Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Television Media

Stargate SG-1 Gets A Seventh Season 430

Posted by timothy
from the dramatic-continuation-of-the-same dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Farscape may or may not have been cancelled [does anyone know?], and Enterprise is so politically correct I can barely bring myself to watch it, but with MacGyver onboard, it looks like Stargate SG-1 will be back for a seventh season."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stargate SG-1 Gets A Seventh Season

Comments Filter:
  • Too bad... (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Mr. Sketch (111112)
    Since the show sucks now that they killed off Daniel. Oh well, it was good until then. I'm guessing this will probably be it's last season.
  • by kir (583) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @09:37PM (#4544389) Homepage

    Really? I've just started watching them and feel it's no where near as PC as TNG or Voyager. I guess if you compare it to something like Firefly... OK.

    Just how bad is Andromeda?!?! Or is just me who thinks it's shite?

    • Andromeda is total shite. It has become Hercules in Space and any depth to the show was destroyed when they fired Wolfe.

      The reason Wolfe was fired was because Sorbo (Hercules) thought that he was too smart and that the Andromeda should be made more episodic and less about science-fiction and story arcs. Now it's about Dylan Hunt, Hercules of space.

      The cool characters like Rev Bem, Tyr, Trance, etc have been discarded or destroyed in favour of Sorbo.
    • Just how bad is Andromeda?!?!

      All I needed to hear was the credits for the new season ("The universe is a dangerous place."). That said it all. It's going to be BAD. Then there was the line from Dylan about Tyr not hurting their friendship -- as if that were Tyr's first concern, instead of survival. Then there was the nuthouse episode, which I could not believe -- I was so bored, I was about to shut it off. The only reason I watched the last episode was to see John DeLancie. Now it's no more Andromeda for me. It's just gotten too sappy -- all the things that made it different from all the other shows are gone -- Tyr is becoming a nice guy, and the edge is even being taken off Sid (John DeLancie's character) and, with 50 worlds, the Alliance now acts like Star Fleet on idiot pills.

      That's how bad Andromeda is!
  • by banky (9941) <gregg@@@neurobashing...com> on Sunday October 27, 2002 @09:37PM (#4544391) Homepage Journal
    Farscape is still cancelled, but some people [watchfarscape.com] are trying to save it, and the jury is still out. It's a dead man (show) walkin' but it's not over till the switch is thrown.

    • I click on the watchfarscape.com link. The page loaded, including a picture of Aeryn Sun (Claudia Black).
      For a split second (before I looked at her face, and realised who she was) I thought I'd been re-directed to a soft porn site.
      ...and thats the real tragedy of the show being cancelled.
    • I've noticed a lot of SciFi's TV shows have ended and they have very few original shows now.

      This brings up the question, what are they going to do with their budget?

      I remember they turned down taking up Babylon 5 because of all the original programming they were doing. It sure would be interesting if they focused their money on another jms project.
  • by EvilCabbage (589836) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @09:38PM (#4544395) Homepage
    I havent sat down and watched an episode of SG-1 yet. Seeing MacGyver without his mullet just un-nerves me.
  • Noooo!!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by molrak (541582) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @09:40PM (#4544405) Homepage
    That means we'll probably have to wait yet another year for the MacGyver Reunion Special, or the Richard Dean Anderson E! True Hollywood Story. Oh well, I guess there's always of catching him on the old reruns of General Hospital on Soap Network.
  • by CathedralRulz (566696) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @09:41PM (#4544409)
    Hi,
    I have never watched this show but am curious how it compares to the Star Trek and Babylon 5 series in that does it have a story arc and continuity between each episode? I think the show started on the Showtime network, didn't it? How did it become syndicated?
    Thanks.
    • by xQx (5744)
      yes there's a story arc.
      in fact, it's almost as much of a story arc as babylon 5, except that they are making up as they go along.

