vere out of my mould's mouth dragged me of the voluntary apes.
  75. Re:Are they nuts? This was Stargate's MAIN CHARACT by boltar · · Score: 1

    You might as well that stargate without a transvestite in the lead bad guy part isn't
    stargate either. Whatever merits the character had in the film as fars as I'm concerned he was
    really just making up the numbers in the series. After all , hes the only character where we know
    very little about his personal life, he rarely does anything except get himself into trouble
    he has to be rescued from because of his "scientific curiosity" and frankly his character so rarely shows any emotion beyond
    the 1 dimensional curious-scientist-oblivious-to-danger that he could be quite easily played by
    a plank of wood.

  76. ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    McGuiver is a poor substitute for Kurt Russel.

    The movie was fun, but I think McGuiver should go back to his old show...

  77. Re:Attn: Those in Vancouver area by yo303 · · Score: 1

    My brother just started as a shop foreman for this show, here in Vancouver, so I hope the show stays on. Coincidentally enough I went to see him at the shop earlier today... I probably shouldn't mention the new prop I saw them building, but it was cool. I haven't really seen a lot of the show, but it was interesting to see all the props. This was the shop, not the set. I saw a giant stack of spears in one corner. (Apparently there are a lot of spear scenes in the show.)

    I also talked to the electrical engineer and the "systems technician" who build all the electronics for the show; they were both young guys. They had a pretty nice setup there. I saw a lot of LEDs, joysticks, and control panels with buttons and switches. Because I've done on similar things, I asked what they used when they needed to switch more powerful AC lights. The engineer told me they had tried using triacs, but they couldn't get them to work right, and just used relays (same experience as me!). He also told me they use DC, usually 12V, as much as possible.

    Anyways, my brother and I agreed that it's really hard to find it on TV these days. He has all the episode tapes but I don't even know when (or if) it's on anymore.

    yo

  78. Successful TV series... by Merovign · · Score: 1

    Someone commented that a good TV series always seems to go bad (what's the plural of series? I can't believe I was a a Lit major...). Well, those that don't start out bad.

    Babylon 5 was a good example (for those who liked it) of why this is wrong - and shows that shows have cycles. It went from Okay, to Good, to Great, to Oh, Jeez That Sucked, to Okay again, to Good, and back to Great, and it ended on a relatively high note.

    Most shows that 'go bad' get cancelled before they can cycle up again.

    What I noticed about SG-1 is that it had good chemistry between the characters, which is also where B5 excelled, and its successor (Crusade) failed. Now one of the major players is gone, and that hurts the show. Fatally? We'll see.

    I don't imagine the SG-1 fanbase and the B5 one cross over too much - "episode" lovers generally don't like "arc" shows, recurse. SG-1 did get repetetive (haven't had TV for a while).

  79. Farscape, what's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Farscape started recently and I've watched the first few episodes, but so far it seems pretty cliched. Does it get better?

  80. Guide to Sci-Fi for Producers by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Ok, Here is a guide to all those producers who want a great Sci-Fi show:

    1. When you come up with a good first series that everyone likes, don't EVER change it. I don't care if you want to explore some bull shit artsy scenario that you learned in art school DONT. Don't change locations, don't change situations and NEVER EVER in a million F*cking years change the characters or actors.

    X-Files - Started great, then they suddenly took scully out with some stupid cancer government conspiracy. No-one watched it. They learnt their lesson and when back and did a great couple of series. Then mulder leaves. I didn't even bother watching that.

    Red Dwarf - Excellent, and then what? the last series was utter crap. I had only just got used to the new directing and loss of rimmer in the previous series when they just screwed it all up.

    Buffy - Started great, then they moved to college. And please understand this simple fact: Most people who watch Sci-Fi are male geeks. We do NOT like watching dumb footballer/jocks getting with hot girls. Lesbian is fine. Otherwise, keep the jocks in embarrassing situations to make us feel happy.

    Half-Life - Who liked the Zen levels? Thought not.

