Slashdot Mirror


Stargate Universe

Last night I finally scraped together the two hours to watch the premiere of Stargate Universe. Since the last two series really ran their course and deserved to end, I was skeptical. At first blush it appears that the show is just Atlantis + Voyager, shot in the documentary style that practically every sci-fi show since Firefly uses. But I enjoyed it, and figured we should have a place to discuss it. The TV landscape needs more real, good sci-fi: there's not a lot of it left, even on the moronically renamed Syfy channel. But maybe this one will have a solid season. I just hope that future episodes don't have so many commercials. I couldn't believe how many ads appeared during this thing.

91 of 829 comments (clear)

  1. firefly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Firefly wasn't shot documentary style, the special effects had some panning and zooming that first started in star wars episode II

    1. Re:Firefly by mrdoogee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was on Fox.

      I wish it was more complicated, but there it is. US network TV has no patience for a new show, especially Sci-Fi or Fantasy. If it doesn't get good ratings (top 3 in time slot) within its first month, its more or less dead in the water.

    2. Re:Firefly by Canazza · · Score: 4, Funny

      If Firefly had been called Starfly it'd have suceeded

      Look at the 3 biggest Sci-fi franchises.
      Star Trek (5 TV Spin-offs, 11 Movies, countless books, 40 years old)
      Star Wars (7 Movies, 1 TV series, countless books too, 30 years old)
      StarGate (1 Movie, 2 DVD Movies, 3 TV Spin-offs, lots of books too, 15 years old)

      Then you have BattleSTAR Galactica, 2 Spin-offs and one in the works, also 30 years old.

      Next time you're pitching a script, put STAR in the title name somewhere, it'll go far!

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    3. Re:Firefly by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Interesting

      From what I have read, I am pretty sure that someone at the network didn't want Firefly to succeed. I don't know why, but showing the episodes out of sequence and pre-empting it for special events are a pretty dependable way to ensure that a show will be a failure. I don't have any idea if the show would have been a success if they had broadcast it in order and with a regular schedule, but I am sure that someone at Fox wanted it to fail. I loved the show, but I never even heard of it until after it was canceled. The first I heard of it was when the movie was released, but then the only network shows I watch are sports.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:Firefly by LatencyKills · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd agree with you, and yet struggle with the fact that the incredibly mediocre Dollhouse managed to get a second season and is also on Fox. I can't help but recall the story of Gilligan's Island and how it was cancelled as a top rated show to make room for Gunsmoke which was a favorite of someone in the programming head's family. I think more than any diabolical plot or general statement about shows that will or won't survive on TV, it comes down to literally one or two keys guys at a network liking a show - so it lives - or they don't like it - and it dies.

      --
      Jealously hoarding mod points since 2007.
    5. Re:firefly by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are you trying to imply Firefly was some sort of fiction?

      --
      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;
    6. Re:Firefly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You can't *really* be asking that in a thread about a show in which a major character was found because he beat a video game, eh?

      I half expected the computer to say "You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Xur and the Ko-Dan Armada."

  2. Hulu? by Drahgkar · · Score: 5, Informative

    One way to get rid of many of the advertisements is to watch it on Hulu. Granted you have to wait before episoded become available and the entire season of a given show isn't always available, but in general it's a lot better than sitting through lots of useless advertisements.

    --
    Justify my text? I'm sorry, but it has no excuse.
    1. Re:Hulu? by magsol · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also, if you can put up with iTunes and its idiosyncrasies, the episode is available in HD for download...and it's entirely free. Not sure if that's an iTunes pricing bug, but at least right now it's totally free.

      --
      "I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
    2. Re:Hulu? by Junior+Samples · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I downloaded the 720p High Definition Bit Torrent version Saturday morning and watched it with commercial free with my friends that evening.

      The SiFy logo and animated banners, however, are still annoying.

    3. Re:Hulu? by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      a better way is to build a mythTV box and simply let it strip out the commercials.

      far better to watch it in HD on my 42" plasma than the tiny 22" monitor on my computer at a less than SDTV resolution from HulU.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Hulu? by hemp · · Score: 2, Funny

      I watched a show on Hulu using Chrome and it threw up a blank screen everyonce in a while apologizing for not being able to load a commercial.

      I forgave it.

      --
      Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
    5. Re:Hulu? by BriGal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It detracts from the ratings. Unlike movies, where they claim torrents steal money from their pockets, shows depend on their viewers. The more legitimate viewers they get, the more likely the show will stay on the air. They can watch the viewers on TV, adding in +3 and +7 for DVR counts, and find out how many times it's been watched on iTunes and Hulu, along with other websites. What they can't count is how many people have torrented the show. More people torrenting mean less people being counted, which means lower ratings, which means cancelled shows. Torrent may be great for people outside of the country who won't see it, but within the viewing areas (in this case, US, Canada, and the UK), it hurts more than helps.

    6. Re:Hulu? by mweather · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What they can't count is how many people have torrented the show.

      Then how do they come up with all those estimates about how much piracy is costing them?

    7. Re:Hulu? by wiredlogic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're probably of the LCD generation but go and set up a CRT with interlaced scanning and get back to us when you figure out that viewing 540-line fields is inferior to a progressive scanned image.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    8. Re:Hulu? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does anyone know a free VPN server in the US that had sufficient bandwidth to watch Hulu?

      Well even if they did I guess it wouldn't have sufficient bandwidth if they posted it here. Catch 22!

      --
      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;
    9. Re:Hulu? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Only if you're in the USA, it seems. In the UK, you can buy the (2 minute, 44 second) trailer for £1.89 on iTunes. No thanks...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:Hulu? by The+Mgt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      but was impressed at how quickly I liked the characters

      I thought they were all pretty awful apart from Rush and Eli, although Eli did have that godawful 'a man died today' line. *shudder*

      Oh, and that math puzzle in the video game thing was just idiotic.

    11. Re:Hulu? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personally, I think it's more annoying, but it probably depends on the person. As a lifelong Sci-Fi fan, the new "SyFy" name really irks me, and I suspect a lot of people here on Slashdot would agree with me. If you go ask a bunch of random people on Facebook, you probably will find they don't care.

