Slashdot Mirror


Stargate Atlantis Coming This Summer

boog3r writes "According to this and SCIFI there is a new Stargate series on its way to your local passive viewing device this summer. Quickie for all the click-deficient types: "In the new series, a secret base left by the originators of the Stargate is discovered in the most unlikely of places -- on Earth, buried among the ruins of the legendary city of Atlantis." Sounds fun to me! I found more info here and here. Take these tidbits with a grain of salt, much misinformation about the new series is circulating right now. I just hope this great franchise does not go the way of Star Trek, post Roddenberry."

65 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. SG-1 and Jack by BigHungryJoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I love Stargate SG-1.

    Did anyone watch the new one last night? I missed the ending. Is Jack really dead? He was my favorite character.

    1. Re:SG-1 and Jack by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Kurt Russell is a big-name movie actor, he's not going to appear in a regular TV series. It was inevitable that both him and James Spader, another big-name movie actor, wouldn't appear in the spin-off TV series, just as it was inevitable that James Caan wouldn't appear in the spin-off TV series of Alien Nation.

      I find it incredible that people seriously believe that getting an actor who's made it in movies (a medium within which an actor is better paid, less worked and more able to cherry pick his roles) would tie himself down to a TV show for one or more years. Sorry, but the real world just doesn't work that way.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  2. Step through the gate by ObviousGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    And drown at the bottom of the ocean?

    Count me out!

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:Step through the gate by Seek_1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well that's why they send probes out first.. (duh!!) :)

    2. Re:Step through the gate by Acts+of+Attrition · · Score: 5, Funny
      Atlantis? Darn. I was waiting for them to do Stargate Miami first.

      "This stargate opens into the heart of Miami, a magical world full of bikini clad women and fast cars. Oh, And the cubans are using it to escape Castro."

  3. "go the way of Star Trek post-Roddenberry" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Has the Stargate series creator died yet? How is this analogy appropriate in any way if not, except to function in the capacity of allowing the author to express his/her feelings on Star Trek in an unrelated post?

    1. Re:"go the way of Star Trek post-Roddenberry" by Jahf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because the poster is worried that the series may have a significant drop in quality due to bad producer decisions, much like what happened to ST after G. Roddenberry was no longer in direct creative control (which started happening shortly before he passed). Many ST fans felt that the ST franchise tried to become over-techie ("Jordions") and derivative after that.

      It has nothing to do with the death of a creator, and the poster seems to have -liked- Roddenberry's direction for ST and disliked what happened after. In this case his passing is a milestone for show quality, much like we -may- be saying in 3-4 years about "boy I hope it's like Stargate -before- Atlantis".

      Personally, I don't see why "Atlantis" would need to be another show. That's one of the things I like about SG1, it has handled the various twists and turns that other shows like to use as spinoffs -internally-. However, it seems pretty clear that the writers may be about to run out of steam based on this season. I like this season (last night being an exception) overall, but it a) HAS become more star trek-like in focus and b) I don't see where the logical conclusion of SG1 would go after this season if it wraps up the way it seems to be. In which case, all "Atlantis" would seem to me to be is a way to keep the franchise going after the first series is properly finished.

      Hey SciFi ... if you want to continue a franchise, why don't you go buy FireFly and kill off Atlantis, and anything similar to Tremors. It would be nice to have that series get their real conclusion and you might almost repair the damage done with Farscape's cancellation. Now -that- is an unrelated post.

      --
      It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
    2. Re:"go the way of Star Trek post-Roddenberry" by voss · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The reason why the original star trek was good was more due to the work of people like Harve Bennett and DC fontana and in the movies Nicholas Meyer.

      Roddenberrys influence on TNG was more constrictive than inspirational. Wesley in the orginal character concept was supposed to be a girl...a Leslie crusher wouldnt be nearly as irritating. If you look at all the TNG and later series...Deep space 9 was the most true to the spirit of the old series with its own distinct flavor versus the blandness of the berman and braga produced series.