    All these sci-fi series have died because someone decided to change the formula. Now look at:

    Friends (yes i know, not Sci-Fi) they have kept it the same throughout. They even live in the same place and its still great to watch.

    2. Do not piss off the actors. The actors make the show. Cloning is not yet available to make new ones, so, if you piss them off you are dead. And don't try any "Oh no, bobs changed shape.. because...um he changes form every 2 years" it doesn't fool us (well maybe in Dr. Who). If the actor wants more money - give it to them. If they want some say in the plot - let them write it. We worship them, so don't piss them off.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Guide to Sci-Fi for Producers by Aexia · · Score: 2

      >>When you come up with a good first series that everyone likes, don't EVER change it.

      Characters and situations that never change is BORING. And Friends(along with most sitcoms) is a perfect example of that kind of crap.

      >>Buffy - Started great, then they moved to college. And please understand this simple fact: Most people who watch Sci-Fi are male geeks. We do NOT like watching dumb footballer/jocks getting with hot girls.

      I seriously doubt the demographics match your perception. I think it's safe to say that more women watch Buffy than "male geeks". Of course, women hated Riley too but he was written out of the show over a year ago. And Buffy treated him like crap anyways.

      As for Buffy, the 6th season is shaping up to be its best yet. I'm sure the situation with Spike is irking you even more though. I'm sure you'd prefer that Buffy settled down with Jonathan or something.

      As a series, Buffy has *always* toyed with developing characters and changing the situations. Angel going evil and killing Jenny Calendar. The revolving door of characters. Spike's relationship with Buffy. Xander and Anya getting engaged. Willow's relationships with Oz and Tara. The inventive villains.

      Change is generally a good thing though it's a risk. And change isn't always done intentionally. It just happens. Would you have Buffy still be set in High School this season?

      My life has gone through so many changes in the past six years it's not even funny. I've moved six times, lived in five different cities, worked four different jobs in three different industries and had relationships with two women, one of whom I loved.

      If I were still in college going down to the game room at the HUB to play Magic, I'd be bored out of my mind and clawing my eyes out in agony. I certainly don't want to watch a TV show that's *less* interesting than my own life.

      >>X-Files - Started great, then they suddenly took scully out with some stupid cancer government conspiracy.

      That's because the actress was pregnant, moron.

  81. Ha Ha by Rogain · · Score: 1

    Lex, farscape, SG1? Ha ha you are gay!

    --
    The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
    1. Re:Ha Ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, have you even seen {L|S}EXX????

  82. Re:Kathleen !worth good spelling or grammar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Embarrassing. Double 'r', double 's'.

    I also disagree with your use of then. Than is used to be comparative. Then is indicative of expressions of time or timing and consequence.
    It's wiser being good than bad; It's safer being meek than fierce; It's fitter being sane than mad. --R. Browning.

    Might I suggest a more heartfelt and serious way of proposal? [bit late now, don't you think?] What was the diamond on the ring? A penguin shaped [compound adjective. Hyphenate: penguin-shaped] imperfect piece of shit bought at the mall last minute? Zales? I doubt Mr. JUBEI [cmdrtaco.net] [cmdrtaco.net] machine knows an SI-J from a VVS1-E. You are very heavily 'included,' Malda. Can you think of s shittier and more cliché [the adjective is cliched. Consider losing the accent on the e. It looks a bit pretentious] day to propose, or is Valentine's Day king shit of that Tird Island. She must be a lobotomized retard, otherwise you should have spat upon by [this makes no sense] your would be [would-be] spouse.

    Hey, loserboi, don't forget to invite Larry Wall to the wedding and write your vows in a Perl Script. Then you can "chomp" down on your cake.

    You don't have to be a Kreskin to see the end of this loser elopement ending [one of these ends is redundant] in the very near future.