    12. Re:Hulu? by EdIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I downloaded the 720p High Definition Bit Torrent version Saturday morning and watched it with commercial free with my friends that evening.

      The SiFy logo and animated banners, however, are still annoying.

      These two things are related.

      Which is why I say FUCK EM.

      I wrote a letter to them awhile ago, quite awhile ago actually, where I bitterly complained about the fact I was paying for the SciFi channel and they were RUINING the experience of Stargate Atlantis with that stupid overlay of the SciFi logo constantly and those advertisements.

      Seriously? Advertisements for their own shows, animated no less, that take up 20% of the lower screen?

      It's the stupidest thing I have ever seen. A movie costs approx. $11 and they don't pull that crap. I was probably paying around $10 a month for the SciFi channel on a few digital receivers.

      Well I canceled. Told SciFi I canceled too. I don't even have an interest in pirating SciFi. Actually, the interest is the same amount of interest I have in German gay scheisse porn. Zero.

      If Stargate Universe really is that good, then the whole 1st season will be out on DVD soon enough. I will get it through my Netflix account and watch it then. If it is really good, then I will probably buy the 1st season for my collection. Have SG-1, and Atlantis already.

      So you know what? SciFi channel wins. I won't pirate their content, I won't watch their content, and I won't pay for their content either.

      Fuck EM. Deep and Hard.

    13. Re:Hulu? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Funny

      At least it's not bluediculous or greendiculous.

    14. Re:Hulu? by Alamais · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Going by the names of the initial episodes, it is _very_ BSG. Air. Power. Water. Food. Some of the same things BSG dealt with. Not that this is a bad thing--these are legit issues for both situations, and provide a good way to flesh out the characters. As for a recurring antagonist, I'm going to guess that the mysterious attacker who did all the damage to Destiny may eventually take that part.

  3. Troubleshooting skills. by eNygma-x · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I liked the show... but they they still need some thinking writers. Why not use a "Keno" to close the hatch?!

    --
    As in most religions, it's the followers that turn people off to the religion. And Mac users are the worst.
    1. Re:Troubleshooting skills. by chasmosis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I thought the same thing. tape a pencil to it and have it press the "button"

    2. Re:Troubleshooting skills. by Barny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But, someone would still have to die, who would hold the "shakey cam" while it presses the button?

      Seriously, bad focus + shakey cam can just fucking die imho.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    3. Re:Troubleshooting skills. by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

      I liked the show... but they they still need some thinking writers.

      They don't need writers. What they need is more lens flares. You can't have a Sci-Fi show without them, ya know?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Troubleshooting skills. by tmosley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Stargate always had problems thinking imaginatively. For example, once they developed the cloaking device, I would have used it as a proxy teleporter to make nukes appear in the center of Ori ships. When they had the ship with all the Asgard technology, they could have frozen time, reconfigured the ship so that it had a hole in it through which the beam weapon could pass and thus destroy both of the pursuing Ori vessels without issue. That is, rather than waiting until they started dying of old age. Sure, it would have taken a few months, or maybe even years to get through that battle, but they would have made it without a problem. Etc.

      Similar lack of thought has plagued a lot of other shows. For example, why didn't anyone in the Star Trek universe ever come up with the idea of using warp drives as weapons in a systematic way? A runabout crashing into a borg cube at warp seven would do quite a bit more damage than a photon torpedo, I would imagine. I guess kinetic energy just isn't "futuristic" enough. Hell, Picard tried to use ramming speed with the Enterprise on at least one occasion that I remember, one would think they would have realized that would be a hell of a weapon, and that they could store hundreds or even thousands of them on a ship like the enterprise (assuming they removed the crew compartments).

    5. Re:Troubleshooting skills. by JustinOpinion · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'll have to rewatch it to be sure, but my recollection is that the "safety mechanism" prevented the door from being propped-open (they said "like an elevator")... I don't think they said it had to be a person pressing the button.

      On the other hand we know from previous shows that Ancient technology seems to check "who" is pressing buttons. Many pieces of tech require the "Ancient gene" specifically, but it's not too far-fetched to suggest that various controls have to be pressed by an actual person (to prevent, for instance, random pieces of debris pressing important buttons).

      At a minimum, it would have been nice for them to mention this possible solution. One of the most amazing things about the Stargate series is how for most problems, they will discuss/try a wide variety of solutions before finally finding the right one. In this sense it's much more like real engineering/science... which is satisfying.

    6. Re:Troubleshooting skills. by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Shakey/bad focus cam was invented to hide really REALLY bad CG or incredibly bad choreographed fight scenes. They did it first on the Borune Supremacy because they did not want to hire real actors or peopel that could actually choreograph a fight. So they shook the hell out of the camera and basicvally did the "I cant use a camera" filming style to hide that the movie actually sucked.

      Now everyone uses it because you can spend 1/3rd on your CGI if you shake the hell out of the camera. Several of my friends that do CG on hollywood movies hate it, because they dont get to do their craft, they just do the half assed cheap version with shakey cam. It saves nearly 1/2 on the cost of CG compared to doing it right and having the guys compost it perfectly.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Troubleshooting skills. by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Picard tried to use ramming speed with the Enterprise on at least one occasion that I remember, one would think they would have realized that would be a hell of a weapon,

      I remember captian kirk trying to ram everything he could with the ship....

      KIRK:"Scotty! There's a giant hole there, let's RAM The ship in it!"

      McCOY:"Dammit Jim you can to around screwing the entire universe!"

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:Troubleshooting skills. by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>First, why did the point of origin for the 9 symbol address have to be Earth's symbol? They weren't on Earth, and they weren't using the Earth gate.

      Precisely. Which is why it didn't work until they changed their point-of-origin to the new planet. Please pay closer attention to the fake, make-believe magic incantations. ;-)

      >>>if no one has been on the ship since it was launched, why are the CO2 scrubbers full of gunk?

      For the same reason why your car's engine oil would turn to with gunk if you left it sitting-around for 10,000 years.

      >>>if the air has been leaking out of the ship since it was damaged, where is the new air coming from?

