Stargate SG-1 Gets A Seventh Season

An anonymous reader writes "Farscape may or may not have been cancelled [does anyone know?], and Enterprise is so politically correct I can barely bring myself to watch it, but with MacGyver onboard, it looks like Stargate SG-1 will be back for a seventh season."

Comments

farscape still cancelled

[banky]

Farscape is still cancelled, but some people are trying to save it, and the jury is still out. It's a dead man (show) walkin' but it's not over till the switch is thrown.

Question about SG TV series

[CathedralRulz]

Hi,
I have never watched this show but am curious how it compares to the Star Trek and Babylon 5 series in that does it have a story arc and continuity between each episode? I think the show started on the Showtime network, didn't it? How did it become syndicated?
Thanks.

Re:Question about SG TV series

[Bongo]

am curious how it compares to the Star Trek and Babylon 5 series in that does it have a story arc and continuity between each episode?

Compared to B5, Stargate doesn't have as rich a story arc. It's not as grand either. For example, in B5 you have all the Mimbari religious beliefs which they take very seriously, and much later (I forget which season) you discover that the founder was actually a human, genetically changed by the Vorlons and sent back in time 1000 years using the Great Machine aboard the B4 station (which mysteriously disappeared years ago) to help the Mimbari fight the first Shadow war.

Although, for my tastes, some of the "big answers" in B5 were a bit of a letdown. Like, the Shadows and Vorlons, advanced races that are a million years old, one as evil as the other is wise, with undefeatable technology, turn out to be just two divorced parents arguing over how to raise the children and using the children as pawns in their little spat.

Still, the death of Sheridan, and the episodes set in the far future were brilliant ideas and touching.

So you won't see any of that richness or complexity in Stargate. In the latter it's just good guys and bad guys. The system lords are just dumb arrogant war-lords who ride around the universe in stupid looking ships which despite being full of amazing technology, let themselves be captured and killed by a couple of humans with C4.

But then Stargate doesn't forget that it's a TV show, and meant to be fun. You won't see the "meaningful" tone of B5 on this show, which after watching avery episode of B5, is something of a relief.

But Stargate does give some depth to the characters feelings for each other, and it's here that the continuity is mostly seen. They are a group who have a good heart and help each other out a lot. They also save Earth a lot... but that's just because it's sci-fi.

OTOH, B5's characters changed a lot, especially those that through all their Machiavellian manipulations ended up transcended Good and Evil, becoming Greatness.

The other thing about Stargate as compared to ST, is that there's no counsellor Troy, no Neelix. I'd rather have dinner with a carrion eater than be in the cafeteria with Neelix looming over my plate.

Re:Question about SG TV series

[sql*kitten]

I have never watched this show but am curious how it compares to the Star Trek and Babylon 5 series in that does it have a story arc and continuity between each episode?

The show has great continuity and the technology is almost completely internally consistent. By that I mean, if a given piece of technology worked one way in one episode, then that's how it works. Unlike Star Trek where the technology is a crutch for weak script writers. You know the way in Star Trek the transporters or sensors will simply stop working for an arbitrary reason to prod the plot along? Doesn't happen on Stargate at all, and without that crutch, the writers are forced to be much more creative.

Another example: Enterprise is set years before Kirk, so deflector shields haven't been invented yet. But the writers are too lazy to do away with the "shields are failing" plot device, so they simply substitute in the technobabble "hull polarization" and write exactly as before. Star Fleet doesn't exist yet, but Earth's single, primitive starship can interfere with established, advanced spacegoing races with impunity, just like Kirk or Picard... how? Umm, because that's the only plot they know how to write.

Another thing that annoyed me about Star Trek and Babylon 5 was their Earth-centricness, Earth being the capital planet of the Federation and humans being the "chosen race" in Babylon 5. In Stargate, humans are in a complex universe in which often they are only bit players in the ongoing feuds of the Goa'uld amongst themselves, the Asgard have problems of their own in their home galaxy and often cannot be bothered with Earth's problems, etc. All the other races have been getting on with their histories without Earth even being relevant for large periods of time (i.e. Earth was ignored by the Goa'uld since the Egyptian period). This ongoing activity by NPCs means that the storylines continue between episodes.