      It's alot like star trek, with a little more action, just as much moral debate, and probably just as much drama.
    • by Cyno01 (573917) <Cyno01@hotmail.com> on Sunday October 27, 2002 @10:11PM (#4544550) Homepage
      its based on the movie and theres a lot of continuity between the episodes and its mostly based on hard science, for things they cant explain they make up simple solutions without a lot of technobabble, just about every episode the team visits a new planet, and every planet is pretty much like some period in the earths history, sorry if that sounds cynical, i really do like the show, anyways... it was originally on showtime, i dunno for how long but showtime dropped it and sci-fi picked it up, its syndicated, i dont know much about that, but watching it on saturday afternoons before we got cable got me hooked
    • by jpt.d (444929) <abfall@@@rogers...com> on Sunday October 27, 2002 @10:15PM (#4544571)
      I would say that it isn't as well planned as Babylon 5 (not that there really could be that much planning in another series [with exception of Jeremiah]) but the things get done. For example B5 didn't deal with so many things that were close to home, Shadow War, Earth War, Centari-Narn war, etc. SG-1 is faced with more direct threats to their survival. First season was being shut down (base being shutdown), then the attack of earth by Aphophis, then the Tok'ra taking over Carter (main character). All this in a three episode span. Eventually it is the replicators, system-lords, a planted asteroid, big bombs that can go through walls, the thing that can destory the stargate, etc. Need I say more? I wouldn't really compare it to star trek though.
    • by Marillion (33728) <ericbardes AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday October 27, 2002 @11:06PM (#4544770)
      Showtime had the series for five seasons. They syndicated it - with a lag of about a year. A big complaint about SciFi picking it up is that they jumped into season six with a bunch of fans (including me) lost on the background of a cast change.
      It doesn't really have a strong arc in that if you miss an episode you're lost for weeks. There's a few arch enemy races that are always lurking ready to pop up into some episode. There good aliens too who help out, sometimes.
      They avoid "techno-bable" by just accepting that there are aliens out there who make cool stuff we humans just can't understand. "We don't know how that works," is a frequent line.
      Another key success factor is the great cast. Anderson gets some great one-liners and brings a good dose of humour to the show. Tapping and Shanks are totally convincing as the shows eggheads. The supporting cast could easily lead in their own series.
      I sure the show syndicated because there's money to be made.
    • by sql*kitten (1359) on Monday October 28, 2002 @07:08AM (#4546138)
      I have never watched this show but am curious how it compares to the Star Trek and Babylon 5 series in that does it have a story arc and continuity between each episode?

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

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

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

      Finally, the characters on Stargate are more believable. They are fairly ordinary people who find themselves in extraordinary circumstances, not like Star Trek (particularly TNG) in which each character is "special", the boy genius, the telepath, the noble warrior, etc. Star Trek characters in every series apart from the original are cliches.
  • by pcx (72024) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @09:43PM (#4544420)
    Farscape was super cool for a season or two when they really did romp around the universe and see what was out there.

    Unfortunately near the end it degenerated into self-introspection and self-pitty that was made two billion times more annoying for criton's (sp) whining, indignant yelling.

    If they could fire the writers and get people who had imagination and drive to explore the incredibly vast universe then sure, bringing farscape back would be a great thing. But as it stands now, it's a mercy killing, putting it down before it becomes a parody of itself and another star trek universe where they're more interested in psycoanalyzing everything than exploring.
  • Rumors have it that in the 1st episode of Stargate next season, MacGyver builds a new stargate out of three tablets of XTC and a paper clip, and Kurt Russel (from the original StarGate movie) comes back as Tango and gives MacGyver some Cash.
  • Good! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shadowj (534439) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @09:45PM (#4544427)
    I've been a fan of the show since I stumbled upon it two years ago. OK, the premise is a little hokey... but the writing is SO good. The dialog sparkles, they avoid techobabble and use real science more often than I'd expect ("Y'see, Carter" [waving at ringed gas giant looming on the horizon], "this planet that we're on..." "Excuse me, sir, this is actually a moon, not a planet.")

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

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

    • Re:Good! (Score:3, Funny)

      by naasking (94116)
      I personally liked O'neils line, "Shoot first, send flowers later." ;-)

    • Re:Good! (Score:5, Funny)

      by muzzmac (554127) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @10:07PM (#4544532)
      The avoid techobabble by having jack O'Niell tell scientists to shut up.