      Good point. It's funny how all these problems just suddenly "happened" on precisely Day 3.6 Million of the ship's log, and humans just happened to be there.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    9. Re:Troubleshooting skills. by Magic5Ball · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In Startrek physics, Ek would be close to 0 at warp since space-time moves rather than the ship. However, causing a warp field to transect a vessel rather than form around it would likely cause the wholesale destruction you seek.

      Back to SG:U - The opening shots documented the ship turning parts of itself on to receive the people coming through the wormhole. Engineers who could design an intergalactic vessel would not design the CO2 scrubbers to be always on for tens of thousands of years (much less maintain atmospheric pressure), but to activate based on atmospheric composition or life-signs sensors. So, why don't the human engineers/scientists realize this and ask what else has been respiring on the ship? Also, why would such a vessel go into space without all internal hatches sealed?

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    10. Re:Troubleshooting skills. by mR.bRiGhTsId3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is funny, because I thought the ships looked more impressive in this than in any of the previous series. I thought the Destiny traveling through hyperspace shots from the outside were particularly beautiful. Its like they took the best ideas from Star Trek (stars streaming by and bright colors) and Babylon 5 (mists in hyperspace) to make something that looked awesome.

    11. Re:Troubleshooting skills. by curmudgeous · · Score: 3, Informative

      They made a big deal out of the ship "waking up" during the opening credits. My guess is that things like life support were shut down until the ship detected someone trying to connect to the gate.

      My big complaint about the plot is that any race planning to send an automated ship on a multi-thousand year trip with no crew would surely have built some kind of automated repair system. Where are the little R2D2-equivalents that should be running around patching stuff? Maybe something similar to replicators, but carrying containers of goo that can be turned into spare parts as needed.

    12. Re:Troubleshooting skills. by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Stargate and Star Trek both talk about plotting courses to destinations; one would assume that they're doing this to avoid obstacles.

      Remember, just because they don't talk about it doesn't mean it isn't happening ;)

    13. Re:Troubleshooting skills. by knight24k · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh and by the way photon torpedoes are warp-driven vessels filled with antimatter - they don't pass through the ship when they impact, even though they are traveling at warp speed.

      Incorrect. They are warp-capable not warp driven.

      "The propulsion system of the torpedoes is a warp sustainer engine. The engine coils of the torpedo grab and hold a hand-off field from the launcher tube's sequential field induction coils. A miniature matter/antimatter fuel cell adds power to the hand-off field. When launched in warp flight, torpedo will continue to travel at warp, when launched at sublight, torpedo will travel at a high sublight speed, but will not cross the warp threshold."

      http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Photon_torpedo

      So, when fighting in sub-space the torpedo will remain in sub-space and hit its target. When fighting in normal space it will remain in normal space and hit its target. It will not cross the threshold either way which would make it unable to hit its target.

      Sigh, I am such a geek.

    14. Re:Troubleshooting skills. by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So pull a Sheridan -- plant a couple of nukes onto an asteroid and gently push it so it drifts to where you expect the Ori to drop out of hyperspace. When the Ori ships have arrived, scanned for enemy ships, and dropped their shields (to save power) since they didn't detect any enemies, detonate.

    15. Re:Troubleshooting skills. by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A runabout crashing into a borg cube at warp seven would do quite a bit more damage than a photon torpedo, I would imagine. I guess kinetic energy just isn't "futuristic" enough

      There's at least a plausible defense here in that warp drives might not generate much in the way of kinetic energy. It seems like maybe if you could warp space-time you could make weird pockets of gravity or whatever to tear a ship apart, but then maybe it'd be hard to project a warp field very far, and another ship with warp engines might be able to counter the effect easily....

      Um.... erm.... I mean.... god, did I really just write that? Sorry.

    16. Re:Troubleshooting skills. by jnaujok · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, in other words, the Ancients were a lot like us.

      Consider this. We could build cars, boats, airplanes, etc, with 100+ year lifespans. They'd need a lot of redundant systems, over-engineering, and be massively expensive and power-hungry.

      Or, we can assume that we'll still be around in a 100 years, and still able to build newer, and better system with the technology we've discovered in 100 years.

      This is actually a recent phenomena, roughly coincident with the Industrial Revolution. Before that, things were built to last, because people didn't want to go through the massive effort of redoing it every few years. Buildings were big, massive things (think castles, pyramids, cathedrals) and made to last centuries. No expense was spared, because you had hundreds of years of living in it before you'd need to worry about doing it again.

      Today, even our most advanced structures (skyscrapers, stadiums, bridges) come with lifetimes. We build *exactly* as strong as it needs to be. We build with materials that are exactly as sturdy and long-lived as they need to be, but no longer. What's the point of putting titanium/molybdenum panels that will not corrode in a 100,000 years, on a building that, if it's lucky, will be torn down in 50 years to make room for the newest skyscraper?

      To me, it's amazing, given that propensity, that Las Vegas isn't made from paper mache and spit-wads. There's barely a building there over 20 years old now.

      With the ancients, you have a race that can, more or less, build anything, with technology that lets them warp space and time to their liking, and you think they're going to waste time engineering a vessel to last 100 millenium? I'd imagine it was a standard, galaxy-limited ship that they built for seeding the Milky Way with stargates, which they then modified for inter-galactic travel, along with a system whereby they could go visit if it ever found anything "really cool". They sent it towards Andromeda to seed that galaxy with gates, and then on to Pegasus, etc, etc. I imagine they retro-engineered and patched the ship up so it could survive quite a long trip, but then they ascended, so there was no need to go check on it any more. Which means that, according to Dr. Rush, the ship is 100,000 years old, and hasn't been maintained in at least 10,000 years.

      The only thing on Earth that humans made even close to that age is the great pyramids, and look at how damaged they are.

      Overall, I think the ancients did a darn good job given the circumstances.

      --
      Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
  4. Big SG1 fan, not impressed. by Hercynium · · Score: 5, Funny

    Stargate: Why simply beat a dead horse where it lay, when you can transport it anywhere in the universe?

