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.

45 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 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;
  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 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.

    4. 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?

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

  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 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.
    9. 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.

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

    Who still wastes their time watching commercials?

  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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
  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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
  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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
  17. 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)
  18. 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?

  19. 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).

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

    You need to get yourself a girlfriend.

  21. 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...

  22. 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.