Slashdot Mirror


'Stargate: SG-1' Cancelled

Ant writes "The Sci-Fi channel has announced that it will not be renewing its (very popular) original series Stargate SG-1 for another season.The spinoff series Stargate: Atlantis will get the nod, though, airing for a fourth year. SG-1 aired its 200th episode on August 18th, and the SF series is the longest-running SF show on American television." Gateworld has further details: "New episodes of both Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis continue Fridays this summer starting at 9 p.m. Eastern/Pacific, leading up to the mid-season finale on September 22. The second half of the season will begin in March, leading to SG-1's final bow on SCI FI in June."

605 comments

  1. It's just like... by Nick+Fury · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's just like that show with the guy who went through a space warp portal thing and landed on that living space ship thing with those little yellow robots and those damn crackers... what was the name of that show again? :)

    1. Re:It's just like... by Ahkorishaan · · Score: 1, Troll

      Farscape.

      --
      Please, try not to sound so stupid...
    2. Re:It's just like... by kalirion · · Score: 2, Funny

      You got me... I have never heard of that show before.

    3. Re:It's just like... by sammy+baby · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nice try. Anyone who remembers "Crackers Dont' Matter" is obviously a die-hard fan. ;)

    4. Re:It's just like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FARSCAPE!

      A show like FireFly that was cut in the prime of it's life

    5. Re:It's just like... by sparkchaser · · Score: 1

      One of my favorite episodes. That and "The Way We Weren't".

    6. Re:It's just like... by joeyblades · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, I thought he was being rather clever... given the overlap in actors between Farscape and Stargate SG-1...

    7. Re:It's just like... by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      SG-1 and Farscape are nothing alike in content, except I suppose that both have wormholes. Though I did find it very disconcerting when Colonel Mitchell joined SG-1 and they made Vala Maldoran a main character. Wierd. But I guess sci-fi has always been a genre where you see the same people over and over again in different roles.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    8. Re:It's just like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red Dwarf smeghead.

    9. Re:It's just like... by rilian4 · · Score: 1
      ...Though I did find it very disconcerting when Colonel Mitchell joined SG-1 and they made Vala Maldoran a main character.
      Disconcerting? I find them both to be great actors and the character of Vala is hilarious...she gave a much needed shot in the arm to SG-1. I was fading from watching SG-1 in seasons 8 and 9 til she came along. I haven't missed an episode in season 10.
      --

      ...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
    10. Re:It's just like... by Grrrrrrr! · · Score: 1

      We call it 'stuck in sci-fi hell' :)

    11. Re:It's just like... by ericdano · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I love Ben in Stargate. Though it seems he's kind of held back a little. I haven't missed an episode since season 9.

      --
      It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
      I moderate therefore I rule!
      --
    12. Re:It's just like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They used that joke IN the 200th episode.

    13. Re:It's just like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were all good, but I think my favorite was "Green-Eyed Monster"

    14. Re:It's just like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "those damn crackers"? What?

      Oh! You mean "dried food rectangles", right?

      Mmmmm... dried food rectangles.

    15. Re:It's just like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did SCIFI become a day-time soap? Next thing you know Bo Brady will be on Atlantis.

    16. Re:It's just like... by vandon · · Score: 2, Funny

      I guess the only question left is:
      Are they going to end the final SG-1 episode with "To be continued....", squash the credits, and then do a voice over saying "Log on to SciFi.com and tell us what you thought of the final episode"?

      I swear, I couldn't log onto the scifi forums for over 2 days when they did that.

    17. Re:It's just like... by Fordiman · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think it was seeing Kryten being the cold, military one, and Vala being the somewhat flippant one.

      It confuses the mivonks outta me.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    18. Re:It's just like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weird. I actually hated the show since they came on. The early vala episodes where she chases after Daniel were almost unbarable to watch. It could have been handled so much better. This season is massively better but I almost stoped caring about SG-1 at all last season until the Ori episodes. But basically its yet another race bent on destroying us scenarios. I'm jut hooked because they're cool. How come the Goa'uld have fallen off the face of the planet. it's like the writers can't think of a way to keep them in the series and be interesting.

      *sigh*

    19. Re:It's just like... by Zenaku · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yes, they both do excellent work on SG-1 -- by disconcerting, I just meant that it was hard for me not to see them as Criton and Aeron, transplanted en masse from Farscape, acting wierd.

      For me this mental twitch of forgetting they were different characters was particularly bad because I never watched Farscape when it was on the air, I watched it on DVD, consuming the entire series in order over the course of a few months. When Ben Browder showed up on SG-1 as Mitchell, and Vala became a frequent character, I was still in the beginning of the last season of Farscape on DVD.

      So from my perspective if felt like both shows were still "going on" at the same time with the same actors in different roles. That was disconcerting.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    20. Re:It's just like... by giltnerj0 · · Score: 1

      I just hope they don't end SG1 with an ending like they had planned on Farscape. The final episode was a horrible ending, thank goodness they wised up and shot The Peacekeeper Wars.

      Ted

    21. Re:It's just like... by jdray · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ben Browder and Claudia Black will have reputations as show killers from here on out.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    22. Re:It's just like... by jdray · · Score: 1

      I watched "200" the other night. At the end, when the producer guy said, "Hey, everyone, the movie's on!" I took that as an indicator that there was a new Stargate movie in the works.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    23. Re:It's just like... by jdray · · Score: 1

      Not to be nitpicky, but it's "Chrichton." I hate to exhibit fanboy-ism, but I also don't like misspellings (particularly when I do it), so I'm torn.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    24. Re:It's just like... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      I really doubt they have the entire season in the can already like Farscape did.

      And didn't I hear that there is a new Stargate movie for theaters in the works? OK, the source was The Feed on G4 during an episode of X-Play, but I distinctly remember wondering if it will follow the events of the series or will it be the other sequel the original creators wanted to make before SG-1 came along and killed off Kawalsky?

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    25. Re:It's just like... by PhoenixAtlantios · · Score: 1

      I sincerely doubt it, in Claudia Black's case anyway. She brought a refreshing new viewpoint into the show, which happened to be incredibly funny most of the time. I might agree in the case of Ben (his eye issues don't work out so well with the close-up filming style of Stargate).

    26. Re:It's just like... by smenor · · Score: 1

      I got the same impression.

      It'll be sad to see it go, but it's had a good run and it hasn't been the same since Richard Dean Anderson left.

    27. Re:It's just like... by cyborg_zx · · Score: 1

      It's even more confusing when every true Sci-Fi fan knows Kryten as their favourite ice-cube shaped head android.

    28. Re:It's just like... by Babbster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dean Devlin, who wrote the original Stargate movie, still wants to do sequels to the original movie with Kurt Russell and James Spader reprising their roles (as opposed to Richard Dean Anderson and Michael Shanks who took over the O'Neill and Jackson characters for the TV series).

    29. Re:It's just like... by jdray · · Score: 1

      I'd take Kurt Russel any day over RDA for the O'Neil role. I just never believed RDA as the distraught guy who grudgingly comes out of retirement to do this amazing thing. RDA does pissy really well, but Russell has the angst thing down.

      I think Spader vs. Shanks make a much closer match. At this point, I think Shanks has so much more experience with the character and the storyline that he would do a better job.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    30. Re:It's just like... by Johnboi+Waltune · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He only does one character: the flippant hero asskicker guy -- the alpha male that every Stargate/Farscape nerd wants to be, but is not. Stargate and Farscape have more or less the same plots, characters, etc, so that's why he works on both shows.

      The only way to make it seem like he's a different character is to "hold him back".

      --
      "The advanced societies of the future will be driven by competing systems of psychopathology." -JG Ballard
    31. Re:It's just like... by gr18563 · · Score: 1

      Eye issues. I must be missing the boat here. What are you talking about?

    32. Re:It's just like... by Farce+Pest · · Score: 1

      You mean Fargate?

      --
      This message has been scanned for memes and dangerous content by MindScanner, and is believed to be unclean.
    33. Re:It's just like... by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      I had said something about confused mivonks, did I not?

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    34. Re:It's just like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha, disconcerning? Your lucky, you got twice as much Aeron, erm, Vala, as the rest of us!

      But, in any event, im sure we can all cum to a agreement, that we would like to see Vala seduce Aeron!

    35. Re:It's just like... by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      If you're going to be nitpicky, be properly nitpicky:
      It's not 'kri-ten' at all, but Col. Mitchell is the name of the character.

      Otherwise, you know, get the joke. It's wrong on purpose - and not funny if I have to 'splain it, Lucy.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    36. Re:It's just like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great actors? ROFLMAO. Stargate SG1 has sucked since both came on the show. Hopefully they'll stay off Atlantis in the future.

    37. Re:It's just like... by eurenix · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling a lot of people are scratching their heads as to why that was marked funny. Then again, this being slashdot...

    38. Re:It's just like... by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      If the recent Season 10 premier of SG-1 had been done by the Farscape writers, the action would have started a few weeks after the cliff-hanging plot with the characters having a casual conversation. If you listened carefully you might figure out how they escaped the danger.

      Farscape always had anti-climatic plot resolutions. Doing it once might be clever, doing multiple times suggested that they didn't have the writing skills or budget to do it right.

    39. Re:It's just like... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      And Kryten was the robot on Red Dwarf. Chrichton was the human on Farscape. Different shows, but similar humor.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    40. Re:It's just like... by BootNinja · · Score: 1
      At this point, I think Shanks has so much more experience with the character and the storyline that he would do a better job.
      By that same reasoning, Jack should continue to be played by RDA, as the character is really not angsty and depressed anymore. He's come to terms with the death of his son, and has moved on. Besides, I really don't much care for Kurt Russel.
    41. Re:It's just like... by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      And Vala is on Stargate. It was emphasis for the confused state I'm in.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    42. Re:It's just like... by Propaganda13 · · Score: 1

      Buck Rogers?

    43. Re:It's just like... by kjots · · Score: 1

      It's even more confusing when every true Sci-Fi fan knows Kryten as their favourite ice-cube shaped head android.

      That's mechanoid you insensitive clod!

      </witticism>

    44. Re:It's just like... by Wolfkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the documentary shown with the 200th ep last Friday, it was mentioned that when Shanks auditioned for the role, he took care to copy Spader's mannerisms and acting as closely as possible, and that this is what got him the role.

      --
      Property law should use #'EQ, not #'EQUAL.
    45. Re:It's just like... by cloricus · · Score: 1

      Hahaha and you know what...He could suddenly change his name and work out a theory called the farscape maneuver. Funnily enough it would work in without breaking either story line!

      --
      I ate your fish.
    46. Re:It's just like... by chrisbord · · Score: 1

      The annoying blinking I think.

    47. Re:It's just like... by chrisbord · · Score: 1

      No way for Claudia Black. Did you see the Farscape episode where they go to earth and she wears that tight flower child stuff. Holeeeeee Gaawd!!! It still have the blisters to show from that one. ;) Ok kidding but still...did you see that shit?

      In any case, Farscape put all other sci-fi shows ever made to absolute shame. The writing was freaking awesome, Jim Henson's muppets were amazing, and the universe was soo much more realistic and imaginitive.

    48. Re:It's just like... by chrisbord · · Score: 1

      Um I'd have rather they kept the original cliffhanger. The Peacekeeper Wars were friggin horrible. A machine to make 2 implacable, extremely agressive enemies suddenly make peace by...forcing them to talk it over?? A sooper-dooper diplomacy machine? Calgon, take me away!!!

      But what can you expect from the mushy minds of the writers responsible for the last few seasons? You can always tell the end of a series is near when a bunch of pie-in-the sky, mushy brained and barely veiled left wing crap starts popping up in the plots.

    49. Re:It's just like... by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      It was one of the best episodes. It would be like not knowing SG-1's Window of Opportunity or Space Above and Beyond's Sugar Dirt, or each and every episode of Firefly. It's just one of those things scifi people should know. The part where they read the damned label from across the room and John couldn't was fricking classic.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    50. Re:It's just like... by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      They were both on Farscape from the beginning. You need somebody who gets brought in for just the last episodes of a long running show like Paul Provenza.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    51. Re:It's just like... by gr18563 · · Score: 1

      I guess now that you mention it he does do alot of blinking and eye twitching :).

    52. Re:It's just like... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Devlin wants to do a non-SG1-based movie, and the writers of SG1 want to do a SG1-based movie.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    53. Re:It's just like... by derfy · · Score: 1

      I'd mod you insightful if I had points.

  2. So Long and Thanks by Marillion · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Well, if you're going to go out, go out on top.

    By the way, if anyone from the staff, crew or cast reads this: Thanks for ten wonderful years.

    --
    This is a boring sig
    1. Re:So Long and Thanks by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally, I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I don't like where the show's been heading. The Ori aren't good villains. I don't like the concept, and the execution has been even worse. They're fighting gods, for all intents and purposes. It's the same problem as Superman: you're constantly getting stronger because instead of writing within the same levels of powers, writers take the easy out and make a challenge that is overcome by making the protagonist(s) stronger, instead of writing for the same strengths, but dealing with choices they make and the consequences they face. On the other hand, the characters are well fleshed out, well written, and the show is still good in SPITE of these crappy villains. The relationships are among the best written on TV right now, in my mind only second to Battlestar Galactica, maybe tying with House. I only hope that they can end the series as well as it would have ended had it not been renewed after Season 7 like they thought.

      --
      "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

      - Seneca
    2. Re:So Long and Thanks by DarkMantle · · Score: 1

      Lets thank them by getting their contracts renewed.

      Sign the petition To save SG-1

      --
      DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
    3. Re:So Long and Thanks by toad3k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You nailed it. This is my biggest problem with science fiction today. They give too much power to the good guys, and then they have to scale up the bad guys to compensate. Eventually the battle reaches a point where you can't even relate to it anymore. The matrix committed this error along with nearly every anime I've ever seen.

      My other problem is that eventually you end up at a point where some genius with access to the script decides to, for example, destroy a sun in an easily repeatable way, and then for the rest of the series, blowing up a sun is a solution for every problem but has to be ignored. It is short sighted and every writer should read their script and look for these obvious and completely avoidable future plot holes.

    4. Re:So Long and Thanks by ObjetDart · · Score: 4, Funny
      Sign the petition To save SG-1


      Great idea! Let's rally the troops! Online petitions to save cancelled sci-fi TV shows have worked so well in the past.

      BTW, anyone have torrents for last week's episodes of Farscape and Enterprise?

      --
      I read Usenet for the articles.
    5. Re:So Long and Thanks by Manchot · · Score: 1

      I think you misspelled "eight."

    6. Re:So Long and Thanks by CaptnMArk · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      The same thing happened in Star Trek TNG.

      IMO, they should have cancelled it after 'The Best of Both Worlds, Part 1'.

      And then wait 5 or 10 years.

    7. Re:So Long and Thanks by Damvan · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Firefly. I for one am looking forward to the second season ;)

    8. Re:So Long and Thanks by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      meh. worked for family guy, and perhaps even futurama. so what's your point really?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    9. Re:So Long and Thanks by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it worked so well for Firefly...

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    10. Re:So Long and Thanks by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 2, Funny

      The matrix committed this error along with nearly every anime I've ever seen.

      Them's fighting words. Now wait there for the next five episodes while I power up.

      Hgnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn....

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    11. Re:So Long and Thanks by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      They did get a movie...

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    12. Re:So Long and Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we make a petition to cancel the series after season 8? You know, before they replaced the villians and half the cast?

    13. Re:So Long and Thanks by Babbster · · Score: 1

      While I generally agree with your sentiment, the truth is that in SG1 the good guys had to get more powerful or the show wouldn't have lasted for 10 years - not necessarily because the Goauld (I never remember where the apostrophe[s] go) would win, but because the government would have stopped funding the program. The program's entire reason for existing was to acquire alien technology [to protect the planet], so they had to start acquiring some. It was pointed out during the series that the electricity required to run the gate was ridiculously expensive, let alone the cost of staff and other materials (guns were probably the least of the SG program's expenses).

    14. Re:So Long and Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is my biggest problem with science fiction today. They give too much power to the good guys, and then they have to scale up the bad guys to compensate. Eventually the battle reaches a point where you can't even relate to it anymore.

      This basically describes my reaction to Asimov's Foundation series, so this is hardly new.

      Once he introduced the second foundation, it was all downhill from there, finally requiring a deus-ex-machina planetwide intelligence to just convince everyone to pretend the whole thing hadn't happened. Lame.

    15. Re:So Long and Thanks by shimavak · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Fox network even admitted that it was stronger than expected DVD sales which harolded the return of Futurama and Family Guy. The networks aren't concerned with the opinions of people who won't give them money, which they have every right to be! In fact, they might just be legally obligated to care more about money than not.

      --
      "[Physics] has nothing to do directly with defending our country, except to make it worth defending." -- Robert Wilson
    16. Re:So Long and Thanks by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Family Guy and Futurama have new leases on life because people went out and bought the DVDs. Presumably, that factor has already been taken into consideration since SG1 box sets have been on the shelves for years now.

      Personally, I think 10 years is a fantastic run and there's no reason to feel bad that the show is ending - most shows do (and a few that don't should). Besides, there will be at least one season's worth of chances to see the classic characters as they're sure to appear at least intermittently on Atlantis. Who knows? That show might even improve when it's out of SG1's shadow.

    17. Re:So Long and Thanks by X · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I'd say the Foundation series isn't a good example. The series was never meant to be serial, so it was perfectly okay (and even expected) for it to reach a definitive conclusion, and the second foundation was originally that definitive conclusion. After the fact he came up with an idea for a story that explored the gaia hypothesis, played on the notion of the secret society operating under the influence of another even more secret society, and also kind of sentimentally/nostalgically tied together some of his other work.

      The problem is more when you go this route with an episodic work that isn't intended to have a definitive end (well, until the show gets cancelled ;-).

      --
      sigs are a waste of space
    18. Re:So Long and Thanks by hords · · Score: 1

      I think they did a movie because the DVDs sold so well, not because of petitions really. I support the shows I like by buying them on DVD, I think that speaks much louder than any petition.

    19. Re:So Long and Thanks by SamSim · · Score: 1
      they have to scale up the bad guys to compensate. Eventually the battle reaches a point where you can't even relate to it anymore

      Oddly enough, 24 has this exact problem, and has done since season two. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Properly handled human drama is far, FAR more compelling than an abstract threat to {m/b}illions of faceless people, and "You killed my father" is a much more dramatic reason to want to kill someone than "I disagree with your country's foreign policies".

    20. Re:So Long and Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting people all frenzied up (you know, with things like online petitions and "Save XXX" and meets at Cons are what drive people to buy DVDs.

    21. Re:So Long and Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't so much that the 'power levels' went up, but the way and rate that they went up, and the way it affected the show. If I were in charge of writing for SG1, the System Lords would still be the enemies. Hell, even if I let Anubis come along and pwn the other System Lords, and then get his ass kicked (If you have a singular enemy (like Anubis) rather than a group (like the system lords) for too long then it just gets stupid), I would have more enemies like Ba'al and the Lucian Alliance, and the Ori wouldn't have been concieved. Supergates? Uberships? The Priors? These are all crappy ways of dealing with the new tech the humans have gotten. It should have instead gone from "We're outnumbered, out gunned, and out-teched", to "We have the guns and tech, but how do we deal with it?". Hey, the System Lords are now gone, and the only one left of any worth is more a nuisance than a threat. The biggest rivals to your power are the Asgaard, who are your staunch allies and pretty few in numbers, the free Jaffa, who offer political intrigue but no real unified military, and a crime syndicate who stole all the old ships of your last enemy, who you beat handily. The stories should have then naturally shifted from "We need to save the planet", to "we need to explore, maintain peace in the galaxy, and forge alliances with new races, and keep the Jaffa from killing each other", instead of "Shit we need a new villain... okay, ascended beings from another galaxy, and their followers with superpowers"...

    22. Re:So Long and Thanks by Babbster · · Score: 1

      I actually agree with you. Unfortunately, constantly raising the stakes became such a tradition with the series that I think people would have missed it. Personally, I would have been happy to have an entire season or two take place exclusively on Earth, dealing with the inevitable terrestrial consequences of such a large amount of alien contact, and the knowledge those aliens had of our planet. Some of my favorite episodes were those that placed the team against both aliens on our planet and other earthlings who wanted to take advantage of interstellar problems for their own benefit.

    23. Re:So Long and Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you taling about Kirirrin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

    24. Re:So Long and Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry that you've only watched bad anime aimed at teenage boys. Would you believe that there are many series in which the heroes are roughly as powerful at the end as they are at the beginning -- and there are even some series where the characters' physical power is not an issue at all?

    25. Re:So Long and Thanks by toad3k · · Score: 1

      There are, but the bad vastly outnumber the good. I will always love cowboy bebop and gungrave but I will always hate dbz and yuyu hakusho.

      And I will always cringe at bleach, as good as the series is, every time he increases to a new more powerful level than before and every fight becomes a blur of bright light and poor sound effects.

    26. Re:So Long and Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me rephrase this "the best written on TV right now, in my mind only second to Battlestar Galactica." Pleeeease. The new Battlestar Galactica is one of the worst shows on TV. Only the village idiot considers Neo Battlestar great writing and certainly not a true fan. The last episode of season 2 just says it all. This is the episode where they colonize that planet and stop running from the Cylons which is totally not Galactica. Also, it was really flimsy for Adama to allow Baltar to be elected as any prudent leader wouldn't take any chances under times of great strife. In the last episode of season 2 the Colonists under Baltar colonize New Caprica and then it skips ahead one year and makes no sense or has any chronology. It's just a cliffhanger disaster. An example of let's do the oppositie of the original instead of lets think of something creative. Another example of great writing in the New Battlestar is where they change genders with Starbuck and Admiral Caine not for drama but for dissonance. Moore just does stuff to be different from the original and doesn't show any creativity. The producers think like oh let's take a character or idea from the original story and let's do the opposite. Maybe Glen Larson doesn't want them to try anything like the original because they'd Star 'Wreck it. In the miniseries Moore decided to open the show with drum beats instead of that exhiliarating fanfare of the original which shows unimaginative and terrible musical creativity. A decent producer or writer could have come up with music at least to open the new Galactica Miniseries like the original and maybe something half way appealing. The old Galactica was way better than the new Galactica. It's like the Silver Surfer in Crimson Tide where Denzel Washington says, "Everyone knows that the only true Silver Surfer is the Kirbie Silver Surfer." A true Galactica fan knows that the new Battlestar is not great writing it's a disaster. A true fan knows that the only true Battlestar Galactica is the Original Battlestar Galactica not the Moore Battlestar Galactica.

      Ronald D. Moore has absolutely no clue about what made the old series good and no clue how to make the new series Good or plausible. Speaking of which Moore is an ex Trekie writer er Twrecker and producer noted for writing for that disaster Deep Space 9 (ah hem Deep "Six" 9) and the Star Wreck Voyager where they had to bring in Seven of Nine to boost ratings. I mean who came up with the premise for Voyager and I wonder if they still work there? I wouldn't have anyone the new Star Trek series work for me in anything. Everyone knows Trek is a franchise in trouble. Its J.J Abrams to the rescue. Moore is no J.J Abrams thats for sure.

      Another example of terrible writing is where the Colonists use bullets to fight the Cylons. It's 400+ years in the future and all the Colonists have to fight the Cylons are bullets and bayonets? This is like having a jump drive and fighting with 1850s weapons I mean get real. Moore has shown technophobia and conservitism in the new series for absoluteley no reason. Sci Fi is partly about technology. In the new shows storyline and tech takes a backseat to drama. The baby storyline is stupid and if the Cylon's have a plan the show can't make sense of it. If there is one....

      Part of the reason why the Sci Fi channel canceled Stargate SG1 is due to the Ori storyline. The Ori are hokey. In my opinion there are some flaws with the Ori storyline such as who would send 4 ships to conquer a galaxy of billions of people and millions of planets? At least in Deep Space 9 (ah hem Deep "Six" 9) the Dominion sends a proper fleet of hundreds. The Ori are somewhat dramatically flimsy as well and the priors look artificial and fake on TV. The Priors look really stupid dramatically. The Ori are a sacriledge against religion. The Ori kind of trash Christianity with the Book of Origin verses the Bible and Evil Priors verses the Priest. They also trash religion by making the Doci allow Ori Deamons to possess them. Another flaw is that the Ori are too powerful an enemy and leave a vaccuum of purpose in the Milky Way and what do you do afterward as a villain after the Ori. The galaxy is also left with a void since the producers decided to get rid of the G'ould.

    27. Re:So Long and Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree with the statement that the Ori are poor villians. They are not really the issue, it is the struggle against the followers. To fight against thoughs of faith.

      As an atheist in America, this last season has shown me a world where the scientific atheists, and the hyper-religiouse (though equally advanced) have split into an all-out war. To see the manipulation of the priests to the faithful, to see the hypocrocy in the society and the corruption. It just makes good television.

      And to be frank, atheists need more shows that tell kids "Its alright you do not believe in an invisible man controlling the universe." Or that "gods" are only "gods" by those that do not understand. Being more advanced has always been confused with being a deity in humanity...

      And before someone mods me as a troll, could someone tell me WHY Wrassilin' is now on SciFi?

    28. Re:So Long and Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is not that they're fighting bad villains, but rather the amount of fighting in a TV season. The first few seasons of SG-1, there were a lot of episodes where the team just explored new planets and made contact with the civilizations who inhabited them. Ofter the unusual customs of a civilization SG-1 encountered were used as an instrument to reflect on particular aspects of our society. Those were the episodes I liked. Now, it's all fighting, all the time. If I wanted to see figting I'd tune to CNN, thank you very much. Also, the SG-1 "universe" has shrunk considerably: where are the Tok'ra, the Asgard, the Nox? What happened to the Tollan and the Aschen? Chaka and the other Unas? Will we ever know more about the Furlings? Nowadays all episodes are based on the same tiny set of species/characters: the Jaffa, the Ori, and Baal. Boring.

      Atlantis isn't that much better than SG-1 in that respect, which probably means they'll soon cancel it too.