      It's sooo good.
      • Re:Good! (Score:3, Interesting)

        My wife just reminded me of the "Groundhog Day"-esque episode where the scientists figured out what was going on when O'Neill started spouting technobabble about their predicament.
      • Re:Good! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by sql*kitten (1359)
        The avoid techobabble by having jack O'Niell tell scientists to shut up.

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

        One of the great things about the show is that you can see over time how he comes to respect Carter and Jackson, even though Jackson isn't even Air Force, he's a civilian. That sort of character development is far beyond Star Trek's writers.
    • Re:Good! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by hidden (135234)
      I'll agree that the show is good, the writing is good, etc. but... they actually arn't that good with continuity... Overall storywise they are, but...

      For the first couple of seasons they did all the things you would expect, sending probes through the gate first and stuff... Now they just seem to go wandering through with no idea what's on the other side...

      Or, for the first season (more or less) They pretty much got thrown and came rolling out the gate.. Now "everything exits at the velocity it enters" (And yes I know they babbled an excuse for that last season)
  • Just wait long enough; eventually we will begin to see photon guns made out of chewing gum and rubber bands....
  • Enterprise is so politically correct I can barely bring myself to watch it

    Yeah if you want a good idea of how overly PC that show is, this season of enterprise had the first mention of actually GOING TO THE BATHROOM (on the minefield episode) ever on star trek.
  • by RedWolves2 (84305) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @09:49PM (#4544450) Homepage Journal
    You can get Season 1 [amazon.com] and Season 2 [amazon.com] on DVD.
  • by UpLateDrinkingCoffee (605179) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @10:01PM (#4544504)
    Just because they cancelled Farscape does not make Stargate SG-1 a bad show. I think they are both great, and Richard Dean Andersen is *much* better in this role than he was in MacGyver... I mean, when the bad guys are chasing you never, I repeat, never toss away a perfectly good gun.

    I think SG-1 has more of a "formula" than Farscape... and as another poster mentioned it is great how true to past episodes they are. They never break the "SG-1 Reality".

    Farscape on the other hand is much more on the edge. The first couple seasons were pure genius but honestly this season felt more like the writers were making things up as they went. The best series have some kind of continuity. Anyone have any idea what changed?

  • Anyone else head about this? Apparantly theres some new saturday morning cartoon called Stargate [imdb.com] Infinity [epguides.com], i just got the first ep off kazza, but i havn't been bored enough to watch it cuz the quality is shite. Speaking of shitty quality anyone else seen the pilot for firefly? Why didn't they air that!?!??
    • The cartoon is horrible.

      In the cartoon, all the SG people wear weird X-Men-ish outfits. The characters are extremely shallow and rather juvinile. The writing is poor. Every episode has some hit-you-over-the-head moral. (Does that make it count towards some FCC-mandated children's programming with morals quota?)
      • Lets say it together "Saturday Morning CARTOON" other than a lot of kids not getting the better writing so easily, most of them do. Writers just don't get it....
      • by silentbozo (542534)
        Every episode has some hit-you-over-the-head moral. (Does that make it count towards some FCC-mandated children's programming with morals quota?)

        Yes. Actually it does. If you look at the writer's bible for many animated shows, there's a studio-inserted bit about contributing a positive moral message, which is a direct result of FCC education requirements.

        If you write an episode for SG-Infinity, you'd better make sure nobody dies, and the good guys do good things. Kind of limits what you can do, but hey, constraints are supposed to be good for the creative juices, right?

        Lets say it together "Saturday Morning CARTOON" other than a lot of kids not getting the better writing so easily, most of them do. Writers just don't get it....

        Actually, many writers do "get it", but what you write has to get approved by the story editor and the director. Ever seen an episode where the writer was an idiot and failed to provide a reason for some special item, or had them do something, but never followed through in the payoff? You can bet someone cut pages from the script, and of course, when they cut, they ALWAYS manage to cut the pivotal story points... And, again, for "children's shows", your writing is subject to the scrutiny of the network censors (aka, television standards and practices), which limits the kinds of things you can put the characters through, not to mention again, the requirement that your story have some sort of moral point.
    • The technical quality of the show is actually better than most Saturday morning cartoons now. But this show is done in a somewhat realistic style (well, excluding the obligatory 3% body fat on all characters) while most cartoons are now drawn in an extremely flat style.