      Enterprise I will say is finally getting better. Enterprise should have been a great series from the start...but B&B tried to make it voyager in the 22nd century.

      The thing I liked about Stargate sg-1 is its tight writing but its refusal to take itself too seriously unlike TNG.

    3. Re:"go the way of Star Trek post-Roddenberry" by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The documentary maker was amazing. You had this guy come in and be completely opposed by all the major charactors, and even seem like a jerk in way, but at some point I kinda realized he was right, and all the main characters were wrong, even if they were wrong for understandable reasons.

      It can be pretty hard to present two completely opposing viewpoints in a show, especially when one of them is being presented by a complete stranger, but they pulled it off. I kept waiting for the sterotype where he's secretly a bad guy, but he wasn't, and he had many valid points. Like the fact Hammond was just screwing with him by not letting him see any active missions, because there couldn't possibly be any security issues in tape the pentagon would review first, and wasn't even going to be published until some undetermined point in the future.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  4. I like SG-1... by Ianoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's much more watchable than most of the rubbish that seems to come out of Paramount's Star Trek franchise these days. I find Enterprise totally unwatchable and couldn't even be bothered to see the last film in the cinemas. I made the right decision too, cos the DVD was a major dissapointment.

    That said, I think Stargate has become too sciency/technical. Did anyone else prefer it when all the technology like the Gates themselves were much more mystical and incomprehensible? Somehow, talking about Gates and DHDs in terms of lines of software code, mathematical equations and matter dematerialisation doesn't seem quite as mystical as the original movie and the earlier episodes, where much of it was still based in Egyption mythology and the technology seemed more magical (neither human nor Goa'uld understanding how it really worked) rather than increasingly Trek-like technobabble descriptions of how things work.

    I will, of course, be watching Atlantis as Stargate and its spin-offs are still some of the most watchable sci-fi about at the moment. I just wouldn't have taken it in quite the same direction if it were left up to me.

    1. Re:I like SG-1... by FosterSJC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a shame my mod points just expired, as this is quite insightful. You'll notice the same demystification occurring in the Star Wars franchise... Metachloriates (sp?), little life forms, are now responsible for the force and the virgin birth of Anekin, instead of it simply being the way things are in the universe... a natural balance. But perhaps the veiwing majority prefers the tech aspect of scifi. They want to know how warp speed works and how dematerialization works, etc. Perhaps TV is itself responsible in part for taking the burden of imagination off of the viewer and putting onto the writers, etc. Special effects budgets could be better spent paying more talented writers.

    2. Re:I like SG-1... by Cska+Sofia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually I like the technical aspects of the show. It's done in a way that grounds the storyline in reality (as far as is possible with a sci-fi show). I think it's human nature to try and reverse engineer a technology that isn't understood; the concept of having the gate hitched up to a giant bank of computers seems realistic to me.

      After all, it's not like they understand it entirely. There's often talk of unimplemented protocols in Earth's DHD, which crops up disastrously in one of the latest episodes. This, for me, highlights one of the best aspects of the show: the fallibility. Things go wrong almost as often as they go right. There is an advancement in the plot, but in a 'two steps forward, one step back' way.

      (However, lately Carter seems to have taken on Trek-like problem-solving skills: "well, we could [insert improbable but ultimately 100% accurate solution 60 seconds after being presented with problem]." That bugs me a little.)

      I liked the Egyptian aspect, and the links with other past human cultures, but I think it would have been hard to spin that out over so many episodes, so I'm glad the show has evolved.

    3. Re:I like SG-1... by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      But perhaps the veiwing majority prefers the tech aspect of scifi.

      Technobabble, not "tech". The latter implies some logic. What happens in series like Trek is that after first using writers actually familiar with SF, when they've got the format sorted out they go to using mostly mainstream ones, who who write what they know about (mainly standard plots in fancy dress) and use the SF aspects as deus ex machina. Even worse is when the actors start directing, or God help us, writing, episodes.

      Meaningless self-contradictory words about imaginary science isn't "tech".