    --
    I'm done with sigs. Sigs are lame.
    1. Re:Big SG1 fan, not impressed. by H3lldr0p · · Score: 2, Informative

      FLAW: It's only about 50 million LYs from here to the edge of the universe. (suspension of disbelief just broke)

      You're off by a factor of a thousand.

    2. Re:Big SG1 fan, not impressed. by Weedhopper · · Score: 3, Informative

      Good summary. Here are the random thoughts that popped into my head during the premiere:

      - That ship traveled the distance of about ~50 galaxies in 10,000 years. According to scientists there's about 3 million LYs between each galaxy, so the ship covered that's 150 million lightyears. FLAW: It's only about 50 million LYs from here to the edge of the universe. (suspension of disbelief just broke)

      O RLY?

      The lower bound for the diameter size of the universe is 78 BILLION LYs.

      The VISIBLE (observable) universe is a little under 50 (again) BILLION LYs in any direction.

  5. babylon 5 by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd still like to see a B5 feature film. Too bad that JMS hasn't been up to it since the passing of Andreas Katsulas and Richard Biggs. I still think that B5 is rather underrated/unknown in the general population (although it has a large following here on /.) and suspect that it could do very well at the box office with the right storyline.

    I've watched a lot of Sci-Fi but I always wind up coming back to B5. It's the only series that I care enough about to invest the money to buy up all the DVDs. I can still pick up new things when I re-watch the series. How do you go wrong with characters like Londo, G'Kar and Garibaldi?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:babylon 5 by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This whole thread is off-topic, but I'll bite. B5 has had several straight-to-DVD feature films, trying to tie events in the mythology together into an entertaining story. The trouble is that they have to be moments away from the main mythology, or which were overlooked in the main story for presumably very good reasons, and are generally not as satisfying as the series itself was. You could re-do the main plot as a film, but it wouldn't be an epic any more.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:babylon 5 by gedrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm a huge B5 fan, but we just can't keep looking for it to come back. The show, I'd even argue the entire setting, was built to run its story, and it did that job very well. Given the quality of what's come after, I'd be very wary of a B5 feature. That said, don't let your love of B5 blind you to something good that might come along. Before B5, nearly every sci-fi out there lived in the shadow of StarTrek, and B5 suffered for that shadow. I think it's fair to compare SGU to SGA and SG-1. It's probably just as fair to compare it to a recent contemporary that likely will share some of the same character dynamics (There's a Gould on the ship.), BSG. However, just like not everything can/could be StarTrek, not everything can/could/should be B5.

      --
      Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
    3. Re:babylon 5 by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>>I still think that B5 is rather underrated/unknown in the general population

      Actually B5's Nielsen Ratings (viewership) were only 1% below that of Star Trek DS9, and equal to Hercules and Xena, so it's about as well known as those shows in terms of how many people saw them.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:babylon 5 by kannibal_klown · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wonder if it would be possibly to do a new show post B5, maybe set 100 years later or something.

      They tried at two spin-offs.

      One was Crusade which took place either a couple of years after the final season or concurrently with the final season. It was alright but got messed around by the network and was cancelled after 1-2 seasons.

      The other was Legend of the Rangers. I believe this took place further down the line after Crusade, as GKar was done with his walk-about from the series finale and his telepath companion had left him. However this attempt only made it so far as a pilot TV movie. It wasn't bad and attempted to bring in a new race of antagonists whose followers believed they were were "somehow" older than the Vorlons and Shadows.

    5. Re:babylon 5 by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually I found the Shadow War to be much less compelling than the Earth Alliance Civil War. One can only imagine what JMS would have done with that if he had devoted Season 5 to it (as originally planned) instead of compressing it into Season 4.

      I wouldn't mind seeing a story where the megalomaniac Sheridan got his comeuppance. Rebelling against Earth because a dictator comes to power and shreds the Constitution is one thing. Creating your own private army filled with outsiders and imposing "take it or leave it" terms on Earth after said dictator has been dealt with is another thing entirely. If Sheridan had any loyalty to Earth whatsoever he should have turned over some of his toys after Clark ate his own PPG.

      In the same vain it would be nice to see Delenn knocked down a peg or two. There are quite a few Minbari in the B5 story that I found it easy to sympathize with (Neroon). Delenn was not one of them. At best she was a religious fanatic willing to condemn billions of people to death because of prophesy. At worst she was every bit as delusional as Sheridan and saw herself as being fit to rule the Galaxy and "keep the peace" (at gunpoint, interesting concept that) between the younger races.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:babylon 5 by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>>One can only imagine what JMS would have done with that if he had devoted Season 5 to it (as originally planned) instead of compressing it into Season 4.
      >>>

      No need to imagine since JMS already answered this question a couple times. He:

      - Moved the season 4 cliffhnager (where Sheridan is betrayed by Garibaldi and captured) from episodes 422 to 418.
      - He moved episodes 501, 502, and 503 to the end of season 4.
      - He left the rest of the season 5 story intact.

      >>>I wouldn't mind seeing a story where the megalomaniac Sheridan got his comeuppance.

      Except in the official B5 history, Sheridan stepped down as president and handed the reins over to somebody else, just as George Washington peaceably handed the control over to John Adams, rather than turn himself into a king. The ISA is supposed to be a democratic organization, much like the United Federation of Planets in Star Trek. ----- And turning over your whitestars or galaxy-class cruisers to Earth's president would make about as much sense as the U.S. giving nuclear weapons to the State of Texas, so Texas could go-around conquering Kansas and Arizona and Colorado. No. You don't turn-over your central weapons to the lower-level member states, else how would you keep them inline?

      One story that might be interesting is circa 2700 when the Earth devolves into an anti-alien, fear-mongering society and effectively secedes from the Alliance.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  6. I loved it! by ionix5891 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have to say it kept me on edge of seat grinning, the detail and visuals were stunning, the music was very very well done!

    As for the characters, the acting was quite good, i can see some of them growin

    Im delighted to have a new Stargate to watch, and this new direction
    lets be honest SG1 last seasons and SGA got very tired and boring

    Thats what i love about this, I dont feel like im watchin yet another McGuiver episode or can predict the ending by watching the first few minutes

    Stargate Universe has what was lost about Season 2 of SG1, not knowing what happens when you step thru the gate! last few seasons of Atlantis were diabolical imho

    Its different and i like the new direction :)

  7. Commercials, What Commercials? by k0ldsh4d0wz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who still wastes their time watching commercials?