    29. Re:So Long and Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one will never be without the show. I bought all the DVD collections up to season 8. Will pick up the other ones as they
      come available. As for seasons 9 and 10, If they fail to bring these out, I still will not miss them as I have DVD recordings of them as they came off the networks. Have commercials in them. But if one pulls the whole program file into a vid program, then those can be edited out and the results put on another DVD. All may not be lost for SG-1 either. Remember back 10 years ago and for five years running from that, SG-1 was a show on 'Showtime', the movie network. That is why there is nudity occasionally on the first series before Sci-Fi picked up the series. For those with a fixation on Amanda Tapping, she starred in a movie called 'The Turning' where you can see 'more' of her if you are that type.
      Quite possibly another network will pick up the series. Hey it is one of the most popular sci-fi series in history. If the Sci-Fi channel is stupid enough to take on a wrestling show in prime time, one wonders if a name change and total format change for the network is also in the cards for the future of the network.. This is possible! Look at the history of the 'Spike' network! That one started with promise to be a 'men's ' network. Now it is a tired ass cop show re-run network with endless re-runs of 'Law and Order' and 'CSI' and 'COPS' in prime time. The primary reason that I subscribed to TNN and continued on it after it changed its name the the rediculous sounding 'Spike' was that they had 'Star Trek' on it in prime time every night. Now they run 'Trek' only in 'soap opera' hours and run the cop crap in prime time just like the so called 'superstations' TBS and such. Yeccccchhhh! Enought already! Go figure! When 'Trek disappears from Spike, so will my subscription to it! When good sci-fi on the Sci-Fi Channel is all replaced by horror, neck suckers, and wrestling then I will drop that one as well. Hey!, I'm a Trekkie who happens to like other good sci-fi as well. Found a home on Sci-Fi. They make me not welcome, I'll leave and take my money with me!
        May just be that the money is going out of these networks and high value shows on them will all eventually get axed and replaced by low budget and 'reality' crap. Hate to see that, but there are an awful lot of networks. Its generic! Notice all the crappy movies lately?

    30. Re:So Long and Thanks by 0mni · · Score: 1

      If you stop watching the fighting/action genre of anime the problem disappears entirely. The same goes for only watching single season or dual season animes (watch out for these sometimes). Long length anime often has the problem of the whole gotta get stronger thing. After all Cowboy Bebop and Gungrave were 26 episode seasons whereas Bleach, Dragonball and Yuyu Hakusho are all long length. I would have to say that good outweighs the bad with anime, but if you like watching action genre then although I can't be sure of it, the bad outweighs the good but often only because it draws the series out and they do indeed get to much power inbalance.

    31. Re:So Long and Thanks by 0mni · · Score: 1

      My answer, watch more anime. That way you will have seen more than one genre and 10 series. (Sorry to be rude, but there is a lot of anime out there where people just plain don't become strong)

  3. nudity by brap999 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The article mentioned full frontal nudity. Does this mean that some where out on the interweb is a full frontal nude shot of Samantha Carter? :)

    1. Re:nudity by Marillion · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the pilot episode (originally on Showtime), Jackson's offworld girlfriend was naked when turned into a Go'uld.

      --
      This is a boring sig
    2. Re:nudity by kalirion · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, I thought they were talking about the Asgard (shameless bastards).

    3. Re:nudity by brap999 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I should have mentioned it was the CNN article that mentioned the forced nudity from Showtime http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/08/22/televisio n.stargate.reut/index.html

    4. Re:nudity by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh, I thought they were talking about the Asgard (shameless bastards).

      This is one thing I never understood. Why do advanced races no longer need clothing in out shows? Would that mean people in nudist camps are onto something? :D

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    5. Re:nudity by Zenaku · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, the Asgaard were originally much more human-like in appearance, and came to look as they do now because of millenia of genetic deterioration as a side-effect of the cloning process they use to maintain their numbers. My hypothesis, therefore, is that they have developed a painful hereditary skin condition that chaffes them terribly.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    6. Re:nudity by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      Why do advanced races no longer need clothing in out shows? Would that mean people in nudist camps are onto something? :D

      Well, clothing is considered an advanced sign of intelligence because animals do not wear clothes. Obviously because they are too stupid to make clothes and too primitive to feel shame and behave like beast. Humans have evolved so advancely beyond the point of growing their own clothes on their skin, and take pride in 2$ skin found in some sales.

      I think the reason really is to create your ":D" and enthousiast reaction about some female body, and learn you to sit up and buy/watch/drool/whaterver when someone waves half to full nude females in front of you. In the process objectifying otherwise quite almost equally abled human people.

      I'm not sure if a society would evolve beyond an parallel species to monkeys if everyone would be naked at all time. The proof of this is that nerd or geeks are generally the ones pushing technology, and at the very same time not getting any. Using their intellect to manipulate the world and objects rather then to manipulate or interact with the -social- environment to acquire a mating partner or to defy evolution induced boredom. As well all know, the more advanced and evolved your species, the more bored you get and the less tasks you master and are able to properly execute.

      Now, on the matter of nudism; I haven't seen anyone naked launch anything that I would call evolutionary and intelligent...

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    7. Re:nudity by dugjohnson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." - Mark Twain

      --
      My brain is overly lubricated
    8. Re:nudity by Umrick · · Score: 1

      I imagine it has something to do with overcoming prudery. Given sufficient advancement, clothing becomes simply decoration or possibly a way to hold stuff as your environment is temperature controlled. Given the Asgard are clones, personal art probably wouldn't hold much meaning, instead represented in the architecture or other shared form.

      Here in the U.S. people get all hung up on a breast being exposed, when other cultures don't see it as a big deal. But hey, blowing people up in prime time is a'ok in our book.

    9. Re:nudity by Traiklin · · Score: 1

      yes because Nudity is never a choice. Showtime those heartless bastards, forcing nudity on geeks! Didn't they know Cinemax is for nudity?

    10. Re:nudity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, given that they (the Asgard) are apparently cloned, and therefore sexual reproduction isn't the norm anymore (ever?), why bother with taboos about covering sexual organs that don't matter?

    11. Re:nudity by toad3k · · Score: 1

      For some reason the censors never go apeshit over a naked alien.

    12. Re:nudity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i did some amazing coding naked once. thought that might have been the mixed coctail of weed / adderal / nicotine / caffiene that was constantly flowing through my viens.

    13. Re:nudity by Damvan · · Score: 1

      As long as it is first or second season Samantha Carter. The more recent mid-40's Carter, not so much.

    14. Re:nudity by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Funny

      Professor Farnsworth: Pine trees have been extinct for 800 years, Fry. Gone the way of the poodle and your primitive notions of modesty. Ahhh, brisk!

    15. Re:nudity by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Would that mean people in nudist camps are onto something?
      I don't know, but I'm more than happy to investigate your interesting question in more detail.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    16. Re:nudity by Marillion · · Score: 1

      Nor Disney cartoon ducks without pants.

      --
      This is a boring sig
    17. Re:nudity by pclminion · · Score: 1

      This is one thing I never understood. Why do advanced races no longer need clothing in out shows?

      Well, with the Asgard the explanation is simple. They reproduce through cloning, and can't reproduce sexually. Thus, they have no concept of "sexuality," and therefore no body-sexuality neurotic complex which compels them to cover their nakedness. Plus, why the hell should you waste time making clothing when you live in an advanced, totally climate controlled city or spacecraft?
    18. Re:nudity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Now, on the matter of nudism; I haven't seen anyone naked launch anything that I would call evolutionary and intelligent..."

      I think you are a prude, since lots of evolutionary and intelligent things have been created/thought up/launched when naked:

      1) Intelligent humans are germinated by a process called copulation, usually done in the nude. This being slashdot, I can see how you missed this fact. Indeed, sexual germination is a very useful evolutionary trait.

      2) Archimedes launched himself in the nude from his bathwater after making a particularly insightful observation, according to a popular anecdote.

      3) There are also many who claim some of their best thinking time is done in the shower or bath. Most people I know of do not bathe cloathed.

      4) Most animals do not wear cloathes. All animals, if they exist, either are or have been evolutionary viable. Furthermore, many animals that do not cover themselves (for shame!) are considered intelligent in one way or another.

      Of course, if you mean launch as in suits claiming ownership of an idea for the first time, I would believe you.
      The image of a nudist corporate R&D press release is an amusing one nonetheless.

      Also, your statement is probably true, although highly misleading given the context, and I believe I have interpreted it in the best possible light. Taken literally, the statement is very silly, and I could easily rectify the situation by sending you a picture of myself 'sans accoutrement' tossing a copy of a certain treatise of Darwin's.

    19. Re:nudity by StrongAxe · · Score: 1

      Now, on the matter of nudism; I haven't seen anyone naked launch anything that I would call evolutionary and intelligent...

      This is probably because, in our culture, anyone who tried would first be arrested and sentt o jail on morals charges. You seem to think that clothing is such a fundamentally important concept, and yet by its very definition, clothing must have originally been invented by a nudist.

    20. Re:nudity by kalirion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Plus, why the hell should you waste time making clothing when you live in an advanced, totally climate controlled city or spacecraft?

      Pockets.

    21. Re:nudity by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      I think you failed to notice the attempted -as you prove miserably failed- humor.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    22. Re:nudity by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      The Asgards have instateleportation. What makes you think they need pockets?

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    23. Re:nudity by kalirion · · Score: 1

      So you're saying the Asgard do the equivalent off "Scotty, I need a pen, please beam me one"?

    24. Re:nudity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Children of the Gods', pilot for the series, AAMOF. And the ONLY time when they showed nudity as far as I know. A good way to get the 18-30 yr old single males to watch the show until it grew on them.

      For the life of me, I can't remember off the top of my head whether or not this was before Jeri Ryan joined Voyager or not, but it definitely helped set the trend of hot chicks in sci fi shows to bring in the basement boy set...

    25. Re:nudity by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      Apparently they can communicate across the galaxy instantaneously, so why not?

    26. Re:nudity by sco08y · · Score: 1

      My hypothesis, therefore, is that they have developed a painful hereditary skin condition that chaffes them terribly.

      And I'll bet their technology is too advanced for them to invent lotion.

    27. Re:nudity by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Indeed, but remember that "Replicator" means something completely different to the Asgard...

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    28. Re:nudity by pclminion · · Score: 1

      That would presume the Asgard need to carry around a multitude of devices with them. How PRIMITIVE. All they need is the "hockey puck thingy," and one of those is available at any nearby console.

    29. Re:nudity by mabs · · Score: 1

      The Void (2001) 'nuf said.

      --
      VK3TST
      -- "People aren't stupid. Usually." -- jd
    30. Re:nudity by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      I can't think of anything that needs to be carried in pockets, if you're living in a sufficiently advanced society.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  4. Contract costs or ??? by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if the original cast members wanted too much money, or if they simply got tired of doing the show and told the network they wouldn't do it any more. Those are the only two reasons I can think for cancelling one of your most profitable shows.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    1. Re:Contract costs or ??? by Lobo42 · · Score: 1

      Do we know that the show was profitable? The Slashdot posts only mentions that it was popular.

    2. Re:Contract costs or ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It could also be there simply isn't much more story to tell. A lot of fans will agree that there wasn't much point to the last two seasons. The main story threads were cleaned up at the end of season 8 (in an episode entitled "Threads" no less). Introducing the new Ori really took away from the series, as there wasn't much originality in how they were used. I am looking forward to seeing Morena Baccarin on Friday, but in my mind that has been the only highlight of the last two seasons (and the few good laughs I got from 200).

      In general, all good things should come to an end (especially with an episode entitled "All Good Things...") and it actually isn't that uncommon to end a series at its height.

    3. Re:Contract costs or ??? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      You haven't watched a lot of Fox shows then? ;)

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    4. Re:Contract costs or ??? by the+unbeliever · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or it could be that it pretty much jumped the shark after richard dean anderson left (although I do like ben browder, stargate is not his show) and the Ori are the stupidest villain they've come up with yet?

    5. Re:Contract costs or ??? by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      The show is produced by MGM, and they intend to try and sell it to a different channel. I think that implies that none of the actors want to leave, and that it could easily go on if another channel wants to carry it. This might be the end of the show, or it might just mean season 11 airs on a different network.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    6. Re:Contract costs or ??? by Mercano · · Score: 1

      Its safe to treat seasons nine and ten almost as a spin off from the old SG-1 that gave us seasons one through eight. I mean, at the beginning of season eight, we had two new team members, a new general and a new enemy. (Plus, finally a new doctor to replace Frasier.) The only things left over from season eight were two of the team members, both of which were trying to move on to other things and the sets. Oh, and Walter, but its not Stargate without Walter.

      --
      #include <signature.h>
    7. Re:Contract costs or ??? by Nossie · · Score: 1

      I think Babylon 5 is a good example of what you describe above.. most of the fans wanted J. Michael Straczynski to spin B5 off like they did to StarTrek but he too felt that it was better to end on a high note than to become similar to ST: Enterprise. TBH I think the SG1 team has just ran out of scripts and like you said, the Ori weren't really that spectacular.

    8. Re:Contract costs or ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the Asurans are the stupidest they have come up with!

    9. Re:Contract costs or ??? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 0

      Have you missed the significance of the Ori with the fiction the Bush Administration has been telling us? The Ori aren't that different from the Islamic Fundamentalists- except of course their Allah really exists and is willing to share *just* enough power to make sure their followers succeed in their "convert or die" theology.

      This makes the humans the United States Christians- following an apparently disinterested God (The Ancients)- fighting for the survival of that God even though that God is apparently not interested in his own survival.

      Like any good science fiction, it's mirroring "reality"- if you buy into that whole al Qaida thing to begin with anyway. If you don't- well, let's face it, the Ori are about as interesting as the Islamofascists.....as in, an enemy that we can't even get worked up enough about to curb putting $3/gallon gasoline into our SUV tanks at $100 a fillup.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    10. Re:Contract costs or ??? by Kyoushu · · Score: 0

      A Babylon 5 spinoff? Imagine that.

    11. Re:Contract costs or ??? by PygmySurfer · · Score: 1

      It makes money, just not for SciFi. The real money is in sindication, and MGM gets those dollars.

    12. Re:Contract costs or ??? by Dadoo · · Score: 1

      It could also be there simply isn't much more story to tell.

      I can't agree with this. As I mentioned in another Stargate thread, a few months ago, they should reveal the stargate to the general public. The social and political fallout would give them at least two more seasons of story.

      --
      Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
    13. Re:Contract costs or ??? by WeblionX · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Radar really made the show. Wait, which series are we talking about?

      --
      (\(\
      (=_=) Bani!
      (")")
    14. Re:Contract costs or ??? by makomk · · Score: 1

      Yes, and look how that turned out...

    15. Re:Contract costs or ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Ori and Ancients happen to be ascended beings, not gods. The humans aren't fighting for the ancients, they're fighting to keep their freedom. Also, I'd say both roles are easily applied to both the terrorists and what is essentially christian crusading/theocracy. They are deep enemies if you have the attention and background, I personally think they're better enemies than the Goa'uld (snakes in human heads) were, they actually have mystery on their side.

    16. Re:Contract costs or ??? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Being that our real world theocracies are monotheistic, there obviously wouldn't be a 1:1 ratio....Hmm- thought you do bring up some good points.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    17. Re:Contract costs or ??? by the+unbeliever · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I prefer my SciFi without the socio-political allegory.

    18. Re:Contract costs or ??? by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      Neither. The network cancelled their airing of the show. It wasn't the choice of the SG-1 team.

      See here for more info: http://www.gateworld.net/news/2006/08/cooper_isg-1 i_will_go_on.shtml

    19. Re:Contract costs or ??? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      At which point, it becomes little more than fantasy- unless it follows the One Big Lie rule (the difference between hard science fiction and soft science fiction: Hard Science fiction is only allowed to tell One Big Lie, and the rest of the story must stick to the realm of physical law as we know it at the time the story was written. Soft Science fiction may have many lies, but must explore some aspect of human interaction even if the entire cast is a bunch of aliens on a different planet- which means getting into socio-political or religious realms- SG1 is so successfull because it did and does both. Fantasy can tell as many lies as it likes and have no basis in reality whatsoever.)

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    20. Re:Contract costs or ??? by naoursla · · Score: 1

      The story they need to tell is the Stargate program becoming public knowledge to Earth. Then they can turn it into Star Trek as Earth attempts to expand and build alliances in space.

  5. Better to burn out or fade away? by Digitus1337 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm a long time SG-1 fan, but I've had my fingres crossed that they'd end the show for the past few seasons now, ever since Don Davis (General Hammond) left and they started up atlantis. Recent episodes haven't been up to par, and have weakened the canon of the series overall. We all love Firefly, as it was short and sweet. Six or seven seasons of SG-1 were gold, but it is time to hang up the hat.

    1. Re:Better to burn out or fade away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are completely wrong.

      The reason the show was cancelled was simply that Ben Browder was cast in it.

      Honestly he's a good actor, but he has the touch of death that follows him with the sci-fi channel.

    2. Re:Better to burn out or fade away? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Arrgh!!! Now what am I to do on Friday nights?!?!?!?!?

      Season 8 was a great series ending season. I agree that when Don Davis left, followed more recently by Richard Dean Anderson, that the show lost something. Occassional episodes are still quite funny: episode 200 made me laugh out loud, but it was a horrible episode as far as the series went. Claudia Black was a welcome addition with a great dynamic, and would have helped make the show even better if she'd been in it earlier. Beau Bridges? Just doesn't have the "right" feel, Don Davis was so much better.

      Ep 200 made lots of funny comments about the series changes of personnel, it was hilarious from that perspective.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    3. Re:Better to burn out or fade away? by dubbayu_d_40 · · Score: 1
      Here's a bit of trivia, they already aired the series finale. More here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moebius_(Stargate_SG- 1)

      I think O'Neill referred to Moebius as the finale in #200.

    4. Re:Better to burn out or fade away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't agree more, I stopped watching about 2 years ago. It seems they split one good show in to two mediocre ones.

      Captain Garag

    5. Re:Better to burn out or fade away? by Fishstick · · Score: 1
      Arrgh!!! Now what am I to do on Friday nights?!?!?!?!?


      new episodes this fall
      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    6. Re:Better to burn out or fade away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arrgh!!! Now what am I to do on Friday nights?!?!?!?!?

      It's just a TV show.

      Have you ever kissed a girl?

      Get a life!

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=Eu7TJIQ1krA

    7. Re:Better to burn out or fade away? by rogerborn · · Score: 1

      "Arrgh!!! Now what am I to do on Friday nights?!?!?!?!?"

      How about NCIS on CBS Friday nights.

      Excellent series.

      Regards,
      Roger Born
      "Time Flies like an arrow. Fruit Flies like a banana"

    8. Re:Better to burn out or fade away? by crazyjimmy · · Score: 1

      Um... no. We loved firefly because it was awesome. The "short" part is not what made the show good.

    9. Re:Better to burn out or fade away? by PygmySurfer · · Score: 1

      So Ben Browder is the Ted McGinley of Sci-Fi?

    10. Re:Better to burn out or fade away? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      That wooosh is the jet carrying your clue flying 1" above your head.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    11. Re:Better to burn out or fade away? by Sabalon · · Score: 1

      Damn...I didn't know they moved NCIS. But I agree - it is an excellant series. Caught it once quite by accident and have been hooked since.

      Of course, in October, SciFI will be airing series 2 of Doctor Who on Fridays. Another good choice. Ah...multiple tuner DVR's :)

    12. Re:Better to burn out or fade away? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefly is a great little show with a very nice focus on its episodes that supported the over all goal of the larger story; something SG-1 use to do a great job with itself though currently the ark in SG-1 seems a little big so its unclear what the goal of this ark is currently. Hence making it hard to judge as well as determining where it is going. This mean that each episode is judged on it own, until the ark has been completed or until the masses have understood where the ark is heading. Personally, I think its more then just betting the Ori. Which leaves people judging on the story itself and not on the over all ark. The story itself might appear poor at first but it could be adding to the over all ark hence making it hard to understand until the meaning of the ark has made itself clear. This leaves people to judge the show not on it over all setting but on how well they understand the ark as well as how well they like the episode and their belief as to how important that episode is.

      As for Scifi buying Firefly, I currently do not think it is a good idea now. If you think about it, Firefly had a story ark and it has completed it. The Firefly Universe does not seem setup to support a long running series. However, it could be modified to do so and I think that is what people are complaining about. The problem, I see, is that the creative force behind it is unsure of how to do this now, could be a lack of experience to draw on or something else. Hence, everyone might be waiting to hear from the person(s) that originally created the show and made it into something everyone liked, to help move the Firefly Universe into a more successful running series. Just a thought.

  6. Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Poor Ben Browder. Screwed by Sci-Fi again!

    At least MGM is planning on continuing the series, somewhere else.

    I guess Sci-Fi needs more space for shitty B monster movies, fantasty crap and "wrasslin'"...

    1. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by imsabbel · · Score: 1, Troll

      Sorry, but stargate should have been canceled YEARS ago, while there was still something left besides stupid rehashes and lack of ideas.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guess Sci-Fi needs more space for shitty B monster movies, fantasty crap and "wrasslin'"...

      Explain that one to me please? They cancel things like Farscape and SG-1 but put the ECW on there??

      We should probably start calling it the B-Channel. B for Bad.

      Oh well. If they keep canceling shows I'll be able to lower my DirecTV bill by going to the basic package that doesn't have them on it. If one of their shows turns out to be good enough to escape their massive suckage it'll show up on some other channel or DVDs.

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    3. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I have to say is "Battlestar Gallactica". Sci-Fi could be preparing yet another great series, far better than Stargate SG-1. Even if they aren't, they're showing Doctor Who, which is again far better than SG-1.

      SG-1 sucked. The science in it is laughable (we're talking ignoring grade-school thermodynamics principles), the characters are static and one-dimensional, and the acting sucks, even in the face of actors with talent.

      Hopefully we'll get another new series like Battlestar Gallactica.

    4. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      Ugh. ECW. I gotta believe they put that on there because it was cheap.

      But otherwise, I dunno - SG-1 had a ten year run. I was annoyed when they canceled Farscape, and god only knows that other shows haven't gotten a fair shake there (G vs E, anyone?), but I think now's a good time for SG-1 to take its curtain call.

      And remember, for every ECW, or Who Wants to be a Superhero (which I'm told is actually not bad), there's a Eureka.

      Well, okay. For every five such shows, there's a Eureka.

      Damn.

    5. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      All I have to say is "Battlestar Gallactica". Sci-Fi could be preparing yet another great series, far better than Stargate SG-1. Even if they aren't, they're showing Doctor Who, which is again far better than SG-1.

      Yes but BSG is available through the website or iTunes with only a day delay. And Dr. Who is available on DVDs. (Though I wish they'd start putting the entire Dr. Who series on DVDs. *grumble*)

      So, really, SciFi Channel is going in a direction that will put it out of business. At least in my opinion that is.

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    6. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 1

      G vs. E, was not an Sci-Fi original. It was just aired there after it had already been canceled on USA Network.

    7. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      Ugh. ECW. I gotta believe they put that on there because it was cheap.

      Selling your soul because it's cheap is no excuse. If they want to have good happy viewers they need to put out what they want to see. I can't honestly believe anybody asked for ECW.

      But otherwise, I dunno - SG-1 had a ten year run. I was annoyed when they canceled Farscape, and god only knows that other shows haven't gotten a fair shake there (G vs E, anyone?), but I think now's a good time for SG-1 to take its curtain call.

      I can see the curtain call because of the actors but not much else. The fanbase is still quite strong and vocal and watch this stuff almost religiously. Despite jokes..."Stargate is Farscape with 50% less muppets!" ;-)

      And remember, for every ECW, or Who Wants to be a Superhero (which I'm told is actually not bad), there's a Eureka.

      While I admire Stan Lee for sticking around and being active WWTBAS is some of the worst crap I've ever seen. If we wanted a "reality" show we'd watch Reality TV NOT SciFi!

      As for Eureka? I love it but not to the extent that I'd pay extra $$$ per month to see it.

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    8. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      ECW is the highest-rated show on Sci-fi. It's also the highest rated show on ad-supported cable that airs on tuesday primetime. ECW is making money for sci-fi. Hopefully, they will use that money to bankroll more good science fiction shows.

    9. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Tekzel · · Score: 1

      Uh, what is G vs E?

      As for Who wants to be a superhero.... I had no intention of watching that crap, but then I did anyway out of curiosity. I enjoy it, but not for the reasons they intended I am sure. Its cheezy and corny and I swear either some of those folks are damn good actors or they really take that crap seriously, either way it is actually pretty hilarious.

      Eureka is a good show so far, it has potential. I am enjoying it.

      Last and most definitely least. Wrasslin' on SCI-FI. Who the hell would have THUNK it? I mean, really, how many sci-fi channel regulars want to watch it? I could see them putting it on the boot wearing shit kicking fishin channel, but sci-fi? Isn't only the backwoods redneck hillbillies that watch that garbage? I was stunned when I first saw that they were putting that trash on sci-fi. Horrible, ridiculous, AWFUL made for TV originals I can forgive, but WRASSLIN? My god, the person responsible really and truly needs to be hung.

    10. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by F_Scentura · · Score: 1

      "I guess Sci-Fi needs more space for shitty B monster movies, fantasty crap and "wrasslin'"..."

      Are they still playing "Crossing Over" reruns? I can deal with all of their horrid made for TV movies, but regardless of the implied "fiction" aspect that show put me off.

    11. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >wish they'd start putting the entire Dr. Who series on DVDs
      You can get the lot in the UK - why not import the DVDs, assuming your player can handle multiregion/PAL.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    12. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ECW is the highest-rated show on Sci-fi. It's also the highest rated show on ad-supported cable that airs on tuesday primetime. ECW is making money for sci-fi. Hopefully, they will use that money to bankroll more good science fiction shows.

      Then in my opinion:

      1) They've attracted the wrong audience.

      2) They've decided that they can't attract the right audience - or they don't know how.

      3) They have become even more suit infested and this is the beginning of the vampyric draining of the SciFi network.


      If it's the first then they need to do more research. They should be researching Science Fiction/Fantasy conventions and Renaissance Faires not just Nielsen ratings. They may be doing that - I don't know. But if this first point is true then they are not doing it right.

      The second point goes right along with the first. From what I've seen of the programming on SciFi I suspect there are only a few at that channel that truly understand what Science Fiction/Fantasy is all about. (And before you flame me for including Fantasy at least that's within the realm of possibility for this channel unlike ECW or WWTBAS.)

      My greatest fear though is it's the last one. SciFi Channel has made enough money to attract the hungry vampires from other corporate cultures and is going to go down the drain very shortly leaving only a husk of its former self.

      Lastly - you mentioned budget and that ECW was making money for them that they could use to fund other good SciFi shows. Look back at some of the truly popular SciFi stuff from the past. Look at what kinds of budgets they had. I'm sure you can think of at least a half-dozen good shows that had little or no budget but were fantastic! That tells me that good SciFi doesn't need a lot of money but rather someone to care about the genre and to have good writers and good actors. Often some of the best of those don't cost a lot. If SciFi Channel can afford ECW it can afford to make new series.