    4. Re:I like SG-1... by bar-agent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Star Wars fans are against the de-mystification. We're like "Midichlorians? WTF? No way, this shit is mystical, man! George, you a-hole!"

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    5. Re:I like SG-1... by cbelt3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If my 75 year old father in law finds SG-1 his favourite show (and he's an old country kind of guy), then there is something there other than the /. fascination. Characters, storyline, a cast you 'care' about. Just like the original ST and STTNG, it's about the characters. Doesn't matter where, when, or what they are. Take 'em and stick them in a small town in the middle of nowhere, and have the situations visit them, and you get the same chemistry.

  5. SciFi Channel ... by SimplyCosmic · · Score: 5, Funny

    No thanks, I've pretty much ignored anything from the network that killed Farscape so that it could pay for Tremors: The Series.

    1. Re:SciFi Channel ... by jmelloy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think SciFi paid for an entire season of Tremors for the price of one episode of Farscape.

  6. Wait and see by ducomputergeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    SG-1 is one of my favorite shows these days. That and the Simpsons are about the only shows I watch other than the News and Jay Leno. I've missed about 3 seasons while I was in college, but making it up when I catch a show in sydication now and then. One thing that made SG-1 cool was it was actually orginial. Sure, same old sci-fi themes, but the casting was a good mix and the writing has generally been fair as well. Richard Dean Anderson's character was a complete departure from the movie, but his character is pretty funny.

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
  7. Re:SG-1 and Jack *Spoiler* by Zebra_X · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I mean, really Stargate isn't all that "good" as far as TV goes, but for some reason, I too love Stargate.

    I did watch it last night, it was a little disappointing. It was way too sappy for this Geeks taste. They made it *seem* like jack was dead, but he is alive. Dr. Frasier died. Too bad really, she was a good charachter.

  8. Well thanks for that well-argued critique. Not. by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yeah, thanks for contributing to this discussion. Not.

    SG-1 is amongst the better sci-fi productions being made right now. The show's not perfect by any means, but for the most part it's well-written, well-acted and great viewing. The storylines and the on-screen chemistry of the team are second to none at the moment: I'd rather watch SG-1 than the dirge that is Enterprise any day of the week.

    If it's not to your taste then I don't really care. Plenty of people disagree with you.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  9. Movie was an Emmerich/Devlin disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And the series is actually good. You're mixed-up.

    1. Re:Movie was an Emmerich/Devlin disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OK, you got me into my rant.

      I recently watched the movie. Now, lets not get into plot, because they are both sorta close (free enslaved people on distant planet, solve issues, bla bla blah..) But:

      1. Sand. The movie had real sand for crying out loud. Dunes even! How often did the series have that?

      2. Head Masks (the helmets of the jaffa) Eagle, Jakal, Egyptian tomb pharoah.. Where are they now? In the movie, they were a major plot device for keeping the inhabitants of Abidos alive. Now, they arent EVER used. It seems more of a Mob type bullying than Alien Domination..

      3. Umm If the Pyramids are used as landing pads for aliens, then why arent there any pyramids on any other planets? Was Ra so different from the other system lords? (Besides the stupid Micheal Jackson kid pedophilia thing..)

      4. The Music is better for the Movie than the Series. The series music coordinators couldn't make me like the music, but after watching the movie again, I'm surprised that they are so different, yet so similar.

    2. Re:Movie was an Emmerich/Devlin disaster by kfg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      5. The planet had two moons, and they were both ours.

      They kinda lost me right there. Suspension of disbelief went all poof and shit. This is one case where I think they coulda taken a little from the real sand budget and used it for a bit of cgi.

      Most of the rest of your complaints reverse my issue. The movie had a big budget for sets, music, location shooting, etc. Yes, in some respects it is stunning.

      The TV series is, well, a TV series. But the stories are overall better, the acting is decent and RDA has really come into his own.

      On the whole this is one of the few cases where I think the series surpasses the movie by a fair margin.