    This is crap, Malda. If I was [were. subjunctive mood] an English teacher [*snort*], and this was [were again] a 5 [adjective is fifth] grader's half assed [half-assed] attempt at writing a romantic short story, I'd throw the script back in the kid's face [use a pronoun: his] and wonder who dropped him as a kid [but he already is a kid]. This is pathetic. I feel bad for your wife. [fuck you]

  83. Why does he give a damn about the storyline? by boltar · · Score: 1

    Seems a lame excuse to me. After all, the show never has exactly been shakespear so who cares
    what changes in storyline it takes? More likely
    he wanted a payrise, they refused and he left in
    a petulant huff probably thinking (and rightly it seems) that the show wouldn't be the same without
    him.

  84. Re:Sweet's drummer Mick Tucker dies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was modded offtopic because it was incorrectly formulated. Watch:

    I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Sweet's drummer Mick Tucker was found dead in his New Jersey home this evening. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his music, there's no denying his contributions to geek television. Truly an American icon.

  85. Re:Gimlit, Goodgulf, Bromide, Frito Bugger, et al by syn3rg · · Score: 0

    we were discussing the very book here a couple of weeks ago, pretty funny stuff -- if you're a LOTR fan.

    --
    The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
  86. seen it in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I live in the UK and I saw an episode a week or two ago where daniel jackson died, but he did saves millions of lives in the process. it was all rather surreal. Shame, as he is the best character.

  87. Re:In Hollywood, Wearing Glasses=Smart and Sensiti by coldtone · · Score: 1

    No! I didn't mean ugly ugly, I ment TV ugly.
    - Simpsons

  88. Just my $0.02 by Ice+Tiger · · Score: 2

    It is a shame that MGM tried to add elements from Star Trek or X files into Stargate. IMHO Stargate was / is better, the people seem real, the threading was getting better as well.

    If MGM have any sense then they might read this on /.

    --
    "Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
  89. New episodes on Showtime? by poeman · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or have there been no new episodes since the major marathon a couple of months ago on Showtime? I've got my TiVo set to record, but every time I get settled to watch a decent show, it's another re-run. I wouldn't mind it so much if it were an older re-run, but it seems to always be one of those ones from the marathon. If I see any part of that crappy "wormhole extreme" one more time, I'm going to get violent (just after I vomit.)

    1. Re:New episodes on Showtime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Showtime has subjected its viewers to rerun hell because they held Stargate back in order for it to be paired with the new show JEREMIAH, a post-apocalyptic series in which everybody over 30 is dead, Luke Perry is the star, and they wanted to basically ride the coattails of SG1's viewers, but didnt' want to show Jeremiah too soon as they figured the audience would be too sensitive due to the 9/11 attacks. Meanwhile, they're just losing their audience. Period.

      And, I'm too lazy to make an account right, so sign me anonymous coward ...

  90. SCI-FI, Gravey...er Channel by haplo21112 · · Score: 2

    I have always maintained that the Sci-Fi channel is where great Sci-fi shows go to DIE...and I knew as soon as I heard about Stargate going there that its fate was sealed. They do have some good Original series on sci-fi, although even then they have staying power problems...however when a show makes the switch to sci-fi its all over....pity, I was actually looking forward to seeing the 6th season at the same time as everyone else, instead of a year behind like on fox...Now who knows...:

    --
    Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
  91. Re:In Hollywood, Wearing Glasses=Smart and Sensiti by jschrod · · Score: 1
    I was amused that the Salon article makes such a big deal about women liking Michael Shanks's character (the archeologist) because of his intelligence and sensitivity.

    Really, this is just an example of the old stick-glasses-on-a-really-good-looking-guy routine, [...]

    It isn't Michael Shank alone. When I told my partner about the Salon story and asked her what she thinks of it, her first reaction was: "Of course, Stargate as a whole is a series for women." And her explanation didn't involve the looks, but the way the characters behave.

    OTOH, a 40-year old woman might have a more realistic view than a teenager. So maybe, Stargate is (has been) simply a series for adults, and not for testosterone-damaged teens?