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    13. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Explain that one to me please? They cancel things like Farscape and SG-1 but put the ECW on there??

      Easy. The fan base for SG-1 wraps their DVRs in tin foil or downloads commercials-free episodes by torrent so from the network's perspective, the audience profile is very slim. Why continue to pay for a show no one's watching?

    14. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      I was unaware of this. Even having to pay for a multiregion player or hack mine that's still a good deal.

      I take it these ore not on something like Amazon.uk?

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    15. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Rydia · · Score: 1

      Amazon should carry them. There's a shop with an online front called galaxy4.co.uk (nice reference) that may have them available- it's a very well-run shop.

    16. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by ZMerLynn · · Score: 1

      If you're talking about classic Dr. Who, they're very, very expensive to buy, because they're only released in a few episode packs. I wouldn't call this "putting it on DVD" - I think it averaged around $5/episode or so the last time I looked at it.

      Also, part of the original was lost to a fire. A little more excusable than the tapes of the Apollo moon landing getting lost, but still a loss.

    17. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by MustardMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's funny you should mention the audience thing. I just saw a TV ad for dragoncon last night, and they mentioned one of the attractions of the event being professional wrestling. That struck me as kind of odd, but I guess sci-fi and wrasslin' both somewhat cater to young adult demographics, so maybe it's not that crazy after all.

    18. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Fred+Or+Alive · · Score: 1

      He's wrong, the UK is just ahead of the North American releases (apart from The Key to Time set, that's only out in NA). The UK release rate has just been increased from 6 to 10 releases a year though, so it should take less than a decade to finish the set now.

      The releases do have better extras than most TV series of course (even the new "vanilla" releases that make up the 4 extra releases still have full commentaries and the production text subtitles), but the release rate can be annoying.

      (For those who don't know / care, the Doctor Who releases are of induvidual serials (usually 4-6 episodes), rather than entire seasons, with a few boxsets of linked stories. They're also released in a pattern designed to give a mix of Doctors, rather than sequentially. I guess it was chosen partly becuase Doctor Who releases started before box sets became really common, and also that it was a pattern that worked with the VHS releases.)

      --
      10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
      20 GOTO 10
    19. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Isn't only the backwoods redneck hillbillies that watch that garbage? I was stunned when I first saw that they were putting that trash on sci-fi. Horrible, ridiculous, AWFUL made for TV originals I can forgive, but WRASSLIN? My god, the person responsible really and truly needs to be hung.

      No, its not. A lot of geeks I know like wrestling as well as sci-fi. I want to see Raw in Philly once; the crowd is certainly not what you expect.

    20. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Fred+Or+Alive · · Score: 1

      The BBC lost / wiped their coverage of Apollo 11 as well. :-)

      I don't think Doctor Who was burnt (not that often anyway), the videotapes would've been wiped with a powerful magnet then reused, and the film recordings / kinescopes made for export were unspooled and dumped in landfill. Doctor Who is far better represented than a lot of 1960s British TV though (some ITV companies were also quite wipe-happy as well).

      --
      10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
      20 GOTO 10
    21. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by commanderrobot · · Score: 2, Funny

      what? saturday was totally awesome as they showed python, python 2, boa, boa vs. python, king cobra, et al. starring your favorite actors casper van dien, dean cain, and pat morita.

      i prefer the crazy meteorological movies over the mutant overly large animal ones

      although i would like to see a crossover called dinosaur blizzard or something

    22. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Clinton · · Score: 0

      Poor Ben Browder. Screwed by Sci-Fi again!
      It is a shame for him. In the "inside the show" just before 200, he said how glad he was just to be working.

      Oh well, here's to ten great years *raises beer*

      --
      Half the time I'm right, the other half you're wrong.
    23. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Bytal · · Score: 1

      I don't have a link to the article now, but there was an interview with the head of Sci-Fi Channel in a business mag regarding those B-plot movies. The gist was that this was a major business innovation for Sci-Fi Channel. It was getting a much larger audience and making a lot more advertising money by rolling out huge numbers of "ridiculous-monster-of-the-week" movies then it was showing smaller numbers of more expensive movies and shows. So they know exactly how bad those movies are and it is in fact a part of the strategy.

      I think the article also compared to these movies a similar movement in video games with titles like Bloodrayne.

    24. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by montyzooooma · · Score: 2, Funny

      US Wrestling has always been about the story lines so why not SF Wrestling - Klingons vs Borgs and such. Or I could actually see a role for a wrasslin-themed half hour SF show with a bit of preamble to build the story and a ten minute fight at the end every week. I kinda miss Cleopatra 2525.

    25. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Sci-Fi Channel became the 'B Channel' (as in BAD), when I flipped to it and WRESTLING WAS SHOWING!!!!

      F'ING WRESTLING WAS ON THE SCI-FI CHANNEL!!!!!!!!!!!

      I can think of a 1000 other shows I'd prefer to be watching, but they're showing wrestling.

      There are roughly 20 TV channels I check when I check the tube. THATS IT. The other 40+ channels I get can get wiped off the planet for all I care. I don't know what the hell the Cable companies or TV people think they are doing, but pissing people off seems to be the norm these days. WRESTLING ON THE SCI-FI CHANNEL IS A PRIME EXAMPLE!!!! Unfortunately, its what pays there bills I guess.

      The only things I pvr these days on myth, are older series which I fear won't get rerunned or released on DVD, or new series which might not last another season (Blade the Series). Yes, I watch it.... Its at least mildy entertaining if not for scantily clad female vamps, and occassional action sequences. Oh yea, and there actually is a plot in it...

      I have yet to write of TV, but the media outlets now becoming mainstream on the web are looking more appealing.

    26. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1
      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    27. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by ericdano · · Score: 1

      WTF. ECW. Wrestling. It's a profit move by SciFi. People should see that SciFi doesn't care about SciFi, but about money. That is why they have ECW and decided to can Stargate.

      Thank God there is still Smallville, and Battlestar.

      --
      It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
      I moderate therefore I rule!
      --
    28. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by ericdano · · Score: 1

      Nope. SciFi is going to morph into SpikeTV 2.

      SciFi really sucks now. It's no better than AMC. They air old stuff.

      Sad that wrestling has displaced a show that actually has a plot (sometimes good) and good acting.

      --
      It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
      I moderate therefore I rule!
      --
    29. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then you never understood what stargate was. It was always stupid rehashes, but done with enough intelligence and wit that it made fun of the stupid rehashes. You can't run a sci-fi series for 200 episodes without doing stupid rehashes, so you'd better not take yourself too seriously and paint yourself into a corner you can't get out of. One of my favorite lines was when Sam says, "You know what their weakness turned out to be? Water. I mean, if that's true, why go to all the trouble to invade a planet that's two-thirds water?" C'mon, we were all thinking it...

      At any rate, they've faired far better than the Simpsons, which didn't even have the good sense to step aside when it spawned a truely great comedy.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    30. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      No better than AMC. AMC has gone so far down hill it isn't funny. Sorry but movies from the 80s don't qualify as American Movie Classics IMHO.
      Turner Classic Movies is much better.
      They air old stuff isn't a bad thing. What people forget is the 90% rule. 90% of everything is crap. That stuff that survives 30 or so years is the 10% of stuff that isn't crap.
      If you want to see a great computer movie I suggest Deskset.
      Other movies that are old stuff that are well worth watching are.
      12 angry men.
      Gentlemen's Agreement.
      Judgement at Nuremberg.
      Best Years of our Lives.

      I can go on but start with these five movies and you might be surprised how good old stuff can be.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    31. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, ECW is making serious BANK for Sci-Fi. The sad truth of it is that there appears to be a larger audience for wrestling than decent science-fiction shows. Why stop there, Sci-Fi?

      Let's bring in some NASCAR races and some fishing shows!!! Yeeeeeha! Bush for a third term!!!

    32. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      US Wrestling has always been about the story lines so why not SF Wrestling - Klingons vs Borgs and such.

      Now that I might buy as being SciFi Channel material but not the ECW.

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    33. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by bigbigbison · · Score: 3, Informative

      ECW was forced on SciFi by NBC who now owns SciFI (ok technically NBC-Universal) WWE (who owns ECW) is on NBC owned USA network and when WWE wanted to bring back ECW NBC wanted to air it and shoved it on SciFi. Neither wrestling fans or SciFi fans can understand the logic of that.

      --
      http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
    34. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah. those are all old snake movies. I don't wanna see even a single snake-movie not involving motherf'ing planes any more.

    35. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Sci-Fi channel lost my respect when they were airing the "Crossing Over" fake psychic show. From this link, http://www.scifi.com/johnedward/aboutjohn/ it looks like they are still airing it.

    36. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by intangible · · Score: 1

      12 Angry Men, such an excellent movie.

    37. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Somewhere in the back of my head (in the most ridiculous part) I am hoping they are cancelling it to ressurect Firefly, like they did with SG1 to begin with. I know this isn't true, and will never happen, but what is life but useless hope.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    38. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      Somewhere in the back of my head (in the most ridiculous part) I am hoping they are cancelling it to ressurect Firefly, like they did with SG1 to begin with. I know this isn't true, and will never happen, but what is life but useless hope.

      This would make me very very happy in my brown coat. ;-)

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    39. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get out of the house more.

      1) They've attracted the wrong audience.

      2) They've decided that they can't attract the right audience - or they don't know how.

      3) They have become even more suit infested and this is the beginning of the vampyric draining of the SciFi network.


      1. The overlap between the demographics is a lot better than you think. Think Spike TV. The 'network for men' was playing as much Star Trek as dedicated SF networks. That is not the 'wrong' audience. There is no 'wrong' audience, that's just your exclusionary elitism speaking.

      "OMG teh wrasslin is for inbred rednecks, I'm so much better than that!"

      2. They know who they are after, and it's NOT the dedicated SF fans that post on Fwapdash. Here's a hint: Numbers on the internets don't translate well into reality. Think Firefly. There was a seemingly *giant* online movement to keep Firefly alive. This *giant* online movement ended up translating into a poor box office run.

      So they appeal to the broader market. This is a bad idea, somehow? I think not. The overlap is very obvious to me, all my wrasslin friends watch some form of SF, whereas my SF friends may or may not watch wrasslin. Tell me what the smart business choice is at that point.

      3. Vampyric suits, huh? Careful, that silk tie has been possessed by Vlad the Impaler and is just waiting to drink your blood when you least expect it....

      *rolls eyes*

      Seriously though, a smart business decision that will keep the SciFi network funded and watched is THAT BAD? Or are you just freaking out because you hate 'teh wrasslin'? Get over yourself, people like things that you don't.

    40. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by kfg · · Score: 1

      If they want to have good happy viewers they need to put out what they want to see.

      Sad as it may be, I believe that was the driving motivation.

      KFG

    41. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Try Gentlemen's Agreement. I think it is every bit as good as 12 Angry Men.
      Oh I left out Inherit the Wind.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    42. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1
      The science in it is laughable (we're talking ignoring grade-school thermodynamics principles)
      The Cylons infected computer networks by the very fact that the network cable exists. And Doctor Who? Name me one thing in Stargate as silly as the TARDIS being bigger on the inside. Don't get me wrong, I like those two shows, but to say they have better science than Stargate is laughable.
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    43. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      The TARDIS being bigger on the inside actually makes quite a bit of sense- it's hard Sci-Fi and part of the One Big Lie. The OBL in Dr. Who is that a race of TimeLords exist who are experts in multi-dimensional physics. If you're an expert in multidimensional physics, you're going to build your time machine to be small on the outside and big on the inside- because it makes the best use of materials in all dimensions.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    44. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Tekzel · · Score: 1
      No, its not. A lot of geeks I know like wrestling as well as sci-fi. I want to see Raw in Philly once; the crowd is certainly not what you expect.


      You actually admit in public that you watch wrasslin? About the only thing worse is watching those stupid ass reality shows (which, are anything BUT of course) where they swap wives or something. Only wife swap I want to see is a porn. That would be fun. ish.
    45. Re:Sci-Fi Does Dumb Again by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Did you ever go to the ECW arena in S. Philly back in the day?

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
  7. Well it figures by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They add more the show, bring in three new exceptional talents (Ben, Beau and Claudia), and I finally get my wife to enjoy SciFi so it is something we can watch together, and they cancel the show.

    I had thought the last year.5 had introduced some new blood and ideas into the show, after I quit watching it in Season 7. Surely I can't be the only one who thinks the show had taken a turn for the better, fresher, while still being true to the original concept.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    1. Re:Well it figures by Tx · · Score: 1

      I have to agree, I had also quit watching it around season 6, and started up again in season 9, which I thought had a different tone to earlier stuff, but was possibly the most entertaining season yet. Haven't seen season 10 yet. It hasn't broadcast in the UK yet, and I've resisted downloading it ... so far ;), but I hear good things.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    2. Re:Well it figures by BobSutan · · Score: 1

      I'm right there with you. Finally a show my wife and I can both look forward to watching on Friday nights until BSG comes back.

      I've really enjoyed the last 2 seasons, especially with Browder and the new blood they've brought in. In fact I'd dare say its more realistic in the military sense than it was in previous years. There's an added level of sincerity it seems in the portrayal of the Air Force that I really like (almost 10 years in myself).

      Anyway, I really hope they reconsider or another channel picks up the show. A few more seasons would be great!

      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    3. Re:Well it figures by TychoCelchuuu · · Score: 1

      Try Firefly. My parents and my brother liked it, and they don't really go for SciFi.

      --
      Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
    4. Re:Well it figures by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      She loves Firefly. Can't wait for season 2...oh wait.... ;)

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  8. How disappointing by KingFeanor · · Score: 1

    This has been one of my favorite shows for years. I had hoped for a couple more seasons, but all good things must come to an end. It is good that they are keeping Atlantis going.

    1. Re:How disappointing by Lord+Padishar · · Score: 1

      Yes, i agree. I really enjoyed the show. Episodes I don't care for I don't watch. My favorite episodes were where the actors just relaxed and played "themselves". For all the slashdotter's out there who despise this show did it ever occur to them that there's other channels on the TV? I don't like Oprah but i don't get on a forum and whine about how much it sucks....i change the TV channel. SG-1 is one of my favorite shows...not because they respect the fundamental laws of physics (which no movie out there does anyways) but because of how well the actors get along. Besides, one day Capt. Carter may show up naked....it could happen. As an engineer, i think it's funny that they cast a woman to be one (which is very rare in my line of work). even more rare is a woman engineer in the military and she's HOT! What a great idea on the producers part in casting. I'll be sad to see SG-1 go but i'm still giving atlantis a shot before I stop watching that. It took me several years of SG-1 before i really got to like it. ~LP

    2. Re:How disappointing by Rydia · · Score: 1

      So your theory is that people should simply not talk about things they don't like? Could you imagine the conversation?

      Guy A: "Man, Thing was great yesterday."
      Guy B: "It was totally NOT great, it was THE BEST THING EVER."
      Guy A: "I dunno, man, it was very good, but I'm not sure it quite reaches that level of awesomeness."

      Can you imagine if that idea was applied to, say, real, important conversations? Part of the value of a forum is to have your ideas and values questioned.

    3. Re:How disappointing by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      McKay's hallucination in "Grace Under Pressure". "Was I naked?" "Partially."

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  9. It's kind of strange... by TrickFred · · Score: 1

    It's kind of strange how last week, I had thought that season ten had been going a bit down hill, but now after watching '200' yesterday, and reading the headline this morning, I want nothing more than to have the show go on another ten years...

    1. Re:It's kind of strange... by technothrasher · · Score: 1

      but now after watching '200' yesterday, and reading the headline this morning, I want nothing more than to have the show go on another ten years...

      Am I the only one that found '200' extremely annoying? I know they thought they were being all terribly clever and funny, but I don't give a crap about their in jokes and TV production self-parody. I kept checking my watch and thinking, can we just get back to the story please? I tune in to watch my Sci Fi show, not some smug cast party.

    2. Re:It's kind of strange... by Babbster · · Score: 1

      You can't service all the fans all the time... :)

    3. Re:It's kind of strange... by ClosedSource · · Score: 0

      I agree with you. What a waste of RDA. I'd rather see him come in and kick some ORI butt.

  10. Holy Hell by RawGutts · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Holy Crap, now what am I going to do? Go outside and enjoy the sunshine?

    1. Re:Holy Hell by 'nother+poster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Let's not go overboard here. Baby steps, dude. Baby steps.

    2. Re:Holy Hell by tscheez · · Score: 2, Funny

      it's on at 9pm, what sunshine?

      --
      Supplies!
    3. Re:Holy Hell by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      Flamebait? He was obviously joking! For that matter, Insightful? :-)

      Come on people, I feel the same way. I'm a sci-fi/computer geek. I've spent inordinate amounts of time indoors.
      I'm also a father now so I don't nearly as much as my teens/twenties but haven't we all had one period in our life
      where we looked up, bleary eyed , from the screen (computer or TV) and said to ourselves: Maybe I should go outside...
      nah, one more game (or show)!

      Anywho, I thought it was funny. :-)

      Back on topic, I will miss SG-1. I've been a fan since the second or third season and DVR as many of the reruns as I
      can. Heck, having watched the series for years before I finally saw it, I even liked the movie. And, as has been pointed
      out in other posts, the 200th episode was gold. A perfect blend of sci-fi and humor.

      I don't enjoy Atlantis as much but it's OK and I'll take the small consolation I get from knowing that it will continue
      for a while.

      Long live Richard Dean Anderson!

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  11. It was time. by Angostura · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Great series, but clearly showing its age and suffering from 'we need to keep inventing more überenemies' syndrome. I shall look forward to seeing how they bow out. Personally, I think it is about time that they found an enemy capable of destroying the earth which actually does it. Might not please some fans, but would make great television.

    1. Re:It was time. by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

      It would make for a nice spin off for Atalantis as well if the human race on Earth where wiped out.

    2. Re:It was time. by mlk · · Score: 1

      They did not need new überenemies. They had a galaxy in disarray, and large criminal organization to play with.

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    3. Re:It was time. by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      I guess the writers were mirroring the US Government. See also the whole ``bringing democracy to the new Jaffa nation'' storyline, the Department of Homeworld Security, and keeping the other nations out of the loop. (But then again, why would the Russians want to send teams to other planets? The people there speak ENGLISH, for cryin' out loud!)

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    4. Re:It was time. by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Might not please some fans, but would make great television.

      Not necessarily. "Bad guys win, good guys all die" is a pretty gay way to go out, a la Blake's 7.

    5. Re:It was time. by DarkMantle · · Score: 1

      "...enemy capable of destroying the earth..."

      You mean they're going to encounter the vogons?

      But still, Save Sg-1

      --
      DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
    6. Re:It was time. by Ifni · · Score: 1

      an enemy capable of destroying the earth which actually does it
      Been done. See "Battlestar Galactica".

      --

      Oh, was that my outside voice?

    7. Re:It was time. by nytes · · Score: 1

      Noooo, not the Earth! That's where I keep all my stuff!

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    8. Re:It was time. by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Honestly I don't think that they can "destroy the earth" as the ending. The whole idea of the show is that it's based on the present time. They are (or at least were) using conventional weapons and very limited knowledge of a very advanced technology to fight a far superior and advanced enemy (in the Goa'uld). We developed skills over the last 10 years to finally conquer them. If the Ori come in and blow up the world...well, it doesn't fit in with the idea that it's a "real" current day operation. It's kind of hard to blow up the world but yet keep it's inhabitants around to watch the episode.

  12. GAH! by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ah well. I suppose this is a blessing in disguise though as it means:

    1) We'll get to see the Ori beaten (hopefully, according to gateworld.net the last few episodes aren't set in stone yet).

    2) At the end of Episode 200 Martin Lloyd announces to the 10-season cast of Wormhole X-treme that "the movie's back on!". I like to think this extends back to that Stargate SG-1 movie, but I guess we'll have to wait and see. Now that the series is over there's more hope for it, at least according to gateworld...

    I wonder how long the SG-1 writers/producers etc knew the 10th season would be the last. Episode 200 makes a BIT more sense if you realize "hey, they knew they would never have another chance to pull stuff like this again".

    1. Re:GAH! by Ignignot · · Score: 1

      Yeah I wondered about that as well. Where can I look to keep up to date with the possibility of an SG1 movie?

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    2. Re:GAH! by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      I thought the exact same thing about the Martin Lloyd comment. I'm sure the SG-1 team hopes they can get some feature film action. They've done some amazing things on a TV series budget, and it makes you wonder what their special effects wizards could do with ten times that much money.

      One problem is that they'd almost certainly have to bring in a new enemy for a movie, and SG-1 pretty much exhausted the limits of what they can fight when they introduced the Ori.

    3. Re:GAH! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The Ori vs the Wraith could happen, or SG-1 ascends on their own with Daniel's help and battle the Ori? (After all, if he does it on his own, he won't be subject to the ancient's rules....)

      Personally, I'll bet more on the Ancients come to their senses and actively remove Ori influences in "our" galaxy, but Atlantis in Pegasus won't have that luxury, and they'll show up there (the Ori haven't visited there either, evidently, which puts a whole lie to the Ancients protecting earth's galaxy, but that's another story.) So, they get to continue a really nice storyline with the Ori since the Supergate has been disabled, removing earth and earth's galaxy from the equation.

      And where are those rascally genetic expert Asgard who couldn't help against the Prior plagues? 10,000 years of genetics mastery should have made it easy for them to defeat that issue. Seems some storyline consistency has been dropped when they introduced the Ori. (Their absence earlier was explained due to their battle with the Replicators, but they were completely defeated at the end of the 8th season, or so we're supposed to think)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re:GAH! by bigpat · · Score: 1

      I for one would like to see them bring back the President to give his "big speech" as he was about to do before Anubis took out the communication networks. And it won't really effect the Atlantis series, because they are off in a different Galaxy.

      I think the show has had this thing hanging over it, where it was believable to keep the program secret if it was a small group doing some exploration and undermining the rest of the galaxies evil governments with covert actions, but once the US starts building huge space ships and getting attacked from time to time by fleets of motherships... the only honorable thing to do is to let people know what is out there and get ready.

      It seems that the threats would have long ago, especially now with the ori, justified a massive mobilization of people and resources to build ships and to prepare defenses.

      Imagine our government facing the threat of such proportions and not mobilizing? Sure it is a big change from how SG-1 began, but you can still focus on the team and the sense of mission while you just change the backdrop of the story.

    5. Re:GAH! by Jerf · · Score: 1

      the Ori haven't visited there either, evidently, which puts a whole lie to the Ancients protecting earth's galaxy, but that's another story

      There are a number of inconsistencies in the whole Ancient/Ori storyline, and I still wonder which, if any, are deliberate, which are oversights, and which are the effect of writing-by-committee.

      Most interesting to me is the claims by the Ori that they do Ascend their followers and it is the Ancients lying about what they are doing. If you think about it, we really have no objective way to judge the truth of either claim. We may prefer the way the Ancients let us live to the Ori's strict rules, but on the other hand, if the Ori really do Ascend their followers whereas the Ancients just let us go die and poof into oblivion, it may be worth living under the Ori.

      There is also the entire issue of the Ancient's non-interference policies, which I am very glad to see the show take on directly. Every since Season One, all the advanced races of the galaxy have been advocated pacifism, a policy that if actually followed by the humans of Earth would have resulted in their death. I couldn't help but notice the only races advocating pacifism were the races with big enough guns to take anything on. If the show is going to go out, I'm glad they're taking one of these pacifistic races (the biggest of them all, in fact), and throwing a threat they can't just "handle" at them to see what happens. We have limited evidence that at least some of the Ancients are reconsidering their position, but not enough yet.

      (Other peoples have faced reckoning for this policy; the Tollan were, as far as we know, wiped out after being overconfident in the Big Guns = Pacifism policy.)

      The thought has crossed my mind that if I were in the position of SG-1, and I got ahold of that weapon to wipe out Ascended beings, that the rational thing to do may be to wipe out both the Ancients and the Ori and start fresh. Odds are good that with the possession of Atlantis and the other things left behind by the Ancients we could work out Ascension on our own in a short period of time. (For instance, you could raid the time-bubble in the Pegasus galaxy for whatever they left behind there; without Ancients guarding it all you have to do is go in there and turn off the machine creating the bubble.)

      Anyway, the upshot of all of this is that the Stargate universe has basically tapped itself out; they've shot to the top of the villian scale with the Ori and while I'd actually be ecstatic to watch a show that returned to the first-season roots of exploration, it seems impossible for a sci-fi series that has picked up a Cause to return to that. (Star Trek failed, even after Voyager handed them the setup to return on a silver platter, and Captain Picard even commented in one of the movies, "Does anybody remember when we were explorers?")

    6. Re:GAH! by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

      Part of me hopes that we're left hanging, with no resolution on the Ori. This gives competing networks a pretty good reason to pick up SG-1 after SciFi drops them. If you wrap everything up neatly, it's almost like you're starting a new spin-off series, since you need new villains, etc.

    7. Re:GAH! by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      Alright, did anyone else think that the 200th episode TOTALLY sucked ass? Stuuuuupid to the X-treame. Damn near unwatchable. WTF were they thinking????

    8. Re:GAH! by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1
      but Atlantis in Pegasus won't have that luxury, and they'll show up there (the Ori haven't visited there either, evidently, which puts a whole lie to the Ancients protecting earth's galaxy, but that's another story


      When was it said that the Ancients weren't also protecting Pegasus, as well as where ever the Asguard are?

    9. Re:GAH! by bdraschk · · Score: 1

      Sorry, not me. This was one really good just-for-fun episodes. Completely detached from the current arc, playing on clichees and inter-character relationships, insider jokes etc. You cannot do this with a series that's in its first few seasons, you have to build a solid fanbase that really apprecheates this (see various musical episodes like Buffy "Once more, with feeling", Xena and so on).

    10. Re:GAH! by melekzek · · Score: 1
      I think it was one of the best episodes in the last two years. Sooo funny, soo farspace.

      That would have been a perfect final episode to the series...

    11. Re:GAH! by PygmySurfer · · Score: 1

      heir absence earlier was explained due to their battle with the Replicators, but they were completely defeated at the end of the 8th season, or so we're supposed to think

      Well, completely defeated in the Milky Way. Looks like there were some hiding out in the Pegasus galaxy though.

    12. Re:GAH! by technothrasher · · Score: 1

      Alright, did anyone else think that the 200th episode TOTALLY sucked ass?

      YES! It was really annoying. It was annoying when they did it the first time, and it was doubly annoying this time. I've seen every single episode of Stargate since it began, but I guess I'm still not enough of a fanboy to give a crap about their inside production jokes and self referential silliness. I mean, come on, you guys really aren't all that... it's just a retarded sci-fi show. Pat yourself on the back off-screen please and just get on with the damn story already.