      KFG

  10. OK, Bruce, just swim right here... by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Informative

    The thing I like about Stargate:SG1 is that it is relatively sensible about its science and proceedures - these people really act more like military people than certain other shows I could name.

    However, this sounds suspiciously like we might be calling upon the services of Bruce the Shark fairly soon - will somebody help me set up the ramps?

    1. Re:OK, Bruce, just swim right here... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I personally think that this show could pull up some suprises. SG1 is pretty much all about introducing us to the concept, and fighting the Goa`uld, which they are just about done doing. Atlantis could go in a different direction, finding out more information about the stargate network (There are 9 chevrons on the stargate, 7 are in normal use, 1 more was activated to meet the Asgard, whats the ninth for?), discovering stuff about the ancients (it was surmised in one episode that modern humanity could be descended from a pre ascended ancient species, i would like to see more on that).

      SG1 went military because thats where the film left off, Atlantis can be trememdously different.

    2. Re:OK, Bruce, just swim right here... by wolverine1999 · · Score: 2

      I'm writing fanfics where the Ancients were descended from humanity, many years ago... only the Ancients call themselves Gallifreyans...

      my fanfics

  11. The first series is BAD, now another one???? by in_ur_face · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I'm sorry but my roomate LOVES Stargate.... I cant stand the show. Take this as a rant but does anyone else think the series sucks? Bad acting, lame plot, etc...

    Dont get me wrong but I agree most SCIFI series are lacking now; ever since STNG ended they just fell. Voyager was "OK" and enterprise just rates next to Stargate.

    This is just my opinion, seeing if other agree or maybe I'm just way out in LH field on this one. I just cant see how ANOTHER series based on this is coming.....

    Please dont take this as trolling or whatever they call it now.

    1. Re:The first series is BAD, now another one???? by Seek_1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>Dont get me wrong but I agree most SCIFI series are lacking now; ever since STNG ended they just fell.

      I guess you didn't watch Farscape then eh? If you like Sci-fi at all, you'll want to check that one out. If you don't, then quit saying that all the Sci-fi shows suck since it's obvious that you won't like them anyways.

    2. Re:The first series is BAD, now another one???? by glpierce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, the acting has been poor (it improved as time went on; watching Teal'c from one of the first seasons is unbearable). At least half the plots are lame, yes, but the other half (or quarter, third, etc) are relatively original (which is very rare in sci-fi). The one thing that is great in SG1 is character development. If you forget the first few episodes and movie (which don't make sense with the later ones, anyway), the characters are extremely complex yet perfectly consistant. I really can't name any show/movie that has had characters as well-crafted. I tip my hat to the writers for their work in that department (but not for plots, which have been on a downward slide for years).

      That said, I have no intention of watching the spin-off. Not only will it lack the characters which had been molded to perfection over years, but they're clearly running out of plotlines.

      --
      G
    3. Re:The first series is BAD, now another one???? by dan+dan+the+dna+man · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's funny how people split on this divide. I love SG-1, I think its one of the best bits of Sci-Fi programming in years, I rate the series way more than I rate the film. I think Enterprise and Voyager are the best of the Star Trek canon. I couldn't stand Babylon 5 or DS9 (ST:NG got was especially ropey at points) and I think Farscape is simply the most ridiculous nonsense masquerading as Sci-Fi. My sister lives for Farscape and thinks its the best thing every to appear on TV. Horses for courses I say. One mans poison etc...

      --
      I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?
    4. Re:The first series is BAD, now another one???? by fatboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I suspect the reason you like the shows you do, is because the ones you like are what I call 'episodic television'. Bab5, DS9 and Farscape require that you see many more episodes to fully understand what is going on. Enterprise, Voyager and SG-1, for the most part, can stand on their own as single episodes.

      Not that one is better than the other, I like all of those shows. My favorites are DS-9,SG-1,Farscape and Bab-5, in that order.

      --
      --fatboy
    5. Re:The first series is BAD, now another one???? by Kplusplus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your an idiot sir, the show is so loosely based on the movie. The show is several magnitudes better than the movie was, normally when I introduce people to the series I present the movie as if were merely a history book. The movie was mediocre, but the TV show was initially a Showtime creation. Quality Sci Fi.