  8. Evil Doctor by StarWreck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Dr. Nicholas Rush seems to just be playing the part of D. Zachary Smith from Lost in Space.

    --
    ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    1. Re:Evil Doctor by StarWreck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure the Robot was the most memorable character on the show

      --
      ... and in the DRM, bind them.
  9. Bad Commercial Breaks... by TypoNAM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I couldn't believe how many ads appeared during this thing.

    Yeah really, luckily I watched it via DVR after it had started recording for at least 40 minutes before I began watching it. I haven't seen so many badly (and annoying) placed commercial breaks in a pilot airing since the Star Trek: Enterprise premier. After getting a 720p torrent of the show and then watching it again, it is far more enjoyable (Thanks SiTV!).

    --
    This space is not for rent.
  10. Potential by Canazza · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's taken alot of stuff from Battlestar Galactica and Lost - not nescesarilly a bad thing - The previous series rather relaxed attitude to Sci-fi is still there, albeit reigned back slightly in favour of what seems to be a more character-oriented series. Notably the lack of any 'big bad' in the first episode bodes well for the focus being on internal struggle rather than on any kind of external threat.
    One of my biggest gripes with the final series of SG-1 (and most of Atlantis) was the reliance on Deus Ex Machina to save the day (Especially in the closing episode of Atlantis) and the constant ressurection of characters through various means, Dr Beckett's clone, Dr Wier's seemingly endless robot clones and Daniel Jackson's repeated Ascensions/Falls.
    Stargate's been one of my favourite series since I was a teenager (I've been watching SG-1 since series 3, and having watched Series 1 and 2 on repeats) - The audience has grown up, but the show really hasn't. SGU will hopefully fulfil that role, without alienating any newcomers

    --
    It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    1. Re:Potential by dargon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Blame fan support for Danial Jacksons repeated reincarnations, if I remember correctly they originally didn't plan to bring him back after his first "death" but a large percentage of fans kinda freaked out.

    2. Re:Potential by Canazza · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I get the feeling that we'll find out it was actually Rush that contacted the Lucien Alliance in order to attack the planet, so that it'd free enough energy from the core to dial the gate. If I'm right then I'll likely stop watching it, as me guessing a major plot point like that was par for the course for Atlantis :P

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    3. Re:Potential by dysan27 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I though that the Dr. Rush taking control was actualy more pragmatic on his part. He wants to see what is out there, at any cost. This can be seen before they leave in his disappointment in Eli want to to go eat instead of work, and dialing the gate even though it means they will probably be stranded. He tries to take control to make sure they stay out there, instead of going back right away, if they could. as he "knows" they can't dial back from the milky way galaxy. At least that's the way I read it.

    4. Re:Potential by Fri13 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually Michael Shanks was the voice of Tor. And the story was written well to bring the Jonas there who would give the rare element to build even more powerful weapons and generators. What were needed on later parts.

      From beginning the Daniel Jackson Character was key element what could not be replaced.

    5. Re:Potential by AshtangiMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We found a way home!!! Oh crap it didn't pan out at the last second!!!

      Gilligan!

    6. Re:Potential by kannibal_klown · · Score: 2, Informative

      One of my biggest gripes with the final series of SG-1 (and most of Atlantis) was the reliance on Deus Ex Machina to save the day (Especially in the closing episode of Atlantis) and the constant ressurection of characters through various means, Dr Beckett's clone, Dr Wier's seemingly endless robot clones and Daniel Jackson's repeated Ascensions/Falls.

      One of my favorites lines from SG-1 was in Season 7.

      Scientist: Dr Jackson is going to die when he sees this.
      Soldier: What!? Again?

      Counting the movie, and not counting the Virtual Reality where either he or an NPC was killed a LOT, he's probably "died" (or been presumed dead) at least 8 times.

      Dr Beckett's return was worthy of an eye-roll, and was almost not worth it since he was only in a handful of episodes after his return.

      Weir, eh sort of. She's no Dr Jackson but she did come back 3 or 4 times thanks to replicator nanites.

      O'Neill had a few deaths plus the repeated resurrections at the hands of Ba'al but it was known to the viewer ahead of time he was going to be put through the rinse cycle a few times for torture's sake.

  11. Firefly by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...style that practically every sci-fi show since Firefly uses.

    I don't get why Firefly was canceled. It was popular among geeks and trend-setting. It even had the potential to be the next Star Trek-like franchise. I suppose bean-counting overrode "buzz". They didn't give it time. Shame
         

  12. Re:SPOILER!!!!!! by Barny · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Call me out of touch, but this is actually the first stargate thing I have seen since the original movie.

    So it transports matter well, I get that (humans and objects can move through), but what about air? Couldn't they just open the new gate to any planet with a good atmosphere and just top up the ship with breathable air?

    The people I was roped into watching this with kept shouting at me to stop picking on it, but I want to know how they are limiting this thing...

    "oh yes you can put any matter you want though it so long as it is solid or liquid" but then how do their bodies get through it when all the air is displaced out of their lungs?

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
  13. Appallingly mediocre. by FlyingBishop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All the contrived, pointless tropes of Stargate with none of the cheeky self-deprecating humor.

    Also, Gaius Baltar has no place in the Stargate Universe. Honestly, practically every sentence that came out of Robert Carlyle's mouth it felt like he was being fed his lines by an invisible woman in a red dress. Only he wasn't. His character just has zero definition, and there's no way to sympathize with him.

    Sadly, it's all we have.

    1. Re:Appallingly mediocre. by imgod2u · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. I wish I had mod points atm for you. What made SG1 and Atlantis good shows was entirely in its "oh wow...another sci-fi cliche huh, ya well let's get it over with" style of meta-humor. Let's face it, the stories, plots, acting, etc. weren't ground-breaking. They were cliche, guilty-pleasure sci-fi elements.