    13. Re:GAH! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      These were created by the Ancients 10K years ago. They are like "Replicators" but were not related to the original Replicators created by the girl from whatever planet in the Milky Way.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    14. Re:GAH! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1
      The thought has crossed my mind that if I were in the position of SG-1, and I got ahold of that weapon to wipe out Ascended beings, that the rational thing to do may be to wipe out both the Ancients and the Ori and start fresh.


      IIRC, the "weapon" just disrupts the energy being, removing their ability to influence in the area of effect. Nothing definitive so far states that it will "kill" them. I'm sure we'll be seeing the Asgard again to actually effectively fire this weapon.

      Supposedly they already know pretty much everything they need to about ascension - recall the Anubus clone storyline? Don't forget Daniel ascended twice, and seems to remember more than he thinks. Which begs the question, is Daniel, and Jack for that matter, so much more advanced than the regular human race?

      We've been introduced to the Asgard and the Ancients, what happened to the Furlings whom we've never seen and what of the Nox? Why aren't the Nox and the Asgard ascending since they're so much more developed than humans, as the primary ascension mechanism according to the Anubus clone episode is higher brain function? The Nox certainly seem to be there.

      As for the storyline, Earth hasn't really gotten any really good technical stuff (the 303 aside). It'd be neat if they accelerated tech on Earth to Tollan levels, they could explore all sorts of interesting things along that storyline. Plus the Furlings, of course. But to return to innocent exploration? They're beyond that at this point.
      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    15. Re:GAH! by MKalus · · Score: 1

      Sorry I was laughing very very hard during that episode. They were truly doing this tongue in cheek and you could tell that all of the actors had a blast doing it (and I assume the writers did too).

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    16. Re:GAH! by PygmySurfer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think they're most definitely related to the replicators, we just don't know how yet.

      The Asurans (Pegasus Replicators) were of the "human form" variety, which the Replicators Reese created eventually evolved into in the Milky Way.

      The Atlantis team were unable to find record of the Replicators in the ancient database. Its possible the Asurans lied about being a creation of the Ancients. The Asurans could be Replicators who escaped from the Milky Way prior to being destroyed, or the original Replicators encountered by SG-1 might've began life in the Pegasus Galaxy. Hell, maybe the plague that wiped out all life in the galaxy way back when was the virus Weir was infected with.

      Tons of possibilities :)

    17. Re:GAH! by scolen2 · · Score: 1

      There were also two other comments made in the special making off ep... 1. that Daniel will do something between assend and the living near the end of this season, this might support the transition to a movie. And 2. and that Macgiver is back on the show more consistantly now, this also might be a set up for the movie. We'll see. Lets just hope they dont F up battlestar with the spin off that is takeing SG-1's spot.

    18. Re:GAH! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Why not? IRL, we faced the horrific possibility of 10 million terrorists following a theology not unlike the Ori (Convert or Die) and we failed to do even enough mobilization to take over a country the size of California in 3 years, and another country the size of Oregon in 5 years was taken over, but is slowly returning to their previous government because we've been basically ignoring them.

      What makes you think the fictional government would be any smarter? It's not 1941 anymore.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    19. Re:GAH! by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I agree. I understand what some of the other posters are saying about this being a tounge-in-cheek "fun" episode, but the way they were hyping it, I thought it would be something good. Instead, it made me wish they'd stopped at 199!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    20. Re:GAH! by bigpat · · Score: 1

      10 million terrorists

      10 million? Maybe 10,000.

      Terrorism isn't nearly the threat that Communism is.

    21. Re:GAH! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Based on Islamic sects, interpretations of the Koran, and the number of Islamic followers worldwide, approximately 10% of Islamic believers actually do hold to some form of "Convert or Die" theology (I would note also that a somewhat smaller, but close to similar, percentage of Christians also hold to such a theology; but we're talking Islamic terrorists not Christian ones at the moment, and very few Christian sects take the "Kingdom of God" literally where large percentages of Islamic sects look forward to the worldwide "Nation of Islam" as ushering in a golden age of peace and justice based on killing off anybody who doesn't agree). There are somwhere close to a billion "People of the Book" worldwide, and if the organizers of Islamic terrorism were perfect (they aren't), that's 10 million potential suicide bombers available to recruit. If each bomber, in addition to taking out himself takes out at least 12 infidels in the same incident, that's about twice as many as they need to completely convert or kill the entire population of the Planet Earth.

      Now having exposed my mathematics- I still agree with you to some extent, for four reasons:

      1. The three main sects preaching this consider each other to be infidels, so there's no real overall organization to the terrorism.

      2. The grand majority of that 10 million are living in poverty, and will not even be able to afford the C4 to become a suicide bomber without help.

      3. Recruitment seems to depend on the United States or Western Europe invading a country, and we're a bit overextended at the moment.

      4. The number of terrorists with actual money or power or both is vanishingly small- because it takes an injustice to actually create an Islamic terrorist (can't be fighting for justice, Jihad, unless you've got an injustice to fight against!) and injustices just don't happen to rich people.

      These 4 reasons are the ONLY thing preventing terrorism from becoming a big problem; and it wouldn't take very much to change any of them for either the worse or the better.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  13. We heard this before by jackb_guppy · · Score: 4, Funny

    SG-1 was to be killed just after Atlanis
    SG-1 was to be killed after Jack left
    Now Again.

    But true they now have Farscape people, so the death should be quick!

    1. Re:We heard this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tranlated...

      sg-1 is mc guyver in space. Now sg (season 8.9.10) is mcguyver in space without mc-guyver. --> end of series.

      10 seasons for a series is too long anyway) there is a sweet spot arround 6-7 season.

    2. Re:We heard this before by TCQuad · · Score: 5, Funny

      In SciFi headquarters, not too long ago...

      Exec 1: "Now that we have Atlantis, we can cancel SG1!"
      Exec 2: "Oh, I couldn't bear to do that! I don't want to make Richard Dean Anderson cry again."
      Exec 1: "Well, we could wait until he leaves and then cancel SG1."
      Exec 2: "No, then he'd get all smug about how SG1 was really 'his' show."
      Exec 1: "How about replacing him and then canceling the show after a season or two?"
      Exec 2: "Brilliant! But where could we possibly find an actor willing to work on a loved but inevitably and obviously doomed series?"
      Exec 1: "That guy from Farscape?"
      Exec 2: "Perfect!"

    3. Re:We heard this before by PygmySurfer · · Score: 2, Funny

      You spent seven years on MacGuyver and you can't figure this one out? We got belt buckles, and shoe laces and a piece of gum, build a nuclear reactor for crying out loud. You used to be MacGuyver, McGadget, McGimick.. no you're mister McUsseless.. Dear God, I'm stuck on a glacier with MacGuyver!

    4. Re:We heard this before by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Amanda Tapping, I didn't know you posted on Slashdot!

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  14. Viewer Req. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Please send Claudia "Vala" Black to Atlantis in the last scene, then make her NOT all comic relief (since you already have McKay, m'kay?), but more kick'ass, like we remember her from her introduction into the galaxy.

    1. Re:Viewer Req. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Better yet:
      1. Get a girl who is charismatic, attractive and in possesion of basic acting skills.
      2. Create a plot line allowing this new actress to take over the Vala role.
      3. Make the part kick-ass and send the new actress to Atlantis.
      4. Profit?
  15. It had a good run. . . by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 1

    . . . But I think more shows should end before they get stagnant anyway. I'm not saying that studios should just drop their show entirely, I think they should just make room for new series once they get their point across. I'm happy that SG1 is getting retired as long as they're giving space for atlantis to breathe. The same should have been done for Futurama when The Simpson's got old.

    --
    disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
  16. surprised that I'm sad to see it go by sammy+baby · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Okay, let me say it up front: Stargate SG-1 isn't a great show. In fact, most of the time I'd be hard-pressed to say it's even a good show. But I'm sad to see it go, and in retrospect here are a couple of notes:

    1. Did anyone else pick this part up?

    "Stargate SG-1," based on the 1994 movie starring Kurt Russell and James Spader, spent its first five years on Showtime -- which annoyed the show's producers by demanding full-frontal nudity -- before migrating to Sci Fi.


    I mean, don't get me wrong, Amanda Tapping is cute as a button, and Claudia Black (who hasn't been with the cast that long), rrowl. But I was really shocked to hear this. There are so many producers and directors out there who want to push the boundaries - is it too much to ask that those who want to make a more conventional show not be forced to throw in some gratuitous nude scenes? There wasn't even anything like that in the original movie.

    2. SG-1 is probably at its best when the cast & crew isn't taking itself too seriously. And with that in mind, let me tell you that if you missed the 200th episode... well, it's a shame. It was a bit uneven, but it was packed with in-jokes for the kind of people who like not only the show, but sci-fi in general, and even things "vaguely related" to sci-fi. (Veiled Firefly/Serenity references? Check. Not so veiled Star Trek, Farscape, and Team America: World Police references? Check.)

    Anyhoo, if you have the chance, catch the 200th episode as a rerun. You'll be glad you did.
    1. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by SpecialAgentXXX · · Score: 1

      I own all of the seasons on DVD and never saw any nudity in Seasons 1 - 5. Are you sure?

    2. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by CaptnMArk · · Score: 1


      >Anyhoo, if you have the chance, catch the 200th episode as a rerun. You'll be glad you
      did.

      Agreed.

      IMO, SG-1 was ripe for cancelling at the Wormhole Xtreme episode,
      but the "merge with Farscape" made a big improvement.

    3. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      Check the pilot episode. The captured Air Force woman is shown to be nude (although we never see anything "naughty") and later Daniel Jackson's wife (Charee? Sharee? I dunno how it's spelled) is shown completely nude when she gets implanted with the Gou'ald.

      Other than that, I can't remember any full nudity. I remember being a little shocked when watching the pilot episode on DVD - I wasn't really expecting anything like that. It was rather gratuitous.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    4. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Stargate SG-1 isn't a great show. In fact, most of the time I'd be hard-pressed to say it's even a good show.

      no but compared to the other crap on TV, it is farking brilliant.

      ABC,NBC,CBS all have teletubbies for adults on them. Nothing that is worth a damn to watch. We record on a Replay anythign that is worth watching, everything else get's so few episodes made a year that the shows suck.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by SpecialAgentXXX · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah... that was a while ago. Now I vaguely remember. Jackson's wife was nude when the Gu'ould stripped off her clothing. Can't quite recall the AF woman, though.

    6. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by Telephone+Sanitizer · · Score: 1

      > I own all of the seasons on DVD and never saw any nudity

      Episode 1, "Children of the Gods."

    7. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by Zenaku · · Score: 1
      2. SG-1 is probably at its best when the cast & crew isn't taking itself too seriously. And with that in mind, let me tell you that if you missed the 200th episode... well, it's a shame. It was a bit uneven, but it was packed with in-jokes for the kind of people who like not only the show, but sci-fi in general, and even things "vaguely related" to sci-fi. (Veiled Firefly/Serenity references? Check. Not so veiled Star Trek, Farscape, and Team America: World Police references? Check.)

      I watched the 200th episode and loved all the references and in-jokes, but I must have missed the references to Firefly -- can you remind me?

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    8. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by pcgabe · · Score: 1
      And with that in mind, let me tell you that if you missed the 200th episode... well, it's a shame.
      Indeed. I had never injured myself laughing at a show before.

      It was that frelling Farscape reference that finally did it.
      --
      Don't put advice in your sig.
    9. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by dmleach · · Score: 1

      > Anyhoo, if you have the chance, catch the 200th episode as a rerun. You'll be glad you did.

      FYI: It's being rerun Friday, August 25, at 6:00 PM EDT.

    10. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      Warning: small spoiler here.

      ----spoiler begin----

      Okay, maybe I read too much into it - it may not have been an actual Firefly reference. But right near the beginning, the nebbishy producer guy is complaining into his cell phone, and says something along the lines of, "How do you make a feature film out of a series that only had 4 episodes air?"

      ----spoiler end----

    11. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      That was a definite Firefly reference; The answer to the question was something alone the lines of how well the DVD Sales had been. Another reference that is particularly ironic now was when they were poking full at Michael Shanks' haitus from the show and how the fans had setup a website to bring him back which had got upto 27 hits a day, "which is quite a lot, apparently". Anyone care to bet what kind of SG1 fan sites are going to be springing up over the next week or three...

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    12. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by Zebai · · Score: 1

      It didn't add much to the serious at all, but I did enjoy the episode. I found it especially enjoyful and burst out into laughter when Claudia black went into the little farscape story.

    13. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was a reference to that old show, Thunderbirds.

      I'm still laughing at McUseless in the Glacier.

    14. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are so many producers and directors out there who want to push the boundaries - is it too much to ask that those who want to make a more conventional show not be forced to throw in some gratuitous nude scenes?
       
      So many shows are like that and than they try to portray it as "cutting edge" and "pushing boundaries", i like boobies too, but just because you have them on TV it doesn't make it "art", otherwise Springer becomes high art. Pushing boundaries lately has become very similar to lowbrow entertainment.

    15. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Watch the pilot episode again -- Season 1, Disc 1. And that's it.

      Not that big a deal -- it's when Apophis is looking for a host for his mate.

      --
      -- Alastair
    16. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by iolaus · · Score: 1

      SG-1 is probably at its best when the cast & crew isn't taking itself too seriously.

      I just couldn't let that one go! I'm a rather big fan of SG-1 (I've seen all 10 seasons) and the ONLY times I've actually disliked the show have been when they did stupid joke episodes. I haven't even made it through most of them and episode 200 was the worst yet. I made it about 5 minutes in and turned it off in disgust. I got every "in joke" but I just wasn't amused... I watch SG-1 because it has adventure and sci-fi with a touch of comedy, not the other way around. As for Atlantis, I've seen every episode of it as well and for some reason I just can't see myself watching after SG-1 is gone. Atlantis, in my opinion, is a far cry from SG-1 in terms of character and plot quality but I've watched it because it interacts with the world of SG-1.

      --
      I find laziness to be an excellent motivator.
    17. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by SpectreHiro · · Score: 1

      (Veiled Firefly/Serenity references? Check. Not so veiled Star Trek, Farscape, and Team America: World Police references? Check.)

      Not Team America, for the love of god... Thunderbirds. Thunderbirds. Not to mention Supercar, Fireball XL5 and Stingray. Jeebus almighty.

      --
      You can't win, Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    18. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by Jaeph · · Score: 1

      "SG-1 is probably at its best when the cast & crew isn't taking itself too seriously."

      I strongly disagree. While the humor is great, the best episodes were in the first few seasons where everything was deadly serious, the cast was clearly out-classed but not impossibly so, and the supposed "gods" were beaten because guns kill, humans are plucky and smart, and the "gods" were arrogant.

      *spoiler below*

      I think people forget the really good episodes, like the one where the go'auld put a bomb in a little girl to try to destroy the gate, and the conflict was the internal one of a bunch of people deciding to put the girl in a bomb-test-shelter-whatever so the gate wouldn't be destroyed. Or the antarctica episode, where we Sam had to face up to the fact that she couldn't solve everything. I still get chills when I see Daniel Jackson finally put everything together - they brought out his genius so well in that episode.

      -Jeff

      --
      Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
    19. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      SG-1 is probably at its best when the cast & crew isn't taking itself too seriously.

      My favorite episode was the one where time cycled itself so O'Neal just did all the things he wanted to do. Of course, it was an obvious opportunity to make out with Carter without consequence. But the image of him smacking golf balls off into the Stargate was just perfect; imagine being on the other side of the Gate and having these golf balls fly out and whack you.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    20. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      Holy crap. You're so right.

      I forgot all about Thunderbirds.

      That's even better.

    21. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by zenhkim · · Score: 1

      General Hammond: [off camera] "COLONEL! WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!?"

      O'Neill: [interrupted in mid-swing, whips around in annoyance] "I'm working on my backswing!!!"

      Priceless. Absolutely fucking priceless.

      --
      "All hands, BRACE FOR IMPACT!"
    22. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by goonerw · · Score: 1

      It was that frelling Farscape reference that finally did it.

      Touché.

      --
      LOAD ".SIG"
      PRESS PLAY ON TAPE
    23. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by goonerw · · Score: 1

      O'Neill: [interrupted in mid-swing, whips around in annoyance] "I'm working on my backswing!!!"

      Episode: Window of Opportunity
      Correction: "In the middle of my backswing!"

      --
      LOAD ".SIG"
      PRESS PLAY ON TAPE
    24. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Yup! IMO, SG1 is a pale shadow of what it used to be, but it's STILL better than nearly anything else out there.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    25. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I don't mind humor and in-jokes, but 200 took it way too far.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    26. Re:surprised that I'm sad to see it go by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I liked the eps that had what I call "oh shit" moments, when you could picture the SG team saying "oh shit, how do we stop the Goald now?". And yet, they did.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  17. I'm waiting for the spin off series! by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Yo Wonderbread! Sure shes a goa'uld, but I'd tap that".

    1. Re:I'm waiting for the spin off series! by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

      In case anyone doesn't understand the joke -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV1pFDj2l2w

      Warning clip of "200" if you haven't seen it yet and don't want a spoiler don't watch it.

  18. Shitty Movie Saturday, all Saturday on Sci-Fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They only do the really shitty monster movies on Saturday.

  19. Its about time... by rogerborn · · Score: 1

    The tenth season will more than likely end up redoing time
    in order to kill off the vampirish humans in the Pegasus
    galaxy, who interbred with monster life-sucking spiders.

    Send a team back in time to right before this happens and
    nuke the spider planet - bad guys gone. Back in the Present,
    just a happy, peaceful galaxy.

    Do the same with the ORI, those ascended soul-sucking
    beings invading our own Milky Way galaxy. Sic Daniel
    Jackson on them, right before they all ascend, to straighten
    out their greedy tendencies.

    So the final season of SG-1 is about time. And its about
    time they did this - I mean, how many times you want to
    climb through that ORIFACE?

    The only fun we have any more with Stargate, or Atlantis,
    for that matter, is their self-parody 200th episode.

    I guess I gave up watching SG-1 after they killed off all
    the Gou'alds. The ORI just stink as bad guys. Reminds
    me of some old teacher I had growing up, trying to bind all
    those semi-moral rules on all of us already decent kids....

    No fun there any more.

    "These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."

    1. Re:Its about time... by rogerborn · · Score: 1

      This is not to say that SG-1 had a terrific run.

      And I (we) should thank RDA and cast for all that.

      And thanks in advance for that great TIME TRAVEL
      FIX for winding up the series. (you heard it
      here first)

      Regards,
      Roger Born
      "Sorry. No Refunds"

    2. Re:Its about time... by PFI_Optix · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the Ori suck as bad guys. After the chaos that was seasons 7 and 8--replicators, anubis, the rest of the goa'uld--the Ori almost seem like a joke. They have to try way too hard to make them into the Greatest Threat Ever Known, while the Wraith of SG:A are a lot more interesting.

      I'm hoping that mid-season has the Stargate project finally going public, and things get really interesting on Earth. Then bring on the Ori and a great big battle in Earth orbit with the Human/Asgard/Jaffa alliance taking a final stand against the Ori. I'm thinking about a desperate pitched battle something like we saw leading up to the Endgame episode of Babylon 5.

      Of course, that's never been SG1's style. Four people save the world every time, the rest are just disposable extras (yeah, it's getting a bit old).

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    3. Re:Its about time... by B5_geek · · Score: 1

      "...the wraith more interesting..."
      The Wraith are worse then all the bad 50's-70's horror/sci-fi monsters combined.
      I can just hear the board-room discussion.
      Ok, we need some bad guys.
      "How about Vampires?"
                "Idiot, vampires have been done to death! You are Fired!"
      "How about Space Vampires?!"
                "Brilliant! you get a raise!"

      I enjoy SG:A, and I love McKay. But I could not believe the depth of badness that the Wraith turned out to be.

      Atlantis got me interested in SG1, so I shall be sad to see it go. I wish Claudia would be more of a bad-ass that we loved from Farscape then the Comic-relief she has become. Her character seems more fitting for a "SpaceBalls 3 - The Search for SpaceBalls 2" style project.

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    4. Re:Its about time... by PFI_Optix · · Score: 1

      As a concept, the Wraith are unoriginal. But they've at least proven to be an interesting enemy, especially with some of the recent developments.

      Fun way to end both series: the wraith flee the Pegasus galaxy (pick a reason) for ours, where some of them are taken by surviving Goa'Uld. The Goa'Uld make a comeback, fighting with the Wraith and Ori for dominance. The Atlantis crew makes peace with the ancient replicators and brings them into the fight on the good guys' side. The shows ends in a miniseries where the Ori wipe out the Wraith becase of a cleverly-crafted scheme by SG1, and then the Goa'Uld and Ori ships enter into an all-out war for the galaxy. A combined effort by SG1 and the Atlantis crew somehow saves the day and wipes out both enemies just before Earth is destroyed.

      Then they can end it with a wedding.

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    5. Re:Its about time... by de+Siem · · Score: 1

      Have the snakeheads infect the wraith, now that would be cool. A wraith Goa'ld.

      --
      Beating up people in little rooms, if you do it for a good reason you do it for a bad one.
    6. Re:Its about time... by CaptnMArk · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's the correct ST:Enterprise plot.

  20. And this is bad because? by supabeast! · · Score: 1, Troll

    "Ten seasons and 215 episodes is an astounding, Guinness World Record-setting accomplishment."

    At least the Star Trek producers had the decency to stop running the same old plots into the ground after seven seasons of their shows. SG-1 has been running the same story into the ground, over and over, for far too long. Here's hoping that they're clearing the way for something better - or at least another Galatica, which had the decency to reuse old ideas that had been on the shelf for a couple decades.

    1. Re:And this is bad because? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      which had the decency to reuse old ideas that had been on the shelf for a couple decades.

      That's not always a good thing.

  21. Why oh why oh why!!! by Telephone+Sanitizer · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    ...couldn't they have cancelled Atlantis, too?!!

    1. Re:Why oh why oh why!!! by Wubby · · Score: 1

      The ONLY reason I watched it to begin with was because it was an hour between SG-1 and BSG I had no plans for. SciFi really needs to figure out what it thinks is good TV and stick with it.

      Since BSG probably costs a sh!tload to make (in SciFi's estimation), I give it another season and a half. I doubt they will come up with anything good after that, since all "SciFi Originals" invariably suck: Stargate Atlantis, Invisible Man, ALL the movies. Everythink else was started by someone else. SciFi just buys up the syndication rights.

      --
      Sig
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
  22. Soylent Running by krell · · Score: 1

    " landed on that living space ship thing with those little yellow robots and those damn crackers.."

    The living ( = has biodome) spaceship with little yellow robots? Must be "Silent Running". But this classic film was not known for crackers. I think you confused it with another classic science fiction film known for its people-crackers.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
    1. Re:Soylent Running by thornist · · Score: 1

      Snap!

      Bruce Dern and strange 70s pacing came into my mind straight away, but I kept rereading the descriptio and couldn't work out why.

    2. Re:Soylent Running by krell · · Score: 1

      Yes....Bruce Dern aboard a biodome space-ship with nothing but a few droids to keep him company. He's the last human being in existence. If you wonder why, you need to look no further than the vast warehouse levels filled with crates of green crackers.

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    3. Re:Soylent Running by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the Soylent part, sounds like another colorful sci-fi series -- Red Dwarf.

    4. Re:Soylent Running by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm...nope. He's not the last human in existence. He's maybe the last forest ranger/treehugger....but that's because he's looking after part of (and by the end of the file) the ONLY remaining forest/plants in existence, in a bunch of domed habitats attached to freighters in space. They get orders to destroy them, he flips out and kills the other crew, etc.

      With regards to old SF films about "the last man on earth", you may be thinking of "The Last Man on Earth" (Vincent Price) or "The Omega Man" (Charleton Heston) both based on the novel "I Am Legend" by Richard Matheson.

      And the crates of green crackers? No. That was "Soylent Green." (Charleton Heston again) based on Harry Harrison's novel "Make Room, Make Room."

      Man....most of the SF films were depressing in the 60's and 70's!

    5. Re:Soylent Running by UltimApe · · Score: 1

      " It's people. Soylent Green is made out of people. They're making our food out of people. Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for food. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them! "

      --
      "Infecting minds with my own memetic virus, one post at a time." Ultimape
    6. Re:Soylent Running by dwarfking · · Score: 1

      I believe the title was 'Silent Running'. 'Soylent Green' was a different movie with Charton Heston "Soylent Green is People!".

    7. Re:Soylent Running by Jhan · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...and for all who didn't get the joke:

      Soylent SG-1 is made out of canceled shows!!

      (Other) canceled shows I tell you!!

      --

      I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.

  23. Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by Travoltus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sci Fi Channel is doing a 7th Heaven and they, as far as I can see, don't have a good show to replace it with.

    All they have left to hold dedicated viewers is Battlestar Galactica.

    What else is there to watch on that network now?

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    1. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by MustardMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      What else is there to watch on that network now?

      Why, ECW, of course!

      (cue flames)

    2. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      Atlantis?

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    3. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by Rydia · · Score: 1

      Doctor Who.

    4. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by danbeck · · Score: 1

      Dr. Who, you ingrate!

      My question is, why on earth did a 2nd rate, Voyager'esque spinoff show actually get renewed? Dr. Weir = Captain Janeway, except that the actress (should I call her that?) who played Janeway could actually act just a smidgen.

    5. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      Atlantis is ok, but as a show to watch after watching SG-1. The only show that would be left for me on Sci-Fi would be Eureka.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    6. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by walt-sjc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The first time I saw ECW on SciFi, I thought WTF is THIS shit doing on here? Actually, I STILL wonder. The only reason I can think of, is that it's actually an infomercial where they paid SF to show it.

    7. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by ericspinder · · Score: 2, Insightful
      My question is, why on earth did a 2nd rate, Voyager'esque spinoff show actually get renewed? Dr. Weir = Captain Janeway,...
      And my question is "Does a strong female lead scare you?" Other than the 'general scifi crew and captain motif' I can't see the similarities, a better fit star trek wise for Atlantis would be "Deep Space Nine" as they are both at least generally stationary bases of operations.
      --
      The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
    8. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by Xichekolas · · Score: 1

      I'm a huge fan of both Stargate series, but I'm going to have to side with the GP and say that Torri Higginson (Weir) is the most overdramatic-painful-to-watch-overactor-only-has-o ne-tone-of-voice-and-it-is-shrill actress I have ever seen. Every episode I hope that she falls off her balcony into the ocean...