    --

    Joachim

    People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]

  92. MGM's Response from Usenet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From: JMallozzi2002@yahoo.com (J_Mallozzi)
    Newsgroups: alt.tv.stargate-sg1
    Subject: Response
    Date: 13 Feb 2002 22:32:24 -0800
    Organization: http://groups.google.com/
    Lines: 80
    Message-ID:
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.69.92.80
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    X-Trace: posting.google.com 1013668345 3256 127.0.0.1 (14 Feb 2002 06:32:25 GMT)
    X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
    NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Feb 2002 06:32:25 GMT

    Although I make it a point to avoid reading fan fiction, I decided to
    make an exception for the recent Salon.com article, "Fan Rebellion
    Threatens 'Stargate'". To my surprise, it proved to be an
    occasionally amusing and overall very entertaining read, a true gem of
    fantasy and wishful thinking. Given the fact that the "journalist"
    who wrote the piece culled her facts from the handful of "negative
    rant sites" that have popped up of late, I suppose it was too much to
    expect at least the semblance of impartiality. In all fairness,
    however, it is possible she did try to contact someone involved in the
    production to offer a balanced view but was unable to get through (If
    I recall correctly, we were on the phone between 11:30 and 11:35 last
    Friday ordering lunch from the nearby Swiss Chalet). More a rambling
    editorial than than anything else, it does neatly encapsulate many of
    the half-truths and fabrications that have been making the rounds.
    And so, using the Salon.com diatribe as my launch point, I'd like to
    address some of these so-called "facts".

    To begin with, ratings haven't plunged. If they had, we wouldn't be
    around for a sixth season. In fact, last time I checked, our
    syndication numbers had us finishing first three weeks running.

    Secondly, in spite of assertions to the contrary, the show did not
    suddenly abandon its tried and true formula in favor of conspiracy
    storylines. The fact is, the NID have been part of this show since
    first season. In season three, we had one episode (Shades of Grey)
    dedicated to the so-called "NID conspiracy angle". In season four, we
    had one episode (Chain Reaction) dedicated to the storyline. In
    season five, the NID angle was a B plot in Fifth Man and a minor
    development in Desperate Measures (the second to last scene) and 48
    Hours (the goa'uld happened to be with the NID). Admittedly, we
    aren't meeting as many new off-world civilizations as we did in the
    first two seasons, but this is due to the evolution of the show's
    ongoing story-arcs rather than any "creative re-tooling". Episodes
    dedicated to revisiting old friends (the Asgard, the Tollan, the
    Tok'ra, etc.) and storylines (the struggle for power amongst the
    System Lords, the rise of Anubis, etc.) necessarily result in fewer
    episodes focusing on off-world exploration. Nonetheless, we strive to
    include a fair mix of off-world and Earth-based episodes in every
    season.

    Thirdly, season five did not "have more Earth-based stories". Season
    five contained 9 Earth-based stories, the same number as seasons two
    and four, and one more than season three. The fact that a number of
    these episodes happened to fall together may have led many to
    incorrectly assume a preponderance of these storylines.

    Fourthly, contrary to the opinion of some, the character of Daniel
    Jackson was very present in season five. He was spotlighted in such
    episodes as Beast of Burden, Summit, Last Stand, and Menace, and was
    an active and driving force in many others (Enemies, 48 Hours, Red
    Sky, and The Tomb to name a few). True, I've only cited 8 episodes
    out of the 20 episodes prior to his departure, but in all fairness the
    team is made up of three other members.

    Fifthly, while some lament the change in the Daniel Jackson character
    over the course of the five seasons, his progression from the
    animated, wide-eyed innocent of Torment of Tantalus to the cool,
    willing assassin of Summit/Last Stand, the fact is that characters do
    evolve over time. Given everything Daniel has gone through in his
    five years with SG-1, it would be unrealistic for him to remain
    unchanged. Michael Shanks himself pushed for this development as he
    clearly saw the danger in keeping Daniel a static character.