      As for the show itself, I've seen one episode. It was a bit weird - it's clearly targeted at young children. That reduces the bad guys to monsters, and strips the complexity from the characters and plot. When I learned of the premise (it's 2040, an SG team leader has been impersonated by aliens attacking the base and he must clear his name) I expected the show to be targeted at tweeners with a slightly more ambiguous message. (Basically variations on "don't judge people on their first impression.")
  • Farscape rocks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MacAndrew (463832) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @10:04PM (#4544514) Homepage
    Farscape is/was uneven from episode to episode, but the good ones were amazing. Soooo many TV shows are just plain mediocre, with nary a flash of brilliance. Also, Farscape was the first strong break with the threadbare Star Trek straitjacket to make it on the air. I loved the substitution of largely organic technology for electrical, and was rather fond of Moia (in a platonic way). Aeryn's cool, too. Trek never really pulled it off I think with strong female characters, so rare in scifi.

    I'm surprised to hear of the cancellation, but true it is -- see the horse's mouth. [farscape.com] However, I doubt it's dead. Farscape has the backing of the brand-name Jim Henson Company, a great premise (IMHO), and a solid library of four years that breaks the magic 88-episode threshold needed for successful post-series syndication.

    I bet they'll go to syndication, as all the modern Treks have done, and maybe even score a better channel than SciFi, which can have John Edward for all I care (gag). Keep an eye on UPN. The Farscape season was not set to start until February, being from Australia and all, so there's time.

    Enterprise is in its childhood. TNG was VILE for its first three seasons and would have rightfully died if not for the intervention of the Borg and a stunning season-end cliffhanger ("Best of Both Worlds"). I think it will show some decent character development, and I appreciate that they've deprived themselves of 3/4 of the technology that yielded too many pat technobabble solutions on shows like Voyager. Scott Bakula annoys me, but I guess I can get used to him ... I just keep expecting him to "leap," you know?

    Yes, I watch too much TV, but mostly science fiction.
  • Scifi Shows (Score:5, Funny)

    by moniker (9961) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @10:04PM (#4544520)
    Andromeda
    First season was cool and funny... but as soon as they changed the title theme from cool riffs done by the guy from Rush to the "Hercules in Space" orchestral wailings... everything else seemed to begin to suck as well. My understanding was that some of the good creative talent was kicked out. Can't watch it anymore.

    Enterprise
    The captain strikes me as whiny... I prayed for the dog to die in one of the more recent episodes. But a lot of the episodes have a cool spooky atmosphere.

    Odyssey 5
    The science sucks... but the dialog is great. "Praise Jesus... and fuck you."

    Firefly
    Great funny dialog... poor science... (Still using gunpowder, but somehow they have excellent gravity generators and inertial dampeners) ... except... I do like how every explosion in space is not accompanied by these nifty sound effects that noone should hear. I also like how the captain has no objection to just outright killing defenseless bad guys.

    Farscape
    I loved the show... but it seemed to go down hill in the fourth. The end of the second season was fantastic. I liked how they never tried to explain the science... and especially how the aliens looked more like the guys in the mos eisley cantina that stupid trek aliens with head and nose ridges.

    • by bdesham (533897) <bdesham AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday October 27, 2002 @10:12PM (#4544554) Journal
      Enterprise
      The captain strikes me as whiny... I prayed for the dog to die in one of the more recent episodes.
      You're kidding, right? You want to kill the hands-down best character on the show?
    • The dog? (Score:5, Funny)

      by GuyMannDude (574364) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @10:31PM (#4544629) Journal

      The captain strikes me as whiny... I prayed for the dog to die in one of the more recent episodes. But a lot of the episodes have a cool spooky atmosphere.

      Let me get this straight: that episode featured a main plot of the dog getting sick and a subplot of Capt. Archer fantasizing about his super sexy vulcan science officer and you wasted your prayers on the fuckin' dog?!?

      Man, I was on my hands and knees praying that T'Pol was going to help our dashing captain get "Long And Prosper"!