      --
      -"I'm one of those Mac people that will break a bottle on the bar and hold it to your throat for bad-mouthing my system"
  12. Why do SG1 fans compulsively rip Star Trek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Keep in mind that SG-1 is in a completely different situation than Enterprise. It started on a pay cable channel and now exists on a cable channel devoted to science fiction. Enterprise started on a broadcast network and still exists on a broadcast network as the only science fiction show. Its lead-in/outs have been pro-wrestling and African-American comedies. Stargate not only can produce lower ratings and get away with it, it also is the centerpiece of a sci-fi lineup on a sci-fi channel. And, unlike Enterprise, it has the bonus of being in syndication. Enterprise usually airs only a couple times a week, while Stargate is relatively ubiquitous.

    I'd also rather watch SG-1 than Enterprise for the most part... if I existed in some bizarre hypothetical world where those were the only two options. In the real world, I find both to be acceptable, and better than most stuff on TV.

    1. Re:Why do SG1 fans compulsively rip Star Trek? by AnalystX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not sure where this blanket statement (in the form of a question) is leading? It's funny that two assumptions are made in that one question too. The first being that SG-1 fans collectively give opinions regarding Star Trek. The second being that the Star Trek you refer to is Enterprise and not some other Star Trek series.

      Personally, I am a huge SG-1 fan. I watch the episodes as they appear on television, and I own all the DVD box sets currently out. I watch Star Trek:TNG almost everyday and feel that it is one of the best science fiction shows ever produced. I really enjoyed Star Trek:Voyager when it was on and am looking forward to getting the DVD box sets. I like some of the characters on Star Trek:DSN, but as a whole, I didn't like to watch the show that often. The original Star Trek series introduced interesting plot devices, but just as the stereotype was set for William Shatner (Captain James T. Kirk), he really didn't contribute much in the way of acting like a real captain. He had his moments, but largely he acted like William Shatner on screen. Star Trek:Enterprise also has good plot devices and even sometimes a good story. The characters are still somewhat new, so I expect it will take a couple more years (just like Voyager) to form into something palatable for more people.

  13. Stargate SG-CHEAP? by Wag · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are they setting this show all on Earth so they don't have to pay for expensive sets?

    If anything I'm happy this show will get the rest of SG-1 DVD box sets out faster.

    1. Re:Stargate SG-CHEAP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They are sharing sets with SG-1 down in Bridge Studio's here in Vancouver and so far by looking at the rigging setups looks like they aren't going the cheap route. One of their sets is one they have taken over from Blade 3 named the "Phoenix" set.

  14. Even worse... by Nimloth · · Score: 3, Funny
    "I just hope this great franchise does not go the way of Star Trek, post Roddenberry."

    Or Rodenbury post Star Trek...

  15. Re:SG-1 and Jack *Spoiler* by MurphyZero · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, they did try to lead you early on to believe it was Jack, but as soon as they showed the video on the planet with the injured soldier and Janet, and how the reporter was talking, I got the hints that it was Janet that died.

    My wife asked why would they kill her off. I told her probably cause she is headed to do something else. Janet was a decent character, but she was often just a bit character in the show. If they want a beloved character to die, but cause the least impact to the show, Janet was the one. In addition, notice how Cassandra was handled. Samantha mentions her, but she's never shown. I wonder if they even tried to get the actress who played her in for a brief cameo.

    --
    Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.
  16. Then again.. by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...in Stargate, that is a rather natural development. We've got this lots of wierdo alien tech, where the Stargate is just one, that we don't really understand, wouldn't there be a buzz like hell to figure out wtf all this really is? Whereas in Star Trek the "tech" is just part of the setting.

    Human science would leap tremendously, once you know it *is* possible and can observe it rather than speculate. Most great scientific break-throughs aren't really that hard to replicate, once they've been discovered.