    Finally, I'd like to end with a quick thank-you to all of the Stargate
    SG-1 fans out there who take the time to posts or, at the very least,
    take the time to read the posts. I can honestly say that the
    overwhelming majority of the fans I have dealt with online have been
    intelligent, polite, and well-spoken. When you've liked something,
    you've let me know. And when you haven't liked something, you've darn
    well let me know as well. But throughout, you've been respectful of
    us and the show as a whole - and for that I also thank you.

    As we head into the show's sixth year of production and make the big
    move to SciFi, you can look forward to a kick-butt sixth season.
    Questions will be answered, secrets revealed, old friends revisited,
    and a few surprises sprung. Better invest in a crash helmet for at
    least the first three episodes. We're going to hit the ground
    running. Hard!

    Joseph Mallozzi

  93. Nooooooooo!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Family Guy, Futurama, and now this...

    Some would say its time to stop watching TV, but not I. I'm in a "battered wife"-like relationship: "But <sob> but you should see it when its good to me <sob>"

    "TV, friend, mother, secret lover" --Homer J. Simpson

  94. Fascape? Yes. Lexx? Hell no. by Atomic_Furball · · Score: 0

    Lexx is gutter trash. That tripe is some of the WORST sci-fi I've ever seen, shoulder-to-shoulder with Cleo 2525.

  95. What took them so long? by Secret+Chimp · · Score: 1

    SG-1 sucks sucks sucks sucks SUCKS. I can't believe it's still on the air. The actors are bad, the plots are recycled/cheesy sounding, and overall it's just worn itself out.

  96. MacGyver is the heart of the show. by Minter92 · · Score: 0

    The other characters are just their for him to play off of. His interchanges with Shanks where funny but they can just plug somebody else in.
    I am confused by women liking him.
    ANyway the core of the show is MacGyver with Guns as we call it around here. "Ya Think"

  97. Geeks are beautiful too! by Malkin · · Score: 1
    Hey, are you implying that all true geeks are really ugly behind those glasses? Shoot! The gig is up. You've figured me out! Guess it's time for me to power down my linux boxes, put on a tight dress, and go hit a Euro-trash club with the other beautiful people.

    Believe it or not, lots of geeks are good-looking behind those glasses. Some are downright stunning. The difficulty is dragging them out of their cubes, networking closets, and underground lairs long enough to clean 'em up. It's not ugliness that makes us geeks; it's... well... being geeky that makes us geeks!

  98. The REAL reason he left.. by schon · · Score: 1

    I'll let you all in on a little secret - the REAL reason Michael Shanks left was so he could spend more time spanking Lexa Doig!

    (It's pretty well known that the shooting schedules for Stargate SG1 and Andromeda conflict on a regular basis.)

    Of course, any (straight) guy here would be an idiot to fault him for this :o)

    I mean - if you had a choice between work and this, which would you choose?

    I thought so :o)

  99. basic SF syndicated shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SG-1 is, generally, good because it presents a nice mix of some action along with some decent SF(once in a while.)

    This is more than can be said of Lexx, which is, basically, the sitcom of SF. Early Lexx episodes were FAR better than the tripe of the last couple of years.

    Farscape: well, it's different, but once again the earlier episodes were better than the more recent. The show seems to be in search of a raison d'etre any more.

    In any event most shows seem to exhibit this phenomenon: they either have very good episode early on and then slowly decline until they are cancelled, or they have a continuous mixture of both good & bad episodes until the show implodes.

    Personally, I would have taken the Invisible Man over either Lexx(in particular) or Farscape. The Invisible Man had a little more originality(not much) and variety(alot) to its humor, whereas Lexx continuously recycles the same tired old themes, allbeit with a more scantily clad chick.

  100. Remember "Nowhere man"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that had the premise to be one of the coolest conspiracy theory shows of all time, but they cancel after like one season.

    Are conspiracy plotlines akin to an elephant graveyard?

  101. Biggest Question ... by ProfMoriarty · · Score: 1
    Since SCI-FI needs to make some money off of this ... will it be possible to get more than the first season on DVD?

    I understand the whole syndication stuff ... but please don't let the series NOT be put on DVDs ...