      The "big bad guy" each season; the unfaltering hero; the strong-but-secretly-vulnerable female lead who had constant, unspoken sexual tension with the unfaltering hero; the comic relief side genius guy who would develop a spine throughout the series. Atlantis and SG1 was pretty much just this over and over. But it was fun, it was still compelling and most importantly, it didn't take itself too seriously.

      McGuiver was classic. Towards the end, you could almost see that he wasn't in character at all. It was like he was reading his lines in this "God, this again? Really?" voice. Even the unfaltering hero had a goofy, self-deprecating wit about him. This is what made Mal of Firefly so endearing and it's something that so many writers these days don't seem to understand. The days of the Rambo-like tough guy hero are over.

    2. Re:Appallingly mediocre. by jpmorgan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Eh, it feels to me like you're stretching to fit characters into pre-alloted roles/tropes. I don't get that sense from him, personally.

      And to be honest, if you can't sympathize with a smart guy running around trying to put out fires while everybody else is running around like a chicken with their heads cut off because they don't know what to do... you probably don't belong on /. :D

  14. Re:SPOILER!!!!!! by Deus777 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't have any official source for this, but just from watching the show, it seems like anything requires a little bit of a "push" to move through the gate. I suppose if the wind was blowing directly to the gate they could get some fresh air. The problem is, they are in another galaxy and don't know any of the gate addresses for that galaxy. I don't even know how they are going to get back to the ship after they arrive on the planet in the next episode. How do they know the symbols to use to get back to the ship?

  15. My thoughts by Dyinobal · · Score: 2, Informative

    I thought the visuals were good, I liked the 'ancient' star ship and the way it was rendered. It's nice to see something the ancients made that isn't 'pretty'. I didn't really care for the actors but I may grow to like them, the shaky camera stuff was really annoying though and irked me. The sex scene was just randomly thrown in and made me roll my eyes, it was a pointless grab for the crotch thinking audience. A few concerns is how they are going to butcher ancient tech. There is a lot of opportunity to expand on the story of the ancients, but with that huge opportunity is a massive chance they are going to kill it. I'm hopeful it will be a good addition to the Stargate series.

    1. Re:My thoughts by FlyingBishop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mckay was a much better stand-in for the viewer. He was sort of an aspirational stand-in, what the annoying fat gamer dude could be in the best of all possible worlds. Eli just feels like what the gamer dude actually is in this world, except he magically is a genius motivated to solve problems and not play silly games all day.

  16. Re:SPOILER!!!!!! by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 5, Informative

    as explained in season 1 of SG-1, particles (such as air)are kept from traveling through the event horizon by the cool ancient technology as a way to help protect both ends from the environment on the other side.

  17. Stargate Voyager by mhajicek · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nothing new, just a couple old plot devices shaken together. Still might be worth the watch; we'll just have to wait and see.

  18. Depends on your definition of "real" and "good"... by hal2814 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "The TV Landscape needs more real, good sci-fi: there's not a lot of it left, even on the moronically renamed Syfy channel." You can argue "real" and "good" if you want, but there's more new sci-fi television coming out now than there probably ever has been. I'd call both Lost and Heroes sci-fi. And they're both major shows on network television. Also, on the other side of the pond Doctor Who has had a revival in a very big way. It's on hiatus for now but will be back on or near December. But the two spin-offs are both airing new shows. There's a BSG spin-off. Dollhouse survived another year. The V revival is coming. The aforementioned Stargate... The biggest dearth of Sci-Fi television right now comes from the channel that used to be devoted to it.

  19. Stargate B-Team by gedrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I didn't like it. Seemed as if they rounded up the disfunctional people; from military personnel with discipline issues to an MMO geek who's living with his mom (who seems like a Wesley Crusher stand in for the show), and decided they'd be an exciting group of people to sail across the universe on a ship that's about as functional as its crew. I find the makeup of the "crew" absurd, and expect they'll spend the time SG-1 would have used to explore the galaxy, make friends, and fight bad guys to backstab each other and generally angst their way across the universe. Say what you will, but with Jack, Sam, Teal'c and Daniel doing their job, I felt like the people of their universe could at least know they had quality people on the line. Even the Atlantis group seemed to be made of folks with extraoridinary levels of competency in their fields. These guys...well...these guys open sealed doors with flashing red lights on busted up spaceships.

    --
    Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
    1. Re:Stargate B-Team by HikingStick · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The bizzare mixture of people that are on the ship did seem contrive, yet it also seemed plausible. After all, the base came under attack during a political visit, and the survivors are only those who made it to the gate room (though, from the sound of the reports on Earth, very few were lost and only 80 were MIA--about as many as made it through the gate). Such visits often bring an enterage of extra people along for the ride (I'm surprised we didn't have any chroniclers or archivists along). For those who followed the other two SG shows, the other beuraucratic types had been trying to exert civillian oversight and control over the Stargate program for many years. It makes sense that they were now in a place to have more "useless" people among the refugees. There were two primary things that bugged me about the pilot (apart from the sex scene that did nothing to support the plot and was a lame way to show character relationships):
      1. if the ship had a video drone system and the game geek was using it to record his perceived final hours, why didn't anyone think of trying to play back the ship's own video or other logs?
      2. in SG-Atlantis, in order to activate most Ancient tecnology, at least the first time, it needed to be handled by someone with the Ancient genetic marker. They may have decided to drop that bit to lower the tech content, or they may be operating under the premise that all SG team members now must receive the genetic marker via injection before going through a gate. That leaves you to wonder about the boy genius...