      GMD

    • Re:Scifi Shows (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jerf (17166) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @10:34PM (#4544638) Journal
      (Still using gunpowder, but somehow they have excellent gravity generators and inertial dampeners)

      This is one of the many ways Star Trek has simply ruined people's understanding of science. The fact of the matter is that given the place where Firefly takes place, using guns makes perfect sense.

      Guns are cheap, they have around 1500 years of experience making and caring for them, cheap, they are easy to use, easy to make very durable, and did I mention cheap?

      As I have written for a probably never-to-be-published game's guide,

      One of the nice things about old technology is that it is easy to maintain. Sure, in a firefight, you might prefer a laser-guided smart rail-gun, but it's a bitch to find parts for it when it breaks. A shotgun, on the other hand, still kills people dead, and it's a lot easier to come by both parts and ammunition....


      There's a certain *elegence* in the inelegence of a good firearm. Lasers can be reflected, guidance systems can be scrambled, electronics of all kinds can be confused or outright destroyed, particle beams can be deflected, but a bullet can only be stopped, generally not without doing damage to the thing stopping it. (I'd recommend against using your own flesh to do the job.) Very few things, even in 2088 [time setting of this game], can stand up to a concentrated barrage of firepower.

      Simple is beautiful.


      Firearms have an excellent bang-for-the-buck, pun fully intended, and are likely to continue to have it for a long time to come. The only real mystery is why Serenity doesn't have at least one hull-mounted machine gun.
      • Blockquoth the poster:

        The fact of the matter is that given the place where Firefly takes place, using guns makes perfect sense.

        By all means, I invite you to fire a projectile weapon inside a rickety old spacecraft. Just be sure you don't miss...

        • Re:Scifi Shows (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Jerf (17166)
          As long as the hull is reasonably solid, it's not necessarily as bad as you might think. It might not breach if it's a weapon specially designed to be fired inside of a standard hull, if it's a soft projectile. At worst, it puts an easily-patched small hole into the hull, which is probably not the only hole in the 'rickety old spacecraft', which probably long ago gave up "hull integrity" as a binary, on-off value.

          Windows may not be such a good idea to shoot out, as shown in the third (I think?) episode, but most hulls as shown should handle it pretty well.

          Don't compare Firefly-era spacecraft with modern spacecraft, or even modern consumer airplanes. The structure looks much more like a modern battleship in style, which can function with quite a lot of holes in it.
      • Have you noticed that on star trek, the Borg shields cannot deflect normal bullets? (see 'star trek: first contact') Then WHY, oh WHY, wouldn't the Federation start making projectile weapons for fighting the Borg? Dumbasses... =P
        • they did, they made a rifle for use within a damening field, it was in DS9 - Field of Fire, also, scroll down a post [slashdot.org]
          • Yeah, though I believe they mentioned the technology was abandoned (I'm sure the transporter wouldnt make it thru their personal shields anyway)

            Besides, that was a sniper rifle, I'm talking about heavy-duty weapons ala Aliens

        • WHY, wouldn't the Federation start making projectile weapons for fighting the Borg? Dumbasses...
          Coming back to topic (*cough*), this is just what happened in Stargate SG-1 [sg1archive.com] with regards to the Asgard - a highly evolved extragalactic civilization - and the Replicators - just like it sounds, a bunch of erector-set robots that simply kept "eating" the Asgard's technology and reproducing themselves. (Where is Bill Joy [wired.com] when you need him?) The replicators were (for some twisted logic reason) "immune" to the Asgard's energy weapons and other defenses, but sure blowed apart pretty when hit with SG-1's MP-5s and P90s [monstersinmotion.com]!

          All that being said, Stargate sucks without Daniel Jackson [savedanieljackson.com]. We used to play a drinking game where we'd watch Stargate and drink whenever we'd hear Teal'c refer to him as Danieljackson (as though it were one word). Now we're just sober, and what fun is that?
      • for their credit, they did have a real gun on an episode of star trek ds9 (the best series), the episode "Field of Fire" was on in syndication here in milwaukee thursday night, in the episode theres this crazy vulcan sniper with a gun that could transport its bullets, kinda a funny coincidence that that episode would come up in order on the day they caught the sniper(s)
    • Re:Scifi Shows (Score:3, Insightful)

      I also like how the captain has no objection to just outright killing defenseless bad guys.