      Hope they wrap up SG-1 with some sweetness... I hate it when they leave things unresolved at the end of a series... unless the mention of 'the movie being back on' at the end of the 200th episode was a hint that a movie is indeed back on in real life. That would be a sweet way to cap the series, provided they could get the actors to sign on for it.

      --

      Self-referential Sigs are cool on /. these days...

      54

    9. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by statusbar · · Score: 1
      "Does a strong female lead scare you?"

      No, but Dr. Weir's character only pretends to be strong - the character is horribly written and it seems like in the last year of episodes the plot line goes 'Weir makes stupid blunder and the team recovers from it with luck in spite of stupid decisions". It is sad because the end of the first season really was quite good.

      The women I know who tried to like it felt that Dr. Weir is anything but a strong female lead, and perpetuates the stereotypes of female leaders.

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    10. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by camperdave · · Score: 1

      In my area the local SF channel (Space) doesn't play Dr Who, or Battlestar Galactica. It's just Andromeda, Stargate, and various Star Treks (but curously, not DS9), along with a handfull of borderline shows like Relic Hunter and horror shows. I wish they'd air Farscape, Babylon 5, Dr Who (both old and new), Firefly, X-Files and Twilight Zone and ditch the horror and superhero stuff.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    11. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't that she is female. The problem is that she is the typical, I can't act, so we will just have me unconvincingly talk tough to compensate. The original Wier was a far better choice. It is unfortunate that they replaced her when they started Atlantis.

      It is just painful to watch the writting too. This person is supposed to be THE top international negotiators in th country. How is it that whe is so easily offended, so poor at deplomicay, consistantly suprised by peoples real intentions, and cannot cross over into morally gray areas to get the best deal possible. Come on, when your a top government anything, you have seen plenty of really bad things done with the greater good in mind, and likely plenty of really bad things with the greater money in mind.

      Now, if you want to compare a show to Voyager, that would be Battlestar Galactica. They even have the same robot chick. A tall hot part machine that looks human hot blond named Seven vs. a tall hot machine that looks human hot blond named Six? At least on Tripping the Riff, they made Eight a brunette. Of course even with a bigger difference, it was clear they were doing a parody.

    12. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      "Voyager'esque"? How is it in the lease bit Voyager'esque?

      Feh. Apparently you smoke the crack. Which flavor, may I ask?

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    13. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by humble.fool · · Score: 1

      There's always The Amazing Screw-On Head (if it actually gets produced)!

      --
      Being anonymous is not cowardice.
    14. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by bigbigbison · · Score: 2, Informative

      And when the ECW fans heard it was coming back but on SciFi they thgouth WTF is this doing on this shitty channel? And fans STILL wonder.
      As it turns out WWE, who owns ECW has a deal to show them main show Raw on the USA netowork which NBC now owns. So WWE wanted to bring back ECW. NBC wanted to show it but they didn't want to put it on USA or Bravo, so SciFi was all that was left.
      That's the logic of corporations for you.
      Apparently, its debut was the highest ratings SciFi ever had.
      I'm a wrestling fan and a scifi fan, and it still doesn't make any sense. The random shit SciFi is asking them to put in like zombies and vampires to try to make some sort of sense aren't appealing to SciFi fans and are just irritating to wrestling fans.

      --
      http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
    15. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which actors, the ones from the original movie or the ones from the TV series? I'm guessing you're hoping for the latter (as am I), although it looks like it would be the former.

    16. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by StrongAxe · · Score: 1

      "Voyager'esque"? How is it in the lease bit Voyager'esque?

      Well, during the first season of Atlantis (and the first few seasons of Voyager), the crews had no contact with earth at all. Later on, this lightened up a bit (with the Pegasus on Atlantis, and the "regular" wormhole communications with the Alpha Quadrant in Voyager. The even had crossover shows in both series with casts from Earth (SG:1 and TNG) appearing, and this would likely happen more frequently on Atlantis now that SG:1 is being discontinued and all those regulars will have nothing to do for a while.

    17. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by InfoVore · · Score: 1

      I know several women who are mid-list SF/Fantasy writers. ALL of them hate Dr. Weir's character.

      If you want to save SG-1, put Weir crossover for an episode then brutally kill her off. The magnitude of the cheer rising up will triple SG-1 ratings and will guarentee SG Atlantis at least five or six more years.

      --
      "These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
    18. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by MKalus · · Score: 1

      BSG and Atlantis for sure, then there is EUReKA which I think has it's charme, but I am not sure it'll survive the first year.

      It's sad actually I really think the Series has picked up again, the new enemies are clearly badder than the original ones and it is actually FUN to watch.

      In contrast it seems Atlantis at times is taking itself too seriously. I really hope they reconsider.

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    19. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by budgenator · · Score: 1

      There's no reasonable way to tie up all the loose ends even with a movie, they've got enough loose ends to last for five seasons now. I think that SG1 and atlantis is more than they can handle and atlantis is starting to get gain traction and SG1 has been losing traction so they're going with the trend. They blew it by promoting O'Neil, Hammond was much more believeable in the "Technical Project Manager" type AF General who got stuck in a tactical sitzuation than O'neil was as the Tactical Commander stuck in a technical project. Would have been better to blow out his knee, take him off combat duty for disability and send O'Neil to the pentagon to fetch coffee for Generals; that way Anderson could have had his family time.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    20. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by budgenator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      but then the point still stands because Eureka is supposed to be a summer season filler show; I like Eureka, but it doesn't seem to have the moxie to go full season. SciFi is killing their anchor show, SG1 is the show that they put on when they have nothing to put on, and we watch when their is nothing to watch.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    21. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      The original Wier was a far better choice.

      According to IMDB, Higginson was the blond Weir in "The Lost City".

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    22. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not from my search. The current Wier is Torri Higginson. The original was Jessica Steen.

      Just look at the pictures of the two women. They look nothing alike. Steen was believable as someone involved with high end government work. Higgins is not.

    23. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by mcspoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's actually tied to the fact that Sci Fi and USA Network have the same parent (NBC). USA airs the WWE programming. WWE runs ECW. They needed air time to air the "new" ECW, and the only time period available for the summer season was on Sci Fi. ECW ratings have been so high, the deal was extended beyond the summer season. Supposedly, they're looking to move ECW up to USA sooner or later to avoid these questions.

    24. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      I watch all three you've mentioned. It does seem that it is time for StarGate to end however, as they are at the last bad guys they can reasonably do in that universe. I could see them getting one more half season out of the Ori, but that is it as far as it goes.

      As to friday Night.

      7 Eureka (They need a consistent rerun slot, and this would be perfect)
      8 Dr Who
      9 Atlantis
      10 BSG

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    25. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      You're right. I could have sworn I saw Ms. Higginson listed as Weir on "The Lost City".

      I stand corrected.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    26. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by danbeck · · Score: 1

      Dear Mr. Liberal, you can take your pithy, ignorant, bigoted stereotypes and shove them up your ass.

      I don't care if both of them were gay, women, black, alien, dogs or what-have-you. MY problem is that neither of them could act and both of them had ridiculous stoic facial expressions that conveyed more of their amateurish acting abilites than even a shred of the emotion the director was trying to beat out of them. Both of the series were spinoffs that lasted and are lasting longer than they should have and both of their little engine that could storylines got old and are getting old in the case of Altantis.

    27. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by danbeck · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree, if you want to see a "strong female lead" just look to the Lost City incarnation of Dr. Weir. Her character was well acted, strong, sure of herself and unwilling to compromise in the things she believed in.

      The person who replied to my original post is such the stereotypical liberal bigot. That type of person unknowingly fosters and pushes forward the idiotic stereotypes that make people think the current Dr. Weir is a strong lead, when in truth, she's nothing but a bumbling, bitchy leader.

    28. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'm a wrestling fan and a scifi fan, and it still doesn't make any sense. The random shit SciFi is asking them to put in like zombies and vampires to try to make some sort of sense aren't appealing to SciFi fans and are just irritating to wrestling fans.

      I heard the ECW writers were originally going to do an alien to face Sandman, but Sci-Fi said *no* to that as they are basically insulting the Sci-Fi audience.

    29. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by 0mni · · Score: 1

      They will still have 10 years worth of it to use use for filler.

    30. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, "Atlantis" appears to be "Voyager" + "DS9". Not only were they both originally impossibly far away from home, but (a) the Atlantis team was on a large city-ship (e.g., something like a space station, except they have towers not "pylons", and can't go into space w/o more ZPMs), and (b) they stumble across a whole new enemy dominating their region of space ("Dominion" => "The Wraith").

      Perhaps it is true that you can't keep a show going forever, but I had been treating Seasons 9 and 10 of SG1 as "SG1-TNG" given the new crew members and new enemy. After picking up and loving the 4 disk "Firefly" set (on sale, apparently), my view is network and cable TV appears to have an increasingly poor track record on scifi shows: Firefly, Farscape, Enterprise, and now SG1 - see a pattern here?

      Actually, I can sadly say the SciFi network is doing just what we should all be expecting - killing a show that costs lots of money to produce, and replacing it with dirt-cheap wrestling content. I expect several "scifi reality" and/or "game shows" next, some also "transplants" from other sibling networks. And don't get you hopes up about Galatica season 3 either. As I recall, this kind of budget cutting tends to run in cycles (e.g., "stays alive" but on limited budget - lots of shows with no CG and limited action).

      Of course, I could just be "paranoid" and conclude that the more religious content of the current SG1 story arc - fundamentalist crazies on a to bring their specific slant on religion and life values to our part of the 'verse - is at the bottom of the cancellation; but that would be silly, wouldn't it.

      -- Olde-Fortran / lubricant of Robots everywhere! --

    31. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by corser · · Score: 1

      Space stopped showing DS9 a while back, basically, because they had been doing so since Space first started. Farscape, B5, and X-Fie were all shown for quite a while and were able to make something like 4 runs through each series. Space won't get Doctor Who (the new one ) because it's a BBC/CBC coproduction. It would be nice if they started showing The Twilight Zone and old Doctor Who. The last time I saw classic Twilight Zone was back in the mid 90's Saturdays at 5:00am on a CBS station. (I can't believe I used to get up that early ) One show I can't wait to see back on Space is Charlie Jade, if you haven't seen it, find a way to, and give it a chance. It starts off slow but has a fairly interesting premise and gets better as the season progresses.

    32. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by StrongAxe · · Score: 1

      Actually, "Atlantis" appears to be "Voyager" + "DS9".

      I think DS9 is less applicable here, because it was more of a diplomatic hub, somewhat like Babylon 5. (On second thought, the parallels get stronger once you get into the Dominion War seasons).

      Actually, I can sadly say the SciFi network is doing just what we should all be expecting - killing a show that costs lots of money to produce, and replacing it with dirt-cheap wrestling content

      How so? Does SG-1 cost more to produce than Atlantis? Both seem to have similar sets and locales. I personally think that many of the people involved with it are likely getting a bit tired of it and want to move on to do other things (Michael Shanks did that early on, then came back. Roger Dean Anderson did that a few seasons ago, except for cameos. Don Davis did that last season. See a pattern here?). Have you ever worked at the same job for 10+ years? If so, how have you felt about it after tha time?

      It's also a good idea to end a show gracefully, with planning, at a time when people still feel fondly about it, rather than milk every last drop out of it until the milk turns sour, and the fans hate it, and it gets cancelled in the middle of a season without warning, or any sense of closure.

    33. Re:Killing the Goose that lays the golden egg by hao2lian · · Score: 1

      Dead Like Me reruns, Eureka.

      --
      Pelé!
  24. Jump the Shark by MindStalker · · Score: 1

    Stargate has jumped the shark a number of time. Whats your personal favoriate. Personally the Artic Battle was it for me. Don't get me wrong, it was cool, but it definatly spelled the beginning of the end.

    1. Re:Jump the Shark by Mercano · · Score: 1

      All other shark jumps pale in comparison to 200. That was a set of trampolines set up around a feeding frenzy.

      --
      #include <signature.h>
    2. Re:Jump the Shark by maximthemagnificent · · Score: 1

      I've found the series weak frequently, but there was enough to keep me limping along until the "series finale" they had a while ago. That was so horrible that it killed any interest I had in SG-1 and, frankly, has kept me from even giving Atlantis a chance (not that I would say ill of it, since I haven't watched it).

      Maxim

    3. Re:Jump the Shark by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Yea it looked like it from the promos. Fortunatly I canceled my cable a while back. Definatly will catch it someday though.

    4. Re:Jump the Shark by moracity · · Score: 1

      It was done purposefully. The episode is actually pretty funny. SG-1 has had a couple "unknown" futures, so it's almost like each season is ended with the expectation that it may not be back. This past season was an exception.

      SG-1 is much like its sci-fi brethren. The major storyline episodes are generally dramatic, but every couple episodes they drop in an oddball comedy. When you think back, this is pretty much standard for sci-fi shows. All the ST series did it, including Enterprise. Even B5 and it's short-lived spin-off did it. Farscape and Firefly are right there as well. SG-A is doing the exact same thing, but I think SG-1 has been doing it a little too much lately. It's almost becoming a farce of itself. I think episode 200 was an intentional acknowledgement of that; an inside joke, even.

  25. Everytime you threaten to cancel SG-1... by saboola · · Score: 5, Funny

    .. Teal'c kills a kitten

    Just a thought

    1. Re:Everytime you threaten to cancel SG-1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Indeed.

  26. it was inevitable by Yonder+Way · · Score: 5, Funny

    I mean, how could the SGC continue to operate if Cheyenne Mountain was closed down?

    1. Re:it was inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Dude, that's the perfect cover story...

  27. It means more room for ECW !!! by krell · · Score: 0

    Well, this means more room for such wonderful core sci-fi programming as ECW. They might be able to squeeze in a couple of "Caroline in the City" syndicated reruns now, too, right?

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  28. Worth Getting on DVD? by Erwos · · Score: 1

    The wife and I enjoy a good sci-fi series (she absolutely loved Firefly!). Is SG-1 and/or Atlantis worth getting on DVD? I guess we could watch reruns on sci-fi, but I'm spoiled - I can't stand watching these things out of order anymore.

    --
    Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    1. Re:Worth Getting on DVD? by mlk · · Score: 1

      Yeap.

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    2. Re:Worth Getting on DVD? by kria · · Score: 3, Informative

      IMHO, the first seven seasons of SG-1 are worth it, particularly the first four. Once you've gotten through one, though, you can decide about the rest yourself. :) Eight was the season where Richard Dean Anderson had a reduced presence. Season nine and this one are mostly horrible.

      Atlantis started off a little weak it's first season, but it was very good by the end of it. The second season wasn't quite as good, but I think the currently airing third season is decent.

      And, for comparison, I, too, am a huge Firefly fan. I would say that my favorite Sci-fi channel show, though, is Battlestar Galactica, and there should be enough time to catch up before Season Three starts in October. If there isn't, I've heard that they are doing a one hour summary show sometime.

    3. Re:Worth Getting on DVD? by GundamFan · · Score: 1

      Yeah... the only issue is that there is a lot of it.

      Other than that, you have to understand that the show started in '94 and has matured quite a bit so the first couple of seasons are a bit rough around the edges.

      --
      I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
      Mark Twain
    4. Re:Worth Getting on DVD? by Nastard · · Score: 1

      My girlfriend loved Firefly, too. Several months back, she was sick for a while and was more or less stuck at home. She developed an interest in SG-1 from catching the occasional episode with me, so we spent a few months watching all 9(!) seasons.

      It's her favorite show ever. I'm not looking forward to breaking this news to her.

      Anyhow, if my experience is any indication, your wife will probably love Stargate.

    5. Re:Worth Getting on DVD? by senocular · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with kira. I own the SG-1 DVDs seasons 1-7, which I think are great and completely re-watchable (in dvd viewings, I'm on my 4th run through them all). I also have the Firefly DVDs which I've watched too many times to count... AND I have (the new) Battlestar Galactica DVDs; season 1 and 2.0 with 2.5 preordered. These (plus the entire ST:NG set) represent my entire SciFi TV DVD collection. Though SG-1 seem to be a little lower in "quality" compared to FF and BS, they're a good buy and I still enjoy watching them (not to mention they're pretty cheap in terms of SciFi DVDs).

    6. Re:Worth Getting on DVD? by Sesticulus · · Score: 1

      Watch some reruns first before investing in the DVDs. While some folks around here think it's good, to me it's awful. I've tried several times over the years to get into it because it is sci-fi, but I can't. It's just bad.

    7. Re:Worth Getting on DVD? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      No, 1994 was the movie. The show started in 1997.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    8. Re:Worth Getting on DVD? by nytes · · Score: 1

      I can give you my own experience.

      My wife likes sci-fi, but has been completely uninterested in SG-1. I wasn't interested in SG-1 originally but started getting hooked on it in RDA's last season, so I've been watching the last couple of seasons, while she reads or goes into another room and surfs the web.

      To catch up on the series, I recently bought season one on DVD and I've seen the pilot and a couple of episodes. One night my wife started peeking at one episode over the edge of her magazine and wound up dropping the magazine and just watching the show.

      When the show ended she said, "Don't watch anymore episodes unless I can watch with you, okay?"

      So now she's hooked, and I'm sure we'll be buying the remainder of the seasons.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    9. Re:Worth Getting on DVD? by GundamFan · · Score: 1

      Right... sorry, must have gotten mixed up. I still think it is interesting to watch the reruns and see how far the specal effects and writing have come. At the same time it is hard to jump in in the middle... Stargate is one of the most complicated Sci-Fi worlds on TV right now.

      --
      I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
      Mark Twain
    10. Re:Worth Getting on DVD? by mibus · · Score: 1

      If you get S1-S7, grab S8 as well. It's not going to cost you *that* much more, and the end of S8 ties up enough to justify it IMHO.

  29. Apparently it's true by sammy+baby · · Score: 2, Informative
    I don't remember seeing anything particularly naughty, but courtesy of the Hollywood Reporter...

    Anderson's humor served him well during the show's first season, which even Wright and executive producer Robert Cooper, who came onboard as a writer, admit got off to a shaky start. There were rocky story lines, and there was cringe-worthy dialogue. And there was a creative argument with Showtime.

    Wright still bristles at remembering how the channel wanted full-frontal nudity. "People said, 'It's Showtime sci-fi -- that's what fans want,'" he says. "We got lambasted by the critics for it. Here was this fun 'Star Wars'-like show with flashes of naked women."...

    But the following year, Showtime decided not to renew the series. Explains Cohen: "Showtime decided they wanted fresh programming despite the fact that 'Stargate' was popular and performing well. We were determined to find it a new home."

    Nevertheless, Wright and Cooper prepared for the show's demise. "I said to MGM, 'Let's have a spinoff show ready to launch, which would fall on the heels of a feature film,'" Wright says.

    Enter Sci Fi Channel, a natural fit for the series (no full-frontal nudity required). "The show hits squarely with our fan base," executive vp original programming Mark Stern says.


    Maybe the DVDs they released were sanitized?
    1. Re:Apparently it's true by MustardMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can only recall one time where there was full frontal nudity - in the pilot episode, where daniel's woman gets turned into a snakehead. This was on the season 1 DVD

    2. Re:Apparently it's true by MustardMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Leave it to slashdotters to mod up a post describing where to find full frontal alien nudity, and call it informative.

    3. Re:Apparently it's true by Morkano · · Score: 1

      To be fair, she was still human at the time.

      --
      Victory or awesome!
  30. The show will go on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.gateworld.net/news/2006/08/cooper_isg-1 i_will_go_on.shtml
    Cooper: SG-1 will go on

    Monday - August 21, 2006 | by Darren Sumner

    Don't count Stargate SG-1 out just yet. Though SCI FI Channel has cancelled the long-running series (story), the show's producers are hard at work looking for a new outlet for the story to continue, executive producer Robert C. Cooper told GateWorld exclusively.

    "As far as the future I can't comment yet because nothing has been confirmed," Cooper said. "What we want to emphasize is that the franchise is not dying. SG-1 will go on in some way. We're just not ready to announce how."

    A formal announcement from the studio and the network is expected later this week.

    Cooper also emphasizes that, though emotions are running high among Stargate fans who have just learned the news, it is important to keep the show's ratings strong throughout the remainder of its run on SCI FI. "What's most important is that fans don't take out their frustration with SCI FI by not watching," he said. "In fact, what they need to do is watch both SG-1 and Atlantis LIVE and make sure the ratings stay strong.

    "That helps prove to other outlets that might be interested in SG-1 that the show is still as strong as we think it is."

    Could Stargate SG-1 find its way to yet another network in 2007? Or might the SG-1 team be headed for a TV movie, mini-series, direct-to-video feature ... or the big screen? Stay with GateWorld for the latest developments.

    1. Re:The show will go on by Damek · · Score: 1

      Sadly for those of us who don't like such things, "the franchise is not dying" can easily mean just comic books or paperback novels or whatever. I'd be highly surprised if they find anywhere else to go. At best we might get a movie...

      Nope, Sci-Fi is the channel where good things go to die. Farscape, Mystery Science Theater 3000, and now Stargate SG1... Hell, they bought the rights to do a miniseries of Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars a few years back and nothing's come of it. They just don't care about science fiction any more, if they ever did.

    2. Re:The show will go on by Mr.+Jaggers · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the (albeit tiny) hint of hope. Despite it's ups and downs, SG1 consistently had the best writing, characterization, and cinematics of its genre (albeit, also tiny). I hope that the effect of the letter writing campaign is not diluted by less effective calls to action (emails, the poll, etc.).

      For those who missed it above, here is SG1-Solutions commentary with the network exec's mailing addresses:

      http://stargate-sg1-solutions.com/blog/?p=650

      So, fans... listen up! Go sign the petition. Then send a few letters (actual paper letters, with stamps). Say something like "Please bring back the show, make an excellent miniseries, or even an awesome feature film, and I promise to buy the DVD's!!!".

      It would probably help to write "ATTN: Save Stargate SG-1" or some such on the outside of the envelope itself (like on the line after the recipient's name). That way, if they are just counting letters without opening them, the letter count will grow more quickly.

      Then print up about fifty copies and get your buddies' names on them. Ask them to mail them ("Pretty please!!! It's only fifty cents!!").

      Then go to a bar and bitch about the Sci-Fi channel over scotch (everyone will stare, I promise... but it might be cathartic).

      The real question is how the hell I'm gonna break the news to my wife...

      --

      When I grow up, I want to have Christopher Walken hair.
    3. Re:The show will go on by Mr.+Jaggers · · Score: 1

      oops, just read on http://savestargatesg-1.com/ not to write "Stargate" anything on the envelope. That way they have to actually open it to know what it's about.

      I wonder. Are they actually so detached from their audience as to toss fan letters that refer to undesired subject matter on the envelope? I hope not. I hope they listen.

      Oh, and send letters to Showtime too, urging them to take the series on.

      --

      When I grow up, I want to have Christopher Walken hair.
  31. What a shame by Pedrito · · Score: 3, Informative

    Starting in Season 8, SG-1 really started to go downhill, but I really felt like they were starting to put it back together this season and I was really starting to enjoy it again. When Browder first came onboard, I really felt like that was the end, but I've started liking him and I think the show has really returned to the kind of stories that make it great.

    Whether it continues or not, it has been an excellent series and will, for a while at least, have its place as, I believe, the second longest consecutive running sci-fi series in history. It's going to be hard for anyone to beat the original Dr. Who's 26 consecutive seasons, and obviously that isn't going to happen soon. I was kind of hoping SG-1 might give it a run for its money, though.

    The creators, writers, and actors who have been involved, old and new, all deserve congratulations for really fine work.

    1. Re:What a shame by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      Even I would admit last season was a bit boring. But this season seems to be a lot better, and then they kill it :(

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    2. Re:What a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?

  32. Gender-balancing the viewership by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 0, Troll

    Let's face it: if you're a SciFi male, your Friday nights already contain a viewing of Battlestar Galactica. That kind of makes SG1 superfluous; you're already watching. However, SG-Atlantis is as close to "Dr. Quinn, Starship Woman" as SciFi gets, so they keep that one around so SciFi females have something to watch too.

    1. Re:Gender-balancing the viewership by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      is that a troll? i dont watch sg-1 but i watch altantis regularly and it doesnt seem very girly to me. i also never watched dr quim medicine woman either so i might be missing your point.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    2. Re:Gender-balancing the viewership by slapout · · Score: 1

      Battlestar Galactica isn't scifi. It's a soap opera.

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    3. Re:Gender-balancing the viewership by Delight-Delirium · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a Sci Fi femail - Battlestart galactica is fucking awesome, and Atlantis is painfully lame. If they didn't wedge it between SG1 and Battlestar Galactica, I'd probabaly never watch it. As it is, I skip over it in favor of dinner.

      Ah.... thinking like this are why little fan boys like you don't get laid.

    4. Re:Gender-balancing the viewership by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      I have never watched an entire episode of 'Battlestar Galactica' myself. Watched a bit, didn't like it, so I stopped.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    5. Re:Gender-balancing the viewership by rilian4 · · Score: 1

      Yes! Somebody besides me finally gets it...

      --

      ...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
  33. sci-fi is going to get hatemail by jonfr · · Score: 1

    Sci-fi is now going to get a ton and ton of hatemail. I oppose this, I don't like. It takes away the few reasons I have to actually watch a Tv. They are getting fewer and fewer by the years.

    1. Re:sci-fi is going to get hatemail by Zenaku · · Score: 1
      In all frankness, though I love SG-1 (I watch but am less keen on Atlantis), I can accept that the show has been around a long time and is starting to get a little stale. It sucked when O'Neil and Hammond were replaced, and I don't like the Ori. Still, even with these handicaps, It's still one of the best sci-fi shows still on television -- It doesn't compare to it's own earlier self, and it doesn't compare to gems like Firefly that were cancelled well before their time, but it's still good.

      So while I don't think it will be huge tragedy if it ends after this season, I just can't figure out how the SciFi channel could think that is a good thing for them. Aside from Battlestar Galactica, which is brilliant but painfully absent for months and months on end (what is with the long mid-season breaks, damn!), the network really doesn't have anything else. I've often referred to it among friends as "The Stargate Channel."

      So how can this be good for them?

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    2. Re:sci-fi is going to get hatemail by Wildfire+Darkstar · · Score: 1

      They probably will get hate mail. On the other hand, network execs are probably immune to it by now. It's not like this is the first cult-favorite television series they've cancelled, as evidenced by Farscape and Mystery Science Theater 3000. Hell, they probably enjoy the publicity it brings them.

      --
      Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
    3. Re:sci-fi is going to get hatemail by rogerborn · · Score: 1


      Remember, they cancelled BABYLON 5 first, and killed CRUSADE outright, without an ending.