      Overall, it seems interesting enough to pull me back again, but we'll have to see how well it maintains my interest. As to the person who questioned the premise of the inmanned, unarmed (or poorly armed) ship that was bouncing between galaxies, it does seem to be something that would fit the mythology of the Ancients as presented in the other shows. If the Ancients presumably seeded life across multiple galaxies, they might have used a ship like the one in the show to do some automatic (manned or unmanned) journeys to find suitable sites. It's possible that, when the ship was fully operational, that even things like the drones could have been dispatched automatically to check and record conditions. Then, if the ship's programming was set (or got switched to autopilot during a crisis) to travel through a number of galxies in a circuit, it might have cycled back through Pegasus Galaxy, where Atlantis could have called it home to load up with a crew. It obviously did support a crew at one point, so they will probably find some means of affecting repairs and making food on-board. My guess for the first season plot progression is that it will include the following elements:

      • discovery that, if repaired, the ship's shields can prevent the venting problems
      • That the ship might possibly be able to self-repair, if well-powered
      • the need for augmenting,repairing, recharging, and/or replacing the power system will be a significant arc
      • They will encounter some people groups planted by the Ancients in other galaxies
      • The concept of returning to the Milky Way will become a veritable quest for the Holy Grail

      The one thing that will be interesting about this show is if and how they could introduce a common enemy or villian (apart from an internal one). Since it seems they will be spending only 12 hours at a time in each location (each galaxy?), that would make it hard to have a series-long common enemy (e.g., Goa'uld, Wraith), unless they use the most overused sci-fi plot device of them all: they just disturbed a super-advanced race that is now aware of their presence and will follow them at all costs because they want to get back to the source of the meat buffet (e.g., Wraith, Borg). I'm also interested in learning more about Rush. It seems he already has alterior motives.

      --
      I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
  20. Re:SPOILER!!!!!! by Nadaka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have not seen this show. But it is likely one of two things.

    1: its an outgoing wormhole? stargate wormholes are one directional, with the exception of a feedback signal from the destination gate.
    2: its programmed into the bios of the stargate to filter what goes through. The standard programming prevents atmospheric pressure from venting through the gate for a variety of reasons (some gates are miles below the ocean at huge pressures and some are in the vacuum of space)

  21. My thoughts by moniker127 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Personally I look forward to every episode in the stargate series. I was a big fan of SG1 for a while, and while I didn't like atlantis at first, I eventually did- realizing that it was its own thing.
    At first I was kind of scared with the direction they were taking it with stargate universe. I don't like watching drama shows. I thought back to the new battlestar galactica- which was okay- but honestly not my favorite series.
    I just hope they don't try too hard to copy what battlestar galactica did. I kind of have the feeling that they want to- given the similarities of characters- Nicholas Rush is a over emotional long haired scientist guy who is possibly evil possibly insane- just like gaius baltar. I have a feeling that they're trying to adama-fy Col. Everett Young- but that wont work. Edward James Olmos defined that character. They cant duplicate him.

    What i'm hoping is that they will realize they're going to fail if they copy another series, and they warp the characters a bit so that they're not the same. I'm hoping that once they do that- i'll lose the sour taste in my mouth.
    Anyway- I do like the gamer dude- Eli Wallace- but I feel like it was kind of an obvious ploy of them to put him in- they know most of the people who watch the show are fat male gamers who went to college (like myself). Regardless- that should inject some humor into the series- and that is the main reason I loved the series- because of the witty comic relief- like when Jack O'neal made some wise crack at the big scary aliens- or when Rodney Mckay yelled at the other characters for forgetting something that was blatently obvious to the viewer- but would've been left in the background in any "first generation" sci fi series - like startrek and such.

    Anyway- I feel like i've geeked out enough for one blurb, I may as well be the fat comic book guy at this point- so i'll cut my blurb short.

  22. Re:Typical intro to a spinoff by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 4, Informative

    The ship has been flying a lot longer than the Ancients planned. That's because they learned to ascend, and never ended up using the ship.

  23. Re:Typical intro to a spinoff by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 3, Informative

    When they were digging through the supplies which came from Earth, there were Ancient crates right there too. So not only have they not looked all over the ship, but they've not even opened boxes which they've seen.

  24. The bold new face of science fiction! by Mad+Quacker · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. Scientists are evil scheming power hungry liars that screw everything up.
    2. Politicians are selfless and caring human beings who will gladly give up their lives for you.
    3. Thirty year old gamers living with their mom are solving for the Grand Unified Theory by playing Warcraft 18 hours a day.

    Well, at least they didn't leave out the patronization.

    *sigh* to me it feels like the era of good science fiction is over.

    --
    "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
  25. Re:Depends on your definition of "real" and "good" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You forgot Eureka! If genre mixing shows like Lost and Dollhouse get included as sci-fi, then so should Eureka.

  26. Defying Gravity by axor1337 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I real look forward to seeing how the develop the story line and characters, but it does seam like a stargate version of Voyager. I am wanting the rest of Defying Gravity to Air soon, I think it is the best new original show on any of the big 4 broadcast networks,(FOX CBS ABC NBC)

    --
    there are 10 types of people in this world, those who read binary and those who don't. which are you!
  27. I'm reminded, surreally of Space: 1999 by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Wikipedia article on SG:U seems to imply that, whilst they're stuck on a starship they can't actually drive the thing where they want to go and are restricted to hopping on and off via its onboard stargate when they get near interesting things. So it's a bit like Voyager but somebody stole their steering wheel.

    Space: 1999, a British sci-fi (60s or 70s, I'd guess) had a similar setup but it was based on the slightly more bonkers-sounding premise that the crew were stuck on a moonbase and that the entire moon had been catapulted across the galaxy. When the moon went through an interesting neighbourhood they'd sometimes hop off and take a look around, then they'd jump back on again before it left. Surreal stuff! Despite the dodgy science and costumes they actually had some quite good episodes with interesting plot ideas.

    As an SG1 fan, I'd just like to say "Please let it be good! Please let it be good!". That is all.

  28. Must.reply.to.thread.about.Babylon5..... by B5_geek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are many things that make B5 awesome, but the single most compelling reason for its awesomeness is the cohesive storyline. It is the only video (tv/movie) that feels like you are watching a book. Great arc episodes, fantastic writing of dialog, and growth of characters that you have never seen before make it unique and memorable in TV history.

    The StarGate Universe however has always felt like a high-school writing class in comparison. SG:U could develop into a good show, and as my TV sci-fi choices are limited I will watch it.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
  29. Re:SPOILER!!!!!! by Ark42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The rules of the stargate are quite strange and often "expanded" to create some plot. But I give them that their explanations are often quite clever.