      The generally casual attitude to killing has been lacking from most of the great sci-fi shows for years. Mal seems to be a captain who isn't gonna let his conscience come back and stab him a couple of episodes later. Besides that you've gotta love the way Jayne calls his gun 'Vera'...

      Don't agree on the poor science (errr... sorta). General uptake of tech is proportional to ease of use and ease of maintenance. gunpowder weapons come out top of that scale especially when you don't have access to the all the supplementary tech you need to maintain something more fancy.

      Combines my love of westerns with my love of sci-fi, though I am a bit mystified by the terraformers decision to make all the (hundreds of) planets[?] into semi-arid dustballs rather than fertile paradisi...
      • I am a bit mystified by the terraformers decision to make all the (hundreds of) planets[?] into semi-arid dustballs rather than fertile paradisi...

        Maybe most of the terraformed worlds are lush gardens... but remember the premise. Serenity wouldn't be hanging around the really nice places, would it?

  • Maxim (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sivar (316343) <charlesnburns[@]gmai l . c om> on Sunday October 27, 2002 @10:05PM (#4544528)
    What does the Maxim link have to do with anything? Some cheesy pun on the word "barely"? :)
    • Evidently he thinks Enterprise's only redeeming quality is the opportunity to watch that actress strip down in the decontamination chamber every week.
  • I've already spent £500 of SG1 dvd's - and with another season to buy?!? /me goes off to celebrate
  • The other commenters obviously live in a country with a half decent

    In Australia - not only is cable TV way overpriced (and broadband charges seriously suck even before you put in installation and new modem cost), we simply do not get decent sci-fi.

    How many seasons of Farscape have been made? Most of the episodes were shown I think but some episodes were missed (dropped for sport) and never reappeared. And it was made less 100km from where I am sitting.

    Voyager is still in season 6!!

    Cable TV is seriously screwed. But the gov and regulators look about to stuff up the commercial fix being proposed.

    What about Space-Above and Beyond (simple storyline but done semi-well even if a bit corny)?

    Not only do the programmers (TV schedules - not the nice people who write code) - have seriously lousy taste, they do not seem to manage to get it - put the show on same time each week.

    Thankfully we have 3 hr video tapes - show can start anywhere between 30min and an hour late, then run for 1hr10min with the ads. Also 11pm Tuesday or Thursday is not what I would call an audience friendly time.
  • Movie? Spinoff? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Flamesplash (469287)
    This, they hope, will segue directly into filimg a 'feature'. Smith said this a couple of times, but he emphasised the feature is not yet 100% certain. After that, the spinoff.

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

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

    As for the spinoff I don't think it will go anywhere. I watch SG-1 but I don't think I would watch it if not for the current cast. Guess I'll see...
    • Wait a minute. A Stargate movie? It just might work!!! Damn, I wonder if they'll actually cat on this great idea.

      Now, if only someone would start to seriously consider making a Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie, my life would be perfect!!!
  • SG-1 is quite good (Score:2, Interesting)

    by lrdnkn (598755)
    I have been watching this show almost religiously since its very first season and own both the first and second season DVD boxsets. I was quite concerned when they killed off Daniel Jackson, but I must admit that the new character Jonas has done pretty well to fill the void that Daniel left. The series is incredibly good at following its own reality. There have been numerous episodes that were tie-ins to previous ones (I'm not sure but I think some of these have been across season boundaries). I watched over the summer when SG-1 switched from Showtime to Sci-Fi. By all means if you have the time, watch (or record) the new season of Stargate:SG-1. I venture to bet that most Sci-Fi fans wont be sorry. Now there are occasional filler episodes that you may or may not like (take, for example, the hilarious "The Other Guys" episode this summer). I look forward to seeing the new season (and to getting more DVD boxsets :-)

    If you like Sci-Fi, check it out.

  • by Vegan Pagan (251984) <deanas@NoSpAm.earthlink.net> on Sunday October 27, 2002 @10:45PM (#4544677)
    My problem with S.T. Enterprise is that, more than any Trek since TOS, its Captain expects things to go his way and it usually portrays foreign cultures as inferior. The societies that do have higher tech are shown as either evil or condescending; Archer calls genetic engineering one's own race a deal with the devil and he believes that humans are entitled to all Vulcan technology. And almost no time is spent showing the ways that their cultures are superior to human ways. The only really redeeming moments were when he did an elaborate apology dance to get some equipment, and when he refused to help either side on the Desert Planet.