    --
    Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
  102. It was a good concept by Gozr · · Score: 1

    I thought the whole Stargate concept was a pretty good one. I've seen most of the series by now, and I've enjoyed all but a very few. I only rarely ever equated elements of the show with the X-Files, Star Trek, or anything else. I'm a pretty big sci-fi fan and it's something I'd probably notice if it weren't done with taste. Sometimes it's easy to over analyze a good thing, and only end up loosing sight of the original purpose. The show has a unique and enjoyable set of characters that have shown growth since the beginning. It's too bad that a basically good show falls apart when writers and producers try to manipulate ratings by stepping out of bounds from the comfortable equation that kept the loyal viewers coming back for more of the same.

  103. Re:In Hollywood, Wearing Glasses=Smart and Sensiti by CTachyon · · Score: 1

    It's not just women who find him attractive. :-) He puts off a very nice "I'm a geek, but I'll cuddle with you all night long" vibe (which I'm sure most of Slashdot doesn't need to know :-P). I'm mortified to hear that he's left the show (no Showtime, so I haven't been keeping up on SG-1), because he was my second favorite actor (after Amanda Tapping) and only by a slim margin.

    I agree with his reason for leaving, tho -- weekly far-flung government conspiracies do NOT have a place in a show that's fundamentally about the joys (and terrors) of discovering the unknown.

    --
    Range Voting: preference intensity matters
  104. Mmm... chevron... by zestymonkey · · Score: 1
    It's amazing that a show that had such a strong start and consistently kept its audience through several seasons has sunk to mimicry. Mind you, Stargate SG-1 is mimicking a series that itself has fallen from grace the past few seasons, in part because it couldn't seem to resolve any of its own core conspiracy threads.

    I'm all for a good government conspiracy in the show here and there or the occassional episode where the team doesn't travel through the Stargate, but I just saw an entire episode where Jack and Mayborne track down and harass a Senator who's in on the conspiracy. Where's the fun in that? It's boring.

    --

    return;
  105. One possible reason why women might like it. by monopole · · Score: 1

    I just realized that the central premise of the show is that the travel to other planets is not achieved by large phallocentric rockets, but rather by the use of an aperture which when properly manipulated opens into a channel to the desired place. Very feminine imagery. Of course, when the guys figure out what it does, they freak out over it's power, hide it in a deep cave and mount a big iris over it to control access. Very Taliban imagery.

    I guess this observation comes from watching Eve Ensler's V* Monologs on HBO last night.

  106. showtime by Kallahar · · Score: 2

    What I was always disappointed with was that it was on showtime. Well, more accurately I was disappointed that I can't _afford_ showtime. Eventually I just settled for pirating the shows off the net. Really poor quality, and the studios don't get any money, but what choice do I have? Wait over a year for it to get to public TV and then have it stuck in a horrible time slot?

    Argh, when will they realize that there are a LOT of people interested in on-demand video!

    Travis

  107. Your sig... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Help me out. I've been gone for a while. What happened to goatse.cx?

  108. Re:Lexx Rulz! Lexx Rokz! by ferat · · Score: 1

    Lexx cancelled!

  109. Well, there was Window of Opportunity... by LordTherem · · Score: 1

    1. Main characters fart around for a while.
    2. Main characters go to archaeological dig.
    3. Bad Stuff Happens.
    4. Goto 1

  110. Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saving the world armed only with duct tape and a Swiss Army knife. Definitely a hacker's show.

  111. I liked liked the *X*en levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just would have liked less of them.

  112. this says a lot about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    the show, other shows and general audiences of any show...