    Yes, I admit in some ways it is changing the show. On the other hand, if it had stayed "Well we go through this gate, and then we're 4 people exploring ruins/blowing up aliens of the day" I imagine that'd be pretty worn out by now, at the end of the 7th season.

    No matter what direction, the most important thing is direction. There's nothing I hate more than a series where you can miss 10 eps, and still be just where you left off, same everything. And to make Stargate work, they need bigger and worse enemies. And to do that, the SG crew need more and better tech. You can't fight for the fate of the universe with rifles and hand grenades, or at least not just that :D.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  17. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I really enjoyed Stargate the movie and the first few seasons of SG-1, but every season, the plot totally shifts, and things are horribly re-arranged into making something "new and fresh." Sure, O'Neil can't just keep killing Apothis and the Ghoul all the time. I kind of forsee the producers winding SG-1 down in time, if Atlantis really is going to take place.

    Personally, maybe it's just me, but I don't think Atlantis will do well for the Stargate series. Just like how Enterprise damaged Star Trek, I think this will put a bad light on Stargate. I stopped watching Stargate SG-1 in season three, and watch it fairly sporatically now. Same thing with Enterprise...if there's nothing else to be watched I might watch Enterprise, get feud up, and pop in my ST:TNG DVDs.

    I, really, really want to see ST:Voyager on DVD :).

  18. Nice Link by Spad · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://allstargate.television-series.com/atlantis/ (The second 'here' link) is just a redirect to http://www.paysforsurveys.com/

  19. Clarke's Entertainment Law? by OECD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That said, I think Stargate has become too sciency/technical. Did anyone else prefer it when all the technology like the Gates themselves were much more mystical and incomprehensible?

    "Magic, in any sufficiently advanced show, is indistinguishable from technology." (Appologies to ACC)

    Actually, I think what happens is that writers have to have some idea of what and how things work, in order to work with it consistently. Eventually, it works its way into the scripts.

    We, as viewers, don't need to know how or why things work the way they do. It actually keeps things more interesting for us to be trying to figure it out. Unfortunately, that gets forgotten.

    It's roughly analagous to seeing the monster in a horror movie: Less is more.

    --
    One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
  20. Re:Atlantis by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I thought Disney now owned all story salvage rights to Atlantis? They've done that to all the other stories that they've ripped^w adapted from stories hundreds of years old. (And then they got the copyrights endlessly extended to prevent anyone from doing the same.)

    They've just bought the Muppets too. This does not bode well.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  21. All marketing.... by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They knew advertising killing off a main character would get audience share..

    Scummy practice.. I actually boycotted last nights show beacuse of it.

    Conversely, they know if they killed off one of the main 4, the show would be dead in the water, so i personally had no worries.. Worst case they just bring the character back to life.. hey, its sci-fi anything is possible..

    Putting it on earlier in the evening would help though...

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  22. Re:DIE!!!! by anotherone · · Score: 2, Informative

    The commercials they were showing made it look like Jack had been killed... but then you saw a shot from a funeral at the SGC and the full team was standing there. He didn't say anything you didn't see in the commercial.

    --
    Username taken, please choose another one.
  23. Re:And how do they get back? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can only have one stargate per coordinate, but it's possible a planet could be large enough to have two (depends on the granularity of the gate address I suppose, which isn't really specified).

    Actually thinking about it since the gould have stargates on their ships, they're not coordinates... maybe you could program two stargates with different addresses and put them next to each other???

  24. Misinformation? by Xarius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ummm, that is just wild speculation. As far as I know, the new series is set in another galaxy, on an offworld human base. I think the name has something to do with the new planet being the origins of the atlantis legend, several people have already been cast.

    This is relatively old news. For more info check out:

    http://www.sg1database.net/atlantis.html

    Again this is AFAIK, I could be wrong

    --
    C17H21NO4
  25. Not to mention... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Richard Dean Anderson's character was a complete departure from the movie, but his character is pretty funny.