Finally, the characters on Stargate are more believable. They are fairly ordinary people who find themselves in extraordinary circumstances, not like Star Trek (particularly TNG) in which each character is "special", the boy genius, the telepath, the noble warrior, etc. Star Trek characters in every series apart from the original are cliches.

Good!

[shadowj]

I've been a fan of the show since I stumbled upon it two years ago. OK, the premise is a little hokey... but the writing is SO good. The dialog sparkles, they avoid techobabble and use real science more often than I'd expect ("Y'see, Carter" [waving at ringed gas giant looming on the horizon], "this planet that we're on..." "Excuse me, sir, this is actually a moon, not a planet.")

Best of all, the show has a memory... every episode takes into account EVERYTHING that has happened in previous episodes, something that happens in real life but rarely happens on TV. Looks like the Enterprise people are starting to understand that... pity they haven't figured out how to write interesting stories, though.

I had my doubts about Michael Shanks leaving, but the show doesn't seem to have suffered. I'm very, very pleased that it's continuing... but I hope that the producers will have the good sense to pull the plug when they start to run out of steam.

Re:Good!

[Our Man In Redmond]

My wife just reminded me of the "Groundhog Day"-esque episode where the scientists figured out what was going on when O'Neill started spouting technobabble about their predicament.

Re:Good!

[sql*kitten]

The avoid techobabble by having jack O'Niell tell scientists to shut up.

There is a great scene in the first episode in which O'Neill isn't taking Carter seriously, and she gives him an earful about how wearing her genitals on the inside didn't stop her flying 100 hrs of combat missions in the Gulf War, and he replies that he has no problem with female Air Force officers, there problem is that she's a scientist too, and he doesn't trust scientists.

One of the great things about the show is that you can see over time how he comes to respect Carter and Jackson, even though Jackson isn't even Air Force, he's a civilian. That sort of character development is far beyond Star Trek's writers.

Re:Help Save Firefly!!!

[Dionysus]

If you have a Tivo, turn on the statistics collection, and hope Tivo people publish the data.

Movie? Spinoff?

[Flamesplash]

This, they hope, will segue directly into filimg a 'feature'. Smith said this a couple of times, but he emphasised the feature is not yet 100% certain. After that, the spinoff.

I really think loosing Shanks was a horrible blow to the show and the story, but you have to admit they have been doing well with the direction things are going.

I wonder though how well they can do a movie. Very very few TV->Movie moves have gone well if not simply OK, I would hate to see them fall into this pit. I'm starting to wonder if it's possible to do the TV->Movie transition.

As for the spinoff I don't think it will go anywhere. I watch SG-1 but I don't think I would watch it if not for the current cast. Guess I'll see...

SG-1 is quite good

[lrdnkn]

I have been watching this show almost religiously since its very first season and own both the first and second season DVD boxsets. I was quite concerned when they killed off Daniel Jackson, but I must admit that the new character Jonas has done pretty well to fill the void that Daniel left. The series is incredibly good at following its own reality. There have been numerous episodes that were tie-ins to previous ones (I'm not sure but I think some of these have been across season boundaries). I watched over the summer when SG-1 switched from Showtime to Sci-Fi. By all means if you have the time, watch (or record) the new season of Stargate:SG-1. I venture to bet that most Sci-Fi fans wont be sorry. Now there are occasional filler episodes that you may or may not like (take, for example, the hilarious "The Other Guys" episode this summer). I look forward to seeing the new season (and to getting more DVD boxsets :-)

If you like Sci-Fi, check it out.

Re:grumble grumble grumble - shut up lucky bastard

[Anonymous Coward]

Space Above and Beyond was a fresh break from star trek when it came out. Yeah, it was pretty corney, but the plots themselfs were still intresting enough. A lot of the shows make humans the peacefull tree huggers of the galaxy. It was nice to see humans as a whole whopping some ass for a change.

Re:Good writing, horrible setting

[shadowj]

Their engine is only 3ft DIA, 10ft long. It rotates. And this will push them faster than light?

Of course, since every child knows that FTL drives don't look anything like that... oh, wait, we haven't invented them yet, have we? Unless you have a patent that you want to talk about?

Their life support dies when the engine is off. Yet they don't start floating around because of lack of artificial gravity?