      Regards,
      Roger
      "Always drink upstream from the herd."

  34. Longest running show? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that title might be hotle contended by another show whos first serial has a few no name actors--Shatner, Nimoy and someone who's name sounds like Topay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_trek

    1. Re:Longest running show? by Stalin · · Score: 1

      Notice the infobox on the right side of that article. The original series aired for only eighty episodes. The original Stargate television series just aired its 200th episode. I do believe 200 is greater than 80.

    2. Re:Longest running show? by Zenaku · · Score: 2

      Star Trek only ran for a few seasons, IIRC. Seventy-some episodes or so? The only way Star Trek can be considered the longest running sci-fi show is if you chain all the shows in the Star Trek franchise together. Apples to Oranges.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    3. Re:Longest running show? by rkhalloran · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think some of us are a little too US-centric here: The Doctor has been around far longer ('63-'89, '05-present)

    4. Re:Longest running show? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Longest running *NORTH AMERICAN* scifi show. The good doctor is British, no?

    5. Re:Longest running show? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question is which has had more episodes....Dr. Who or SG-1. Also it should be taken into consideration that SG-1 episodes are hour, vs 1/2 hour.

    6. Re:Longest running show? by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      I think some of us are a little too US-centric here: The Doctor has been around far longer ('63-'89, '05-present)

      is the longest-running SF show on American television."


      They said "American Television". Just like when talking about Doctor Who one tends to say the longest airing sci-fi series. I don't know what the longest airing series is off the top of my head... the first thing that comes to mind is "Days of our lives" starting in 1965 and so far as i'm aware still in production. Apparently they have just done their 10,000th episode in feb 2005, which is hard to believe but I guess they produce 5 episodes a week for over 40 years. Soaps tend to be disqualified from such references, but 40+ years and 10,000+ episodes is worthy of note. Thanks to wiki I now know Guiding light beets even this going on 15,000 TV episodes not to speak of radio episodes. NBCs "Meet the press" has been airing since 1947, granted it's non-fiction but worthy of note. Also worthy of note is BBC's "Blue Beter", a children's program running between 1958 and 1995.

      Doctor Who probally wins in the sci-fi catagory, and apparently Stargate sg-1 wins in the US sci-fi catagory.

      Also see this (
      # Gunsmoke 633 (1955-1975)
      # Lassie 588 (1954-1973)

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    7. Re:Longest running show? by EvilIdler · · Score: 1

      >The question is which has had more episodes....Dr. Who or SG-1. Also it should be taken into
      >consideration that SG-1 episodes are hour, vs 1/2 hour.
      OK, Mr. Coward, you asked :)

      SG-1 episodes are 41-43 minutes after commercials are removed. Doctor Who's last two seasons
      were the same length, apart from one or two 55 minute episodes, counting the xmas special.

      The last shown episode was part two of the 181st *story*. Stories in Doctor Who 2005-2006
      have been 1-2 episodes, while the previous eras had 3-7 episodes per story. There are also some
      minor spin-offs and vaguely related material.

      The Wikipedia entry sums it up pretty well:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_se rials

      So SG-1 is the longest-running North-American sci-fi series, but the doctor beats them
      on length, number of episodes and total playing time.

    8. Re:Longest running show? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SG1 will have 215 episodes. Let's be generous and say each of them equal 2 x 25 minute episodes of Doctor Who. 430.

      Doctor Who had just shy of 700 episodes before it was canned in 1989. So you don't even had to bring the new show into the equation.

    9. Re:Longest running show? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Dr. Who had several long breaks (labour troubles, and other assorted causes- even one year where the top brass simply hated the show so much they refused to let it air [bye, bye Colin Baker]), resulting in its longest runs being about 7-8 years at a time. SG-1 is in the Guiness book of records for longest "consecutive" running sci-fi series.

      Parsing, but that's where the money is in bar bets...

    10. Re:Longest running show? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you count the new Doctor Who, you have to count all the Star Trek sequels, prequels etc.

      Lemme see ... counting double length episodes as two and not counting the films, we get:
      TOS: 79 [3 seasons]
      TNG: 178 [7 seasons]
      DS9: 176 [7 seasons]
      Voyager: 172 [7 seasons]
      Enterprise: 98 [4 seasons]

      adding up to 703 three-quarter-hour-equivalent-episodes, easily beating the Time Lord's roughly 420 TQHEEs. Adding in the cartoon as well we add another 14 2/3 TQHEEs and 22 'absolute' episodes, giving a grand total of 714 2/3 TQHEEs and (I think) 716 absolute episodes. (It is fairer to work in TQHEEs rather than absolute episodes, as episode lengths vary by show.

      Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lengths_of_science_f iction_movie_and_television_series; remove the space) gives a list of lengths of sci-fi series; counting only canon material we discover:

      Doctor Who: 13 days, 6 hours, 5 minutes [424 TQHEEs]
      Stargate: 8 days, 1 hour, 4 minutes (ish) [257 TQHEEs]
      Star Trek: 22 days, 8 hours, 33 minutes [715 TQHEEs including movies - the discrepancy arises since ST episodes usually fell short of 45 minutes]
      The X-Files: 8 days, 9 hours, 31 minutes [269 TQHEEs]

      which I suppose leaves The X-Files as the longest running continuous sci-fi series (that is, disallowing Star Trek) in North America by duration, even after deleting the movies.

      For the record, counting each episode for the principal Doctor only and not counting any specials, including the TV movie and The Five Doctors, but not allowing for differing episode lengths or arithmetical errors:

      First Doctor: 134 episodes
      Second Doctor: 119 episodes
      Third Doctor: 128 episodes
      Fourth Doctor: 172 episodes
      Fifth Doctor: 68 episodes
      Sixth Doctor: 31 episodes
      Seventh Doctor: 42 episodes
      Eighth Doctor: nil
      Ninth Doctor: 13 episodes
      Tenth Doctor: 14 episodes

      so really 'Doctor Who' has been a sequence of nine relatively short-lived shows under the same title, especially since 1980!

  35. get over it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's weird, I enjoy the odd SG-1 episode well enough, but my sister who hates sci-fi loves SG-1.

    But now Captain Carter has gone the way of Agent Scully, who's left?

  36. The show will (hopefully) go on by Devoir · · Score: 1

    http://www.gateworld.net/news/2006/08/cooper_isg-1 i_will_go_on.shtml It should be noted, as in the above article, that this is not the first time that Stargate SG-1 has had the network cancel. While it may be just blind fanboyism, I trust that there's a good chance that these fairly talented and motivated people may be able to sell Stargate SG-1, in some form, to another media outlet, be it another network or as a movie.

  37. Really? by gary+gunrack · · Score: 1

    Like most science fiction, I thought this show and the movie which spawned it should have been great-- but weren't. Not nearly. Battlestar Galactica: excellent. Serenity: excellent. Startrek NG, excellent. ...but Stargate? Well, ok, I'll give it another try. There is such a dearth of good sci-fi out there that the thought of 10 seasons of a good show out there for me to watch is kind of thrilling. Netflix, here I come. But if you are filling me with false hope, I will never forgive you.

  38. I felt a great disturbance in the Ascension . . . by Yeechang+Lee · · Score: 0, Redundant

    . . . as if millions of Goa'uld-infested Stargate fanatics suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

  39. SG1 = TNG; SGA = Voyager by dwayner79 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Too many similarities to name, but they will suffer the same fate. Voyager was disconnected from the normal species fans wanted to know about. Atlantis is the same. Fans want to follow what is happening here on earth and the surrounding systems not what is happening to some far off land. Some fans will come around just like Voyager fans did, but a major part of the Star Gate culture will die just like it did when TNG ended.

    --
    Religion and politics, without the flame. godgab.org
    1. Re:SG1 = TNG; SGA = Voyager by robertjw · · Score: 1

      I agree, but for different reasons. Voyager didn't fail due to it's premis, it failed because of bad casting and writing. Whoever cast that captain chick in Voyager killed that show. I couldn't hardly stand to watch her. Similarly SGA's characters, particularly Sheppard seem to be poorly cast. I've actually enjoyed SG1 again the last two seasons since they brought Ben Browder on as Col. Mitchell. He's great at the part and the writing (barring the lame 200th episode crap) has been good. If they want to cancel something they should cancel SGA.

  40. Willl continue as video-over-internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Connecting dots' I expect it to continue on video-iPods or similar internet devices.
    Wikipedia states:


    "As far as the future, I can't comment yet because nothing has been confirmed," Cooper said. "What we want to emphasize is that the franchise is not dying. SG-1 will go on in some way. We're just not ready to announce how." Cooper also emphasizes that, though emotions are running high among Stargate fans who have just learned the news, it is important to keep the show's ratings strong throughout the remainder of its run on SciFi. "What's most important is that fans don't take out their frustration with SciFi by not watching," he said. "In fact, what they need to do is watch both SG-1 and Atlantis LIVE and make sure the ratings stay strong. That helps prove to other outlets that might be interested in SG-1 that the show is still as strong as we think it is."[4]


    Which makes me think it's probably going to go on through some new-high-tech thingy like video ipods or video-over-internet.
    Otherwise they could say and wouldn't be as evasive about the outlets

    1. Re:Willl continue as video-over-internet? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1
      Which makes me think it's probably going to go on through some new-high-tech thingy like video ipods or video-over-internet.

      I thought the last episode made it obvious?

      MOVIE
    2. Re:Willl continue as video-over-internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing that last episode made obvious to me was that it is time for me to stop wasting my time on SG-1. And Atlantis wasn't much better...

    3. Re:Willl continue as video-over-internet? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Hah! I can see right through your troll! It's very transparent.

    4. Re:Willl continue as video-over-internet? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      I assume I'm looking at you stoically...

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  41. Too Many Secrets by Clock+Nova · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe they'll finally let the people of earth in on the whole Stargate thing. How the cat hasn't gotten out of the bag by this point is completely beyond my willingingness to suspend my disbelief.

    --
    There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
  42. Scifi being Scifi by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm no Stargate fan, but as a fan of the original "Sliders," classic "Doctor Who," "Mystery Science Theater 3000," and other things Scifi "rescued" with great fanfare before unceremoniously killing off, I feel your pain.

    1. Re:Scifi being Scifi by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      I'm no Stargate fan, but as a fan of the original "Sliders," classic "Doctor Who," "Mystery Science Theater 3000," and other things Scifi "rescued" with great fanfare before unceremoniously killing off, I feel your pain.

      I was a fan of Sliders too. I even watched the bad 4th and final season. You SG1 fans might note that Sliders ended in cliffhanger even though the series producers promised to tie up the loose ends of the storylines. Right. They tied up some of them, mostly by killing off old characters, but they ended it in a cliffhanger. I was so angry about this that I still won't watch the show in reruns or on DVD. The series head writer had what would be more or less the equivalent of a blog that ran on the offical Sliders webpage after each first run episode aired. After the series finale aired, he apologized to the fans, but said he was ordered to write a cliffhanger by the producers. Maybe SG1 will end on a better note, but I wouldn't bet on it. SciFi may also order a cliffhanger to set up the inevitable SG1 TV movie a few years down the road.

    2. Re:Scifi being Scifi by TooMuchEspressoGuy · · Score: 1
      Not only that, but they don't exactly have a habit of staying true to the original shows.

      I mean, come on. Sliders without the original guy who played Quinn Mallory?

      --
      Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
    3. Re:Scifi being Scifi by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

      I heard about that, although by that time the forcible insertion of the "Cromag War" story arc into a show which was meant to be something of a weekly "what if?" anthology type of deal built around the main cast had already put me off. And they did the same thing to MST3k, forcing the writers of that show (which had always lovingly kept its fictional intergrity to the bare minimum necessary for a show about a guy and some puppets in space watching bad movies) to come up with running arcs for their characters.

  43. SciFi to buy Firefly? by kulakovich · · Score: 1

    Yeah I made that up. Viewership = sponsor reveniew. Dear SciFi - Buy Firefly and the money will follow. kulakovich

    1. Re:SciFi to buy Firefly? by kulakovich · · Score: 1

      All that redesign and we still don't have a spellchecker for people like me? =) revenue revenue revenue Seriously though - SciFi pays Joss, let him do whatever he wants, agree to can it in two seasons up front. What could go wrong? ~ kulakovich

    2. Re:SciFi to buy Firefly? by gary+gunrack · · Score: 1

      That would be wonderful. unfortunately, Fox won't release the rights to Firefly.

    3. Re:SciFi to buy Firefly? by demon · · Score: 1

      It seems kinda silly for them to hold onto it, given their obvious lack of interest in it, and the interest of others in it... unless they're hoping to stir up enough interest in it to get more money for it. Maybe that's it. Maybe not.

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
  44. were is the SciFi? by grapeape · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why dont they just get it over and done drop BSG and rename themselves SpikeTV2. For only being a short time after the media declared Science Fiction was going mainstream why is there so little of it? Now instead of SG1, Firefly and Farscape we get Wrestling and that who wants to dress up like a tard and pretend your a superhero show. Oh well only another year or so to wait until the new Star Wars series brings on a wealth of copycats, clones and wannabees but by that time I expect that the SciFi channel wont exist anyway.

    1. Re:were is the SciFi? by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, it's been a full decade since MTV has shown a music video, so from that perspective, the Sci-Fi Channel is behind the times.

    2. Re:were is the SciFi? by iphayd · · Score: 1

      Oh come on! "Who Wants to be an Underwear Pervert" is some of the funniest reality TV comedy around.

    3. Re:were is the SciFi? by CommanderData · · Score: 1

      Oh come on! "Who Wants to be an Underwear Pervert" is some of the funniest reality TV comedy around.

      "Reality" shows have no place on a Science-Fiction channel, funny or not. Put the damn show on Fox, along with the "Wrasslin", John Edwards, and those low budget Mansquito flicks. Buy up the rights to show all of the major Sci-Fi series made in the last 40+ years and run them around the clock until you can create some good shows of your own!

      --
      Urge to post... fading... fading... RISING!... fading... fading... gone.
  45. Not really by krell · · Score: 1

    "Voyager was disconnected from the normal species fans wanted to know about"

    What species did fans like the most? Probably Vulcans, Klingons, and Borg would be my guess. "Voyager" was actually the first of the newer series to feature a Vulcan as a regular major character, so they had a connection to a "species fans wanted to know about" that the other shows did not have. They did have a half-Klingon, but no Klingon Empire, so there was a klingon element even if it was less than that in ST:TNG and ST:DS9. Borg? They ended up using them so much in "Voyager" that they outright wore them out.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
    1. Re:Not really by dwayner79 · · Score: 1

      Not in that a character was vulcan, but what is happening between Vulcans, Klingons, Romulans, etc. There were so many underlying political issues that added debth to the stories. When a romulan de-cloaked in front of the Enterprise, you understood all of the back story and underlying differences between them. With voyager none of that existed. Same with Atlantis.

      --
      Religion and politics, without the flame. godgab.org
    2. Re:Not really by krell · · Score: 1

      I see. You are referring more to Voyager's lack of connection to the rich backdrop of the "Alpha Quadrant" species, history empires, politics, and other situations. As opposed to mere species. I agree. This helped dragged down the show. What made it worse was the writers' consistent inability to come up with any new Delta Quadrant species or cultural context of interest. The Kazon, Vidiians, and Telaxians just do not cut it. I liked the Hunter and Prey species, actually, but it was too little, too late.

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    3. Re:Not really by dwayner79 · · Score: 1

      exactly. Now is it sad we are having this conversation... probably.

      --
      Religion and politics, without the flame. godgab.org
  46. Is there a movie in the works? by iambarry · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seems to me that a movie was hinted at in the 200th episode.

    Would this be the first TV series spinoff from a movie to spin off a movie?

    1. Re:Is there a movie in the works? by Drachemorder · · Score: 1

      No. Highlander comes to mind. I expect there are others as well.

    2. Re:Is there a movie in the works? by DreamingReal · · Score: 1

      Star Trek already broke that ground by going TV-series to Movie-series spin-off to TV-series spin-off back to Movie-series spin-off. (TOS -> TOS movies -> TNG -> TNG movies)

      --
      We want some answers and all that we get
      Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat

      - Ministry
    3. Re:Is there a movie in the works? by AveryRegier · · Score: 1

      No Highlander has already done this. The series spun off from the story of the first Highlander movie, there were a few more movies, and then Adrian Paul's Highlander had a movie called 'Endgame'. Last I heard there is another one in the works called 'The Source'.

    4. Re:Is there a movie in the works? by KFury · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Buffy; a TV show that was both the result of, and progenitor to, a major motion picture.

      Oh wait. It's still 2006? Forget I said anything...

  47. Dang by MBCook · · Score: 1

    I've only been watching for two years or so. I've seen all the past episodes (thanks to Netflix and DVDs). I adored the 200th episode, I thought it was hilarious. I read this last night, and the blurb blamed the lack of Battlestar Galactica (as a lead in) and stiff compitition (Monk on USA, also fantastic). It's really too bad. They had just got a good new badguy (the Ori) too. Plus in the lead in retrospective thing before the 200th episode the actor who plays Daniel mentioned that he was supposed to have something happen to his character this season. Not dieing, not ascending, something inbetween.

    Atlantis is good, but I'll miss SG1.

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  48. TNG Excellent? by riley · · Score: 1

    Star Trek TNG excellent?

    Did you actually watch it? Deanna turns into a frog (or immaculately conceives or turns into an old woman or senses hostility), Picard frets over moral issues, Riker is superfluous and Data (Spock Part II) and Wonder Boy Wesley save the day?

    TNG had the advantage of being the only SF series on in the late 80s/early 90s. But it was by no means excellent. DS9 was a better Star Trek. B5 had acting that was just as bad, but a better storyline.

    SG-1 is good. Not Battlestar Galactica good, but a good thing to watch.

    1. Re:TNG Excellent? by haapi · · Score: 1

      Star Trek: The Hand-Wringing Generation. Indeed.

      I mean, interstellar speed-limits? This was a useful plot-device, how?

      I did enjoy the "Puppet Masters"-ripoff episodes.

      --
      Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
    2. Re:TNG Excellent? by gary+gunrack · · Score: 1

      LOL-- maybe you're right. It's probably just in my memory that NG seems good. I watched most of it on video, taped off of tv with ads edited out by my girlfriend's mom, when I was in college. It seemed good at the time, but then again, smoking a spliff before breakfast seemed like a good idea at the time, too, back then.

  49. Canadian Government to Fund SG-1 Season 11? by darthcamaro · · Score: 1

    The Canadian Government has helped SG-1 production in Vancouver with a whole whack of incentives. Maybe the govt can get the Space Network in Canada together with some federal funds to produce season 11.

    1. Re:Canadian Government to Fund SG-1 Season 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Space Network aka
      The Space Channel aka
      SciFi Channel in Canada

  50. I've been waiting for a good occasion to... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...spend my 1000th post on.

    I'm dedicating it to the creators of Stargate SG-1.

    I won't repeat people saying that it was time, etc, but they are right. Instead, I'd just like to say that it was great entertainment. The occasional technobabble part was perfectly balanced out by the show not taking itself too seriously.

    So, thanks for the great show!

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  51. Cancel Atlantis, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    They need to cancel both of them since the average Atlantis script is simply a crappy copy of a previous SG1 episode.

    1. Re:Cancel Atlantis, too by zeronitro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i half agree with you.
      i don't think the show should be canceled, because there is far too few true sci-fi shows on anymore. (there's a lot of wannabes popping up on network tv, but they all want to incorporate crime or medical crap).

      i generally like atlantis, other then the first season by far had the best episodes and everything out now does seem like a bad copy off an old sg-1 ep. that and i like the lt. ford better then i like ronin (he's just not a good actor, what more do i have to say?)

      who knows... maybe daniel jackson will transfer to atlantis and next season may have some potential.

  52. Well on the brigther side..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The good Doctor http//www.scifi.com/doctorwho/ is coming back in season 2 Sept 29. I guess the Doctor will be taking SG-1s time slot on fridays. Hopefully this will lead to the BBC making more than 13 eps per season now that they'll have American dollars lining their pockets

    1. Re:Well on the brigther side..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for all the fans that already downloaded and watch the entire season... (Hint: David Tennant is a great tenth doctor)

    2. Re:Well on the brigther side..... by spune · · Score: 1

      American dollars are worth quite a bit less than British pounds. I'd rather have British pounds lining my pockets.

      There's no denying that America provides a much larger audience, however.

    3. Re:Well on the brigther side..... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    4. Re:Well on the brigther side..... by kjots · · Score: 1

      Except for all the fans that already downloaded and watch the entire season... (Hint: David Tennant is a great tenth doctor)

      So? That's not going to stop me from buying the DVD box set in November.

      I have a simply policy when it comes to illegaly downloading material off the Internet: Don't download anything you don't indend to buy later. After all, why should a licence to view the material only apply after the date of purchase? Hmm?

  53. I for one, am glad by Phleg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really like the show. I'd watched it sporadically whenever I saw it was on for several years, but just before season 7, I started torrenting the previous episodes, and watched them all in sequence. The first two seasons were alright, and it started picking up new and interesting story arcs in seasons 3 through 5. Six felt a little rehashed, and seven picked up with Anubis. Eight is where it legitimately should have ended, with the destruction of Anubis and the ending of virtually every side plot.

    With that said, season 9 actually surprised me with how well they managed to do, even with Richard Dean Anderson leaving, Don Davis being gone, and Amanda Tapping out of commission for a few months. Ben, Beau, and Claudia didn't feel right at first, but I gradually came to like the direction the show took; and at least there's always still Daniel and Teal'c. Plus, the Ori have been a pretty damned interesting new enemy. However, I'm glad they're cancelling the show. I'd rather them finish the Ori story reasonably quickly and end the show on a moderately high note (probably not as high as season 8, but high nonetheless) rather than dragging it on and on. While it's commendable how they've handled the transition to the new cast, it's not something that can be kept up indefinitely.

    --
    No comment.
    1. Re:I for one, am glad by wo1verin3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>I'd rather them finish the Ori story reasonably quickly and
      >>end the show on a moderately high note

      Unlikely that this will occur :(

      http://www.gateworld.net/news/2006/08/cooper_isg-1 i_will_go_on.shtml

      Don't count Stargate SG-1 out just yet. Though SCI FI Channel has cancelled the long-running series, the show's producers are hard at work looking for a new outlet for the story to continue, executive producer Robert C. Cooper told GateWorld exclusively.

      The only thing I hate more then series I like being cancelled, is being left hanging, possibly indefinately.

    2. Re:I for one, am glad by muridae · · Score: 1

      I'd rather them finish the Ori story reasonably quickly and end the show on a moderately high note (probably not as high as season 8, but high nonetheless) rather than dragging it on and on. While it's commendable how they've handled the transition to the new cast, it's not something that can be kept up indefinitely.

      And that was the problem I had with the timeing of Sci-fi canceling the show. Everything I had read, from scifi channel and from fan sites, said that the actors and writers had both signed on for both the 10th and 11th seasons. Canning the show in the middle of the 10th season like this, with summer left for filming the second half of the season, I can't help but expect an ending much like Farscape. As the folks over at gateworld.com have said, "Ironically, this is the first year since Season Four that plans were already in place, both creatively and in signed actor contracts, for another year. The show has lived on year-to-year since moving to SCI FI, with the writers forced to write a possible series finale every year -- only to find the show renewed once again." http://www.gateworld.net/news/2006/08/istargate_sg -1i_cancelled_iatlan.shtml

      At least Devlin has said there are serious plans for a movie sequal. http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?id=37194

    3. Re:I for one, am glad by PygmySurfer · · Score: 1

      At least Devlin has said there are serious plans for a movie sequal.

      Unfortunately, they'd be throwing away the 10 years of Stargate SG-1, and making a sequel to the film. The movie was alright, but I really like the way they fleshed out the story in SG-1. Though, I guess it could be interesting to see what they do with it.

  54. One of the best sci-fi series I've ever known by lkcl · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Stargate is in the same league as 'The Matrix' and 'Dr Who', and is better than Firefly for scope.

    Stargate combines technology and mysticism in an 'everyday' and transparently 'acceptable' manner
    ('believable' is not an appropriate word to use because it requires that you 'check in' - "do i believe this?
    mmm... yep! oh drat - missed an important plotline there...)

    the storyline - and the background - are breathtaking in scope: on a par with Ian Bank's 'Culture' series
    but more dynamic, gripping and immediate than Ian Bank's 'Culture' series (which is more violent, thoughtful,
    and explorative of technology and aliens and the origins of both).

    we get to see 'real' people making 'real' decisions - a lot of them fire-fighting - so it's realistic:
    humans screw up, they get duped, they get dumped on. only by the skin of their teeth, through ingenuity,
    and by not giving up do they pull through.

    now - you could say that a lot of sci-fi series have the same characteristics: 'Star Trek' was the first
    really pioneering series which brought the same level of commitment from its characters; others followed,
    but even 'Star Trek' became old very quickly (even with 78 or so episodes).

    In all, there really isn't (hasn't been) any other series which has all the characteristics that make a sci-fi
    series truly fantastic and a real engaging pleasure to watch and to look forward to. My guess is that
    the SCI FI channel will be absolutely kicking themselves once it sinks in what they have lost, because the
    Stargate shows are _so_ good at what they do that I believe that the SCI FI channel has become complacent
    (familiarity breeds contempt...) and simply takes it for granted.

  55. Your handle is "ginger unicorn"? Point proved ;) by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    Your handle is "ginger unicorn" and you watch SG-Atlantis? I think you just proved my point ;)

  56. omg man wtf.. by Intangion · · Score: 1

    geez damn it this sucks..
    i was having a good day then i saw this articles title and it felt like a friend had just died ;(

    they just put on their 200th episode and all this talk about how the show was still going strong and yadda yadda.. now they are cancelled? wtf..

    stargate atlantis SUCKS i dont even watch that crap.. wtf how can stargate atlantis go on without SG-1..? is earth gonna get blown up in the series? then atlantis is on their own?

    or will they have cameos from the SG-1 group every once in a while?

    what will happen to siler?

    1. Re:omg man wtf.. by thepacketmaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      "What will happen to siler?" More importantly, what will happen to Walter!? I mean, the poor guy had to give Beau Bridges $100 CDN just to get into the 200th episode.

      --

      --

      Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.