    ...a complete depature from MacGyver. I must honestly say that I never thought I'd be able to accept him as anything else but that - few people were so intesively connected to not only a character - but a specific trait of that personality - as him.

    Pretty much all through the first season (at least), every time they were in a jam I somehow expected him to pull out a piece of string, some duct tape, sulfuric acid and a pocket knife to save the day. I think the role he plays is pretty much the only role he could play to make it work.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Not to mention... by mdw2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you saw the special they showed last christmas there was an outtake scene where the pretty blonde (don't know her name) says to him "CMON MCGUYVER YOU'VE GOT A STICK OF BUBBLEGUM AND A THIMBLE, YOU MUST FIX THE STARGATE"(or something to that effect), much laughter ensued, so his being forever tied to mcguyver is well known :)

      --
      This sig intentionally left blank.
  26. RDA by dickiedoodles · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The main reason the more recent episodes of SG-1 have been less good (but still very enjoyable in my opinion) then the previous seasons is mainly because of Richard Dean Anderson (jack) being unwilling to spend as much time on the show, every season he says he wants to quit to spend more time with his daughter and every season they negotiate a nice package for him which means less work. IIRC he works about 3 days a week now which is why there are so many episodes that he barely appears in or in some cases doesn't appear in at all. In the next season of SG1 (season 8) rumour has it that he'll be in a more Hammond like position in charge of the SGC. Atlantis is obviously a way to not only expand the series but to get away from relying on RDA signing on every year.

    If anyone cares Gateworld is a fantastic site for information on all things stargate.

    --
    In Soviet Russia Slashdot cliches use you
  27. I'm a Roddenberry fan but .. by ClosedSource · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The quality of STNG was much higher than the original and improved dramatically after Roddenberry let Rick Berman lead the way. I think the combination of Roddenberry's somewhat politically correct "rules" and Berman's attempts to bend them was what made STNG so great.

  28. A Dying Series by Emperor+Tiberius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To be totally honest, I think Atlantis won't have the same "vibe" (for lack of a better word) that SG-1 has had. If the plot is literally going to be based on an old base, and going to another side of the universe...jeeze, this is starting to sound like a hacked up Stargate clone of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine! Something, I don't look forward to watching, much like I don't care to watch Enterprise anymore.

  29. Stargate and Atlantis by centauri · · Score: 5, Funny

    This circle is now complete.

    Some people saw some glaring similarities between the original Stargate and Disney's Atlantis: The Lost Empire.

    - Brilliant linguist has goofy theory and is reviled by the scientific community.
    - Senior citizen contacts scientist to reveal that his theory was right all along.
    - Scientist brought along as expert advisor for military expedition based on aforementioned theory.
    - Strange world reached via a twisting tunnel.
    - Scientist teased and tormented by expedition members.
    - Expedition utterly reliant on scientist for salvation.
    - Military expedition has a secret adgenda.
    - Scientist falls for beautiful native.
    - Glowing eyes.
    - A symbol like an upper-case lambda features prominantly in the promotional material for each movie.

    There are probably more I'm forgetting and of course the differences are significant, but it is very suspicious.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
  30. Re:And how do they get back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the show:

    There are two stargates on earth. one was lost in the antartic and a second one was built. (By the ancients, millions of years ago or something). Only one can be used to receive at any time since they have the same coordinate, but both can send. (There was an episode where the second gate gets stolen/misplaced by the military)

    An overload on the circuits makes the incoming wormhole jump to the second stargate. (Used in the episode where they discover the second gate, O'Neill almost freezes to death in the Antartic. They finally figured out what was going on and fly out to rescue him. Also used in the stolen gate episode)

    The addressing grid size seems to be large. In one episode Daniel is on a Goa'uld ship that is about to blow, looks out the window and sees earth, and realizes he's close enought that he can use earth as an origin point, so he survives by leaving through the gate. So, yes, the gate address is the same to earth orbit at least.

    Actually, I should say there were two gates on earth. In one episode the Goa'uld find a way to overload earth's stargate to make it blow up. The Humans send the gate to outer space on a ship with a experimental hyper-drive, and it blows up. The anti-gate weapon is destroyed, and the SGC gets the second gate from the russians.