    Ultimately, Enterprise reminds me of USA today: ignorantly pushing itself on the world and expecting to get better treatment than anyone else. I suppose that's what now gets high ratings in terrorized USA, but it sure doesn't live up to the best of sci-fi, or even the best of Trek. The Q and the Borg are races that humans should look up to!
    • Ultimately, Enterprise reminds me of USA today: ignorantly pushing itself on the world and expecting to get better treatment than anyone else.

      You're entirely missing the point. Enterprise was based BEFORE any of the other series, BEFORE humans/people in general grew any sense of humility. BEFORE any such thing as the prime directive, and the federation and the like.

      The whole point of the show is to bridge the gap between today, western-centric, human-centric, and the future, where we try and put that all behind us.

      Enterprise IS like the US today, I agree with you there. But Archer did have a good point on the beginning show of the second season. Starfleet was only beginning relations with other races. Archer is no diplomat as Picard is, and then, why should he be? They're only starting to probe out into space.

      Same with people from the US (I won't say Americans, since the US is not the only country on this continent). The more we get people of other races and countries into this one, the more we'll eventually understand that there ARE other countries, other religions, and other philosophies out there. After all, western culture isn't going to obliterate everything else out there.

      The Q and the Borg are races that humans should look up to!

      Respect, yes... Humans in the show respect the power of both races. But look up to, no. You were complaining that the humans in Enterprise seem to condescend other cultures inferior to them. Q does exactly the same! The borg, on the other hand, destroys culture in order to further its own. You chose the worst two examples of races to prove your point, either that, or you were being sarcastic :)

      [Archer] believes that humans are entitled to all Vulcan technology

      One final thing they learn in the 24th century. Don't supply a race technology. Or in 20th century speak, don't sell other countries weapons.

      I imagine overall that Archer will change as the show progresses. Relations with the Vulcans will improve. They'll get less afraid of using the transporter, etc.

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

      ----
      (Sorry for the Star Trek tangent)

      • by GuyMannDude (574364) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @11:42PM (#4544966) Journal

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

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

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

        GMD

    • Although I do agree in part with Vegan Pagan that the series does seem to reflect the small minded prejudices of the producers, I need to correct one thing.

      When Archer referred to the Suliban making a "deal with the devil", he was referring to where they were getting their genetic engineering from, with "future guy" in the devil role. He was not referring to the actual genetic engineering itself.

      Anyway apart from that I agree.
    • by Stephen VanDahm (88206) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @11:58PM (#4545037) Homepage
      "The Q and the Borg are races that humans should look up to!"

      No, the Q and the Borg are even more self-serving than the humans on Enterprise are. Captain Archer may be ethnocentric, but he doesn't conquer and enslave the planets he visits (like the Borg), and he doesn't torture and experiment with innocent people like Q does.

      I agree with you that Star Trek has a "my way or the highway" approach to morality, and that it's especially heavy-handed in Enterprise. Even when Archer goes through that apology ritual, he only does it to get the equipment, not because he actually cares that he offended the inhabitants of that planet they were visiting.

      On the other hand, though, I think the fact that the humans are immature, ethnocentric, and a bit xenophobic is important to the series. They've only recently developed the ability to explore space and Archer and his crew are the first humans to encounter all these different cultures. It makes sense, then, that the Enterprise crew lacks the sophistication to interact well with other species.

      What bothers me about Enterprise is that the character development is so heavy-handed. Like the whole Archer-T'Pal sexual tension thing. On TNG, you had occasional sexual tension between Picard and Dr. Crusher, but that was generally very subtle. On Enterprise, though, we're treated to Archer's bizarre sexual fantasies in which he and T'Pal basically fuck in the Detox chamber. Also, the whole crew-comeraderie thing is really sloppy. Lt. Reed complains about the lack of structure and discipline on Enterprise, then calls Hoshi Sato "Hoshi" rather than "Ensign Sato," and calls T'Pal "T'Pal" instead of "Subcommander T'Pal." It just doesn't gel.