    2. Re:omg man wtf.. by Intangion · · Score: 1

      lol oops got them confused, thats who i meant ;)

      poor guy ;)

      he will wander the streets in his SGC jumpsuit

  57. Sorely missed by joeyblades · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm a pretty staunch critic when it comes to Sci-Fi.
    However, I have to say that Stargate SG-1 has always been one of
    the best. They have always had an attention to scientific detail
    that was far and above other shows, with the possible exception
    of the Star Trek series' (Gene Roddenbery was a master). However,
    the real charm of SSG1 has been the clever dialog and witty inside
    jokes. I knew I was going to love the series from the first episode
    when, upon finding the first ancient dialing device on another
    planet, Samantha Carter sez to Jack O'Neill:

    > "Amazing. This is what was missing from the dig at Giza. It took
    > us 15 years and 3 supercomputers to MacGyver a system for the
    > gate on Earth."

    Now I shouldn't have to explain why this is clever and funny, but I
    often have to clue people in. I appologize to the 99% of you who already
    get it, but for that 1% who need a little help;

    Jack O'Neil is played by actor Richard Dean Anderson.
    Richard Dean Anderson also played a character named MacGyver on a TV show of the same name.
    MacGyver's claim-to-fame was using combinations of everyday items to "engineer" solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems...

  58. Paging Dr Jackson by Nastard · · Score: 4, Informative

    This may have been mentioned before, but there's been some talk in interviews and whatnot that Shanks might leave SG-1 anyway to join the Atlantis cast (where, logically, he belongs anyway). Jackson is my favorite, and this would at least give me some hope for Atlantis.

  59. As the Comic Book Guy would say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Worst. News. EVER!

    I've been a huge fan of the movie and was thrilled to find out they had made it into a television series. And at first I didn't like Atlantis, but once you manage to look past some of the horrrible acting, it's actually quite enjoyable.

    The upside of all this, is the release of a 10-season DVD box, as they did with Buffy and her seven seasons. So it's not all that bad. I'm just curious what'll happen to SG-1's characters; will Daniel move to the Atlantis base; will the Ori be vanquished in the remainer of this season? So many questions.

  60. Atlantis by gravis777 · · Score: 1

    What ellse is there to watch on the network? Why, Atlantis, of course. But you are right, Friday nights are going to suck. I am either going to have to finally get a life, or start watching Most Haunted on TLC.

    1. Re:Atlantis by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know you can have a life on friday night and still watch your geek shows. There are two devices that let you do this by recording the shows so you can watch them later.

      One of them is called a V-C-R and you can pick one up at a flea market for a few bucks. They first got popular back in the '70 when people relized they could watch porn at home. Or if they had a camera they could make their own porn. (I wouldn't recommend the home made to anyone though. Its usually just 5 mins of some dude poorly focues bare ass bouncing.) It works by letting you record the show you want to watch on a very fragle tape like substance in pour quality.

      The other is called a D-V-R. It works pretty much the same way as a VCR but instead of tape, it uses an expensive and fragle highly spinning disk of death. One of the best things about a dvr is after a while it will start suggesting shows for you to watch. You might find that it has better taste in TV than you do. I know mine does.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    2. Re:Atlantis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget #3: iTunes

    3. Re:Atlantis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I wouldn't recommend the home made to anyone though. Its usually just 5 mins of some dude poorly focues bare ass bouncing.)

      That's the good home made stuff. The bad stuff is some guy with a huge belly and a hairy ass.

    4. Re:Atlantis by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      And its really bad when someone springs some homemade geratric porn on you. Don't know about the rest of you but nothing turns me off faster than seeing grandpaw in a gimp suit.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    5. Re:Atlantis by rogerborn · · Score: 0, Troll

      The third, and by far the most excellent device is the TIVO.

      Get a life on Friday night, and watch yer shows on Saturday morning
      instead of cartoons.

      TIVO is great for instant replays, rewinding to see what you missed,
      pausing while getting more pizza and beer, and FF through commershes.

      All on a fast Hard Drive with live Cable TV.

      Regards,
      Roger
      "You already have zero privacy. Get over it."

    6. Re:Atlantis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Bit Torrent.

    7. Re:Atlantis by CoderJoe · · Score: 1

      Um... I hate to burst your bubble (not really), but the TIVO is just the first commercially-successful device in the DVR category the GP mentioned.

  61. another by Bizzeh · · Score: 1

    yet another sci-fi show canceled before its time

    1. Re:another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This show should've been canceled at least 2 seasons ago. In the last 2 seasons you can tell that the writers are really struggling to find new ideas & new character arcs, and they are not finding any - most episodes are rehashes of plots from earlier seasons. And nothing is happening at all in regards to character development. Even SG:Atlantis has been rehashing old SG1 plots, and Shepard is the EXACT same character as O'Neill, Ronin is the EXACT same character as Teal'c, etc. - the only remotely interesting character is McKay, but his over-acting gets annoying sometimes.

      SciFi should just put the entire Stargate universe out of it's misery. It had a good run, but they should focus on Battlestar Galactica - which is by FAR the best SciFi show to ever air on TV.

  62. Mod -2 by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 1

    I hereby bestow a mod -2 upon thee, for Blasphmey and Just Plain Wrong

    --
    "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
  63. Re: Stargate: SG-1 Cancelled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  64. The demise of SciFi by mythras · · Score: 1

    Seeing a bunch of rednecks wrestling on SciFi the other night merely confirmed that it has sold out to the network morons.

    Here's hoping some network moron is shown the door when this turns into just another 'Farscape/Firefly' SNAFU. Too bad the crew will have moved on to new things before SciFi realizes their ratings just tanked on Friday night.

  65. More like going out on the bottom.... by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

    After the crapfest that was season 9 and now season 10, I say good riddance. I used to be a huge Stargate fan, but after they brought in Mitchell as a replacement for O'Neill, and the 1-dimensional yawnfest that is the Ori, the show has just kept going downhill (and the ratings with it). Don't take me wrong, I think Ben Browder is a great actor, and I loved Farscape even more than I used to like Stargate, but the scriptwriters for SG-1 season 9&10 just plain suck. The way things are now I think it's better to let the series out of it's misery. IMO this is one case where the network actually made a good decision, because the only ones left watching SG-1 nowadays is the hardcore, borderline fundamentalist SG-1 fans, and those who want 'Brainless Action series XYZ' in space. I give Atlantis one more season, and only because Rodney Mckay is still occasionally funny.

    1. Re:More like going out on the bottom.... by ericdano · · Score: 1

      SG1, I might agree. The Ori are kind of lame. But it's getting better. Better than RDA phoning in performances in season 8.

      McKay is funny, but Weir is weak. What happened to Ford? And Talia (or however you spell it) is annoying. Sheppard and McKay make that show.

      --
      It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
      I moderate therefore I rule!
      --
    2. Re:More like going out on the bottom.... by MKalus · · Score: 2, Interesting
      McKay is funny, but Weir is weak. What happened to Ford? And Talia (or however you spell it) is annoying. Sheppard and McKay make that show.


      McKay is funny, and even better, the character got to grow, too bad that in one of the last episodes he reverted back to the old McKay (I think that one was written by the SG-1 writers, and McKay was whiny and bitchy again, though the joke with the lemon was good).

      As for Ford, yeah, what happened? Personally the Atlantis team is pretty much a copy cat of SG-1 now, Ford was clearly an interesting (albeit "weak") character. Weir is at times a bit bitchy I'd say.

      Still, I find them enjoyable and at least SG-1 doesn't take itself too seriously unlike TNG and Voyager did.
      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
  66. Frell...Bull Dren by FerretFrottage · · Score: 1

    I suspect that the writers will bring in Rygel to replaces the Asgard as the Asgard clearly want too much money and the show will continue.

    --
    "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
    1. Re:Frell...Bull Dren by mark_hill97 · · Score: 1

      You are close, see rygel is a furling and they are going to come in and kick some ORI ass and the series will end

  67. Ten years is nothin.... by Burb · · Score: 1

    compared to THE DOCTOR

    --

    1. Re:Ten years is nothin.... by supabeast! · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but only because Doctor Who is admittedly cheesy, if not downright bad. You can get away with doing the same thing forever when you mock yourself - SG-1 takes itself way too seriously for that.

      Now if they would just go the Xena route...

    2. Re:Ten years is nothin.... by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      You can get away with doing the same thing forever when you mock yourself - SG-1 takes itself way too seriously for that.

      Obviously you didn't watch SG-1's 200th episode. Rare is the show that can mock just about everything about itself, and make it funny.

      Not that I disagree with your comment that Doctor Who is cheesy, and can get away with bad stuff because of that.

      For a series that did take themselves too seriously and truly sucked, try Sinbad. Or Enterprise.

    3. Re:Ten years is nothin.... by Burb · · Score: 1

      Out of interest, have you seen the 2005 or 2006 series of Who? True, it's not afraid to mock itself a little from time to time, but I don't see a correlation between self-mockery and longevity.

      --

  68. ECW,what is up with that? by ericspinder · · Score: 1
    Why, ECW, of course!
    I couldn't believe that show came on the same station after watching Eureka. I know that wrestling is quick and cheap to produce, but couldn't they at least throw in an alien or two?
    --
    The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
    1. Re:ECW,what is up with that? by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      They have a vampire and a fortune teller...

      and on one of the first shows when it came out, they had one of the wrestlers beat the crap out of a "zombie". I guess they were poking some fun at sci-fi.

    2. Re:ECW,what is up with that? by Traiklin · · Score: 1

      they had a Zombie on there and were planning an Alien but SciFi decided against it cause they thought if an Alien showed up and had the shit beat out of it it would Hurt SciFi's image and decided against it.

      on the bright side, atleast my fridays are now cleared (I don't care for Atlantis) and smart move to cancel one of the big shows your network has going for you, make sure to replace it with really shitty C level "SciFi" original movies.

    3. Re:ECW,what is up with that? by ericspinder · · Score: 1
      SciFi decided against it cause they thought if an Alien showed up and had the shit beat out of it it would Hurt SciFi's image and decided against it.
      And how would that be different than nearly all of their other shows? I'd say that there is a near 90% certainty that any time an one appears on a show, a least some alien butt is going to be kicked.

      Well, I'm looking forward to Dr Who, BG and Eureka. Other than that bizare for the format ECW show, SciFi has done a terrific job overall. I just want to make sure that they do the right thing and wrap up the show well.

      --
      The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
    4. Re:ECW,what is up with that? by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Me, I'm going to enjoy atlantis and BSG; I've seen Doctor Who season 2 already.

      And let me tell you: the eps with original airdates immediately surrounding June 6th were fucking awesome.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    5. Re:ECW,what is up with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Eureka sorta sucks. They had one deep episode with the memory loss concept. The rest seem to be a bit cheesy. It didn't catch my eye and I watched all of them. I don't understand the deal with canceling SG, maybe the writers are just exhausted. Do these actors just want too much cash? Are some leaving for other projects?
      Is there no commercial support?
      Are they spending too much on Want to be a super hero?

    6. Re:ECW,what is up with that? by modecx · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think wrestling would be far more entertaining if it were more men vaporizing eachother with plasma rifles, and less, well, wrestling. I mean, flying hair, teeth and eyeballs are far less homoerotic than having a bunch of big hairy men in tights trying to come out on top.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    7. Re:ECW,what is up with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      professional wrestling has been without wrestling since it's inception, and "remember the script" not "come out on top"

      Oninoshiko

  69. If you kiss like you spell, I don't want any ;) by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    If you kiss like you spell, I don't want any ;)

    1. Re:If you kiss like you spell, I don't want any ;) by Delight-Delirium · · Score: 1

      For the record - I wasn't offering you any

  70. Firefly comment is spot on by maximthemagnificent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The seeds of crappiness were already showing in Firefly: Heart of Gold, anyone?
    If Serenity is any guide, I'm thrilled Firefly ended abruptly.

    That's always been a strength of a lot of anime and a fair amount of BBC programming:
    it has a beginning, a middle, and an end. They don't try and string it out for as long as
    possible. The ones that do suffer the same fate as US shows.

    I read an interview with the producer of Star Trek: The Next Generation season six,
    and she said that they had the ep they were shooting, one they had pretty much written,
    and some basic ideas for the next one and that was how they went through the whole
    season. I don't like Start Trek anyways, but any show would have trouble being of high
    quality under those circumstances.

    Always leave 'em wanting more, right?

    Maxim

  71. Longest running.. by NekoXP · · Score: 1

    Is any US Sci-Fi show (or any show whatsoever) ever going to beat Doctor Who (or Coronation Street)?

    1. Re:Longest running.. by Clazzy · · Score: 1

      You forgot News at Ten!

      --
      If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards... Checkmate.
    2. Re:Longest running.. by colinmc151 · · Score: 1
      Is any US Sci-Fi show (or any show whatsoever) ever going to beat Doctor Who (or Coronation Street)?

      Meet The Press which got its start as a radio program in 1945, and then as a TV show in November 1947. This beats both Coronation Street, 1960 and Doctor Who, 1963. Now granted, Meet The Press is not a Science Fiction TV show, though, some of the material from members of the current U.S. administration have carried a Twilight Zone type feel.

    3. Re:Longest running.. by NekoXP · · Score: 1

      Well personally I don't count radio shows that turned TV ;)

      Ahhh.. it's nice to know at least we don't have the monopoly on drudging out the same old shit year after year. I mean that's a good thing, right? :)

  72. About two years too late. by edunbar93 · · Score: 1

    Stargate really should have ended with the defeat of the Goa'uld. That would have been an awesome and worthy end to the series.

    My wife and I are big fans of Stargate. I think they did an amazing job. They took an idea from a movie that was only so-so, and they ran with it and made it into something infinitely greater. In fact, we bought all the seasons that they produced on DVD so far.

    But we're not going to buy last season's DVD set. It seems that either the creative well has run dry, or that the writers just aren't capable of coming up with original bad guys anymore. At any rate, this past season was a total dud and I doubt that I'll be waiting with bated breath for this last season.

    I guess that's show business for you. Just keep churning out the same old stuff, not until you get the big dramatic ending, but until the grosses start to drop.

    --
    "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
  73. Doctor Who by nura78 · · Score: 1

    Could this mean that we could be getting season 28 of Doctor Who? There is going to be a gap in the schedule, and Doctor Who would be a perfect fit.

  74. The real reason it is being cancelled is... by Technomonics · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... because Cheyenne Mountain is going to be shut down. The oversite committee finally got their way. Of course, this is probably just some "Trust" plot to keep us in the dark... I hear though that there is a new series starting up, "Wormhole Xtreme!"

  75. Yet another sci-fi series canceled befor it's time by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 1

    215 episodes of SG-1 yet firefly was killed off after just 1/2 a series....

      Someone needs to go in and kick TV execs in the arse, let us for one divert funds from reality tv...

    --
    In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
  76. FYI: Cheyenne Mountain Being Closed by N8F8 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Don't you guys watch the news? They are closing down Cheyenne Mountain and moving the stargate. I bet the Russians are taking it over.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:FYI: Cheyenne Mountain Being Closed by gwayne · · Score: 1

      Yes, in fact the new series will be called

  77. IMHO, the series hasn't been the same.... by 8127972 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    .... since Richard Dean Anderson left. One of the reasons why I started watching SG-1 is because of how he played the character of Jack O'Neill. He never took himself (or sometimes the situations that he found himself in) too seriously and always was good at breaking up the tension of some episodes with a good joke (eg: "That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem."). I found it hard to get into the series after that and got addicted to the re-runs prior to 2005.

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
    1. Re:IMHO, the series hasn't been the same.... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I never understood that attitude. Who wants a show to be the same thing all the time? Periodic changes are a necessity, IMHO. Look at 24. How many characters are still there that were in season 1, but it is still a great show. Even Keifer Sutherland could be replaced at some point if he decided to call it quits (I'd vote for Christain Bale).

      RDA left for personal family reasons. Browder and Black are doing fine. Vala is a fun character. The Ori make the System Lords look like piker. Change is good. This whole getting infatuated with a single character always mystified me.

      Outside the rabid fanboy clique, Stargate was always an ensemble show with four strong main characters and an extensive regular supporting cast. Hell, I know people who didn't like Daniel Jackson and even preferred Corin Nemic's run. I know others who felt the character of O'Neil had become a self parody mainly through the acting of RDA, and thought it was high time for him to leave anyway.

  78. It's best to go out on top by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Unlike some of the wniney phanbois who couldn't get over the fact that Richard Dean Anderson left the show of his own accord, I have enjoyed the show through all the seasons. I was *glad* they finally resolved the System Lords storyline. Those guys were getting old, and the Ori are a nice new uber-enemy. I guess it helps that I was a Farscape fan, and Browder and Black seem to be having fun with their current roles.

    But it's good for them to end on their own terms. They can have a proper final episode and wrap up all the loose ends (unless they plan some movies down the road).

  79. Re:Yet another sci-fi series canceled befor it's t by echocharlie · · Score: 1

    I agree with you on this point. I can't believe some of the things that get the green light for TV these days. There can never be enough Sci-fi.

  80. The plot thins by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

    Sure SG-1 is very good. I still think it has gone past its "best before" date. Let this show rest and the resources and very good actors, directors and producers start new shows.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  81. wtf by denjin · · Score: 1

    What is it with 3 misogynist posts now anyway?

  82. Ascension by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Stargate isn't going to end. It's just ascending! It'll be back. Just ask Dr. Jackson...

  83. I hate these TV execs. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1
    What the heck are they thinking? This is an extremely popular show that has been running practically forever. The story line is usually very well developed. It is usually very interesting, and makes the audience actually care about the characters. Why would they want to cancel this show?

    It reminds me of the time when there used to be a show called Vengeance Unlimited on UPN-13. This show was on every Thursday night. It was pretty much the only show my family watched, and it always brought my family together on Thursday evenings. So what did the idiot execs at UPN-13 do? They cancelled it so they could replace it with America's Funniest Pets, a stupid, retarded, dumb, idiotic show that has no merit and is a waste of television airwaves.

    So this is what they're doing now with SG1. They'll probably replace it with something really retarded.

  84. plausible deniability by bokmann · · Score: 1

    You know the 'show within the show' that creates plausible deniability for the existence of the Stargate program? For some time I have been thinking that this might be very real... just like when Seinfeld did his 'show within the show' idea. Now we find out within weeks of each other that Cheyenne Mountain is shutting down, and Stargate is cancelled.

    Coincidence?

    1. Re:plausible deniability by rnws · · Score: 1

      At the very least, it's a humorous coincidence. Perhaps the studio should have made light of the Cheyenne Mountain mothballing in their announcment. ;-)

  85. SG-1 Cancelled! by Jolly_Fat_Man · · Score: 0

    I have been a sci-fi nutcase all my life, and my sister is just as much of a nut about scifi as I am. So I guess it's only fair that I say it, if no one else will. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! !! I'll stop now... I also want to thank you crazy nuts out there that allowed the series to have enough support to last all this time, and the people making it for surviving this much time with these many supporting geeks and freaks after you. I'm a freakish scifi geek and proud of it!

    --
    Blind are we who do not know that we are blind. The world has been boring ever since I got here.
  86. This is over due by slagell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am an SG-1 fan, but the last 2 seasons have been poor. It isn't just that Richard Dean Anderson has left, but the show tied up nicely at the end of season 8 and should have ended there. Actors that wanted to stay, could have migrated to Atlantis, like Worf to DS-9.

    My biggest beef, if there always has to be this epic war, and each time they win, they have to come up with a more powerful enemy. This has happened to the ridiculous extreme till they are literally fighting "gods". This is a bad sign, a sign that they are running out of ideas. This is the sort of thing DS-9, a very sub-par substitute for TNG, did to boost its ratings. They had a 3 year war between the federation and dominion.

    A good sci-fi show should be able to sustain interesting plots without the constant backdrop of annihilation. And when you keep replacing old enemies with more powerful ones, it degrades the battle with the old and the new enemies become ridiculously powerful after a while.

    I hope they wrap up this Ori crap soon and never return to the ascending being junk. However that seems unlikely, because they have just introduced a new antagonist into Atlantis. I guess the Wraith aren't enough to deal with.

    1. Re:This is over due by CRC'99 · · Score: 1
      This has happened to the ridiculous extreme till they are literally fighting "gods".


      I can see that you've never really understood what's going on then... The Ori are about as much "Gods" as the Gould. The Ori are ascended beings - ie humans that followed the path to enlightenment and ascended into a pure energy form. Just like humans, some of them are flawed.

      The Ori represent the fact that humans are greedy and power hungry - and this has transfered into the ascended state. Keep in mind Anubas had also ascended! The Ori are NOT gods - just selfish higher beings that are being shown to have human traits.

      If you think they are battling Gods, then you must have missed a memo or something.
      --
      Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
  87. Thank God! by eno2001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sorry, but I never got into the show. It's too much action and not enough intellect for me. Give me the first two seasons of Sliders any day. At least there, the intellect was worshipped far more than fire power. Fire power is of little use when you're trapped inside a puzzle. And we are all trapped in that life IS a puzzle.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    1. Re:Thank God! by hiroller · · Score: 0

      See this is an American show, it SUPPOSED to worship gunpower over intellect. They also get all of their cool technology from aliens(foreigners). Com'on! Even the enemies represent American enemies! The Gou'ald represent the Communist threat we faced then now we have a threat that is fighting for their Gods and are doing their will in destroying the infidels!

  88. Save SG-1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Sign the petition to save SG-1 at http://www.petitiononline.com/SAVESG1/.

    Please sign, it may help them change their mind.

    1. Re:Save SG-1 by tcc3 · · Score: 1

      Why would I do that? SG should have ended 2 years ago with season 8.

    2. Re:Save SG-1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear, hear.
      After season 8 its been lame. I loved Browder and Black in Farscape but their characters for SG-1 might as well have been named "Crichton Lite" and "Im NOT Aeryn". That and the Go'auld were good villians who posed as gods....did we need villians who basically ARE gods? It feels too much like the writers just started looking for "kewl powerz!!!!".

  89. Argh!....Stupid Stupid Stupid....SCIFI Channel! by haplo21112 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everyonce in a great great while I have some small hope of seeing good TV and justifying that stupid cable bill. Then the Scifi channel pulls this idiocy. So when is the BattleStar Galactica cancellation notice coming? Perhaps they will find somemore washed up or also ran wrestling leaugues to show. Well at least maybe they will find another channel for the show.

    --
    Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
    1. Re:Argh!....Stupid Stupid Stupid....SCIFI Channel! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Damn...what was my password again?)

      I don't think you'll see BSG cancelled. As I understand my corporate ownership--and I may be lost in this--NBC/Universal owns BSG and it owns the Sci-Fi Channel. Thus, the money that Sci-Fi pays for BSG is fed back into the same corporation. Conversely, SG1 is money that leaves NBC/Universal and goes to Sony/MGM.

      Ratings have been down this season for SG-1. So spending that money for poor ratings isn't worth it. Conversely, since the money paid for BSG just loops around, it's easier to justify it (and I think BSG gets better ratings than SG-1).

  90. How about Eureka? by unicorn · · Score: 1

    And coming in the Spring the Harry Dresden tv show.

    It's still out there, but anyone that thought it was really gonna be mainstream, is a dolt, I'd say.

    --
    "Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
    1. Re:How about Eureka? by eddy · · Score: 1

      Eureka is pretty awful if you ask me. No season or even multi-episode arcs in sight (yes, I'm aware of 'Beverly', doesn't count).

      --
      Belief is the currency of delusion.
    2. Re:How about Eureka? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      I'd say there's definite setup for an arc relating to that artifact.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    3. Re:How about Eureka? by MKalus · · Score: 1

      Harry Dresden goes TV? When did that happen? I wasn't even aware they had showed the TV movie yet. I love the books and would probably look forward to it (depending on how the movie is).

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    4. Re:How about Eureka? by unicorn · · Score: 1

      http://www.scifi.com/dresdenfiles/

      It's due in January, at last word. Hopefully it will be good.

      I saw a blurb somewhere about the show, and that's how I got into the books. And I'm damn glad I did. :)

      --
      "Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
    5. Re:How about Eureka? by eddy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that's all there is. Hints of arcs to come. It's so fluffy and unsubstantial it might as well not exist.

      (I haven't seen the latest ep, I'm hoping this will change _soon_)

      --
      Belief is the currency of delusion.
  91. Re:Your handle is "ginger unicorn"? Point proved ; by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

    actually a girl called me that and it was the last thing i heard before having to come up with a slashdot handle, but now you mention it, it is rather effeminate and also quite ironic that someone with such a name would question your assessment of SG-Atlantis. :)

    --
    (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
  92. Actually, Sci-Fi smart this time. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    Mostly because they let the producers of Stargate SG-1 at least complete the season now in production. One remembers the fiasco of Farscape and how they cancelled the show by leaving way too many storylines dangling from the completed Season 4.

    1. Re:Actually, Sci-Fi smart this time. by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Also, if you recall, they "cancelled" SG-1 at the end of season 7 (or 8).

      This may be another try for sympathy and a ratings boost.

      Hey, they run wrasslin' and the "Biggest Douche in the Universe". I wouldn't put anything past them.

  93. Frelling idiots at SciFi... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cancel SG-1?

    SciFi channel is committing a G4-like hari-kari? Canceling it's 4th highest rated show?

    What are they going to replace it with? More Wrestling? How about some re-runs of the Man Show! Give me a break!

    If I didn't need to have cable to have high-speed internet, I'd ditch cable tv all-together at this point. These days, except for one or two shows on HBO, and Eureka, 4400, dead zone, and SG-1 the TV is on the WX Ch as background noise more than anything.. 4 hrs of non-premium TV worth watching a week, soon to go to 3? Meh.

    Frelling idiots.

    1. Re:Frelling idiots at SciFi... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Now that they're owned by NBC, maybe they'll bring back Misfits of Science. Now that was good sci-fi comedy killed too early!

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  94. Re:SciFi to buy Firefly? [OFF TOPIC] by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

    Get a browser with a spell checker, don't ask slashdot for one.

  95. good riddence by geekoid · · Score: 1

    gah, I hate that show.

    BTW, rating are DOWN which is why it may be going away. It's not even on the top 15, so to say it's very popular would be wrong.

    It is not 'going out on top' Sienfield went out on top(another show I loath, but for different reasons.)

    OAN: If anyone knows where I can get a comprehensive list of cable neilson rating, please let me know.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:good riddence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, the Sci-Fis forth ranked show. They keep Atlantis, which is .1 above sg-1.

      BTW, the ratings don't count DVRs. I can't remember the last time I watched a non-sporting event live.

  96. Cheyenne Mountain Closing by Pchelka · · Score: 1

    I didn't think Cheyenne Mountain was actually being permanently shut down.