Why are you expecting the gravity to fail? The layout of the ship makes it clear that they expect the artificial gravity and inertial compensation to be absolutely reliable... nothing is fastened down, items are left unsecured on flat surfaces, they even use a conventional stove and teapot. Perhaps the gravity doesn't require power; perhaps it's something analagous to a permanent magnet.

Enough with the technical nitpicks though.

Agreed. All I can say about your analysis of the characters and plot is that I disagree. You found the characters "Canterbury-Talesque" (that's a truly ugly neologism, by the way)? Well, of COURSE they're going to have neatly defined functions... they're a CREW, they were CHOSEN that way! Never mind their "mysterious" return... it's stated quite clearly that Zoe ordered them to return when she regained consciousness. If you're going to take potshots, at least pay attention to what you're shooting at.

It's unfortunate that you don't like the show. Change the channel, then, and allow those of us who do enjoy it to watch it.

Re:Fuck

[KilljoyAZ]

When you realize TV networks are in the business of selling ads, not the business of entertaining viewers, their decisions make more sense.

Re:Enterprise: Americans Deserve All

[GuyMannDude]

Just don't count the show out. The show uses philosophy by counter-example. Take it as such.

I applaud your attempt at defending Enterprise but I'm going to have to give the nod to Vegan Pagan. The show is borderline offensive because of the brashness of the Enterprise crew. We haven't seen an episode where the crew realizes they have definitely done something wrong. The closest we've gotten was the episode where the crew decides to withold the cure for a disease on another world. I'd be more inclined to agree with your point of view if we had an episode where the meddling of Enterprise clearly caused a serious problem. Off the top of my head I can think of a terrible missed opportunity: the episode where Enterprise exposes the Vulcan spy base to the Andorians. In later episodes, it is commented that that decision greatly increased tensions between the Vulcans and the Andorians, understandably. But the whole thing is played off (in fact I think T'Pol takes the Vulcan command to task on this) as it being the Vulcan's fault! The Enterprise crew feels fully justified in creating a volitle situation. It would have been nice to hear Archer weighing the issues and whether he did the right thing. Even better would be a concrete example of an unfortunate incident between the Vulcans and the Andorians that directly follows from Archer's decision.

I'm starting to ramble here and I'm not even sure I've made my point. What I'm trying to say is that if Enterprise is trying to make a show about how humans are learning from their first few mistakes in space, they aren't doing a very good job. We only see things from their perspective and it's always viewed in the light that Archer is doing the right thing.

GMD

Re:Good writing, horrible setting

[Cyno01]

i remember someone insightfully stating from the firefly poll that firefly is science-fantasy, not science fiction, in science fantasy the technology is there, its a given, with no explanation and no technobabble, the exact oposite fo star trek

Re:It's a shame...

[ackthpt]

The best science fiction shows on television never seem to make it... I suppose I just have an odder taste than most.

Or refined, or mature, or analytica, expecting something of quality or even something which isn't just more shallow pseudo sci-fi-drama junk.

I could sit through show after show of Alfred Hitchcock Presents and Rod Serling's Twilight Zone, which are masterpieces compared to today's stuff, and most of those shows originally aired well before my time, I just catch them on cable and am completely fascinated with how well they told a story in 30 minutes (less commercial breaks) I've seem enough of today's "writing" to leave my TV off and go outside to play. It's going to be tough when I get my knee worked on and am stuck inside for a while. I guess there's always coding up those projects I've never had time to get around to. :-)

Re:Drop new age mysticism.

[penguintv]

The drop in quality, at least for some of us, began in season 4, when characters such as Anise/Freya were introduced, Sam had a ratty hairdo, and Sam and Jack declared feelings for each other. It was also the season of death - they began bumping off recurring characers like Martouf (which made Sam available for Jack) and Rothman. Then, the show was going to conclude at the end of season five, but the fans rallied and asked for it back, but Michael Shanks decided not to re-up, and then we got stuck with Jonas, the character with, well, no character. Bugs Bunny has more personality and he's a cartoon! Plus season six began retreading plots from movies (such as "A beautiful mind" to name just one). It's become preditable, and at times, downright boring. When Jack is bored to tears, imagine how the audience feels? Unless they get new writers, season seven will be more of the same, and it will probably tank.