      But the worst part about Enterprise is, of course, the lame-ass time-travel episodes. I change the station every time they do that shit in Voyager and TNG, but when Enterprise started out, the central conflict of the show was this stupid "Temporal Cold War." Fuck that. If you're going to have a time travel episode, it had better involve travelling back to the early 21st century to bitchslap Rick Berman for writing such corny scripts.

      Steve
    • USA Today? (Score:3, Funny)

      by orichter (60340)
      I don't know, Star Trek the Next Generation might have been like USA Today (generally interesting and harmless, but vapid and shallow.) But Enterprise is more like the National Enquirer (Man has sex with big titted vulcan: Says love child will be named Spock.) Now SG-1 is more like the Wall Street Journal, but still not as good as Babylon 5.

      P.S. This is niether a Troll or a Flame, just a poor attempt at humor.
  • Just for the record, Michael Shanks has cut his involvement down dramatically in the series, but that doesn't mean he's no longer in it. He's done one guest spot as the ascended Daniel Jackson in an episode called "Abyss" (details here [scifi.com]), and also does the voice of the Asgard Thor, who was in the cliffhanger end of "Prometheus", the last new episode until January.

    For the record, I think Corin Nemec's doing a decent job as Jonas Quinn. He's not Daniel, of course, but still... in any event, like I said, it's not like we've seen the last of him.

    Just my $.02...
  • Enterprise is so politically correct I can barely bring myself to watch it

    God, there's alot of things I've thought about Enterprise, but politically correct is not one of them. If you were talking about Voyager, I'd agree with you.

    Enterprise is about 3 strong white men, one white women who's main purpose on the show is to look pretty.

    There's are also two tertiary non-whites: An waify Asian communications officer who serves no useful purpose and a Black pilot. The alien doctor is the only character who has any originality whatsoever (but he's too goofy).

    Sexual stereotypes abound. Strong white men: Weak-but-good-looking-women. These stereotypes have been used over and over in dozens of sci-fi shows and movies, are completely overused in the genre.

    There are two common plots: Time travel, or T'pol being the object of (captain | the security officer | people from other ships) sexual fantasies. Give me a break...

    It's like the stories were written by 15-year-old sex starved boys. There's really not much else to the show. It's getting boring, and I've stopped watching...

    Maybe if you compare it to Buck Rogers it's politically correct, but what's your angle?
  • I'm quite glad they are keeping SG-1. It's had a lot fo time to grow on me, and it's consistently one of the biggest draws to our local sci-fi gatherings. The characters are well developed and mature, and the dialog is quite fun.

    I've heard a few folks bashing andromeda...You should really give it a different look. I think the real sleeper on the show has been the last season with Tyr. He's really getting to put in some quality time, and is doing well. His character is easily my favorite, although ass-kicking Trance is another I'd like to see more of.
  • One of the things I rather like about SG-1 (besides the great dialogue and fun characters) is that the SG command is adapting Guo'uld (sp?) technology into human technology. For example, that big-ass ship The Prometheus that was made - sure it was ugly, but it showed human ability to adapt new tech. The SG-1 team also uses those hand-blasters in addition to Jaffa staff weapons and human machine guns.
  • by PsychoKiller (20824) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @11:24PM (#4544887) Homepage
    A little known fact about Richard Dean Anderson's contract for SG1 is that if any of the crew call him McGyver, they will be immediately fired.
  • by Kelerain (577551) <(avc_mapmaster) (at) (hotmail.com)> on Sunday October 27, 2002 @11:45PM (#4544976)
    With farscape on the rocks, and firefly getting poor ratings, maybe its time to start thinking about an alternate format. How much does each episode cost to make?

    Perhaps you could offer high quality downloads of the episodes for a subscription of around $5 a month? I'd love being able to watch my favorite shows ad free, and wherever I'd like. I watch very few series shows so the cost wouldn't be that great. And that way they can avoid paying for the expensive broadcast mediums.

Those who do things in a noble spirit of self-sacrifice are to be avoided at all costs. -- N. Alexander.

Working...