    This Denver Post article and this Washington Post article say Cheyenne Mountain is being put on a sort of standby status with minimal personnel until the U.S. government figures out how the facilty fits into the changing priorties of our national defense strategy. The main justification given was that a nuclear missile attack from Russia or China is very unlikely. This seems a bit short-sighted to me, as there are other potentially dangerous nuclear powers emerging right now.

    I find this rather ironic, since in the pilot episode of SG-1, the whole Stargate program had been mothballed and the facility was only being manned by a skeleton crew - until the Goa'uld decided to pay us a little visit. Hmmm... Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

    1. Re:Cheyenne Mountain Closing by kimvette · · Score: 1
      I find this rather ironic, since in the pilot episode of SG-1, the whole Stargate program had been mothballed and the facility was only being manned by a skeleton crew - until the Goa'uld decided to pay us a little visit. Hmmm... Makes you wonder, doesn't it?


      Yeah, it kind of makes me wonder at how long the mothballing of Cheyenne has been in the works, and who leaked it to the SG-1 writers. ;)
      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    2. Re:Cheyenne Mountain Closing by unuselessj · · Score: 1

      Obviously, they went through the Stargate after having a super computer calculate the exact time necessary to travel back in time with the help of a solar flare.

    3. Re:Cheyenne Mountain Closing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Late reply but who cares.

      The real reason it's being closed is that there is NO way it could survive an attack anyway. The mountain is/was probabably target # 2 after the Pentagon, so that's probably 10-20 warheads all trying to nail the mountain.

      Not even a mountain could survive that, much less anything else within 50-100 miles. So, it makes sense to move it to a cheaper-to-operate above ground base with lots of room to grow and spread out and not force the workers to live like moles.

      If there's a war, the new base will be obliterated just as effectively, perhaps with fewer warheads but still glassed nicely. Hell, the old mountain will still be pounded pretty good anyway.

      Either way, the base staff is dead meat. But now, they're simply cheaper to keep on the payroll while they are alive. Everything these days is focused on saving a dollar here or there so it can be wasted on $500 hammers.

  97. So now that it's dead... by kyjl · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Let's have some more Firefly.

    I have no idea who owns the rights to the series (Does Fox still have them?), but Sci-Fi should gobble up Firefly and stick it in the gaping hole where SG-1 used to be. There'd be yet more fans, yet more of a convincing audience to make a sequel series, and if you're too damn cheap to buy the DVDs actually give people a chance to watch the series.

    --
    Perl, n. A language spoken by Eskimos.
  98. Dr. Who Season 2 by Otto · · Score: 1

    Season 2 of Doctor Who aired a few months ago. Not in the US, I grant you.

    They've already filmed the Christmas episode for this year, and are starting filming on Season 3 now, but I'm pretty certain that it will be a 13 episode season once again.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  99. It's obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    AFIAK, the Asgard don't have any genders anymore since they reproduce through cloning. So they don't need to "cover up their shame". Also, the Asgard live in a temperature controlled environment (and don't seem to get out much), so there's little need to cover for warmth. They don't seem to do any hard labour themselves (e.g. mining) so they don't need much protective gear or clothing to prevent them from getting dirty. Finally, they don't have the need for "us versus them" military uniforms since they have one government.

  100. When they came for MTV... TechTV... by BenJeremy · · Score: 1

    Yes, when they came for MTV, I stood by and said nothing. Instead of music videos, MTV started airing game shows, reality shows, and many other things seemingly unrelated to music.

    When they came for TechTV, assuring the public that they would keep all the great programming that made the station unique. Soon they had fired many of the people that made TechTV so great, and began showing Man Show repeats, evolving into "Bling Bling" TV.

    So now they come for the Sci Fi Channel, bringing fake PG-13 rated wrestling with the ECW and cancelling the most beloved original programming on TV to reach for a more "Extreme" audience.

    Bonnie Hammer should rot in hell.

  101. So long.. by Ricken · · Score: 1

    And thanks for all the snakes. Will be missing SG-1

  102. The DOD forced this... by AJWM · · Score: 1

    It was inevitable. DOD is planning on shutting down Cheyenne Mountain and moving the (non-Stargate) operations to Peterson AFB. How can you film SG-1 episodes without access to the gate room?

    Probably some alien virus got loose in there and they have to shut everything down.

    (For the humor impaired: no, I'm not serious. If I were serious I'd have to explain how they're actually moving the Stargate to a formerly abandoned Titan missile silo complex on the plains out east of Denver, and how the scenery around there is way too boring to use as the locale for a TV series.)

    --
    -- Alastair
  103. "Retired" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think "cancelled" is an appropriate term when a show has been running for so long. "Retired" is much more appropriate.

  104. Re:What is G vs. E? by 21st+Century+Peon · · Score: 1

    Good Vs Evil was a buddy-cop style show about, IIRC, a guy who died, and was then resurrected to work thwarting demons who tried to make deals for people's souls. Wasn't half bad, from what little I saw of it.

    --
    "Knowledge, sir, should be free to all!"
    ~Harcourt Fenton Mudd
  105. Re:Is it Just Me?? by Ifni · · Score: 0

    Ah. You don't like to have too much reality/truth in your Science Fiction. Don't worry, there's this whole pantheon of Star Trek universes for you to enjoy. I understand this point of view - SF, or more accurately in your case, Fantasy, is supposed to be an escape from the difficulties of the world we live in. I tend to enjoy fiction that celebrates the nuances of humanity. Celebrates the the whole range of sacrifice and achievement, from the minor to the epic, from the brief shining moments to the lifetimes of dedication. These are the things that the science fiction masters (Asimov, Clarke, et al) were dedicated to, and why SF, GOOD SF, is not simply considered Fantasy, why it indeed deserves its own literary category. We all seek different things from our stories, so I truly do not wish to trivialize your preferences. However, your comments on what *I* like, your attempts to trivialize valid literary devices simply because they don't agree with you, I do rather take offense to.

    Killing key characters as a dramatic device is nothing new. And it certainly isn't a childish "affectation". Elevating the tragedy by giving them more and more to live for before the death is also nothing new. Note Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet", to name just one (and perhaps the most famous) example, where after finding each other's perfect love, they both die. Since their name's were both in the title of the play, I can only assume they were not just "key characters", but leads.

    Also, celebrating the individual triumphs of otherwise mediocre (or even unpalatable) characters who rise above their limitations (including distrust) is also a common plot device used by accoladed masters over the centuries (pick a Mark Twain story and there's a good chance you'll find an example).

    Just because it is either too sophisticated for, or just plain disagrees with, you is no reason to insult it. There is plenty of bona-fide drek out there more deserving of ridicule. Like 90% of reality TV (I dislike 100% of it, but even I acknowledge that some percentage of it arguably has merit).

    Disclaimer: I like both Star Trek and Whedon's work (Buffy, Firefly, etc). I also like them in a critical, non-fanboi fashion and can argue their merits and deficiencies without calling them names. Emotions get to high when politics are brought in, especially for the closed minded. Being Libertarian myself, I must tolerate overtly liberal or conservative overtones in most media I partake in. I have learned to separate these unfortunate viewpoints being thrust undisguised down my throat from the beauty (or lack of as the case may be) of the rest of the work that contains them. I think it is most sad when someone is so obsessed with their political leanings that is taints everything they say or do. To be defined by something so marginal seems to me to be even sadder than those "sad, lonely people who don't relate well with others".

    --

    Oh, was that my outside voice?

  106. Why not both money makers? by GarryFre · · Score: 1

    Seems this is the trend, when a sequal is created, go kill the original series I wonder if the big descision makers might be stuck thinking in the box that says "When the golden goose lays two golden eggs, we gotta throw the first one away. * "Oh we can't have two shows about the same thing, it will compete and confuse the viewers." I credit viewers with more wit than that and these shows don't seem to compete, they complement each other. Sure, the Ori make great villains. Some folks who are villains are simply that because they themselves are trapped and don't realize the sheer malice of who they think are their benefactors. I agree, with the idea that the good guys win more, but its just a fact that people don't like to lose, and I don't like to lose the chance to watch BOTH series! I would urge the producers to rethink why they are dropping SG1. Is it for valid reasons such as the actors and other sg1 folk want to move on, or because they are running out of ideas or is it just because they have come to believe that two golden eggs can't exist at one time?

    --
    www.Migrainesoft.com - Computer giving you a headache? We can fix that!
  107. Jumped the shark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SG-1 jumped the shark when it went after the ori. Atlantis is just shark jumped from the get go.

  108. Dr. Who Season 28(Series 2) by nura78 · · Score: 1

    The Sci-fi wire has confirmed that Doctor Who will be back on September 29th with a two hour version of the "Christmas Invasion", and i'm guess the rest of Series 2 in the following weeks

  109. It says something about this planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that the crappiest SF series is also the longest running.

  110. He has a spinoff by WebHostingGuy · · Score: 1

    Don't worry about him. He has a spinoff series in the works as a detective.

    I'd watch it...

    --
    Quality Hosting e3 Servers
  111. Re:Is it Just Me?? by eno2001 · · Score: 0
    I think you missed some points:


    1. Science Fiction is SUPPOSED to be escapist crap at worst and idealistic "what if" at best. And it should be set in a different time or a world where things are different. From my perspective Philip K. Dick is one of the best science fiction authors in the history of the known universe and no one can usurp him from that. I think Clarke, Asimov and Harrison are overrated bullshit artists.


    2. I wasn't saying that killing key characters as a dramatic device was new. I was just saying that it's a stupid device since it's so ho-hum. The only notable exception is when it's used for humor where it has more impact since it's not taking itself seriously. The Bard using this technique, however, can be excused in the same way we can forgive people for thinking that blacks weren't human. He didn't know any better and back then it WAS kind of a new idea.


    3. Just because it is either too sophisticated for, or just plain disagrees with, you is no reason to insult it. Hmmm... nice way to slip an insult in there when I really wasn't meaning to insult anyone. I'm what you call a mean old S.O.B. I like to say what I feel and I like to make sure I'm punching people in the head when I say it. But there's no offense meant. Sorry for the misunderstanding there. Keep in mind that some of us have mean spirited senses of humor. For an example of what I'm talking about, go here and click on the Media link. Then click on the audio link for "Underwear Goes Inside the Pants". Humor at it's finest in my opinion. (I'm also a fan of Maddox) While others might find it coarse, I think it's great. To each their own... Please try not to be so high and mighty next time.


    4. I can't stand reality TV myself, I also like some Star Trek and detest others. I still think Sliders was way better than SG-1, but if we're being honest ALL TV science fiction sucks compared to what you get in books. For me the very best science fiction TV show is the old Doctor Who. So there ya go.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  112. End it right. by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Marry off O'Neil and Carter.

    They can put Daniel over on SGA if he needs a job, but for the fan's sake marry of Carter and O'Neil.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  113. What is this thing you speak off... by Snaller · · Score: 1

    ...called life?

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  114. SG-1 goes, but Atlantis stays? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    Without the SG-1 lead-in, Atlantis is gonna die a horrible yet well-deserved death.

    Eureka is fun, though. I like the new Dr Who quite a lot, but I'm not willing to wait a whole season just to see it on Sci-Fi. Fortunately, I've already watched the latest season via Bittorrent. Maybe they could show all 13 eps of the new season and be in time to play the new season in time with its appearance in the UK? And what's up with a measley 13 ep season? Lazy bastards.

  115. Silver Potato by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    I've been tempted to stop watching Eureka just to avoid the teaser ads for ECW following it, that's how much I hate wrestling. I can't even watch Kaiju Big Battel (which is what Sci-Fi Channel should be airing; let G4 have ECW).

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  116. Eureka by Genady · · Score: 1

    While I pine softly for the departure of SG1, as others have said, it's time. Now... Move Eureka into it's timeslot. It's got the same vibe, fun, irreverent, dumbed down to some degree, but it's got a great vibe to it that I haven't felt since the X-Files.

    Either that, or... oh. Duh. They're making room for the 2nd BSG series. nm.

    --


    What if it is just turtles all the way down?
  117. NOOOOOO! by AntiTrust,+AntiMicro · · Score: 1

    nooooooooooooooo!!! NOTE: It wouldn't let me use caps, or a bigger "noooooooo". Way to stifle my feelings filters!

  118. With Regards to Weird Al by Gryle · · Score: 2, Funny

    Never record "Will and Grace" or your DV-R will get the wrong idea about you...

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    1. Re:With Regards to Weird Al by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      You actually have a very good point there. I'm not sure how it got the ideal but for the first year of our relationship my tivo though I was gay.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

  119. Well then maybe... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    ...we could have one decent show instead of two medium to poor. Am I the only one that was truly disappointed with last weeks episodes? The entire 200th episode of SG-1 was no episode at all, and the Atlantis story I had figured out before the intro movie, and I wasn't in the least bit in doubt she'd survive it.

    The whole 10th SG-1 season is bordering on ridiculous, they're chasing Merlin's weapon, but like the Ancient in SG:Atlantis said "When the fleet of wraith ships came, I reached out with my mind and with a single thought destroyed them all." or something to that effect. That's what the Ori would do to Earth/mankind too if threatened by such a weapon, Ancients or not.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  120. Land of the Lost in Space by krell · · Score: 1

    "I believe the title was 'Silent Running'. 'Soylent Green' was a different movie with Charton Heston "Soylent Green is People!".

    Maybe you can help me out with another show I seem to remember. I can't find the exact title on Google. It had a family in a flying saucer crashed in a jungle they could not get out of. They had to deal with an angry green guy in a cave, and there was a traitor on the ship who always tried to sell the little boy and the blonde girl with pigtails to any passing weirdo that came along (Vikings, a tall caveman, the Flying Dutchman, a green lady who sang and drank fuel, a balloon guy, etc.)

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
    1. Re:Land of the Lost in Space by grim4593 · · Score: 1

      Lost in Space?

    2. Re:Land of the Lost in Space by krell · · Score: 1

      That seems to be close, except it's missing the necessary part about the dinosaurs always trying to chew their way into the flying saucer.

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
  121. Getting the new SG1 and Atlantis the legal way? by LocalHero · · Score: 1

    Hi

    I live in Sweden and I dont think there are any channel that i can subscribe to in Sweden that are broadcasting Stargate SG1 and Stargate Atlantis. Is there any way i can be able to watch the show without doing illegal downloading of the episodes? I find it very interesting since isn't the movie companies taking our culture for hostage when they say they own the right and don't want to sell it? Whats wrong with my Swedish money by the way?

    I would prefer a better solution putting some pressure on the movie companies. If we say that they only own the right to the movie as long as they provide a flexible non monopolistic way for the customer to buy the stuff (no stupid DRM etc, plain divx, mpeg etc). Otherways anyone is free to upload the episodes/movies/soundtracks to any p2p network without risking legal issues. This is to ensure that people can get hold of the culture.

    I find that a good tradeoff. What about u?

    1. Re:Getting the new SG1 and Atlantis the legal way? by thorkyl · · Score: 1
      --
      -- I am the NRA, enough said...
    2. Re:Getting the new SG1 and Atlantis the legal way? by LocalHero · · Score: 1

      Yes thats true. But that wont make me able to watch the new shows. Why should I have to wait 1 or 2 extra years and then buy import DVD that I for sure know the movie companies dont like?

    3. Re:Getting the new SG1 and Atlantis the legal way? by Shuh · · Score: 1

      Hiya Swede --


      The iTunes Music Store is going to be selling Stargate SG1/Atlantis episodes soon. If you don't care for their DRM, I think there are programs out there that allow you to strip it away once you've downloaded the video files.

      The filesize and quality of the episode should be fine due to Apple's advanced H264 codec, but the resolution will be a little low: 320x200. These episodes are meant to be compatible with the display of a video iPod.


    4. Re:Getting the new SG1 and Atlantis the legal way? by wolverine1999 · · Score: 1

      Just buy the dvd's like I do on amazon....

  122. Well that just sucks by thorkyl · · Score: 1

    Guess they ran out of plot. Hey it was a great run.

    --
    -- I am the NRA, enough said...
  123. So Long and Thanks for All the Fish... by widgie · · Score: 1

    So... where's my Halibut? My brother-in-law, my sister and I started watching the seasons in order around a month ago - Netflick rocks! - and now they're canning it?! Bastards!

  124. You mean like Battlestar Galactica? by Goldenhawk · · Score: 1

    >Great series, but clearly showing its age and suffering from 'we need to keep
    >inventing more überenemies' syndrome. I shall look forward to seeing how they
    >bow out. Personally, I think it is about time that they found an enemy capable
    >of destroying the earth which actually does it. Might not please some fans, but
    >would make great television.

    You mean like Battlestar Galactica?

    Gee, seems to me that they STARTED that way. What a kicker. Of course, the ORIGINAL BG wasn't "great television" from my point of view, but I think the new series is pretty good.

    --
    --Brandon / Split Infinity Music

    1. Re:You mean like Battlestar Galactica? by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      Actually, they were looking for earth when Mr.-I-See-Robotic-People fucked everything up. Earth is still out there, apparently.

  125. Spin-off Movie: Snakes in a Head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Starring Dr. Samuel L. Jackson, with his signature phrase "She's got a mutha-fscking snake in her mutha-fscking head!"

  126. shocker by cg0def · · Score: 1

    Well I suppose SG-1 was getting old. Although why would you introduce a new vilain if you are tiried of the show? Anyway, hope they are not counting on Galactica alone to boost their ratings.

  127. they got it backwards by jt418-93 · · Score: 1

    they should be killing atlantis. what a fetid pile of poo that is...

    but no, they kill the good one and keep the crap. oh well, i think mansquito is on again :)

    --
    -.no
  128. God Damn Sci Fi Channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First Farscape, now SG-1. Let me guess, they'll replace it with a reality tv show about idiotic super heroes lead by stan lee... oh wait.......

  129. nitpicky by NuShrike · · Score: 1

    unless it was on purpose, it's Crichton, or see-rich-ton, by your own link.

  130. Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think GE (who now owns the SciFi channel) has destroyed the SciFi Channel. Last night for fillers they put in a 30 minute commercial about the NBC fall schedule. They are cancelling SG-1 (ok maybe
    it IS time..you will run out of stories) but the thing that really pissed me off was adding ECW to the schedule. How does phoney wrestling = SciFi? Now don't get me wrong..I don't think that all phoney wrestling shows should be banned or anything..just put them where they belong...SPIKE TV, or MENSCH or one of the "sports" channels. Hell I'd rather watch old (not the bad old, the good old) sci fi movies like they occationally show on TCM or Bravo..and the licensing fee has got to be cheaper...or even old sci-fi/horror TV shows other than old Twilight Zone and New Outer Limits...give me the OLD Outer Limits, give me "One Step Beyond" etc.."Day of the Triffids", "The Day The Earth Stood Still", "When Worlds Collide", "Tarantula", "Them"...not the stuff they had on MST3K (that has its place too..like on MST3K)...the real classics of SciFi and Horror.

    1. Re:Is it just me... by Skevin · · Score: 1

      Back when I use to watch TV, they put "Crossing Over With John Edward" on the schedule. While it turned my stomach to watch that dreck, I realized the programming producers were making a thinly veiled statement placing it on the Sci[ence]Fi[ction] channel.

      --
      "Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
  131. It sucked so badly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that Ben Browder and Claudia Black couldn't save it! Let it go, folks!

  132. SciFi likes cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At one time the SciFi channel had some decent shows. Not anymore. There is one reason I still watch it, Battlestar Galactica. I can't think of anything else redeeming on that channel. They do stuff on the cheap and it shows. Their 'original series' are just hours of your life that you'll never get back or enjoy. Quite frankly, I think you'll find better entertainment on youtube.

    Its just amazing how cheap SciFi is. It was a travesty when they canceled Farscape and continued to use the name SciFi Channel. It was a money decision without any thought given to programming quality or viewership.

    I don't even get SciFi in high definition! I don't know if its the cable companies fault or scifi, but UHD is the only channel that has Galactica in high def. I'm tempted to vote with my money and pay for the DVD's instead of watching the show on SciFi.

  133. Jack: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "for crying out loud..."

  134. WTF ECW, Law and Order, what's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To NBC, quit screwing around with the Sci-fi channel. Dump the ECW crap, stop the experiments with alternate content and cheap reality shows or B grade horror. Use the money you save to continue SG-1 and show some actual sci-fi on the sci-fi channel. Better yet go out, hire Joss Weadon and make Firefly happen again. Just quit with the non sci-fi, please!

    And to the SG-1 people... Thanks for the great entertainment.

  135. Re:Well on the brigther side... by Adhemar · · Score: 3, Interesting
    guess the Doctor will be taking SG-1s time slot on fridays.
    That would be cool. The timeslot of the longest-running sci-fi show on American television (200+ episodes since 1997) taken over by the longest-running sci-fi show of British television (720+ episodes since 1963, although not continuously).
  136. Damn... by teledyne · · Score: 1

    I guess we'll be seeing Pierre Bernard on Conan again... he's gonna be PISSED!

  137. Re:get some good stories, slashdot by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    Given the latest story line, so does SG1

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  138. SG-1 was over months ago in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Space channel which was running it here showed about four episodes of the new style SG-1 with the two Farscape actors and the Ori bad guys, then started running season one re-runs. (around last October or November) I was baffled, there was no explanation at all, I was just getting into the new version of it.

    SG-1 has been dead here for months. Not a single new episode has aired in ages. It just disappeared. I was extremely disappointed.

    Now I find out there was more than four episodes in the last season and that the last new episode has yet to air? Now I'm just pissed off. It must be some kind of deal with a Canadian DVD distribution company. Well I certainly won't be buying it.

  139. Ending ... we all ascend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was the best SciFi on tv for a number of years and I always recorded/Tivo'd it. Even with 3+ galaxies, the home base aspect was getting old. See now our kids can bring it back in 20 years and enjoy many of the stories again with a little edge added.

    Ok, now we need to suggest endings ... We trick the Ori into invading Earth - all of them - then blow it up as all humans ascend, bumping all the Ori ascended beings back into physical beings on Earth.

    Then we sing and dance with Obiwon and Joda again as fireworks go off and Han kisses the girl. No furry beings around this time, please, please, please!

  140. SiFI Execs are morons by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Kill off Farscape, Kill off firefly, now kill off SG-1.. The reasons that many people even bother watching their channel..

    What are these morons thinking?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:SiFI Execs are morons by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      They're thinking about one thing and one thing alone. Money. But Firefly wasn't their cancellation, that was Fox's.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    2. Re:SiFI Execs are morons by wolverine1999 · · Score: 1

      They killed off Sliders too after plainly ruining it.

    3. Re:SiFI Execs are morons by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Lets hope they dont screw up Dr Who as well.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    4. Re:SiFI Execs are morons by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      They can't screw up Doctor Who, thank Oma Desala. BBC owns it and runs it first. All Sur..."Sci-Fi" does is air it, although it could air it out of order Firefly-style.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    5. Re:SiFI Execs are morons by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      I realize they dont own it, but with a targeted mareketing campain they can pretty much assure us here in the states that we will never see it again.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  141. FINALLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This show should've been axed after season 5.

  142. remember www.stargatesg-1.com by revolu7ion · · Score: 1

    remember the original sg-1 website? That was ultra cool! I was a major General - then they closed the sucker down. I even signed a petition to bring it back... *shakes fist* Dirty Commies!

    --
    Jesus Saves
  143. Diversify... by msimm · · Score: 1

    4400 (okay, not SciFi channel and not the smartest show but it can have its moments, like the messiah).
    Eureka (funny premise, funny characters, funny story and it can even be interesting).
    Battlestar Galactica. Thats period, as in a TV series that top just about anything anywhere.
    Atlantis. Its getting better and better. Thats good.

    Now the wrestling thing someone should get repeatedly kicked in the nuts for, preferably by one of their own wrestlers. But I digress.

    Battlestar Galactica alone has created a franchise that justifies the SciFi channels existence.

    And who knows, maybe they'll fill its spot with something really interesting? Because if they keep adding wrestling programs or other gay men in tights (*eye the super heros*) I'll just drop cable and torrent.

    --
    Quack, quack.
  144. Plainly Obvious! -- Cheyenne Mountain by tmjva · · Score: 1

    Due to the announcement of the shutting down of NORAD at Cheyenne Mountain in this Slashdot announcement on June 30th. It is plainly obvious, Stargate-SG1 cannot continue without Air Force facilities!
     
    How's THAT for a conspiracy theory?

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  145. Re:Your handle is "ginger unicorn"? Point proved ; by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your handle is 'JonBoy' with fluffy x's around it? Let me guess... "Angel" or "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" fan?

    Go cry yourself to sleep on your HUGE pillow.

  146. They did this in 200. by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

    And it's O'Neill with two l's. Unless you're talking about the boring suicidal one played by Kurt Russell.

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  147. Tissue Box Campaign by wolverine1999 · · Score: 1

    They ask that we fans send a tissue box to SciFi channel!

    Jack sent one through the Stargate in the first episode to see if Daniel was still alive!
    My box is ready to go, it's a Kleenex Traveller!

    http://laundr.us/

  148. Obligatory Paul Gadzikowski 'toon on cancellation by wolverine1999 · · Score: 1

    Here's the obligatory Paul Gadzikowsi cartoon about the cancellation.

    http://www.iglou.com/members/scarfman/06082212.htm

  149. Re:I am glad, though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Copy-paste troll.

  150. Almost had an aneurysm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank goodness that this news is bogus. I hate to lose one of the few channels I watch on TV.

  151. The ups and downs of StarGate SG-1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It appears that most people are reluctant about any of the new side arks of SG-1 at first, but as the story become more developed people start to like it again. This is in part what has kept the show running for so long. It also provides the writers with more to work with in writing a story. The problem with this current ark is that too much is going at on at once and they seem to be rushing though it and not developing it as well as they have done in the past. I believe it to be the fault of someone at the top that might have been concerned about how the views would accept this side ark. Though, I do believe that the writers and everyone else involved are doing a great jobs and that in the end people will like this ark but they might like is as much as some of the other ark.

    I have always liked the show and really would hate to see it go away. I think the current ark is heading in a direction to make some major changes to SG-1 Universe and that might have several people concerned about its future. In which case, I think it would be a poor choice to cancel the show until after the views had a chance to see the closure of this story ark. I think there is still a lot of potential for the show to continue but it would have to change some of its dynamics and that might be where they are heading with this current story ark. Perhaps, it might be worth taking sometime off so the writers and story ark creators can sit down, review the complaint about the show, and see if they can address some of the issues. I hope this happens since I hate to see a good quality show go.

  152. Re:Is it Just Me?? by mrbester · · Score: 1

    I'll see your Doctor Who and raise you a Blake's 7. All decent SF on TV has had to cope with a budget tighter than a gnat's chuff. Coincidentally, that means it was made by the BBC.

    --
    "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"