    A third point is that a stargate actually has a way to recognize objects. It only sends the object if the whole thing passed the event horizon. Otherwise it just would rip people and stuff apart when they try to pass.

    I've never figured out what is really supposed to happen when you shut off a worm-hole in mid-transit. In one episode of SG-1, some heavy material re-materializes inside of the nearby planet's sun (causing/solving the red sky and eminent doom). In another episode, Teal'c is trapped inside of the buffer, and his atoms are not just randomly lost at some point in space between the two gates. Also, there is at least one episode I can recall where a Jaffa retreating through a gate has his staff weapon cut in half when the gate shuts off. Also in the 2nd episode of the entire series of SG-1, Kawalsky had his head cut in half by them shutting down the gate while his head was partially in the wormhole. So the whole thing about transporting entire objects as one packet seems to be not true all of the time.

  30. Re:Sliders! by Spad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My thoughts exactly - it's Voyager (Stuck in the middle of nowhere) + Sliders (Limited time window to explore planets without any control of which ones).

    That's not to say it's bad - I enjoyed the first episode(s), apart from the annoying flashback (they'd better be one-offs because if it turns into Lost then I'm out) and I think it's got a lot of potential if they're clever about it.

    One thing that gets me though; the ancients built thousands of Stargates with 9 chevrons - 6 co-ordinates, 1 point of origin, 1 "area code", 1 apparently special one - and then only ever use the 9th one to allow them to get from one specific Stargate (that was seemingly in the wrong place) to one specific ship. Why the hell didn't they just give the ship its own "area code" instead?

  31. Re:SPOILER!!!!!! by Torne · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've never figured out what is really supposed to happen when you shut off a worm-hole in mid-transit. In one episode of SG-1, some heavy material re-materializes inside of the nearby planet's sun (causing/solving the red sky and eminent doom). In another episode, Teal'c is trapped inside of the buffer, and his atoms are not just randomly lost at some point in space between the two gates. Also, there is at least one episode I can recall where a Jaffa retreating through a gate has his staff weapon cut in half when the gate shuts off. Also in the 2nd episode of the entire series of SG-1, Kawalsky had his head cut in half by them shutting down the gate while his head was partially in the wormhole. So the whole thing about transporting entire objects as one packet seems to be not true all of the time.

    Can't believe I'm being this nerdy but everything you mention there is consistent in the show's canon :)

    As you push things into the event horizon, they are dematerialised and stored in a buffer in the stargate - so if you stick the staff weapon (or your head) halfway in it's not "there" any more. Once the stargate decides the whole object is inside, it sends the data in the buffer to the other stargate via Sci Fi Awesomeness. It's sorta established that this is *not* instant. When the data gets there, the receiving stargate receives it into the buffer, and once the whole object is in the buffer, rematerialises it out of the event horizon.

    So what happens when you shut the gate off depends what stage in this process you are at: if you shut off while a object is partly into the stargate then the bit in the stargate vanishes, no part of it was sent yet (the other half I guess is left in the buffer, but the buffer gets cleared when the gate connection *opens* at least). If you shut off while the 'signal' is in transit between the gates then you get the materialising in space scenario, which rematerialises it without its actual structure (just dumps the fundamental particles back out into 'reality'). Teal'c gets trapped in the buffer because the gate is malfunctioning and is refusing to rematerialise the objects it receives; they have to get him out before anyone else dials into the gate because this will clear the buffer and destroy his stored pattern.

    So yah, it basically does transmit each object as a single "packet", but there is a buffering phase inside the stargate at each end to allow this, and the gates don't bother to push partially buffered objects back out if the connection is cut (guess the ancients weren't too big on safety).

  32. Re:Only 42"??? by mweather · · Score: 3, Funny

    You need to get yourself a girlfriend.

  33. Better yet... by artemis67 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wait for someone to re-edit it into chronological sequence and download it off the 'nets.

    Jumping back and forth with the flashbacks was annoying as hell.

  34. Re:Only 42"??? by artemis67 · · Score: 4, Funny

    A girlfriend with a MythTV box.

    Hey, as long as we're fantasizing here, might as well go for broke...

  35. Cynical attempt to milk BSG and Stargate franchise by guidryp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I watched it without reading a single review or press release. I had no expectations of what was to come. Warning some vague spoilers may be below.

    Within 5 minutes it is clear that this is an attempt to graft BSG onto SG and in an attempt to milk both fan bases for the combined monetary gain. No doubt this idea seems brilliant in the board room.

    But the execution is the worse of both worlds. It sucks all the fun, and chemistry among lovable characters out of Stargate and replaces it with a superficial BSG veneer of angry distrust and melodrama. Nothing is left of Stargate, but the gate mechanism and some tired cameos.

    The have nothing of BSG world that made it great. Instead they assume dark, dire, angry, whiny = deep. It doesn't. It just equals annoying.

    This seems like what you would get if your made your writers watch a few episodes of BSG and make a list of BSG items. Then crib the ones you can get away with (IE nothing to do with Cylons).

    So we get dark dingy sets, angry distrusting characters, angry mob scenes, obligatory pointless sex scene, heavy flashback, heavy melodrama. None of the the heart and soul from either show.

    After seeing this appear to be a cheap BSG knockoff a quick bit of googling revealed that they at least admit this is what they were trying to do.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/08/tca-press-tour-stargate-universe-producers-aiming-for-battlestar-galacticalevel-quality.html

    "creators of "Stargate Universe," the upcoming spinoff of the long-running "Stargate SG-1," took the stage today, panelists promised a fresh, more "Battlestar"-like take on the space opera."

    I am annoyed by the cynicism and lack of originality in trying to give Stargate a BSG makeover and by the end result which felt like punishment to watch.

    YMMV of course. Some people apparently loved it.

  36. Re:Only 42"??? by tacarat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Real home theaters involve a large stage and having the program's actors re-enact the show you're trying to watch. Sometimes they only require a fee to do it, sometimes you have to kidnap them. I have a list of impersonators in case something I'm watching involves somebody who's passed on.

    Ever since I upgraded to this system, even my porn collection is considered high art.

    --
    "Common sense will be the death of us all"