    Yes, I'm a geek.

  31. Slashdot Jinx by N8F8 · · Score: 4, Funny

    You guys just killed Stargate. Every time a SciFi show is mentioned here a cancellation notice follows within three months. Damn.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Slashdot Jinx by g00z · · Score: 5, Funny

      Enterprise enterprise enterprise?

      - Enterprise

      --
      "The Wright brothers were the first to fly with a heavier-than-air machine, but boy did they have a lousy plane"
  32. One of the directors is excited by gbulmash · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I'm in contact with David Winning (IMDb filmography, official site). He directed a lot of episodes of "Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda" (photos: 1, 2) and he's been hired on to direct at least part of the first season of "Stargate Atlantis". He's been getting a lot of recognition in the industry as one of the top directors for TV Sci-Fi in the past couple of years, so they're making some good choices for the series already. And the cool thing is that he seems really excited about the new series.

    I've known David professionally for a couple of years now and he doesn't get this excited over every job, so that's got me looking forward to checking out series. It doesn't hurt that I'm a fan of SG1 also.

    - Greg

  33. Re:And how do they get back? by minairia · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, you can have three gates on one planet. Does anyone remember the episode where the mysterious alien built his own Stargate in Major Carter's basement out of spare parts so he could get back and stop the military from turning on some kind of ancient superweapon on his dead planet? At that point, it would have been the US gate, the Russian gate and the alien's gate. I wished they'd explored that arc more, in that building one's own Stargate isn't that difficult with the right parts. (The alien was a super genius but all of the stuff he used to build his gate he ordered mail order using Major Carter's credit card. Even though his gate shorted out after one use, it didn't blow up or melt so the military should have been able to figure out how he built it.)

  34. Uh... by Cyno01 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I love SG-1, and for the most part its better than the movie IMHO, but they have tried spinoffs already, and that makes me nervous. Anybody remember Stargate: Infinity? It was a very short lived saturday morning cartoon. Just terrible.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  35. not to mention the inside "MacGyver refrencess by youritadvisor.com · · Score: 2, Informative

    Interesting how they would sneak in a reference to ""MacGyver" in each eps.

  36. Re:SG1 solves a BIG problem in an elegant way by Xarius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the movie, Daniel learns Goa'uld (the primary language used) and is also a linguist. Would you want to watch an hour long show consisting of him translating to and fro throughout the entire episode?

    Translation is assumed in most fictional (yes, fictional) tv shows/movies.

    --
    C17H21NO4
  37. Slashdot really missed the boat here... by X86Daddy · · Score: 2, Funny

    This article was supposed to pe posted around 8PM Eastern last night, and give away the episode's ending in the article title.

    Way to go, editors.

  38. Re:Informative my ass! by Spad · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, it's neither.

    As I've just realised, www.television-series.com is hosted by Web1000.com, who have a lovely habit of redirecting users from non-US countries to crappy advert sites, usually porn.

  39. OT: Sort of by fireman+sam · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Has anyone else noticed the similarities between the stargate series and the writings of Brian Lumley?

    For example:

    1. Necroscope series -
    - People can travel between worlds using "grey holes", Much like the stargate.
    - Vampires are in fact leeches that infect a host body and increase the hosts strengths, senses etc. They also increase the ability to heal. Sound familiar?

    2. The house of doors -
    - In this novel, a large white mansion appears on a hill side. Inside is an alien called Seth. Does anyone here remember the episode of stargate where there was a cult in a large white mansion that was run by a man called Seth?

    Hmmm, maybe that is why I like stargate and Brian Lumley books, as they have similar undertones.

    --
    it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
  40. Re:SG-1 and Jack *Spoiler* by fireman+sam · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dr. Frasier didn't die, he is just doing the voice of Sideshow Bob full time now.

    Wha?... Oh sorry, wrong Dr Frasier. My Bad

    --
    it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.