    The fact that shows would actually have a following simply because of the actor/actresses looks and other superficial appeal is sad. It is one thing to like a particular actor or actress because of acting talent and specific role ability. However, it is really pathetic how many people out there are more interested in either the looks of actors (or voice and other crap I guess) or even the special effects of the show. Like with video games, you can start out by wanting to tell a story and immerse others, then understand how voice, sound effects and art are supposed to AUGMENT the actual game. Or you can have someone who simply wants to make a piece of crap that looks and sounds pretty. On top of those you have the foolish fanboy morons that flock mindlessly to these games and films. Take your soma my sheepish friends, because it obviously is too much trouble to apply critical and independant thought (independant by the real definition, not by the 'non-conforming conformists' or other BS sheep following a different herd... but still herd... group)

  113. Re:Kathleen !worth good spelling or grammar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey fuckstick... this was a troll and not a proposal. Fuck you back. I would cream you in a fistfight you fucking four eyed pussy.

  114. Re:Some of the best SciFi on TV? I don't think so. by metachimp · · Score: 1
    unplausable plots


    I think you mean implausible, but that's beside the point. It's a sci-fi show, virtually all sci-fi shows have implausible plots and premises. That's the fiction part of science fiction. If you want a sci-fi show with a plausible premise, try Space Island One. Other than that, they're all implausible.

    --
    The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
  115. It's not a sixth sense... by heathrow · · Score: 1

    it's because we're shadowing your connection and seeing what you're actually doing online. ;)

    --
    Beauty is truth, truth beauty. That is all ye need to know on Earth, besides TCP/IP.
  116. Re:The Solution--Troll? by schon · · Score: 1

    Ever watch a cat mindlessly chase a laser beam?

    No, I couldn't afford the patent fee :o)

  117. Re:"big-lipped" by The_THOMAS · · Score: 1

    Personally I've had enough of collagen lip injected chickes on tv. I mean it's outta hand! One day they're just going to blow!

    --
    Ya Sure! You Betcha!, The_THOMAS
  118. Re:Thanks for spoiling the surprise, damn yanks! : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That episode will be showing free to air in NZ in 3 weeks time.. are you really that far behind across the ditch ?

  119. Re: SG-1 Better than Lexx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That depends on the paint....

  120. Re:Thanks for spoiling the surprise, damn yanks! : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The DOC! no way, shes a babe, saw her in the Aus convention yum. bah.

  121. Re:Attn: Those in Vancouver area by kreyg · · Score: 2

    Stargate plays, or played, on Global. I don't know if it still does because I've got fed up with this conspiracy crap mixed in with repeats, but it used to be on Monday at 8 or 9 PM on Global TV here in BC.

    I watched it there and then for over a year, then it disappeared... since then, the time has changed every week according to the listings, but has never been on when it was listed.

    Don't know if they're trying to kill it or the listings are wrong. It sucks anyway.

    --
    sig fault
  122. Anybody ever read the book? by PiGuy · · Score: 1

    The only thing the movie/television shows have in common with it is the Gate itself, but it's a great read! Very hard to find, too...

  123. Re:Kathleen Fent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you remember the first time someone put their fist into your anus?

  124. fppp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fppppp

  125. UM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ????? what huh

  126. How come no comments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How come nobody has commented yet? This is my favourite show on tv right now...

  127. No comments? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 2

    Huh? Why are there no comments to this story?

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    1. Re:No comments? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      Sorry - confused by the 'No comments' setting which was set in the URL for some reason :-(.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  128. Resurrection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be fair the last couple of episodes of S5 were excellent, leaving scope in future for the resurrection of Shanks (remember that ep where that Oma de Sala alien took human form for a few days?). They could still bring in Shanks a lot. It is also possible that their old writers had run out of ideas - these people have covered a lot of ground.

    Can anyone here actually constructively think of new stories that they can use? Think about it - AN OPEN SOURCE SCI-FI series where good suggestions get modded up. I must admit I am all out of ideas, apart from a few ending episodes about the destruction of the replicators by a big ball of advanced metal going into a Sun/Asgaard armageddon/intervention of those giant aliens/evolution of the replicators into an advanced self-aware species (monolith type thing). Maybe SG-1 should get Michael J Straczynski and make it more like Babylon-5? It seems like a natural transition that once you have built up a fanbase you can concentrate on inter-episode storylines like B5 instead of one-epsiode wonders.